RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean I mostly just sleep eat and keep people on their toes. what else would you do with infinite power?
Technically the Pun-Pun version I'm familiar with has unlimited power, not infinite. Since we're involving math at this point. Even if he takes the time to get his scores up to googolplex or Graham's number ranges, they still aren't infinite. Back when I played Magic, I would make the same point if my opponent had an "infinite" loop - No, your stat is not "infinity," it's whatever arbitrarily high number you want to run your cycle to. Also, please do the cycle including card manipulation each time, because if you're going to build a deck around an unlimited loop, I'm going to be kind of a jerk.
Back to OT. One rule I don't use is the rule about multiple sneak attacks with spells. If someone manages to have sneak attack, greater invisibility, and scorching ray, they can have sneak attack on all three rays.
I don't use rules that create in-game artifacts of the grid - like the notion that characters with reach weapons can't attack anyone in a diagonal hallway.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah things like the peasant rail gun and me. Things your DM should say no too but technically works by raw (3.5 raw for my 2 examples.)
Since there's no actual damage for momentum, the railgun doesn't actually add anything. It would still just be the weapon damage plus Str bonus.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah things like the peasant rail gun and me. Things your DM should say no too but technically works by raw (3.5 raw for my 2 examples.)Since there's no actual damage for momentum, the railgun doesn't actually add anything. It would still just be the weapon damage plus Str bonus.
But with enough trained undead its one hell of a postal system
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We kneeled a lot before it was faqerrataed and was a free action. Now that is a move it's not worth it.Source? I can only see threads asking the question and references to a 3.5 ruling.
Technically, I think PF just didn't specify what action it is, but had kneeling modifiers, so people from 3.5 background (like us) went with 3.5 ruling which was free action (I think from their faq or sage advice). I was sure it was FAQed by Paizo, but I can't find it so I'm obviously wrong.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I started using dynamic lighting on Roll20, I basically never used the lighting rules. I mean, I would ask if the party had a light source (dancing lights, light spell, torch) and pretty much forgot about it. But now that I've seen lighting demonstrated visually, I use it in pretty much every encounter where applicable.
It's a downside of being human (and lacking special vision) that I've rarely seem enforced, at least at low levels.
Lowlight vision in particular seems to be often neglected, but it's actually really handy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to OT. One rule I don't use is the rule about multiple sneak attacks with spells. If someone manages to have sneak attack, greater invisibility, and scorching ray, they can have sneak attack on all three rays.
Are you saying that you ignore the FAQ that says that someone can't get multiple sneak attacks off if they fire mulitple rays?
Or are you unaware of it and were saying that people don't make use of the illegal option?|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to OT. One rule I don't use is the rule about multiple sneak attacks with spells. If someone manages to have sneak attack, greater invisibility, and scorching ray, they can have sneak attack on all three rays.Are you saying that you ignore the FAQ that says that someone can't get multiple sneak attacks off if they fire mulitple rays?
Or are you unaware of it and were saying that people don't make use of the illegal option?
I ignore the FAQ. Obviously home game, not PFS.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this one will be unpopular, but I ignore the 5', 10' 5', 10' rule for moving diagonally when I GM. I find it annoying to deal with as a player and as a GM. It's just 5' for each square.
|
I know this one will be unpopular, but I ignore the 5', 10' 5', 10' rule for moving diagonally when I GM. I find it annoying to deal with as a player and as a GM. It's just 5' for each square.
I find it's easier to just count squares instead of feet. Diagonal movements are 1.5 squares instead of 1, and you always round down. That makes it much easier to do than trying to remember how many diagonals you've moved along the way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As previously stated, there is no such rule.
However, there are guidelines saying that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act, and typically around five evil acts are enough to take your alignment from Good to Evil. And if you drink a potion, you count as being the caster. So force the Paladin to drink a few potions of Protection from Good and see what happens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can change someone's alignment by strapping them to a chair and repeatedly casting Protection from ____________ on them.Where are these rules. I'm not finding them.
That was incorrect. However you can change your own alignment by doing it. Now if you can force them to keep casting it then you can make them do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this one will be unpopular, but I ignore the 5', 10' 5', 10' rule for moving diagonally when I GM. I find it annoying to deal with as a player and as a GM. It's just 5' for each square.I find it's easier to just count squares instead of feet. Diagonal movements are 1.5 squares instead of 1, and you always round down. That makes it much easier to do than trying to remember how many diagonals you've moved along the way.
Easier, maybe, but no less annoying. I just don't like the rules for moving diagonally. I house rule it to 5' each square.
Before I started using dynamic lighting on Roll20, I basically never used the lighting rules. I mean, I would ask if the party had a light source (dancing lights, light spell, torch) and pretty much forgot about it. But now that I've seen lighting demonstrated visually, I use it in pretty much every encounter where applicable.
It's a downside of being human (and lacking special vision) that I've rarely seem enforced, at least at low levels.
Lowlight vision in particular seems to be often neglected, but it's actually really handy.
Lowlight does not do what I used to think it does. It doubles the effective distance of lowlight; it does not allow you to see in low light as if it were normal. Less useful for a sneak attack/precision strike/assassin than I used to think...
Edit: I'm good at English, you guys, I swear...!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was incorrect. However you can change your own alignment by doing it. Now if you can force them to keep casting it then you can make them do it.You can change someone's alignment by strapping them to a chair and repeatedly casting Protection from ____________ on them.Where are these rules. I'm not finding them.
OK, where are those rules, because I'm pretty sure they would be in the same place I looked for the others and couldn't find them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's from Ultimate Horror:
Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's just a matter of time, energy and effort. Smashing through the wall in one or two rounds and then walking through the new archway, which some people think is possible with an adamantine weapon is absurd. That's because the rubble which is created has to be moved out the way and it has to be done in a fashion that doesn't cause the wielder damage. In your own example, you have a 15 foot cone of rock (about 2500 lbs) that previously occupied the square directly in front of the pickaxe wielder and now occupies the wielder's square and two others behind the wielder. If that happened in one round, then you are probably looking at taking damage roughly equivalent to being trampled by a bison. If the miner took more time then no they wouldn't take damage but they would be moved further away from the face by the expanding pile of rubble which would then need clearing. Rock is heavy so the people (i.e. other party members, who may not be strong) clearing the rock may not be able to carry large pieces, especially whilst wearing armour and carrying weapons. This leads to a scenario where the party are making a lot of noise for many rounds, whilst potentially unarmed and unarmoured and making the terrain around themselves difficult. The root of the problem being people forget that excavating through a wall creates rubble, which isn't disintegrated by adamantine weapons.What are the rules for rubble spray when breaking an object? In fact you need a feat to create a damaging spray when breaking an object. Also again as I pointed out above its not hard to have comparable damage to the games C4 equivalent by 5th level, and the guy with the hammer is ignoring the walls hardness the explosive isn't. While i do get that we are looking at a targeted strike instead of AoE, the rubble isn't immune to being moved by the strike. Now of course unless they release the Miners of Golarion supplement we will never have a full set of rules for how it should work but in this case your RAI and our RAI are on equal footing. An unless your applying this level of realistic scrutiny to everything else your players and NPCs do I would actually claim your running the rules RAMVORD a (rules as my view of reality dictate) and not even by RAI.
Hi Talonhawke, I'm not sure what your objections are. My original post on the topic was pointing out that some people treat adamantine weapons as a method of quickly creating an alternate entry. This can ruin adventures and could be munchkinism. But if the GM simply points out that the rubble hasn't disappeared then all of a sudden breaking through walls can become an incredibly bad idea. The characters are making a lot of noise (which could attract monsters) for an extended duration, placing themselves in difficult terrain and potentially doing this whilst unarmed, unarmoured and distracted. The next point, is that if one solely looks at the HP damage of the wall and the damage potential of the weapon then by simple arithmetic many cubic feet of rock can be damaged in a single round. It is an assumption, though a safe one, that the party wish the rock to be out of the way as they are creating a passageway. I have linked to a table of densities and swell factors. That show how much different types of stone and soil weigh and how much they increase in volume after excavation. To simplify matters for the game I have taken a weight of 150 lbs per cubic foot (equal to a density of 2400 Kg/m3) and given a swell volume of 100% (which is what I had to allow for during some recent earthworks, I note from the table that may be slightly excessive). It quickly becomes apparent that the volume that is excavated in 6 seconds through looking solely at HP damage is absurd. But if a player insisted that they could excavate that volume in a single round, then it would become necessary to model where all of that swollen rock expands to. It would of course be into and through the space occupied by the character who broke the face of the wall. The closest existing in-game mechanic I could think of to describe the effect was trample, so I looked up an animal with a similar mass to the rock moving through the square.
Before writing this post, I looked up the mattock of the titans and realised that using it as an example is much better than taking the damage approach. That can excavate a 10 foot cube (1000 cubic feet) of rock in one hour (600 rounds), i.e. 1.67 cubic feet per round. Given that the mattock of the titans is a strongly magical item used by at least huge creatures and is purpose designed for earth and rock removal and functions as a magical gargantuan adamantine weapon. It must be far superior to a medium sized non magical adamantine weapon.
