|
Of course, the whole d% system is a little cumbersome....Just wondering, if you consider BRP to be "a little cumbersome" then what is your opinion of d20/PFRPG? Because I personally find it to be quite a few orders of magnitude more cumbersome than BRP.
Meh, just run Minimus.
Personally I really, really don't like the way CR and APL work in the game. Rather than being an accurate, consistent measurement it's a barbaric, failboat, yardstick with dozens of add-ons duct taped to it.
I've been working on trying to create my own system for accurately working out APL but haven't yet come up with a perfect system... yet
Personally I really, really don't like the way CR and APL work in the game. Rather than being an accurate, consistent measurement it's a barbaric, failboat, yardstick with dozens of add-ons duct taped to it.
I've been working on trying to create my own system for accurately working out APL but haven't yet come up with a perfect system... yet
It will never be that perfect for general use because groups vary so much. It generally works well enough though, except for certain monsters listed in another thread.
And since magical abilities don't line up with martial abilities, just a couple spells can totally screw up your CR rating.
==Aelryinth
The minimum ability scores for spells is starting to bug me.
Costless material components/the spell component pouch are also irritating to me, mostly from a visual standpoint. Playing around with bat crap or butter or toy telephones is just ... BLEAH.
@Aelryinth
True... Case and point: look at the SM list vs SNA.
The creatures are roughly the same CR... but they are worlds apart...
Lets go to the extreme and look at SM IX vs SNA IX
SNA IX gets you a storm giant... really? that is it? He has 0 SLAs, 0 Su, 0 anything really... and his weapon isn't enchanted.
Now lets look at SM IX... That gets you... A FREAKING TRUMPET ARCHON. The stupid thing can cast CSW Mass -.-... AND HEAL....
But they are somehow roughly the same CR...
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
SNA IX gets you a storm giant... really? that is it? He has 0 SLAs, 0 Su, 0 anything really... and his weapon isn't enchanted.
Nitpick: Storm giants do have SLAs. They get chain lighting and call lightning at CL15. They also get control weather but that's impractical for use in the duration of a summons.
Your overall point still stands - those really don't compare to what a trumpet archon brings in terms of versatility.. Really the best things that SNA have going for them are the Cyclops, and so many neutral creatures that can ignore protection from x.
Copy-pasting from another relevant thread: it may just be a quirk of bad writing in this particular skill description, but the CRB seems to suggest that flying makes you immune to the flat-footed condition. Which, needless to say, is dumb. Popping the 1/day use on your Celestial Armor doesn't also give you Spider Sense.
I've seen that thread, and the explanation. Unlike climbing, flying doesn't make you flat footed, the same way walking doesn't make you flat footed.
When you are surprised, you are flat footed like anyone else.
Carry on.
==Aelryinth
Since we're speaking about semantics...
Dexterity (a term about "how well you do with you fingers") is used to describe one's agility with the whole body, as well as coordination.
Constitution (a term about how big, healthy and strong you are) has no baring on one's strength, stride or weight.
Intelligence in game term is about being "knowledgeable". While it is not technically wrong, this provokes conflicts about how one should roleplay its character (especially vis a vis how one should use reason), and fail to acknowledge other type of intelligence (street smarts vs book smarts effect).
Wisdom has similar issues, whereas "being wise", both in modern and archaic sense has little to do with what the stat actually does in game.
Charisma (a measure of how likable and how ready other are willing to follow you) is also used to represent how strikingly hideous creatures can be.
Strength is about the only attribute which the game use coherently with its description.
At least PF changed the name of "stat" from abilities to attributes. In a game full of "abilities", the name was rather clumsy.
Costless material components/the spell component pouch are also irritating to me, mostly from a visual standpoint. Playing around with bat crap or butter or toy telephones is just ... BLEAH.
