Strangest argument for or against a ruling?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:

This GM actually was in love with the Tarrasque (3.x rules). He thought it was the coolest and more powerful monster in all the game.

He almost went mad when I said that I didn't think it was so powerful as it has the intelligence score of an animal, no magic and no flying making it an unbalanced monster.

Back with the D&D 2nd ed Tarrasque first came out, we killed it by dropping a flask filled with Green Slime on it from flight.


I remember a game where the PCs were to the rescue of a bunch of afflicted kender who were kept in a small whole, all together and almost starving. There was this young non-afflicted kender bard among them who started crying for help when he heard the PCs coming. She sounded really desperate and the PCs were very worried. Then she cried desperately: «I'm so very bored!»
All the players couldn't do anything but laugh. She was malnourished, badly hurt and had been kept there for a week. And all that worried her was boredom?
She had those weird kender childlike priorities but I tried not to make her annoying but just a bit naive and too daring and my players ended liking her because of her childish optimism and her cheerful personality.
Still, a poorly played kender is a pain in the ass and that kind of behavior is seemingly encouraged by the race as it's written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And for some strange reason, they have adopted my elven druid as one of them. Every time I meet a new kender, he adopts me, too.

Now I have a new terrible attack called "Summon Kender Swarm".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:

I remember a game where the PCs were to the rescue of a bunch of afflicted kender who were kept in a small whole, all together and almost starving. There was this young non-afflicted kender bard among them who started crying for help when he heard the PCs coming. She sounded really desperate and the PCs were very worried. Then she cried desperately: «I'm so very bored!»

All the players couldn't do anything but laugh. She was malnourished, badly hurt and had been kept there for a week. And all that worried her was boredom?
She had those weird kender childlike priorities but I tried not to make her annoying but just a bit naive and too daring and my players ended liking her because of her childish optimism and her cheerful personality.
Still, a poorly played kender is a pain in the ass and that kind of behavior is seemingly encouraged by the race as it's written.

There is nothing more dangerous to all of the multiverse than bored kender.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

We had a very, very new GM back in college who argued that Chaotic-aligned characters couldn't be wizards because "That requires diligent practice and study, and that's not chaotic."

Interestingly that was pretty much our veto reason for never allowing a Kender to be a wizard. the idea of them sitting still for an hour to read a book was just... WRONG.

Had no rules to back it up, but yeah... kender are too chaotic to study was pretty much our reason.

Sorcerers however... that we lost out on ;)

Simply vetoing Kender is easier. And better.


DrDeth wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

We had a very, very new GM back in college who argued that Chaotic-aligned characters couldn't be wizards because "That requires diligent practice and study, and that's not chaotic."

Interestingly that was pretty much our veto reason for never allowing a Kender to be a wizard. the idea of them sitting still for an hour to read a book was just... WRONG.

Had no rules to back it up, but yeah... kender are too chaotic to study was pretty much our reason.

Sorcerers however... that we lost out on ;)

Simply vetoing Kender is easier. And better.

Strangely never been and issue noone in my groups wants to play one. I do have a guy who wants to be a goblin every time, but kender is safe.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I made the terrible mistake of allowing one of my players to play a 'very chipper halfling called Jim Kender' after (later discovered undeservedly) killing his kobold trapper in another game by way of ghost facemelting.

The game has never been the same since.

It wasn't helped when I made the additional mistake of combining a horror game and an all-halfling game, correctly assessing that the in-universe reason halflings make great paranormal investigators and suppression troopers are due to their fearlessness and resolve, but the reason for that being because they suck all the tension out of the situation and somehow turn everything into a comedy skit.

And I am having so much fun.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

I made the terrible mistake of allowing one of my players to play a 'very chipper halfling called Jim Kender' after (later discovered undeservedly) killing his kobold trapper in another game by way of ghost facemelting.

The game has never been the same since.

It wasn't helped when I made the additional mistake of combining a horror game and an all-halfling game, correctly assessing that the in-universe reason halflings make great paranormal investigators and suppression troopers are due to their fearlessness and resolve, but the reason for that being because they suck all the tension out of the situation and somehow turn everything into a comedy skit.

And I am having so much fun.

It certainly wouldn't be hard to do a Mystery, Inc version of a horror game with halfling characters. Fred, Daphne, and Velma are all reasonably resistant to fear and Shaggy definitely fits the profile of hobbitual eating. I guess Scooby is in wildshape...