As a finger in the air guess, after reviewing the mattock, I might be inclined to suggest that stating that a character can excavate 10 cubic inches per HP damage. The dwarven ranger, doing max damage every round could excavate 1/4 of a cubic foot every round.
As for the C4, I don't really care what the in-game stats for it are. The comparison was a pickaxe against real world C4. One explodes at over 8000 m/s whilst the other would struggle to move at 8 m/s. The kinetic energy delivered by the C4 is far higher that that delivered by the pickaxe.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The level up "in order" rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lowlight does not do what I used to think it does. It doubles the effective distance of lowlight; it does not allow you to see in low light as if it were normal. Less useful for a sneak attack/precision strike/assassin than I used to think...
Edit: I'm good at English, you guys, I swear...!
This is one of the few undeniable improvements in Starfinder - low light vision lets you see in dim light as if it were normal light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah things like the peasant rail gun and me. Things your DM should say no too but technically works by raw (3.5 raw for my 2 examples.)Since there's no actual damage for momentum, the railgun doesn't actually add anything. It would still just be the weapon damage plus Str bonus.
That is a solid point. It actually fixes a lot of the exploits its when you start adding our physics to DnD physics that it gets broken. If your gonna use RAW got to use RAW everything even raw physics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 1000'+ tall peasants in your world???
But no in any case, falling objects don't do that much damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean I mostly just sleep eat and keep people on their toes. what else would you do with infinite power?Technically the Pun-Pun version I'm familiar with has unlimited power, not infinite. Since we're involving math at this point. Even if he takes the time to get his scores up to googolplex or Graham's number ranges, they still aren't infinite. Back when I played Magic, I would make the same point if my opponent had an "infinite" loop - No, your stat is not "infinity," it's whatever arbitrarily high number you want to run your cycle to. Also, please do the cycle including card manipulation each time, because if you're going to build a deck around an unlimited loop, I'm going to be kind of a jerk.
Back to OT. One rule I don't use is the rule about multiple sneak attacks with spells. If someone manages to have sneak attack, greater invisibility, and scorching ray, they can have sneak attack on all three rays.
I don't use rules that create in-game artifacts of the grid - like the notion that characters with reach weapons can't attack anyone in a diagonal hallway.
Just because of that post I put my stats another 1000 points higher :P
Oh and destroyed 3 planes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone use the age modifiers? They can be pretty nice for any caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have also. At one point we actually used a wish to get a character younger because of the age penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of the age categories, does anybody actually use the randomized height and weight by gender and race?
I find that sometimes people just want to play someone who is especially tall, thin, thick, or whatever and so I've always been at tables where you just right down whatever.
So I've totally played a 6'11" 110 lb male Aasimar or a 4'6" 280 lb female dwarf.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I started using dynamic lighting on Roll20, I basically never used the lighting rules. I mean, I would ask if the party had a light source (dancing lights, light spell, torch) and pretty much forgot about it. But now that I've seen lighting demonstrated visually, I use it in pretty much every encounter where applicable.
It's a downside of being human (and lacking special vision) that I've rarely seem enforced, at least at low levels.
Lowlight vision in particular seems to be often neglected, but it's actually really handy.
Lowlight does not do what I used to think it does. It doubles the effective distance of lowlight; it does not allow you to see in low light as if it were normal. Less useful for a sneak attack/precision strike/assassin than I used to think...
Edit: I'm good at English, you guys, I swear...!
Lowlight vision doubles the radius at which you see in all light levels. A standard torch that normally gives off 20ft normal light and additional 20ft dim light gives an effective 40ft normal light and an additional 40ft dim light.
Lowlight vision doubles the radius at which you see in all light levels. A standard torch that normally gives off 20ft normal light and additional 20ft dim light gives an effective 40ft normal light and an additional 40ft dim light.Before I started using dynamic lighting on Roll20, I basically never used the lighting rules. I mean, I would ask if the party had a light source (dancing lights, light spell, torch) and pretty much forgot about it. But now that I've seen lighting demonstrated visually, I use it in pretty much every encounter where applicable.
It's a downside of being human (and lacking special vision) that I've rarely seem enforced, at least at low levels.
Lowlight vision in particular seems to be often neglected, but it's actually really handy.
Lowlight does not do what I used to think it does. It doubles the effective distance of lowlight; it does not allow you to see in low light as if it were normal. Less useful for a sneak attack/precision strike/assassin than I used to think...