I like the idea that you need to give something for magic to work with; either as a prop, a catalyst or the fact that some things magic cannot create (as opposed to recreate or multiply). But I agree that present material components feel like a bad joke or simply a price tag on a spell (as opposed to a rare but appropriate substance). I'd take more of this alchemical element of magic, or less, but I'm unhappy with this in-between.
I've seen that thread, and the explanation. Unlike climbing, flying doesn't make you flat footed, the same way walking doesn't make you flat footed.
When you are surprised, you are flat footed like anyone else.
Carry on.
==Aelryinth
Climbing doesn't make you flat-footed.
1. Two-weapon fighting: I've never been a fan of how it works mechanically since day 1 of 3.0. It shouldn't be an extra attack, it should be some sort of bonus/trade-off applied to any attack you do while duel-wielding. Not only does this provide more interesting options for how it works, but also makes more sense to me. I don't like how the benefit in RAW only comes into play during a full attack action, and never on a move-then-attack turn. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to flesh out and play-test an alternative (although I'm sure there are some homebrews here on the forums).
2. Specific Feat Prerequisites: When newer players are making a character, my least favorite part of GMing is explaining how difficult it can be to get the feats you actually want, and how it usually includes taking multiple ones you don't want. Basically, I only require player's to have something to act as the prereq to make sure a feat isn't taken too early. Right now, I only allow this for prerequisites that are feats, but thinking about expanding it to Stat and BAB reqs as well. For example, I don't require Combat Expertise as a prerequisite to all of the things RAW says you need it for - however, I do require you to have some type of combat feat that acts as the Combat Expertise prereq, as long as you're not using it for something else. So, you can use Power Attack to fulfill the Combat Expertise prereq, but then you can't use it to fulfill the Power Attack prereq on say, Cleave. If you want to do that, you'll have to find another combat feat to replace either the Combat Exp with something else, or the Power Attack with something else. It seems complicated, but it's not - and allows much less restrictive play for newer players.
3. Swarm and Haunt rules: I love the idea of swarms and haunts, but they both can really catch a party off guard and make players hate you for what's supposed to be some APL-1 encounter. So, I'm VERY liberal with how both of these are dealt with unless I'm GMing for a serious min-max group.
4. Continuous Damage: The core rules don't do a great job of defining what constitutes "continuous damage" and that has a big impact on spellcasters. I don't think this is very difficult to adjudicate on the fly, but it would be nice to have much clearer rules on it. The one attempt to describe this in the magic section is needlessly confusing and odd.
5. Eidolon Construction: Way too much ambiguity on how the number of attacks, attack improvements, etc. work with this. It's just not worth it and I like to ban Summoner's altogether just to avoid disagreements. (The summoner class is one of few areas in the core books that I really felt Paizo dropped the ball in a big way).
Although is just true that the archon give more utility and versatility, CR is not meant to measure that.SNA IX gets you a storm giant... really? that is it? He has 0 SLAs, 0 Su, 0 anything really... and his weapon isn't enchanted.Nitpick: Storm giants do have SLAs. They get chain lighting and call lightning at CL15. They also get control weather but that's impractical for use in the duration of a summons.
Your overall point still stands - those really don't compare to what a trumpet archon brings in terms of versatility.. Really the best things that SNA have going for them are the Cyclops, and so many neutral creatures that can ignore protection from x.
It's hard to tell what exactly CR is used for seeing as a level 11 Wizard is the same CR as a level 11 Rogue without favorable terrain for either of them.
It gets even weirder when the Wizard can summon a bunch of monsters and the encounter is still only considered CR 10.
Climbing doesn't make you flat-footed.I've seen that thread, and the explanation. Unlike climbing, flying doesn't make you flat footed, the same way walking doesn't make you flat footed.
When you are surprised, you are flat footed like anyone else.
Carry on.
==Aelryinth
? They quoted that rule right in the thread, unless it's a different one.
The SRD does report that you lose your Dex bonus while climbing, and can't use a shield, now that I'm double checking it. They may have quoted it from somewhere else.
