Bleed doesnt stack.
The perfect biological weapon. Like the Witchlight Marauder from 2e's Spelljammer setting. (IIRC, the elves used it/them against their enemies during the First Unhuman War.)
I'm actually pretty sure the witchlights were used by the orcs and goblins against the elves in the UnHuman War. The only ones that are present in the actual Spelljammer Campaign setting are those that escaped the purge. I believe there may have been an adventure centering around a Scro leader trying to retrieve one.
That's rather silly you are making their strength inconsequential and thus eliminating any effort they put into it and any fun they were trying to get out of it. If you were instead to target their weaknesses while allowing their strengths to work when their weaknesses didn't get in the way you would end up with more engaging and entertaining combat. Their strengths in build are still valid but the struggle is bringing them to bear so that actual strategy can be used besides "I'm so powerful I destroy everything in the game" or "I am handed everything by the GM due to my s#*& build".
I think the problem with this is it takes away a large part of the fun had by players who enjoy working the mechanics. It also seems that it comes from lack of trust in the players and expecting players to no trust the GM.
If you trusted the players you could just assume they will use an interesting concept and make it work as best they can.
If the players trusted the GM they could talk about mechanical homebrews to make some archtypes more or less powerful, and if the homebrew doesn't work to hotfix it during the game.
Then good have the GM play smart to counter them. Don't "arms race" them into a someone who meets them on their terms. Countering a RAGEPOUNCE barbarian with an enemy who just has higher attack and damage is not playing smart. Most non-caster death machine builds can be very easily countered with smart play. Have the rage pouncer run into an enemy tripper with a reach weapon, then combat becomes a strategy of how to eliminate the person that prevents your damage dealer from making contact. Next combat have the terrain contain a lot of pillars that block charging lines. Never make it impossible to use the build but make it difficult and encourage diversity even in situations their build is used for.
As for casters you need to either trust your players not to be dicks, homebrew fix the spell-list, or start banning stuff.
I have to concur with mplindustries. I and many other players find the investigation of how character components fit together fun in and of themselves, in particular when it allows us to build up a concept that is very different from the norm or normally considered unviable. Suppose for instance I find a way to combine bard and summoner to effectively make a coked out Doomrider Esq character riding on his demon motorcycle into glory. Is it bad that I had to meticulously plan out the levels and feats so that it didn't end up far behind the other players in effectiveness when they were all monoclass standard builds?
This seems to come from either a lack of personal optimization skill (using only guides) or lack of creativity in general. I as a player generally try to come up with a concept first and then optimize to make that concept as good as possible. Then as a GM I tend to either hand out "no-brainer" options for free or ban them outright so they don't get in the way of a character's actual concept. For instance I tend to give out some method of pouncing for free to melee characters to avoid all of them beelining for one of the 3 of 4 ways to full attack while moving and improved initiative tends to be banned. Then this also comes from playing AD&D for a long time where attacking multiple times after moving was the norm and in no way overpowered.
Then I don;t think we have any conflict. Conceptually the feat is pretty close to working, it's just that the execution is really bad.
Agreed. Earlier in the thread there are a host of proposals for better feats. Perhaps when this thread is done we can start a new thread focused on how to create such a mechanic.
I think antagonize could itself be saved if you simply made the DC scale with enemy willpower, and say that "any damaging effects made this round by the target must be directed at the antagonizer" rather than "they must attack the antagonizer". Give the option for them to not attack at all and do something like care for their wounded, but if they are going to attack they have to hit the wisecracking dude with the feat.
And that's a case for the DM to say "it doesn't work because the emotional bond is too great". Just like your DM can say "killing a fire elemental by overheating him is stupid and doesn't work" despite the latter being "magic" and thus free from these apparent constraints of believability.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Fine it is my rogue's word magicks. Right there along with my other might spells such as "stab", "reduce purse weight", and "run from angry mob".
So your argument is you don't like a somewhat similar effect, so you should allow more of the same for, revenge?
I'd probably make the DC scale as something like Intimidate vs Will Save + certain bonuses dependant on alignment and other factors. I'd also get rid of charm person or bump it up a few levels. I was just trying to say earlier why it wasn't wrong on a conceptual level.
And I'd like it not to be some random NPC or player who took a spell. I have less of a problem with things like say dominate monster and the like because they are 9th level spells the domain of archmages. Charm person however is a mind-control ability that is available from the word go. If everything single apprentice mage can break your will 1 time out of 20, why can't amateur bards who take a feat?
