|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Some parents wouldn't let their kids hang with you, churches used to have guest preachers cone and tell stories of the evils of dungeons and dragons. I've personally seen a guy misquote ozzy lyrics and say the greatful dead had no rhythm to a congregation of snickering people.
Been banned from camps after volunteering to go as a guide because of my open defense of the game.
Had one mother tell her son he couldnt be my friend because of an ozzy patch i had on the back of my jean jacket.
And ive been told i could not be a christian because i had long hair. By a preachers wife, in front of the rest of the youth group.
Good times. Really dislike baptists.
Sara Marie wrote:
Hence, the last sentence of my comment. I suspect the list of spells taught on a communal basis would be very small. Dancing lights would probably on the list though. Way too useful.
I would say, to the OP, no. Magic population is primarily based on the designers intent.
You could IMO easily justify a wider-spread use of cantrips anyway. One elder could teach generations of children through young adults enough basics of magic to have people coming of age with the ability to use the lowest level of magic, though, culturally, you have to look at a small number of spells that a community would teach everyone. Even then, id say a minority of people would have the ability and dedication to learn, depending on social pressure.
I have a world (non-golarion) where the population comes of age into a pc class and racial pressure to pursue a craft. After they "prove" themselves they don't have to pursue class levels but do to the hostile nature of the world they live in most have to fight for collective survival on multiple occasions.
Golarion just wasn't set up that way.
If you are motivated and inspired enough about it to feel bummed out, make a new world. That will give you an outlet. Instead of lamenting frequency focus on quality and depth.
Take the time to weave a web of adventure that snares the group tighter with each step they take without tripping them up.
Or make a true open world. The next time they play let them adventure to find adventure, or just enjoy the scenery. Make a secret cult that remains secret, with the players only catching on to suble manipulations, but not knowing who or why.
You could view the whole thing as an opportunity to put time into fleshing things out. Maybe, instead of running the game you can tell the story to your son and try to get him hooked, offer up only a little of the deepest and darkest at a time as he dms. He might change his mind about running games if you shift focus on 'running a game' to 'telling a cool story'.
Sounds like the lawful/chaotic aspect of alignment.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
It will work itself out quick enough, tbo.
No Xenomorphs from the Alien movies?
Cenobites a la Hellraiser HOWEVER, there's the plane of agony guys that I think were inspired by cenobites. Still, worth looking into some that the movie came up with, and searching around for some of the art Clive had to inspire him. Very different from book & movies.
C(k?)rites from Critters. Awesome swarm ability. Great one liners.
Man, sometimes I wish palladium would update their Nightbreed game to a lvl of Heroes Unlimited. Might check that one out for some inspiration.
Godzilla, cause he's more bad-ass than the Tarreque.
Bud the C.H.U.D., watch it when you are young and you will keep a respectful distance away from manhole covers.
One of my groups started an adventure traveling cross country, the group pooled money for rations.
Those with survival made daily checks, DC 10, as listed in the CRB, and supplemented rations to make up the difference. For your situation I'd still have them make a standard DC 10 check.
However, you said there's "limited food and water," but didn't mention a terrain. I'm just wondering how much of that assessment is fair to the situation. Are they in a desolate wasteland or desert? If not, the horses shouldn't be included as food dependent members of the party. There should be enough to graze regardless of season. Just look at the herds of caribou that get plenty to eat while traveling in huge groups.
Your reasoning never takes into account why she was there and what she was doing in the first place. She isn't arbitrarily going to kill the good guys, and their sitting around while a killer roams free make for more consideration for Samara than what i feel you are giving her.
Also, their reason for detaining her in the first place is more political than lawful or good.
Remember, Justicars don't kill innocent people casually. Samara allowed herself to be detained for 24 hours, but warned that if she isn't released by then, she'll have to kill anyone that stands in her way.
At the point where evil is allowed to succeed by the idle hands of the good, you have a hard time convincing me of their 'innocence.' I'm still pushing that Lawful Good be kept on the table, though, LN makes since to. Justicar law does seem more focused on righting wrongs, and protecting innocent then simple law for the sake of law.
And the person Samara was after was a sociopath who had murdered countless people.
I'm not buying evil as a quality of Samara. Gotta be twisting the situation.
Honestly, the only problem I see for you is finding a deity that would fit with the concept. Obviously, Asmodeus is the best fit, and he is LE. I can see Erastil as a strict god, supporting such a code, but it's focus would be shifted to nature, and there's loads of precedent in nature where animals back-down or die. Survival for the fittest. Still not LG.
From my experience in Mass effect I don't think Paladin would fit. For instance, the scene where the justicar threatens to kill the officer for interfering with her investigation isn't something I see a paladin doing. On a law level its a good match but the justicar doesn't seem to fit the good bit of being a paladin.
