No one ever told me that I don't get favored class bonus to a skill if I don't have a rank in it...
Honestly, I find Spell Pouch sundering to be horridly meta gamey...
Why?
If someone is shooting at you do you aim for the gun or do you aim for the shooter?
Same thing... if you can sunder, then you are in range to target the caster himself... and most people would aim to kill the wizard instead of weakening him, unless the enemies are run like they are disposable numbers and have no thought pf living beyond their encounter. If played like real people, they would most likely shoot the threat...
You aren't attacking the gun, you are attacking the nuclear football, destroying it before it can be used. The stakes are too high for you to maybe just wound the person who is about to order a nuclear launch on you and your friends. Of course, the person in front of you could have spares, but that tends to be rare.
No one ever told me that I don't get favored class bonus to a skill if I don't have a rank in it...
wait... are you talking about a) the class skill bonus?
Or b) the bonus skill rank you can get from taking a level in your favored class?Because for a) it's correct (though wrong game terms), while for b) it's not.
Your favored class bonus can be an extra skill point that you can spend on any skill regardless if it's a class skill or if you have already ranks in it, as long as you have less than the current maximum ranks in that skill.
Oh, sorry. I meant class skills.
I was referring to natural/spell only healing, without consumables.and good luck ever healing to full hp with that party, what is the point of magic if you can't heal up without using potions or CLW after just about every encounter?Ehmm... after level ~2 the party has wands of CLW and therefore is at full hit points at the beginning of each encounter with the very very rare exception where there are chain encounters.
Who does that?
I'm still confused on how he got that "cr+4 = 50/50 fight" is equivalent to stating that a party should be facing a cr+4 four times a day.Wheezy was replying to
The default assumptions seem to include:
Party of four PCs
A balance of martials and arcane and divine casters
15 point buy
Moderate optimization / system mastery
Four encounters a day
Most encounters with a CR between APL-1 and APL+3
Standard WBL
Access to magic shopsTogether, these lead to vaguely balanced play.
As soon as you depart significantly from any of these assumptions, you need to start making adjustments in some other department to compensate - they are helpful guides that let you know how far you are from the baseline.
No.
APL+3 is an epic encounter those should never be seen on a "per day" basis.
The default is:
Party of 4 PCs
A mix of classes (usually assuming the traditional Fighter/Rogue/Mage/Cleric quartet)
Moderate Optimization
4-6 Encounters per day
Most encounters CR APL-1 to APL+1
WBL in the mid-range (Meaning if it says 3,000 it assumes around 1,500)
Access to limited magic shopsThat is the default in pretty much every published AP.
note the parts I bolded on Walsh's post, the post I was responding to was equating CR+4 as being the standard encounter... which Walsh was saying was APL -1 to APL +1.... encounters in traditional AP's meant to be run 4-6 times a day.
I think you need to go back and reread what he wrote. Either that, you need to seriously reconsider your reading comprehension skills. This incident can be made into an excellent learning opportunity if you let it. I get that sometimes we all mess up, but you've been hounding the same inaccurate line for two days now, with multiple hints that what you're saying is wrong.
To note, he did not respond to the second portion you put in bold, he only responded to the first section you put in bold. We know this, because he only wrote about what CR means, while he did not make any mention of how many times one should face a CR per day.
As an exercise, I suggest rereading his post and consider how you made your initial error and why you made the assumptions you did. This will help you better understand others in the future, as well as enhance your own communication skills.
Back on topic. Rules often overlooked? Counterspelling. In my 10+ years of 3rd edition-PF, I've seen maybe 1 successful counterspell.
Back on topic. Rules often overlooked? Counterspelling. In my 10+ years of 3rd edition-PF, I've seen maybe 1 successful counterspell.
