paizo.com Recent Posts by Carl Casconepaizo.com Recent Posts by Carl Cascone2022-04-23T03:52:07Z2022-04-23T03:52:07ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: How do people feel about Paizo's "new" base classes?Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pr8w&page=8?How-do-people-feel-about-Paizos-new-base-classes#4002013-05-16T02:06:58Z2013-05-15T12:54:46Z<p>I have never allowed Summoner or Gunslinger.</p>
<p>All the other classes I allow. The summoner just seems a completely complicated redundant class. And I play in FR without Guns.</p>I have never allowed Summoner or Gunslinger.
All the other classes I allow. The summoner just seems a completely complicated redundant class. And I play in FR without Guns.Carl Cascone2013-05-15T12:54:46ZRe: Forums: Customer Service: Please Cancel my Pathfinder Battles SubscriptionCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oex8?Please-Cancel-my-Pathfinder-Battles-Subscription#32012-07-06T14:39:51Z2012-07-06T14:39:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">IconoclasticScream wrote:</div><blockquote> I'm feeling your pain. I had to ask for the same thing because the summer school classes I thought I'd be teaching fell through. Good luck. :) </blockquote><p>Same thing here Iconoclastic. I was all set to teach to Summer School then someone from in house of the district complained they did not get notice.
<p>I would give up the summer months off i a heartbeat to work year round.</p>
<p>But I hesitate to complain because well at least I am employed. Too many of my friends are not.</p>IconoclasticScream wrote:I'm feeling your pain. I had to ask for the same thing because the summer school classes I thought I'd be teaching fell through. Good luck. :)
Same thing here Iconoclastic. I was all set to teach to Summer School then someone from in house of the district complained they did not get notice. I would give up the summer months off i a heartbeat to work year round.
But I hesitate to complain because well at least I am employed. Too many of my friends are not.Carl Cascone2012-07-06T14:39:51ZForums: Customer Service: Please Cancel my Pathfinder Battles SubscriptionCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oex8?Please-Cancel-my-Pathfinder-Battles-Subscription#12012-07-06T04:51:35Z2012-07-06T04:51:35Z<p>Hello,</p>
<p>Please cancel my Pathfinder Battles Miniatures subscription. I am a teacher on summer budget, and that amount of money is not possible until september when I get paid again.</p>
<p>Many THanks!</p>Hello,
Please cancel my Pathfinder Battles Miniatures subscription. I am a teacher on summer budget, and that amount of money is not possible until september when I get paid again.
Many THanks!Carl Cascone2012-07-06T04:51:35ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5E Forgotten Realms?Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nhzb&page=3?5E-Forgotten-Realms#1272012-06-12T19:01:25Z2012-06-12T19:01:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ericthetolle wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Grey Lensman wrote:</div><blockquote> If it's so forgettable, why did you remember to post in here? </blockquote>Because it sounds better honestly, than "Generic Realms". HOnestly, I brought it up, because bringing Greenwood back to set everything back the way it was is just another example of how creatively bankrupt D&D Next is. </blockquote><p>Quite the contrary. It shows just how good D&D NEXT could be. I am quite happy with the playtest, and I am greatly looking forward to purchasing support for the Forgotten Realms label once again.ericthetolle wrote:Grey Lensman wrote: If it's so forgettable, why did you remember to post in here?
Because it sounds better honestly, than "Generic Realms". HOnestly, I brought it up, because bringing Greenwood back to set everything back the way it was is just another example of how creatively bankrupt D&D Next is. Quite the contrary. It shows just how good D&D NEXT could be. I am quite happy with the playtest, and I am greatly looking forward to purchasing support for the Forgotten...Carl Cascone2012-06-12T19:01:25ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 5E Forgotten Realms?Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nhzb&page=3?5E-Forgotten-Realms#1262012-06-12T18:51:41Z2012-06-12T18:51:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">memorax wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
It was actually reveiled that Talos was actually Gruumsh, though I doubt many Talosians believe that. It was a way for Gruumsh to obtain more followers from races outside of Orcs. The same way Sehanine Moonbow is really another aspect of Selûne. A moon goddess appearing to multiple races in their own preceived form will likely be given different names. Those different aspects then grow/manifest into different portfolios and beliefs. Not really that unheard of even in Real World mythology. Heck, Lathander has been Amaunator for a long time and there is possibly a "thrid face of Dusk" too.
<br />
</blockquote>I don't see why that would be a problem really. It makes sense imo and I never liked the whole "I'm a good of orcs so only orcs can worship me" type of logic. In one of my FR games the group I was running the game for converted a tribe of hobgoblins to worship Tempus. They are gods why should they be limited by race.</blockquote>Agreed. Espically <i>after</i> the Time of Troubles, where Gods power was often a direct reflection of their worship. It only makes sense for Gods to obtain as many followers as possible, and thats likely to breach different races as well. Espically something as broad a "Storms and Destruction". </blockquote><p>It can also be theorized that since those worshipers were worshipping Talos instead of Gruumsh (even though it was Gruumsh) their faith could have spawned that aspect. In essence the aspect being worshipped actually becomes a Deity reducing Gruumsh's power.Diffan wrote:memorax wrote: Diffan wrote:
It was actually reveiled that Talos was actually Gruumsh, though I doubt many Talosians believe that. It was a way for Gruumsh to obtain more followers from races outside of Orcs. The same way Sehanine Moonbow is really another aspect of Selûne. A moon goddess appearing to multiple races in their own preceived form will likely be given different names. Those different aspects then grow/manifest into different portfolios and beliefs. Not really that...Carl Cascone2012-06-12T18:51:41ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nxz2&page=10?The-LGBT-Gamer-Community-Thread#4512012-05-03T18:47:17Z2012-05-03T18:47:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GentleGiant wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Shifty wrote:</div><blockquote>Anyhow, I have met a lot of GLB gamers, but not yet a T.</blockquote>It sucks being a rarity. </blockquote><p>I've met a bunch of T women (no T men, as far as I know anyway), but I don't think any of them have been gamers (at least in the PnP way - video games are another matter).
</p>
So, as Winterthorn said, revel in the uniqueness instead. :-D </blockquote><p>I ask this honestly.
<p>WHen one reads Trans woman does it refer to the starting point or the destination?</p>GentleGiant wrote:Kelsey MacAilbert wrote: Shifty wrote:Anyhow, I have met a lot of GLB gamers, but not yet a T.
It sucks being a rarity. I've met a bunch of T women (no T men, as far as I know anyway), but I don't think any of them have been gamers (at least in the PnP way - video games are another matter).
So, as Winterthorn said, revel in the uniqueness instead. :-D I ask this honestly. WHen one reads Trans woman does it refer to the starting point or the destination?Carl Cascone2012-05-03T18:47:17ZRe: Forums: Round 3: Create a Bestiary entry: Necrotic ReefCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nlv6?Necrotic-Reef#262012-02-20T17:37:17Z2012-02-20T17:37:17Z<p>I don't understand the crux of mr. Dancey's criticism of this item. It works well mechanically I think, but most of the criticism from Mr. Dancey seems to be on the naturalistic end. </p>
<p>Ofcourse most of what he says is true, but dogs don't blink in and out of existence, octopoid tentacles don't grow out of shoulder blades of panthers, and the size of a titan would cause a complete collapse of the skeleton. Not even counting that giant insects can't survive out of water because their Chitin would collapse.</p>
<p>We have also restored coral reefs in a matter of decades not millennia. </p>
<p>This is not even my favorite entry but the criticism seems somehow unfair given the vast history of monsters in D&D and the bestiaries of pathfinder. In a fantasy game one should not have to worry about anything being chemically, physically, or biologically sound. If that is the case I can take a huge red pen and cross out 85% of our 3 bestiaries.</p>
<p>Generally Ryan Dancey is the first criticism I read, and one that I lend serious weight too, and still will. This particular criticism just struck a nerve.</p>I don't understand the crux of mr. Dancey's criticism of this item. It works well mechanically I think, but most of the criticism from Mr. Dancey seems to be on the naturalistic end.
Ofcourse most of what he says is true, but dogs don't blink in and out of existence, octopoid tentacles don't grow out of shoulder blades of panthers, and the size of a titan would cause a complete collapse of the skeleton. Not even counting that giant insects can't survive out of water because their Chitin...Carl Cascone2012-02-20T17:37:17ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Its not looking good for the fighter class in 5ECarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nloi?Its-not-looking-good-for-the-fighter-class-in-5E#272012-02-10T19:44:29Z2012-02-10T19:44:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Carl Cascone wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills. </p>
<p>Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic. </blockquote>Agreed, however they should not be aided in this venture via spells. Tenser's Transformation, Righteous Might, Divine Power, True Strike, Enervation, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph are all ways in which spellcasters level the playing field of melee-based character. Simply removing these spells would equal the playing field a bit, at least keeping spellcasting classes 2nd to melee/ranged fighting. Really, it's only fair. </blockquote><p>I would want them to keep Invisibility. Maybe make SOME spells specialist only like Enervation. Perhaps we could keep the shapechange spells and make them multiround castings. Something you would need intelligence (Intel not IQ) to use. As for True Strike, Divine Power and such I like defensive buffs for spellcasters, I never have liked offensive buffs. Tenser's Transformation was a munchkin from the start.
<p>I would want to keep Offensive buffs for the Ranger and Paladin.</p>Diffan wrote:Carl Cascone wrote:Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills.
Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic.
Agreed, however they should not be aided in this venture via spells. Tenser's Transformation, Righteous Might, Divine Power, True Strike,...Carl Cascone2012-02-10T19:44:29ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can an Alchemists extracts work in a magic dead zone?Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nlti?Can-an-Alchemists-extracts-work-in-a-magic#42012-02-10T18:35:42Z2012-02-10T18:35:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Alzrius wrote:</div><blockquote> Anything that's supernatural relies on magic, and does not function in a dead magic zone (unless its description specifies otherwise). </blockquote><p>Perfect many thanks!Alzrius wrote:Anything that's supernatural relies on magic, and does not function in a dead magic zone (unless its description specifies otherwise).
Perfect many thanks!Carl Cascone2012-02-10T18:35:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Can an Alchemists extracts work in a magic dead zone?Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nlti?Can-an-Alchemists-extracts-work-in-a-magic#22012-02-10T18:21:44Z2012-02-10T18:21:44Z<p>The extracts are Supernatural abilities but do they rely on magic? This is really where my puzzlement is coming in.</p>
<p>For that case Bombs and Mutagens are Supernatural. Sigh.</p>The extracts are Supernatural abilities but do they rely on magic? This is really where my puzzlement is coming in.
For that case Bombs and Mutagens are Supernatural. Sigh.Carl Cascone2012-02-10T18:21:44ZForums: Rules Questions: Can an Alchemists extracts work in a magic dead zone?Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nlti?Can-an-Alchemists-extracts-work-in-a-magic#12012-02-10T18:16:11Z2012-02-10T18:16:11Z<p>Tonight I am running a module where the PC's will go into an area of Dead MAgic. All magic items will be shut off as well as all spellcasting.</p>
<p>Would the Alchemist's Extract work? At this point I am saying no.</p>
<p>I think the Bombs would work, and I think the Mutagen would work, but my mind can change on this as well.</p>
<p>Any advice?</p>Tonight I am running a module where the PC's will go into an area of Dead MAgic. All magic items will be shut off as well as all spellcasting.
Would the Alchemist's Extract work? At this point I am saying no.
I think the Bombs would work, and I think the Mutagen would work, but my mind can change on this as well.
Any advice?Carl Cascone2012-02-10T18:16:11ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Its not looking good for the fighter class in 5ECarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nloi?Its-not-looking-good-for-the-fighter-class-in-5E#252012-02-10T17:50:22Z2012-02-10T17:50:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bluenose wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Pyrrhic Victory wrote:</div><blockquote> I have no problem with fighters who "just fight". Is that not what they are for??? If you want magic play a wizard. If you want to heal people play a priest. Sneaky = rogue. That is the reason for the class system, to decide what kind of character you want to play and then to play it. The idea that all classes must do everything seems kind of silly to me and not very D&D. </blockquote>Fine. Now make sure you take away the ability of the other classes to fight. Wizards deal with arcane magic problems, Clerics deal with divine magic problems, rogues deal with 'skillsy' problems. No overlap. After all, characters who can do everything are not very D&D. </blockquote><p>Not every creature has the ability for magic or divinity. Every creature however has some capacity to fight and use skills. The fighter should just be BETTER at fighting, as the rogue should be better at exploiting skills.
<p>Wizard may not fight well but he can still fight. The same cannot be said about using magic.</p>Bluenose wrote:Pyrrhic Victory wrote: I have no problem with fighters who "just fight". Is that not what they are for??? If you want magic play a wizard. If you want to heal people play a priest. Sneaky = rogue. That is the reason for the class system, to decide what kind of character you want to play and then to play it. The idea that all classes must do everything seems kind of silly to me and not very D&D.
Fine. Now make sure you take away the ability of the other classes to fight....Carl Cascone2012-02-10T17:50:22ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: My feelings about 5E D&DCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nffy&page=8?My-feelings-about-5E-DD#3782012-02-07T20:36:21Z2012-02-07T20:36:21Z<p>This is not the article I wanted to link, but this one should be an adequate summary about the stability of height across the periods.</p>
<p>http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=3995</p>This is not the article I wanted to link, but this one should be an adequate summary about the stability of height across the periods.
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=3995Carl Cascone2012-02-07T20:36:21ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: My feelings about 5E D&DCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nffy&page=8?My-feelings-about-5E-DD#3772012-02-07T20:31:07Z2012-02-07T20:31:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Fair enough, though I think it might have to do with what part of the world your drawing your knights from. And while I'd love to get into a discussion of military warfare of the medieval period, I think it derails this topic a bit, lol. I wouldn't mind seeing a feat that allows players to go through a different stat (of their choice) when making attack rolls. Something like 4th Editions's Melee Training feat which says: </p>
<p><b>Benefit:</b> Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use... </blockquote><p>I can easily be on board with STR/DEX being the primary weapon stat and then having a feat that allows you to replace one of those with INT/WIS/CHR. It makes it work for me. Much like the feat Noble Scion in the INner sea world guide. Every paladin should have that feat, (using CHA as your initiative statistic), though the background is for noble birth so you can only take it at first level.
<p>I envision it as the Paladin shouting a challenge or insult, or something that causes the opponent a moment of shock and fear. Really good feat.</p>
<p>I like the idea of a FEAT allowing the ability to be replaced. I am opposed to an arbitrary assignment with whatever ability works best for your class features.</p>Diffan wrote:Fair enough, though I think it might have to do with what part of the world your drawing your knights from. And while I'd love to get into a discussion of military warfare of the medieval period, I think it derails this topic a bit, lol. I wouldn't mind seeing a feat that allows players to go through a different stat (of their choice) when making attack rolls. Something like 4th Editions's Melee Training feat which says:
Benefit: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you...Carl Cascone2012-02-07T20:31:07ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: My feelings about 5E D&DCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nffy&page=8?My-feelings-about-5E-DD#3752012-02-07T19:44:01Z2012-02-07T19:44:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Carl Cascone wrote:</div><blockquote>This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules. </blockquote><p>I don't think it has to do with common sense at all. Sure, strength/dexterity <i>can</i> play a part in physical attacks, but the be all-end all? NO, I think D&D is more than that, even from a realistic understanding. Knights of the 13th century probably wouldn't have Strength scores of 17's and 18's since it would be hard to accomplish that with an average height of 5'4" and weight around 160 lbs.
</p>
</blockquote><p>You make a descent case for it, in fact the only one that makes sense, but I still prefer the physical stat/mental stat separation. I would be more willing to allow the mental abilities to add in different ways.
<p>What struck a nerve with me in your post (not in a bad way necessarily) is the misconception of the height of a KNight. Knights actually were rather tall, because there are many that would not be able to cut the warrior class because of the weapons (A flamberge was easily 8 pounds)and the sheer weight of armor. Knights had to be incredibly strong (I am not going to pretend to put a D&D number to it). I have had the pleasure of fighting in full on plate mail, and intelligence is not going to pull you through THAT:)</p>
<p>Unfortunately much of the preserved armor is later than 13th century, but archaeologists estimate the average height of NOBLES in briton and Normandy to be about 5'7" -5'8". Much goes into this estimate, from the size of weaponry, the size of shields, saddles, tack, and of course skeleton measurements.</p>
<p>Funny enough MANY nobles also were Dwarfs (the genetic condition, necessary to say that here,) because of the breeding.</p>
<p>So I will give you the abilities. </p>
<p>Its true poorer people were shorter than nobles, but the idea that people in the Middle Ages were extremely short is a misconception.</p>Diffan wrote:Carl Cascone wrote:This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.
I don't think it has to do with common sense at all. Sure,...Carl Cascone2012-02-07T19:44:01ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: My feelings about 5E D&DCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nffy&page=8?My-feelings-about-5E-DD#3732012-02-07T18:09:40Z2012-02-07T17:45:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Terquem wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or they don’t, do damage, produce cool effects, yadda-yadda, but it just felt weird to me.</p>
<p>So I am sort of on the fence about this as far as any development of 5e is concerned. I don’t think I would like to see this aspect of 4e carried over, but then again I understand a lot of players liked the diversity it opened up in battles.</p>
<p>I guess I like the idea of combat being the domain of the physical ability scores, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and Magic being the domain of the mental ability scores, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.
<br />
</blockquote><p>See, I liked how I didn't have to be MAD (multiple attribute dependant) for characters that can cast a bit and are supposed to fight on the front lines. A most prime example of this is the Paladin. By having him use Charisma for his attacks, he doens't have to put a TON of emphasis on Strength and Charisma fueled a lot of his Mo-jo too. I love that sort of synergy.
<p>I also think the only reason physical wepaon attacks are only done through Str and Dex was just to simulate real-world physics (something that is a bit controversial, so I'll steer clear) and that when you force classes to use them AND have a resonable amount of points in other attributes to their other stuff well....it causes problems. The 3E paladin needed high Strength for his attacks, moderate Constitution for HP due to him being on the front lines, moderate- to high-Charisma that fuels ALL of his class features, and moderate-Wisdom because it's what his spells were pulled from. PF made his spellcasting tie... </blockquote><p>This is one of the things I could not get to work out in my head. I like the separation of physical stats from mental statistics. Maybe it is because of real world physics, but I never liked the idea of any other stat controlling physical attacks other than strength or Dexterity. It might make playing a character easier, but I don't think common sense should be sacrificed for ease of rules.Diffan wrote:Terquem wrote:I have always had problems accepting (not that I can argue that there is any real flaw with this approach) combat "To Hit" rolls that use modifiers to the dice derived from ability scores other than Dex and Strength. I don't know why, but it really bugged me when I tried to explain to players how it was that a Bard got to add his Charisma bonus to a to hit roll with a bow and arrow. I know, in the long run, it isn't relevant how the action is resolved, things hit or...Carl Cascone2012-02-07T17:45:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: "What do we do with the goblin non-combatants?" - From a different perspective.Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njl9?What-do-we-do-with-the-goblin-noncombatants#192012-02-02T15:03:26Z2012-02-02T15:03:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Lincoln Hills wrote:</div><blockquote> I scrolled through an old thread lamenting the old, old problem of what good-aligned PCs are supposed to do with the elderly, pregnant, blind and half-grown members of all those evil tribes.</blockquote><p>The notion of this ever happening in a traditional game has always seemed silly to me, as there would rarely ever be any of those things in a goblin tribe for any real length of time.
