Ultimate Campaign got me thinking of wealth-by-level balancing, which got me thinking of the sale value of treasure. Just why is it sold for half price, anyhow?
Let's start by simplifying and making some core assumptions, just to avoid derailing the thread *too* much on questions of playstyle difference. That's not an indictment of playstyle differences - it's just not relevant to the question.
1. We are assuming core rules. So magic items sell for one half, and (given sufficient settlement gp limits) you can buy and sell magic items with little problem. The GM is giving enemy NPCs the standard wealth for an NPC of their level, not more or less.
Now, if the GM gives an enemy a longsword +1, the treasure total has gone up by 2315gp. The fighter is happy, and is getting normal WBL for his encounters.
But suppose, instead, the GM is cruel - or at least indifferent and using randomized tables. Instead, he gives the opponent a scimitar +1. Again, the treasure total has gone up by 2315gp. But now the fighter is NOT happy. When he gets back to town, he sells the scimitar +1 and buys a longsword +1. BUT... since he only gets 1157.5gp for the scimitar, the rest has to come from his own gp. That means the fighter is now 1157.5gp below his ordinary wealth by level. He'd have done better to get an amount of extra gp equivalent to the price of a scimitar +1 - a treasure of the same value, but with greater liquidity.
Now consider the higher level fighter, who can craft magic weapons. Now he can sell the scimitar +1, and use the funds to make his own longsword +1. Hooray! He's back at WBL! Except... he's really not. He's still short by 1157.5gp, because he *should* be getting that much discount. If the player had been creating a new character at the higher level, he'd have been able to get a longsword +1 at half price from the get-go. Part of the advantage of the crafting feats is to exceed WBL. Again, if the scimitar was replaced by gold pieces instead, he'd be better off.
If the trend of "useless magic items" continues, the fighter will drop farther and farther behind WBL, and the GM will have to (or at least should) compensate anyhow.
On the other hand, if the fighter could sell the scimitar for full price, he could go ahead and buy the longsword and be at his normal WBL. If he could craft his own, he'd be 1157.5gp ahead of WBL, exactly as he's suppose to be. And the GM wouldn't have to worry about whether treasure was useful or vendor trash when determining WBL. There's less need to compensate. So at least for game-balance, it would seem to be better to have items sold at full value rather than half.
Now, you might argue for realism - merchants make money on markup. (Alliteration unintended.) Also, adventures don't take the time to find a buyer, which could take months for some items. Possibly never, if it's some reeking bit of magic hide they pulled off a goblin shaman's corpse. "Well sure, it's made of human skin, scrawled with the symbols of Lamashtu, and smells like the original owner's body cavity, but it's magic hide armor!" These two combine nicely, actually - 100% markup isn't really that much if it takes *years* to find a new buyer. On the other hand, the very mundane equipment is also sold for half price, and there should be no shortage of buyers for that. "Ah, I see you have recovered an animal harness, Mr. Adventurer. But we don't have much call for those in this farming community, so I'll take it off your hands for half price." But wait... remember, we have established that, at least by the rules, there are magic item shops? (Remember, a small city has a base value of 4000gp, which means there is a 75% chance of finding *any* magic item less than that value.) Base values go up with city size. That means trade hubs. A merchant isn't typically going to leave a magic sword on a shelf for 20 years waiting for another rich adventurer to want it. No, they'll sell it to traveling merchants, who will bring it to major trade hubs, and it'll get sold within the year to a nobleman with the cash to spare. Thus, the 100% markup is *still* too high, and it *still* makes sense for magic items to be sold near full value.
The spell states you can turn inert stone into flesh, but it isn't alive. No problem. But... what kind of flesh?
If I make a statue of a cow, then cast StF on it, does it become beef? If I do the same to a pig statue, does it become pork? Can I make beef from a pig statue? If I made it out of a statue of a human, would it be cannibalism to eat it? Does the meat spoil?
A character can lift as much as double his maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it. While overloaded in this way, the character loses any Dexterity bonus to AC and can move only 5 feet per round (as a full-round action).
Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.
Is the speed effect from being overloaded considered a special rule, or simply an encumbrance effect? That is, can a dwarf still move 20 feet despite carrying double his "maximum load"?
None of the composite bows are mentioned as having high strength rating in any opponent entries, yet everyone who has them seems to be adding strength to ranged damage.
Should these be listed as have a strength rating of whatever is needed to deal the listed damage, which would increase the treasure (especially during the first few levels when a few hundred gp is significant) or should the damage entries be nerfed?
A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1. A successful Fortitude save reduces this penalty by half. This penalty does not stack with itself. Apply the highest penalty instead.
No problem so far. The effect is straightforward, the spell imposes a penalty to Strength. But...
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.
If penalties function like damage (rather than drain), then it wouldn't reduce the score. Rather, for every two points of penalty, you take a -1 to derived checks.
Since the penalty doesn't change your actual strength, then, your carrying capacity also shouldn't change. Am I correct?
I generally like the downtime rules in Ultimate Campaign, but one usage caught me off guard and I wanted to make sure I'm understanding it correctly.
You can use units of Capital on paying for goods at the purchase price, and pay that for the crafting costs?
So, for example, if we are supposing that a wizard is making a magic item that costs 2000gp. This will cost them 1000gp in raw materials. But they can use units of Magic to assist in paying that cost - in this case, 10 units. But earning units of Magic only costs them 50gp.
Similar rules exist for other goods, including nonmagical ones.
Would this mean you can now effectively buy any item for half price, craft magic items for 1/4th price, and nonmagic items for 1/6th the price, given enough downtime?
Even for unskilled laborers and basic Goods capital, you'd spend a day's work and 10gp and get 20gp of purchasing power - why would anyone use normal profession checks ever again?
After a fairly long thread about the subject, the original question was marked as answered in the FAQ... except it wasn't. When I commented, someone suggested they had marked it to clear it from the queue, but couldn't determine the actual question. So I thought I'd simply ask again and clarify.
Please mark this for the FAQ so we can get a response.
I have a player who wants to fill a Bag of Holding with ale, essentially using it as a giant waterskin (well, aleskin). But I'm starting to wonder less and less if this works, or would be desirable for what he wants.
First, can you put liquid sans container into a bag of holding? It's an extradimensional space, so I would suppose so.
Second, ordinarily a BoH requires a move action to get something specific from it, or a full round if it contains more than a normal backpack. But if you are drinking straight from the bag, is this still the case? That is, is the move/full-round action a function of the magic of the bag and reaching across dimensional barriers, or is it just a matter of finding the item you want? If my player has to take a full round to get the liquid and then a move action to drink, it's definitely not what he wants, but if it is just going to be a move action to drink, he's fine with it.
Might I suggest adding things like Paizo Blogs that create new rules (such as this one that alters how stealth works, as well as clarifications made in FAQs, to the PRD? Or at the very least, have a page that links to all of them so we aren't having to look in a dozen different locations if we need to look up some kind of rules issue (or missed something entirely)?
3.0 had the Zenythri and Chaonds, but those are IP.
We know if angels/archons/agathions/azatas get frisky with a mortal, you get half-celestials, which can later have aasimars as descendants - and those have a full book about them.
We know if demons/daemons/devils get frisky with a mortal, you get half-fiends, which can later have tieflings as descendants - and those, too, have a full book about them.
So what happens if Inevitables or Axiomites knock boots with a mortal? What happens when Proteans make the beast with two (or more) backs with a mortal? What about Aeons? Or the Psychopomps coming in Bestiary 4?
I love to run games, but as a grad student I barely have the time. And of course, it takes more prep time to run a game than play it. Obviously, published adventures help a lot. Most of the work is done for you... hopefully.
What I keep finding is that when I run into a problem, often the simple solution is to adjust the game. Players have too much treasure? Adjust downwards. Players too powerful? Make the encounters harder. Players not powerful enough? Do the opposite. But at some point, when you are reworking every encounter, adjusting every treasure, and coming up with alternative plots because the players did something the module didn't expect... well, you have lost most of your time savings. Add in doing research on rules questions because you have creative players that actually run into corner cases fairly often, and you lose the rest. (No wonder my grades suffered this semester!)
I'm sure others have this problem, as well, be it from a job, school, or a family. So I figured I'd start a discussion on how to balance being a GM with your other responsibilities.
One thing that helps, I have found, is learning to say no. If there's something a player wants to do, that just takes too much of your time to accommodate (either through plot development or looking up special rules cases) tell them no, and explain why. Hopefully, they'll accept that.
Anybody else have ideas?
One of my players wants to take the Gunslinger feat from the 3.5 version of the campaign setting. I told him I'd think about it.
My impulse is to say no - the feat was designed before the newest rules on guns and the gunslinger class were developed. Also, guns are powerful enough weapons that removing the drawback of not using them in melee would seem more powerful than the same thing with a bow or crossbow.
However, I wanted a second/third/fourth/etc. opinion on this before I told my player my decision. Any thoughts?
Okay, I have been trying to get a clear understanding of this, and many threads on the subject seem to assume a magus who misses with a touch spell via spell strike can continue to channel the charge through their weapon. But I'm not seeing where this is that clear.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
Now, the normal rules on using a charged touch spell allow for later attacks through touches (that are considered armed), unarmed strikes, and natural weapons. There is no provision for manufactured weapons.
If the magus has already missed, they now have a charged touch spell. But both of the first two sentences of the spellstrike ability specifically call out that the melee attack is made as part of the casting. Shouldn't the magus then follow normal rules for discharging a held touch attack?
That is, if a magus misses with spellstrike, shouldn't they now have to discharge it via a touch, UAS, or natural weapon, and NOT via their weapon?
Had a situation come up tonight that I'd like some advice on. I prefer to follow the rules as much as possible as a GM, but we hit a situation where they seemed a bit broken.
To avoid spoilers, I'll keep this very generic. My players are 3rd level, in an adventure path. They have encountered a minor artifact that takes the form of a well set into the floor. The summoner in the group has taken a trait that allows him to cast three spells on his list at a +1 caster level. One of the spells he chose was Summon Monster II.
Now, the first part of this is, am I correct in disallowing him to use it with his Summon Monster spell-like ability? Getting an extra round from a summon spell is one thing, but since the SLA lasts minutes instead of rounds an extra 10 rounds is a bit much. But the SLA in the summoner's case works more like spells than most SLAs so I'm not sure I'm right.
The second issue is that he used said SLA to summon a small Earth Elemental, and burrow around and under the well. He also want to have it Earth Glide up the walls and into the ceiling, to drop a chunk of stone on top of the well. This wouldn't destroy the artifact, but it would bury it, effectively doing the same thing for game purposes.
Now, since the elemental is around 2 minutes (possibly 3 - one minute was used to get the Earth Elemental to understand directions via alchemist extract), and has a burrow speed of 20 feet, that means it can move 800 square feet of earth (1200 in 3 minutes). Now considering that Move Earth can't be used for tunneling, can move 1500 square feet of earth at most, takes 10 minutes, and is a 6th level spell, this seems a bit much. One more level and the summoner would be able to outdo Move Earth with this trick.
I don't want to deny something that is allowed in the rules... but I also don't want my players to be able to shut down an artifact with a 2nd level SLA and no research.
Invisibility grants you total concealment, which means that enemies can target the square you are in, then get a 50% miss chance. But this can actually improve the situation for them if you have a high AC and they have a low attack!
Consider the following:
Now let's say Person B becomes invisible. Now Person A has to hit the square they are in (AC 5, thus A has a 95% chance of hitting) and then gets a 50% miss chance. Since .95 x .5 is .475, there's a 47.5% of making the hit, a full 17.5% greater!
This could get even worse, too - suppose Person B had an AC of 23. Now A can only hit B with a natural 20, thus a mere 5% chance of hitting. If B turns invisible, it actually increases his chances of being hit by 42.5% - as though his AC had dropped from 23 to 15.
This seems counter-intuitive to me. Am I doing something wrong?
Additional: Even in a worse case scenario, where an attacker has an attack of +0, they have an 80% chance to hit an AC 5 square, thus a 40% chance to hit an invisible creature. This is the same probability as if the creature was visible and had an AC of 12.
In fact, anything with an AC 13 or more higher than the attacker's bonus would be worse off by becoming invisible.
Last Friday my players made their way through the Catacombs of Wrath. Sadly, *not one of them* thought to research quasits... and so the only ones that could reliably do damage to Erylium were the paladin (via smite) and the summoner (via celestial eagles that could smite). Both of them could also use Detect Magic/Detect Evil to determine her location every three rounds. The party closed the door, and the *hours* of combat dragged on. (Hours out of game, in game it was a lot of rounds but still not hours.)
Erylium was almost out of hostile magic - she had the use of 2 slumber hexes and a ray of enfeeblement, but her returning dagger had been captured so her only method of actual damage was claws and teeth. She couldn't escape because of the closed door. But with her energy resistance, damage reduction, and fast healing, plus the high AC and the invisibility meaning that even the two characters who could "spot" her had a 50% miss chance... the party didn't have a chance at actually killing her. One of them kept saying that she had to sleep sometime, and they could take shifts to get her when that happened... except outsiders don't sleep. And since my players lacked much of this info, they refused to try another tactic. Very frustrating...
Finally, one of them decided to go for help from the militia (figuring that filling the room with guards would put this to rest) - at which point, the invisible quasit near the door with a readied action slipped through, ending the fight.
Well, sort of... because now, Erylium is still alive. Everyone in her "kingdom" is now dead, she's still a coward, and she still has agoraphobia... so what would she probably do now? She's going to want revenge, but she's going to have a hard time finding someone to help her carry it out. I suppose I could have her travel to Thistletop, her fear of the party overriding her fear of open spaces, or just wait until Scribbler's appearance... though she'd be little more than a nuisance at that point.
The rules allow one to use an AoMF to place melee weapon abilities on unarmed attacks. This would include the Throwing ability. How does one use a thrown unarmed attack? Does the fist or foot detach from the body, fly out, then return? Does it automatically reattach itself, or does one need a regeneration spell?
I just finished running this fight for the second time. The first time was for one group, but the campaign ended early - they never even finished Thistletop.
The second time some of the players from the first group wanted to reboot that campaign. It had been months, though (possibly even over a year, I don't recall), and the foreknowledge of three out of five players didn't really assist them. (The other two are new.)
But the reason I'm writing this is because essentially the same thing happened both times, and I want to know how common it is.
The fight is against a small horde of goblins (8) and Tsuto Kaijitsu. Tsuto is downstairs with his sister, while the goblins are in the main glassmaking area. What is supposed to happen is that the fight starts, Tsuto hears it, and comes to assist. He is supposed to work with the goblins.
But it never goes down that way. Due to a combination of sleep spells, burning hands, or alchemist bombs, my players manage to defeat the goblins within two rounds. So the fight is over, or very nearly so, by the time Tsuto even gets upstairs. And since he has no flanking buddies left, I never get to use his sneak attacks. Further, because of the doors in the room between the stairs down and the main factory area, both fights tend to cluster around a doorway where only a few can get through, and the turns mean ranged weapons aren't nearly as effective for characters stuck in back. So there were a few occasions of, "Well, I can't do anything this turn, so I'll wait."
Anybody else run into this? My players are all level 1, and while there are 5 of them instead of 4, I don't think that would impact it so dramatically. (Especially since they are on a 15 point buy instead of 20.)
First, on damage reduction:
Attacks from weapons that are not of the correct type or made of the correct material have their damage reduced, although a high enhancement bonus can overcome some forms of damage reduction.
I can't find the listing for what enhancement bonuses are required to overcome what. I seem to recall it was +1 for slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing, +2 for silver or cold iron, +3 for alignments, and +5 for adamantine, but I don't know if those are right or even where they come from.
Second, on creatures with several limbs. Can a creature with Multi-Weapon Fighting take Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting? If so, do they get extra attacks with just one off hand, or with all of them?
Part of making a scroll requires you to provide the expensive material component of the spell in question. So for example, a cleric can make a scroll of Bless for 25 gp, but a scroll of Bless Water would be 50gp to include the 25 gp worth of silver dust.
But what about a scroll of Animate Dead? The base spell would be 3 x 5 x 25 (assuming 5th level caster) or 375gp. But the spell also requires an onyx gem, which depends on the hit dice of the undead in question. How do you know what that HD is going to be? For a human skeleton that's only an extra 25gp. But if I wanted to raise a ankylosaurus skeleton, it would be an extra 250gp. Does the scroll remember the value of the onyx gem I used in the making? If I use a 25gp gem, then use the scroll on an ankylosaurus, would it simply fail, or could I not even attempt the casting (as I wouldn't have the proper material components)? Can I supplement the extra components?
There's an even weirder scenario. If a 17th level wizard wants to create a scroll of a 9th level spell, it costs 3825gp. Now suppose that spell is Teleportation Circle. The extra amber dust bumps the cost up to 4825gp. But there's a flaw in this - the amber dust is essential to the spell, because it defines the circle! The amber dust is used to mark out a circle, which then becomes the teleportation circle. So if casting from a scroll, how do you mark out the circle? You need the dust at the time of casting, which the scroll doesn't allow.
Okay, I have to get this off my chest. One of Sandpoint's citizens sounds very familiar...
Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition wrote:
...VORVASHALI VOON...an exotic-looking character with bright blue eyes, long red hair, and almost bronze-colored skin, is gregarious and excited about every customer.
I can't read that description without thinking that this guy fits such a description.
This image will from now on be used to represent the proprietor of the Feathered Serpent in my games.
Various kinds of terrain have some interesting features, and yet any time I have ever seen a battle done in a forest, there was always a convenient clearing for that battle to take place in.
In a given 50 foot square of sparse forest, half the battle map should be typical trees and light undergrowth. If the forest is dense, you should have about 20 massive trees, and 80 typical trees, and every square should have some kind of undergrowth. In a 10x10 square.
But even in Paizo's published maps, you get pretty pictures of treetops surrounding an open clearing or path.
Similar rules hold for other types of terrain. In a 10x10 square of swamp, there should be 20 squares of deep bog and 40 squares of light bog. When drawing battle maps in hill country, there should be gradual and steep slopes in 90 to 95 of the squares out of 100. Even on a 10x10 square of grassland there should be 30 squares with undergrowth.
A computer could easily be programmed to randomly generate the appropriate battle scene, but most of us aren't doing that in home games.
So how many people actually use these rules when designing random encounters?
One of my friends and I have completely opposite approaches to building characters.
For my part, I always start with a concept. This usually includes a race and a general profession, and usually some ideology and personality. Then I figure out what broad options fit those choices, and then select options where they fit. I might change a few details here and there, but for the most part I'm using the rule mechanics as best I can to represent a character - an "outside-in" approach.
My friend does the opposite, an "inside-out" approach. He starts by looking up rule mechanics he wants to implement, then comes up with a character concept that can incorporate those rules, even if unrealistic. Sometimes he'll move from this into a "feedback" approach, where he comes up with a background, find an option he likes that would work well with that background, and shifts a large part of his mechanics choices around to better fill that option... which can in turn lead to a shift in concept again.
Sometimes it annoys me as a GM when he creates characters for a game I have planned. (In a mortal WoD game where characters have yet to be exposed to the supernatural stuff: "Yes, I suppose your grandfather could have learned a bit about Nazi occult practices in WW2 and taught you what he knew, but do you really think that justifies a full 4 dots in it?" "I took the German language and his grandfather has a large collection of books as spoils of war.") And I'm sure it bugs him sometimes when he runs a game I'm playing in. ("You put ranks in Craft: Painting? Your barbarian's hobbies should be killing stuff, not doing landscapes!" "Seeking tranquility is his way of managing his rage.") However, we both know that these are both valid approaches and so grin and bear it, and adapt the campaign accordingly.
Pondering on this led me to wonder what other methodologies people follow. How do you build your characters? And do they differ from others in your group?
Is there anything preventing an elven wizard from bonding spells from his opposition schools using this archetype?
RD's question on Enlarge Person reminded me of a situation I had once as a GM. Never did figure out how it should have worked...
I was running a sewer adventure, and put the party up against some ochre jellies. Some of the players only had slashing weapons. Rather than deciding this was a hindrance, they set about splitting the jellies up as much as possible. (That way, area affects that did damage would multiply in effectiveness.)
Now, because it was in a sewer, space was an issue, and the resulting oozes were the same size as the original. Where do those offspring go, in terms of positioning? Are they squeezed into the same square? Are they shunted into the nearest open space - even if that space is behind two other oozes, or behind the party?
While trying to decide how to make a half-orc battle-cleric of Gorum, I realized that I could be very well armed... and also very confused. I want to make sure I have this down right.
A half-orc can take the "Toothy" racial trait (or alternatively, a feat) that gives them a bite attack, a primary natural attack that does 1d4 damage.
So, such a half-orc wielding a greatsword could:
Is this correct?
Now, to add to my confusion, devout Gorumites also typically wear armor spikes, which can be used as a light weapon, and an "off hand" weapon in the case of a multiattack.
So in this case, the half-orc could (assuming NO TWF feat):
Is this all correct?
Finally, would taking Two Weapon Fighting affect the bite attack at all?
Honestly, I'm not sure this is *quite* the forum for this, because while it's about the Pathfinder RPG, it's also about the application of programming to that RPG. Or maybe vice versa. Anyhow, if a mod decides this isn't the right place, I'd appreciate a move. Also, from a legal perspective... my understanding is that you can create a computer game that uses the OGL elements of the Pathfinder RPG, as long as you meet the legal requirements involved - including a copy of the OGL itself, not using Product Identity or Trademarks (including indication of compatibility), and clearly identifying which portions are OGL.
I have been thinking for a long time how I'd implement some of the rules of the game as an object oriented computer program, but I'm not a very experienced programmer, and one of the things that has been bugging me is class levels. This has been made worse by the inclusion of archetypes.
Possibly the best way to do it would be to treat each class level as a kind of template that added features to a character. Each level would be a separate template.
So, for example, a Barbarian 1 template would add a d12 hit dice, toggle a number of skills as "class skills", add 4+Int skill ranks, add 1 to the BAB, 2 to the Fort Save, and grant the "Fast movement" and "Rage" powers. It would require a nonlawful alignment and an Int Score of 3. The Barbarian 2 template would be very similar, adding hit dice and skills, increasing BAB and Fort by 1 each, and adding a rage power and uncanny dodge. It would require the Barbarian 1 template to already be applied.
Now, I think this would work just fine, allowing for multiclassing and single classing with ease. The problem comes in with archetypes. You don't want to allow someone access to both Barbarian 1 and Invulnerable Rager 1. You could simply make each of them require the lack of the other, but this approach sets up a LOT of requirements - you'd essentially have to treat each archetype (and combination of archetypes!) as a separate class, with a multitude of checks to make sure none of these classes could be taken concurrently. You'd also be duplicating a lot of material, since some archetypes do not change the base class all that much, with many levels being identical.
Perhaps a better solution would be to only create those levels that were different, but then you'd have to create even more built in checks - making sure that someone who took a level in an archetype would take all further archetype levels that came after.
Then you have problems like Domain or Bloodline selection. A cleric with the Travel domain is almost a different class than a cleric with the War domain, and the fact that they get two domains complicates the issue more. Do you develop a cleric class for every combination of domains? That will get very tedious, very quickly. Perhaps one option would be to treat Domains as templates in a similar manner?
Anyway, just looking for some thoughts on this. Are there some options that might be better that people can think of?
This game tests your ability to think of connections between two concepts. The idea is simple - you add to a chain of articles on Wikipedia.
To start a journey, use the random page link on Wikipedia to find a target page. If the page has no links, or is an orphan page, you should choose a new one, because otherwise either you or the next player will break the chain. Your starting page is the previous person's target page. You click through links on the page until you reach your target page. You can use any link within an article (or even list), but you can't click links common to all Wikipedia pages (for example, the talk page for an article), nor can you edit a page.
You score 1 point for each link you make. However, someone can attempt the same journey and if they do it in fewer links than you, you get 0 points. You may not take two journeys in a row - someone else must make a journey between your two consecutive ones. The first person to reach 150 points wins, and the next person should start a new chain. (But remember they can instead still remove you as winner if they post a shorter journey right after you.)
I'll go first to illustrate. I used a random page for a start page as well.
The next player must either make a journey from Jan Brożek to Riverview, Indiana in fewer than 10 links or randomly get a new target page and make a journey from Riverview, Indiana to that.
I now have 10 points.
Does it seem to anybody else that there is a serious gap in the video game RPG market? It seems that you either get single player games, or MMOs, with no middle ground. There are a few exceptions, usually action RPGs, and the Infinity Engine Games and Neverwinter Nights.
Given that the origins of the computerized RPG are on the tabletop, why is it so hard for game publishers to allow for deep, enriching stories that can include multiple players?
When I noticed in Faiths of Corruption that Mhar grants the Earth and Fire domains (previously only Brigh granted both) I had to make use of it for a concept I wanted to play on for a while.
The idea is that before Mhar himself gets free, his harbinger arrives on Golarion. A powerful leader of a cult from before the time of Thassilon, the Harbinger of Mhar was trapped accidentally during a ritual to free his master.
The Harbinger is a half fiend troll, with 20 levels of cleric, and the Earth and Fire domains, and the Die Hard feat.
He'd come into the campaign after the defeat of Karzoug, when the heros have left the Eye of Avarice. Some event has now freed the Harbinger - should not require the full event that would free Mhar, so he can be used even without that.
The Harbinger is much smarter and more cunning than other trolls, though he still prefers physical combat and eating the flesh of his victims. Now that he's back in the world, his ultimate goal is to again free Mhar... though if need be, he might start by rebuilding his cult again.
Since he is immune to fire and acid, there is no way to stop him from regenerating, and with the Die Hard feat he can't be knocked unconscious. The party will have to find some way to trap him again, or kill him without damage (starvation or suffocation for example).
I haven't finished statting him up, but I'd appreciate it if someone could check over what I have.
Haringer of Mhar (CR 25)
A player of mine wanted to play a heretical cultist of Yog-Sothoth in my RotRL campaign, and I decided to allow it (without confirming whether his character's interpretation is correct). Basically, the character believes that, as "the Key and the Gate," Yog-Sothoth is actually the entity keeping the rest of the Outer Things at bay. When YS weakens, the influence of the others grows, and vice versa. So the character is CN, with CG leanings, a burglar who sees it as a divine blessing when things come unlocked (and thus an act of worship to unlock them) who actually wants to keep the rest of the "pantheon" at bay. (Although he's okay with aberrations, figuring if they are here, it is with YS's blessing.)
Now obviously, this isn't the normal belief structure of a cultist of YS, but it does make me question... because while being listed in Faiths of Corruption (pg. 19-21), about half of the 9 listed Elder Gods are not actually considered evil. Specifically, Azathoth, Bokrug, Mhar, and Yog-Sothoth are Chaotic Neutral.
(Incidentally, Mhar is one of the few beings to offer both the Earth and Fire domains, making it a great choice for a troll cleric with Diehard as an opponent... but that's another matter.)
So my question is, what would a nonevil (and possibly even CG) cultist of one of these four believe?
With the release of the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, I decided to run this for my group. Disliking the Player's Guides given for either edition, I decided to create my own, containing the info I wanted. (No, sorry, can't share it because it would violate copyright laws. Personal use only I'm afraid.)
Wow, was that hard. And I only did about a third of the work, since I reused art, maps, and edited chunks of text from various sources. Every time I changed something in one area, it screwed up the layout in another part. Pictures were especially problematic - some of them crashed LibreOffice multiple times before I figured out how to get a full page picture that still allowed text wrapping. And those that weren't full page... screwed up the layout even more!
I put hours of work into this, and didn't have to create very much content of my own, nor did I have to make sure it fit into a specified number of pages (it came out to 69, including the cover). I have a new appreciation for what you guys do, and I just want to say, "Thank you!"
I set up a survey for my players in an attempt to get them to work together a bit more during character creation, asking what party roles they liked and what they didn't. (Incidentally, it didn't totally work - my group is terrible at teamwork during the game, so forget it beforehand...)
In any case, I defined the following 13 roles for the party.
Blaster - a combat role, the blaster's job is to damage groups of weaker enemies. Traits of a blaster include the ability to do area damage.
Buffer - a combat role, the buffer's job is to directly improve the combat potential of other party members. Traits of a buffer include the ability to increase other peoples' attack, damage, armor class, or resistance to enemy attacks.
Burglar - a noncombat role, the burglar's job is to pick locks and disarm traps. Traits of a burglar include the ability to disarm traps, spring traps with little to no harmful effect, pick locks, or smash doors.
Controller - a combat role, the controller's job is to indirectly improve the combat potential of other party members and weaken the combat potential of opponents. Traits of a controller include the ability to create walls, summon assistance to strategic locations, alter the terrain, or create strategic environmental effects.
Debuffer - a combat role, the debuffer's job is to directly weaken the combat potential of opponents. Traits of a debuffer include the ability to decrease other peoples' attack, damage, armor class, or resistance to allied attacks.
Face - a noncombat role, the face's job is to interact with others when violence won't work. Traits of a face include high modifiers to diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate, or the ability to charm or dominate others.
Healer - a primarily noncombat role (arguably), the healer's job is to restore the party's well-being. Traits of a healer include the ability to restore a substantial number of hit points, and the ability to remove persistent conditions (such as blindness, curses, negative levels, or ability damage).
Hitter - a combat role, the hitter's job is to do a lot of damage to a single target. Traits of a hitter include the ability to inflict a lot of damage.
Quartermaster - a noncombat role, the quartermaster's job is to keep the party appropriately equipped. Traits of a quartermaster include the ability to craft mundane and magical items, or to locate items that can't be created.
Scholar - a mixed role, the scholar's job is to give information on enemy strengths and weaknesses, and understand clues and relevant information. Traits of a scholar include high knowledge skills, or access to divination magic.
Scout - a noncombat role, the scout's job is to gather information on what the party will be facing in the near future. Traits of a scout include the ability to move without being detected, read tracks, or access divination magic.
Survivalist - a noncombat role, the survivalist's job is to get the party through wilderness areas without harm. Traits of a survivalist include the ability to find or create safe food, water, and shelter.
Tank - a combat role, the tank's job is to try to soak up hits and interpose themselves between enemies and the rest of the party. Traits of a tank include high hit points, high armor class, or good damage reduction.
Obviously, some party members will have multiple rolls, and some parties may not even have all the above roles.
Are there any that I have missed? Also, what classes can NOT fill these roles, with some archetype or build? For example, I don't think there is any way a rogue can fill the "Healer" role.
While I don't think there is a party friendly way to play a follower of Rovagug, the other evil deities may not be so hostile to group work. I know there are plot reasons to disallow followers of Lamashtu or Norgorber, but what about the rest?
I'd bet a follower of Asmodeus is definitely in the clear; is there any plot specific reason to disallow players to follow Urgathoa or Zon-Kuthon?
Using just the classes in the Paizo products, I know there are 13 Base classes without full BAB. So if you multiclassed one level in each of them, you could have no BAB until you reached 14th level. But could you get higher? Are there any prestige classes that you could qualify for with only one level in each of several classes? Could you get all the way to 20 by using 7 prestige classes?
Obviously this would make a very ineffective character, but is it actually possible?
I have seen a feature on some forums I use to frequent that allowed a random stat roll, but guaranteed at a certain point buy. This keeps characters at the same power level while still giving some randomness to things.
I have been thinking about how to use this at the tabletop and I think I have devised a way. Basically you use a crapload of d6 rolls.
Here's how it works. First, you need to adjust the point buy scale to start at 7 instead of 10. So you'd have the following:
Now, whatever this total is, each player rolls that many d6. Separate the rolls into groupings by number - all the 1s together, 2s together, etc. Each grouping represents a stat. Count the dice in each grouping, and that is how many points to use. If the number is between scores, or above 21, reroll any dice above the point value of the stat below it until they evenly work out. Essentially, everyone gets the same points, but each player randomly determines where those points go.
An example: Bob the GM wants his players to make characters with a point buy of 20. So he has each of them roll 44d6. Chris rolls five 1s, eight 2s, twelve 3s, ten 4s, five 5s, and four 6s. Since there is no 8, 10, or 12 on the above table, Chris takes one 2, one 3, and one 4 and rerolls them. On these three, Chris gets two 2s and a 6.
What do you think? The only problem I can see is that it makes the really high stats that much more unlikely. In the above example, you'd need to get 21 or more dice to come up as the same number to have an 18. (I'll let someone else figure the probability on that.)
I'm developing my own cosmology as a creative world-building exercise, and looking through the planar rules I noticed there was no strong/weak division on elemental traits as there are on energy/alignment traits. Is this an oversight, or do the elemental traits simply not have strong/weak versions?
Also, if elementals come from the elemental planes, what comes from the other Inner Planes - is there a Positive/Negative Energy equivalent to the elementals? I remember some kind of energy ball things from D&D that would rush at each other and cancel out, but was there a Paizo made one?
Appreciate the help!
(Also, working with 4 dimensional objects is hard...)
In the past, there were a number of free downloads that I wanted to try, that I no longer do. Now, they just clutter up my Downloads list. Is there any way to remove them?
Also, is there any way to download a multi-file archive? It would be nice if I could select three or four (or maybe even more) files and download a zip file containing all of them at once, rather than having to find and download each file separately (which can be time consuming).
Admittedly, this question is only tangentially related to PFO, but this is really the best place to ask about it.
I have seen and heard a number of things about MMO game design, questions that fall within the realms of social psychology, economics, ecology, etc. I'm curious how common it is for game companies to hire professionals in these fields to assist in the design process.
I'll be going into an economics PhD program next fall, and I'm wondering if I will have employment opportunities in areas I hadn't considered. ;)
GoblinWorks FAQ wrote:
If someone wants to sticky this, it'd be great. :)
There seems to me to be a growing amount of frustration and personal attack on this MMO, over all the design goals we think should be implemented.
This makes sense... because we all want different things out of the game. We all want a Pathfinder MMO (or at least many of us do)... and there is only going to be one of them, so we want it to be the kind of game we'd play.
Problem is, it isn't our game. Pathfinder belongs to Paizo, and Pathfinder Online belongs to Goblinworks. They will create a product, and it will be up to us if we want to use that product. And however they choose to do it, they will alienate some people and attract others.
So no matter what happens, some of us will find Pathfinder Online... less than ideal.
Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't chime in and give our opinions, because that's important to marketing research. But let's be a little more professional, ease up on the hostility.
It's a bit like politics. Sometimes, what you perceive as problems the other side actually considers benefits, and what you see as benefits the other side abhors as problems. It isn't because they are ignoring you, or because they are stupid, or simply being jerks... it's because they have fundamentally different values and see options and their consequences through that lens.
But who should they please? I'd love it if it was me, but putting myself in the shoes of a business, there are two strategies that could work. In either case, you use market segmentation to determine what parts of your player base want what kinds of game. One strategy is to go for whatever part of the market has the highest number of players. That's where the other MMOs are. That's where you find competition. The other strategy is to differentiate yourself, and target under-served markets. You (probably) get a smaller customer base, but you have more market power within it. Given all the statements made by the developers so far, it looks like they might be going for the latter strategy. They are making a game that probably appeals to a smaller segment of the MMO potential player base. Decisions which alienate more players are not necessarily bad ones.
What this means for us is that is that we shouldn't be treating this like politics. The majority won't win. We don't have a deciding vote. And so there is no reason to attack each other with the vitriol you find among political activists.
Answering a question in another thread prompted me to look up the old Bartle test for MUD player types. These apply to MMOs as well. So may I ask... what's your Bartle Type? (Lest someone think I am going off topic, knowing what kinds of players they have will certainly help Goblinworks in designing the game!)
More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test
And you can take an online test here: http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology
I come out as an Explorer, first. Probably an Achiever second.
I tried WoW briefly (I'm the only person I know who managed to die as a ghost) and spent a little more time with LotRO. The MMO I have most experience with, though, is Guild Wars. And none of them hold my interest for long... because of the immersion factor.
I want to get in and feel like I am roleplaying. And yet, this is always ruined for me because you keep getting spammed with calls for certain classes to go do X dungeon, requests to trade, invitations to join parties despite not knowing the person at all...
In a tabletop game, the GM doesn't let you go through the same dungeon over and over, until you find the loot you want. He might have you walk through a marketplace where people are shouting prices for goods, but the marketplace isn't across the entire town, and generally people shout what they are selling, not what they need to trade for. He doesn't have random strangers come up to you and say, "Hey, you look like a wizard, want to team up and kill stuff?"
Would it be possible to have some servers that are for strict roleplayers, where we aren't constantly beat over the head that this is a game (filled with 13 year olds) and the 4th wall isn't routinely broken just by setting foot in town?
If you are like me, you are really excited about the news of a Pathfinder MMO. If you are even more like me, you quickly noticed the link up at the top of the Goblinworks page, and clicked on it to find this... https://goblinworks.com/investors/ - and probably don't have a spare $100,000 lying around to invest.
But certainly, players and fans will want to see this succeed?
So I had this idea... if fans can come together to make things like Wayfinder, what's to stop them from coming together for investment purposes?
Before I go further!!! Obviously, I'm not affiliated with Paizo - you'll note the lack of a golem by my name. Also not affiliated with Goblinworks. The news is, well, news to me. So I haven't had time to think out all the details. I don't even know if Goblinworks would be interested. I'm NOT selling anything. This is simply a hastily assembled idea to see who would be interested, both inside and outside the company.
I'm envisioning something like a mutual fund, designed solely for investment in Goblinworks. You sell shares in the fund at some low price, like $1 each, and any returns from the fund are divided up on a per share basis. This is investment, so you make it at your own risk.
So the questions I have for Goblinworks are, would you be in favor of a setup like this to allow your players to invest in your product? And are you looking for debt or equity financing - would we be looking at interest or dividends/capital gains?
For everyone else, is there any interest in a project like this?
Given input from my players, I am trying some sort of hybrid campaign that borrows flavor from Serpent's Skull, Carrion Crown, and (I have since realized) Second Darkness. Possibly more. I am developing the skeleton of a plot, here - I'll be putting meat on the bones later, so I don't need specific encounters or descriptions. Mostly what I am looking for is critique on viability, and ideas for factions/locations/existing NPCs. The adventure will start at level 1. I will not be using experience points - my players will level when I think they have reached an appropriate plot point, and encounters will be tailored to this. (Treasure control will be needed because of this, of course.)
The party begins on a quest to find a lost archaeologist at an Osirion dig site. Clues at the site point them towards a lost civilization deep in the Mwangi expanse, that had a power based on the starmetal abysium. However, it also destroyed them in the end when insane deities (Great Old Ones) cursed them. The party will find that the archaeologist (and his encoded notes) came to the attention of the Night Heralds, who drooled over the whole legend, and the possibility of of riches in the form of feverstone.
Meanwhile, an Ustalavian nobleman (vampire!) has come to Osirion looking for the archaeologist, because he thinks the man might have info from a previous dig useful to him. Probably something involving the Whispering Way. Anyway, he finds out about the lost culture as well, and has his minions go looking for the lost civilization.
At this point, there are now at least three factions about to go racing after this lost civilization - the Whispering Way (thanks to the vampire), the Night Heralds (who have the archaeologist and his notes), and the party. If the party doesn't keep their mouth shut, there may be more groups forthcoming.
The legends, of course, are true - after a long journey, following several clues and during which the archeologist's notes are recovered (but not the archaeologist himself) the lost city is discovered. (Yes, this middle needs work.) Inhabiting it are alien monsters (mutated akata and more) and undead (ancient tribal warriors) by the plenty. The heart of the city contains the mine where the people got their abysium, as well as some of the things they built from it - including a gate, which is where the Great Old Ones came into the picture. There is also evidence that they were trying to call on the Great Old Ones because they were fighting something already, from underground. Stupid players at this point could try to activate the gate, and Hilarity Would Ensue. Or actually, not, as the gate has parts missing. