I believe that if people take issue with moderation practices we are supposed to use the website feedback?
Bonus points if you can get someone to explain what invisible rule was broken. I think it's the "transgendered people who don't have a certain opinion aren't allowed to have one at all" but that just might be my anger clouding my judgment.
Since almost 100% of the posts on page 69 and many from page 70 were removed because "heated conversation" (read: tantrums), I will be re-writing everything that I had to contribute to that conversation between now and tomorrow and re-posting.
In the meantime, I will be cooling down. I told Aratrok I won't cry about this. It's just a thing. It can be rebuilt. I just need a short time to collect my thoughts.
Klara Meison wrote:
I wonder what is the "fair" villain-to-hero ratio. 1 to 4? 1 to 2? Probably closer to 1 to 8 if villain is a goblin with a clan and heroes have to pass through it's lair.
Someone could make a game of it like that. Create encounters and let other players play things in those encounters (such as controlling a hobgoblin sorcerer and her posse of 10 goblin lackies), which would mean each of the "villain" side of the screen would be like a bunch of mini-GMs.
I think there are a few PC games like that (kind of like Left 4 Dead where a set of players join the horde of zombies and mess with players, etc). It could be really amusing I bet.
It feels really weird actually, but mostly in a good way I'd say. It feels very complimentary and it's something I appreciate and am quite grateful for, and feel very honored to have people expect so much. It's a great ego boost, and it's a driving force behind my insistence to try to maintain a certain level of quality and effort put into things that I do (because not disappointing those who are supportive is a really big deal to me).
It can, of course, be a bit scary too. The concern that I might disappoint someone, or have a dull day as a GM (maybe a session just falls a bit flat or has a lull that isn't very exciting, etc), does float a bit over my head. It's one of the reasons I try to avoid letting the attention go to my head, 'cause as my head grows so too does that looming cloud of uncertainty, y'know?
Overall though, I like it, because I feel and hope that I'm providing something for others. That something might vary from person to person. Perhaps it is entertainment, perhaps a bit of shared experience, perhaps it's an insight, or it's a product (such as my revised marilith & balor, or the revised simulacrum, or a guidebook) that someone finds useful or enjoys having, or maybe even just the eyes and ears of a conversationalist who won't judge you for asking questions or talking about things - frankly - that are touchy subjects in the rather disgraceful social jungle we find ourselves in these days.
Also, much <3 for my cultists. I literally cannot seem to avoid smiling and laughing whenever I see those aliases pop up. God as my witness, I will get some t-shirts made as soon as I can come up with some sort of fun logo to put on them. XD
LMAO! Yeah, this is kinda what I was sayin' with the barbarian pictures. :P
Lemmy Z wrote:
So, Ash... When are you starting an online Skype/Roll20 campaign and inviting me to play? It's been around two or three years since you promised! XD
Probably as soon as I get d20 legends into a place where I feel an alpha playtest would be viable. ^.^"
That said it would probably use Discord/MapTools instead of Skype/Roll20. :P
Yeah you live in Alaska don't you? O.o
Winter is coming... o_o
If I take their head off then dispel them, does it reattach?
Well the spell says:
Damage taken by the new form can result in the injury or death of the polymorphed creature. In general, damage occurs when the new form is changed through physical force.
So I would assume if you turned someone into a rock and smashed it with a hammer, dispelling it wouldn't be pretty. In the same way if you sliced the head off someone and dispelled it, likely bad for their health.
That's what I get out of it anyway.
Klara Meison wrote:
Well you could dispel it. :o
Not sure the spell let's you temporarily kill someone and then de kill them. I mean, it's then the best death effect spell if so.
Well you can turn them into inanimate dead things like rocks so it seems legit. :o
That's an interesting idea actually. Combining some hard medicine with magic to solve the issue, perhaps?
...Damn it I'm thinking of too many ways for a villain to do this stuff. Darn brain! Mm. Another method could be hypnosis perhaps. Or a modified version of that one psionic ability that makes everyone think you're beneath notice. Claim to be a tiefling, they're all mutants anyways.