I could see it. Justicars are strictly lawful, but don't let things like politics, red-tape, etc. interfere in tracking down criminals, which she was. Justicar law, in the eyes of Justicars, supersede local law. In a sense, the officers was giving the criminal time to get away, thus, the Justicar, by her code, was justified in killing the officer, if that is what was necessary to continue pursuit.
It's a severe code, but it is definitely bent towards good, imo.
The other side of the coin is, if your DM allows this, keeping with the code is going to be just as severe in adherence, so do your character justice and take time to wrap your head around the concept.
Cool idea, Sir Dante.
Skills & Powers had a workable system that divided each attribute into two sub-scores. From the base score a player could personalize the sub-scores by lowering one of them to raise the other, up to two points for a four point spread.
That would be the best way to do it, imo. Simply adding a seventh "looks" attribute just gives cheese-heads another stat to dump.
*sigh* When did attributes get changed to abilites, anyway?
Considering that you are starting at lvl 3, I recommend that you check out the feat: Accursed Hex. That will let you grab cackle at lvl 2 without having to play through lvl 1 with out it.
Personally, I like misfortune over evil eye. Accursed hex helps it land, and if it lands, following hexes take four successes to resist.
Either way, Accursed Hex is my top recommendation.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
if physical looks and cosmetic attractiveness were based on Charisma; how do you explain the transition from Mammy Graul to a Nymph to Cthulhu? how do you explain the many quite unattractive historical dictators with a great aura of authority? how do you explain the concept of the cute but shy wallflower? it's not that were expecting to be so pretty as to make other people do stuff for us, an unrealistic perk of appearance. it's that we want more control over our appearance instead of "you must have X charisma score to have Y Physical Build."
It's not a matter of "if." Appearance is under Charisma. It's listed in the CRB under Charisma. I already stated in my first post there's no limit on how your character looks. I already stated high scores do not mean beauty or likeability. It doesn't matter if you are an ugly dictator or cute wallflower, your charisma mod is what it is; nymph or Graul.
You can go on all day providing examples of how charisma, and any other ability score, doesn't perfectly take into account the individual qualities it represents. Of course, it wouldn't, but it's been simplified down to one ability, charisma. You can homebrew/houserule it down all you like. Pathfinder doesn't make the distinction, though. If you dump charisma and have a negative mod, then anything your do regarding the qualities that charisma encompasses, you take that penalty.
Symbol of Mirroring, Secure Shelter, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles, Summon Monster, Stinking Cloud, Web, Haunting Mists. Those are just spells on your list, not including patron spells.
Hat of Disguise is super cheap. Get separated, obscuring mist, disguise, send people that run in the wrong direction.
Apperance and attractivness are related but not one in the same. If someone tried to dump Cha and make up for it by being beautiful it would be totally up to the NPC. If the NPC thinks they could gain favor by following through they will. If the NPC sees it for what it is they will.
There's a good reason for some confusion. Charisma specifically claims appearance. Older versions of D&D used low scores to represent the negative aspects of personality and appearance. It's not so, now. Charisma is a gauge of "how much" instead of pleasant/unpleasant and attractive/unattractive. If you play your character as snarky and unpleasant, that's fine. But if your charisma is low, you are bad at it, reflected by a negative modifier. If your charisma is high, you are good at it, reflected by a positive modifier.
High charisma doesn't presume niceness like it used to. That's why Cthulhu is rocking massive charisma; he's not inspiring lust or friendliness, but things are still in his favor socially because he is so terrifying, alien and his presence is so powerful.
All the other abilities will, for rp purposes, affect ones charisma and attractiveness; strength for physique, dexterity for graces, constitution for healthy glow or the opposite of that to any number of degrees. Int and wis for be knowlegable about topics and wisdom provides when to speak and what, of all the things to say would be choice. Charisma is the delivery, vocal and in manner.
As far as to what a character looks like, sure, however you want. Until you become attractive or ugly enough to affect the outcome of an exchange based on how you look. Then the actual charisma stat becomes relevant. If it never becomes an issue in game then there's no need to mess with it.
Just like any other ability, if the player wants their appearance to provide their character an advantage in game, they should have a character with an appropriate charisma. If you can't come to terms with using charisma incorporate comeliness.
All the games I have put out by Palladium has a physical beauty stat; Palladium RPG, RIFTS, Night Breed, Heroes Unlimited, etc.
All the games that use the WoD system have appearance; World of Darkness, Exalted, Scion, etc.
Scion used the appearance stat to represent how beautiful or hideous you were, so a 5 in appearance would be the limit of mortal beauty or ugliness. Then there was set of epic stats, but you didn't ask about that.