Part of the problem is that counterspelling is so difficult, you have to ready an action BEFORE they even start casting. AND you have to have the right spell to counterspell in one of your slots - or Dispel Magic, but then you need a Caster Level check after that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because with common sense I wouldn't roll to jump a 1 foot gap.If common sense applies, then why is the Monk with +15 Acrobatics failing to jump over a 1 foot gap, 5% of the time?No, we don't have jumps to the moon. I believe the acrobatics rules do say you can't jump further than a certain distance anyway. Common sense still applies.The fact that many people believe (I don't know why) that a nat 1 on a skill check is auto fail (or worse) and that a nat 20 on a skill check is auto success.My group has always done this, for all D20 rolls, as far back as 1st edition AD&D. It makes sense to us that no matter how skilled you can still screw things up, or you can be an novice but get that lucky break.
I imagine that many groups use this as a house rule rather than getting it wrong.
I will not play in a game with this houserule. No jumps to the moon.
I will not play in a game with critical failure either.
If a DM says that is the houserule, I stand up, and leave.
Every DM I play with now knows this. Put it away, or I won't play.
You will find that the people who auto fail skills on a 1 generally disallow taking 10.
Now you are just being silly.Aristocrat 1: "Oh dear, that large misshapen mentally challenged man covered in manure looks just like the king."
Aristocrat 2: "By jove! That is the King! I must be. The manure caked to his face is just as the King would look."
I think you have just recognized a reductio ad absurdum argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I find Spell Pouch sundering to be horridly meta gamey...
Why?
If someone is shooting at you do you aim for the gun or do you aim for the shooter?
Same thing... if you can sunder, then you are in range to target the caster himself... and most people would aim to kill the wizard instead of weakening him, unless the enemies are run like they are disposable numbers and have no thought pf living beyond their encounter. If played like real people, they would most likely shoot the threat...
Why is that more meta-gamey than than sundering a weapon? The spell component pouch is a combat tool for the wizard just like a weapon is a combat tool of the fighter.
Why is that more meta-gamey than than sundering a weapon? The spell component pouch is a combat tool for the wizard just like a weapon is a combat tool of the fighter.Honestly, I find Spell Pouch sundering to be horridly meta gamey...
Why?
If someone is shooting at you do you aim for the gun or do you aim for the shooter?
Same thing... if you can sunder, then you are in range to target the caster himself... and most people would aim to kill the wizard instead of weakening him, unless the enemies are run like they are disposable numbers and have no thought pf living beyond their encounter. If played like real people, they would most likely shoot the threat...
Nothing meta-gamey about trying to stop a caster from casting... Counterpoint (and I've mentioned this before)-Sorcerers should carry component pouches for this very reason.
Fighter wastes sunder on pouch, Sorcerer breaths sigh of relief and casts anyway. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When captain america's giant... chests... are real,
You know that he's been drawn by rob lefieeeeeld!
Oh he's covered in pouches not just one or two
feet make normal persons seem like a kangaroos
When captain america'sdrawn by Rob Leifieeeeeld.
So if this hypothetical Sorcerer has a spell component pouch, how the heck does anyone even know it's a spell component pouch unless he's retrieving things from it?
No reason a caster with Eschew Materials can't use material components from a pouch like any other caster. It doesn't cost you anything.
And no reason a caster without Eschew Materials can't have several component pouches strapped to his body...
But consider just how much damage martials can do. A melee martial can easily 1 or 2 shot a lowly mage. A ranger guy is even more meta gamey... if you got big pressing danger.coming at you in the form of a giant raging, half naked barbarian, why are you aiming at a tiny pouch on a person far away?
But consider just how much damage martials can do. A melee martial can easily 1 or 2 shot a lowly mage. A ranger guy is even more meta gamey... if you got big pressing danger.coming at you in the form of a giant raging, half naked barbarian, why are you aiming at a tiny pouch on a person far away?I read that as "pressing danger dot com-ing."
WATCH OUT RANGER! THEY'RE COMING AT YOU ON THE INTERNET!
Along the same subject however: Static damage bonuses are pretty ridiculous in Pathfinder right now. The Rocket-Tag thing is another reason I prefer to run Epic 6 and even when I'm playing my enjoyment of the game goes down sometime in the 12-14 range.
There's other reasons (CMB/CMD scaling, Combat Casting scaling, Save progression, you know, the usual complaints).