==Aelryinth
Climbing doesn't make you flat-footed.I've seen that thread, and the explanation. Unlike climbing, flying doesn't make you flat footed, the same way walking doesn't make you flat footed.
When you are surprised, you are flat footed like anyone else.
Carry on.
==Aelryinth
? They quoted that rule right in the thread, unless it's a different one.
The SRD does report that you lose your Dex bonus while climbing, and can't use a shield, now that I'm double checking it. They may have quoted it from somewhere else.
==Aelryinth
Flat-footed means you lose Dex to CMD as well as AC. Also, can't take immediate actions or Attacks of Opportunity. Last time I checked, a successful feint doesn't do that to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma (a measure of how likable and how ready other are willing to follow you) is also used to represent how strikingly hideous creatures can be.
Nixon. Or Churchill.
You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. While climbing, you can’t move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).<--From the PRD
However that is not the same as being flat-footed
And attacks of opportunity are NOT immediate actions.
And attacks of opportunity are NOT immediate actions.
My bad, had an 'of' instead of 'or' in there. Fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to tell what exactly CR is used for seeing as a level 11 Wizard is the same CR as a level 11 Rogue without favorable terrain for either of them.It gets even weirder when the Wizard can summon a bunch of monsters and the encounter is still only considered CR 10.
To paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow ... "Well, CR is really more like ... guidelines."
1) There is nothing in PF where Dex modifies your actual speed.
Already addressed. Also, see below. :)
2) Agility notably includes flexibility and ease of movement, which is what you are glossing over. If you can't move easily, you aren't moving quickly. And you can be quite agile and not all that quick, if you're capable of twisting yourself into a pretzel.
I'm not; I'm considering the definition as a whole, rather than focusing on a specific aspect.
3) The Strength to weight ratio is reflected in the Str To-Hit. You have more control over objects because they are lighter to you. A brute with 24 Str can handle a greatsword as easily as a fencer with 10 Str can handle a rapier. Except, well, he's using a GREATSWORD.
It does not reflect the strength-weight ratio ably. Strength-to-weight is not size-dependent, which is precisely what Pathfinder (and D&D before it) assumes, and what your example is informed by.
That is, in Pathfinder high Strength is always tied in to displays of muscular strength that assume great size. You don't have to take my word for it, look at the Olympic records for weightlifting, for instance. Sure, you'll find a 123lb individual lifting 300lbs overhead - that individual is also 4'11" tall, and his entire adolescent and adult life has been designed around lifting things overhead. That exception is not relevant to the larger Pathfinder experience, however.
See more below.
4) Circus Strongmen are not highly skilled fighters. Lighter people move quickly, but have little force behind the blows. If they were trying to match force, they'd not be able to rat a tat. It's like comparing a drum stick to a mace for beating on a tom tom. Lightness =/= speed. Anybody using something light moves faster with it.
I quite agree with this statement.
Bruce Lee, for instance, had an amazing strength-to-weight ratio. His entire body was built around striking with incredible speed and generating as much force as possible. I have zero doubt that, if I travelled back in time and he punched me cleanly and square in the chest, he would put me on the ground in a heartbeat.
Now, let's take Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, who portrayed Gregor Clegane in this season of "Game of Thrones". I have zero doubt that he can strike as quickly as Bruce Lee. He can't. It's not happening. His body isn't built to do that. If he punches me cleanly and square in the chest, however, I might die.
That's the distinction I'm getting at. Right now, the game's status quo assumes that hitting accurately goes hand in hand with size-based strength, which assumes strongman size OR a supremely specialized bodyform. Deep down, however, the designers have known that this isn't always the case, which is why Feats like Weapon Finesse eventually came around.
And that's ultimately what I'm arguing for: that this logic is brought to its full extent and it becomes the status quo.
