| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Nowhere do the rules say that a dead creature cannot act, speak, and more."
Common sense at its finest.
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.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 +4Vorpal triggered on any critical hit back in 3.0.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).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.
we were level 10 at the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a weapon in a 3.5 book that had a misprint, I think it was the ninja-to, and it said it had a crit range of 19-29. Obviously a typo, but that didn't stop people from trying to use keen or improved critical on it to get a crit range of 9-29, then add vorpal.
I don't think I ever saw someone actually argue this one outside of theory crafting but it amused me.
|
we were level 10 at the time.
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.
It'd probably be a bit much for 10th level, but it wouldn't be too bad...I suppose it depends on whether or not a kukri being "automatically vorpal" means they cost 8gp and are just have vorpal, that they are vorpal weapons without the standard +1 enhancement (50,000gp), or if they are proper +1 vorpal weapons (72,000gp). It it was the first one, yeesh.
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.
Agreed, but we lacked a 'real' Cleric.
A while ago I had a GM rule that dwarves couldn't use longbows because they were too short.
I was playing a a pyrokineticist and that drank alot and i was making am argument for her having a higher tolerance for booze and my argument was that becuase one of her abilities said that her chosen element flowed through her and becuase it was fire that she would have a higher toperance because you can burn out alcohol, and so whe she drank the booze the fire within her would burn out some of the alcohol. My gm said hed give me a higher tolerance for booze but he never integrated it. He also only made me roll fortitude checks to see how much i drank before i got drunk which i thought was bs. No one else had to roll but i did it was so stupid.
I have argued that Knowledge Skill Local should apply to every skill roll that applies to something that happens in the local area.
This is entirely logical imho and I am yet to hear any real argument to the contrary. However, I am also yet to encounter a GM that will allow it to work. Puzzling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have argued that Knowledge Skill Local should apply to every skill roll that applies to something that happens in the local area.
This is entirely logical imho and I am yet to hear any real argument to the contrary. However, I am also yet to encounter a GM that will allow it to work. Puzzling.
I think the biggest issue with Knowledge Local is the name. When we tried to identify two-headed giants on the moon... somehow it was still knowledge Local O.o
They've both tried to make it a catchall and also diversify a dozen other skills that should be 'local' into other catagories. It's just messy.
I have argued that Knowledge Skill Local should apply to every skill roll that applies to something that happens in the local area.
This is entirely logical imho and I am yet to hear any real argument to the contrary. However, I am also yet to encounter a GM that will allow it to work. Puzzling.
I think the biggest issue with Knowledge Local is the name. When we tried to identify two-headed giants on the moon... somehow it was still knowledge Local O.o
They've both tried to make it a catchall and also diversify a dozen other skills that should be 'local' into other catagories. It's just messy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A while ago I had a GM rule that dwarves couldn't use longbows because they were too short.Why is that unreasonable?
(1) A tall dwarf isn't much shorter than a short human.
(2) Longbows in real life can vary in size.(3) The correct size of longbow to use is based on arm span, not height.
(4) A five-foot longbow is normally aimed with the middle at eye-height, so as long as your eyes are at least two-and-a-half feet off the ground, your longbow shouldn't hit the floor. Being too tall to use one comfortably indoors is a more realistic problem.
(5) There are a thousand possible house rules you could apply for realism (to represent the difficulty of using a greatsword in a 5-foot passage or whatever) that the GM won't be using, so why this one?
(6) This rule is particularly bad for game balance, because composite longbows are the only good ranged weapons for most character classes.
A while ago I had a GM rule that dwarves couldn't use longbows because they were too short.
Easy solution. Set one end of the bow on the ground and hold it steady with your feet. Aim and fire.
I have argued that Knowledge Skill Local should apply to every skill roll that applies to something that happens in the local area.
This is entirely logical imho and I am yet to hear any real argument to the contrary. However, I am also yet to encounter a GM that will allow it to work. Puzzling.
I think the biggest issue with Knowledge Local is the name. When we tried to identify two-headed giants on the moon... somehow it was still knowledge Local O.o
They've both tried to make it a catchall and also diversify a dozen other skills that should be 'local' into other catagories. It's just messy.
I think what you are saying is entirely sensible. Which may be the reason you may well have not appreciated what I was saying.
My contention was that if you want to roll stealth, if you are in the local area, which you always will be, you can use KS Local. If you want to use acrobatics, climb, KS planes or swim, if you are in the local area, which you always will be, you can use KS Local.