As to your questions specifically:
The Ranger in your situation isn't aiming at the Donna Karan 2014 summer-line magical component pouch, because doing combat maneuvers with ranged weapons (even sunder) isn't a baseline feature. and even if a Ranger could, hypothetically, pick up the ability to sunder with their bow somehow , they wouldn't. There's no way they would've wasted the feats for it.
Oh but it is apparently a common thing to "balance casters" here. Melee sunder makrs a little sense, but the GM having a.guy try and sunder with a bow is meta gamey as all hell. That is just thw GM TRYING to screw with you
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh but it is apparently a common thing to "balance casters" here. Melee sunder makrs a little sense, but the GM having a.guy try and sunder with a bow is meta gamey as all hell. That is just thw GM TRYING to screw with you
Well, since Sunder is "in place of a melee attack", nobody can normally sunder with a ranged attack anyway. But, if they can (feat, special item, whatever), then NOT using that ability is deliberately playing the enemy/monster/whatever below its capacity.
As a player, I feel cheated when I face a powerful foe and win too easily because the GM either forgot its abilities or deliberately underplayed the enemy.
Friend: So, I heard you killed a colossal dragon yesterday.
Me: Yeah, I guess.
Friend: Awesome. Did it kill any PCs with its breath weapon?
Me: Nope, it never even used it.
Friend: Didn't breathe even once?
Me: Nope.
Friend: I bet it blasted you with high level spells.
Me: No, it never cast any spells.
Friend: So what did it do? Fly-by attacks?
Me: No, it just landed and attacked our fighter.
Friend: Well, at least it probably wrecked his day, that had to be cool, right?
Me: No, it just sat there and tail-slapped him for a couple rounds.
Friend: Just tail-slapped? It didn't even bite or claw or wing-buffet?
Me: Nope, it just lightly tapped the fighter a couple times with its tail before we hacked the life out of it. Then we all gained a level from the XP and looted a bunch of artifacts from its treasure hoard.
Friend: Was your GM asleep the whole time?
Me: No, but I sure felt like taking a nap.
Long story short, if the GM is making up house rules on the fly to use against you, then maybe he is trying to screw with you. But if he's using actual abilities that the enemy has and SHOULD use, and applying intelligent tactics used by intelligent enemies, then that's just good GMing.
One last point, by strictly laying wealth gain at the hands of the GM you essentially destroy player agency, no matter how well or poorly a character succeeds or fails it won't really matter because they can expect the same amount of reward as per their quixotic faith in the wbl guidelines.
That is what I have been saying for years.
Thank you
Oh its just something I am seeing suggested on here lol. Generally speaking Sundering is kept to a minimum on my games
When I saw the sunder-magic-component-pouch idea, I hadn't even thought of using it as a GM against my players. I had thought of it as something one of my player's martial PCs could do to one of my casting bad guys.
When I saw the sunder-magic-component-pouch idea, I hadn't even thought of using it as a GM against my players. I had thought of it as something one of my player's martial PCs could do to one of my casting bad guys.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I do find it funny when players expect to be able to do things to NPCs but get upset when NPCs do the same thing to their PCs. I see that all the time on these forums.
And as soon as pouch sundering ever works, every caster from then on who can afford 20-30 gp of purchases has multiple pouches/divine foci. This applies to both sides of the screen as well, by the way.
That's why it's such a dodgy move. The GM (or more rarely, the player) gets to shout "surprise" as a PC/major NPC gets crippled until they are in a position to resupply, and then half a dozen pouches get bought or some NPC treasure listings get tweaked and the whole tactic gets thrown out as the stupid trivially defeatable nonsense it is. It's just one big "gotya" that punishes those who don't put a lot of effort into their/their NPC's item lists, and the horrific effect it has when it works ensures the trick will only ever work once on those who are caught out. Those who do pay attention will get to have a once-off chuckle as a martial deals 20gp worth of item damage instead of HP damage that is life threatening and requires multiple CLW wand pokes to heal (more than 20gp worth), while they start pulling their bat droppings from pouches 2-4 instead without being the slightest bit inconvenienced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two teams, but one team is 4 I's trying to spell team and the other team is one guy playing all the parts. The second team also chooses the arena the game is played in. The second team can also change their entire offensive line between every match. The second team also has no real concept of 'permanence,' as any damage done, items lost, or limbs destroyed don't affect the next match.
