Things that have no rules, but should


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Chess Pwn wrote:

All creatures take up their entire cube.

So a large creature takes up a 10x10x10 cube, and can reach out 10ft or 5ft from that cube he fills.

Yes, your 6'8" half-orc only fits in and takes up an entire 5x5x5 cube.

Actual rule citation?

Because this thread is about things that aren't in the rules but should be - and that one (AFAIK) isn't in the rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

All creatures take up their entire cube.

So a large creature takes up a 10x10x10 cube, and can reach out 10ft or 5ft from that cube he fills.

Yes, your 6'8" half-orc only fits in and takes up an entire 5x5x5 cube.

Actual rule citation?

Because this thread is about things that aren't in the rules but should be - and that one (AFAIK) isn't in the rules.

It's not. Indeed, there are rules specifically stating that most creatures DO NOT fill their space... and how to handle those vs the exceptions which DO;

Designated Exceptions: Some creatures break the above rules. A creature that completely fills the squares it occupies cannot be moved past, even with the Acrobatics skill or similar special abilities.


Ckorik wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

All creatures take up their entire cube.

So a large creature takes up a 10x10x10 cube, and can reach out 10ft or 5ft from that cube he fills.

Yes, your 6'8" half-orc only fits in and takes up an entire 5x5x5 cube.

Actual rule citation?

Because this thread is about things that aren't in the rules but should be - and that one (AFAIK) isn't in the rules.

Ckorik is right! I checked over the Combat chapter in the Core Rulebook, and it does not even say that a character occupies a square. However, this is a case of forgetting to write down an obvious rule rather than not having a rule, because the rest of the chapter talks about squares occupied by characters.

Nevertheless, the Combat chapter deals in squares, not cubes. Height is ignored. The Acrobatics, Climb and Fly skills don't mention cubes, either. Those skills mention changing a character's height by falling, climbing, or flying, but do not link height to the square grid used for combat.

Thus, we don't have rules for combat between characters positioned at different heights. All such rules are house rules.

Spells, in contrast, measure walls in 5-foot vertical squares and volumes in 5-foot cubes. Thus, we can generalize from the shapes of spells to create consistent house rules for 3-dimensional combat. I myself have been using the same rule as Chess Pwn that Small and Medium creatures occupy a 5-foot cube for combat purposes, regardless of being 6-feet tall or having a 3-foot-long tail on the end of a 4-foot-long body.


Mathmuse wrote:
Thus, we don't have rules for combat between characters positioned at different heights. All such rules are house rules.

You get +1 bonus on melee attacks for higher ground when attacking when you're on a mount that's bigger than your opponent.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Thus, we don't have rules for combat between characters positioned at different heights. All such rules are house rules.
You get +1 bonus on melee attacks for higher ground when attacking when you're on a mount that's bigger than your opponent.

Likewise, the table called "Table: Attack Roll Modifiers" lists that "On higher ground" gives a +1 bonus to melee attacks but not ranged attacks. But the only example of higher ground is being on a mount. Fortunately, as a GM, I can easily say, "This battlefield is a hillside and left is upward. Attacking from the left gives higher ground advantage."

In my game, a strix PC has the Death from Above feat.

Ultimate Combat wrote:

Death from Above (Combat)

You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.

Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.

Since strixes fly, the PC has no trouble attacking from a higher position. And she usually does it with a reach weapon from 10 feet above her opponent.

Nevertheless, the existence of higher ground advantage does not answer whether a creature on the ground can reach a flying creature with a melee attack.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Thus, we don't have rules for combat between characters positioned at different heights. All such rules are house rules.
You get +1 bonus on melee attacks for higher ground when attacking when you're on a mount that's bigger than your opponent.

Right - the problem is that it's murky - honestly the 'cube' rule is great and I'm going to use it (seriously never thought of that before) however it's *not* in the rules and this is an area that could use some new rules to shore it up.

Do we need a hardcover 'RULES FOR FLYING AND MOUNTED COMBAT' - nope - heck a good designer could make the rules elegant enough to fit in a sidebar - I don't understand the hostility to the idea of some additional support for these things - mounted combat for sure is an entire 'core class' concept, and flying is certainly something that will come up in any game that goes above level 7 (if not sooner).

We got rules for verbal dueling but people are hostile to the idea of having a more clear '3d combat' section? I just honestly don't understand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Knowledge checks to tell how something other than a monster works.

Knowledge local only tells you the race and general weaknesses.