To me it doesn't seem that silly to assume that there are times when a character's emotions can overcome their rational thought. Same reason feint works and I can't just say "well I was focusing on someone else". Or at least it seems no more silly to me than the idea that even the most amateur of wizards (level 1) can 5% of the time overcome even the most heroic and determined of wills and be convinced that a cannibalistic murderer is a-okay.
It doesn't matter the effect is the same: you are a spectator to your PC being an NPC.
If you treat game mechanics as some sort black box you always have problems like this. It's just that right now you're okay with the black box of "this happens no explanation" as long as it is labelled magic.
When utilizing the antagonize feat a the person's intimidate should represent their ability to get under someone's skin and find what would drive them to violence. For instance on a paladin devoted to defending the weak antagonize could represent someone threatening to attack an orphanage or desecrate a temple to his god. Now of course there are some people this just should not work against at all the living saints and paragons of virtue, but because there is not specific category pre-built in the system for this, like there is for say acid damage, there is no pre-existing "immune to forced attack" special quality. Thus you need DM judgment calls on who and what it is impossible to drive to violence, otherwise you get similarly silly things like "fire elementals aren't immune to the heat death ability because it's a death effect rather than fire damage", that's sort of the core of a role-playing game you have someone to make calls on those corner cases.
Roberta Yang wrote:
So it's the same problem as charm person. Like the effects are damn near identical from a role-playing perspective. Lesson being "DMs don't take away control from players".
1) Breaking the law does not cause one to fall. Performing evil makes you fall, breaking is something you have to atone for but you still keep your powers during atonement.
2) Coercion and other extenuating non-magic effects do not count as "of his own free will". This would fall under such an effect, similar to say Gawain being overtaken by his black rages in the stories of the round table. Did he have to do things to make up for such brazenly dangerous displays of emotion? Yes, but he wasn't disbarred from the court.
3) If the DM is that much of a dick you're going to fall anyways. He'll give you a "you have to rape this person to break mindcontrol" or "you have to eat babies to survive" or some other "you die or you fall" decision that is "of your own freewill".
Stefan Hill wrote:
This is an attitude that has always irritated me as a DM. Whenever I design a world I very rarely if ever have all of the core races in it, and equally rarely do I ever have a lack of non-core races. What is with this number of GMs lavishly loyal to a single paradigm that views goblins and orcs as "too silly" or "too weird", but considers gnomes completely fine.
I just tell my players what races are common and normal in the setting and if they want anything more to ask me. If their special requests happen to give me inspiration regarding how to fit said race into the setting I have more content and a more developed setting, if not I can just tell them "sorry they don't really have a place here".
Furious Kender wrote:
Why not? We have people who are Thor-esque super heroes (clerics) and reality warps like Akira (wizards) why not have four armed dudes.
That's a matter of opinion. As I said, I think the idea that the country could split itself along political/ideological lines to the point of a civil war doesn't seem too far-fetched in the current climate.
America dividing along political and ideological lines sure that can make sense to a degree. The American left suddenly becoming really religious neo pagans not so much. The fact that a large portion of the American left is opposed to religion in all its forms including "this isn't really religion its spiritualism" is never addressed. Additionally the idea that suddenly everyone who isn't a biblethumper becoming promiscuous as soon as STDs are cured also seems to only exist as wish fulfillment. Some people sure, even a sizable minority, but enough to base a national holiday around everyone boning; including 13 year olds, not really no.
The majority of Complete Book of the Elves is about how "super special awesome" and "totally better than all other races" elves are, which was tedious and annoying. On the other hand the description of wood elf culture and elven revenge was amazingly metal, and is apart of my personal canon for elves of all settings.
To be fair I have only read the core book, but I think the judging a setting by the book that is supposed to given enough to run the setting as a whole is fair. If Otherverse has some exceedingly good splats I wouldn't know and cannot judge them.
Also the setting is not a dystopia, it is a fantasy fulfillment utopia with a strawman designated villain. Thus I was arguing that the work is not truly dystopian. I would say that claiming those who kill abortion doctors truly evil is fine, but you are turning the entire section of that side of the debate into its worst radicals, while not doing it truly for the Choicers. For instance the zero human population groups and human extinction through forcible castration groups (who both really exist) are nowhere to be found in the core book.