Edit: I'm good at English, you guys, I swear...!
See, I used to think that a variation of this was true, as well - or rather, that you treat low light as if it were normal light.
But neither what you suggest, nor my interpretation are correct, according to the rules. Elves are quick and somewhat vague ("see twice as far in conditions of dim light"), but it's clear from the main entry that it only extends the radius of dim light, and nothing else.
EDIT: added quotes, and used more words to express my point, while hopefully sounding more like my intended tone of warm and enthusiastic, and less like what I read my tone to be in the original (short) version of this post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check out the darkness, light, and vision rules that include this tidbit:
Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal light, and dim light for such characters.
Iiiiiiinterssting!
I'd been coming to mention the same thing (after Andrew Callbeck had helpfully informed me), but you beat me to it!
So there's a contradiction in the rules. Which one is right, then? Hmmmm...
Interesting: every racial entry I see only mentions the "in dim light" part or references general rules. Following the general tendency, this would indicate the light source rules are in error. Hmmm...
Huh! Okay, the super blog seems to presume that the range of stuff just doubles (possibly because the incredible Mr. Seifter was looking at the light/darkness rules, not at the low-light vision entry, when writing that Blog, but still). This leans toward official interpretations just saying "double the light range for them for all purposes." What an Intersting mess!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember something about light sources and the rules being weird.
All of the rules talk about the level of light where your character is, not the level of light of the area you are looking at.
"In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly."
"In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat."
"In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded."
This can be read to some unusual conclusions.
Eg:
I have 2 characters 100ft away from each other in a pitch dark room.
Lets say both are human.
Suddenly a pillar of sunshine shines onto one of our humans.
He is now in an area of bright light while the other is in darkness.
Our human with sun shining in his eyes can see the other 100ft away in the pitch darkness.
However the human in the darkness cannot even see the giant pillar of light as he is blinded by the darkness.
None of the rules on light care what the light level is anywhere except for the area where the character is
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, if you're in the middle of a 200' radius lightless empty room and someone is holding a torch 150' away, you can't see the torch. Amazing, isn't it?
Try not to think about it too much. This thread has murdered enough catgirls as it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iiiiiiinterssting!
I'd been coming to mention the same thing (after Andrew Callbeck had helpfully informed me), but you beat me to it!
So there's a contradiction in the rules. Which one is right, then? Hmmmm...
The exploration and movement chapter section on light and vision has thorough information on operationalizing how far a character can see, how much illumination things provide, etc. I'm going to go with it since it's presented in that full context.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the light rules really screwy as well. I also find the light spells just add to the confusion, with darkness being opaque unless you have darkvision. Given that in real life a human eye can see a candle flickering at 30 miles. I have houseruled that any light source can be seen at any range provided the light is not physically blocked. Creatures without low light vision can see everything within the stated ranges of bright and dim illumination and the creatures with low light vision have double the stated ranges. For the darkness spell I have houseruled that the darkness suppresses light but can be seen through to a light source on the other side. This would have the effect that if a creature was stood in darkness but blocked a light source the other side then they would create a silhouette.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, if you're in the middle of a 200' radius lightless empty room and someone is holding a torch 150' away, you can't see the torch. Amazing, isn't it?
If the darkness is a magical darkness, you certainly won't see the torch. If the darkness within the room is ambient (i.e., without windows and doors closed, etc), you'll see the torch, but the distance will preclude you from gaining much other useful intel until you get closer. For example, a GM might set a DC for you to guess which square the torch is in because you can't be sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, if you're in the middle of a 200' radius lightless empty room and someone is holding a torch 150' away, you can't see the torch. Amazing, isn't it?If the darkness is a magical darkness, you certainly won't see the torch. If the darkness within the room is ambient (i.e., without windows and doors closed, etc), you'll see the torch, but the distance will preclude you from gaining much other useful intel until you get closer. For example, a GM might set a DC for you to guess which square the torch is in because you can't be sure.
By the RAW you won't see the torch actually.
"In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded."If you are in the darkness looking at the torch, you can't see it as you are "effectively blinded".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Sorry. Light still works the way it does in the real world
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Sorry. Light still works the way it does in the real world
I'd like to think that, but pathfinder and real world physics often don't see eye to eye. After all, we're in a world where most people can't see the sun because of the range penalties...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or the moon.
Yes the rule is unintuitive and broken, but it is the rule.
I have never seen anyone run it that way either. But this is a thread for "Rule you never see used though it is RAW"