If you face an enemy party of Dwarf Fighter, Elf Wizard, Human Cleric and Halfling Rogue the only thing the knowledge check can really tell you is their races which is not the most useful or relevant. In 40 years I don't think this game and D&d have addressed this.

Actually in Inner Sea Intrigue or Spymaster's Handbook (cannot remember which of the two right now) there's a table of knowledge skills and DCs in order to identify Class Features and Feats possessed by a creature


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spymaster's Handbook pg. 9, but it only works for observable feats and class features. For instance, you can identify Smite Evil or Power Attack (when it's been used), but not Divine Grace or Toughness.

Silver Crusade

I forgot that from Spymaster's handbook, thank you, I will look it up.

Ah, the Recall Intrigues use of Knowledge skills.

Examples: "Identify a class feature from a class that grants Arcane or Psychic spells" Know Arcana, DC 10+feature modifier.

Good, extremely easy. Now we can telll the difference between a Sorcerer and. Wizard for example, and even the Bloodline. And the DC to identify Metamagic is very low too.

Excellent. This is the good stuff. The DCs are correct - high enough so non specialists won't know, but trivial for those who are truly interested. Nice use of Knowledge Nobility too, I think it should be extended to battlefield orders which makes sense for the cavalier and Paladin military officers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Knowledge checks to tell how something other than a monster works.

Knowledge local only tells you the race and general weaknesses.

If you face an enemy party of Dwarf Fighter, Elf Wizard, Human Cleric and Halfling Rogue the only thing the knowledge check can really tell you is their races which is not the most useful or relevant. In 40 years I don't think this game and D&d have addressed this.

Actually in Inner Sea Intrigue or Spymaster's Handbook (cannot remember which of the two right now) there's a table of knowledge skills and DCs in order to identify Class Features and Feats possessed by a creature

Huh. I had no idea this was a thing. I'll have to look into it. I've always figured that you should be able to assess someone's general capabilities at a glance.

At my tables, I've tried to add little features that tie into the flavor. Sometimes it can change the way the PCs engage the enemy.
- "Guessing by their worried backward glances and sloppy swordsmanship, you figure these people are anything but veteran soldiers. It's possible that they've been pressed into service against their will."
- "Their scuffed emblems identify them as members of the Violet Blades gang, a local group of influential thugs. Their air of authority and confidant grins suggest that they're of a high rank."

It leads a bit into Sense Motive territory, but I find that much more useful and interesting than...
- "Looks like he's got a couple levels in a full BaB class"
- "Elves have excellent vision in low light."
- "Humans are weak against excessive physical trauma."


I would have to go with the animal companion rules. Leveling animal companions is far to complicated.

Liberty's Edge

Ckorik wrote:


Overland travel - a good simple system to track overland travel and exploration - I use third party for this but the rules don't have a good 'here is how to handle this', including average distance, food considerations, survival DC's, considering that the third party book I use covers all of this in a couple of pages - it would make a good addition to the rules to help GM's out.

Can I ask you for the name of the 3pp sorucebook?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:

The rules say a giant has a 10 foot reach but doesn't give the giant a Z axis for that reach. As it stands currently the rules assume everyone is on the same Z access. Can the Giant attack things 10 feet in the air? 15 feet or 20 feet?

Backup your answer with a rule

Yes, yes, and yes.

Quote:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal Creatures: Very large creatures take up more than 1 square.

Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if they aren't in adjacent squares.

The giant threatens his adjacent squares. The squares beside him (10ft) and above him (15ft) are adjacent. His reach is 10ft, meaning he can reach targets that aren't in adjacent squares. His space is 10ft, plus 10ft, which means he can reach 20ft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Ckorik wrote:


Overland travel - a good simple system to track overland travel and exploration - I use third party for this but the rules don't have a good 'here is how to handle this', including average distance, food considerations, survival DC's, considering that the third party book I use covers all of this in a couple of pages - it would make a good addition to the rules to help GM's out.
Can I ask you for the name of the 3pp sorucebook?

Frog God Games - Bill Webb's book of dirty tricks. Pages 14-19 have a decent overland travel rule set including tables for survival checks to move as desired (which make travel by road doable by anyone) how to handle getting lost - tables for foraging, how many pounds of food you find (including water) and average pounds used by various pack animals and humans. All together it lets you handle overland travel - although it's listed as 5 mile checks for long trips I'd say once a day is more than enough.