<p>The elderly, half-grown, and blind would be either be eaten or beaten to death by the tough meaner representatives of goblin society while the pregnant members would most likely be hidden away inside some barrow somewhere until they are suitable to be raped again. The only reason goblins likely even survive as a race is due to their prolific breeding.</p>
<p>The only time you will ever find goblin non-combatants in any traditional campaign is when the GM wants to screw with the players (especially if there is a paladin). It's very poor form if you ask me. </blockquote><p>Regardless it is the most likely scenario.Ravingdork wrote:Lincoln Hills wrote: I scrolled through an old thread lamenting the old, old problem of what good-aligned PCs are supposed to do with the elderly, pregnant, blind and half-grown members of all those evil tribes.
The notion of this ever happening in a traditional game has always seemed silly to me, as there would rarely ever be any of those things in a goblin tribe for any real length of time. The elderly, half-grown, and blind would be either be eaten or beaten to death by...Carl Cascone2012-02-02T15:03:26ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Your favorite deities!Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ncpm&page=2?Your-favorite-deities#902012-02-02T03:13:14Z2012-02-02T03:13:14Z<p>No worries Finn, sounds like we are largely in agreement and the double standard would annoy me. I may not be religious but I have strong feeling about not blaspheming anyone's deities. Well outside of rpgs I guess.</p>No worries Finn, sounds like we are largely in agreement and the double standard would annoy me. I may not be religious but I have strong feeling about not blaspheming anyone's deities. Well outside of rpgs I guess.Carl Cascone2012-02-02T03:13:14ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Your favorite deities!Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ncpm&page=2?Your-favorite-deities#862012-02-01T21:07:06Z2012-02-01T21:07:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Finn K wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Carl—
<br />
I was around in the '80s when those PR battles went down. If that is your feeling though— When/if a game comes out that does use Christian/Muslim theology in the thoroughly-altered and not exactly the same thing way I described above— if you say it's okay to use the Pagan gods that way, and then object to borrowing and bending Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods that same way— I am going to call you on that blatant double-standard (I'll call anyone else on it, who does the same sort of thing). So long as you don't hold that double-standard (Okay to take some people's beliefs, but not okay to make similar use of other people's beliefs)— at least you're consistent (if not necessarily respectful or disrespectful of the source material)and I can respect that.</p>
<p>What I particularly object to (and the point I was really after in the earlier post, although I guess I didn't quite hit the target as intended), is the all-too-common feeling that "it's okay to do whatever you want with all of these mythologies, but don't you dare take anything from my actual religion" that I have run into many times over from Christians, and Muslims, and Jews. Those who do that, IMO really need to rethink their position. For my part, I will NOT tolerate someone who shows such intolerance towards others on racial, religious, sexual, etc., grounds. </blockquote><p>I promise you no double standard here.
<p>I am being completely honest here. I would not care one whit if the game decided to distort real world religions. I am not saying that to be a jerk, and I am not an atheist, but religion of all kinds have a very low importance in my life. I am also a religiously literate person but I find religion more akin to philosophy than faith. I tolerate all religions, but I do not crusade on any of their behalf.</p>
<p>My wife is pagan, and I go to her ceremonies because they are Asatru, and I think they are cool and I get to drink mead. I don't feel any sort of spiritual identity at a blo(a)t I just go. I also re-enact vikings in the SCA so it is just fun. It annoys me they don't dress like viking though. Occasionally I will go to church on Christmas Eve or Easter and relax, but I don't really feel any more devotion if I go to church. I am more than likely to get any feelings of devotion or Faith while hiking or scuba diving. </p>
<p>I wonder what about the original Deities and Demigods was really OFFENSIVE however. They were really raw statistics with a blurb trying to interpret mythology. PErhaps since I am not religious I don't get the offense, which is very possible because there are things that my Mom gets offended at that I don't blink an eye towards.</p>
<p>When I was an undergrad I used to challenge the Christian group on campus as follows: "How can you call the gods of the Ancient Greeks mythical when the people at that time were just as devoted to their deities THEN as we are to our deity NOW." They usually gave me drivel about knowing through faith, or claiming that worship in that time did not show devotion as now (yeah right). They never thought they were stumped because of the faith copout, but really they could never provide a satisfactory answer.</p>
<p>So I come from a stance that it is not a big deal, but I also realize I am not sensitive to religious needs. </p>
<p>But look at the Golarion Gods. We have Asmodeus, and we have Irori. OK Irori is not CALLED Buddha but I could see how it might offend some of that religion (actually are they ever offended?) to have a mock portrayal of Buddhism. </p>
<p>I would not ever purposely offend someone's religion, but I don't find converting ANY deity into raw statistics an offensive action.</p>Finn K wrote:Carl--
I was around in the '80s when those PR battles went down. If that is your feeling though-- When/if a game comes out that does use Christian/Muslim theology in the thoroughly-altered and not exactly the same thing way I described above-- if you say it's okay to use the Pagan gods that way, and then object to borrowing and bending Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods that same way-- I am going to call you on that blatant double-standard (I'll call anyone else on it, who does the...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T21:07:06ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Your favorite deities!Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ncpm&page=2?Your-favorite-deities#832012-02-01T19:43:06Z2012-02-01T19:43:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Finn K wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Now put it this way... imagine the outrage if, for your campaign's faiths, you took the Torah (aka 'Old Testament'), mixed it up in a figurative blender, chopped up the resulting mix and tossed in a salad with some holy water (all figuratively speaking of course)— and unleashed a vaguely Old Testament/Judaic "fire and brimstone" faith with a Father God and a long line of cranky prophets— perhaps mixed in with some ideas of Satan (bent by Zoroastrian duality) and maybe the minor Gods of peoples opposed to the Jews take on a little bit more reality as opposing pantheons in your game. Now add in a radical sect that follows a particular savior/prophet, which is spreading and altering the teachings of the original faith, but claims to believe in the same God (call him 'Yeshua'— the new prophet, I mean); and maybe toss in one more sect led by a radical desert prophet who talks to the Father God's servants ('Seraphim') and talks about Djinni and Efreeti, and wants to conquer all under his theocratic state— who first holds out the hand of friendship to the other followers of Father God, and then holds out the sword when they won't accept his version of the 'message'.... and of course, then we can borrow elements from the struggle between Catholics and Protestants;... </blockquote><p>We already have Asmodeus. That was a Jewish Demon. I lived in the 80's where mothers were against D&D for the supposed Devils and Demons in it.
<p>If someone is offended at the gods from mythology being represented slightly off, that is nothing compared to the publicity battle that D&D went though in the 80's.</p>
<p>I will take the real world gods. Something will always offend someone, and after D&D survived the Mothers going after them in the 80's they could easily survive it now. People should understand it is a game and not a literal interpretation.</p>Finn K wrote:Now put it this way... imagine the outrage if, for your campaign's faiths, you took the Torah (aka 'Old Testament'), mixed it up in a figurative blender, chopped up the resulting mix and tossed in a salad with some holy water (all figuratively speaking of course)-- and unleashed a vaguely Old Testament/Judaic "fire and brimstone" faith with a Father God and a long line of cranky prophets-- perhaps mixed in with some ideas of Satan (bent by Zoroastrian duality) and maybe the minor...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T19:43:06ZRe: Forums: Round 2: Create a new organization: The Pure LineCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nizy?The-Pure-Line#182012-02-01T17:04:09Z2012-02-01T17:04:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Saint Trickery wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Hmm. Kinda like Nazis. But with less going on. The real Nazis had a charismatic leader, scary secret police, mind control, and shadowy occult connections. As well as world domination goals, but I'm not recommending more of that.</p>
<p>These guys do eugenics by force. That's bad. I'm not seeing the end game to this, or how I'd build a campaign around it. </blockquote><p>I don't know if we should nail a designer because, eugenics is bad. So is murder, but we make villains that are murderers all the time. We make villains that enslave; there is certainly a segment of the population that could offend.
<p>The designer should not be dinged because an activity the organization does is offensive. Isn't killing innocent people offensive? So why do we allow murderers as our villains?</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sean K Reynolds wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Pure Line, racial purity, gotcha.</p>
<p>I dunno, this group just feels like a fantasy variant of the Nazis—obsessed with racial purity, reclaiming a lost empire, fighting racial enemies, breeding experiments, and searching for ancient relics.</p>
<p>Does it work as an organization? Yes. Is it really new? I don't think so.</p>
<p>I do not recommend this to advance.</blockquote><p>I don't find the 'nazi' theme to be any more unoriginal than another Merchant den out to dominate the trade of the world, or crazy cults.Saint Trickery wrote:Hmm. Kinda like Nazis. But with less going on. The real Nazis had a charismatic leader, scary secret police, mind control, and shadowy occult connections. As well as world domination goals, but I'm not recommending more of that.
These guys do eugenics by force. That's bad. I'm not seeing the end game to this, or how I'd build a campaign around it.
I don't know if we should nail a designer because, eugenics is bad. So is murder, but we make villains that are murderers...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T17:04:09ZRe: Forums: Round 2: Create a new organization: Seers of PharasmaCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nir9?Seers-of-Pharasma#172012-02-01T15:23:01Z2012-02-01T15:23:01Z<p>The only thing I didn't like about this was the Lich. However this mistake is so obvious it feels like asking a student to complete a physics problem and then failing them because they switched a positive sign to a negative sign, or a math error.</p>
<p>They had 3 days to do this or something. I am not going to fault someone for missing the harbingers on pg 266. That book is meaty, and it SHOULD have been found. Yet what about the design? I think it was done well. I think it was well thought out.</p>
<p>For the Organizations I have found only one that is in my book an A entry. This one might have been if he got the research correct. Still should the entire core of the idea which is good be failed because of an oversite and a dumb mistake? The magnitude of the mistake is huge, but the solution, and chance of repeating a mistake like this is minimal. When I was in high school I pumped gas into a Diesel car. I will never make that mistake again.</p>The only thing I didn't like about this was the Lich. However this mistake is so obvious it feels like asking a student to complete a physics problem and then failing them because they switched a positive sign to a negative sign, or a math error.
They had 3 days to do this or something. I am not going to fault someone for missing the harbingers on pg 266. That book is meaty, and it SHOULD have been found. Yet what about the design? I think it was done well. I think it was well thought out.
...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T15:23:01ZRe: Forums: Round 2: Create a new organization: Forsaken LibrariansCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nixt?Forsaken-Librarians#122012-02-01T14:45:49Z2012-02-01T14:45:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Clark Peterson wrote:</div><blockquote><p> But this seems more Doctor Doofenshmirtz (bonus if you get that) than subversive magical reformation.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Phineus and Pherb is one of the most genius cartoons to come out ever!
<p>Chorus: Now bring us some figgy pudding...
<br />
and bring some right here
<br />
we won't go until we've got some
<br />
repeat</p>
<p>Dr.:
<br />
No body comes to my house and demands DESSERTS!</p>
<p>With that said I liked the name, but I was disappointed. However, I have been following Tom and I want to see what he can do later, so I'll probably go for it.</p>Clark Peterson wrote:But this seems more Doctor Doofenshmirtz (bonus if you get that) than subversive magical reformation.
Phineus and Pherb is one of the most genius cartoons to come out ever! Chorus: Now bring us some figgy pudding...
and bring some right here
we won't go until we've got some
repeat
Dr.:
No body comes to my house and demands DESSERTS!
With that said I liked the name, but I was disappointed. However, I have been following Tom and I want to see what he can do later, so...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T14:45:49ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Your favorite deities!Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ncpm&page=2?Your-favorite-deities#802012-02-01T14:19:24Z2012-02-01T14:19:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The NPC wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">MerrikCale wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Leper wrote:</div><blockquote> Anyone else disappointed by the PF pantheon? I miss the days when D&D pantheon was based on real life or literary mythology... </blockquote>I wouldnt say disappointed, but I would like several pantheons. Maybe an Ulfen one, a Taldan one with some overlap etc ect </blockquote>And have Golarion fall into the same trap as Forgotten Realms? Which it is already close to as it is. </blockquote><p>I don't see Forgotten Realms as a trap, I think it adds to the flavor.
<p>I added an Ulfen Pantheon (the Norse gods, some of whom were already worshipped under their Golarion names in Avistan), I added Mielikki because Gozreh is too broad. The romans and greeks had gods for mortar and bricks so I like Lots of minor gods. I also gave Osirion the Egyptian Pantheon.</p>
<p>Mielikki I include in the Ulfen Pantheon because well she is Finnish. </p>
<p>I brought in the Non human pantheons as well, I like my elves with Corellon and my dwarves with Moradin (which is the dwarven name for Torag). </p>
<p>My favorite god of course:</p>
<p>Cross the rainbow bridge of Asgard,
<br />
Where the mighty Heavens roar,
<br />
You'll behold the god of Thunder,
<br />
The God of Thunder; Mighty Thor!</p>
<p>But If I had to pick a Golarion god, I love Desna with Abadar second.</p>The NPC wrote:MerrikCale wrote: Leper wrote: Anyone else disappointed by the PF pantheon? I miss the days when D&D pantheon was based on real life or literary mythology...
I wouldnt say disappointed, but I would like several pantheons. Maybe an Ulfen one, a Taldan one with some overlap etc ect And have Golarion fall into the same trap as Forgotten Realms? Which it is already close to as it is. I don't see Forgotten Realms as a trap, I think it adds to the flavor. I added an Ulfen Pantheon...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T14:19:24ZRe: Forums: Product Discussion: [Hero Lab] Version 6.12 of the Pathfinder files for Hero Lab are now available! Dragon Empires Primer!Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njwj?Hero-Lab-Version-612-of-the-Pathfinder-files#22012-02-01T14:07:33Z2012-02-01T14:07:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mathias Gehl wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Version 6.12 of the Pathfinder files for Hero Lab are now available from the automatic updates mechanism within Hero Lab.</p>
<p>This update adds the Dragon Empires Primer as a free update for those with the Player's Companion; Golarion #2 package (which is available for $4.99). The update also fixes the intelligent item rules, bringing them fully up to the Pathfinder version of those rules. And, fixing the intelligent item rules allowed us to properly handle the black blades for the Magus' Bladebound archetype.</p>
<p>This update also adds player content from Pathfinder #52 and includes some bug fixes.</p>
<p>If you're not familiar with Hero Lab, please head over to the <a href="http://wolflair.com/index.php?context=hero_lab" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Hero Lab page</a> of our website. There, you can download Hero Lab in demo mode and try it out. The only things you'll be prevented from doing in demo mode are saving and printing (although you can see the print preview), so that you can give Hero Lab a test before you decide to purchase it.</p>
<p>We also offer another option if you want to try out Hero Lab - <a href="http://wolflair.com/index.php?context=hero_lab&page=starter_edition" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Hero Lab for the Beginner Box</a>. This is a free program, although it only contains content from the beginner box, and doesn't offer content from the core rulebook or any other Pathfinder books. It does, however, allow you to save and print. </blockquote><p>I bought the Campaign setting package about a week and a half ago (the deal for $19.99), is the Dragon Empires going to be added to that soon?
<p>By the way I am very happy with that purchase. You guys made the Faction rules SUPER EASY. I used to have to track that separately. Now I can use that time improving my maps.</p>
<p>you guys rock!</p>Mathias Gehl wrote:Version 6.12 of the Pathfinder files for Hero Lab are now available from the automatic updates mechanism within Hero Lab.
This update adds the Dragon Empires Primer as a free update for those with the Player's Companion; Golarion #2 package (which is available for $4.99). The update also fixes the intelligent item rules, bringing them fully up to the Pathfinder version of those rules. And, fixing the intelligent item rules allowed us to properly handle the black blades for...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T14:07:33ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njb8&page=4?Something-4th-Ed-DD-did-that-I-liked#1552012-02-01T13:58:57Z2012-02-01T13:58:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Shadowdweller wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I dislike the implementation of 4e minions. Something, however, I wouldn't mind seeing in Pathfinder: Stat blocks for some readymade 'mook' type enemies juxtaposed next to mastermind type monsters in a bestiary. Some mook stat blocks of basic savage humanoid type enemies at various levels. Or possibly an entire supplement devoted to CR-adjusted mook statblocks. To keep things interesting and viable at higher levels.</p>
<p>Examples: Basic orc warrior, orc barbarian 1, orc barbarian 3, orc shaman, etc.</p>
<p>Would make my life a hell of a lot easier as a GM. </blockquote><p>I agree. I solve this problem because I have hero lab, and I generate mook stats and print them out. I keep one copy in the bestiary incase I forget.
<p>Hero Lab has made preparing Pathfinder supereasy.</p>Shadowdweller wrote:I dislike the implementation of 4e minions. Something, however, I wouldn't mind seeing in Pathfinder: Stat blocks for some readymade 'mook' type enemies juxtaposed next to mastermind type monsters in a bestiary. Some mook stat blocks of basic savage humanoid type enemies at various levels. Or possibly an entire supplement devoted to CR-adjusted mook statblocks. To keep things interesting and viable at higher levels.
Examples: Basic orc warrior, orc barbarian 1, orc...Carl Cascone2012-02-01T13:58:57ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njb8&page=3?Something-4th-Ed-DD-did-that-I-liked#1472012-01-31T16:09:59Z2012-01-31T16:09:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Terquem wrote:</div><blockquote> I really don't know how correct it is to categorize the work of Jack Vance as, "Obscure". Is this a comment coming from someone who is familiar with his work, and numerous awards and believes it is "Obscure" simply because it is not the current "Thing" on HBO. It is, to me, the same as saying the works of Bing Crosby, Cole Porter, or Oscar Wilde, are "Obscure". probably not an accurate description. "Not as well known as Salvatore", would even be a stretch. It would all depend on what group of people you are asking. </blockquote><p>Exactly.Terquem wrote:I really don't know how correct it is to categorize the work of Jack Vance as, "Obscure". Is this a comment coming from someone who is familiar with his work, and numerous awards and believes it is "Obscure" simply because it is not the current "Thing" on HBO. It is, to me, the same as saying the works of Bing Crosby, Cole Porter, or Oscar Wilde, are "Obscure". probably not an accurate description. "Not as well known as Salvatore", would even be a stretch. It would all depend on...Carl Cascone2012-01-31T16:09:59ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njb8&page=3?Something-4th-Ed-DD-did-that-I-liked#1452012-01-31T15:07:48Z2012-01-31T15:05:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kthulhu wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Terquem wrote:</div><blockquote> It seems silly to complain that Vancian magic, “Doesn’t make sense,” ... </blockquote>Well, I think the main problem is that Vancian magic is almost entirely unlike any system of magic portrayed in popular literature / film / folklore / etc. The only things that are really similar are 1) very obscure works that have only been salvaged from complete obscurity because of their influence on Dungeons & Dragons; or 2) works that are themselves direct adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons. </blockquote><p>Jack Vance just did a good job explaining his magic system. Any other magic system from the time could easily have worked that way, including folklore.