Also, if the first team wins everyone is happy and they keep playing. If the second team "wins," the game is over.
So certain tactics are much dirtier when performed by the second team. If the first team pulls some dirty tricks to foil the second team's plan or engineers a situation where the second team has no hope of providing opposition, it's frustrating for the second team but the next match is a blank slate. The second team's tactics automatically have much further reaching consequences on the first team.
Then maybe the first team shouldn't step onto the field unless their ready to play.
I'm not talking about a GM steamrolling over the level 1 characters with a tarrasque. I'm talking about a combat tactic that, if it exists, should be fair play for both teams.
If your second team plays his game properly, he's set up a fun and challenging game for the first team, but once it's set up, both teams play by the same rulebook - I have little compassion for a member of either team whining about "Waaaah, you're not supposed to do that thing to me, even though I just did it to you!"
Unless, ChansawSam, you're actually suggesting that it could go this way:
Fighter: I sunder the NPC caster's spell component pouch!
Wizard: Cool! I love it when you do that!
Rogue: Beautiful! Great tactic.
Cleric: Well played!
GM: OK, the enemy NPC looks upset. He loads his crossbow and shoots the PC wizard for 3 HP damage.
Wizard: Haha, that barely hurt!
Cleric: Good thing he didn't nuke you with some awesome spell.
Fighter: Yeah, I took care of that!
GM: OK, it's the NPC fighter's turn. He sunders the PC wizard's spell component pouch.
Wizard! No fair!
Cleric: He can't do that!
Rogue: Yeah, that's our shtick!
Fighter: NPCs aren't allowed to use our tricks!
I hope you're not suggesting that this is a sensible scenario or that the two "teams" presented here are behaving admirably?
There is no I in team. But there is a me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, saying that there are two teams implies that this game is about the players vs the GM.
I don't see the game that way. When I GM, it isn't me vs my players. I'm creating a world where they are the main characters, they are the heroes. I'm enabling them to explore and succeed and do cool things that make them heroic. I give them challenges to overcome, and countrysides to explore and NPC's to interact with (friendly, hostile, indifferent, and more!).
My job as a GM is to create a world and an adventure. My job is not to be me vs the players.
And hate why I don't see it as different teams.
You will find that the people who auto fail skills on a 1 generally disallow taking 10.
I don't have a problem with taking 10. I wish my players would ask more often.
There is no I in team. But there is a me.The i is hidden in the A hole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, but the next fight their Wizard is fresh and ready to go and the PC Wizard has... what exactly? A crossbow?
Or, for a GM with a teensy shred of imagination who actually doesn't want to screw his players, that wizard they killed had a spare one in his desk. Or if there were no casters in the fight, maybe they had recently killed one and had his loot in their stash.
For a little bit tougher GM, maybe letting the PC caster use a crossbow for a couple fights before finding a replacement spell component pouch is a teaching device, in the same vein as using a battle against hippogriffs when the barbarian never even thought about having a backup ranged weapon.
I know, I know, a GM that uses a flying encounter when he knows that a PC specialized only in melee combat is being a jerk, right?
Or, on the other hand, it actually rewards the OTHER player who generalized a bit to handle both kinds of encounters WHILE demonstrating to the specialized guy that he needs to fix his weakness so he can participate in the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN better.
Likewise with bringing a few spare spell component pouches; it's a good idea, and a good teaching moment if the PC has to spend half a game session regretting not doing it.
Its the same general line of thought for why critical hit systems that lop off limbs don't work out over long term practical play.
No, not even close to the same; you hardly ever find a replacement arm in the monster's treasure hoard (or even a replacement regeneration spell).
