What results when an outsider tries to teleport while carrying more than its weight limit is not AFAIK explicit. Whether they leave the excess behind or just fail to 'port isn't clear. In your specific example, I think the obvious solution is a failure to 'port to avoid leaving however many limbs behind. And the way to build a boss that doesn't have that issue is either to make sure each part has its own teleport, or to make sure one part has access to something like the non-Fiendish teleport effects which actually do carry multiple people.DSMatticus wrote:Let's talk about your example, Grendel. Let's say Grendel is an outsider with a standard action teleport. Grendel's arm does not have a standard action teleport. Should Grendel be able to teleport? Does his arm fall off if he does? How the fuck do I make fiendish Big Bosses if all the components aren't one creature for the purposes of teleport?
Pathfinder Is Still Bad
Moderator: Moderators
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
The latest version of Avernum (the indie RPG) actually has that engine. If you hit a debuff-immune-boss with a debuff spell, it is sickened from the effort of resisting the spell and gets poisoned instead.
It worked okay; at a certain point in the game you focus on blasting things into their component atoms exclusively anyway, but that's just how avernum works.
It worked okay; at a certain point in the game you focus on blasting things into their component atoms exclusively anyway, but that's just how avernum works.
Chaosium rules are made of unicorn pubic hair and cancer. --AncientH
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Username17
Fuck off with the pony murder shit. --Grek
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Username17
Fuck off with the pony murder shit. --Grek
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Just a short blurb, but Pathfinder has made Monks that turn into Tigers core. Druid/monks have a lot of ways to boost unarmed strike damage and use it during wild shape... I think that's hilarious. Catfolk monks can turn into tigers at 7th level by setting ki points on fire.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
To specify what I'm talking about, here are some things:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-rac ... nk-catfolk
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/adva ... ngJaw.html
(Note: Strong jaw works on a monk's unarmed strike specifically because it counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-fe ... ing-combat
That is of course the basic gist of things. There are a LOT of variations on the tiger monk now in Pathfinder using templates and feats and styles and whatnot, depending on how much druid you want to throw in.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-rac ... nk-catfolk
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/adva ... ngJaw.html
(Note: Strong jaw works on a monk's unarmed strike specifically because it counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-fe ... ing-combat
That is of course the basic gist of things. There are a LOT of variations on the tiger monk now in Pathfinder using templates and feats and styles and whatnot, depending on how much druid you want to throw in.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
- rasmuswagner
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:37 am
- Location: Danmark
Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:39 am
Of course, once you start doing it by means of the character's own innate abilities, it's not GM pity anymore and is, in fact, actually pretty cool in my opinon.Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There are a LOT of variations on the tiger monk now in Pathfinder using templates and feats and styles and whatnot, depending on how much druid you want to throw in.
Last edited by Schleiermacher on Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I'm intrigued, actually. I'm looking that up.rasmuswagner wrote:Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.
I can't deny that I'm tweaking my next character that's supposed to be an unarmed mauler to be a similar build to a tiger monk.Schleiermacher wrote:Of course, once you start doing it by means of the character's own innate abilities, it's not GM pity anymore and is, in fact, actually pretty cool in my opinon.
I won't deny that would be more powerful, but I don't feel like I need to prove that I can break Pathfinder over my knee since it's a forgone conclusion. I'm playing a monk that turns into an Allosaurus just because I'll be a monk that turns into a dinosaur, and power level aside you can't deny that is cool as all motherfuck.OgreBattle wrote:What if you played a straight druid that turns into a tiger
Edit: Fixed my fucking tags.
Last edited by Count Arioch the 28th on Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Just caught up on that thread, entertaining build and lulzy discussion.rasmuswagner wrote:Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.
This is another case of a martial combatant doing good things in martial combat. He's got 6 attacks to hit for about 20 damage a hit and in turn he's hard to hit and provokes a lot of attacks of opportunity.rasmuswagner wrote:Paizils are currently losing their shit over the Songbird of Doom, a build dumpster-diving for "being small and fighting big dudes" and "enter your opponents square", then combining it with a cheap polymorph effect to turn into a songbird.
If you said, "Hey, isn't that what a freaking 12TH LEVEL COMBATANT IS SUPPOSED TO DO?!?!
It isn't even close to broken. It does nothing to advance a plot and just kills one guy a turn in melee combat. Big effin' deal. You're already supposed to do that at level 12.
Edit: The same people who complain about this would almost certainly allow Divine Intervention, Divine Protection, Paragon Surge, Samsarans, Exploiter Wizards, Ecclesitheurges, Pit-Blooded Scarred Witch Doctors, Human Sage Sorcerers, Dazing Spell and Metamagic cost reduction, Veiled Illusionists, etc.
Last edited by Insomniac on Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If someone has such good saves and AC that they're off the RNG the build does become a problem.
Since melee characters in pathfinder can't do anything, but interact with the RNG, the DM has to cheat or build encounters that can challenge either that build or the rest of the party.
Imho it is no fun for the DM nor the players if the DM can't challenge players nor if the players feel they better sit it out, because they'd get murdered if they pretended they could be relevant.