Isn't there some sort of body sculpting spell somewhere?
This is something that I tried to touch on with changelings/doppelgangers in Alvena. To many of them the concept of a sexual identity can end up being pretty superfluous, though some can even lose track of their identity at all.
Now obviously regions that don't have a strong magical presence probably would find it weird, but areas that do often have to share space with creatures from beyond mortality in every form that may take, as well as people who generally defy gravity and so forth. Probably becomes about as remarkable as every other crazy wizard who does things for reasons. Might not be conducive to true understanding, but it'd be less remarkable, particularly since compared to the guy who animates hedge animals it's on the grand scheme way less flashy.
This is a great point and super useful for thinking about these things from a world building perspective. How weird is weird, so to speak. This is something that is worth considering when it comes to deciding how magic relates to the world too.
Also, would it have any influence over how people perceived the character? Might they think it a magical oddity perhaps? Maybe a reincarnate got awry? Would they try to dispel or remove curse their malady only to be left a bit stumped? :o
There's something kind of adorable about the PCs picking up the NPCs like lost puppies isn't there? :P
The number of "throwaway" NPCs that end up becoming popular with the players is pretty staggering. Victoria was a throwaway NPC actually. As was "Jum Jum". The Paladin's future squire, Miranda, was also a throwaway NPC. In fact, most of the people the party ended up very close to were just extras. XD
Klara Meison wrote:
Well, I mean if you had some dude (or some girl) and they're runnin' from somebody, broke line of sight and chucked the elixir, the person would still recognize them as the same person unless they made a disguise check along with it.
Which, incidentally, you can already do per the Disguise skill. And the elixir explicitly notes that drinking it grants no benefits when applied to a disguise. Literally changing sex wouldn't even throw the person who was just chasing you as a guy/girl a moment ago. Because you are recognizable as the same person and it gives no benefits when being disguised (not even a little circumstance bonus). :|
Joking aside though, it creates a wellspring of questions. If playing a transgendered character (or a character who has underwent some sort of magical sex re-alignment), what sort of things are going to come up?
Victoria made use of the Disguise skill, which makes it surprisingly easy to pass for the opposite sex with a little practice. The -2 for disguising yourself as a different sex is largely offset with a rank or two and overshadowed if it's a class skill, and that's before any other modifiers such as from Charisma. Largely bolstered in effectiveness since most people don't get a check to see through the disguise unless they're actively interacting or intentionally observing you.
Are there any alternatives or supplements to using the elixir to complete the transformation? Perhaps the difference is made up solely through skills, clothing changes, and confidence? What sort of hurdles might we have left to climb over after downing the magical drought of shifting?
Well, it says...
Upon drinking this elixir, a character permanently transforms their biology to take on a different set of sexual characteristics of their choice. While the imbiber's physiology changes dramatically and their features adjust slightly to take on the new qualities, the imbiber is still recognizable as the same person. The character has only minor control over the specific details of this new appearance, and the elixir grants no benefit on Disguise skill checks or similar checks.
Let's look at this how it actually functions. You are still recognizable as the same person, and the changes aren't drastic enough to provide any benefit on Disguise checks. Let's think about that for a moment.
Again, the elixir doesn't change your features enough for this guy to not be recognizable as the same person. It's not even "looks similar", it's recognizable and grants no benefits as a disguise. Imagine for a moment that changing into the completely different sex doesn't even make it harder to notice you're the same person.
It's not a matter of "You really look like this guy I know" it's literally "Hey you are that guy I know...except now you have a uterus?". :P
Buri Reborn wrote:
Because Pathfinder explicitly tells you that all classes are worth the same in terms of XP points, require the same amount of XP to advance, and that a level 10 Fighter is equivalent to a level 10 Wizard when building an encounter.
Its heavily alluded to.