On the other hand (pun intended), a GM who DOES cause a PC to lose an arm BECAUSE he has some kind of magical graftable arm (and knows his player would think it's cool to use it on his PC) in an upcoming treasure hoard might just be creating a fun story.
But I agree, maiming critical rules are much harder on the PCs than they are on the ever-renewable Bestiary.
OK, but the next fight their Wizard is fresh and ready to go and the PC Wizard has... what exactly? A crossbow?Or, for a GM with a teensy shred of imagination who actually doesn't want to screw his players, that wizard they killed had a spare one in his desk. Or if there were no casters in the fight, maybe they had recently killed one and had his loot in their stash.
For a little bit tougher GM, maybe letting the PC caster use a crossbow for a couple fights before finding a replacement spell component pouch is a teaching device, in the same vein as using a battle against hippogriffs when the barbarian never even thought about having a backup ranged weapon.
I know, I know, a GM that uses a flying encounter when he knows that a PC specialized only in melee combat is being a jerk, right?
Or, on the other hand, it actually rewards the OTHER player who generalized a bit to handle both kinds of encounters WHILE demonstrating to the specialized guy that he needs to fix his weakness so he can participate in the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN better.
Likewise with bringing a few spare spell component pouches; it's a good idea, and a good teaching moment if the PC has to spend half a game session regretting not doing it.
Its the same general line of thought for why critical hit systems that lop off limbs don't work out over long term practical play.No, not even close to the same; you hardly ever find a replacement arm in the monster's treasure hoard (or even a replacement regeneration spell).
On the other hand (pun intended), a GM who DOES cause a PC to lose an arm BECAUSE he has some kind of magical graftable arm (and knows his player would think it's cool to use it on his PC) in an upcoming treasure hoard might just be creating a fun story.
But I agree, maiming critical rules are much harder on the PCs than they are on the ever-renewable Bestiary.
Sunder, in general, is dirty pool when used by the GM. It is destroying WBL. Not a big deal for spell component pouches, but there is no way that a party adventuring outside of a city can stock enough of them if they get destroyed every encounter. Honestly is is just like only having encounters only when the party is trying to rest.
1) My main pet peeve is: "soft cover while moving through friends exempts me from any AoOs"
Like the name of this thread:
You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
Sunder, in general, is dirty pool when used by the GM. It is...
You seem to forget, GMs can spontaneously create wealth by level. I could slash your 20gp spell component pouch and put a 2,000,000gp sack full of diamonds in the pocket of the guy who destroyed your pouch.
WBL is not the problem.
Again, don't assume because a GM feels inclined to use viable tactics AGAINST the PCs that this means he's automatically competing, or trying to screw the players, or being a jerk. It might just be a combat tactic and the PCs might just be OK afterward, too.
Sunder, in general, is dirty pool when used by the GM. It is...You seem to forget, GMs can spontaneously create wealth by level. I could slash your 20gp spell component pouch and put a 2,000,000gp sack full of diamonds in the pocket of the guy who destroyed your pouch.
WBL is not the problem.
Again, don't assume because a GM feels inclined to use viable tactics AGAINST the PCs that this means he's automatically competing, or trying to screw the players, or being a jerk. It might just be a combat tactic and the PCs might just be OK afterward, too.
But also, that depends on if your GM is a firm believer of WBL.
Also, you can have 1000000000 gps in diamonds. It does you no.good in a dungeon when you got broken armor...
OK, but the next fight their Wizard is fresh and ready to go and the PC Wizard has... what exactly? A crossbow?
Presumably the ingredients from the sundered pouch are scattered on the ground, so the Wizard could just pick them up. Or borrow ingredients from the Cleric's component pouch. Or get some butter from his ration pack and use it to cast Grease.
lol WBL is HILARIOUS if you consider it a rule.
Mid dungeon, something sunders your (whatever item it is).
Your response: "Hey, GM, since WBL is a RULE, I need to have that gold piece value added back to my character, right now!"
um...
yeah, weird.
Like... mid combat, my gear needs to be WBL compliant. :D