If you combine that with the recent Angry GM's guide to travel article I think you can manage to get the 'book-keeping' part of the overland travel down to a few dice rolls and that lets you focus on the adventure part of the travel. Without a nice way to keep track there are so many variables involved a new (or even experienced GM) frequently finds themselves overwhelmed in math and details that they just hand wave it away or do the 'Order of the Stick' 1 random encounter per trip.

There are many other cool things in this book for GM's - the PDF is cheap (and I think still in the 'bundle' they are selling right now) - highly recommended.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks Ckorik for the book title and advice.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

The rules say a giant has a 10 foot reach but doesn't give the giant a Z axis for that reach. As it stands currently the rules assume everyone is on the same Z access. Can the Giant attack things 10 feet in the air? 15 feet or 20 feet?

Backup your answer with a rule

Yes, yes, and yes.

The giant is 30 feet tall - so you are telling me the giant can't lift his arms up above his waist - got it.

And yes - there are monsters with a space and reach smaller than they are tall:

Hekatonkheires Titan

Space 30
Reach 30

50 feet tall.

According to the rule you quoted he can hit anything in the air flying at 60 feet or lower. Which means something with a 15 foot reach can sit above his head and kill him without ever taking a melee attack. Seems like an area of the rules that could use some work.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

The rules say a giant has a 10 foot reach but doesn't give the giant a Z axis for that reach. As it stands currently the rules assume everyone is on the same Z access. Can the Giant attack things 10 feet in the air? 15 feet or 20 feet?

Backup your answer with a rule

Yes, yes, and yes.

The giant is 30 feet tall - so you are telling me the giant can't lift his arms up above his waist - got it.

And yes - there are monsters with a space and reach smaller than they are tall:

Hekatonkheires Titan

Space 30
Reach 30

50 feet tall.

According to the rule you quoted he can hit anything in the air flying at 60 feet or lower. Which means something with a 15 foot reach can sit above his head and kill him without ever taking a melee attack. Seems like an area of the rules that could use some work.

It can attack things 30ft above it, which would be 80ft.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
The giant is 30 feet tall - so you are telling me the giant can't lift his arms up above his waist - got it.

No, I simply missed where you said the giant wasn't a Large creature, but a Colossal one. So change the calculations to include the new size.


Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

The rules say a giant has a 10 foot reach but doesn't give the giant a Z axis for that reach. As it stands currently the rules assume everyone is on the same Z access. Can the Giant attack things 10 feet in the air? 15 feet or 20 feet?

Backup your answer with a rule

Yes, yes, and yes.

The giant is 30 feet tall - so you are telling me the giant can't lift his arms up above his waist - got it.

And yes - there are monsters with a space and reach smaller than they are tall:

Hekatonkheires Titan

Space 30
Reach 30

50 feet tall.

According to the rule you quoted he can hit anything in the air flying at 60 feet or lower. Which means something with a 15 foot reach can sit above his head and kill him without ever taking a melee attack. Seems like an area of the rules that could use some work.

It can attack things 30ft above it, which would be 80ft.

Space 30 - Reach 30 - total = 60 - not 80.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:

And yes - there are monsters with a space and reach smaller than they are tall:

Hekatonkheires Titan

Space 30
Reach 30

50 feet tall.

According to the rule you quoted he can hit anything in the air flying at 60 feet or lower. Which means something with a 15 foot reach can sit above his head and kill him without ever taking a melee attack. Seems like an area of the rules that could use some work.

No, because the creature with 15ft of reach must be only 45ft up to hit it, as the creatures space only goes up 30ft. And 45ft is well within the titans reach.

The problem here is that the creature was described as 50ft tall, when the largest size category only reaches 30ft tall. So he have a clipping error where the creatures hit box is 20ft lower than its height. The system limits the designers away from designing such titanic creatures.


When does a character fall? Suppose your party is fighting an elite group of hellknights mounted on flying griffons. The high level monk jumps via Acrobatics and Hurricane Strike. The latter allows him to make any part of his flurry within a twice his movement speed. Anywho, he either stuns (via stunning fist) or outright kills one of the Hellknight's griffons. Do they immediately crash to the ground (requiring that the monk drop down with them to finish his attacks) or do they fall on their initiative or an initiative of zero?

Alternatively, if you bullrush an opponent off a cliff near a flying ally, but your opponent was using detect thoughts and knew you were doing this, and readies a grapple against said flying ally (subsequently overcoming their weight limit) does both enemy and ally immediately plunge 100 ft. to their deaths? Or is there time to react with more than an immediate action?