- Edit: unless you don't care about combat I guess.
Since melee characters in pathfinder can't do anything, but interact with the RNG, the DM has to cheat or build encounters that can challenge either that build or the rest of the party.
Imho it is no fun for the DM nor the players if the DM can't challenge players nor if the players feel they better sit it out, because they'd get murdered if they pretended they could be relevant.
- Edit: unless you don't care about combat I guess.
Last edited by ishy on Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:39 am
Except a buffed caster or even something as mundane as "Druid Velociraptor, Pounce, Go!" or a Synthesist Summoner basically does about as good in combat and still has a shitzillion spells and abilities outside of combat.
All I see is a guy doing about 100 damage a round at level 12. You're supposed to do that, aren't you?
All I see is a guy doing about 100 damage a round at level 12. You're supposed to do that, aren't you?
I disagree. This is common DMing wisdom but I've been on both sides of this equation and it's untrue. D&D has so many attack and defense options, pretending that performing a numerical arms race is the only way to compete with high numbers is just wrong. It is completely possible to make challenging encounters for two characters at different points on the RNG in combat. If the fighter has +100 to every stat and the ranger doesn't a wall of stone is equally problematic for both of them. Displacement affects both of them equally. Solid Fog affects the fighter more even with his increased numbers. Numbers alone affect combat much less than abilities so even with large numerical differences between characters you can look at the abilities they possess build combats around those.ishy wrote:If someone has such good saves and AC that they're off the RNG the build does become a problem.
Since melee characters in pathfinder can't do anything, but interact with the RNG, the DM has to cheat or build encounters that can challenge either that build or the rest of the party.
The greatest campaign I've ever been in had me playing a character that was immune to hp damage and most status effects. Another member of my party was a wand wielding incantatrix that could output 4 figures of damage on nova rounds. The last member is perfectly apropo because he was a Psion with an AC of 53 amongst many other features. We still lost fights. The plethora of options in D&D is simply so massive that interesting challenges can be brought to bear against almost any party imaginable. The common wisdom that one player with bigger numbers than others is a roadblock to a good game is just untrue for combat. For skills absolutely, the noncombat game just isn't well developed enough to handle two party members off the RNG in a stealth or diplomacy challenge, sure. But for combat there are thousands of monsters and tens of thousands of spells and abilities for the DM to craft with and that's enough ingredients with which to satisfy any palette.
Last edited by Dean on Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
I think the problem is less that it's an effective martial, it's that it cuts at some people's suspension of disbelief. I'm not sure why a bird cutting up a human is more offensive to them than a human cutting up a dragon, but it is.
You're behind the times. PF grognards now chant 'Core Book Only' as their solution to everything they don't like. I've read that the Pathfinder Society (PF's organised gaming) has a significant number of gaming tables devoted to characters created using only PF's core rulebook.Insomniac wrote:Edit: The same people who complain about this would almost certainly allow Divine Intervention, Divine Protection, Paragon Surge, Samsarans, Exploiter Wizards, Ecclesitheurges, Pit-Blooded Scarred Witch Doctors, Human Sage Sorcerers, Dazing Spell and Metamagic cost reduction, Veiled Illusionists, etc.
Whatever, by that level it's trivial to equip a character to deal with a swarm of bees, and even if you forgot to do so it can fly circles around them.OrgeBattle wrote:I'm no expert but that level 11-12 songbird of doom can't do much if it's fighting a CR2 swarm of bees, right?
-
- King
- Posts: 5271
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am
Yeah, core only is a brilliant idea. That's exactly what Pathfinder needs. You can either play a cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, or one of seven different steaming piles of shit.
Last edited by DSMatticus on Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
To be fair, the fighter has a +40 strength modifier, and can easily punch apart the 1-inch thick results of Wall of Stone, which only has:Dean wrote: If the fighter has +100 to every stat and the ranger doesn't a wall of stone is equally problematic for both of them. Displacement affects both of them equally. Solid Fog affects the fighter more even with his increased numbers. Numbers alone affect combat much less than abilities so even with large numerical differences between characters you can look at the abilities they possess build combats around those.
" Each 5-foot square of the wall has 15 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 8."
One punch will clear out a 5-foot section of wall on the Strength modifier alone, even a double or triple thickness might not stand up
Hopefully the ranger has adamantine arrows or dagger.
Mostly this has to do with MCs who can't actually read a player's character sheet and instantly understand even a "problematic, and campaign ending, RoW Fighter build" will have massive combat shortcomings.The greatest campaign I've ever been in had me playing a character that was immune to hp damage and most status effects. Another member of my party was a wand wielding incantatrix that could output 4 figures of damage on nova rounds. The last member is perfectly apropo because he was a Psion with an AC of 53 amongst many other features. We still lost fights. The plethora of options in D&D is simply so massive that interesting challenges can be brought to bear against almost any party imaginable. The common wisdom that one player with bigger numbers than others is a roadblock to a good game is just untrue for combat. For skills absolutely, the noncombat game just isn't well developed enough to handle two party members off the RNG in a stealth or diplomacy challenge, sure. But for combat there are thousands of monsters and tens of thousands of spells and abilities for the DM to craft with and that's enough ingredients with which to satisfy any palette.
