Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Red Dragon

Auxmaulous's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,748 posts (2,826 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 18 aliases.

1 to 50 of 391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Pence has signed the bill into law.

Story here.

By signing it he willingly revoked his right to be treated as a human being.

It is this kind of hyperbole that adds up incrementally and guts the credibility of social equality movements.

Painting people with different sociopolitical views as subhuman monsters is eyeroll worthy no matter which side it comes from. It becomes impossible to take anything that rolls out of your mouth afterward seriously.

For me it's simple: Nazis treat other people like they are not human or at least subhuman. For that I treat them as not human. And this bill is clearly Nazi territory.

Wow - how ignorant. All because some idiot doesn't want to put two plastic grooms on a cake = entering Nazi territory.

I wouldn't wish "Nazi territory" on my worst enemies.

Read a book or talk to a survivor (if you can find one) before you spew hyperbole. It just makes you look really bad and undermines your argument.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.
If those uppity gays hadn't demanded to be treated like normal people we wouldn't have needed to pass laws letting us discriminate against them. We could have just continued doing so without any new laws.
And again, I would ask, if a Jewish photographer was willing to take pictures of Christians in all kinds of settings (graduations, weddings, family gatherings, etc.), but wasn't willing to take pictures of a baptism, would that mean they weren't treating Christians "like normal people". Does it have to be 100% or 0%? I am not talking about this law specifically, just our society in general.

I don't know. Does that happen?

IDK - are the people in question (aka the "bigots") refusing service to gay people in total or refusing to provide services for a religious function that they disagree with on the grounds of their personal faith (gay marriage)?

In the case with the bakers - are they refusing to sell a chocolate éclair to their gay clientele or telling them that they cannot sit as a couple in their dining area and eat their éclair's together?

Or are they refusing to put two grooms on a custom made wedding cake - refusing to make a specific cake design?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, that's major news if that's the case.

Though from I've seen so far, what they seem to be doing is piggy backing some of their splat content with their module releases (new races, class options, etc).

Don't know if that is part of their master plan or that's just the way it turned out with their initial modules.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

I don't see what this has to do with Paladins and our modern world view of Good and Evil (or lack therof).

Also, if a Paladin falls in the woods, and no one is around to see it - does he need to Atone?

Is cannibalism evil, in of itself?

In - of itself, as in auto-cannibalism?

I cannot comprehend how biting one's nails could constitute an evil act - but it certainly breaks etiquette, so maybe CN?

I have around a 1000 questions relating to the CN alignment, let me know when you guys want me to start a thread.....

for each one.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

I don't see what this has to do with Paladins and our modern world view of Good and Evil (or lack therof).

Also, if a Paladin falls in the woods, and no one is around to see it - does he need to Atone?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam Daigle wrote:

I'm not posting this to invalidate your concern, but I have to say that we do try really hard to manage expectations. To use one of your examples, Iron Gods wasn't supposed to be "the spaceship AP." It was designed to be an Adventure Path that explored Numeria and dealt with the idea of how technology and faith interplay, and I think we hit that mark.

One thing I can't control is when people read X and want Y, then are upset that X wasn't Y. That said, we will continue to manage expectations and give as clear a vision for the Adventure Path as possible (without giving too many spoilers up front).

You may have hit the mark, but I think you should have communicated your intent a little better.

On more than one occasion this was being presented as an homage to Gamma World or more closely, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, which it wasn't. In effect those things were minor background and window dressing to a story about about divine ascendancy, which is on par with return of the Ancient Big Bad (RotRL, CotCT, etc) which has already been done in other APs. This could have gone several other ways, better ones imo - the threat of Ancient Technology that should not be tampered with as the BBEG vs. an AI, a Big Liftoff or inversely a Return of the Masters. Maybe it was the threat in the AP, Unity just didn't seem scary or nefarious as far as demented AI threats go.

And I get it it, Iron Gods being the title and all. I guess based upon how much S3 was being touted as an influence pre-release I was expecting more "Iron" and less "Gods", because the emphasis on the latter is in every other AP. I think many of us were waiting for an "Iron" that we didn't care about some of the other aspects, but the AP was not compelling. Again, this could have been the way Unity was set up as a foe - with the AI not even feeling like a threat.

I was pretty let down with IG. I held off any criticism till it ran its course, but in the end it was (for me) a big let down. After Lords of Rust I just stuck with the AP because the maps could be recycled for other games.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pachristian wrote:

The Balanced Game

EVERY encounter is "party appropriate encounter level" exactly. No deviation up or down.

EVERY treasure is carefully moderated to produce "expected level treasure".

EVERY character and NPC has EXACTLY the treasure described as "typical for their level" in the book.

aka the Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz game.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

F.A.T.A.L. has a message?

Oh yeah that's right - the message:
I should have switched hobbies when I was younger, this is getting embarrassing.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:

The Teachable Campaign

The Campaign for Social Justice

The DM has deemed their players to be hideous hate-filled neanderthal troglodytes who need the DM's glorious and inspired guidance to become better human beings. Instead of focusing on adventure, you learn how your character is intrinsically oppressing the orcs who have been forced into their position because of intrinsic unfairness. That one cannot judge the man-eating morlocks because that would be ethnocentric. That alignment represents objective morality which is intrinsically and objectively bad. Sometimes including the DM outright lecturing players in and out of character.

The irony (oh the irony) is that there are actually game publishers and not just singular GMs who promote this type of game.

"If you don't like this you must be X-ist"
Game companies with pet posters/contributors/fan club who think you are doing it wrong and will take any and every moment to tell you so. The original game may have been written by people long gone - has become a co-opted vehicle to espouse disguised/not-disguised political, socio-economic world views in a effort to change the gaming world.
Or it could be an "indie" game that no one would look at twice "but hey, it promotes/supports/social commentary on X" so we need to go Dianetics and buy this game - even it's terrible and has production values on par with a 3rd grade art assignment.
Criticize and you will be ostracized (as you should be since you are evil and ignorant).

Just fix your damn game or try to write adventures that are compelling and worth running.

Suggestion: Switch game systems or just ignore/delete the "message" promoted by their products if the system is worth playing.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Since your character isn't a person and therefore doesn't need motivation, you'll always be looking to the next room, rather than considering whether this is something Stockdwarf #13448 would actually choose to do.

Wait, characters in PF are not a bundle of stats and in fact are real people???1?!??

Or...PF characters are real characters (with feelings, sex drives and other motivations) while all other characters in all other games in every edition made (and yet to be created) are just "a bundle of stats"?
Because wands of CLW help with motivation?

Good try, fail - but herculean in effort so credit for that one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:


Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a right wing conservative extremist and I loved the character Mr. Spock.

And it wasn't just Star Trek that impressed me with Mr. Nimoy's work - his narration of In Search of.. put him on par with such TV greats as Rod Serling (who hosted the original show/feature). The man was good at his trade and helped to create a character that is both iconic in fiction and in gaming. His impact on me and several of my friends was profound.

To me Spock transcends the Left v Right paradigm. He espoused aspects of both (the better parts) and I find it strange that a conservative - who should value logic vs. emotion (a conservative mantra) would rail against a character based in reason vs. emotion in his decision making process (which was flawed at times).

Spock was the best of both sides while being neither. Even his hippy aspects that this joker is railing against - the individual vs. the group - I just don't see it as leftist preaching. Spock, if anything was his own person - I can't remember an incarnation where he asked someone else to sacrifice themselves for the greater good - if it was ever proposed it was always his own neck on the line. So I don't see this as a leftist position.