From a world building perspective, it's interesting to ponder what sort of ways this sort of thing might be addressed by different faiths, areas, and social classes. In an area where mages were very commonplace (such as an arcane academy) you might find that young mages tend to re-orient their perspectives on the world and such when they start learning spells that can allow them to walk in other peoples' shoes for a while (stuff like disguise self or alter self can easily allow them to spend some time as the opposite sex or at least perceived as such, which can give them new perspectives on things).
In our reality, there were religions that required men to castrate themselves before becoming priests. What if there was a religious group that only took priests or priestesses and those entering the clergy were expected to become physically male or female? How would they respond to a character who thought this was unnatural, or a character who insisted on doing priestly roles or duties without changing? What if in a fantasy culture (even a small subculture) conforming to your natural gender identity was seen as an act of nonconformity because that was pretty odd indeed to a group of creatures or a race (such as changelings) that frequently change genders?
There's a lot of interesting possibilities that could be explored. Imagine, if you will, a goddess like lamashtu taking favor with their priests who change their genders to give birth to monsters. Would it seem all the more bizarrely lamashtan when you find out that a particularly devoted male has altered his body to get knocked up by strange beasts to give birth to abominable monsters? Squicky, yeah? O.o
As I noted before all the tempers flared, the unique realities in a fantasy world for transgendered characters are worth experiencing. For example, the elixir of sex shifting is super imperfect as a solution (see below for what I mean) but it overcomes a hurdle that the best advances on modern medicine has yet to overcome - it gives you working plumbing (which means being able to reproduce).
Meanwhile we have a lot of interesting magical solutions to adapting to this strange condition. Spells like disguise self and alter self can allow people to fake it or live temporarily in a body that feels more appropriate for them (and magic items like a hat of disguise or custom shapeshifting ring or something can make it more practical to keep up for long periods of time).
There's interesting interactions that could be explored about the nature of sex and gender and how magic can turn reality on its head. For example, if a couple of lifelong friends ended up stumbling upon a girdle of masculinity/femininity and one ended up donning it, only for them to eventually end up in a romantic relationship that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Finding out that a character's mother Jacklyne used to be Jackson might explain why the character's mother seems to know so much about the life of a young boy but little about the life of a young girl (because she's only been a woman for the past few decades).
It invites exploration for how different cultures might look at things differently. If the majority of the world mirrors reality, then we can begin to explore new concepts and press our experiences into new directions through imagination. It gives us a chance to really push down on the "what if" button. Exploring different ideas and things leading up to different kinds of "normal" for those fantastic places. And we can learn from those experiences and explorations. Roleplaying and story telling is cool like that.
About the Elixir
That means that if this guy drinks the elixir, anyone who's ever seen him will instantly recognize him as the same person (what with the narrow hips and burly beard and stuff). That is miles from a particularly feminine woman.
In a similar fashion this lady drinking it isn't going to make a particularly masculine looking man (what with the wide hips and large breasts and stuff). Because again, it explicitly cannot even slightly make you look like anything other than instantly recognizable as the same person.
Meanwhile in reality, while our advanced medical knowledge cannot perfectly fix the plumbing we can do a mighty fine job of fixing the aesthetic aspects that make us feel like the appropriate sex (which is heavily connected to self image). So the elixir has different pros & cons.
Klara Meison wrote:
Yes. Which is why I need to gut and restuff a lot of it. It's not just the mechanics that I want to revise, a lot of it are the NPCs in places. Sarenrae the tyrant would need some changing, the token transsexual-lesbian couple in the beginning of the game would need to be heavily revised before I would include them in a game, etc.
Klara Meison wrote:
Wrath of the Righteous:"Huh? Wait, what? Where am I? What am I doing here? Who are you? How did I get here?" "WRONG ANSWER!!!" CHOOO CHOOO CHOO CHOOO
I still intend to run this at some point. I just need to Frankenstien it before I'll do it.