Furthermore the parts of Choicer society that really are terrifying are rarely acknowledged as such. For instance a holiday in which everyone including 13 years olds is societally expected to engage in large amounts of sex, or a societal pressure for everyone to take drugs that make them bi or homosexual (which is just as bad as forcing someone to be heterosexual). Both of these should be things that evoke horror but are usually presented as the Choicer society being "so enlightened".
tl:dr Lifer society is done well enough to be a dystopian caricature of current right wing politics, but Choicer society is set up to be an ideal of left wing America all converting to a specific religion and that solving all of its problems.
The reason its cheaper is simple, we could make yeast make breast milk now in the current day, because yeast is so simple to modify. Current day technology can copy the function of a sci-fi technology more efficiently than the sci-fi tech does. That being said as there is little demand comparatively for breast milk in the current day and the lab equipment for modifying any genes is expensive we don't do so. We usually use it currently for producing insulin in the massive amounts needed to treat America's huge population of diabetics.
Simply put I think that you and Otherverse are largely miss-stereotyping the American political left. The majority of people on the left side of the sexual political debates are not doing so because they want to have lots of promiscuous sex, but because they don't want to be told what they are allowed to do sexually period. Additionally if you are going to caricaturize the worst and most extreme aspects of the political left, do so correctly and make it horrifying; keep your NAMBA-like practices and other pedophile stuff in, but ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS HORRIBLE AND MESSING UP THE KIDS WHO ARE BEING MOLESTED.
Otherverse America actually sums up most of what I dislike about his writing. You have something that is not "realistic" but absurd caricature. It's sort of like the AD&D supplement Complete Book of Elves. When it gets interesting it shows glimmers of greatness. Unfortunately it's buried under "nazi republicans bad" and "neo-pagan goddess worshipers good". It fails to be a dystopia conflict between two sides that act as equally evil foils to one another and is instead a poorly envisioned author utopia and a strawman dystopia.
Also I really don't know what you could call the Milkmaid genemod other than playing to fetishes. Their is literally not reason for it to exist that could not be done cheaper and less fetishized by simply modifying yeast genes. There are actually a lot of genemods like that, where I think "If you can do this wouldn't the technology required imply you could do it some other way more easily and cheaply".
Okay I haven't ever met the guy so maybe he's cool, and this is all just so many misconception. Unfortunately every book I have ever read by him as similarly written themes and general creepiness on how it thinks people will react to things and the general tone of the narration itself.
Where did you get this formula?
though sage was often telling aubert "you really need to get laid mr. priest" when he would stress over plans and details.
Better hope there are ogre maidens or lads in need of saving, as a horse would have numerous "difficulties" getting laid with normal sized humanoids, and from the sounds of it there were no other sapient horses.
Eric Hinkle wrote:
I would recommend Anumus over Fursona, I would recommend transfering over the 3.5 template over Fursona, I would recommend anything over using a Chris Field book. It is really creepy, horribly, balanced, was written by a generally unpleasant man who I don't want to get money, and has really mixed art quality.
Also waiting for the Advanced Races guide could be pretty cool.
But pirahna strike exists. Power Attack isn't just bad for finesse fighters but actively worse than an option presented for them.
There is something wrong balance wise. All of the other exotic weapons were too weak.
Sorry AD&D first and second edition blend together for me so I assume by 1st edition most people mean OD&D. That still doesn't address the point that they weren't originally playable, but were later introduced. Tradition for the sake of tradition is pointless. Just about every official campaign setting out their changes up the races and makes certain existing races either pointless, or nearly unrecognizable.
I also fail utterly to see how in any setting half-orcs could be more common than orcs unless some calamity came about that wiped out and specifically targeted full blooded orcs.
Except that's not true. Neither gnomes nor half-orcs were core races in 1E. Both were from non-core materials that proved popular enough that they were added to the core roster later; gnomes in AD&D revised and half-orcs in 3rd edition. The idea that goblins, so far the single most popular non-core race in Pathfinder, could be added to the core races in a say Pathfinder 2nd edition is not too far-fetched. Hell them and kitsune seem to be more popular than gnomes and halflings if board participation is anything to go by.
But not accepted Azten. Goblins are seen by most people as vermin. Katapesh is unusual, everywhere else a Goblin gets strung up.
If this was a Golarion specific book I could see your point, but it isn't it is setting neutral. What if someone was using this to run and Iron Kingdoms or Eberron game, both of which have goblins as normal sapient creatures. Of course in the former halfling, half-orc, and gnome are unavailable as they do not exist.
Why is it that the core races are considered core? Well because they're the ones that were in 3.5 and no better reason. To be honest I find no real reason besides tradition for both gnomes and halflings to exist as core races. Chuck one into the bestiary, they're as superfluous as teh "aquatic version of this other thing" races.
I have a few players that scream and throw things at me if an Ogre Magi shows up. I'm not sure why, it's not like I've really killed anyone with one, but they just hate the monster that seems to be able to do a little of everything.
That's ironic because Ogre Magi are actually usually very over-CRed and weak for their level. Particularly in 3.5 when they had laughably bad Hit Dice for CR. I tend to swap around their SLA quite a bit to give more of either a brutal warlord feel or mystical oni feel, depending on how I am using them.
It seems more than coincidence that this book came out around the same time as John Carter. Now we know that Joh Carter is a colossal flop, will that effect any future products? If the movie was a massive hit would there have been maybe a Spelljammer AP for example
Although it was a flop it was still a good movie, and will likely end up with a cult following.
Natan Linggod 972 wrote:
I figured it was because they were a small fraction of a larger more powerful outsider. Thus only a limited amount of their vast intellect could be placed into such a fragile material vessel.
Chuck Wright wrote:
He wasn't condemning violent crimes against homosexuals, me was condemning gay-bashing(which unless I am very mistaken refers to bashing in the verbal sense). There is a very distinct difference between saying words, even hurtful horrible words, and claiming it is because of morality, and stripping people of even the most basic human rights and claiming it is for moral reasons.
Most homophobes are not trying to get gays sent to concentration camps just like most racists aren't campaigning to bring back slavery. By claiming that they are on the same level as slavers you alienate them and make a truly accepting society harder to obtain. The goal is after all for everyone to understand and at least accept their fellow human beings enough to be their neighbors.
I'm not disagreeing with his sentiments but rather the way he is trying to express it.
I'd disagree. Using a slur to hurt someone is an evil action, but not one severe enough to be punishable or change an alignment by itself(even if used consistently). However using a slur because you were raised to consider it's use normal and not consider the impact it might have is neutral.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
While I agree with you that being anti-gay is not moral I HATE the argument you are using. "People who claim they are on the right side of morality are wrong because of these other people who claimed to be on the right side of morality before". It's the same as me saying that anti-smoking campaigns are immoral because they claim to be protecting children just like the pro-segregation campaigns claimed to be protecting students.
Astral Wanderer wrote:
I can't hide that I'm totally scared by the idea that with this book there will be even more "reason" to see countless adventuring groups composed of all-kind-freaks that share nothing with one-another.
Everyone being human can't cure terrible roleplayers. Everyone being weird races can't ruin good ones.
Ignoring the DM's homebrew world fluff can make the story worse though. If the DM is using a prepublished setting and gets upset that someone used something directly from it then the DM is bad for no laying out his house rules at the beginning or is bad for not knowing everything about the world he is using.
Something of note this is in fact completely at odds with the AD&D barbarian. In AD&D all barbarians had to be lawful because law dictated the honor and trustworthiness of one's tribe. It was thought that with such small communities a warrior had to be honorable or he would be nothing more than a thug or despot.
Okay if you're saying that all gods do that then I have no disagreement. Hence my we need an immortals handbook for pathfinder like good old AD&D. :)
Hmm? Nodens was first introduced by Lovecraft in The Strange High House in the Mist and was specifically mentioned as hunting Nyarlathotep and his minions in Dream Quest, which was also by Lovecraft; in it Nodens killed hunting horrors by looking at them really angrily. Specifically Lovecrafts repeated use of the word hoary to describe Nodens is what led to the creation of the Hoary Hunter for the 3.5 epic level handbook (CR 25 but monstrously over CRed accurate measures pull them down to the 19-21 range).
Additionally Cthulhu was defeated (temporally true but still beaten) by a normal person ramming him with a boat. Yog-Sothoth's child was defeated by three college professors. Nyarlathotep was unable to take possession of a dreamer simply because he jumped off the santak that was supposed to deliver him. The mythos creatures were immensely powerful but no more so than any other high CR D&D monster, probably low 20s range.
I'm not arguing that Good vs Evil is needed in the Mythos, just that the theme was not "These creatures are all powerful" but rather that "They are so much more powerful than a NORMAL human they might as well be all powerful"
This sort of character exaggeration of the Cthulhu Mythos bugs me. Azathoth is impossibly far beyond the average human, but so is a high level adventurer. Level 15 and higher adventurers are not normal humans they are small gods, they leap tall buildings in single bounds, they create new planes of reality, they charge the gates of Hell itself to rescure an innocent soul from its clutches, they kill Godzilla with swords, fists, and lasers (the Tarrasque).
Azathoth was not always a gibbering idiot god, he didn't always need Nyarlathotep waiting hand and foot on him. Azathoth lost any intellect he once had due to a wound from Nodens, a minor god from Celtic myth. He is an expert hunter served by faceless winged creatures, sounds like a 20th level or so ranger archetype.
In short if you'd let your PCs face Unicron, Orcus, or any other world shaking baddy Azzy should be fair game.
The equalizer wrote:
I don't allow more than one sneak attack per round. That was how it always was in earler editions of DnD. There isn't the clause of "this ability is usable only once per round". A level 9 two-weapon fighting rogue can potentially do 15d6+ damage. The attack bonus while probably lower than a fighter or barbarian is still doesn't balance out how far ahead they jump in terms of damage dealing ability. Regardless of whether you had a pure fighter who went the focus and spec. tree with high strength, hard hitting barbarian with high strength or fighter/barb with high strength and raging, they still can't dish out anywhere near that damage. I had a discussion with another DM about this. This other player I knew incorporated multiple sneak attacks per round into his game. Two low level devil rogues almost killed the tough fighter before he had time to do anything. Furthermore, sneak attack is desbribe as precision-based, it is laughable that an individual can make multiple precision sneak attacks in six seconds. The balance must be observed, respected and preserved but not in a jar. Nosig, thats not how the game mechanics work. Regardless of what class, the character always gets their strength bonus on attack and damage rolls. Your point is invalid.
People keep talking about how things were back in the days of yor, about how they don't allow stuff because of how something was in second edition, but NEVER have I seen someone who understood why things were the way they were.
In second edition backstab didn't add some tiny amount of variable damage it multiplied the attack's total damage, usually far outstripping a single sneak attack from a modern rogue. Second everyone stopped gaining hitdice after 9th level or so (it was variable) so hp totals were much lower and as a result that one backstab meant a lot more in terms of relative damage. Next most rogues didn't get more than 1 attack per round unless they were dual wielding or throwing darts or somesuch like that, as multiple attacks were the domain of fighter types.
Similarly back in second edition fighter's iterative attacks were not at reduced chance to hit and had not clause stating they couldn't be used if the fighter moved. In fact the only time a fighter missed out on multiple attacks was if he charge, sort of the polar opposite of our pounce happy current era.
In short please stop talking about everything being good in the old times without considering why. If sneak attack is as limited as backstab it should give the same level of relative results as backstab.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Really though that makes no sense. Why would a balor have a randomly rolled longbow +4 when he uses spells for ranged attacks and duelwields a sword and whip in melee? Instead of gold minted by any material king his currency is soulgems. He only has armor that wouldn't be burned by his aura and it should be armor he can use damnit, not something sized for medium creature.
In short random treasure that monsters don't use and exists solely for player loot is stupid and illogical.
"No I have no idea why these random animals are carrying 148 gil and a magic fire ring"
The AC looks fishy to me but that doesn't seem so bad as what is required for a rogue to survive at LEVEL 20. The only enemies that could beat him are casters but that's because casters beat everyone, and hiding is really best against mundanes.
Basics have your boss types and other people you don't want to be instana gibbed have tremorsense, blindsense or something else. It is possible for casters to just force cage him and win right there, but forcecage is sort of anti-fun; so just have them glitterdust him, giving a -40 to stealth checks and by level 20 everyone should have at least 1 if not more people with +20 perception.
You could even turn it into a sort of infiltration mission from rts's with stealth units. To be at max efficiency he needs to learn how to kill the "detector" units and remove stealth debuff spells (glitterdust, faerie fire, a mundane bag of flour, the list goes on)from himself.
Don't make it an arms race, make it a strategy race.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Myself, I'd prefer to make these available as tools for the right situation. You're just as likely to create never-again-GM's when they find themselves unable to maintain story continuity due to their main boss being killed anti-climactically early. You're just as likely to have other players upset when one person hogs the glory and never has a situation where someone else gets a chance to shine.
That is really not the case. DMs are driven from the table not by their own failings but by their players' reactions. If my bud is new to DMing and fails to make a powerful boss, well that sucks and we'll try something new, let him learn. If my friend is instead a control freak that ruins everyone else's fun we're unlikely to ever let him DM again.