Bill Dunn wrote:
It certainly wouldn't be hard to do a Mystery, Inc version of a horror game with halfling characters. Fred, Daphne, and Velma are all reasonably resistant to fear and Shaggy definitely fits the profile of hobbitual eating. I guess Scooby is in wildshape...

Shaggy is the druid, and Scooby is the druid's Animal Companion [dump stats: Con]. Fred is a rogue, creating many traps [dump stat: Int]; Daphne is the inquisitor [dump stat: Dex]; Velma is an investigator, of course, with a dash of oracle (blind curse) [dump stat: Cha].

----

Back on topic, sort-of, I once joined an ongoing game for a single session. It was rather rule-bound, as to the party organization, so upon meeting the party is a mansion of someone notable, I said: Here is my letter of reference. I had never encountered such in any game, nor in any rules I have ever heard of, but the DM went with it, and rolled it into my joining the party without breaking suspension of disbelief. I suspect simply because of the rule-of-cool. I gave a simple plot hook to explain my presence, and he ran with it.

/cevah


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:

Shaggy is the druid, and Scooby is the druid's Animal Companion [dump stats: Con]. Fred is a rogue, creating many traps [dump stat: Int]; Daphne is the inquisitor [dump stat: Dex]; Velma is an investigator, of course, with a dash of oracle (blind curse) [dump stat: Cha].

/cevah

I'm calling that a silly argument, because those boys could eat anything with only the lightest of ill effects, I'd say they have great con.

On the other hand they were terrible against fear effects, so maybe somehow low wis on a druid.


There's a new herbal suppliment druid in the healers handbook...

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Where do you people find the people who make these arguments? ._.;

Like in my tables players only do this sort of thing when they are actively trolling me :P

Liberty's Edge

I had a DM say that you needed two weapon fighting to use a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other, not to be able to shield bash but just to get the AC from it. His reasoning was "you are moving the shield around to block and that requires you to do two things at once." You still took the penalty to attack rolls for it, my main hand was a bastard sword (had the exotic proficiency) so I would take a -4 to attack rolls to be able to use a shield. I just two handed the thing from then on.


I was at a table where they had the houserule that if you made a full attack then you got -2 to AC, because to be able to attack more than one time per assault you had to be reckless and lower your defenses.

So... Full attack=Rage?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's a new herbal suppliment druid in the healers handbook...

"Contact your doctor if you experience a wild shape lasting more than four hours..."

No, wait. Different kind of herbal supplement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Way way back, friend has read LoTR books and made an elf and we're playing a LoTR setting, I was GM.

Once he was on a horse, wanted in a round to jump up on the saddle, sit back the other way around and attack large opponents flanking him. Another time he wanted to run a tightrope over a gorge 20m or so long etc. etc.

His argument was "But I'm an elf!" I think I heard that about 2-3 times every session.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Where do you people find the people who make these arguments? ._.;

99% rules forums

1% pfs tables.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's a new herbal suppliment druid in the healers handbook...

"Contact your doctor if you experience a wild shape lasting more than four hours..."

No, wait. Different kind of herbal supplement.

Quibblemuch, you are making me spam the favorite button today!

Dalindra, it's weird but I wasn't at that group. Made me realize that roleplaying already existed before we met! Had dice already been invented?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:
Dalindra, it's weird but I wasn't at that group. Made me realize that roleplaying already existed before we met! Had dice already been invented?

Dice? Of course not! We had to play Rock, Scissors, Paper, Lizard, Spock. Sadly, Scissors, Paper and Spock had not yet been invented, so it was Rock, Lizard all the time. It was quite boring once we ran out of lizards.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dalindra wrote:
Kileanna wrote:
Dalindra, it's weird but I wasn't at that group. Made me realize that roleplaying already existed before we met! Had dice already been invented?
Dice? Of course not! We had to play Rock, Scissors, Paper, Lizard, Spock. Sadly, Scissors, Paper and Spock had not yet been invented, so it was Rock, Lizard all the time. It was quite boring once we ran out of lizards.

Lizards!?! You had lizards? We had to make do with Trilobites. ;-)

In a way this is actually true. Gygax made his game to play with polyhedral dice. They were made part time by some math professor to use for showing the Platonic Solids, and Dave Wesley found the in a educational supply store.

However, once OD&D became popular, the demand quickly outpaced the supply.