I refrained for a few days getting in on this one - but I do feel that the writer of this piece waited a week (for the body to get cold) and then used it as a hit job on the current POTUS (who I dislike). Just a cheap shot with minimal consequence or risk. Aka Chicken s!*@.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
And you had to be a greedy murderhobo to level, as exp was determined more by how much cash you got from the monsters and the loot you sold than by defeating your objectives.
3.0/3.5/PFRPG is actually a LOT more aimed at the murderhobo style than the previous editions. There were rules in those editions for getting XP apart from fighting things...hell, avoiding combat was preferable, since treasure netted you more XP than killing the monsters stacked in front of it. If you want XP in a d20 game, good look getting it without murdering people/monsters. You don't earn XP from any of the old sources from 0e/1e/2e/Basic in the d20 systems.

2e has rules in place for awarding xp for: clever ideas, idea that saves the party, RP character, encouraging others to participate, successful use of granted power (not always combat), Spells to further ethos, making magic items, successful research, getting treasure or using Rogue abilities successfully.

Sounds like Murderhobo/Greedy system alright.

Wait, do the older systems have a WBL system or was that Pathfinder?
The later is the system where you need to finance the characters big six or casters ability to build items to skew the games power curve even more than other characters (ultimate meta-fail in system design).

Yes - 3/x is the system where money is everything - where it's really important that you need X cash/level to buy or build your own (boring) magic items to change your stats.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Mongoose wrote:

As much as 2E stoneskin is stupid broken given a reasonable reading of the rules, as I mentioned when I brought it up, it's just one spell. So let's add a second one: invisibility.

It's a second level spell that lasts literally all day unless you attack, so it's also extremely reasonable to assume our 2E wizard has it up at any time when someone wants to ambush him.

If you have bad DMs or DMs who really want casters to dominate the field then it works that way. If you actually read the spell and run it the way it's listed, it doesn't:

"Items dropped or put down by the invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature."
Flour on the floor or in the air reveal the the creature. 0-level commoner trick.

If he's flying around doing nothing then he is not much of a threat unless he is summoning creatures. Anything else constitutes an attack.

"Note that the priest spells bless, chant, and prayer are not attacks for this purpose."
The last part clarifies the spell = attack definition.
Any spell, even a debuff cast at an individual or group, constitutes an attack. The wording can be better, but they do provide spells that "do not" constitute an attack for example purposes.

Dire Mongoose wrote:
Good luck guessing where to throw darts (which actually is one of the better ways to deal with the spell as a humanoid) since there's no such thing as a Spot, Listen, or Perception skill.

Here is your perception check: "All highly Intelligent (Intelligence 13 or more) creatures with 10 or more Hit Dice or levels of experience have a chance to detect invisible objects (they roll saving throws vs. spell; success means they noticed the invisible object)."

That Int 13 was more viable in older editions because there were no dump stats (another bad gaming idea) - so you could easily have ANY character with a 13 Int just by virtue of rolls since 13 is not a high stat value when rolling stats.

So no, not that powerful.
A good utility spell but only OP if you have (which is apparent) bad DMs with poor reading comprehension.

Dire Mongoose wrote:
When people make an argument that the 3E caster is best, they often assume that the caster is prepped for the encounter at hand, which in an actual game they might or might not be. In 2E with its titanic defensive/utility spell durations you always would be ready. The 2E Wizard's Handbook even basically says you're an idiot if you're walking around without a fresh Stoneskin because there's no reason that you have to.

And again, anyone can grapple the wizard, which ignores the stoneskin and also shuts down the wizards ability to cast spells unless they are verbal. But I don't want to re-hash that one. Stoneskin has already been proven to not be the spell you originally presented and without the need of using pebbles to negate it (I would never rule that way). For what you have to spend and the ease of it coming off from any crappy attack it just isn't that good.

3e based casters are the best - they are not even playing on the same level of rules, they are playing above them. A whole set of mechanics were designed - the skill system (which is a terrible and game-able binary +X system) and then the casters just take a giant steaming one right on it - since they operate a level above. Terrible design.

3e based casters are OP, unbalanced and one of the reasons why 3e games are terribly unbalanced (and unfun). I would rather take a jumble of incoherent rules than to play a game that was written by frustrated 2e casters trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in gaming and is fundamentally broken.

Recently went back to 2nd - some info is hard to find, some data inconstant and layout could be better but it's a 1000% better than PF just by virtue of actual game play and fun.


Legendary martials weren't Christmas Trees, eh? Let's just LOOK at King Arthur a second here...

This individual is arguing against x-mass tree affect without even understanding it (which is always fun).

Having 15 melee weapons is not x-mass tree effect. Needing six core items so you can survive due to inherent required math is x-mass tree.
That isn't a 1st ed AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D or Basic D&D invention, that's 3rd ed based invention in gaming. A terrible and unforgivable one. Done.

Pathfinder does a better job at making Martials more impressive than earlier Editions,..

No, they do not. I have yet to see it. Maybe in Unchained?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Casters are considerably weaker - less spell options, less spell use over the course of a scenario (less slots). Spell casting in direct combat is highly dangerous.

I really, really disagree with that. Wizard (in smart hands) is dominant in 2E in a way that it could never be in 3.X or PF.

It may be that you didn't play with optimization-focused players in that era but... yeah. I mean, look at 2E stoneskin: it negates several attacks regardless of what they are or how much damage they might do, and its duration is permanent until used. The terrasque manages to ambush a level 7 2E wizard somehow? Sorry, it's going to be several rounds before he can do anything at all to the wizard.

No, we actually read the rules and ran it the way it was written.

Even your 7th level wizard comment is so incorrect it needs to be addressed. You get 1d4+1/per two caster levels for stoneskin, so your 7th level caster is going to have 1d4+3 stone skins. Max 7 blocks. Tarrasque gets 6 attacks per round. So on the second round that 7th level wizard is eviscerated lunchmeat.

Also, you do know that each "attack" against a caster wearing stone skin loses a hit?
So a 9th level wizard with 5 stone skin hits is attacked by a level 1 thief with with a short bow (2 attacks) and a dart throwing level 1 wizard (3 attacks) that those attacks don't even need to roll to count against the stone skin uses. You just lost 5 stoneskin hits without one die roll.

So two level 1 characters just negated the higher level wizards spell without making one die roll. All they need to do is say I throw 3 or shoot 2, and they stone skins are marked off.

Maybe you and other players ran it differently, but when you run it by the book the spell was not as powerful as people frequently ran it (which was incorrectly).

Here is the quote from the spell entry-
"This limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th level wizard would protect against five to eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by 3 each round; four magic missiles would count as four attacks in addition to inflicting their normal damage."

So, no - not that good. Misused and misunderstood.
Would it block a single attack that did 10-120 points - yes it would. Would it block a small creature with 3 attacks that did 1 point of damage each (housecat)? Yes, for a couple of rounds marking it off without the need to even make to-hit rolls.
That's how good the spell was - i.e. not that good.

The only wizards that run roughshod over everything else are from 3rd ed + variants. 2e wizards were very manageable and required tremendous support so they could be effective.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are very different mechanically and in respective power levels of characters.

There is no universal d20 mechanic. Skill (Non-weapon proficiencies)are a roll under an associated stat with a modifier.

AC is based around a target Armor Class value of 0, with armor class starting at 10 and going down to -10 (more for ultra powerful unique creatures). So if you have a THAC0 of 15, that means you hit an AC of 0 on a 15, and AC of 1 on a 14, an AC of 3 on a 12, etc. Point of reference - Plate Mail w/shield is AC 2.

Attributes have built in detailed function and are more detailed at different values than a +1 or +2 modifiers to rolls.

Magic Items do not replicate spells (not exactly, they have some unique non-spell powers and minor differences).

Hit points and all around damage are less. So a 5th level fighter with 40 hp is decent.

Casters are considerably weaker - less spell options, less spell use over the course of a scenario (less slots). Spell casting in direct combat is highly dangerous.