The other side is that I regularly treat D&D as the tactical puzzle game that it is, has often allowed for my characters to successfully take on armies of enemies at level 1-5 with careful planning (and often much flammable fuel).
I also regularly play D&D as the wargame that it is, and my characters prefer to not kill all enemies. Instead I prefer to conscript defeated enemies over psychotically executing them in the fashion most MCs I've met seem to insist is the "one true way" to play the game.
The result being MCs who play NPCs as mindless killbots, or instantly turn suicidal without any reason aside from MC fiat.
Although, to be fair, I am totally attacking their plans when I build an army. However, why would I play a wargame pretending to be an rpg, unless I was able to build an army for the eventual massive war that will happen as a result of our parties destabilization of the status quo?
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Probably because you don't want to make four million rolls to resolve one combat.Judging__Eagle wrote:Although, to be fair, I am totally attacking their plans when I build an army. However, why would I play a wargame pretending to be an rpg, unless I was able to build an army for the eventual massive war that will happen as a result of our parties destabilization of the status quo?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
But the chant has become considerably louder ever since they anncounced that Core Only PFS thing. There are plenty of new postings about squeezing the most out of the CRB or something like that, and I'm kinda wondering if there really are players who've never played anything from the CRB or of people are just suffering from amnesia. Maybe both.Dogbert wrote:Say, that has always been paizombies' mantra, ever since the Beta.Orca wrote:PF grognards now chant 'Core Book Only' as their solution to everything they don't like.
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." - Steven Brust
That seems like a foolish move,what with their gallons of material they'd want used. Since now it means people will play very set characters, likely exacerbating the limited Fighter-level balance state of play that people will eventually get tired of. Least with them pumping out new material, they can make people try to forget it for awhile (sorta how tech guide served to bring back wonder into swag or such).Antariuk wrote:But the chant has become considerably louder ever since they anncounced that Core Only PFS thing.
What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
Part of Paizo's "design philosophy", insofar as they even have one, is that you can't compare classes that do different things. A Fighter and a Wizard are like apples and oranges (a stupid phrase in itself), and so the question of which is stronger is impossible to answer.
And that attitude has rubbed off on some of their fanbase (or alternately, they attracted that kind of fanbase). That's why things like the Synthesist or the Songbird of Doom get so much hate. Because they are directly comparable to the Fighter, even by Paizo standards, and the comparison makes it clear how anemic Fighter is.
And that attitude has rubbed off on some of their fanbase (or alternately, they attracted that kind of fanbase). That's why things like the Synthesist or the Songbird of Doom get so much hate. Because they are directly comparable to the Fighter, even by Paizo standards, and the comparison makes it clear how anemic Fighter is.
The more magical the usurpation is, the stronger the backlash. There is supposed to be "niche protection." That is why Sythesist Summoner is such a flash point. From a balance standpoint, it heavily lags a 3.5 druid and arguably isn't even stronger than a core Summoner, much less a summoning-pumping archetype like Master Summoner.
But since it is so clearly a class that is supposed to be straight summoning and ranged magic taking a nice big magical dump on the Fighers, Monks and Rogues, people lose their mind and ban it.
The same thing happens when you compare a Beastmorph Vivisectionist Skinwalker Alchemist to something like a Halfling Rogue.
Of course, the twinked out Alchemist isn't even doing something that is objectively broken in the system. It is casting magic on itself instead of battlefields and enemies, no-no number 1, and furthermore, it is trying to get in melee combat, a fool's game in Pathfinder when ranged combat is so clearly the creme de la creme martial combat action.
But since it is a magical class initially set up as a ranged combatant that is taking a nice big Cleveland Steamer on Fighters and Rogues in melee combat, people lose their minds.
The fallacy here isn't assuming that those classes are broken, even though they are intuitively very strong in their niches and have very high "floors" of combat ability, the fallacy is using the 3 worst classes, vanilla Fighter, Monk and Rogue, that are so weak they are bordering on NPC territory, as your balance point.
But since it is so clearly a class that is supposed to be straight summoning and ranged magic taking a nice big magical dump on the Fighers, Monks and Rogues, people lose their mind and ban it.
The same thing happens when you compare a Beastmorph Vivisectionist Skinwalker Alchemist to something like a Halfling Rogue.
Of course, the twinked out Alchemist isn't even doing something that is objectively broken in the system. It is casting magic on itself instead of battlefields and enemies, no-no number 1, and furthermore, it is trying to get in melee combat, a fool's game in Pathfinder when ranged combat is so clearly the creme de la creme martial combat action.
But since it is a magical class initially set up as a ranged combatant that is taking a nice big Cleveland Steamer on Fighters and Rogues in melee combat, people lose their minds.
The fallacy here isn't assuming that those classes are broken, even though they are intuitively very strong in their niches and have very high "floors" of combat ability, the fallacy is using the 3 worst classes, vanilla Fighter, Monk and Rogue, that are so weak they are bordering on NPC territory, as your balance point.