We sometimes used a phone book (Kids, ask your parents) and added the last two numbers.

http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-gaming-got-its-dice.html

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DrDeth wrote:


In a way this is actually true. Gygax made his game to play with polyhedral dice. They were made part time by some math professor to use for showing the Platonic Solids, and Dave Wesley found the in a educational supply store.

I find this very amusing because I bought gaming dice to have something I could hold in my hand to conceptualize platonic solids for a college class. And this was 15 years before I started playing tabletop RPGs. The D20 was the only die from the set to survive long enough, but it did join my rpg dice.


I do wish that article had more to say about where the d10 came from, since that's the one in the standard set that's not a platonic solid. Was it simply "this one is really easy to understand, since people intuitively grok 'n-in-10' chance and percentages?"


I once had a player argue that he could Flip the bird to an orc chieftain and not provoke an attack of opportunity.

He found out the hard way.


Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

I once had a player argue that he could Flip the bird to an orc chieftain and not provoke an attack of opportunity.

He found out the hard way.

Seems like that'd be a free action (assuming he has a free hand to do it with), and those generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

I once had a player argue that he could Flip the bird to an orc chieftain and not provoke an attack of opportunity.

He found out the hard way.

Seems like that'd be a free action (assuming he has a free hand to do it with), and those generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

He had a two handed axe. And he wanted to do it a combat maneuver.


Mass Kneebreaker wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

I once had a player argue that he could Flip the bird to an orc chieftain and not provoke an attack of opportunity.

He found out the hard way.

Seems like that'd be a free action (assuming he has a free hand to do it with), and those generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
He had a two handed axe. And he wanted to do it a combat maneuver.

How hard was he flipping that bird?


Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
I made the terrible mistake of allowing one of my players to play a 'very chipper halfling called Jim Kender' after (later discovered undeservedly) killing his kobold trapper in another game by way of ghost facemelting.

Wasn't Ghostface Melting a rapper?

...though now I come to think about it, that could make for an interesting Bard.


My Self wrote:
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

I once had a player argue that he could Flip the bird to an orc chieftain and not provoke an attack of opportunity.

He found out the hard way.

Seems like that'd be a free action (assuming he has a free hand to do it with), and those generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
He had a two handed axe. And he wanted to do it a combat maneuver.
How hard was he flipping that bird?

Am curious what combat maneuver that would be.

As far as the two-handed axe goes, it'd fall under the grip-shifting rules. Pretty sure that if one can shift grips to do the somatic components on a spell, one can shift grips to make other sorts of hand gestures.


I have a friend that was determined to launch people flying towards each other with a combination of ant haul and reposition, inflicting severe damage in the process. It was a really hard time to convince him that he could'nt (I don't think I did, actually, he just gave that up). His main argument was ''if you can carry him, you can lift him. If you can lift him, you can launch him''.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xuchilbara wrote:
I have a friend that was determined to launch people flying towards each other with a combination of ant haul and reposition, inflicting severe damage in the process. It was a really hard time to convince him that he could'nt (I don't think I did, actually, he just gave that up). His main argument was ''if you can carry him, you can lift him. If you can lift him, you can launch him''.

Should have introduced him to Body Bludgeon


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Every time I see Body Bludgeon, I get sad that it comes online so late.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Every time I see Body Bludgeon, I get sad that it comes online so late.

Ever time I see Body Bludgeon, I get sad that I can't just do things like that anymore. Since the rules say I can do it with a class feature, it means I can't do it without that class feature.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
My Self wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Every time I see Body Bludgeon, I get sad that it comes online so late.
Ever time I see Body Bludgeon, I get sad that I can't just do things like that anymore. Since the rules say I can do it with a class feature, now I need a class feature to do it.

The first time I read your post, I read the pronoun as referring to you IRL, not you the PC. It was a very different interpretation... I mean, I thought my schtick was hardcore...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tableflip McRagequit wrote:
My Self wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Every time I see Body Bludgeon, I get sad that it comes online so late.
Ever time I see Body Bludgeon, I get sad that I can't just do things like that anymore. Since the rules say I can do it with a class feature, now I need a class feature to do it.
The first time I read your post, I read the pronoun as referring to you IRL, not you the PC. It was a very different interpretation... I mean, I thought my schtick was hardcore...

Sometimes when I rage, I just can't help myself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
My Self wrote:
Sometimes when I rage, I just can't help myself.