The Exchange

For the love of Nethys and Gorum, Mounted Combat rules for unseating your opponent. so far the only thing that exists is unseat the feat. but no bonuses are given for being on a mount or anything to that extent.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

And yes - there are monsters with a space and reach smaller than they are tall:

Hekatonkheires Titan

Space 30
Reach 30

50 feet tall.

According to the rule you quoted he can hit anything in the air flying at 60 feet or lower. Which means something with a 15 foot reach can sit above his head and kill him without ever taking a melee attack. Seems like an area of the rules that could use some work.

No, because the creature with 15ft of reach must be only 45ft up to hit it, as the creatures space only goes up 30ft. And 45ft is well within the titans reach.

The problem here is that the creature was described as 50ft tall, when the largest size category only reaches 30ft tall. So he have a clipping error where the creatures hit box is 20ft lower than its height. The system limits the designers away from designing such titanic creatures.

The problem here is that fluff for creature size frequently doesn't match the size taken by the creature and you are left with making up house rules or silly things like a 50 foot tall creature fitting into a 30 foot tall box.

Not that the box is 30 feet tall - it's 0 feet tall because the rules for height - don't exist.

Which is the point of this thread. Rules that don't exist but should.

Liberty's Edge

It says Ghost Sound increases the effectiveness of a Silent Image spell. Yet does not say how exactly. Does it give a +1 to DC of the caster. I

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
It says Ghost Sound increases the effectiveness of a Silent Image spell. Yet does not say how exactly. Does it give a +1 to DC of the caster. I

I'm guessing that one was left vague because of all the different stuff you could do with both of them it would be on a case by case basis.


"Interact"

Viewers of a figment may "interact" with it.

At my table, I define "interact" as multi-sensory, and the more sensory information a figment has, the more believable it is to the viewer.

The first line of defenses on behalf of the viewers is usually a Sense Motive vs my PC caster's Bluff check (modified for believability according to sensory information the figment is imbued with, and the PCs own imagination pitching the figment to their respective viewers).

And so, Ghost Sound increases the effectiveness of Silent Image at my table by raising the bonus or lowering the penalty of the Bluff check to pitch the figment.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
memorax wrote:
It says Ghost Sound increases the effectiveness of a Silent Image spell. Yet does not say how exactly. Does it give a +1 to DC of the caster. I
I'm guessing that one was left vague because of all the different stuff you could do with both of them it would be on a case by case basis.

Guards:

Look at that cat over there
Are you sure it's real?
I dunno...

*Wizard whispers to the sorcerer to add a ghost sound*

... Quack! Quack quack mooooo!

"I rolled a 2 on my untrained knowledge nature..."


do you really fall 500 feet a round if you don't have feather fall?(apparently i've never read this.) Is that the first round you start falling? do you accelerate as you fall and go even faster then? (I just actually want to know I will be book diving in the mean time.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
do you really fall 500 feet a round if you don't have feather fall?(apparently i've never read this.) Is that the first round you start falling?

This is implied by;

"A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall."

The math also works out about right. Ignoring air friction, an object accelerating from zero at 9.8 meters per second squared (roughly Earth gravity at sea level) would take about 5.6 seconds to fall 500 feet. However, the next 500 feet would only take an additional ~2.3 seconds.

On the other hand, at that point, deceleration from air friction would start to be significant, but factoring it in would be complicated as it varies by mass and surface area... e.g. a person would fall more slowly if they spread out their arms and legs or dropped their gear.


0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Knowledge checks to tell how something other than a monster works.

Knowledge local only tells you the race and general weaknesses.

If you face an enemy party of Dwarf Fighter, Elf Wizard, Human Cleric and Halfling Rogue the only thing the knowledge check can really tell you is their races which is not the most useful or relevant. In 40 years I don't think this game and D&d have addressed this.

In Spymaster's Handbook there are rules for expanding the knowledge checks.

Local can identify combat feats, nobility can identify teamwork feats, arcana covers metamagic; and arcana, religion, and nature all identify class features.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
do you really fall 500 feet a round if you don't have feather fall?(apparently i've never read this.) Is that the first round you start falling?

This is implied by;

"A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall."

The math also works out about right. Ignoring air friction, an object accelerating from zero at 9.8 meters per second squared (roughly Earth gravity at sea level) would take about 5.6 seconds to fall 500 feet. However, the next 500 feet would only take an additional ~2.3 seconds.