Shadowrun didn't, just charisma.
Been too long since I've played Battletech.
As far as using charisma; the stats specifically states that it doesn't represent physical attractiveness alone, but that doesn't mean players should be allowed to sidestep low scores.
Thanks for the poison list. Im away from my books atm.
As to the wood; i already see the rp logic behind them not using bows. Im looking at how drow would change based on the world (according to rule set changes) they exist in now.
A lot of things, like drow, got grandfathered into PF as badasses, but when you look at how things worked then and how they work now, wouldn't they do things differently. If there's no reason not to use composite longbows (for example) then why aren't they. Sure, wood. But there's already been precedents set for wood alternatives (not necessarily for PF) such as certain types of giant mushrooms. Besides i don't see that holding back a race like drow much.
If there are no rules for limiting the effectiveness of more powerful ranged weapons with greatly increased ranges, then I say drow would be all about longbows.
And tbo, this is just one aspect of the issue. Look at the whole situation and tell me what you would do, as a race like drow, in their environment that's different then what they do now - due to how the rules have changed since 1st/2nd Ed. preferably, but all opinions are welcome.
Just to be clear, I'm not looking for confirmation or opposion to anything in particular. Drow aren't a part of the game i'm gm'ing and to my knowledge to game i'm playing in. This is just something I like to discuss with you all.
Are there any rule supporting a disadvantage to bows in subterranean settings?
Are there any poisons that knock people unconscious anymore?
To be clear, i fully understand that drow and hand crossbows used to be a deadly combo and why. My question pertains to that combo being laughable now, and if any race were to optimize to fit the current game, wouldn't it be drow?
The hand crossbow thread got me thinking.
Considering the huge overhaul poisons, combat, sight, etc. got with 3rd Ed.+ (including PF), wouldn't one of the most intelligent and diabolical races ever to blight a fantasy world say "Screw hand crossbows" and start using composite longbows from the back of their wall-walking lizard mounts?
I'll have to check earlier my AD&D books when I get a chance. Originally, they were dangerous because getting hit by one in the hands of a drow meant save or sleep (and then, probably, die). So they were more of a poison delivery system than for killing stuff with damage.
Also, not sure about their fire rate, but a lot of stuff has changed, like how attacks/round work, and TWF and attacks/round, etc. I think heavies used to have a rate of 1/3, so it's possible that lights were 1/2 and hand were 1/1. Like I said, though, I don't have my books atm and that may be way off.
As for why you'd use them in PF? Racial/cultural preference. Makes me wonder if there are weapons that are never used due to their numbers not being optimal.
Also, nice referencing 1st/2nd Ed. poisons! Should definitely be considered when discussing the hand crossbow. Ah, back when poisons were dangerous, and could kill you.
Gwen Smith wrote:
It depends on the circumstance. Attacking a fire immune creature with a fire spell, no retcon. Attacking with a ranseur you dropped last round to draw a falcata? Yes. retcon to falcata, please. Basically, if you want to change your action after that action failed, no retcon.
Your GM needs to unwind a little. If you got a free pass because he wasn't paying attention, good for you. It's up to him to make sure it doesn't happen again, or change the line-up if your race choice rendered a lot of opposition ineffective.
Unless he screwed up something important to the story line and needs you to work with him, there's no reason for the guy that controls every monster in the world to fuss over one round in one combat.
Political thread. Your common sense has no place here, mister.
I played DA2 through once. As a mage. By the end of the game I was was pissed at every other mage in the game.
Overlooking how obnoxious and infuriating that was, yeah it was a good game. Not good enough, though.
As far as the rest of it, you can usually tell when someone is just hating on a game (like me). Just wait before you buy the game, then ask about it.
It only takes one wad to ruin the game for everybody else. I've played in games where secretly implanting a bomb (Rifts, btw) in the head of another player, preset to detonate if the player tries to kill any of the rest of us.
When i passed that note to the gm he gave me an approving nod.
Thankfully those days are long over. The people i play with now prioritize the group experience over personal glory. They can still have personal glory, but they don't seek it at the expense of the game.
This campaign smasher thing is interesting, but i haven't seen much here to cause alarm.
Luckblades and Rings of Wishes appear, to me, to already include costs that would cover the casting of a Wish.
Potions, Staves, etc. that are basically items that you "load" with a spell requires costly components for the sake of simplification (I know, I know).
I'd rule that; no, you do not need the actual diamond when crafting items like luckblades or wish rings. Why? It lists construction costs, and diamond is not on the list. Also, it will cost you more resources to craft an item than it does to just cast wish. Sounds like a tradeoff.