Hey, I hear ya. Sometimes a GM will claim your paladin fell because he forgot to say "god bless" after an NPC sneezed, or that 12 trolls with 8 levels of monk each constitutes a reasonable challenge for a 4th level party... and you just have to pick up one of the other players by the ankles and let bludgeoning damage be your rebuttal.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tableflip McRagequit wrote:


Hey, I hear ya. Sometimes a GM will claim your paladin fell because he forgot to say "god bless" after an NPC sneezed

To leave a poor innocent without the blessings of a paladin to ensure their soul does not shoot out of their nasal cavity upon a sneeze? Why, I could not think of a more DIABOLICAL act of callus disregard for the spiritual safety of the innocent.

You're going to big house, busto!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin Falls Enforcement Squad wrote:
Tableflip McRagequit wrote:


Hey, I hear ya. Sometimes a GM will claim your paladin fell because he forgot to say "god bless" after an NPC sneezed

To leave a poor innocent without the blessings of a paladin to ensure their soul does not shoot out of their nasal cavity upon a sneeze? Why, I could not think of a more DIABOLICAL act of callus disregard for the spiritual safety of the innocent.

You're going to big house, busto!

I've emulated Angels, beings created out of utter good, and been ineffective, uninterested and uninvolved when it comes to innocents. This has served me and my paladinhood well.


I once had a player argue that shooting a demon with cold iron bullets should negate its DR for the rest of the encounter, because the shot left fragments of cold iron in the wound.

And by "once," I mean "every time the party encounters a demon."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
There's a spell that exists to turn your piss into the most delicious beer or wine you've ever tasted, so it's not that far-fetched.

1-The spell creates passable product of drinkable booze. Not high end, but that'd hardly a hard rule.

2-Anyone knowledgeable in brewing will know 'purification is a natural function of fermentation.

3-This is how our crew survived a desert plane. The woosey people cringe at the thought, but we have a Ranger and SEAL that spoof them.


Bwang wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
There's a spell that exists to turn your piss into the most delicious beer or wine you've ever tasted, so it's not that far-fetched.
1-The spell creates passable product of drinkable booze. Not high end, but that'd hardly a hard rule.

It does say that the more contaminated the water, the "darker the ale and more full-bodied the wine".

Though I guess if you don't like dark beers that's not a plus.

Bwang wrote:


3-This is how our crew survived a desert plane. The woosey people cringe at the thought, but we have a Ranger and SEAL that spoof them.

Seems like Purify Food and Drink would have been better than Enhance Water. I know I'd rather have a nice glass of water than a beer when I'm actually thirsty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

back in 3.0 I had a dm for one session (definitely not my fault, I swear) who ruled that kukris were automatically vorpal because of a thing he watched on tv.

I might have had the 3.0 absurd crit range of like 9 - 20 or something dumb like that and MIGHT have decided to decapitate half the party after the guy roleplaying a dread pirate airship captain decided to be rather unfriendly with me because I wasn't following the rules on HIS airship. And by rather unfriendly I mean try to throw me overboard. A little bit later and the angry vengeful ghost of his head (something something family curse?) chased me around the ship while the party sorcerer and I were playing ring around the inevitable decapitation.

The moral of the story is, never give weapons free vorpal in a system where crit ranges go down in the sub 17s...

Also never trust a halfling assassin with a vorpal kukri offering to hand you an all powerful reaper scythe topped with a baby skeleton.


Sundakan wrote:
Seems like Purify Food and Drink would have been better than Enhance Water. I know I'd rather have a nice glass of water than a beer when I'm actually thirsty.

But let's say I have, like, a bunch of sage or stuff, man... is there, like, you know, a spell that can... you know...? Cause that'd be awesome.

Think about it.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're thinking of nutmeg.


Frogsplosion wrote:
The moral of the story is, never give weapons free vorpal in a system where crit ranges go down in the sub 17s...

First, vorpal only works on a natural 20 (which must be confirmed as normal), regardless of threat range. Anything else in the threat range (and confirmed) is just a regular critical hit. Second, it's a +5-equivalent bonus: it's a bad idea to give it for free in any circumstances. Lastly, crit ranges go down to 15 in Pathfinder (for weapons starting at 18, like kukris).