Fighters are considerably more powerful, get multiple attacks with no negatives and attack rate is also tied with the weapon you are using (throw 2 daggers per round, fire 2 arrows) at no penalty.

There are too many difference to list here tbh (and I need to get back to re-writing my own game).

Just try to go into it with an open mind and if you have a good DM it should be fun. I'm sure other posters will soldier on in telling you how bad it's going to be.

It de-emphasizes character build and choices and focuses a bit more on play (exploration and combat are considerably faster than PF).

Good gaming.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Grind my gears....

Threadcrapping/badwrongfun in the suggestion forums.

We get it, you don't even like the notion that someone would want to run a Low Magic Game or even consider the mechanics behind it. But the SUGGESTION FORUMS, where someone is looking for ideas on how to do so is not the place soapbox your gameview.

And this is not specific to low magic questions/suggestions/offerings. The above comment can also be phrased with "X topic" in the place of Low Magic Game.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fencer_guy wrote:

You are the DM and have a group of people Pathfinder and you have to hand out the XP. Does it matter if its an AP or home brew?

If people show up (no matter what they do or don't do) they get equal share of the xp?

Do you reward people for whatever?

Like DE, I don't run PF anymore but when I did I gave out xp under the following criteria:

1) Xp is given out on managing encounters - avoiding, talking through or fighting. If for example they encounter a group of orcs - they get xp for evading, fighting or talking themselves out of the encounter. You don't get points for circumventing the orcs because you chose Path B over A, but if you go down Path A (orcs) and get past them without a fight, yes - you "beat" that encounter.

2) Xp for encounters are for the encounter - if they fight that group of orcs and half the orcs flee - then they get the whole allotment of xp for dealing with that encounter. Doesn't need to be a body=xp formula (imo). In many cases capturing or even just talking through encounters instead of fighting yields more - you get the xp and the info.

3) If a player could not make it but we still game and run their character in fights/encounters/exploring - they get xp for the session for those events. They do not get special xp.
If a player cannot regularly make it to the sessions and it becomes an issue, I don't deal with a passive/aggressive xp dynamic - they are just dropped from the game and the group (until they resolve their schedule issues).

4) Special xp: This is done in two ways. First, I award xp for exceptional gaming - crazy ideas, good roleplaying, daring maneuvers with some lucky rolls....and daring maneuvers with some unlucky rolls. Yes, I reward some bad ideas and bad luck - if the intent was good. NPC'd PCs (players who miss sessions) do not get this xp.
Special xp part II: I let players petition for themselves or other players for small exceptional awards. These can be actions, ideas or even theories (that turned out to be true) that I, as the GM may have missed.
I do not reward xp for "whatever". Even when I reward bad actions/bad luck it is when it was memorable and entertaining for all. There is no - "here is xp just because you are here".

5) Xp awards are done at the start of the next session as sort of an opening of the meeting. This serves multiple functions:
A) Grabs everyone's attention (away from phones, other conversations, distractions) and gets them into a game mindset.
B) It helps serve as a re-cap for last session (we game every other week, so we need this). Some memories get jogged and again, it gets us (even me) back into the right frame of mind and what is going on in-game.

I run mostly open sandbox and somewhat non-linear/non-railroad games - so I feel tracking xp works for that style of game since I need to measure tasks/actions as markers vs. story progression markers. And just for the record - I have no problem with railroad games - I think it is a viable playstyle and adventure design and has its own merits and (good) value. I would have no problem running a heavy linear game.

Fencer_guy wrote:
Should XP be "fair"?

No. But my opinion on the matter is in the minority over here.

I do think that xp should be awarded evenly to playstyles. Let me explain the last one:

If I have a -
Combat Player
RP Player
Trader/commerce player who likes shortcuts/workarounds
Group player (heavy inter-party support and interaction)

I should reward each for what they do when they do it.
I, as the GM should not just focus on combat encounters and xp. I should be focusing on combat/encounter xp, RP xp, smart ideas xp, group interaction xp, and research/using resources smartly xp. In a sense - I should be trying to hit these areas as challenges evenly. It doesn't always work out that way - but I try. If there has been a lot of combat and then one research section comes up, I let that research player milk that time and I play it out with as much attention as anything else.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:

The thing that kind of bugged me was Maggie being hard on the priest. Her father was a religious yet flawed man who she loved very much. Sure the priest did a pretty awful thing and Id imagine most people would treat him like dirt but I dont imagine Maggie would. Though maybe she has just run out of sh!@s to give.

I think this was supposed to be a be an episode about faith and hope and the loss of both (and regaining it possibly). In Maggie's case she has just been burned to many times and seems to have lost her faith - yet the episode closes with a bit of a miracle. I think the priest just symbolizes that resentment she has towards putting energy and faith in a higher power - so Gabriel gets to be the punching bag.

It continues with the theme with emo Daryl at the beginning of the episode to him coming to terms about both Beth and Tyreese near the end.

Can't wait for the new nemesis to show up on scene - should be good times once the group has something to fight.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'd say it's not so much a matter of "stupid by today's standards", but trying to apply an old mechanic to a very different game system.

Except there's a reason that the game systems today are very different. They're better, which is why they won.

And old mechanics like the one proposed are part of the reason why the newer systems are better. Getting rid of them made the game more fun. (That's not merely my judgment, but the marketplace's.)

Subjective and your opinion (which to me, is worthless).

By your logic McDonalds has the best food on the planet since they are the #1 fast food chain in the world. Avatar is the top grossing movie (of all time), do you think its the best? Because if you say it isn't then by your own (herd) logic you are wrong. BTW- Two Transformers movies are in the top 10 besides it (one is #7 and one is #10). I mean, all those people can't be wrong?
And if you disagree with these assessments then you are the stupid one (by your standards - using herd preferences as the deciding factor).

This is wholly a subjective issue of like or dislike that you are trying to bootstomp into a better vs. worse issue. The mods must be asleep on this one - but you really should stop already. You are coming off like a goon.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:

So enforce the stat minimums except when you don't bother to enforce them? From experience, selective enforcement of the same rule to your players never ends well.

Player 1: "Can I run a Dwarf Wizard?"
GM: "Sure, we can ignore the stat requirements for that"
Player 2: "Can I run a clumsy Human Wizard?"
GM: "No, Dex is a requirement and humans can meet it easily."

Now Player 2 is annoyed. You've reduced his fun.

No - you are not understanding what I was saying with the Dwarf Wizard

Player 1: "Can I run a Dwarf Wizard?"
GM: "Well, for my game Dwarf Wizard stat reqs are high so many choices are not practical, with the exception of Evoker, Conjurer and Transmuters"
Player 1:"So what are the stat miniumums"
GM: "Well, a Dwarven Evoker needs needs a Con of 12, Conjurer a Cha of 11 and a Transmuter a Str of 11 on top of having at least a 16 Int to start."
Player 1: "Oh, ok - let me see what I can work out (PB)/roll for my stats and I'll play around with them so I can make a Dwarven Transmuter."

Player 2 is in the background busy making a Universalist Human wizard that is slightly less restrictive in stat requirement but of course less specialized.

I never said drop requirements at random/on a whim.
What he can do is say he wants to run an old-school game with some exceptions. So he has the stat requirement for human paladins but maybe tweaks it for someone wanting to play an Elven paladin, etc. So he needs to put in that work.

In the end - the PB values are the same and add up the same - how stats are laid out in an array in his game vs. generic cookie-cutter PF characters in every other game is where the difference lies.

kestral287 wrote:
If they get fighty about their disagreement, like the OP came off as (to me at least), then they should realize the natural conclusion of these facts.