If it's any consolation, if the game does develop a meaningful parrying/blocking system (which hopefully the new Swashbuckler will make more common-place), I wouldn't mind a Feat that granted a high-Strength individual a bonus at smashing aside parries and blocks made by weaker opponents.
5)BAB has a function of speed, in addition to accuracy. All you have to do is look at the little mechanic called 'multiple attacks'...you get more as your BAB goes up. You execute more attacks in the same amount of time...your weapon is moving faster. Yet your Dex hasn't changed.
Sorry, but no. It assumes that someone with a Dexterity of 1 (one step from being incapable of moving) is somehow able to move their body as dynamically and accurately as someone with normal agility. More importantly, this mechanic is predicated on the notion that, prior to level 6, you're unable to swing your sword more than once in six seconds.
This is why so many posters on this very forum consider BAB (among other things) an abstraction, and why the popular explanation (among designers as well as players) is that a character makes many more attempts and movements during those six seconds... which lead up to a single meaningful (successful or unsuccessful) attack.
The Dexterity check for a race between two characters is effectively an initiative check. They don't actually cover any more distance with a high Dex.
With respect, the Initiative check is irrelevant to a race. The point of a race is for two individuals to see who can cover a certain distance the fastest, assuming both begin at the same time. Initiative's entire purpose is to determine who goes first. In Pathfinder, two completely unencumbered individuals with zero Feats will cover the same distance in the same amount of time, regardless of their respective Ability scores. Hence my point, which was that the game's status quo assumes unrealistic physical limitations. :)
Accuracy is about control, ...
See above. Incidentally, I'm all for weapon size and Strength having some sort of relationship. The same logic that tells me a lower-Strength individual shouldn't inflict as much damage with his bare hands as a high-Strength individual also tells me the former shouldn't be as effective at using a barbell or a sledgehammer, etc.
And one last truism: The skilled big man will beat the skilled little man, all other things being equal. A Heavyweight boxer will maul a boxer of lighter weight categories, the difference in strength is too much.
Of course he will. There's no disputing that. While Pathfinder's rules don't do 15 rounds of boxing justice, there is no disputing that a bigger man who connects with a punch will do more damage than a smaller man that does the same. That's what "all other things being equal" means.
It's when the equally well-trained smaller man's inherent greater speed comes into play that things get complicated. Will he still lose in a boxing match? Probably, because you're forcing him in a contrived combat situation: he has to stay inside the ring and he has to square off against an opponent. This means that the bigger guy will have an inherent advantage in finally landing that one clean punch, which should suffice in putting down someone 2-3 weight classes lighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In landing a blow, technique counts for a lot more than strength or size. The more body weight behind the blow, the more force -- this is why boxers and martial artists torque their hips. A trained flyweight boxer can hit a lot harder than a huge, untrained power lifter. Bruce Lee would hit a lot harder than the guy playing Gregor. PF doesn't model this, though, so it simply gets written off as a function of Strength, but if you wanted "realism" for some insane reason, melee blows would deal bonus damage equal to like half your BAB or something, in addition to STR modifier. But at that point you're partly dismantling the math behind hp by CR and so on, so it's not generally recommended. Therefore, using STR for melee damage is fine, but don't try to pass it off as being "super-realistic."
Oh I just loved Alternity back in the day! It had a style all its own!On the AC as ablative armor/hp thing. I still remember poor long deceased alternity. With its damage steps that got reduced by armor and its three pools of hp (stun/wound/mortal) that got copied by the first d20 Star Wars.
Alternity was a really janky system by modern views, but it definitely still worked for this sort of stuff (it was just terribly inelegant about it).
A reason we stopped running Abberant and moved the campaign to champions was that no one could hurt anyone else.