Khudzlin wrote:
Frogsplosion wrote:
The moral of the story is, never give weapons free vorpal in a system where crit ranges go down in the sub 17s...
First, vorpal only works on a natural 20 (which must be confirmed as normal), regardless of threat range. Anything else in the threat range (and confirmed) is just a regular critical hit. Second, it's a +5-equivalent bonus: it's a bad idea to give it for free in any circumstances. Lastly, crit ranges go down to 15 in Pathfinder (for weapons starting at 18, like kukris).

Vorpal triggered on any critical hit back in 3.0.


Yeah I feel khudzlin might have missed the guy saying 3.0 first.


Red Metal wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Frogsplosion wrote:
The moral of the story is, never give weapons free vorpal in a system where crit ranges go down in the sub 17s...
First, vorpal only works on a natural 20 (which must be confirmed as normal), regardless of threat range. Anything else in the threat range (and confirmed) is just a regular critical hit. Second, it's a +5-equivalent bonus: it's a bad idea to give it for free in any circumstances. Lastly, crit ranges go down to 15 in Pathfinder (for weapons starting at 18, like kukris).
Vorpal triggered on any critical hit back in 3.0.

nice that would have actually made it a +5 enchantment than as on just a nat 20 seems like it should be like a +3 only but with like a fixed price part way between the price of +3 and +4


Lady-J wrote:
Red Metal wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Frogsplosion wrote:
The moral of the story is, never give weapons free vorpal in a system where crit ranges go down in the sub 17s...
First, vorpal only works on a natural 20 (which must be confirmed as normal), regardless of threat range. Anything else in the threat range (and confirmed) is just a regular critical hit. Second, it's a +5-equivalent bonus: it's a bad idea to give it for free in any circumstances. Lastly, crit ranges go down to 15 in Pathfinder (for weapons starting at 18, like kukris).
Vorpal triggered on any critical hit back in 3.0.
nice that would have actually made it a +5 enchantment than as on just a nat 20 seems like it should be like a +3 only but with like a fixed price part way between the price of +3 and +4

I don't know how I feel about kurkri TWFing, flurry of blows and AoO reach builds which insta-kill on 1/3rd of successful hits.

Actually, I do know - that sounds absolutely terrible.

A more reasonable solution would probably be to give a fort save on each crit. Lets say...DC=BAB+Enhancement bonus. You can then drop the Enhancement bonus equivalent to +3, which all together seems to give reasonable numbers. Serious threats are *probably* OK, but mooks and creatures with flimsy saves will get decapitated 1/3-1/2 of the time. Plus you can hand out the weapon without breaking the game, since the save DC when used by a low level character is hilariously low.


Yeah I think i had a samurai kensai with a katanna that could crit on a 7 and above and did x3 when doing so. Im pretty sure there was other bonuses i got for critting but that was so long ago. I don't think I was high enough level for vorpal. I think these are good reasons keen and improved crit don't stack anymore.

Silver Crusade

Snowblind wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Red Metal wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Frogsplosion wrote:
The moral of the story is, never give weapons free vorpal in a system where crit ranges go down in the sub 17s...
First, vorpal only works on a natural 20 (which must be confirmed as normal), regardless of threat range. Anything else in the threat range (and confirmed) is just a regular critical hit. Second, it's a +5-equivalent bonus: it's a bad idea to give it for free in any circumstances. Lastly, crit ranges go down to 15 in Pathfinder (for weapons starting at 18, like kukris).
Vorpal triggered on any critical hit back in 3.0.
nice that would have actually made it a +5 enchantment than as on just a nat 20 seems like it should be like a +3 only but with like a fixed price part way between the price of +3 and +4

I don't know how I feel about kurkri TWFing, flurry of blows and AoO reach builds which insta-kill on 1/3rd of successful hits.

Actually, I do know - that sounds absolutely terrible.

A more reasonable solution would probably be to give a fort save on each crit. Lets say...DC=BAB+Enhancement bonus. You can then drop the Enhancement bonus equivalent to +3, which all together seems to give reasonable numbers. Serious threats are *probably* OK, but mooks and creatures with flimsy saves will get decapitated 1/3-1/2 of the time. Plus you can hand out the weapon without breaking the game, since the save DC when used by a low level character is hilariously low.

I'm actually ok with the crazy vorpal build, because by the time you've got it up and running there are ways for enough creatures to deal with it (heavy fortification and such). I mean, unless the DM is just throwing out high priced loot, you won't have the wealth for a +6 weapon until a goodly way into the game. As an endgame build, the vorpal build isn't super overpowered.

351 to 400 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Strangest argument for or against a ruling? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.