That may have happened when people (rynjin) basically said he was a bad person for posting his idea and it was stupid (because you know, he didn't like it). Or others saying he was a bad GM (Orfamy), last I checked the OP wasn't attacking anyone. Everyone else pretty much wolf-packed the guy with their best argument being "but it's unfun to me".

- And Ninja'd (with no stat min requirements) by Torger on the last point

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
That said, let's ask you the same thing the OP was asked: how does this make Pathfinder more fun to play?

If it makes him happy, then it makes Pathfinder more fun for him to play. And that's the only answer that matters.

Damn the people on the internets and what they think. Who cares?

As far as PB and arrays are concerned I never said 15/15/17 array. I said bump some of the lower ones to a higher stat requirements. An 11/11/17 costs 15 points. The numbers are dependent on his PB allotment. 15 point standard - then the high stat should be 15. More PB, then he can tweak the numbers.

Also - he could make allowances/required stats if the player plays a specific kind of Dwarven Wizard - maybe lowering the threshold for thematic options like Dwarven Evokers, Conjurers and Transmuters. Its all very workable depending on what he wants (what classes are more common, and which ones are rare).

But again, that's why I said he should probably discard PB since it doesn't support the system well.

This rage though needs to end.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
It's all mechanics.
And the point you are missing is that he doesn't want that kind of game - at least one that places heavy emphasis on exploiting the skill system to negate penalties from optimized stat buys. Not everyone is into that.

That has nothing to do with how cool the characters are.

What games do you play where the wizards wear heavy armor and doesn't prepare spells? Of course players play to their strengths and do not play to their penalties.

Thank you for proving my point of "not getting it".

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
It's all mechanics.

And the point you are missing is that he doesn't want that kind of game - at least one that places heavy emphasis on exploiting the skill system to negate penalties from optimized stat buys. Not everyone is into that.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Christmas Tree effect has been part of the game for a long, long time - just look at the 1E and 2E monsters that were outright immune to weapons under a certain +.

The scaling was slower, but it was still there.

Disagree wholeheartedly.

There are worlds of difference between needing a +1 or +2 to hit a creature vs. the big-six level assumed: Required Stats (items), Required Save Bonuses (Cloaks), Required Natural Armor Bonuses, Required Deflection Bonuses (Rings), Required Weapon, Required Armor.

I'm just not seeing the close similarity or "its always been there". Just not true.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MAJT69 wrote:
Here, I want to ask about the ‘Christmas Tree Syndrome’. One of the things that turned many of us off 3rd edition was the laundry-lists of magic items,

This has not been addressed in PF nor will it get addressed in the future. The core PF game has several built-in mathematical assumptions that makes the Xmass tree part of the game unless you revise it on your own - which is a product supplement/rules re-write all on its own (new bestiary also).

MAJT69 wrote:
Pathfinder has loads of 'extras', but the players concerns are that any 3rd edition style game is literally unplayable unless the characters are completely optimised, that it's irredeemably broken unless it spends every last gp on the correct combat items for its wealth-by-level.

Those loads of "extras" are a mini-game. If your players are the type who like to optimize and see CharGen as a separate challenge in then PF is a good option for your group. If you actually want to focus less on CharOp and more on playing (Combat, exploring, RP) then you are better off at sticking with 5e or going with an older system, non-3rd ed based game system.

PF rewards system mastery - and you can do things "wrong". Older systems give less options and CharGen, or those features are not as relevant to actual play - and thus greater focus is on actual game play and not character building.

My advice to would be to stick with 5e.

I would look into buying and converting as much 1e and 2e material they have online for 5e content and go with that game system instead. Even converting some 3rd ed stuff for 5e - I've eyeballed it and it doesn't look too hard to do - though tbh I haven't actually tried yet.

A "well supported system" does not always equal good. Or at least good for you and what you and your group are looking for. PF is great system for most of those who loved 3.5 - if you had problems with that system then no amount of book support or adventures is going to make it different with PF. In fact, it may just frustrate you more.

I don't have anything invested in this race - I run a modified 1e/2e game when I do run AD&D, so no 5e for me.
I gave up on PF after years of frustration and basically realizing that the work/effort to get the game I wanted out of that system was not paying off vs. the time and energy invested.
In my case - more money spent on the system was not a good investment.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people backing this - sight unseen as a KS project is a tough prospect. My suggestions to you would be to:

- Get a website for the game going
- Host a very basic write-up of what you are trying to do, either a stripped down to the bones version of the game or maybe the 1st and 2nd levels of play. List some sample encounters.
- Will the bestiary need a re-write?
- Link a dev blog and get some feedback/following going. People need to see your competency level and they need to see that you are sincere.

If this is going to be an efile than some of the KS logistics are not so hard to work out - though commissioning art and paying for it are a point of concern. Do you have other people to help you with proofing, layout and editing or is this a one-person show?

Will the book be in print (after the KS as part of a fulfillment)? Do you have prices quoted based off of color, cover, shipping, etc.

I might back a project like this if it had some momentum and history behind it - without knowing who you are and having a sample of your work I would have to say no.

Many KS have failed, even with skilled writers behind them. In many cases it's just not managing the money or pacing of the project, in others its just logistics (can't afford to ship for free after all). Many do a one-man show and encounter rl problems.

My simple advice to you - you need to set up a network, put something out there and develop a following.


Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chyrone wrote:
Auxmaulos, which punkrock band would that be?

I was (still am I suppose) heavily into early 80's hardcore punk - Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Fear, Misfits, Social Distortion- but going into the late 80s and early 90s (before the Green Day pop-punk revival) the bands that were big in So Cal and were still playing gigs: DI, Adolescents, Angry Samoans, TSOL, MDC, Agent Orange, Youth Brigade.

I suppose I was lucky that many of the bands I like were actually in So Cal and played on for many years after punk died out (for me - I would say it peaked in 82-83). There still was a vibrant underground scene in LA going into the 90's - but most shows stopped midway due to fights, riots, stormtroopers/wp skins, etc. Still - good times.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mix tapes and Micronauts (70's cross-over to early 80's). Atari 2600.

Also - I miss thinking that the D&D box sets came with the monster figures inside.

Grenadier and Ral Partha minis, Grenadier box set art - I could never afford all of them as a little kid - just got the Dwellers Below and Denizens and I cherished both those sets.

I miss playing D&D or Gamma World with my friends on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. I miss gamming on summer days when school was out. It was a colossal waste of time - wouldn't trade it for anything. Just wish we actually played more

cap yesterday - I think that game was called Splatterhouse.

I miss Saturday afternoons in dark arcades
- Q-bert
- Akari Warriors
- Dig-dug
- Life force

and too many others to name...

Not related to tech or games but...
I miss punk rock and oi and going to those shows not knowing how the night would end (cops, emergency room, fights and other good things).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:

I am interested in non-combat encounters with opportunities to trade goods or intel, get clues about lairs and dungeon locations, or especially link back to NPC's in Bard's Gate for example. I know there is stuff on the tables that can serve this purpose but I want to get more specific with it.

When I do my re-writes for the tables, I will probably list "NPC" encounter as a 50/50 in the range where I have the Omen/Portent entry.

There might be some Bards gate or other Lost Lands references/tie-ins - but I will probably keep it local. If I seed too much stuff to a remote area, my players will bite and leave the adventure area! But I do plan on tying in more leads - the frog cultists (human or otherwise) would have some clues and items tied to the Cloister - for example.

The NPCs will be drawn from a pool already provide with a few new ones thrown in. The idea would be for them to be a source of replacement npcs, info and lead-ins to small side missions. And of course, some will have their own motivations, backgrounds and agendas.

Focus for me on this side project was to have a series of low-level encounters that are thematic to the region.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
It opened for me right in google docs Aux. Love it.

Needs some corrections and a slight re-write (typos and sentence structure).

Going to reformat this and my other tables before I send them out.

If anyone is interested, here are some ideas/previews from the the low-level encounter list heading to area 1, with some foreshadowing to turn back unless you are ...."this level".

Unholy War!:
Boggards vs. Tsathar - yes, I run both similar creatures in my world as genetic variants off of a progenitor frog race. And of course these demon worshiping savages hate each other. So plenty of mixed combat encounters as the brutes fight and all out war for the attention of the Herald of the Frog God (the Frogemoth). May even sneak in a low CR demon or two on the re-write.

Death Pilgrimage:
Diseased and dying cultist from the Cloister march to offer themselves to Frog God of the swamp as living sacrifices. Of course, these suicidal loons would love to sacrifice themselves stopping interlopers who trespass on the Herald's unholy land.

Only the Strong Survive:
Multiple write of up cannibalistic Frogemoth Tadpoles! Favorite prey - each other, after that - anything else alive. Of course the Frogemoth hunts these, so an encounter with a Phase II or III tadpole means the mutant monstrosity may not be far behind.

Plus swamp mutations, reject inbred cultist and degenerate brigands. Table dangers and mutations get progressively worse as the players move closer to the source of genetic corruption.

Oh yes, thank you Grimmy. If anyone has an idea or request for a detailed encounter table, let me know here or PM me.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to post this here since people are having trouble opening the file I sent out. For those who got the file, use this one instead (or I can send out a proper updated file). Changed the die range on main table to reflect Omens occurring at night (instead 1d10 range to now using a d20 for main table).

The intent of this specific table to cover the Zelkor Ferry area immediate environs and around 15-20 miles out.

I have a separate table for those crossing the river and heading NE and yet another table for those heading E or SE. All in the same vein - lower level encounters (1st -3rd level) with increased risk for traveling further out or at night, eventually transitioning to the full (and lethal) wandering encounter tables listed in RA .

Forgive the format - this was originally set up with the charts being in word doc table format.

Let me know what you think (feedback is always appreciated) or if something needs to be addressed.


Zelkor’s Ferry (Western Environs)

Check for encounters at 4 a.m. (just before dawn), 9 a.m., and noon, dusk, 9 p.m., and midnight. Encounters occur on a roll of 1 on 1d10
If an encounter is indicated, roll 1d20 using the table below.

1d20 +4 if the encounter occurs at night, +2 if more than 10 miles away from Zelkor’s Ferry

Roll Encounter
1-7 Omen/Portent
8 Foot Patrol (8 footmen, 1 knight)
9 Bandit Scouting Party (1d6, if 1 then Bandit Spy instead)
10 Brigand Scouting Party (1d4+4 Brigands)
11 – 12 Animal Encounter (see subtable)
13 Centipedes, Giant (1d3+2) or Hunting Spiders, Giant (1d3)
14 Re-roll twice, combined encounter
15 Kobold Patrol (returning to the Mouth of Doom) (1d4+3, plus 2 dire rat pets)
16 Goblin Patrol (heading to Area 29, Castle Calaelen) (1d4+2)
17 Gnoll Patrol (Pair, plus 1 hyena)
18 Skeletons (Human Skeletons, 1d3+4 – West to East – towards the Mouth of Doom)
19 Zombies (Human Zombies, 1d3+2 – West to East – towards the Mouth of Doom)
20 Pit Dead (1d3 Pit Dead, See Description)
21+ Pit Dead and Champion (See Description)

Animal Encounter Sub Table
1d10 +4 if the encounter occurs at night +2 if more than 10 miles away from Zelkor’s Ferry
Roll Encounter
1-7 Game animals, Small (rabbit, squirrel, small birds)
8-9 Game animals, Large (Deer)
10 Panther (Solitary)
11 Wolf, Pack (mated pair and 2 young)
12 Worg (1d2)
13 Bear, Black (Solitary)
14+ Bear, Grizzly (Solitary)

These are regional foreshadowing events that can also be used to help set the pace of aid in setting the mood. If a fixed event, the players can use them as a marker on their map. Roll or pick what would be appropriate based on the location this occurs when this encounter is rolled. Each of these should generally occur one.
1- Cairn Mound – dug up, with splattered and dried blood.
2- Broken Two Handed Sword, sticking out of the ground
3- Tree with gouges and large scratches
4- Huge swath of recently burned land, indications of a large flash or gout of fire
5- Human body, dead for a few days but badly mutilated by a small edged weapon
6- Arrow stuck in tree, goblinoid make.
7- Smoke in the distance leads to a hastily left camp. 10-20gp worth of food and adventuring gear. Tracks may lead to another encounter or are lost at a deadfall or stream.
8 – Fallen Idol – A titled, 8 foot tall crumbling demonic idol is found. At its base are some gobs of wax and melted candles, and bits of bone (unidentifiable).

Foot Patrol:
Patrols consist of 8 footmen and a knight. The knight rides a warhorse, and the footmen walk. They do not travel at night and an encounter with them at that time will have them camped. The further out from Zelkor’s Ferry, the more nervous they are. They will welcome other travelers with caution – parties that look like they are comprised of brigands will be attacked. If players spend time with them roll one rumor on the Zelkor’s Ferry rumor table and one from the Rappan Athuk table.

XP 400
Male human fighter 2
LN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Perception +4
AC 15, touch 11, flat-footed 14 (+3 armor, +1 Dex, +1 shield)
hp 19 (2d10+2 plus 2)
Fort +4; Ref +1; Will +0 (+1 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities bravery +1
Speed 30 ft.
Melee longspear +4 (1d8+1/x3), or longsword +3 (1d8+1/19–20)
Ranged light crossbow +3 (1d8/19–20)
Space 5 ft.; Reach 5 ft. (10 ft. with longspear)
Str 12, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +2; CMB +3; CMD 14
Feats Improved Initiative, Quick-Draw, Run, Weapon Focus (longspear)
Skills Intimidate +5, Perception +4, Sense Motive +2
Languages Common
Gear studded leather armor, buckler, longspear, longsword, light crossbow, 20 bolts, 2d12 gp.

XP 800
Male or female human fighter 4
LN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +6; Perception +5
AC 20, touch 12, flat-footed 18 (+6 armor, +2 Dex, +2 shield)
hp 34 (4d10+8 plus 4)
Fort +6; Ref +3; Will +2 (+3 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities bravery +1
Speed 20 ft. (base 30 ft.)
Melee lance +8 (1d8+3/x3), or longsword +8 (1d8+3/19–20)
Space 5 ft., Reach 5 ft. (10 ft. with lance)
Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +4; CMB +7; CMD 19
Feats Improved Initiative, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Weapon Focus (lance), Weapon Focus
Skills Handle Animal +8, Perception +5, Ride +10
Languages Common
SQ armor training 1
Gear chainmail, heavy wood shield, lance, longsword, 2d10 gp, 40+2d10 sp.

XP 600
N Large animal
Init +4; Senses low-light vision; Perception +8
AC 18, touch 13, flat-footed 14 (+3 armor, +4 Dex, +2 natural, –1 size)
hp 24 (2d8+10)
Fort +8; Ref +7; Will +3
Speed 50 ft.
Melee 2 hooves +6 (1d4+5)
Space 10 ft., Reach 5 ft.
Str 20, Dex 18, Con 21, Int 2, Wis 17, Cha 11
Base Atk +1; CMB +7; CMD 21 (25 vs. trip)
Feats Endurance, RunB
Skills Perception +8
Gear studded leather barding, saddle, saddlebags, bedroll and food for itself and its rider for one week.
Trained for Combat (Ex) The warhorse treats its hoof attacks as primary attacks. It knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel.

Bandit Scouting Party:
1d6 Bandit Scouts. This group is part of a large assembly of outlaws and bandits that reside in the environs near Zelkor’s Ferry and not associated with the Bandit gang based out of the Mouth of Doom.
The bandits will not attack the party unless they are evenly matched and only if they can set up an ambush first, otherwise they will do their best to evade by scattering and hiding in the woods.
If not initially detected, they will hide from the party and wait to attack when they are engaged in another encounter or camp for sleep – stealing unattended items while the party is engaged or sleeping. They will ask for surrender and will accept quarter from players, merely robbing them of most all of their worldly goods (not their armor or very heavy gear).
If one Bandit Scout is rolled, it is instead a Bandit Spy. This individual will try to pass themselves off as a lost adventurer, and will try to get as much information on the party as possible. After a day or two, they will leave the group – possibly with a few choice items.
A larger group of bandits may just end up tracking and attacking the party after a later time – ideally after they are leaving some ruins or a dungeon, spent and injured.
As larcenous as these bandits are, ultimately they are not evil. With the right party they may even become an allies, a source of information or even a method to replace lost PCs.

XP 200
Human rogue 1
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +7; Senses Perception +3
AC 16, touch 13, flat-footed 13 (+3 armor, +3 Dex)
hp 10 (1d8+2)
Fort+ 1, Ref +5, Will-1
Speed 30 ft.
Melee short sword +3 (1d6+2/19-20)
Ranged dagger +3 (1d4+2/19-20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6
Str 14, Dex 17, Con 13, lnt 10, Wis 8, Cha 12
Base Atk +0; CMB +2; CMD 15
Feats Improved Initiative, Weapon Finesse
Skills Acrobatics +7, Climb +6, Disable Device +7, Escape Artist +7, Knowledge (local) +4, Perception + 3, Sleight of Hand + 7,
Stealth +7, Swim +6
Languages Common
SQ trapfinding + 1
Combat Gear, acid (2), smokestick, tanglefoot bag;
Other Gear masterwork studded leather, daggers (5), shortsword, thieves' tools, 25 gp

XP 800
Human rogue 4
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +7; Senses Perception +3
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 14 (+3 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 21 (4d8)
Fort+ 1, Ref +6, Will +2
Defensive Abilities evasion, trap sense + 1, uncanny dodge
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mwk rapier +3 (1d6-1/18-20)
Ranged mwk light crossbow +6 (1d8/19-20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +2d6
Rogue Spell-Like Abilities (CL 4th, concentration +5)
2/day-disguise self
Str 8, Dex 14, Con 10, lnt 13, Wis 12, Cha 18
Base Atk +3; CMB +2; CMD 14
Feats Combat Expertise, Deceitful, Improved Feint
Skills Bluff +13, Diplomacy +11, Disable Device +9, Disguise +13, Heal +3, Knowledge (local) +8, Perception +8, Perform (sing) +9, Sense Motive +8, Sleight of Hand +9, Stealth +9, Use Magic Device +11
Languages Common, Elven
SQ rogue talents (major magic, minor magic), trapfinding +2
Combat Gear potion of cure moderate wounds, scroll of burning hands, scroll of cure light wounds, scroll of magic missile, alchemist's fire (2), holy water, thunderstone;
Other Gear Masterwork studded leather, masterwork light crossbow with 10 bolts, masterwork rapier, disguise kit, everburning torch, healer's kit, thieves' tools, wizard's spellbook, wooden holy symbol, 140 gp

Brigand Scouting Party:
1d4+4 Brigands. Unlike the Bandit Scouting Party or Bandit Spy, this group is out for blood. The group is comprised of savage tribal humans who are native the Forest of Hope. They will attack if they have numbers matching or greater than the number of party members. If they hold back, they will stalk the party for as long as they are in the wilderness and will strike at the most opportune moment. They are a merciless and bloodthirsty lot demon worshiping warriors, and even the local humanoids know its better to just avoid these lunatics and to go after easier prey.

XP 400
human fighter 2
CE Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Perception +4
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 14 (+4 armor, +1 Dex, +1 dodge, +2 shield)
hp 16 (2d10+2 plus 2)
Fort +4; Ref +1; Will +0 (+1 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities bravery +1
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mwk long sword +6 (1d8+2/19-20)
Ranged throwing axe +3 (1d6+2/x2)
Space 5 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Str 15, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +2; CMB +4; CMD 15
Feats Alertness, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus (long sword)
Skills Handle Animal +4, Intimidate +4, Perception +4, Sense Motive +2
Languages Common
Gear hide armor, heavy wooden shield, masterwork long sword, x3 throwing axes

Animal Encounter:
This is a good opportunity for the GM to present a false encounter to the party. Most all the encounters can be mitigated by a skillful ranger or druid (and serve as a source of RP or even information), though any encounter that indicates Worgs would be guaranteed to end in combat, as these creatures serve the goblins which are based out of the Mouth of Madness.

Centipedes, Giant or Hunting Spiders, Giant :
1d3+2 Giant Centipedes or 1d3 Giant Hunting Spiders. The centipedes are creatures are ravenous and will swarm largest target in the party (mounts included). The spiders are of the hunting variety, and will drop from trees onto the players from above.

Re-roll twice, combined encounter:
Re-roll twice and combine both encounters into one. This can be the party coming into contact with two other groups of creatures already engaged in combat, or the party spying a deer or other normal creature only to glimpse a Goblin or Gnoll in the process of stalking it. If an Omen/Portent is indicated, the encounter happens at and around the area of the – possibly while the party is examining some other strange phenomenon.

Kobold Patrol:
1d4+3 Kobolds, plus 2 dire rat pets. These Kobolds are on their way to the Mouth of Doom, and if followed undetected they will lead a party to that locale. If undetected, they will only attack a party if they are small in number or already injured.

Goblin Patrol:
1d4+2 Goblins. This group of goblins part of tribe associated with the one residing in Castle Calaelen and are heading to that location to share in strength and benefits of Jedra’s newly found base. They know she likes dead things so they have with them bloody sacks which contain a disassembled human body. One of the sacks (which holds two arms), has a gold ring that the goblins failed to notice. It has a small garnet and is worth 50gp. If this group is detected and avoided by the party, add their numbers as reinforcements to those located in Castle Calaelen.

Gnoll Patrol:
Pair, plus 1 hyena. These two are a mated pair who are looking for easy prey to ambush with the intent to kill or capture. Captured PCs are taken back to the Gnoll lair where there are subsequently beaten for a time then sold off to the people of the Ferry. They are based out of Location 6 near Zelkor’s Ferry and if they detect the party and within a few miles of their base, they will head back and return to engage the PCs. Use normal standard stats with the change to skills being Perception +1 and Stealth +1

Human Skeletons, 1d3+4. These shambling dead are more than a few centuries old. They travel from the Charnel Pits in the west towards the Mouth of Doom in east in single-minded, undead fashion. They will attack any living creature that gets in their way – but if a group were to break off combat they would not pursue them unless they remained in their path towards their objective – the Mouth of Doom.

Human Zombies, 1d3+2. These are more recent converts of the Charnel Pits but they follow the same path and behavior as their skeletal brothers who march to the Mouth of Doom.

Charnel Pits/Pit Dead:
A little over 20 miles west of Zelkor’s Ferry, deep in the western reaches of the Forest of Hope is an area that does not have a name and is not widely know in rumor or legend associated with Rappan Athuk. If it did have a name it would be called the Charnel Pits.
Shortly after the army of light laid siege to RA, a middle powered priest of Orcus fled with a few of his men, servants and other refugees from temple complex. Many of those that fled were low-level functionaries within the cult who paid the priest and his men all that they had in gold and rare gems to provide safe passage from the area. Twenty miles west of the Temple complex, the grim realization began to sink in that RA was finished, and fleeing with a large group of cultist in tow would be an impossibility. So one evening instead of the large group fleeing, they stopped in the woods with the priest and his men had instructed the other survivors to begin the construction of prject consisting of digging large pits, 20 feet wide and two to three times that deep. With the aid of summoned demons working along human hands and guidance, this work was completed in short order. The survivors assumed that the priest was laying down an elaborate trap for any of the forces who would come to pursue them – and they were right in a sense.
Letting the cultist bottom tier go was also an impossibility, for it would be guaranteed that they would eventually be picked up and it would be a matter of time before names and descriptions were given, last seen direction, etc. The priest and his lackeys knew that this couldn't happen. On one moonless night, while work was underway he instructed his men to pull ropes and ladders to the pits. He then ordered his men to execute all those he considered expendable and thrown in the pits. The remaining trapped workers faced a slow death by rain of crossbow bolts. The priest then hid some of their heavier treasures in bottom of these pits, took off their tabards, discarded their holy symbols and uniforms and scattered to the four winds, spreading their vile belief throughout other lands while constantly evading justice and looking over their shoulders.
But the dead do not rest easy in the Forest of Hope. Some time after the massacre, many of those murdered arose as undead creatures – being trapped they used their remaining tools to dig warrens and connecting tunnels from pit to pit. Over time they would leave these pits to hunt the living, to slay them and to return them to their home. Now when a creature is slain in the Charnel Pits or a dead body is placed there for some time, it arises as an undead creature. The Pit Dead do not control nor do they care about these other undead. The undead that do arise, eventually crawl out of the pit and make their way to the Mouth of Doom, the Tunnels of Terror or even to Rappan Athuk. The Charnel Pits area is bereft of natural life within a 2 mile radius of their location (Perception checks or obvious to a Ranger or Druid). The Pit Dead hate all living things, but above all they hate anything associated with the faith of Orcus and they will attack any priest of that temple in deference to other targets.

Pit Dead: 1d3 Pit Dead (see below). These fiends will their skill to ambush and sneak attack their prey. Any creatures killed are returned to the Pits before dawn. If a double encounter is indicated with these creatures, consider all the Pit Dead to be hiding and preparing and positioning to attack at the most opportune moment. These creatures stick to the shadows and stay in the forest if this encounter occurs during the day.

Pit Dead and Champion: 1d2 Pit Dead plus Pit Dead Champion (see below). This particular Pit Dead arose from a guard or low-level soldier/man-at-arms who served the cult.
The Pit Dead Champion will position any Pit Dead it has with it to sneak attack and flank its target. These creatures attack with unbridled fury and hatred and will only break off pursuit if dawn is close at hand. If a double encounter is indicated with these creatures, consider all the Pit Dead (and champion) to be hiding and preparing and positioning to attack at the most opportune moment. These creatures stick to the shadows and stay in the forest if this encounter occurs during the day.

XP 400
Human juju zombie rogue 1
NE Medium undead (augmented human)
Init +4; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +6
AC 18, touch 15, flat-footed 13 (+4 Dex, +1 dodge, +3 natural)
hp 9 (1d8+3)
Fort +0, Ref +6, Will +1
Defensive Abilities channel resistance +4;
DR 5/magic and slashing; Immune cold, electricity, magic missile, undead traits; Resist fire 10
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +5 (1d6+4/19–20) or slam +4 (1d6+6)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6
Str 18, Dex 19, Con —, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10
Base Atk +0; CMB +4; CMD 18
Feats Dodge, Toughness(B), Weapon Finesse
Skills Acrobatics +7, Climb +15, Disable Device +7, Intimidate +4, Perception +5, Sleight of Hand +8, Stealth +8, Survival +3, Swim +8, Use Magic Device +4; Racial Modifiers +8 Climb
Languages Common
SQ trapfinding +1
Treasure NPC gear (masterwork short sword, other treasure)

XP 800
Human juju zombie fighter 2
NE Medium undead (augmented human)
Init +4; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +6
AC 18, touch 15, flat-footed 13 (+4 Dex, +1 dodge, +3 natural)
hp 14 (2d10+3)
Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +1
Defensive Abilities channel resistance +4;
DR 5/magic and slashing; Immune cold, electricity, magic missile, undead traits; Resist fire 10
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mwk long sword +8 (1d8+4/19–20) or slam +6 (1d6+6)
Special Attacks
Str 18, Dex 19, Con —, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10
Base Atk +2; CMB +6; CMD 20
Feats Dodge, Power Attack (B), Toughness (B), Weapon Focus (Short Sword)
Skills Climb +14, Intimidate +4, Ride +8, Swim +8
Racial Modifiers +8 Climb
Languages Common
SQ bravery +1
Treasure NPC gear (masterwork long sword, other treasure)

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hoover, my plan was to have them get there by boat or directly overland West of Zelkor's Ferry (from the Free City of Carterscroft - on the Sinnar Coast map) .

On the issue of low-level gaming in RA..

If anyone is interested, I have been working on an expanded low-level detailed encounter tables for the Ferry area and a few areas beyond. The idea would be to reduce the "wander and die", with some omens, warnings and portents, low-level version of high level encounters...with an effort of effectively creating a low level "zone" near the Ferry, and gradually getting more difficult as you move away from that low level/civilized area.

I am a strong advocate of "wander and die" philosophy (coming from a Gamma World background) so this really is just a small buffer zone with level appropriate encounters. Persistent players who don't get the hint as they travel further out (based on increased encounter difficulty) will still wander and die. PM for anyone interested here

RA GMs only:
Expanded low-level encounter zones:
Area 1 (Frogemoth)
Area 4 (Trollmound)
Area 5 (Truane & Trolls)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:
I never played 2E can someone tell me what differences there are between 1E and 2E besides the addition of character customization via kits? Houstonderek mentioned the "power curve" of 2E, is that in any way different from 1E?

Not sure if this is what HD is talking about, but late edition 1e and all of 2e had characters that are more powerful than they were in 1e core. This is primarily due to weapon proficiencies (late 1e) to kits in 2e.

The raw mechanical power increase was the weapon proficiencies and specialization - which is considerable. But this started with the original Unearthed Arcana (1e, late cycle).

Beyond that, the kits and few other customization options were just that - fluff with some supporting mechanics. There were a few things that slipped in that were broken, but for the most part 2e just added more mechanical details to characters that were not mapped in 1e.

So in 1e, you were a Thief who was more of a thug or brute you just stated so, with the DM in agreement ("this is how I more picture my guy" conversation). In 2e they had a kit for it with some supporting mechanics. Nothing on par with the splat releases power creep of 3.X and 3.X based games.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
then I realized that life is too short and I dumped PF altogether.
Out of curiosity, what are you playing now?

Working on beta testing a heavily revised 3rd ed Gamma World game (cir 1985-86). Most of Chargen is finished (races, training, occupations, edges and drawbacks), Combat system is done, now running an adventure where we are developing and testing a revised mutation system (which is an aspect of mutant humans and animals - so still part of Chargen). A bit too much on the plate for me right now -still need to write up a few hundred individual mutations (with player help and testing) format the new rules AND write and run an entertaining module to actually test the rules in.

So I have some down time from that system - when I basically am in heavy writing mode where we fall back to 2nd ed AD&D (with some revisions and takeaways from 3.x/PF - very few). I may run a 7th ed Call of Cthulhu or another Chill game (which requires too much research, so probably not that).


There were many things that attracted me to 3.X - as a DM: modular monster stats, templates - everything from the creature side. The game from a player side - skill system, spells, +X trumps class or specialization - makes the game pretty much impossible to revise since these are core considerations. This is also ingrained into the spell system and as such the magic item system (which are just spells in items).

All that being said I would say that the +X is the biggest contributor to the "life is too short" comment. This is me being very literal and exact - mid to high level combats took several minutes for the players to prepare - let alone run (hours). Ticking down multiple bonuses that stack - just too much work for too little a payoff.

Anyway - you already know all the complaints Kirth, just stating them again for those who may not.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Scholz wrote:

Police Dispatcher: Use of unnecessary violence in the apprehension of *** HAS been approved.

The Blues Brothers

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Creighton Broadhurst wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions chaps. I've been considering old school play/feel more and more as I plot my megadungeon.

In case you didn't know I was writing one, here's the link for more information. I'd love to get your thoughts on it, although I've only just started there should be enough info there to give you a good feel for the place.

Wow, just found a new website to add to my favorites - some great posts in there, need to do some reading.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would it be possible (and not sure if this is the right place) to set up some kind of notification system when an item is available for order? Be it a subscription item that can start a new sub or a backorder item?

I did a search of this subforum and most of the notification requests are threat/reply related. I am looking for a system to place an item on watch - be it in a sub, backorder, pre-order and then getting either an email or message board notification at the earliest point it becomes available (as sub or if the item is in warehouse/inventory).

For example - I am currently subscribing to Iron Gods AP but not the Campaign line - I want the map folio for this series which happens to be in the Campaign line and will be available in a few months. It would be nice to get a notice to "start with" for subscription when this becomes available instead of having to spot check upcoming items I am interested in without the need for checking each line.

Thank you for your time.


Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Seriously, can you picture any king's court where divination magic was allowed to work on his courtiers, and enchantment magic allowed to seize the thoughts of a realm's rulers? It makes no sense whatsoever.

People may not agree with your specific fixes (aka -everyone's a critic) but the philosophy driving your fixes should have been built into the game once it started to transcend the dungeon - i.e. 1st edition.

2nd edition - the system should have started to address this - again, I can chalk some of that up to the year and the state of RPG gaming.
3rd ed and on - it's unforgivable.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.

Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.
Except that with posters like thejeff, bignorsewolf, and now, apparently, you Kryzbyn, Paizo is not conservative friendly. At. All. The staff is not conservative friendly, and neither are the majority of the posters.

Well, you know (as do I), so I guess the point for you would be - should you bother posting an opposing political view or leave it as is/take your business elsewhere?

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
But that's what most of us who oppose "low magic Pathfinder" have been saying

So why are you even here? This thread is called "Why low magic?" Why are you here complaining, acting defensive, and lashing out at people who describe their own personal playstyle to you?

Better yet, let me put you at ease. I promise you that no Paizo employee is going to read this thread and say, "Great idea, let's immediately recall all Pathfinder products and rewrite the entire game system to be low magic so we can force it on everyone!"

If low magic isn't your thing, good for you. Move on. Hey, why not start another thread about high magic campaigns? There's really no point to you even being here if all you're going to do is insult people by insinuating they're bad DMs or try to belittle their opinions.

Because he is part of a crowd that dislikes the concept of low-magic games existing or being considered in the gaming multi-verse.

Doesn't matter if it's PF, a conversion/modification of PF or a system designed from the ground up with the intent of lower magic or player power (as he has stated often) - he just doesn't like the concept and will frame any arguments around this as if his opinion and personal likes are facts.

As to involvement in this thread? Well, he thinks he knows better and it's the internets.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:
I'll be honest, my most frequent disagreement with some of the Old School movement (although not everyone projects this) is the revisionist notion that there was a one true way it used to be done, instead of simply one style of many which lost and gained favor over the years.

Which is both ironic and funny considering the number of posters in this thread saying that unless the players get 100% of what they want (re-skinned or not) the GM is doing it wrong.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
As is, I suppose most of the thread can be summed up as: "We can't stand the gamers that disrupt the game in various ways!" with extra sprinkles.

I think this thread is better summed up as: We can't stand other gamers.

That's how it's looking at least.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like big villains as well as memorable henchmen. These may not be the best quotes, but I feel they are quotes that summarize the characters the best (brutal, crazy or even just creative and wily):

"We do it my way. Fear is our ally. The gasoline will be ours. Then you shall have your revenge." -The Lord Humungous

"Und zis is how ve zay goodbye in Germany, Dr. Jones." -Colonel Vogel (summation of the brutal mindset of all the cartoon Nazi's in the Indiana Jones series)

Hans: "The following people are to be released from their captors: In Northern Ireland, the seven members of the New Provo Front. In Canada, the five imprisoned leaders of Liberte de Quebec. In Sri Lanka, the nine members of the Asian Dawn movement... "
Karl: [mouthing silently] "Asian Dawn?"
Hans: [covers the radio] "I read about them in Time magazine."

-Hans Gruber (played by Alan Rickman, didn't end up getting the cash but he stole the movie).

"Wendy, I'm home." - Jack Torrance

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:
This, however, is flat out wrong. Tuco is not a villain, neither wholly unsympathetic...HOWEVER being partially sympathetic does not make a character neutral. You do not get to ignore the deeds he commits off screen. His particulars include murder and rape, according to the judge in one scene. On screen, Tuco cavalierly commits blatant armed robbery (of a gun, no less) and attempts murder. He takes what he wants and exhibits little remorse when his own confederates are killed. These are not traits in keeping with neutrality.

Yeah, it takes a pretty warped perception of the alignment system to consider Tuco anything other than a wonderfully done chaotic evil. He commits many terrible acts without doing anything one could hold up as a good act to counterbalance them. He isn't maniacal or insane, but he is definitely selfish and destructive above all else, and he is definitely chaotic. The OP should really watch the film; it is fantastic for a lot of reasons.

To be honest, Blondie shouldn't be classified as a good character, either. He, not Tuco, is actually an excellent depiction of chaotic neutral.

And this is where both of you are wrong.

While Tuco commits crime (yes, he's a criminal) that doesn't necessarily make him evil.

All those charges railed against him could have been that - charges, and they are off screen so we don't know exactly what happened.
He may have duped and bedded those women (as implied by his "many wives") and those many charges could have been leveled against him by the locals who just hated him as revenge. Not saying he wasn't a scumbag - just not an evil scumbag.

Both of you need to re-watch that movie and rank each characters behavior. All three are chaotic (outside society, breaking the law) - but only one in the movie murders - people in their bed, unarmed men, children. That's Angel Eyes - CE. His personal code is just that, personal. His rank in the army is just a tool to get what he wants (selfish, self serving).

Tuco killed people (all three did) - but he didn't kill anyone who: wasn't trying to kill or capture him, or did him wrong. He didn't kill the gun store owner after he robbed him - sure as hell Angel Eyes would have, without a second thought.

His back and forth with Blonde (desert torture,trying to hunt him down) all stem from revenge.

I just don't think (and this is where we can agree to disagree) that stealing is evil. It is anti-social, chaotic and somewhat destructive behavior. Just not evil. Tuco didn't put a pillow over a guys face and put 4 into his bosses head, that was Angel Eyes. Tuco didn't wipe out a family, that was Angel Eyes. Tuco's crime was that he was a scumbag, survive at any cost kind of guy.

I have no doubt that Angel Eyes would have killed anyone he worked with after getting the gold. Tuco'c confederates were actually his old gang (deleted scene) and I don't think he would have executed them after getting Blonde or the gold. Just two different and distinct working MOs. Angel Eyes was CE, Tuco was CN and Blonde was CG (still a criminal, just not as destructive and not a murderer).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hudax wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
(like, RAW can my character breath--I'm not making it up).
Oh man that's funny. Did someone counter with "RAW doesn't say you have to breath!"?
That response seemed obvious. What is scary is how much debate and how many pages those posts go on for. I honestly can't tell who is serious and who is trolling and who is laughing. It's way too trippy for me.

Bah. I've seen comparable threads here

"Is breathing evil?"

More importantly - "if a Paladin takes a breath, does he fall"?

1 to 50 of 391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.