On the other hand, at that point, deceleration from air friction would start to be significant, but factoring it in would be complicated as it varies by mass and surface area... e.g. a person would fall more slowly if they spread out their arms and legs or dropped their gear.

Wikipedia tells us that terminal velocity for skydiver in a face-down position is 54 m/s (they list other positions with higher terminal velocities, but we're not talking about a skydiving competition). With the usual conversion (0.3 m for 1 ft, so it's pretty good, unlike others used in D&D), that gives us 180 ft/s, so 1080 ft/round.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Khudzlin wrote:
Wikipedia tells us that terminal velocity for skydiver in a face-down position is 54 m/s (they list other positions with higher terminal velocities, but we're not talking about a skydiving competition). With the usual conversion (0.3 m for 1 ft, so it's pretty good, unlike others used in D&D), that gives us 180 ft/s, so 1080 ft/round.

A character who falls into a pit trap or off a collapsing rope bridge is likely to be falling feet first rather than face down. Sky divers generally aren't wearing armor and carrying packs full of heavy gear. Surface area for a falling dwarf or halfling is going to be completely different than that of a human. Et cetera.

Basically, there is no one simple estimate which is going to be remotely accurate for all PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Estimates aren't generally accurate. I think that's why they are estimates.


Yeah, pretty sure whowever wrote the rules for how far characters fall in a round was just trying to come up with something simple and easy to run at the table.


Reminder of the 3.5 flying rules. In particular,

Quote:
If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. If it is too high above the ground to land, it falls straight down, descending 150 feet in the first round of falling. If this distance brings it to the ground, it takes falling damage. If the fall doesn’t bring the creature to the ground, it must spend its next turn recovering from the stall. It must succeed on a DC 20 Reflex save to recover. Otherwise it falls another 300 feet. If it hits the ground, it takes falling damage. Otherwise, it has another chance to recover on its next turn.

Whichever Paizo employee copy/pasted the movement rules into Pathfinder forgot to come up with replacement text after they deleted most of the flying rules.

Quote:
The math also works out about right. Ignoring air friction, an object accelerating from zero at 9.8 meters per second squared (roughly Earth gravity at sea level) would take about 5.6 seconds to fall 500 feet.

Except in Pathfinder, you can't ignore air resistance in a fall of 500 feet, because everyone reaches terminal velocity after falling 200 feet. What that terminal velocity is is anyone's guess, but no matter what position you are in when falling, you always take exactly 200 feet to reach terminal velocity.

Really, it's what Chengar said:

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, pretty sure whowever wrote the rules for how far characters fall in a round was just trying to come up with something simple and easy to run at the table.

Grand Lodge

My rule of thumb, if it's shorter than 100f I typically resolve the fall damage immediately. Otherwise I will resolve it at the end of their next turn if they haven't figured some way to stop gravity from pasting them.


More drawbacks on powerful weapons:

Seriously, there are a ton of weapons available, but unless you have limiting proficiencies or special abilities that give you bonuses, most of them aren't worth anything, mathematically. Most people go with the things that give them the best damage and/or crib range, so most people have the same equipment. (In one of my groups, practically everybody uses a rapier or lngsword).It's boring.

For example: The only real reasons to get a short bow instead of a long bow are proficiency, money, and mounted combat. Shouldn't you have more to it than that? Maybe a longbow should require a certain strength to use, or require a strength check if you want to draw it as a free action.

By taking the best weapons and some of the similar ones and making the stronger one have a down side, equipment becomes more interesting and thought provoking, and flavour/roleplay weapons are more likely to be used. This rule wouldn't have to be used with a beginner, but it's a fun idea to mix things up for people who know how to play.


Mathmuse wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Thus, we don't have rules for combat between characters positioned at different heights. All such rules are house rules.
You get +1 bonus on melee attacks for higher ground when attacking when you're on a mount that's bigger than your opponent.

Likewise, the table called "Table: Attack Roll Modifiers" lists that "On higher ground" gives a +1 bonus to melee attacks but not ranged attacks. But the only example of higher ground is being on a mount. Fortunately, as a GM, I can easily say, "This battlefield is a hillside and left is upward. Attacking from the left gives higher ground advantage."

We houseruled things when we had a crater type thing spiralling down. Ranged people got 5ft or so added to their range for every 5ft they were above the target/ground (putting in negative values for the creatures below). We also had it so that creatures that were straight below the cliff you were on couldn't be seen. (Nothing was written down or anything so it was pretty much that anything close enough to you, the GM would have to estimate if you could see them). This gave a more realistic touch as well as giving both pros and cons.