<p>It is not inherently better or worse than any other magic system, but it is the BEST system for any edition of Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder.</p>Kthulhu wrote:Terquem wrote: It seems silly to complain that Vancian magic, “Doesn’t make sense,” ...
Well, I think the main problem is that Vancian magic is almost entirely unlike any system of magic portrayed in popular literature / film / folklore / etc. The only things that are really similar are 1) very obscure works that have only been salvaged from complete obscurity because of their influence on Dungeons & Dragons; or 2) works that are themselves direct adaptations of Dungeons &...Carl Cascone2012-01-31T15:05:38ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njb8&page=3?Something-4th-Ed-DD-did-that-I-liked#1412012-01-31T14:00:47Z2012-01-31T14:00:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DigitalMage wrote:</div><blockquote> Same as above</blockquote><p>And I am with you, I enjoyed the 3rd edition grapple rules. One reason the 4e teaser video annoyed me.DigitalMage wrote:Same as above
And I am with you, I enjoyed the 3rd edition grapple rules. One reason the 4e teaser video annoyed me.Carl Cascone2012-01-31T14:00:47ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njb8&page=3?Something-4th-Ed-DD-did-that-I-liked#1402012-01-31T13:57:04Z2012-01-31T13:57:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DigitalMage wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Carl Cascone wrote:</div><blockquote>Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'. </blockquote><p>As I stated in my post, for me, yes, there is an "extra hassle /effort /time" in calculating the diagonal movement rule in 3.5 and PF - its not much, but it is noticeable.
<p>I personally always play RAW so when I run 3.5 or PF I run the diagonal rule and accept the extra effort, however when I play 4e I use the 4e movement rules where diagonals only count 1 and it has absolutely zero impact on my sense of verisimiltude, so as there is no "cost" for me, even the slightest benefit means it has a great cost: benefit ratio.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Carl Cascone wrote:</div><blockquote>I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers. </blockquote><p>I found the 3.5 Grapple rules fairly okay, but I can accept that people have different levels of ability, comprehension, or patience for detailed rules, and so accept that some people may find grapple difficult.
<p>I think you just need to accept that for people other than yourself counting diagonals can be difficult to varying levels of degree (for me, its only very slightly more difficult, as for me the issue is remembering teh number of diagonals moved - I am good at maths but not so great at keeping more than one number in my head especially when being distracted by AoOs and all the numbers mentioned therein). </blockquote><p>Perhaps my frustration with ignoring the diagonal rule simply comes from my experience in education. It probably is not a game issue at all. I understand that most gamers know the diagonal is longer. I understand that YOU the DIgital MAge made a valid decision to ignore that rule yet you understand it. My issue and often frustration comes when a vast majority of people, do not understand simple geometry. Eliminating the diagonal rule is a missed oppurtunity to subtly teach a simple principle.
<p>Perhaps a person (not even a child, plenty of adults do not understand simple math) doesn't realize the diagonal is longer. Pathfinder might make them realize there is a difference, where 4e in striving to be accessable is willing to ignore it, because it is 'just too hard'. There is an opportunity to VISUALLY teach a math principle while having fun.</p>
<p>Now I understand the purpose of gaming is NOT to educate, yet I wonder if my vocabulary would be at the level it is now if not for Gary Gygax and D&D. 4e eliminated much of the intellectual lifting for access. It is not WOTC's job to teach, but it is just one more missed opportunity 'along the way' to teach something valuable. </p>
<p>I do not think that learning the diagonal rule makes people more educated or anything insulting like that. I am discussing it as that '1 more thing' that can be ignored that over time adds up.</p>
<p>People think being enumerate is not an issue. If we in the United States at least had a better rate of math proficiency it is quite possible many people purchasing houses could have identified they were being sold a bill of goods by predatory banks if they were able to simply inject numbers in a formula.</p>DigitalMage wrote:Carl Cascone wrote:Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'.
As I stated in my post, for me, yes, there is an "extra hassle /effort /time" in calculating the diagonal movement rule in 3.5 and PF - its not much, but it is noticeable. I personally always play RAW so when I run 3.5 or PF I run the diagonal rule and accept the...Carl Cascone2012-01-31T13:57:04ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njb8&page=3?Something-4th-Ed-DD-did-that-I-liked#1092012-01-30T20:58:35Z2012-01-30T20:58:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DigitalMage wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Whilst your point of view is valid, the key point is that yours is not the only valid point of view, and that the designers of 4e presumably got the impression that the diagonal move rule had a poor cost/benefit ratio for enough players that it would be best that 4e used a simpler rule.</p>
<p>And this is another point to be clear on, many of us understand and can even calculate the diagonal moves in PF, however the benefit it gives (in terms of increasing the fun of the game) compared to the extra hassle /effort /time it takes is not worth it to us. For us the extra "realism" is not worth even the slight delay in calculating areas of effect and movement. Obviously for yourself the extra realism is worth it, which is great as PF uses your preferred method.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Its fine if you don't want to use the rule, but is counting out a 1 then 2 then 1 then 2 really difficult? I promise no snark intended, but there is no extra effort in preserving that 'realism'. How is counting the 1:2 ratio on diagonal squares really a matter of difficulty?
<p>It is not a matter of simulation. Clearly if you look at the battlemat,the mini that moved 3 squares corner to corner has a greater displacement than the one that moved 3 squares front to back. It simply throws off the scaling of your map.</p>
<p>I can't even imagine how that can be a difficulty, especially for gamers. i find math of pathfinder to be sweet and easy.</p>DigitalMage wrote:Whilst your point of view is valid, the key point is that yours is not the only valid point of view, and that the designers of 4e presumably got the impression that the diagonal move rule had a poor cost/benefit ratio for enough players that it would be best that 4e used a simpler rule.And this is another point to be clear on, many of us understand and can even calculate the diagonal moves in PF, however the benefit it gives (in terms of increasing the fun of the game)...Carl Cascone2012-01-30T20:58:35ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Something 4th Ed D&D did that I liked...Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njb8&page=3?Something-4th-Ed-DD-did-that-I-liked#1042012-01-30T19:18:44Z2012-01-30T19:18:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:</div><blockquote> ~GETTING RID OF THAT STUPID DIAGONAL MOVEMENT RULE. NO! Do NOT defend this rule. It makes NO sense. NONE. Someone tried, I made them walk outside, and •GASP• you get to places QUICKER when you move diagonally, not the same rate. It's STUPID. And of all the rules I moved into Pathfinder from 4ed, this is the one that shall forever move with me. I've NEVER seen it abused in practice.</blockquote><p>If you are not going to count diagonals then just use a tape measure, otherwise distance is meaningless. Measure it out. Place two minis 5 squares apart. Measure the distance. Take two minis and place them 5 squares apart corner to corner now measure THAT distance. THAT is why the diagonal rule makes sense.
<p>Whether you travel forward, backward, left, right, or diagonal you travel a DISTANCE. Moving diagonal has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>The diagonal rule is logical because the distance from se to nw is 1.4 inches instead of a inch. Moving forward through 2 squares gets you two inches, moving diagonally gets you 2.85 inches. </p>
<p>If one square represents 5 feet, then the diagonal is 7 feet. Moving two diagonal squares nets you ALMOST another square.</p>
<p>So just because someone decides to move nw to se they should gain more distance? That is not what makes sense. Why would anyone move forward?</p>
<p>No one needs to defend it because Pythagorus does it so well.</p>
<p>Moving diagonally does NOT get you anywhere faster. In real life if you travel diagonally you are simply traveling a distance. </p>
<p>EDIT: Someone Ninja'd that response.</p>Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:~GETTING RID OF THAT STUPID DIAGONAL MOVEMENT RULE. NO! Do NOT defend this rule. It makes NO sense. NONE. Someone tried, I made them walk outside, and *GASP* you get to places QUICKER when you move diagonally, not the same rate. It's STUPID. And of all the rules I moved into Pathfinder from 4ed, this is the one that shall forever move with me. I've NEVER seen it abused in practice.
If you are not going to count diagonals then just use a tape measure, otherwise...Carl Cascone2012-01-30T19:18:44ZRe: Forums: Gamer Connection: Looking for game/group/players Southern NJ (The Shore)Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2njbk?Looking-for-gamegroupplayers-Southern-NJ#22012-01-30T04:42:28Z2012-01-30T04:42:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">LFDPrivateer wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Looking for Pathfinder games, groups, and/or players in the Jersey Shore area.</p>
<p>If possible I would like to put together or even join a PFS group. I have already talked to a local comic book store who is willing to host games. I play with a group about once a month, but very much would like to play more.</p>
<p>We can play one shots, story arcs, Adventure Paths, etc.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I live in Morris county, but I have a house in ocean grove (Neptune) that I visit at least once a month. I want to run my own adventures and paizo adventure paths. If we can get more people I can offer to GM in ocean grove and I can make the trip more than one weekend a month. I will travel down there at least 2 weekends a month if we can get people together. Unless you are far south of Pkwy exit 102. If your near 102 I am willing to travel down there.LFDPrivateer wrote:Looking for Pathfinder games, groups, and/or players in the Jersey Shore area.
If possible I would like to put together or even join a PFS group. I have already talked to a local comic book store who is willing to host games. I play with a group about once a month, but very much would like to play more.
We can play one shots, story arcs, Adventure Paths, etc.
I live in Morris county, but I have a house in ocean grove (Neptune) that I visit at least once a month. I want...Carl Cascone2012-01-30T04:42:28ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Evolution, anatomy, sciencey things, speculation.Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2neqs&page=2?Evolution-anatomy-sciencey-things-speculation#672012-01-28T20:45:13Z2012-01-28T20:45:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chuck Wright wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I assume that you're speaking of this</p>
<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)</p>
<p>There have recently been (at least) two women found that have two separate DNA signatures. One almost lost her children over it because I DNA test proved that she wasn't the mother. They had to culture samples from another part of her body to prove she was.</p>
<p><a href="http://boingboing.net/2009/05/01/the-mind-blowing-wor.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Here's a link to a story about naturally-occuring chimerism.</a></p>
<p></blockquote><p>Ah thank you for this!Chuck Wright wrote:I assume that you're speaking of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
There have recently been (at least) two women found that have two separate DNA signatures. One almost lost her children over it because I DNA test proved that she wasn't the mother. They had to culture samples from another part of her body to prove she was.
Here's a link to a story about naturally-occuring chimerism.
Ah thank you for this!Carl Cascone2012-01-28T20:45:13ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Evolution, anatomy, sciencey things, speculation.Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2neqs&page=2?Evolution-anatomy-sciencey-things-speculation#642012-01-28T15:55:19Z2012-01-28T15:55:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chuck Wright wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I mostly agree with what you're saying. My approach will be more of the approach of a "natural philosophy". Some things are better off left to saying "it's magic". You can't dissect a wizard and find his Magic Missile gland, after all. <grin></p>
<p>I'm also very aware of cladistics (I brought it up earlier in the thread) and think that it's the only system worth using for a fantasy setting as well as for the real world.</p>
<p>On chimeric DNA - I've seen the program on it twice now and I wonder what the real statistic is for people with chimeric DNA. I mean, what if the only way to detect it were to test your left toe? <laugh> </blockquote><p>Chimeric DNA is completely laboratory made, from a bunch of different sources, used in medicine. My degree is in Molecular Biology and I used to work with it all the time. I left the field though because I am a complete germophobe, and I got tired of working in WHITE labs with UV lights and fans. I switched fields now.
<p>I agree with you on the naturalistic approach. It jars me when game writers for fantasy of an assumed historical period that is not 1900's use genes in discussion. It kind of pulls me out of the fantasy so to speak.</p>
<p>The idea of hereditary component was around in the times assumed by the Pathfinder rules and Golarion, but DNA is a product of the atomic age.</p>
<p>When we started getting close we called it the 'transforming principle' in the 1920's. We were not sure what that was at the time though protein was suspected.</p>
<p>So I enjoy pieces about ecology, descent, and behavior in pre 1900's assumed fantasy, but DNA really is a modern idea. I also get jarred when Monster Rules are scientifically explained. It isn't necessary, and the explanation is usually just a reach. </p>
<p>I like the alchemist as a pseudo-scientist. he makes bombs and it is Assumed he is using a mix of mundane and magical chemicals but there is no effort to explain HOW its done. I think if you are not running science fiction that is where explanation should stop. Say it HAPPENS.</p>
<p>Its like the mediclorions of Star Wars. Suddenly George Lucas needed a scientific mechanism to explain the force (which I just say is magic). So now not anyone can be a Jedi. All Jedi must be symbiotes. What if I kidnap little anakin and culture his mediclorions and inject them into people? Now they can all be Jedi?</p>
<p>More than likely it was just an explanation for George Lucas' crazy immaculate conception idea.</p>
<p>I don't beleive it. I fully bet Shmi Skywalker got gaga over some jedi. She had some drinks they got busy and the JEdi (who presumably would be a powerful one to give off such offspring) realized he messed up, and to save Shmi from heartbreak used the force to make her forget.</p>
<p>So when Qui-gon asks her about the father, she has to say she literally has no idea. You can even see the shame on her face in Phantom Menace.</p>
<p>That is the explanation I am sticking with:)</p>Chuck Wright wrote:I mostly agree with what you're saying. My approach will be more of the approach of a "natural philosophy". Some things are better off left to saying "it's magic". You can't dissect a wizard and find his Magic Missile gland, after all. I'm also very aware of cladistics (I brought it up earlier in the thread) and think that it's the only system worth using for a fantasy setting as well as for the real world.
On chimeric DNA - I've seen the program on it twice now and I...Carl Cascone2012-01-28T15:55:19ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Evolution, anatomy, sciencey things, speculation.Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2neqs&page=2?Evolution-anatomy-sciencey-things-speculation#602012-01-28T06:40:32Z2012-01-28T06:40:32Z<p>In modern biology classic taxonomy is nearly extinct. It is just to difficult to get the characteristics to conform. Evolutionary biologists pretty much favor cladistics now.</p>
<p>I am a scientist and I hate imposing science on a classically magic world. I like science to stay far out of fantasy. This is in no way poopooing the idea for others I just don't like it because there are too many conflicting items.</p>
<p>I remember in 2nd edition a biology book was released for the beholder. I hated it. Bringing the levitation to a pseudoscientific level opens lots of more options for beating the beholder. Really though it is impossible to get the biology to work so I just like leaving it at magical rather than naturalistic biology.</p>
<p>Though we do have chimeric DNA in the real world :)</p>
<p>Just my thoughts, and not saying others should not do it if they like.</p>In modern biology classic taxonomy is nearly extinct. It is just to difficult to get the characteristics to conform. Evolutionary biologists pretty much favor cladistics now.
I am a scientist and I hate imposing science on a classically magic world. I like science to stay far out of fantasy. This is in no way poopooing the idea for others I just don't like it because there are too many conflicting items.
I remember in 2nd edition a biology book was released for the beholder. I hated it....Carl Cascone2012-01-28T06:40:32ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Official "Critique My Item" ThreadCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni75&page=13?Official-Critique-My-Item-Thread#6322012-01-27T18:51:50Z2012-01-27T18:51:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Veiled Nail wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Carl Cascone wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Honestly any feedback from anyone would be appreciated. I don't care how harsh the criticism, after all you really don't know what I look like so if you put it sounds like it was written by a fat, bearded guy that lives in a cave you don't REALLY know that the description suits me so I would take no offense.</p>
<p>Any bits would be appreciated.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Ask and ye shall receive. But I'm just an observer - I lack true mojo for submitting one of my own.
<p>Technical stuff:
<br />
good execution of template.
<br />
"In addition the veil" should be "In addition<i>,</i> the veil"</p>
<p>Conceptual stuff:</p>
<p>It does a lot of things.
<br />
It provides a bonus to Cha (for 2 extra channels), a +1/die bonus to damage and a 1/day <i>sunburst</i>.</p>
<p>From a power-gaming aspect, this looks like the item of uber-channeling - so a little cheesy. I'd say SAK.</p>
<p>The bonus to Cha is out of place, both thematically and by slot. The Cha enhancing slot is <i>headband</i>.
<br />
I'm not sure thematically why this would provide a bonus to Cha. </p>
<p>Where I think this item really grates is the penalties for channeling negative energy. How often does the 6d6 damage + blindness occur? Does it only occur once when the item is put on? or does it occur each round? </p>
<p>Same for the Cha drain. The only wondrous item that acts similarly is the <i>robe of the archmagi</i>. And that only bestows negative levels while the item is worn. There may have been some artifacts in 3.5 that acted this way.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Many thanks!
<p>honestly the Charisma bonus was completely intentional, to enhance channeling. I suspected it was overdone. You are correct I modeled the negative energy penalty after the robe. I thought it was cool, and I should have learned the lesson I tell people in the Larp I wrote rules for, if you think it is cool you should revisit it. I did not follow my own advice. </p>
<p>I thought the CHA bonus was a good edition because it was channeling, that was the only reason I included it.</p>
<p>Thank you, your criticism leads to thoughts!</p>Veiled Nail wrote:Carl Cascone wrote:Honestly any feedback from anyone would be appreciated. I don't care how harsh the criticism, after all you really don't know what I look like so if you put it sounds like it was written by a fat, bearded guy that lives in a cave you don't REALLY know that the description suits me so I would take no offense.
Any bits would be appreciated.
Ask and ye shall receive. But I'm just an observer - I lack true mojo for submitting one of my own. Technical stuff:...Carl Cascone2012-01-27T18:51:50ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Official "Critique My Item" ThreadCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni75&page=13?Official-Critique-My-Item-Thread#6242012-01-27T18:10:28Z2012-01-27T18:10:28Z<p>I have put together a word document of a sampling of items and their criticisms just for reference. Some because they are from members of this board I have come to respect, some because of mistakes they made, and others because it is an item theme I might have submitted.</p>
<p>The brutal honesty is helpful. I have read just about every item and its criticism DESPITE the work I should be doing in real life. I have learned heaps just from reading the item and judges comments.</p>
<p>Many items I think that were rejected by the judges, I think are even better than some items in the top 32. </p>
<p>The bottom line is this is HARD. Its easy to make items, but I guarantee even in the days of TSR Dragon submissions the scrutiny was not as tight, and you would have even been paid $5 for your bit. </p>
<p>The judges are under no obligation to critique these items so it is really up to each individual to do their homework. This thread alone is a HUGE resource.</p>I have put together a word document of a sampling of items and their criticisms just for reference. Some because they are from members of this board I have come to respect, some because of mistakes they made, and others because it is an item theme I might have submitted.
The brutal honesty is helpful. I have read just about every item and its criticism DESPITE the work I should be doing in real life. I have learned heaps just from reading the item and judges comments.
Many items I think...Carl Cascone2012-01-27T18:10:28ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Official "Critique My Item" ThreadCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni75&page=13?Official-Critique-My-Item-Thread#6192012-01-27T17:55:03Z2012-01-27T17:55:03Z<p>Honestly any feedback from anyone would be appreciated. I don't care how harsh the criticism, after all you really don't know what I look like so if you put it sounds like it was written by a fat, bearded guy that lives in a cave you don't REALLY know that the description suits me so I would take no offense.</p>
<p>Any bits would be appreciated.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Carl Cascone wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I am not an overly sensitive individual so any feedback would be appreciated:) Thank you for the opportunity. Initially I had planned this to be a Sarenrae specific item, but I eliminated most of that because of the background material. </p>
<p>Honestly it was nice to design something with the pressure of format and publicity. Normally I design for home, it was a great pleasure to treat this as a job, even if the better ones won!</p>
<p><b>Veil of the Final Redemption</b>
<br />
<b>Aura</b> strong varied; <b>CL</b> 15th
<br />
<b>Slot</b> head; <b>Price</b> 80,500 gp; <b>Weight</b> 1lb.
<br />
<b>Description</b>
<br />
This veil which covers the lower half of the face is made from beautiful Qadiran fabric. Embroidered on the veil are designs of ankhs and suns interwoven with threads dyed in colors common to the desert landscape. If the wearer channels positive energy, the veil can substitute as their holy symbol and will grant a sacred bonus of +1 per die of healing or damage whenever channel energy is used. The embroidered suns on the veil empower the wearer to cast a <i> sunburst </i> spell (Reflex DC 25 half) on command once per day as a standard action. In addition the veil provides a +4 enhancement bonus to Charisma for anyone wearing it, provided they do not channel negative energy.
<br />
If the veil should be worn by a character that channels negative energy, regardless of their alignment or faith, the veil will not function and causes 4 points of Charisma drain. The character will also be blinded and suffers 6d6 points of damage (Reflex DC 25 half).
<br />
<b>Construction</b>
<br />
<b>Requirements</b> Craft Wondrous Item, <i>consecrate</i>, <i>eagle’s splendor</i>, <i>sunburst</i>, nimbus of light sun domain power; <b>Cost</b> 40,250 gp</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Honestly any feedback from anyone would be appreciated. I don't care how harsh the criticism, after all you really don't know what I look like so if you put it sounds like it was written by a fat, bearded guy that lives in a cave you don't REALLY know that the description suits me so I would take no offense.
Any bits would be appreciated.
Carl Cascone wrote:I am not an overly sensitive individual so any feedback would be appreciated:) Thank you for the opportunity. Initially I had planned...Carl Cascone2012-01-27T17:55:03ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Official "Critique My Item" ThreadCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni75&page=13?Official-Critique-My-Item-Thread#6132012-01-27T17:43:51Z2012-01-27T17:43:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Clark Peterson wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">The Grandfather wrote:</div><blockquote><p> To be honest, Clark. I am extremely disappointed.</p>
<p>To call this thread anything with the word "critique" in it is a joke. I have been provided with absolutely NOTHING to work with. If this thread was called "judge's commentary" I would understand (maybe).</p>
<p>I have been told the Item is poorly crafted and the only point pointed out by the judges is invalid. What gives? </blockquote><p>Good question. I'll talk with Neil about his approach of just cutting and pasting comments. I agree it seems more harsh than intended. I think his goal is to get the comments out to everyone. I'm trying to provide some more positive and constructive feedback. This is why we dont just open up our forums for view, but that is essentially what Neil is doing.
<p></blockquote><p>NO NO so many times NO!!
<p>There is something to be gained from the RAW criticism. It is something you can only get if you are in the room. Critique is certainly useful, but this is a first screen.</p>
<p>Brutal honesty is sometimes the best criticism one can recieve but so often it is not given.</p>
<p>The fact this is even happening is a gift! </p>
<p>Please don't change what you are doing.</p>Clark Peterson wrote:The Grandfather wrote:To be honest, Clark. I am extremely disappointed.
To call this thread anything with the word "critique" in it is a joke. I have been provided with absolutely NOTHING to work with. If this thread was called "judge's commentary" I would understand (maybe).
I have been told the Item is poorly crafted and the only point pointed out by the judges is invalid. What gives?
Good question. I'll talk with Neil about his approach of just cutting and pasting...Carl Cascone2012-01-27T17:43:51ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Official "Critique My Item" ThreadCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni75&page=13?Official-Critique-My-Item-Thread#6092012-01-27T17:33:00Z2012-01-27T17:33:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Neil Spicer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Carl Cascone wrote:</div><blockquote> <b>Veil of the Final Redemption</b> </blockquote>•We already have a precedent for adding to positive channeling, and it doesn't work this way.</blockquote><p>OK community help:) Is there something other than the phylactery I am missing? I see how I departed from that but could there be something else to which the judges refer?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Neil Spicer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
•We already have Cha-boost items in the headband slot, no need to move your booster slot to the head slot so you can use something else as your headband.</blockquote><p>I suspected adding a Charisma bonus was not wise but it fits the items purpose. Is it generally bad form to include other ability bonus items other than the Belts and headbands?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Neil Spicer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
•Plus it's a great way to slap Cha drain on a captured enemy bad guy! Meh.</blockquote><p>I didn't consider that aspect of the item. I suppose I should have.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Neil Spicer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
•I get the theme the designer was going for...I think they just <b>overdid</b> it and didn't think through everything. If you boil it down, it grants a bonus to positive energy channeling (which uses a different mechanic than has been done before), a <i>sunburst</i> SIAC, and a +4 Charisma bonus courtesy of a different item slot than you'd normally expect. That's not Superstar thinking in terms of the design, despite the <b>somewhat innovative theme, overall flavor, and professional presentation.</b></blockquote><p>I was worried it was overdone, but I chose to go for it. We all make poor choices.
<p>At least I earned the last part I emphasised in bold, so some of what I was trying to create I managed to get. </p>
<p>I appreciate the professional compliment as I work hard on that.</p>
<p>This answered many of my questions. Thank you.</p>Neil Spicer wrote:Carl Cascone wrote: Veil of the Final Redemption
*We already have a precedent for adding to positive channeling, and it doesn't work this way.OK community help:) Is there something other than the phylactery I am missing? I see how I departed from that but could there be something else to which the judges refer? Neil Spicer wrote:*We already have Cha-boost items in the headband slot, no need to move your booster slot to the head slot so you can use something else as your...Carl Cascone2012-01-27T17:33:00ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Official "Critique My Item" ThreadCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni75&page=12?Official-Critique-My-Item-Thread#5632012-01-27T14:05:02Z2012-01-27T14:05:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Neil Spicer wrote:</div><blockquote> All the relevant things that everyone should have fgured out</blockquote><p>I have not gotten critique yet but still thank you, and I hope I get my initial critique.
<p>As someone that grades for a living, I know how much work is involved. My environmental science exams which I am grading now run about 2400 words each and I have 120 of those, far less than you guys have to deal with. except I only have this weekend to do it.</p>
<p>I was very disappointed I didn't make it, but realistically with my grading deadline, and the biochem research seminar I have, I really don't know how I would have pulled off the organization by today.</p>
<p>I would have by hook or by crook, but it is kind of good I didn't have too. Sleep is good.</p>
<p>Thank you for the work you put in, it is realized.</p>Neil Spicer wrote:All the relevant things that everyone should have fgured out
I have not gotten critique yet but still thank you, and I hope I get my initial critique. As someone that grades for a living, I know how much work is involved. My environmental science exams which I am grading now run about 2400 words each and I have 120 of those, far less than you guys have to deal with. except I only have this weekend to do it.
I was very disappointed I didn't make it, but realistically with...Carl Cascone2012-01-27T14:05:02ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Official "Critique My Item" ThreadCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni75&page=6?Official-Critique-My-Item-Thread#2662012-01-26T14:23:59Z2012-01-26T14:23:59Z<p>I am not an overly sensitive individual so any feedback would be appreciated:) Thank you for the opportunity. Initially I had planned this to be a Sarenrae specific item, but I eliminated most of that because of the background material. </p>
<p>Honestly it was nice to design something with the pressure of format and publicity. Normally I design for home, it was a great pleasure to treat this as a job, even if the better ones won!</p>
<p><b>Veil of the Final Redemption</b>
<br />
<b>Aura</b> strong varied; <b>CL</b> 15th
<br />
<b>Slot</b> head; <b>Price</b> 80,500 gp; <b>Weight</b> 1lb.
<br />
<b>Description</b>
<br />
This veil which covers the lower half of the face is made from beautiful Qadiran fabric. Embroidered on the veil are designs of ankhs and suns interwoven with threads dyed in colors common to the desert landscape. If the wearer channels positive energy, the veil can substitute as their holy symbol and will grant a sacred bonus of +1 per die of healing or damage whenever channel energy is used. The embroidered suns on the veil empower the wearer to cast a <i> sunburst </i> spell (Reflex DC 25 half) on command once per day as a standard action. In addition the veil provides a +4 enhancement bonus to Charisma for anyone wearing it, provided they do not channel negative energy.
<br />
If the veil should be worn by a character that channels negative energy, regardless of their alignment or faith, the veil will not function and causes 4 points of Charisma drain. The character will also be blinded and suffers 6d6 points of damage (Reflex DC 25 half).
<br />
<b>Construction</b>
<br />
<b>Requirements</b> Craft Wondrous Item, <i>consecrate</i>, <i>eagle’s splendor</i>, <i>sunburst</i>, nimbus of light sun domain power; <b>Cost</b> 40,250 gp</p>I am not an overly sensitive individual so any feedback would be appreciated:) Thank you for the opportunity. Initially I had planned this to be a Sarenrae specific item, but I eliminated most of that because of the background material.
Honestly it was nice to design something with the pressure of format and publicity. Normally I design for home, it was a great pleasure to treat this as a job, even if the better ones won!
Veil of the Final Redemption
Aura strong varied; CL 15th
Slot head;...Carl Cascone2012-01-26T14:23:59ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Question about FeedbackCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni8p?Question-about-Feedback#192012-01-25T07:21:59Z2012-01-25T07:21:59Z<p>Are the feedback threads going to be located in this part of the forum?</p>Are the feedback threads going to be located in this part of the forum?Carl Cascone2012-01-25T07:21:59ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Question about FeedbackCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni8p?Question-about-Feedback#152012-01-25T04:23:55Z2012-01-25T04:23:55Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thomas LeBlanc wrote:</div><blockquote> Last year I felt like the William Hung of RPG Superstar. Well not exactly, but I was pretty hard on myself. I digested the judges criticisms, worked hard on the areas where I fell short, and read, then reread, the advice that offered (for free!) by various judges and well-versed posters on the boards. My design and balance skills have increased. Now to see if my wordsmithery is up to the challenge ahead. </blockquote><p>congratulations on making it this year. I'm glad the first year XP paid off for you.Thomas LeBlanc wrote:Last year I felt like the William Hung of RPG Superstar. Well not exactly, but I was pretty hard on myself. I digested the judges criticisms, worked hard on the areas where I fell short, and read, then reread, the advice that offered (for free!) by various judges and well-versed posters on the boards. My design and balance skills have increased. Now to see if my wordsmithery is up to the challenge ahead.
congratulations on making it this year. I'm glad the first year XP...Carl Cascone2012-01-25T04:23:55ZRe: Forums: Forum Games: BANNED!Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l84v&page=69?BANNED#34082012-01-21T05:14:34Z2012-01-21T05:14:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kavren Stark wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Kelsey is banned for denigrating the morals of punsters.</p>
<p>Darksmokepuncher is banned for posting in the five seconds between me hitting "preview" and "submit post." Quick ninja! </blockquote><p>Stark is banned because his name is Krats Nervak spelled backward. Clearly it is a rip off of Krats Nervak.Kavren Stark wrote:Kelsey is banned for denigrating the morals of punsters.
Darksmokepuncher is banned for posting in the five seconds between me hitting "preview" and "submit post." Quick ninja!
Stark is banned because his name is Krats Nervak spelled backward. Clearly it is a rip off of Krats Nervak.Carl Cascone2012-01-21T05:14:34ZRe: Forums: Movies: Mass Effect Movie!Carl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mzh3?Mass-Effect-Movie#102012-01-21T05:11:57Z2012-01-21T05:11:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mikaze wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:</div><blockquote> I assume they won't be making the Commander Shepherd movie. </blockquote>To be honest I think I'd prefer that they didn't. That universe is <i>ripe</i> for other stories beyond telling the game's story over again. </blockquote><p>I am REALLY attached to Mass Effect. Bioware scored something great there.
<p>I am not necessarily attached to Shepherd. I love the character, but Mass Effect really IS more than the character. I am hoping for the Mass Effect Franchise to continue after ME3, but I would like to see it involve other characters. the feeling I get is that Mass Effect is loved for its universe, contrasted with Metal Gear Solid which seems loved for its character.</p>
<p>In any case, there is no way the anticipation of a ME movie could match the anticipation I have for Mass Effect 3 right now. I am really hoping my saving the Rachni Queen paid off.</p>Mikaze wrote:DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: I assume they won't be making the Commander Shepherd movie.
To be honest I think I'd prefer that they didn't. That universe is ripe for other stories beyond telling the game's story over again. I am REALLY attached to Mass Effect. Bioware scored something great there. I am not necessarily attached to Shepherd. I love the character, but Mass Effect really IS more than the character. I am hoping for the Mass Effect Franchise to continue after ME3, but I...Carl Cascone2012-01-21T05:11:57ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Feelings on PsionicsCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nh4l&page=2?Feelings-on-Psionics#602012-01-20T20:04:54Z2012-01-20T20:04:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sardonic Soul wrote:</div><blockquote> Ok, I got my riot gear and bear mace so I'll weigh in and wait for the backlash. Psionics just aren't core to the game. When people think about a fanatsy game like pathfinder or d&d people think of wizards, clerics, etc. Nobody thinks of luke skywalker. If you were playing a scifi game nobody would bring up magic. It's that simple. Granted some people like a crossover but they are niche. That is why with all the base classes out now not one is a psionisist. It would require its own book and take resources away from more popular game supplements. In the end it would lose paizo money catering to a niche. That's why it was left to third party devlopers. In short psionics are like gun rules or Ron Paul, most people don't care for them but those that do are rabid about it.... There I'm done and will head to my bomb shelter till the fallout fades. </blockquote><p>Star Wars doesn't use psionics. Star Wars also is not sci fi, it is fantasy through and through. The force is magic, especially as portrayed in the expanded novels.
<p>But I am with you, I do not like mixing sci fi in my sword and sorcery. I am happy however that Golarion has contained areas to satisfy that niche.</p>
<p>I have my own cosmological explanations as to why psionics won't manifest in most golarion ethnicities, and why workable guns can only be formed in Arkenstar. I have my own 'magic/tech rating system largely inspired from ARCANUM and Manual of the Planes 1st edition.</p>Sardonic Soul wrote:Ok, I got my riot gear and bear mace so I'll weigh in and wait for the backlash. Psionics just aren't core to the game. When people think about a fanatsy game like pathfinder or d&d people think of wizards, clerics, etc. Nobody thinks of luke skywalker. If you were playing a scifi game nobody would bring up magic. It's that simple. Granted some people like a crossover but they are niche. That is why with all the base classes out now not one is a psionisist. It would...Carl Cascone2012-01-20T20:04:54ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Feelings on PsionicsCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nh4l&page=2?Feelings-on-Psionics#592012-01-20T20:00:16Z2012-01-20T20:00:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:</div><blockquote> I'd rather Paizo left psionics to Dreamscarred. I really don't want to choose between two systems. </blockquote><p>If that is the case though, then there will never be a Paizo written AP. I am interested in psionics only for those dark tapestry creatures, and perhaps deep sea. I imagine Vudrani to be psionic but I never intend to let it manifest anywhere else except Numeria.
<p>I am very interested in an AP for Numeria (At least a Chronicles book PLEASE!) and a vudrani AP. If Dreamscarred gets adopted I don;t know if Paizo would write it 'psionicly' or with psionics in mind. </p>
<p>I was thinking about picking dreamscarred up but does anyone know if there is a HEROLAB supplement for it? For 3pp, not being Herolab compatible is deal breaker for me.</p>
<p>I flipped through a book of theirs in the game store and it looked really nice however, I think it was victorian age.</p>Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:I'd rather Paizo left psionics to Dreamscarred. I really don't want to choose between two systems.
If that is the case though, then there will never be a Paizo written AP. I am interested in psionics only for those dark tapestry creatures, and perhaps deep sea. I imagine Vudrani to be psionic but I never intend to let it manifest anywhere else except Numeria. I am very interested in an AP for Numeria (At least a Chronicles book PLEASE!) and a vudrani AP. If...Carl Cascone2012-01-20T20:00:16ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: The Alignment System is Too Arbitrary and ArtificialCarl Casconehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nh4c?The-Alignment-System-is-Too-Arbitrary-and#282012-01-19T20:17:51Z2012-01-19T20:17:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:</div><blockquote> If you don't like alignment, pull it from your game. If you do like it, use it. It's that simple. </blockquote><p>Its pretty easy to do! Either way the game is not going to run THAT much differently.Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:If you don't like alignment, pull it from your game. If you do like it, use it. It's that simple.
Its pretty easy to do! Either way the game is not going to run THAT much differently.Carl Cascone2012-01-19T20:17:51ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 'Future of D&D' articleMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nd7s&page=2?Future-of-DD-article#922012-01-07T18:49:32Z2012-01-07T18:49:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">memorax wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Gorbacz wrote:</div><blockquote> Between the way GSL is worded and the DDI, WotC made pretty sure that they will not repeat the "OGL mistake" - pulling a plug on 4E is as easy as terminating the GSL and switching DDI to the new edition - I'm pretty sure most folks will just give up and switch over if they can't any more use the 4E Character Builder. </blockquote>That makes no sense. i play PF without a character builder. By your logic that menas I should give up and switch over to something else. Is the Character builder useful yes. Will it spell the end of 4E or any other rpg hardly. </blockquote><p>You can do it that is for sure. However I imagine there are people that are quite integrated with DDI that if that went, they very well might switch systems. I do not think that number should be underestimated.
<p>WOTC is in a bind here. Paizo changed the field now. They need to choose their next move very carefully or D&D will simply be a Hasbro brand. They cannot afford to lose the loyalty of their current 4e fan base.</p>memorax wrote:Gorbacz wrote: Between the way GSL is worded and the DDI, WotC made pretty sure that they will not repeat the "OGL mistake" - pulling a plug on 4E is as easy as terminating the GSL and switching DDI to the new edition - I'm pretty sure most folks will just give up and switch over if they can't any more use the 4E Character Builder.
That makes no sense. i play PF without a character builder. By your logic that menas I should give up and switch over to something else. Is the...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2012-01-07T18:49:32ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 'Future of D&D' articleMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nd7s&page=2?Future-of-DD-article#572012-01-05T21:04:13Z2012-01-05T21:04:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">cibet44 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Mournblade94 wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project?</blockquote><p>That's basically what I'm saying as well. The problems with 4E (whatever one thinks they may be) are <i>problems with 4E</i>, not the RPG industry, not RPG gamers, not a fractured environment and so on.
<p>What will be very interesting to me is, lets say WoTC releases 5E (or whatever they call it) in 2013, will a substantial number of players continue to play 4E anyway or will it just dry up? When 5E is released can anyone envision a "4th edition grognard" demographic being formed? I doubt it. </blockquote><p>I want to call this in case WOTC does this stupid move...
<p>If they pull the rug out from the 4e community and stop making 4e or something very close to it, D&D as a viable table top brand is OVER. If they leave current fans in the dust again to try to attain the old D&D market the table top brand for D&D is over. Hello board game and video games, made with the support from MtG Dollars.</p>
<p>If Paizo did not come along, WOTC would have no trouble recovering fans. I think the 800 pound Gorilla now has to fight the 650 pound pound gorilla who is still growing up.</p>cibet44 wrote:Mournblade94 wrote:
All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project?
That's basically what I'm saying as well. The problems with 4E (whatever one thinks they may be) are problems with 4E, not the RPG industry, not RPG gamers, not a fractured environment and so on. What will be very...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2012-01-05T21:04:13ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 'Future of D&D' articleMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nd7s&page=2?Future-of-DD-article#542012-01-05T20:57:26Z2012-01-05T20:57:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote> I'm perfectly fine with them supportind other editions, always have been. It might bite them on the butt as I believe they just can't support multiple editions of their own game with new and updated support. But re-releasing older material in PDFs is a great way to boost sales.</blockquote><p>I'm certainly not opposed to it. I just don't think at this point it can be pulled off well. If Pathfinder was never developed, it certainly could have. I know of a few people that would love to have 3.5 back over pathfinder, but I think a majority of those folks were converted. Remaking third edition right now would bust them.
<p>The OSRIC market does not seem to be huge. I am not sure how many people would convert BACK to an old style game. if there is any truth to modern rules truly being up to date, than this is a tough job to pull off.</p>
<p>I am envisioning WOTC releasing some sort of Tinker toy set that lets you make your own D&D. I am not sure how this would work. DDI is a money maker for them. DDI would need a serious overhaul, because if I was going to play my tinker toy 2nd edition + 3rd edition, well I want that to be supported. I want to use DDI with it, and I want supporting supplements. I am taking part a from 2nd edition, part b from 3rd and I want it all with the ease of 4e. Is that going to happen? then have it be supported without fracturing their product line? If I could figure that little grail out I will be a millionaire. So far I have no advice to sell to WOTC, because it seems like a long shot that is hard.</p>
<p>As a TSR fan that left WOTC at 4e, if they improve the 3rd edition game I love, it has to be STRIDES better than Pathfinder for me to convert. A remake of 2nd and old school mixed with 4e? Maybe.</p>Diffan wrote:I'm perfectly fine with them supportind other editions, always have been. It might bite them on the butt as I believe they just can't support multiple editions of their own game with new and updated support. But re-releasing older material in PDFs is a great way to boost sales.
I'm certainly not opposed to it. I just don't think at this point it can be pulled off well. If Pathfinder was never developed, it certainly could have. I know of a few people that would love to have 3.5...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2012-01-05T20:57:26ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: 'Future of D&D' articleMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nd7s&page=2?Future-of-DD-article#512012-01-05T20:08:13Z2012-01-05T20:08:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Others may find these rules perfectly fine, and that's great. I cope with them because I like RPGs and I just hide my contemp as best I can when I come across it. But if this is how it's going to be, with having to go through 150 loops just so I can play a were-bear berserker that mechanically stinks because the rules don't play into that concept is NOT a D&D I want to play. It's just another side of the coin.
</p>
</blockquote><p>I understand the sentiment loud and clear. This is the place where 3.5 fans found themselves when 4e was released. Before there was Paizo, the refrain that 3rd edition fans heard was "nobody is stealing your books," "or you can still play 3rd edition forever." things along that line. Before Paizo came along and recreated 3rd edition, 3rd edition fans looked like they were going to be in the dust. There were alot of 4vengers very happy with that.
<p>All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project? WOTC quite literally left fans in the dust. They might do that with their old 4e fans as well.</p>
<p>I have said before there is nothing in 4e that I thought improved the game other than the DDI, which is system independent. Yet I feel no excitement about WOTC giving older fans what they want. I have Pathfinder now, I don't need then to release the 3rd edition mechanics again. I wouldn't bother playing it.</p>
<p>I would be interested in revisiting the AD&D style. I could trade off playing Pathfinder with AD&D. With that said I think WOTC should cater to the people that support them. They made a terrible mistake with 4e and lost a good share of the market. Still the people that 4e fits will want that game and WOTC should support it. Reverting back will fix nothing.</p>
<p>The only thing Wotc has over Paizo is MAgic the Gathering and rights to a D&D brand. These days the D&D brand isn't all its cracked up to be.</p>Diffan wrote:Others may find these rules perfectly fine, and that's great. I cope with them because I like RPGs and I just hide my contemp as best I can when I come across it. But if this is how it's going to be, with having to go through 150 loops just so I can play a were-bear berserker that mechanically stinks because the rules don't play into that concept is NOT a D&D I want to play. It's just another side of the coin.
I understand the sentiment loud and clear. This is the place where...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2012-01-05T20:08:13ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: What to say to the believers of the fallacy of Rule Zero?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n9bn&page=2?What-to-say-to-the-believers-of-the-fallacy#802011-12-13T06:13:39Z2011-12-13T06:13:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">pres man wrote:</div><blockquote><p> @Mournblade94: It is good to see you moderating your language. You had originally claimed that leo1925: "you do not GM games". Now you are saying it is more "probably do not GM games." That is certainly better, though I personally would avoid deciding who is likely and not likely to be a GM based on whether they agreed with me or not (a good GM or poor one on the other hand ...).</p>
<p>As for the post he was replying to. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but the poster in my view was trying to put the "Rule 0" stamp on every little thing a GM decided on. This comment especially stood out to me.
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">karkon wrote:</div><blockquote>Why does an enemy wizard use haste instead of fireball? Rule 0.</blockquote><p>If you want dilute the definition of Rule 0 to that point, then Rule 0 is meaningless.
</p>
Did the GM decide to wipe after going to the bathroom? Rule 0!
<br />
I found the post ridiculous, others obvious found it meaningful. </blockquote><p>Fair Enough.pres man wrote:@Mournblade94: It is good to see you moderating your language. You had originally claimed that leo1925: "you do not GM games". Now you are saying it is more "probably do not GM games." That is certainly better, though I personally would avoid deciding who is likely and not likely to be a GM based on whether they agreed with me or not (a good GM or poor one on the other hand ...).
As for the post he was replying to. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but the poster in my...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-13T06:13:39ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: What to say to the believers of the fallacy of Rule Zero?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n9bn&page=2?What-to-say-to-the-believers-of-the-fallacy#732011-12-12T17:34:29Z2011-12-12T17:34:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">pres man wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Mournblade94 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">leo1925 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> @karkon</p>
<p>This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least...... </blockquote><p>Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games.
<p>Perhaps I am misreading. </blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">No True Scotsman?</a> </blockquote><p>Actually the fallacy is misused there. It does not apply. See a post above from another member where it was indicated the 'fallacy' remark is thrown around here more than in philosophy class. it seems to be a flavor people like around here.
<p>Karkon gave a list of situations. Another poster replies that the situations are not encountered/don't happen/other rules can handle or something. </p>
<p>It seems that if as a GM you have not encountered those situations you have not GM'd many games.</p>
<p>The fallacy applies no more than it would to saying "someone that has never encountered a traffic light probably does not drive."</p>pres man wrote:Mournblade94 wrote: leo1925 wrote:@karkon
This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least......
Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games. Perhaps I am misreading. No True Scotsman? Actually the fallacy is misused there. It does not apply. See a post above from another member where it was indicated the 'fallacy' remark is thrown around here more than in philosophy class. it seems...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-12T17:34:29ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: What to say to the believers of the fallacy of Rule Zero?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n9bn&page=2?What-to-say-to-the-believers-of-the-fallacy#682011-12-12T15:37:15Z2011-12-12T15:37:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">leo1925 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> @karkon</p>
<p>This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least...... </blockquote><p>Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games.
<p>Perhaps I am misreading.</p>leo1925 wrote:@karkon
This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least......
Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games. Perhaps I am misreading.Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-12T15:37:15ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: What to say to the believers of the fallacy of Rule Zero?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n9bn&page=2?What-to-say-to-the-believers-of-the-fallacy#672011-12-12T15:36:18Z2011-12-12T15:36:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">A Man In Black wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">RunebladeX wrote:</div><blockquote> my lawn my rules... </blockquote>No, it's not your lawn. The GM doesn't own the game and graciously allow the players to participate. It's everyone's game. </blockquote><p>No. I own the books, the games take place at my house, you want me to GM it is my lawn. I'll be fair, but the players refer to the game I run as 'your game.'
<p>None of this means I am not fair. Most important thing is players and GM have fun. If they cannot have fun the way I WANT to GM, guess who is out a GM? They are welcome to run the game THEY own however they want. The game I run however is MY GAME through and through.</p>A Man In Black wrote:RunebladeX wrote: my lawn my rules...
No, it's not your lawn. The GM doesn't own the game and graciously allow the players to participate. It's everyone's game. No. I own the books, the games take place at my house, you want me to GM it is my lawn. I'll be fair, but the players refer to the game I run as 'your game.' None of this means I am not fair. Most important thing is players and GM have fun. If they cannot have fun the way I WANT to GM, guess who is out a GM? They...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-12T15:36:18ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: Sean's consolidated advice threadMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n8d6?Seans-consolidated-advice-thread#282011-12-09T23:16:18Z2011-12-09T23:16:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mike Kimmel wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">RonarsCorruption wrote:</div><blockquote>So in this specific case, and for all of those people in the future with similar items; Scintillating Vampire's Sword, or Sword of the Scintillating Vampire? </blockquote><p>In this case, <i>sword of the scintillating vampire</i> is more clear than <i>scintillating vampire's sword</i>, which doesn't indicate which (the vampire or the sword) is scintillating, so I'd go with the former option.
<p>In general, I would just pick whichever sounds better or is more clear! </blockquote><p>Well is a 1 eyed 1 horned flying purple people eater a 1 eyed 1 horned flying purple monster that eats people, or is it a 1 eyed 1 horned flying monster that eats purple people?Mike Kimmel wrote:RonarsCorruption wrote:So in this specific case, and for all of those people in the future with similar items; Scintillating Vampire's Sword, or Sword of the Scintillating Vampire?
In this case, sword of the scintillating vampire is more clear than scintillating vampire's sword, which doesn't indicate which (the vampire or the sword) is scintillating, so I'd go with the former option. In general, I would just pick whichever sounds better or is more clear! Well is a 1 eyed 1...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-09T23:16:18ZRe: Forums/RPG SuperstarTM 2012: General Discussion: "Wonderous" Items vs. "Wondrous" ItemsMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n8vk?Wonderous-Items-vs-Wondrous-Items#402011-12-09T15:06:07Z2011-12-09T14:06:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Matthew Morris wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Having had the teasing about an amour bonus (when trying to correct my spelling of 'armour' to American spelling) and not realizing it's not spelled Be<b>a</b>stiary. (Though now in my mind I pronounce it best-ee-air-ee) I'm just going to +1 Neil's post.</p>
<p>Part of writing professionally (says the guy who doesn't) is conforming to the style of your employer. Just as Paizo doesn't want antipaladins wearing armor made of living babies for thematic reasons, they don't want extra 'u's in their armor, or color.</p>
<p>If it helps, think that Wonder Woman's <i>wondrous</i> costume is filled with wonderful cleavage. ;-) </blockquote><p>I was under the impression that Paizo did not want antipaladins wearing armor made of babies because it is really impractical, would be uncomfortable, and whiny. It also would not protect the antipaladin well.
<p>:)</p>Matthew Morris wrote:Having had the teasing about an amour bonus (when trying to correct my spelling of 'armour' to American spelling) and not realizing it's not spelled Beastiary. (Though now in my mind I pronounce it best-ee-air-ee) I'm just going to +1 Neil's post.
Part of writing professionally (says the guy who doesn't) is conforming to the style of your employer. Just as Paizo doesn't want antipaladins wearing armor made of living babies for thematic reasons, they don't want extra 'u's...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-09T14:06:03ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Sunlight and undead other than vampiresMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n8yt?Sunlight-and-undead-other-than-vampires#32011-12-08T20:33:00Z2011-12-08T20:33:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">master arminas wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Read the whole spell.</p>
<p>From the paragraph directly above the one that you quoted:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD says wrote:</div><blockquote>An undead creature caught within the globe takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 25d6), or half damage if a Reflex save if successful. In addition, the burst results in the destruction of any undead creature specifically harmed by bright light if it fails its save.</blockquote><p>The spell itself affects ALL undead creatures in manner different than other creatures—and those undead susceptible to daylight are subject to an instant destruction effect. <i>For the purposes of this spell</i> treat fungi, molds, slimes, and oozes as if they were undead creatures.
<p>Master Arminas </blockquote><p>Ah right! Thanks! I latched on to one thing.
<p>So I guess that undead are not vulnerable to sunlight in general. I always took for granted that they were.</p>master arminas wrote:Read the whole spell.
From the paragraph directly above the one that you quoted:
PRD says wrote:An undead creature caught within the globe takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 25d6), or half damage if a Reflex save if successful. In addition, the burst results in the destruction of any undead creature specifically harmed by bright light if it fails its save.
The spell itself affects ALL undead creatures in manner different than other creatures--and...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-08T20:33:00ZForums: Rules Questions: Sunlight and undead other than vampiresMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n8yt?Sunlight-and-undead-other-than-vampires#12011-12-08T20:24:12Z2011-12-08T20:24:12Z<p>I asked in a previous thread if sunlight effects undead in general. Are undead relegated to only night or dark encounters? The consensus on that thread was that sunlight will not automatically kill undead.</p>
<p>But then I was reading this under the SUNBURST spell description:</p>
<p><i>The ultraviolet light generated by the spell deals damage to fungi, mold, oozes, and slimes just as if they were undead creatures.</i></p>
<p>Ok so now I am thinking my initial thought that Sunlight will damage undead is indeed true. Is this codified somewhere? Or is it not even a written rule.</p>
<p>I am having trouble tracking this simple thing down. </p>
<p>many thanks!</p>I asked in a previous thread if sunlight effects undead in general. Are undead relegated to only night or dark encounters? The consensus on that thread was that sunlight will not automatically kill undead.
But then I was reading this under the SUNBURST spell description:
The ultraviolet light generated by the spell deals damage to fungi, mold, oozes, and slimes just as if they were undead creatures.
Ok so now I am thinking my initial thought that Sunlight will damage undead is indeed true....Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-08T20:24:12ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th editionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2muoa&page=21?A-detailed-view-of-Pathfinder-vs-4th-edition#10372011-12-07T18:47:37Z2011-12-07T18:47:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aubrey the Malformed wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Apart from the Drizzt books, which I read maybe ten to fifteen years ago when I didn't have a game, I generally read what FR books I did read to gen up on canon, as I came fairly late to FR in 3e. It was often a bit of a painful experience. Of course, I haven't read anything like nearly all of them, so there may well be many good ones out there. But I didn't really find them. Salavatore's first offerings were pretty bad, but he got better as he went along. </blockquote><p>I had the fortune of discovering these novels in high school before I learned all about criticism. The early salvatore novels I read then seemed great, and it is only after re-reading them I realized they were not the strongest in regards to literary merit.
<p>I read alot of fantasy, and back in the 90's one could detect a difference in a writer like David Eddings, and a shared world game novel. I enjoyed THE HELL out of the shared world game books, but they were not in any way sophisticated reading.</p>Aubrey the Malformed wrote:Apart from the Drizzt books, which I read maybe ten to fifteen years ago when I didn't have a game, I generally read what FR books I did read to gen up on canon, as I came fairly late to FR in 3e. It was often a bit of a painful experience. Of course, I haven't read anything like nearly all of them, so there may well be many good ones out there. But I didn't really find them. Salavatore's first offerings were pretty bad, but he got better as he went along.
I had...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-07T18:47:37ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th editionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2muoa&page=21?A-detailed-view-of-Pathfinder-vs-4th-edition#10332011-12-06T18:08:53Z2011-12-06T18:08:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aubrey the Malformed wrote:</div><blockquote> To be honest, they could smoke the entire lot of them and I wouldn't be terribly bothered. Miss the Bouldershoulder Brothers? Like a case of herpes. I used to get a fix of D&D through reading Salvatore, and have a bit of a soft spot for Drizzt. But what I want as a DM will differ to what I look for in a campaign world I might consider playing in. And the novels themselves were cheap knock-off cash-ins, not works of great literary merit, produced by exactly the same corporation and for the same base commercial reasons. </blockquote><p>Well I loved the novels, but it is hard to disagree that they were not, well literary merit. I have to say the exception seems to be Salvatore and Elaine Cunningham. Salvatore was a great story teller like Ed Greenwood, and Elaine Cunningham I think is a writer with strong merits. I LEARNED real world things from reading her novels. The rest though I read to 'see what was going on.'Aubrey the Malformed wrote:To be honest, they could smoke the entire lot of them and I wouldn't be terribly bothered. Miss the Bouldershoulder Brothers? Like a case of herpes. I used to get a fix of D&D through reading Salvatore, and have a bit of a soft spot for Drizzt. But what I want as a DM will differ to what I look for in a campaign world I might consider playing in. And the novels themselves were cheap knock-off cash-ins, not works of great literary merit, produced by exactly the same...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-06T18:08:53ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=12?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5642011-12-05T16:54:18Z2011-12-05T16:54:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Stewart Perkins wrote:</div><blockquote> I will say that 4e is modern, not because of math but because of the direction and philosophy of the game as a whole. </blockquote><p>Clarify please. Do you think 4e is modern because of the DDI? What about the philosophy makes it modern compared to older design philosophies? Again is this the digital philosophy or something inherent in the system?Stewart Perkins wrote:I will say that 4e is modern, not because of math but because of the direction and philosophy of the game as a whole.
Clarify please. Do you think 4e is modern because of the DDI? What about the philosophy makes it modern compared to older design philosophies? Again is this the digital philosophy or something inherent in the system?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-05T16:54:18ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=12?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5602011-12-05T14:28:42Z2011-12-05T14:28:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Terquem wrote:</div><blockquote><p> In my opinion the worst thing that has happened to the "Role-Playing Game" is the attempt to define "roles" for character's based upon class.
</p>
This whole, Cleric-Leader, Fighter-Tank, Rouge-Striker, is simple pigeon holing, and nothing more.</p>
<p>The fighter, when I started playing, was the class you chose when you wanted to rely on strength, how you played the character, what role he fulfilled, was what happened when you played the game. I remember one player who played a cowardly fighter, and the sort of guy who could win a fight, but always tried to talk his way out of one instead. What role is that, exactly?</p>
<p>These games are at their most playable when players are given tools to create a character in the vision of thier imagination, and pretend, play, at trying to make that character into a hero. Doing what ever you want to try to do, being whatever you want to try to be.</p>
<p>The most current versions of these games, both 4e and Pathfinder, in my opinion, emulate, to a degree, the video game experience in this way. You start the game as a predefined Hero "Type" and aftet that it's just munchkin (kill the monster, take its loot, wash rinse repeat).</p>
<p>Now I have seen some very interesting Pathfinder story lines, in a few of their adventures, and 4e does have an occasionally interesting setting, but it is still my opinion that the game, as it is played now, assumes that the players are creating Pre-defined Hero types, not just characters destined to become heroes.</p>
<p>I suppose I have a sort of built in prejudice because so many of the games I played thirty years ago, started with players who had no idea how their characters were going to turn out, at even fifth level. </blockquote><p>Things are much more codified now. The treasure has now become an expectation instead of a reward. Monster design accounts for gear now, but I do not like that philosophy even within pathfinder.
<p>In AD&D you just new when gear was over powered, when it should be doled out, when it should not be doled out. Running pathfinder for pickups i have come to realize that there is an expectation of receiving gear. I am not the gear friendly DM. I allow magic shops but don't just place the item the character wants.</p>
<p>I think this, like roles, is largely the influence of the video game mentality which is often the gateway to Table Top Games. The psychology of RPG players is changing, and it is being shaped by the easily accessable video games.</p>Terquem wrote:In my opinion the worst thing that has happened to the "Role-Playing Game" is the attempt to define "roles" for character's based upon class.
This whole, Cleric-Leader, Fighter-Tank, Rouge-Striker, is simple pigeon holing, and nothing more.The fighter, when I started playing, was the class you chose when you wanted to rely on strength, how you played the character, what role he fulfilled, was what happened when you played the game. I remember one player who played a cowardly...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-05T14:28:42ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Online: Wish you could just use the game mechanics of the true gameMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n82k?Wish-you-could-just-use-the-game-mechanics-of#182011-12-05T14:15:44Z2011-12-05T14:15:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Coldman wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">superfly2000 wrote:</div><blockquote>I don't know why when most hear the word "MMO" they instantly think about a stereotype full-out MMO.</blockquote><p>As far as Scott is concerned, if it doesn't look, feel and play to the specifications of the typical MMORPG gamer (brain damaged frog), it is an inferior product. In business terms he has a point and we can give him a gold star, but it is still dictating a brain dead product. Such a discussion as to how to try make your themepark less brain dead is a debate for the MMORPG.com forums.
<p>Guild Wars is a living example of a game in which an MMORPG game was played in small parties. Cities would act as quest hubs/player hubs and parties would be created and venture out into the instanced world.</p>
<p>NwN is a living example of D&D rules integrated into a game which flawlessly produces an enjoyable TTRPG adaptation in a small scale MMORPG-esque persistent world. Paired with the system of Guild Wars, I fail to see how you have not brought Pathfinder to the MMORPG platform in it's majority.</p>
<p>There is such a wealth of possible ways in which an MMORPG could be designed and played that the idea that anything must be reproduced from a single title is insane. We're literally at a junction in this industry where gaming companies dare go as far as adding voice acting and <i>story driven</i> quests whilst leaving every single feature intact else untouched.</p>
<p>The debate should be regarding how we go from the OGL to the MMORPG, not from the MMORPG to the OGL. Such a movement would not be 'a terrible idea'. </blockquote><p>I am not a programmer, but I imagine the PF rules would be too limited for the scope of the MMO. Bioware advised Green Ronin NOT to use the computer conflict resolution system, so they came up with AGE. Many feel that Dragon Age should have mimicked the video game, but Bioware themselves said the conflict resolution would translate miserably.
<p>You cannot play Dragon Age the video game, and go into Dragon Age the (AGE) system and know anything about playing it other than fluff if you are using Bioware's world.</p>Coldman wrote:superfly2000 wrote:I don't know why when most hear the word "MMO" they instantly think about a stereotype full-out MMO.
As far as Scott is concerned, if it doesn't look, feel and play to the specifications of the typical MMORPG gamer (brain damaged frog), it is an inferior product. In business terms he has a point and we can give him a gold star, but it is still dictating a brain dead product. Such a discussion as to how to try make your themepark less brain dead is a debate...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-05T14:15:44ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=12?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5572011-12-05T13:10:40Z2011-12-05T13:10:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Betts wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Digitalelf wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Betts wrote:</div><blockquote> There is no going back to the way things used to be done. </blockquote><p>That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...
<p>Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...</p>
<p>And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...</p>
<p>My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke... </blockquote><p>Yes, there are fads.
<p>Yes, there are temporary influences.</p>
<p>Yes, there are holdouts.</p>
<p>No, those things will not define what tabletop gaming twenty years from now looks like, on the whole.</p>
<p>I can paint with a broad brush because I am speaking broadly. </blockquote><p>I think what he might be trying to say, is 4e was not innovative enough and did not change gameplay enough in the positive direction to make everyone switch over. I think the ressistance to 4e is much more than a holdout. It is half the people of a niche market do not want to go in the direction of the 'new shiny.' That is not a defining direction. It will influence yes, but probably ONLY on how, as you say, it addresses the digital gaming group. That will be the improvement 4e brings, and a valuable one at that. It will not however be its alternate rules system, any more than White Wolf help redefined TTG on mass.Scott Betts wrote:Digitalelf wrote: Scott Betts wrote: There is no going back to the way things used to be done.
That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously... Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...
And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-05T13:10:40ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th editionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2muoa&page=21?A-detailed-view-of-Pathfinder-vs-4th-edition#10242011-12-05T13:12:51Z2011-12-05T13:06:46Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Wamyen wrote:</div><blockquote> I have to say that most of my problems with 4th edition are purely from a fluff perspective. I absolutely adored reading Realmslore and Forgotten Realms fiction, R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood and the like; however in the last three years I have seen all of these characters, some with twenty plus years of character building, torn down. These characters were more than written fiction to me, they were friends during difficult times in my life, the people (or Drow) that I got to live vicariously through when I was bored, the reassurance that their really was justice in the world and that everything would turn out for the best if I believed and tried hard enough. Maybe it's crazy for me to hold these characters in such high regard, but they sure as hell deserved better than getting greased because a company decided to try a new marketing focus. All I know is many of my friends on Faerun are now dead to the world of literature, and no true resurrection spell that I or any of my characters ever knew can ever truly bring them back. Just my two copper pieces though. </blockquote><p>Your really not crazy. There are lots of studies of fictional characters providing the role of supporter to people in troubled times. When MASH ended, there was an influx of people angry at the show ending. They were considered 'friends'. Studies funny enough from what I have read have focused on Soap Operas.
<p>I'm with you. I was not happy with 4e, but I was willing to adapt, until they made the new 4e campaign world which resembled the good realms in name only. Intellectual laziness won the Realms debate.</p>Wamyen wrote:I have to say that most of my problems with 4th edition are purely from a fluff perspective. I absolutely adored reading Realmslore and Forgotten Realms fiction, R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood and the like; however in the last three years I have seen all of these characters, some with twenty plus years of character building, torn down. These characters were more than written fiction to me, they were friends during difficult times in my life, the people (or Drow) that I got to live...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-05T13:06:46ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=12?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5552011-12-05T01:49:50Z2011-12-05T01:49:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Digitalelf wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Betts wrote:</div><blockquote> There is no going back to the way things used to be done. </blockquote><p>That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...
<p>Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...</p>
<p>And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...</p>
<p>My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke... </blockquote><p>Well said. I agree!Digitalelf wrote:Scott Betts wrote: There is no going back to the way things used to be done.
That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously... Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...
And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-05T01:49:50ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=11?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5502011-12-04T14:39:51Z2011-12-04T14:39:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>A few things about 4E could be considered "Modernized" such as Digital information in the form of DDI. Adding to that is the Character Builder, Monster Tools, and Adventure Tools that come along with it, as well as the Compendium. Later, unsure when however, we should be getting a 3D platform which could provide play from your home with the usage of say....Skype. Whether or not people like these aspects of the game is the matter for another debate, but it's hard to deny the merits of 4E's progress to fit into our social-ways of communicating. </p>
<p>From the actual mechanics side of the game, there are a lot of other aspects that 4E revolutionized. The first would be class's roles. While it's easily seen in previous editions what classes "jobs" were, it was still a bit of an "Up-in-the-Air" question depending on what class you were playing. If you were a Ranger, what exactly was your role? Did you fight extreamly well? No, not really. Were you a scout? Sure, up until 4th level where the Sorcerer can cast Invisibility X amount of times per day. You couldn't find/disable traps and tracking/foraging can be done by practically anyone. So, by that example, it's hard to understand what that character is going to do for the group besides being an extra body.</p>
<p>Then you have the shift of Monster design, placing tags such as Minion, Elite, Solo, etc.. which <i>helps</i> DMs create encounters that fit their idea of how a battle will work. Solo monsters are designed to take on multiple foes, something that only a few monsters in previous editions could accomplish. Minions were designed to give PCs the idea of mobs of foes attacking them. More so it highlights certain classes better than others. A Wizard that goes up... </blockquote><p>I would have to agree that the PRESENTATION of 4e with character builder, DDI, and such is certainly modern. Yet if that was included with any game out there including AD&D we could say the presentation and thus the game is modern.
<p>At least when I think of a design as modern, I think of the improvements and betterment. Like better fuel consumption or better aerodynamics. New ways of designing houses to aid in energy efficiency and consumption. Better recoil systems and material that makes weapons lighter.</p>
<p>In video gaing there is a definite improvement over Intellivison Utopia to Civilization V. Or the Final fantasy series. in video games the Benefit of the modern video game vs. the original is apparent. Operations happen faster, graphics are better. I have met few people that like load screens. Faster loading times is a modern improvement, it is quantifiable. There is nothing in 4e that is a quantifiable improvement. It is just another way of doing things. In RPG's a 'modern RPG' is just another system that some people like. </p>
<p>Education is a good model to compare to RPG design. It has to adapt to technology, but is society really educating better than it was 30 years ago. The jury is still out on that.</p>
<p>4e is a different system that does some things better for other people. If it was REALLY innovative it would have improved the game for the majority. It failed to do that. Yet if the DDI was available for all RPGs THAT would be a marked improvement on gameplay, which is independent from the rules.</p>
<p>You can make a case for the monster labeling and character roles I suppose. That is where I have said many times the designers wrote 4e with video game sensibilities in mind. The roles mirror the roles common in CoH or WoW pretty well, but I am not sure how that has IMPROVED tabletop games in mass. it makes 4e nice for those that like it, but if it was an improvement, the market would not have fought back. Those things I suppose improve video gameplay, or help players strategize, and give developers more quantifiable variables. Perhaps 4e can be called modern because it was designed with the sensibilities that video game designers invented. I do not see this as an improvement which makes 4e any better to play over an older game.</p>Diffan wrote:A few things about 4E could be considered "Modernized" such as Digital information in the form of DDI. Adding to that is the Character Builder, Monster Tools, and Adventure Tools that come along with it, as well as the Compendium. Later, unsure when however, we should be getting a 3D platform which could provide play from your home with the usage of say....Skype. Whether or not people like these aspects of the game is the matter for another debate, but it's hard to deny the...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-04T14:39:51ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=11?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5482011-12-04T00:27:22Z2011-12-04T00:27:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Stewart Perkins wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The thing is, If I want old school, crying for mommy at the site of kobolds, with my 3 hit points and crappy ac, hiding in a closet and desperately trying to get a stick to get out of a hellish warzone of a dungeon then I have those games. They were made 30 years ago and have more grit and pulp fiction feel than any modern game could want. Hell the million retroclones are mostly free and "fix" all of the mechanical problems (I say fix, because some see them as features rather than bugs, as always YMMV) I want modern games to do modern things. If I want gritty crazy I have it. There's no need to innovate it, it was done before I was born. I want new modern ways to game, and that is what I want guys like Monte Cook and the proffessionals to do for me. I want to step into the future of gaming rather than back, since I already have seen that and can find it easily.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>I have trouble recognizing how 4e is more modern. The future of gaming and modern gaming is the video game. I see nothing more 'improved' about 4e over any game before it.
<p>Calling 4e a modern game is a misnomer. It was developed AFTER 3rd edition, that is about it.</p>
<p>What you like as minions not possibly being able to hurt a PC, is one of the aspects about 4e that drove me away. That was no innovation, it was just a 'new thing'.</p>Stewart Perkins wrote:The thing is, If I want old school, crying for mommy at the site of kobolds, with my 3 hit points and crappy ac, hiding in a closet and desperately trying to get a stick to get out of a hellish warzone of a dungeon then I have those games. They were made 30 years ago and have more grit and pulp fiction feel than any modern game could want. Hell the million retroclones are mostly free and "fix" all of the mechanical problems (I say fix, because some see them as features...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-04T00:27:22ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=11?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5472011-12-04T00:14:56Z2011-12-04T00:14:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">houstonderek wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly. </blockquote><p>Its also a common Grognard thought that being a cleric can actually be fun. SOME people actually choose to play clerics. You would never know that with the rhetoric of the new wave that claims only Druid and Wizard players ever had any fun.houstonderek wrote:Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.
Its also a common Grognard thought that being a cleric can actually be fun. SOME people actually choose to play clerics. You would never know that with the rhetoric of the new wave that...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-04T00:14:56ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=11?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5092011-12-02T05:03:04Z2011-12-02T05:03:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Mournblade94 wrote:</div><blockquote>Long and detailed response...</blockquote><p>Where I used the word "you" I meant "hypothetical person who might use or interpret such terms" not "you" as in "Mournblade94". In fact, I specifically adjusted the last paragraph to avoid such confusion. It seems I should have gone back and fixed the rest, as well. The whole spoilered scenario referred to a hypothetical situation that represents what, in my opinion, commonly occurs in edition war threads.
<p>Apparently, there are times that a writer clumsily composes an idea... </blockquote><p>Very much fair enough, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.Sebastrd wrote:Mournblade94 wrote:Long and detailed response...
Where I used the word "you" I meant "hypothetical person who might use or interpret such terms" not "you" as in "Mournblade94". In fact, I specifically adjusted the last paragraph to avoid such confusion. It seems I should have gone back and fixed the rest, as well. The whole spoilered scenario referred to a hypothetical situation that represents what, in my opinion, commonly occurs in edition war threads. Apparently, there are...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-02T05:03:04ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: Monte's new association with WotCMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mvj0&page=11?Montes-new-association-with-WotC#5032011-12-01T19:23:35Z2011-12-01T19:23:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
True, but the statements are very different. The claims about killing goblins are simple and utilize fairly universal terms that everyone can understand and agree upon.</p>
<p>However, the first statement tries to use simple, ambiguous terms to express a very complex concept. It's lazy communication. "Real D&D" is not a universal or well-defined term. In fact, it likely has a different meaning for each of us.</blockquote><p>That is self evident.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
which to you means: D&D is defined as a table top RPG which uses a class system in which the classes offer not only different abilities and problem solving options, but also cater to different play styles. </blockquote><p>Correct.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The fighter classes, for example, offer mostly physical, direct, often violent means of overcoming obstacles and those options remain fairly constant at all levels. The fighter classes are also very simple to play and require little or no resource management. The magic using classes, on the other hand, offer a variety of problem solving options in that magic is the ultimate toolbox, and the mage’s range of options continually expand as the game progresses until a point wherein the magic user becomes nearly unstoppable.</blockquote><p>Incorrect. That is not what real D&D means to me (Since you are drawing on assumptions.) I never played in a D&D game where this was true. So if the new edition of D&D fixed this, it was not a problem I felt needed to be fixed.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Magic users require strict and meticulous resource management in order to perform effectively.</blockquote><p>Very Much correct. two out of three isn't bad.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>Fourth edition breaks from this paradigm by structuring every class the same. All classes receive powers with the same basic structure, i.e., roll to attack – upon a successful hit deal a base amount of damage – add an additional effect appropriate to the class such as healing, additional damage, battlefield management, etc. Also, all classes are balanced effectively and are at roughly the same power level over the course of a campaign. As such, the fourth edition structure represents a different and undesirable system, and I prefer the previous paradigm.</blockquote><p>Correct. So 75% really isn't bad judging me by one simple statement.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The reader applies their own definition of “real D&D” as they interpret that statement...</blockquote><p>Correct.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>D&D is defined as a class-based medieval fantasy tabletop RPG that provides a means to generate shared stories and adventures revolving around exploration, fantasy combat, fantastic locales, political intrigue, dungeon crawling, good vs. evil and the grey area between, a monstrous ecology combined with a dark ages style earth-like society, etc.</blockquote><p>incorrect. The equiptment section includes technologies of the late middle ages known as the High middle ages. The above statement defines the purpose of D&D quite well. So good job!
<p>It appears you included the following clause in error. It did not seem to fit with the paragraph in which with only minor errors you well defined the purpose of D&D. It reads as follows:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote>Therefore, this person is simply adverse to any change, stubborn, whiny, unable or unwilling to adapt, hates any kind of progress whether for good or ill, is probably a power-gamer that’s pissed about losing access to all of their broken combos and builds, and is simply bitter and in denial about the real reason they dislike the new edition. Or is a troll.</blockquote><p>There is no evidence for the above. You did an adequate job at judging what I felt was real D&D up to 75% accuracy. Yet this last segment quite easily fails under scrutiny. Perhaps the person is adverse to change in the way D&D plays. That hardly makes them adverse to ANY kind of change, that is rather harsh.
<p>If they were stubborn that would imply they were UNREASONABLY willing to change to the rules. Resistance to a paradigm shift in design is completely reasonable.</p>
<p>Whiny is completely subjective, and perhaps you are misrepresenting the significant protest to the paradigm shift. Wizards of the coast is not perceiving the protest as whining as was evident from Mr. Mearls Gencon panel and his current ruminations.</p>
<p>You are correct in that many people were unwilling to adapt though they were completely able to do so. There is however no reason to adapt to a product that one does not like. It is much better to stick with the one they like. Much to WOTC's dismay I fear.</p>
<p>I am interested in learning of people that are uninterested in progress. If the new D&D rules were progress I would be very interested in them. They did not however improve the game they just made it different. That is an important distinction. I believe with Pathfinder slowly becoming the world's most popular fantasy RPG that to label the new edition of D&D as progress is a misnomer.</p>
<p>It is funny you note power gamers. The power gamers of my group insist I switch to the new D&D. A power gamer can find a a so called broken combination with any system. In fact when designing rules for the Larp organization I am in, I let the power gamer loose on the rules to see just how they could be exploited.</p>
<p>True though many players are bitter that WOTC catered to one narrow vision of play style. It appears they learned from their mistake judging from the Legend Lore articles.</p>
<p>Well the OP was certainly a troll so this is yet another area upon which we can agree.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sebastrd wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
It’s not the reader’s fault that statement is likely to be misinterpreted. The writer ought to know better. If a writer is too lazy to say what they mean or too inept to say it effectively, they shouldn't blame the reader when they get their head bit off.</blockquote><p>Statements could be misinterpreted. That is true. There are times that a writer clumsily composes an idea. However, if a reader cannot read a statement and recognize it as opinion or fact, that is a problem with the reader.Sebastrd wrote:True, but the statements are very different. The claims about killing goblins are simple and utilize fairly universal terms that everyone can understand and agree upon.However, the first statement tries to use simple, ambiguous terms to express a very complex concept. It's lazy communication. "Real D&D" is not a universal or well-defined term. In fact, it likely has a different meaning for each of us.
That is self evident. Sebastrd wrote:which to you means: D&D is defined as a...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-12-01T19:23:35ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th editionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2muoa&page=21?A-detailed-view-of-Pathfinder-vs-4th-edition#10212011-11-30T18:38:43Z2011-11-30T18:38:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diffan wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.</p>
<p>They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.</p>
<p>It isn't a serious comparison as D&D-online uses 3.5 ruleset and not 4E's ruleset. The two only share the name D&D, and....well that's pretty much it rules wise.</p>
<p>I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO. As for my statement having truth, you don't find it funny that a certain amount of people call 4E an "MMO-game that uses paper" yet when the system they prefer goes out and makes an MMO based off their own system/setting a <i>tad</i> hypocritical? I mean, just a <i>tad</i>? </p>
<p>This doesn't mean that Pathfinder is an MMO (I'm not saying that) but I find it funny that 4E was (so people say) infused with a lot of MMO properties yet there hasn't been a style of game designed with that edition rules. Yet Pathfinder, OTOH, does have a... </blockquote><p>One cannot be hypocritical because a third party does something they would not do.
<p>If I buy a car from a manufacturer who only has plants in the US, and I say I will not buy cars from car manuafacturers that produce cars in Japan, I am not a hypocrite because the company decided to move ot Japan AFTER I bought mine.</p>
<p>Anyway, the PF MMO has tough competition out there. I would say without KOTOR they could have a chance. The game needs to have some strong draw to get people to subscribe loyally.</p>
<p>If they release it for XBOX I'll try it, otherwise I can leave it.</p>Diffan wrote:Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.
They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.
It isn't a serious comparison as D&D-online uses 3.5 ruleset and not 4E's ruleset. The two only share the name D&D, and....well that's pretty much it rules wise.
I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO. As for my statement...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-30T18:38:43ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th editionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2muoa&page=21?A-detailed-view-of-Pathfinder-vs-4th-edition#10202011-11-30T18:28:07Z2011-11-30T18:28:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">memorax wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I never liked hearing the 4E was an MMO comments either. While it's true that I'm not being fair comparing the PF online to the same thing well none of the 4E detractors were fair to my rpg either. From now on if someone says 4E is like an MMO now I can say that Pathfindr has one too. </p>
<p>While I admit it is hypocritical of me for doing so nothing stopped the anti-4E faction from using any excuse to stir up some anti-4E in any thread on any subject. It got to the point where I had to include a no anti-4e clause in some of my threads. Still it is being unfair. That being said I already see people who like PF complaining that it's not going to be like the tabletop game and I would not be surprised to see PF supports complain that the now made PF an mmo. </blockquote><p>Congratulations on being able to say that PF has an MMO! I for one am glad they went ahead with the step. It will make the Pathfinder brand all the more prominent. That is why I am happy about it.memorax wrote:I never liked hearing the 4E was an MMO comments either. While it's true that I'm not being fair comparing the PF online to the same thing well none of the 4E detractors were fair to my rpg either. From now on if someone says 4E is like an MMO now I can say that Pathfindr has one too.
While I admit it is hypocritical of me for doing so nothing stopped the anti-4E faction from using any excuse to stir up some anti-4E in any thread on any subject. It got to the point where I had...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-30T18:28:07ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th editionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2muoa&page=21?A-detailed-view-of-Pathfinder-vs-4th-edition#10192011-11-30T18:22:06Z2011-11-30T18:22:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ProfessorCirno wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The claim isn't usually that WoTC made a computer game based on 4E (as Paizo are trying to do with PF). It was that MMO design impacted heavily on the 4E rules development. The new announcement isn't really analogous, IMO. </p>
<p>Let's be honest, the claim is that 4e is BAD and you know what else is bad VIDEO GAMES they're for people without imaginations (SOUND FAMILIAR 4e FANS?) so 4e is just a VIDEO GAME. </blockquote><p>Not true.
<p>I love video games. Skyrim has broken up my Roleplaying group for a few weeks.</p>
<p>I just happen to dislike 4e. I like video games MUCH more.</p>ProfessorCirno wrote:The claim isn't usually that WoTC made a computer game based on 4E (as Paizo are trying to do with PF). It was that MMO design impacted heavily on the 4E rules development. The new announcement isn't really analogous, IMO. Let's be honest, the claim is that 4e is BAD and you know what else is bad VIDEO GAMES they're for people without imaginations (SOUND FAMILIAR 4e FANS?) so 4e is just a VIDEO GAME.
Not true. I love video games. Skyrim has broken up my Roleplaying group...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-30T18:22:06ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: A detailed view of Pathfinder vs. 4th editionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2muoa&page=21?A-detailed-view-of-Pathfinder-vs-4th-edition#10182011-11-30T18:20:09Z2011-11-30T18:20:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">memorax wrote:</div><blockquote><p> With PF online the 4E detracters can no longer point to 4e and go "they turned 4E into an MMO" when it's closest competitor has done the same. Kind of hypocritical imo.
</p>
</blockquote><p>It would be hypocritical to say that NOW. You can not bee hypocritical retroactively.memorax wrote:With PF online the 4E detracters can no longer point to 4e and go "they turned 4E into an MMO" when it's closest competitor has done the same. Kind of hypocritical imo.
It would be hypocritical to say that NOW. You can not bee hypocritical retroactively.Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-30T18:20:09ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: The Golarion Gods feel a bit limited to meMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n6zz&page=2?The-Golarion-Gods-feel-a-bit-limited-to-me#802011-12-01T15:17:19Z2011-11-30T18:04:26Z<p>I like the Golarion gods. But I think they are sometimes too broad. That said however I added deities to the pantheon of primary gods.</p>
<p>I like Mielikki, so I brought her in with the same portfolio she had in FR. Patron goddess of Rangers, and goddess of Forests and dryads. I play Gozreh as more of the WEATHER and WATER god. </p>
<p>I added Sharess and made Calistria the goddess of vengeance. Thor, Odin, and Loki are all gods of the Ulfen (Gee why?).</p>
<p>Finally I took natural beasts away from Yeenoghu. Oh right that's Lamashtu.</p>
<p>I am not sure if I want to bash Lamashtu back into 'just' demonlord realm, and have another god steal her portfolio.</p>
<p>I also kept the standard race gods. Corellon is the god of the elves, Moradin IS Torag, but Torag is worshipped by humans instead of dwarves.</p>
<p>Garl Glittergold is there too:)</p>I like the Golarion gods. But I think they are sometimes too broad. That said however I added deities to the pantheon of primary gods.
I like Mielikki, so I brought her in with the same portfolio she had in FR. Patron goddess of Rangers, and goddess of Forests and dryads. I play Gozreh as more of the WEATHER and WATER god.
I added Sharess and made Calistria the goddess of vengeance. Thor, Odin, and Loki are all gods of the Ulfen (Gee why?).
Finally I took natural beasts away from Yeenoghu....Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-30T18:04:26ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: The Golarion Gods feel a bit limited to meMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n6zz&page=2?The-Golarion-Gods-feel-a-bit-limited-to-me#782011-11-30T17:48:43Z2011-11-30T17:48:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote> Desna did a one-deity crusade into the Abyss to kill a demon lord just because said demon lord picked on one of her worshipers. She's a lot more than meditative and dreamy. </blockquote><p>Can someone point me to where I could read this. That is pretty awesome.James Jacobs wrote:Desna did a one-deity crusade into the Abyss to kill a demon lord just because said demon lord picked on one of her worshipers. She's a lot more than meditative and dreamy.
Can someone point me to where I could read this. That is pretty awesome.Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-30T17:48:43ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: A Weasel is stronger than an Orc?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n6og?A-Weasel-is-stronger-than-an-Orc#342011-11-28T20:13:19Z2011-11-28T20:13:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">MikeRansom wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>This classic monster's revisited thing looks great! I'm def. going to check that out, and poke around for some simliar stuff. Thank you! :D </p>
<p>I can also def. recommend the 2nd Edition Monstrous compendium for some great background info/lore on about 80% of the monsters in pathfinder. </blockquote><p>I love the classic Monsters series. All of them. Even Misfit monsters. Pretty much all of my Pathfinder lore defaults to AD&D either 1st or 2nd edition. I love the reinvention of Pathfinder monsters crunch wise but I pretty much keep the second edition fluff.
<p>However I have read the relevant monsters in BEstiary 1 and compared them to the AD&D 1st Monster Manual, and Pathfinder does actually maintain alot of that fluff.</p>MikeRansom wrote:This classic monster's revisited thing looks great! I'm def. going to check that out, and poke around for some simliar stuff. Thank you! :D
I can also def. recommend the 2nd Edition Monstrous compendium for some great background info/lore on about 80% of the monsters in pathfinder.
I love the classic Monsters series. All of them. Even Misfit monsters. Pretty much all of my Pathfinder lore defaults to AD&D either 1st or 2nd edition. I love the reinvention of Pathfinder...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-28T20:13:19ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: How Do I Chop Wood?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n5pp&page=5?How-Do-I-Chop-Wood#2132011-11-22T19:47:05Z2011-11-22T19:47:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">LogicNinja wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>These numbers are incredibly close together in terms of salary. Someone working an upper-class trade would be •orders of magnitude• wealthier than a porter—no matter how good the porter is.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Just to enter some reality into it.. if a porter was THAT good, he very well may be the head of the ABSALOM PORTER UNION. He is the union boss, and so yes, he makes more than the upper class merchant.
<p>Its quite possible that the American Leader of the Teamsters is nothing but a porter. He makes approximately $370,000 a year. Plus what he makes as a porter.</p>
<p>I see what you are trying to do, if the Lawyer and Porter BOTH have the same wisdom, and same level + bonuses they will BOTH make the same salary.</p>
<p>If their wisdom grants +0 I would say the Lawyer makes as much as a porter because he is just not that good. If they are both +4 I would say the Porter has learned some tricks, networking and such to earn as much as the lawyer.</p>LogicNinja wrote:These numbers are incredibly close together in terms of salary. Someone working an upper-class trade would be *orders of magnitude* wealthier than a porter--no matter how good the porter is.
Just to enter some reality into it.. if a porter was THAT good, he very well may be the head of the ABSALOM PORTER UNION. He is the union boss, and so yes, he makes more than the upper class merchant. Its quite possible that the American Leader of the Teamsters is nothing but a porter....Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-22T19:47:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: A village of NPCs, and Average Joe Farmer is a professional.Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n15s?A-village-of-NPCs-and-Average-Joe-Farmer-is-a#382011-11-22T19:29:16Z2011-11-22T19:29:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Abraham spalding wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Look a little farther into what that and the base value mean:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Base Value and Purchase Limit: This section lists the community's base value for <b>available magic items</b> in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement's purchase limit is <b>the most money a shop in the settlement can spend to purchase any single item from the PCs</b>. If the PCs wish to sell an item worth more than a settlement's purchase limit, they'll either need to settle for a lower price, travel to A larger city, or (with the GM's permission) search for a specific buyer in the city with deeper pockets. A settlement's type sets its purchase limit.</blockquote><p>So this means that the most than <b>anyone</b> in town will have to buy from the PC's is going to be 2,500gp. They might buy a ring of protection +1 but they aren't going to buy a +2 armor for any more than 2,500gp.
<p>The base value actually makes sense for this village too — the most they are likely to have is some scrolls from the Butler's wife and potions from the priest.</p>
<p>I'm going to try bringing the NPC wealth by level into this to help show how the maximum value would be reached.</p>
<p>In fact doing so might prove that I was in error reducing the Mayor's level. At level 7 he's still the 'richest' (in equipment) person in town, with 4,650gp worth of personal equipment. If he was level 10 he would have 10,000gp worth of stuff. </blockquote><p>Since the mayor is not an adventurer, the Wealth and resource rules don't have to apply to him. It seems the wealth rules are more to balance combat gear than actually provide a wealth level for NPC's.Abraham spalding wrote:Look a little farther into what that and the base value mean:
Quote:Base Value and Purchase Limit: This section lists the community's base value for available magic items in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement's purchase limit is the most money a shop in the...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-22T19:29:16ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Medieval Warfare and Magic - A DiscussionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2qv&page=8?Medieval-Warfare-and-Magic-A-Discussion#3792011-11-09T20:26:21Z2011-11-09T20:26:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">karkon wrote:</div><blockquote><p> A few points:</p>
<p>1) He is not tunneling through the wall. This fighter is hitting the wall until it is broken enough to fall down.</p>
<p>2)Applying believablility is a foolish argument in a fantasy game. Even at 6th level a character can do things of real world legend and myth. Once you start asking for believability you might as well question everything in the rules.</p>
<p>3) Your own logical inconsistencies foil your argument. The stone golem is made of stone just as hard as the castle walls. The stone golem even tries to avoid blows. Yet you are ok with the idea of a fighter with a normal sword beating it down but not ok with the same fighter beating down an immobile wall. A monk can beat down a stone golem with his fists (granted a high level monk) but god forbid he use those awesome fists to knock down a stone wall? The hobgoblin of little minds here is refusing to be consistent. </p>
<p>4) A 6th level rogue with an 18 dex can break the world record for long jump. A record which has stood for 20 years (29.4 feet). Well that is not believable, better not allow it. And that monk who gets +8 for his speed he better not even think about it. </p>
<p>5)Monks, hows that for unbelievability. These guys run super fast because they can do karate. That makes no sense. Better not allow that.</p>
<p>Believability is a weak argument. PCs are special. The game treats them as special. How do we know that? The game has gimped classes specially for NPCs. The normal people of the world don't get to play with the cool toys. One of those cool toys is being a bad ass fighter who can beat walls down with a plain old sword.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Beleivability is a fantastic argument actually. No one ever beats me on it. See the rogue, monk, and fighter they are pretty special. Within the rules of the class it describes just how special they are. The problem is with the weapon.
<p>You want a fighter sapper to go after the walls? No problem. You want a swordsman? Not going to happen. EVER.</p>
<p>The reason I am OK with a fighter beating down a stone golem, is the same reason, raiders could destroy solid stone statues, but still could not breach a castle wall. The Stone Golem is not engineered like castle walls.</p>
<p>Your mistaking my point. There is a world of simulation the rules can handle. The rules were not meant to handle castle walls, so beleivability works well. The break DC's at least in 3rd edition meant you broke the door DOWN. Not shattered the door. </p>
<p>A stone golem is a completely different item than a castle wall. It has an animating spirit inside of it. Or it is not engineered liek a castle wall. You can effect a Stone Golem with Rock to Mud. Most worked stone is immune to rock to mud. </p>
<p>Stone Golems have the same hardness as walls, that is true but castle walls were alot more than their hardness. Castle design included walls designed to reinforce each other, or make it more difficult for things like picks. Perhaps the Golem is beat because the animating force has been driven out of it. There are numerous explanations one can use to avoid having to use rules in places they do not belong. </p>
<p>the long jump for the rogue... the rules are meant to handle that. Hardness of castle walls? The rules Clearly break down at that point.</p>
<p>No a fighter with a sword could never break through a castle wall.</p>karkon wrote:A few points:
1) He is not tunneling through the wall. This fighter is hitting the wall until it is broken enough to fall down.
2)Applying believablility is a foolish argument in a fantasy game. Even at 6th level a character can do things of real world legend and myth. Once you start asking for believability you might as well question everything in the rules.
3) Your own logical inconsistencies foil your argument. The stone golem is made of stone just as hard as the castle...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-09T20:26:21ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Undead and SunlightMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n3uv?Undead-and-Sunlight#42011-11-09T16:00:37Z2011-11-09T16:00:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DarthEnder wrote:</div><blockquote> There's nothing Skeletons love more than an invigorating battle on a sunny Greek island, as per Clash of the Titans. </blockquote><p>Good point! All these years and I just let THAT image fly by.
<p>But I think the movie your referring to is another Harryhausen masterpiece: JASON AND THE ARGONAUGHTS. I don't recall skeletons in Clash of the Titans. At least the Ray HArryhausen version.</p>DarthEnder wrote:There's nothing Skeletons love more than an invigorating battle on a sunny Greek island, as per Clash of the Titans.
Good point! All these years and I just let THAT image fly by. But I think the movie your referring to is another Harryhausen masterpiece: JASON AND THE ARGONAUGHTS. I don't recall skeletons in Clash of the Titans. At least the Ray HArryhausen version.Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-09T16:00:37ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Adventure Path: General Discussion: APs you'd like to see in the futureMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lz07&page=7?APs-youd-like-to-see-in-the-future#3052011-11-10T00:09:36Z2011-11-09T13:31:43Z<p>An original AP on Akiton giving homage to Edgar Rice Burrows and Michael Moorcock!</p>An original AP on Akiton giving homage to Edgar Rice Burrows and Michael Moorcock!Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-09T13:31:43ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Medieval Warfare and Magic - A DiscussionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2qv&page=8?Medieval-Warfare-and-Magic-A-Discussion#3552011-11-09T13:27:17Z2011-11-09T13:27:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">karkon wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I did not say you hate fighters(and other cut/stab types). Only that you want to apply real world rules to them that you do not apply to casters.</p>
<p>A golem IS made of hard stone, from the bestiary: A stone golem's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 3,000 pounds. The stone must be of exceptional quality, and costs 5,000 gp. It weighs 2000 lbs when done. The Stone Golem is so tough you need adamantine to beat its DR. It is tougher than the stone as it has a 10 DR vs 8 hardness and you need adamantine to beat the DR.</p>
<p>As far as destroying the stone wall, if you are trying to imagine the fighter reducing the entire 5x5 section to dust then you are being inconsistent in your principle. Applying the same rule as the Stone Golem then fighter just has to destroy enough to make that section fall down.</blockquote><p>There is an inconsistency within the limitations of the rules of pathfinder to simulate. It is not however inconsistent when you want to keep a level of believability. If I make a call that you cannot and could not destroy a castle wall with a sword (though I allow it with Adamantine weapons), that decision is informed through common sense, and a desire to make the world believable.
<p>Allowing the fighter to break the wall with a sword or an axe (castle stone walls) is a foolish consistency. And that is the Hobgoblin of little minds. (not calling your mind little, Just giving props to RWE)</p>karkon wrote:I did not say you hate fighters(and other cut/stab types). Only that you want to apply real world rules to them that you do not apply to casters.
A golem IS made of hard stone, from the bestiary: A stone golem's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 3,000 pounds. The stone must be of exceptional quality, and costs 5,000 gp. It weighs 2000 lbs when done. The Stone Golem is so tough you need adamantine to beat its DR. It is tougher...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-09T13:27:17ZForums: Rules Questions: Undead and SunlightMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n3uv?Undead-and-Sunlight#12011-11-09T13:16:59Z2011-11-09T13:16:59Z<p>Last night I ran Broken Moon. The party took a rest period in the mill, and then woke up for Daytime exploration.</p>
<p>One of the encounters called for skeletons. it was about 10 am in the morning. (There is nothing in the encounter that specifically states time of day, I imagine it is up to the timing of the group.) </p>
<p>All my years playing this RPG and I have made the assumption that Undead will not go into sunlight. So before running that encounter which I previously thought would not have the skeletons I checked. There is NOTHING I can find anywhere that say skeletons cannot operate in Sunlight (well it was overcast skies so Daylight, I determine weather conditions for a particular day by checking weather archives for last year on weather underground, for the corresponding day in the campaign provided there is not mood or story element of weather involved.)</p>
<p>Was my assumption completely a misconception as far as D&D monsters go?</p>
<p>I ultimately ran the encounter with skeletons in daylight, because I assumed I had a 25 year misconception.</p>Last night I ran Broken Moon. The party took a rest period in the mill, and then woke up for Daytime exploration.
One of the encounters called for skeletons. it was about 10 am in the morning. (There is nothing in the encounter that specifically states time of day, I imagine it is up to the timing of the group.)
All my years playing this RPG and I have made the assumption that Undead will not go into sunlight. So before running that encounter which I previously thought would not have the...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-09T13:16:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Medieval Warfare and Magic - A DiscussionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2qv&page=7?Medieval-Warfare-and-Magic-A-Discussion#3192011-11-08T17:21:41Z2011-11-08T17:21:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Abraham spalding wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Mournblade94 wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
How is +3 mithril 21. I can only work out 18.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Mithral starts with a hardness of 15 and you add 2 for each +1 enhancement bonus it has (and 10 more hp as well).
<p>Look on the charts for breaking stuff in exploration and on the special materials listings. </blockquote><p>Thank you!Abraham spalding wrote:Mournblade94 wrote:
How is +3 mithril 21. I can only work out 18.
Mithral starts with a hardness of 15 and you add 2 for each +1 enhancement bonus it has (and 10 more hp as well). Look on the charts for breaking stuff in exploration and on the special materials listings. Thank you!Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-08T17:21:41ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Medieval Warfare and Magic - A DiscussionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2qv&page=7?Medieval-Warfare-and-Magic-A-Discussion#3172011-11-08T16:43:41Z2011-11-08T16:43:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Abraham spalding wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Set wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
As for the tunneling with an adamantine dagger thing, my group •long ago• house-ruled that adamantine weapons halve the hardness of something they hit. Not -20. Just half. Cutting the hardness of stone from 8 to 4 is more than adequate. The price also dropped a bit, since it was no longer free-sunder-palooza. </blockquote><p>Just touching on something real quick — Adamantine ignores hardness under 20 — it doesn't subtract 20 from the hardness. If you swing a piece of adamantine against another piece of adanamtine or a +3 mithril weapon you have to deal with the entire hardness (adanamtine has a hardness of 20 and therefore isn't below 20 and +3 mithril will have a hardness of 21).
<p>I've seen a lot of people do it the way you are speaking (the -20 hardness bit) but wanted to point out that it's not how it technically works. </blockquote><p>How is +3 mithril 21. I can only work out 18.Abraham spalding wrote:Set wrote:
As for the tunneling with an adamantine dagger thing, my group *long ago* house-ruled that adamantine weapons halve the hardness of something they hit. Not -20. Just half. Cutting the hardness of stone from 8 to 4 is more than adequate. The price also dropped a bit, since it was no longer free-sunder-palooza.
Just touching on something real quick -- Adamantine ignores hardness under 20 -- it doesn't subtract 20 from the hardness. If you swing a piece of...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-08T16:43:41ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Medieval Warfare and Magic - A DiscussionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2qv&page=7?Medieval-Warfare-and-Magic-A-Discussion#3142011-11-08T16:31:29Z2011-11-08T16:31:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">karkon wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>The wizard can put a 5x8 and 10ft long hole in the wall in 3 seconds and you will not let the fighter do it in 10 minutes because it is too crazy?</blockquote><p>Absolutely! Magic is Magic. You are bending the laws of physics through the supernatural. The Fighter cannot bend physics.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">karkon wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
You want weapon repair and getting exhausted from fighting go play Rune Quest or Role Master any of the other more "realistic" fantasy games. When you get tired of all the calculations and rerolling and other BS you can come back here and enjoy the simplicity. </blockquote><p>Runequest is a far simpler system than PAthfinder. All Runequest does is simulate DIFFERENTLY. It does not simulate any BETTER.
<p>Just because a fighter CAN absurdly cut through a castle wall because it is in the rules, does not mean a GM should allow it. If a player argued that with me, they would have to turn in their Common Sense Card. No one would argue with me on that ruling, or at least they haven't yet. They couldn't win it if they tried though.</p>
<p>Just because a RPG system is simple is not license to throw away common sense. An individual DM must understand when the rules cross the boundary of common sense and rule accordingly.</p>karkon wrote:The wizard can put a 5x8 and 10ft long hole in the wall in 3 seconds and you will not let the fighter do it in 10 minutes because it is too crazy?
Absolutely! Magic is Magic. You are bending the laws of physics through the supernatural. The Fighter cannot bend physics. karkon wrote:You want weapon repair and getting exhausted from fighting go play Rune Quest or Role Master any of the other more "realistic" fantasy games. When you get tired of all the calculations and rerolling...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-08T16:31:29ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Pathfinder is the best selling RPG in Q3, according to ICv2Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2mr&page=3?Pathfinder-is-the-best-selling-RPG-in-Q3#1342011-11-08T16:17:22Z2011-11-08T16:17:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">fjw70 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Not being in the rpg business I would assume a minority of sales for D&D and Pathfinder are made through retail locations. Most of the 4e players I know don't buy D&D books. They use DDi or pirate the book PDFs or pirate DDi stuff.</p>
<p>Do most of the Pathfinder players actual buy the books? How many buy through retail locations? </blockquote><p>I don't have any skin in the game, but it bugs me when players use pirated books. Of course they give me the tale they can't afford it because they need to feed their kids, but they are not going out stealing bluray players because they need to feed their kids.
<p>Seriously, I have the book. If you need to use it you can look at it. My friend argues with me that allowing him to use PFSRD and not complaining is the same as pirating. But it just isn't.</p>
<p>I don't know why pirating games bugs me so much. Maybe it is because I am willing to buy the material and do the work for the adventures. Then your not even willing to buy the book. If your not willing to buy the book fine, use mine at the table. I guess it is silly, because if he wasn't going to buy the book anyway it makes no difference.</p>
<p>just one of my Pet peeves I guess.</p>fjw70 wrote:Not being in the rpg business I would assume a minority of sales for D&D and Pathfinder are made through retail locations. Most of the 4e players I know don't buy D&D books. They use DDi or pirate the book PDFs or pirate DDi stuff.
Do most of the Pathfinder players actual buy the books? How many buy through retail locations?
I don't have any skin in the game, but it bugs me when players use pirated books. Of course they give me the tale they can't afford it because they need to...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-08T16:17:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Medieval Warfare and Magic - A DiscussionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2qv&page=7?Medieval-Warfare-and-Magic-A-Discussion#3082011-11-08T14:49:55Z2011-11-08T14:49:55Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I'm guessing in your games it's impossible to damage dragons, iron golems, and so forth with things like swords, right? I mean, it's the same principle. A normal human cannot hope to even scratch an iron golem in a meaningful way (you literally cannot deal more than 15 damage with a longsword at 1st level, without a critical hit).</blockquote><p>It is impossible to damage them without an adamantine sword. That is different. Some legendary fighters can damage them a little bit with a steel sword. Still not as ridiculous as digging through a wall with a sword in 10 minutes. Let me change that to castle wall. I can see a fighter bursting a wood wall. I generally do not allow weapons to damage walls. Doors yes. Walls no. SImply because of their construction. No rule for it in the core. I just do not think the intention of the rules was for seige.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Common sense goes out the window very early in D&D. There's a reason E6 exists, and that's because 6th level is epic enough for some people. In fact, it's actually as epic or more epic than most wild fantasies from reality. Heck, we have religions based around the idea that people can be resurrected or healed, and we consider such things to be of divine nature, while any cleric of 7th level can heal the sick, create food from nothing, and raise the dead. Literally every 7th level cleric can mimic the very divine abilities of Jesus, and somehow a 6th level warrior tearing a hole in the wall is upsetting your notion of common sense?</blockquote><p>In the context of versimilitude yes. Not only is the sword a terrible tool for the job, it could not happen in 10 minutes. If you want it too that is fine. If it happened in a story though people would point and laugh.
<p>The ressurection issue is completely different. The D&D world has magic as a basic assumption, that has been inspired by real world myth and legends. Since D&D is a magical world, clerics SHOULD be able to mimic the abilities of prophets.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Fighter's can't have nice things, it seems. This trope is alive and well, it seems. God forbid that fantastic warriors do things that are actually fantastic.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Breaking through a wall with a sword is not fantastic. It is just silly. Fighters have plenty of nice things. If they were able to beseige a castle with a sword, they have a REALLY nice thing. I like to apply common sense to rules. I don't think fighters need to be approached with a lack of common sense to make them fantastic. They already are.
<p>Medieval TOTAL WAR was a fantastic game. There was one exploit to it though. The best seige weapon was a horde of peasants. Send your peasants at the gate, and the gate is down. No need for seige weapons. Ridiculous. Only part of the game I did not like. You'll lose like 1100 peasants but they are much cheaper than one catapult.</p>
<p>The developers should have made gates unassailable by standard weapons. That is what I do with fortification walls at least 2 feet thick.</p>Ashiel wrote:I'm guessing in your games it's impossible to damage dragons, iron golems, and so forth with things like swords, right? I mean, it's the same principle. A normal human cannot hope to even scratch an iron golem in a meaningful way (you literally cannot deal more than 15 damage with a longsword at 1st level, without a critical hit).
It is impossible to damage them without an adamantine sword. That is different. Some legendary fighters can damage them a little bit with a steel...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-08T14:49:55ZRe: Forums/Paizo: General Discussion: Will there ever be a Pathfinder RPG on the PC?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n292&page=2?Will-there-ever-be-a-Pathfinder-RPG-on-the-PC#522011-11-08T14:09:46Z2011-11-08T14:09:46Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Betts wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Mournblade94 wrote:</div><blockquote>So YEs the PC's certainly can amaze with graphics. But if your a schleb that cannot build your own computer for $1500 to get that machine, your stuck paying Dell or Alien $4000 for that machine.</blockquote><p>An enthusiast gaming PC does not cost $1500 to build, nor does it cost anywhere near $4000 to get one built for you. I assembled one not two weeks ago for well under $900, including some "above-and-beyond" luxury components like a solid state drive to handle the OS and other common apps. It runs Battlefield 3 at full HD resolution with graphics options set to Ultra, and it's smooth as silk.
<p>Does that compare to consoles? No, certainly not. I can go out and buy a $200 console that will run Battlefield 3 at full HD resolution (with much less impressive graphics, mind you) and have a very playable experience. But the astronomically high costs you're citing are not anything close to what a solid gaming PC costs.</p>
<p>And really, learning how to assemble a PC is not hard. I'm hardly an IT professional, and I hadn't built a PC in ten years, but it didn't take me more than an afternoon to get it put together, with no hiccups. There are guides online, and every component will come with instructions. </blockquote><p>Your right. I only now started to build computers because I was sick of paying Dell. I learned by taking mine apart. Since I was formerly an Electronic Tech with the Navy it really is a simple matter.
<p>Even so, I use my PC for Wargames. My wife loves MMO's. RPG's I far prefer on the console. I played Civilization on XBOX but it is clumsy. I still prefer PC for wargames. I don't think they have figured out how to make a good interface for Wargames on consoles yet.</p>Scott Betts wrote:Mournblade94 wrote:So YEs the PC's certainly can amaze with graphics. But if your a schleb that cannot build your own computer for $1500 to get that machine, your stuck paying Dell or Alien $4000 for that machine.
An enthusiast gaming PC does not cost $1500 to build, nor does it cost anywhere near $4000 to get one built for you. I assembled one not two weeks ago for well under $900, including some "above-and-beyond" luxury components like a solid state drive to handle the...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-08T14:09:46ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Would people hate the Gunslinger less if they were called Boomslingers?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2ml&page=2?Would-people-hate-the-Gunslinger-less-if-they#982011-11-07T20:26:08Z2011-11-07T20:26:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ion Raven wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Lincoln Hills wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Well, first of all, I don't hate the Gunslinger, although I don't allow them in my campaign setting for the same reason that I don't allow Dr. Who, Captain America or the 1952 Yankees in it.
</p>
</blockquote>Do you allow Monks? </blockquote><p>I don't like Gunslingers but I love monks. For the simple fact that the Linnorm Kings need to raid abbeys.Ion Raven wrote:Lincoln Hills wrote:Well, first of all, I don't hate the Gunslinger, although I don't allow them in my campaign setting for the same reason that I don't allow Dr. Who, Captain America or the 1952 Yankees in it.
Do you allow Monks? I don't like Gunslingers but I love monks. For the simple fact that the Linnorm Kings need to raid abbeys.Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-07T20:26:08ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Would people hate the Gunslinger less if they were called Boomslingers?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n2ml&page=2?Would-people-hate-the-Gunslinger-less-if-they#972011-11-07T20:02:04Z2011-11-07T20:02:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">LazarX wrote:</div><blockquote> No they wouldn't. A change of name isn't going to open up the determinedly narrowminded. I'd be less likely to play the class out of sheer embarrassment on such a silly name. </blockquote><p>How does someone that does not like the gunslinger earn the term narrowminded?LazarX wrote:No they wouldn't. A change of name isn't going to open up the determinedly narrowminded. I'd be less likely to play the class out of sheer embarrassment on such a silly name.
How does someone that does not like the gunslinger earn the term narrowminded?Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-07T20:02:04ZRe: Forums: Product Discussion: Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Lands of the Linnorm Kings (PFRPG)Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/products/btpy8ode/discuss&page=3?Pathfinder-Campaign-Setting-Lands-of-the-Linnorm-Kings#1232011-11-07T15:15:15Z2011-11-07T15:15:15Z<p>This book is very helpful allowing me to easily port the moonshae islands to golarion. I love when fantasy is informed by history</p>This book is very helpful allowing me to easily port the moonshae islands to golarion. I love when fantasy is informed by historyMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-07T15:15:15ZRe: Forums: Advice: Starting PC's as NPC classes which get replacedMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n318?Starting-PCs-as-NPC-classes-which-get-replaced#152011-11-07T15:11:02Z2011-11-07T15:11:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Laithoron wrote:</div><blockquote><p> •• spoiler omitted ••</p>
<p>I had to reupload the file. Please use the following link instead. My apologies to any Office 2003 users, but saving to the older version breaks stuff...</p>
<p><b>NPC Level by Age Category:</b> <a href="http://wiki.worldsunknown.com/wiki/File:NPC-Level-by-Age.xlsx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.worldsunknown.com/wiki/File:NPC-Level-by-Age.xlsx</a> </blockquote><p>many thanks!Laithoron wrote:** spoiler omitted **
I had to reupload the file. Please use the following link instead. My apologies to any Office 2003 users, but saving to the older version breaks stuff...
NPC Level by Age Category: http://wiki.worldsunknown.com/wiki/File:NPC-Level-by-Age.xlsx
many thanks!Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-07T15:11:02ZRe: Forums/Lost Omens Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Things you love about GolarionMournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mqza&page=3?Things-you-love-about-Golarion#1162011-11-07T14:52:08Z2011-11-07T14:52:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mikaze wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Mournblade94 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Also where are the examples of good orcs and drow? I was pretty sure in SEcond Darkness, the official answer too good drow was no.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Non-evil orcs are implied by some lines in the beginning of Orcs of Golarion, detailing some actions involving the protection of their children and elderly that run counter to the otherwise flat, one-dimensional image put forth by most of the rest of that book. There's also explicit mention of orc paladins.
<p>Second Darkness features •• spoiler omitted ••</p>
<p>NPC Guide also features James Jacobs' good-aligned PC Shensen, who was born a drow.</p>
<p>SD didn't say "no" to good-aligned drow, it just suggested that GMs encourage players to put any good-aligned drow characters off until after SD. </blockquote><p>Ah right!
<p>I know about the CN guy, I just meant a bonafide GOOD drow. WHich I allow. I played Second Darkness as everyone knowing about drow (well not like flumpy the farmer) but not knowing about the transformation. </p>
<p>I always preferred the ORcs are evil to the Warcraft/Elderscrolls Orcs are people to philosophy.</p>
<p>Drow I have allowed to switch alignments, but I always played the humanoid subtype as evil.</p>Mikaze wrote:Mournblade94 wrote:Also where are the examples of good orcs and drow? I was pretty sure in SEcond Darkness, the official answer too good drow was no.
Non-evil orcs are implied by some lines in the beginning of Orcs of Golarion, detailing some actions involving the protection of their children and elderly that run counter to the otherwise flat, one-dimensional image put forth by most of the rest of that book. There's also explicit mention of orc paladins. Second Darkness features...Mournblade94 (alias of Carl Cascone)2011-11-07T14:52:08Z