In landing a blow, technique counts for a lot more than strength or size. The more body weight behind the blow, the more force -- this is why boxers and martial artists torque their hips. A trained flyweight boxer can hit a lot harder than a huge, untrained power lifter. Bruce Lee would hit a lot harder than the guy playing Gregor. PF doesn't model this, though, so it simply gets written off as a function of Strength, but if you wanted "realism" for some insane reason, melee blows would deal bonus damage equal to like half your BAB or something, in addition to STR modifier. But at that point you're partly dismantling the math behind hp by CR and so on, so it's not generally recommended. Therefore, using STR for melee damage is fine, but don't try to pass it off as being "super-realistic."
Sure it does.
Bruce Lee is a 10th level Monk, we'll say with a STR of 13.
and Gregor is a 1st level Half-ORC with a STR of 20.
Gregor gets one attack, and with a two handed sword with power attack, saying he connects, does 19 pts of dmg.
Bruce Lee gets one attack and with his hit does 9 points of damage. On his second attack he does 9 pts of damage.
Still less than Gregor...but while Gregor has 12 HP and is dropped, Bruce Lee has 100 HP and is still going strong.
Of course, that is saying we accept the abstract nature of HP rather than a more literal acceptance of it.
Bruce Lee and Gregor are not equals...
Now if Gregor had the same ability as Bruce Lee...it would stand to nature Gregor would win...
.
.
.
.
Of course, I'm just playing around with you...
Trying to be super realistic in PF is probably not all that feasible...
At least as long as you are using spells to fly, magic items to turn invisible, and potions to heal!
:)
Bruce Lee is a 10th level Monk, we'll say with a STR of 13.
Sorry, these numbers are completely deranged.
|
Again, we're not talking just spear & shield, we're talking LONG spear and shield.StuffThere's a pretty large gap between learning the hoplite formation and using spears one-handed.
While that may have been the most effective formation for spear and shield, I doubt every 2nd level Warrior who ever lived would simply forget how to hold his shield and spear because he doesn't have his friends around him.
Even if hoplite troops were the only ones to use spear and shield, I doubt all, or even most of them were 3rd level fighters with one very specific archetype.
Shield and Spear was standard gear for a Zulu Warrior.
|
|
There's still a huge difference between "effective" and "possible". Besides, it's not like PF has the most realistic rules for combat.
But whatever, I'm bored with this discussion... Let's move on to the next absurd/unnecessary rule.
I can tell you from experience (Euro Martial Arts) that 1v1 the shield spear combo is craptastic. And that to have any chance at all you better be wielding a short spear. I have seen pretty effective short shaft polearms (halberds and bills). But that's essentially an Ax with a long handle.
|
|
So far this is what I have for feats for a Shield/Spear fighter, using the large steel shield and a ranseur (reach, disarm) or longspear (reach, brace):
suggestions are appreciated.
Feat lvl 1
*Shaft and Shield:* Allows you to wield a "spear-like" two handed weapon in one hand without penalties.
*Shield Focus:* +1AC with shield, for sustain
*Combat Reflexes:* to take advantage of the reach of the spear and threaten a huge swath of ground
2nd lvl
*Improved Shield Bash:* do not lose AC bonus from shield when bashing
3rd lvl
*Two Weapon Fighting:* now we're doing the "300" thing
4th lvl
*Lighten Weapon:* reduces the weapon weight class by one. This sharply reduces penalties for 2WFighting by reducing your spear from medium to light.
5th lvl
*Open slot* (probably add some dmg if your role isn't strictly defensive)
Personally I want my shield to be my main weapon (so no matter what weapon I'm using I always have my best weapon with me), so I go with Weapon Focus Shield for the +1Att and to optimize my next feat.
6th lvl
*Shield Slam:* free bull rush with shield bash. Now everyone who gets close gets knocked back and I get a free move if I want to move with them.
So with this progression you should be pwning the (stuff) out of everything in a 10' radius of you.
I don't know if that was brought up, but... the vows.
- Only added in Ultimate Magic, that's it, nowhere else
- The penalties are rather big for the extra Ki points
- They screw up your character big time