Awakened Kitten wrote:
For example: The only real reasons to get a short bow instead of a long bow are proficiency, money, and mounted combat. Shouldn't you have more to it than that? Maybe a longbow should require a certain strength to use, or require a strength check if you want to draw it as a free action.

The fix that scratches that simulationist itch is that longbows should be less accurate over short ranges than shortbows. Maybe give the longbow an annular range like polearms have. Something like "you cannot shoot a longbow at a target within 10' of you" and let people remove that restriction with feat investments.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Awakened Kitten wrote:
For example: The only real reasons to get a short bow instead of a long bow are proficiency, money, and mounted combat. Shouldn't you have more to it than that? Maybe a longbow should require a certain strength to use, or require a strength check if you want to draw it as a free action.
The fix that scratches that simulationist itch is that longbows should be less accurate over short ranges than shortbows. Maybe give the longbow an annular range like polearms have. Something like "you cannot shoot a longbow at a target within 10' of you" and let people remove that restriction with feat investments.

I like that. Maybe the first time you you take point blank shot, it allows the lng bow to shoot like a short bow in closer ranges and take it (or a new equivalent) in order to treat a longbow the way a short bow works with point blank shot. And/or until you get point blank shot and another skill in its tree the longbow does less damage as it would be harder to pull the bow back all the way in the intensity of closer range, causing less force on the arrow..

Realised something today, as well: why are arrows for longbows and short bows the same? I understand that it's easier that way, but different sized bows use different sized arrows. Cost difference may be unnecessary and at higher levels pointless (I suppose the extra inches may make a bigger difference in the price of different enchanted arrows), but it will make a difference if those 150 arrows you picked up from battle are compatible with your bow.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Awakened Kitten wrote:
For example: The only real reasons to get a short bow instead of a long bow are proficiency, money, and mounted combat. Shouldn't you have more to it than that? Maybe a longbow should require a certain strength to use, or require a strength check if you want to draw it as a free action.
The fix that scratches that simulationist itch is that longbows should be less accurate over short ranges than shortbows. Maybe give the longbow an annular range like polearms have. Something like "you cannot shoot a longbow at a target within 10' of you" and let people remove that restriction with feat investments.

Well, to be honest the LB shoudl have been a exotic weapon. Light CB stays simple. HV is martial.

OTOH, it really is that much better than a CB. The few times CB men went against LB guys it was a massacre.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
How magically-generated electricity travels through conductors.

It's lightning fast.


Awakened Kitten wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Awakened Kitten wrote:
For example: The only real reasons to get a short bow instead of a long bow are proficiency, money, and mounted combat. Shouldn't you have more to it than that? Maybe a longbow should require a certain strength to use, or require a strength check if you want to draw it as a free action.
The fix that scratches that simulationist itch is that longbows should be less accurate over short ranges than shortbows. Maybe give the longbow an annular range like polearms have. Something like "you cannot shoot a longbow at a target within 10' of you" and let people remove that restriction with feat investments.

I like that. Maybe the first time you you take point blank shot, it allows the lng bow to shoot like a short bow in closer ranges and take it (or a new equivalent) in order to treat a longbow the way a short bow works with point blank shot. And/or until you get point blank shot and another skill in its tree the longbow does less damage as it would be harder to pull the bow back all the way in the intensity of closer range, causing less force on the arrow..

Realised something today, as well: why are arrows for longbows and short bows the same? I understand that it's easier that way, but different sized bows use different sized arrows. Cost difference may be unnecessary and at higher levels pointless (I suppose the extra inches may make a bigger difference in the price of different enchanted arrows), but it will make a difference if those 150 arrows you picked up from battle are compatible with your bow.

The difference is accounted for in the damage dice. Given how cheap arrows are, Paizo did not feel it was worth it to have two separate prices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
How magically-generated electricity travels through conductors.
It's lightning fast.

Wow, shocker


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magispitt wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
How magically-generated electricity travels through conductors.
It's lightning fast.
Wow, shocker

I hope you both got a charge out of that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It really amped up the thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
It really amped up the thread.

It does seem to have sparked a conversation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
It really amped up the thread.
It does seem to have sparked a conversation.

Should we alternate or be direct? I'm not getting the sense of the current here.

51 to 100 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Things that have no rules, but should All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.