Klara Meison wrote:
My willingness to let PCs explode creatures with swallow whole probably stems from enjoying the idea of severely punishing the creature for swallowing you like that. Likewise, I generally find that when a creature swallows a player whole, it's usually a death sentence for the creature anyway since it's near impossible to defend itself with the character inside them (nothing says you have to leave its body after dealing enough damage to free yourself, you can just continue to rip the creature to shreds from inside, and the amount of damage from being inside of it is often more manageable than actually getting hit by the thing outside).
That's a fair point. Feather tokens are conjuration-based magic items so it would be fair to just not have them do anything when inside a creature, so I might need to revise my view on it (btw, this is how I talk with my players too, so if I make a bad call we can discuss it and fix it later).
I'm pretty sure this question would come up with an instant fortress as well (it literally causes damage from its expansion and requires a save to avoid suffering commoner-dusting levels of damage just from getting hit by its expansion).
Reign of Winter: Embark on a whimsically senseless journey that you didn't want, to free a powerful ancient evil you don't like, for reasons that don't make any sense, to have them defeat the evil that would have been more satisfying to defeat any other way.
Experience classically horrible adventuring hooks such as geas/quest, and explore a long campaign full of exotic peoples and places that you will never interact with long enough to develop any interest in. Do things like heroically pick sides in major conflicts on a world you've been on for five minutes and help that side kill off the other side with no real knowledge of the world whose future you're changing forever, simply to get an item for a riddle that takes you to the next place you won't care about to meet people you won't get to know.
It's recommended that players give witch hating witch hunters a try in this campaign, because it's also recommended that your friends play witches, and the campaign involves rescuing the b$!@!iest witch of them all.
Prepare yourself for Reign of Winter. It was cold in the office that day. We wanted to be anywhere but there. Now you will be.
Klara Meison wrote:
If someone dropped a tree token under a creature, what would happen and how damaged would that creature end up?
Under a creature, I'd probably rule that it forces creatures occupying the space into another adjacent space as it pushes them away as it expands and grows.
Tels brings up a rather brilliant and probably horrific use of the token and quite frankly I'd need to think about the effects of that. At the very least I would need to rule that the creature vomits the contents of its stomach up violently (automatically freeing anyone inside) but rationally I think I'd need to have it deal some obscene amounts of damage to the creature since the tree would be expanding and so large in such a short time that the creature should very well rupture violently, and very likely just outright die unless it has some sort of regeneration.
Does some thinking...
Essentially representing how you just ruptured their torso in a truly violent and horrific manner by planting a 60 ft. oak tree in their digestive track.
i feel there is a story im missing here
Tree tokens are just kind of infamous for being a magic item that sounds semi-useless at first glance but you can end up doing sooooo much with them. Plant a tree anywhere to climb, get cover, use for tree stride, block a door, fill a hallway, support a structure, use for firewood, use for fabricate, make a distraction, make something to tie a rope to, start a forest somewhere, use as portable trees for that druid spell that creates treants, etc, etc, etc.
The list of possibilities is pretty exhausting actually. Any situation where you can say "Man, would a bigass oak tree be nice right here?" is probably good for a tree token, and if you have tree tokens, you'd be surprised how frequently the answer to that question becomes "Yes".
Most of the feather tokens are pretty good. Heck, in a pinch, the anchor token has a lot of potential too. At the very least you can pretend you can pretend to be a loony toon and drop anchors on people. :P
see i'm personally interested in the automatic bonus progression optional rule. never met anyone that has tried it just think it would be cool to have magic items that do thing instead of just boost combat stats.
I like dropping items into my games that have x/day effects. Quite frequently actually. It's easy as a GM to drop these sorts of items into the game (or add these sorts of effects to the big six) because x/day effects tend to be relatively cheap compared to alternatives.
It means a lot of the magic items you'll find in my games have spiffy little effects you can play around with a few times per day. They're more fun on NPCs as well since their relatively low cost makes them affordable on NPC wealth.
Klara Meison wrote:
Nope, but I've played in a few games briefly that had some of the optional mechanics like Stamina and stuff. From what I've seen from my friends' (I haven't bought Unchained) I haven't had a want to buy the book. I'm not going to rule out that there's nothing in the book I'm interested in, merely that at the moment I haven't seen anything that jumps out to me.
Klara Meison wrote:
Do you use any optional systems introduced in Unchained? For example, Background Skills?
Nope. Not currently. I see the appeal of the background skill system and Aratrok and I have discussed some ideas for mechanics that are similar at least on a sort of fundamental level (such as the possibility of splitting skills into major and minor skills relative to their impact and function in the game) for D20 Legends but nothing has been ironed out yet.
I haven't been GMing much recently due to juggling shifting work schedules, socializing with friends and family, and trying to be productive, so I haven't really been doing much with any optional systems outside the usual house rules my group(s) usually run with.
I intend for my next game that I run to be some variation of d20 legends though, so it might not even come up then. :P
The skill system for d20 legends is still in a state of extreme...uhhh...flux. Mostly because there are a lot of ways to handle things and we're still debating internally on some things (which reminds me that I need to have a talk with Aratrok about that stuff 'cause he pitched some thoughts over Discord and I haven't got a chance to really discuss them with him yet).
But I need a nap before that happens (I worked night shift, need to crash) so I'm going to go do that now. XD
Klara Meison wrote:
It would make for a sensible errata, honestly. I don't see why a spell that creates a spear that stabs an enemy would have different effects from a fighter stabbing an enemy with a spear. It's still ultimately a sharp stabby thing that affects the enemy, right?
It could be, yeah. I'm not saying it's a terrible house rule. I'm just saying that it isn't how the game actually works. They really need to learn what a FAQ actually is.
Not very helpful when the FAQ isn't even accurate. >:|
Also, obscenely unhelpful when you have to browse through an FAQ that's not even linked to from the PRD, to find descriptions (not rules, descriptions of rules) that either do not exist or are directly contrary to what the manual actually says. Which means if you read your rulebook or the PRD or whatever, you will find something wildly different from the FAQ.
Even worse is the way they have flip-flopped in the past.
Vastly inferior to WotC's method of handling errata and FAQs.
I really cannot say anything positive about Paizo's FAQ system because there is nothing positive about it.
The problem I see here is that until they retcon it, that's the boat they're sitting in. Actions speak louder than words so while she may say she's not a goddess of war, until she stops providing spells to her warmongering followers, well...if the shoe fits.
Why wouldn't you follow that FAQ?
Because DR explicitly only works against normal attacks and spells explicitly ignore it.
Core Rulebook wrote:
So the FAQ is outright lying.
The damage type of a spell still affects or could affect other things. For example, if you damage certain ooze monsters with a spell that deals slashing damage the ooze can split because it activates their "slashing damage" stuff.
Perhaps amusingly still, according to Blood of Night, an undead creature that has some sort of hunger (such as ghouls and vampires) remains satisfied after feeding for 1 day per HD, which means that generic vampires only need to feed once every four days (vampire spawn in Pathfinder have 4HD, real vampires have 5+). The amount of blood that a vampire needs to live comfortably is actually really small. They deal 1d4 Con damage for a feeding, which means a single vampire can survive by feeding on a single person or animal indefinitely.
You recover a minimum of 1 Con/day, or 2/day if you're resting well or have someone with the Heal skill on hand. Even if you're not resting and have no aid, you'll still have recovered 100% of the maximum possible Con damage that the vampire would have inflicted on you by the time the vampire needs to feed again.
The actual number of vampires is pretty hard to gauge as a result since a rather large number of vampires could be existing within a given community and nobody would be any the wiser for it, unless the vampires started getting gluttonous.
Ghouls and such are even funnier. They explicitly prefer to do their own thing and don't like freshly slain meat. A ghoul doesn't care much about what kind of meat it's eating as long as it's bad. They're happy consuming week old corpses and spoiled meat and if they do kill someone they don't want to eat them right away. They're a really passive undead from a purely ecological perspective. They would also be extremely handy to have during a plague outbreak since they could just eat all the plague corpses and go back to their business of not bothering anyone.