Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 8085238" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Well, since you asked...That would be pretty awesome to see a lich wading its way through <s>fools</s> an adventuring party, systematically grabbing their weapons from their hands, and tossing those weapons out of reach and in all directions to scatter the party.If a player told me &quot;I take Acererak's staff,&quot; I'd say &quot;make a Dexterity check.&quot;&nbsp; If it were a nat 20, I'd give it to him.&nbsp; Otherwise, I'd say, &quot;you grab the butt end while Acererak swings the staff.&nbsp; The lich gives you a soul-stealing look, and you think something bad is about to happen.&quot;Re: the goblins, trying to grab someone's weapon is a good way to be attacked by that weapon.&nbsp; I would usually run it (not in D&amp;D) in two phases: 1) the goblin (weapon-grabber) takes damage if the PC has an action to attack with, but the grabbing action then adds a penalty to further attacks with the grabbed weapon, 2) a second action would remove the weapon from the PC's hands, but this would require a favorable roll on the goblin's part against the PC.&nbsp; Otherwise the two remain tangled.Does this result in hordes of weapon-stealing goblins?&nbsp; Only if the GM runs goblins that don't mind taking damage.&nbsp; Also, a PC isn't worth her salt if she goes adventuring without a secondary weapon.Re: the automatic Visage, it could be a game-breaker.&nbsp; Not sure how multi-planar Intimidation breaks the game, but I bet PF2 codified some useful stuff, at least into the crits.&nbsp; But the main question was &quot;why does such a crappy spell sound so cool?&quot; (To paraphrase.)&nbsp; And there are tons of answers.&nbsp; My current favorite:The result of the intimidate check reflects the opacity of the spell.&nbsp; Roll a Fail or Crit Fail, and the spell is so transparent that it's no more intimidating than a bad dream.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 8085238, member: 6685730"] Well, since you asked... That would be pretty awesome to see a lich wading its way through [S]fools[/S] an adventuring party, systematically grabbing their weapons from their hands, and tossing those weapons out of reach and in all directions to scatter the party. If a player told me "I take Acererak's staff," I'd say "make a Dexterity check." If it were a nat 20, I'd give it to him. Otherwise, I'd say, "you grab the butt end while Acererak swings the staff. The lich gives you a soul-stealing look, and you think something bad is about to happen." Re: the goblins, trying to grab someone's weapon is a good way to be attacked by that weapon. I would usually run it (not in D&D) in two phases: 1) the goblin (weapon-grabber) takes damage if the PC has an action to attack with, but the grabbing action then adds a penalty to further attacks with the grabbed weapon, 2) a second action would remove the weapon from the PC's hands, but this would require a favorable roll on the goblin's part against the PC. Otherwise the two remain tangled. Does this result in hordes of weapon-stealing goblins? Only if the GM runs goblins that don't mind taking damage. Also, a PC isn't worth her salt if she goes adventuring without a secondary weapon. Re: the automatic Visage, it could be a game-breaker. Not sure how multi-planar Intimidation breaks the game, but I bet PF2 codified some useful stuff, at least into the crits. But the main question was "why does such a crappy spell sound so cool?" (To paraphrase.) And there are tons of answers. My current favorite: [B]The result of the intimidate check reflects the opacity of the spell. Roll a Fail or Crit Fail, and the spell is so transparent that it's no more intimidating than a bad dream.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification