Alex Smith 908's page

Burn doesn't seem all that different than bleed so I would stack it, but if you wouldn't, the elemental might hit 5 different enemies, the damage is the same, and if I am sending it after mooks and I know the burn won't stack, I'll try to set as many on fire as I can - and I think a fire elemental would too, it's sort-of its thing.

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.

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:

...

If GMs shouldn't let PCs win then PCs shouldn't have to gimp themselves.

Then I guess it's a good thing we will never share a table?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing and honestly the tone of the campaign is as much on the players as on the GM.

If they all come to me with killing machines full of the "best" feats and spells, it's going to be countered by full HP monsters with extra abilities and templates or better built npc enemies to keep the challenge the same.

If they all tell me that that's unfair because they took murder builds and expect to murder and I shouldnt be escalating, then there's no reason for us to continue even having encounters is there?

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".

Here's one solution - at the start of the game, be forthright in saying:

Quote:

I want you to explore the most interesting concept you can think of without worrying about its power or combat effectiveness. If you are outshining the party and/or completely wrecking all the monsters, I will limit the amount of treasure your character gets (while giving full treasure to the rest of the party.) I reserve the right to steal your magic sword. However, if your character is flavorful but mechanically weak, I will drop bonus treasure specifically for you to make up the difference.

This way, your PCs can play the most fun character they can think of, without having to worry about having no fun in battle. And because you were upfront about your system and the motivations behind it, the PCs can't complain if you have to nerf their munchkin.

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.

That's not true for all groups.

I play in a group that wants a challenge at the table, but not necessarily a killer GM. They VERY much do it for your #1 point, not for the later.

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.

...

If GMs shouldn't let PCs win then PCs shouldn't have to gimp themselves.

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?

To clarify, I'm not looking to apply the "advanced template" to every encounter to provide a challenge. Rather, it's my observation that optimized characters are...dull. Optimized characters tend to be mechanical, so much so that there are "guides" to creating the superior combat engine whose sole goal is to ensure the enemy is not just beaten but shellacked.

Anyone have gentle ideas to nudge characters away from the notion that they must optimize to survive, that they must take the Reactionary trait, that certain spells should never be learned because they are 24% less effective than another, that if you don't take Pounce as a barbarian you're a fool? I'll never impose straight-jackets (play how I want you to play), but I'd like to encourage players that it's ok if they take an archetype or make a build that is only 82% as effective as another.

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.

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

TheRonin wrote:

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.

I would have significantly less issue, perhaps none, with this version of the feat.

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.

Actually I am pretty certain both Fire creatures and heat damage and Snakes being tripped are addressed in the rules.

Heatdeath never was, but most snakes and legless creatures have a (can't be tripped) next to their CMD.

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.

Are you REALLY sure? What would get you to leave the side of such a person?

A little cardboard sign that says "magic" in big sparkly letters.

Roberta Yang wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?

Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.

This is why I used the pregnant bard/baby daddy example Because a character with a real semi-human personality would have to be completely dominated to leave the side of such a person. And no amount of mean words, no mater how good you are at it is going to convince that character not heal their dying lover.

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.

If they'd flavored Antagonize as giving you a bit of Eldritch Heritage-style access to minor sorcerer powers and let you use Command as a SLA (or something similar to Command as a Su), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

so i can chant mathematical cyphers and dominate your mind if i am a wizard, but as a bard who mastered instigation, i can't use my training to make a pacifist fly into a rage and attack me beyond all rational thought?

Bards have spells. And magical songs. Use those.

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.

Are there time when a characters emotions can over come their rational thoughts?

YES. But I decide that.

I decide if shes leaving the side of her baby daddy whose bleeding out instead of healing him.

The Paladin's player decides if he's heard enough lip from this kid to take the back of his gauntlet to his face.

The Chaotic Neutral player decides if their greed gets the better of them as they pass the valuable statue on the way to see their employeer.

Not a NPC or another player who took a feat.

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?

There is a HUGE difference to me, between my character was dominated and forced via magic to leave the side of their dying comrade instead of healing them versus my character heard some nasty words and decided the best thing to do was attack the person using the words instead of healing their dying comrade. Especially when the later is not my call.

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.

No, because Charm person is a very specific MAGICAL effect. the players can detect charms, they can figure out magic. Its not their fault. This makes the character (not the players) choice to act a certain way, no magic at all, no outside tampering. They just decide to. This changes the characters personality with out approval from the player. Charm Person does not do that.

Charm person ALSO takes into effect the characters personality and motivations and their build. As well as any thing else that helps resist such things.

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.

Oh, good, instead of falling for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions, I only need to atone for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions.

The Paladin is a red herring. The uber-pacifist is a red herring. The core problem is that the feat turns my character into an NPC and tells me how my character will be roleplayed for me. Any side-effects of this, like loss of powers or legal trouble, are secondary compared to the fundamental problem that the feat wrecks the role-playing in a role-playing game.

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".

It still a bad feat since it is a surefire way to make a paladin fall.

Antagonize a paladin in any city and bam he breaks the law and falls.

Since it isn't a magical effect, the paladin is attacking you on his own free will in game.

This is truly the eff with paladins feat.

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".

The "totally not thri kreen we swear" race was functional.

In the rush to look at all the cool new races people seem to be glossing over the excellent tweaks to the core races. I'll allow the 'new' races in my games over my rotting GM corpse, but the modifications you can make to the core races are very, very, very cool.

One of my favourite Pathfinder supplements to date.

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".

The dev was pretty clear that you can use the arm, you just shouldn't as they didn't think players actually want to use the arm for something serious like dual wielding greatswords.

Plus, you don't want everyone to be playing the same multi-armed freak do you? Otherwise, how can we be proud of our system mastery? ;)

Why not? We have people who are Thor-esque super heroes (clerics) and reality warps like Akira (wizards) why not have four armed dudes.

Charlie Bell wrote:

If Donahan gets the pony treatment I will ragesubcancel.

** spoiler omitted **

Uhhh... looks like we've got an art order to change. 0_0

If Donahan is not a pony whose cutiemark matches up with Alain's cavalier order I will ragecancelpreorder.

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.

There's a leap of logic here that I'm not following.

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.

First, I disagree with your definition of a dystopia as requiring "equally evil foils to one another." The fact that he's not playing nice and saying that the political left and right are equally bad is, to me, refreshing in its lack of political correctness. He's saying that the people who throw rocks at pregnant teenagers and blow up clinics are worse than the people who believe in allowing personal choices that they might not agree with. Personally, I agree with that.

Further, he does make sure to point out that these generalizations have individuals and groups who don't play to type. In the Coven of Bast sourcebook, for example, is a liberal terrorist group called Black Rapture. They're creating a thought-virus that will murder everyone who is a Christian, and are clearly understood to be bad guys. This isn't the only such example of characters and organizations that aren't typified by political ideology.

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.

Again, this is a matter of opinion, but considering that the technology you're discussing is based around science fiction, the author can justify it however he wants within the context of his setting. Personally, I don't see how it's cheaper to buy something that modifies the yeast genes in existing milk than in having a one-time purchase to allow a woman to produce breast milk at will.

To put it simply, I disagree with your thinking there.

Likewise, why would you want something less fetishized in a setting where the central theme is a conflict over sexual politics?

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.

"Alex Smith 908 wrote:

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.

To be fair, each of his campaign settings deals with a current or near-future setting that is, to some degree, a dystopia. He also doesn't downplay issues of sex and sexual politics, though I don't believe he plays them up, either - rather, he tries to keep them at what he thinks is a realistic level.

That's why I find his Otherverse America setting so captivating; because it takes the current political discord (which has a lot to do with sexuality) and presumes that it continues to escalate until it reaches the breaking point. It's rare to find a sci-fi setting that has that level of real-world politics given so central a role (most that I've seen tend to be too closely wedded to a few major technological advancements).

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".

I can see some legitimate criticism regarding the editing of Chris's books, and regarding the artwork as well (though I don't hold that against him too much, as he's one person working with a small budget), but calling him "creepy" and "generally unpleasant" is crossing the line into being insulting.

Please re-read the "don't be a jerk" rule.

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.

198,000 gp

- 6 (spell level)
- x11 (caster level)
- x2000 (base price for continuous)
- x1.5 (10 min/level duration multiplier)

I doubt the ring would negate itself. There are plenty of magic items that don't quite follow all the rules of the spells they're duplicating. And it's a fairly expensive item anyway.

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.

I will add that while Fursona can be useful, I like the book myself, it occasionally delves into areas that might creep some non-fans of anthropomorphics and furries people out. And you have to be careful when using it to build characters, as it is very easy to powergame with it if you're not careful.

There's also the Anumus PDF by Alluria Publishing here on the site; and when the ARG comes out that should be helpful too. And there's The Noble Wild if you want to do sentient yet nonhuman animals as compared to or along with beast-folk.

Good luck in finding something you like!

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.

Ahiel, the spiked chain is the only weapon in the game with the disarm and trip properties that can be finessed and STILL DEAL decent damage (every other finessible weapon out there with the disarm and trip properties does far less damage, generally due to being light).

This makes it an ideal weapon for a trick fighter with high Dexterity. With Weapon Finesse and the Agile weapon property he ends up just as good as a strength-based fighter in terms of ability to hit, deal damage, or make use of combat maneuvers, but due to his small investment (two feats and a weapon property) he also has higher AC, higher touch AC, and Reflex saves--and he is also less MAD to boot!

It still may not be better than your fighter, but I'm willing to bet he will easily be on par. That's one of the things I like about Pathfinder, there are so many ways to make a good character whether it's a strong man or fast as lightning duelist.

But pirahna strike exists. Power Attack isn't just bad for finesse fighters but actively worse than an option presented for them.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Spiked chain and whip dagger were nerfed because they were considered ridiculous by James Jacobs. He said it himself.

I stick by the 3.5 rules on them.

When a single weapon in it's class becomes the defacto choice of just about every player out there who can qualify for it. That's a sign that there just may be something wrong with it balance wise. There wouldn't be so much griping about the spiked chain if what I said wasn't true.

There is something wrong balance wise. All of the other exotic weapons were too weak.

My 1e PHB disagrees with you. It contains both gnomes and half-orcs.
Pre-AD&D they were not present, however.

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.

The real reason is that despite claims/appearances to the contrary, D&D and its derivatives (such as PF) are not really setting neutral. There are a whole host of setting assumptions built into the core system, such as Vancian magic, the existence of certain iconic magic items, the core races, the core classes, alignments, etc. World-building is influenced by these assumptions, to the point where a GM has to specifically call out exceptions and omissions (see 2e Dark Sun for example).

In my local group this was the reason for a lot of the anti-4e backlash, because so many of the fundamental assumptions were changed/tweaked that it felt like we couldn't run games on the same worlds without drastically altering the worlds.

So it's kind of a circle started by tradition that the core races are core: 1e had those races, so people built worlds that had those races more prominently featured, so new editions have to have those races so that people could keep using their worlds. Honestly, this book will be a step towards a more setting-neutral system as it will increase options for GMs wanting to branch away from the traditional set.

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.

I was wondering if Paizo was every planning on updating Sean K Reynold's old monster of the month creatures or any of his other old works.

I don't mean "it's a terrible class feature", I mean the eidolon is almost as dumb as your average ogre.

Why? Aren't the vast majority of outsiders at least average human level intelligence?

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.

@ Alex - I don't think it's using people who were wrong before as proof. More using the examples from before as a warning and perhaps an example that maybe those who are intolerant to the point of violence should really look at what they're doing and why they're doing it.

It's called examining history so you don't repeat the same mistakes.

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.

Alignment creates a lot of situations like this because it attempts to objectify something as subjective as morality. That said, I'm pretty sure that what you believe has little if any effect on your alignment, it's all in what you do.

Calling someone a f*~!$*/heathen/God-cursed Sodomite = neutral act. Calling someone a breeder/backwards idiot/sheep person = neutral act. Acts of violence motivated by prejudice = evil act.

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.

Edit:

deusvult wrote:

What? Those gay-bashers are EVIL aligned! No f'ing way! They're defending morality! They pro-gay folk are the evil ones! etc etc.

Actually they only think they are. Much like the pro-slavery and ant-interracial marriage groups thought they were doing at one point.

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.

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.

Lawful is akin to 'civilized'. Primitive societies don't often have laws so much as 'traditions'. The law is never seen as thing of merit on its own, it is a guideline to the wisdom of the tribe. The idea that law should be imposed and obeyed by someone outside your own clan/kin/tribe/personal loyalty just doesn't exist in many primitive socieites.

Barbarians acknowledge friendship, loyalty, blood ties, blood debts, superstition, and similar things. Contracts and rules imposed by powers/beings the barbarian doesn't care about? Feh. Broken whenever convenient to do so. Obeying the rules just to obey the rules is not something they do. This can extend up to and including the gods.

A LAwful Barbarian is a dichotomy...a civilized savage. Barbarian is about being the savage, not civilized.

Now, having a class that could rage and be lawful? That's a different argument.

==Aelryinth

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.

To be fair, I'd give pretty much any pantheon head similar stats (although most would have more than a 1% chance of noticing you if you went into their realm).

I'd also point out that I actually frequently correct people on Cthulhu's status, since many assume he should be a full-on deity, whereas I am of the opinion that he'd be similar in power level to some of the more powerful demon lords/arch-devils/etc.

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. :)

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

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.

Are you August Derleth in disguise? Because none of that is in Lovecraft's Mythos. Most people prefer Lovecraft's version of the Mythos to Derleth's "Good Elder Gods vs Evil Outer Gods for control of the Earth" BS.

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"

KaeYoss wrote:

Unless they stat up Azathoth with like 35 HD.

This is Azathoth's stat block:

Azathoth, the Nuclear Chaos
Outer God
Damage Reduction: infinity/Outer God
Saves: +infinity All
Immunities: All
Combat: If you enter Azathoth's Court, roll d% every round. Azathoth notices you on a roll of 00. If he notices you, you die.

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.

Question for you loyalist in the majority of your campaigns what sort of enemies did you fight and were you dealing comparable damage to the other party members?

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.

Starbuck_II wrote:

...Really, I'm confused if no one remember NPC wealth for updating their monsters.

Perhaps they no remember because a pit fiend isn't supposed to have the gear of a 20th-level NPC. It's supposed to have treasure equal to two EL 20 encounters - which means it'll mostly be cash and jewels, with only a handful of fairly major - but randomly rolled - items. I'm not saying that having the pit fiend invest all its treasure in optimized magical items isn't a good idea - I'm just saying that in the RaW, you don't just assign optimal gear to a monster based on its CR.

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"

Hi

Me and my group started our first high level campaing. I don't particulary hate high level although it might get a little bit complicated but with this campaing I'm really puzzled.

The rule of our game was:
"We play who we want."

Which means all options are available and we dont have a set amount of starting money for the equipment.

One of the players who I don't know very well but apparently he researched a lot about this game made a Drow Noble Ninja 20 lvl with +60 sneak and a set of two very deadly close combat weapons and AC which reaches 50 or 60.

I skimmed through Beastiary 1 and 2, looked at the SRD. I didnt find anything which would be able to fight with him on a even ground. I tried to reason with him but it would mean that I dont allow him to play what he wants. I also tried to get deep into details about how sneak actually works in combat but I lost it. Is it possible to hide after an attack if the fight takes place in the dark/smoke/mist or if the attacker is invisible?

Please help

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.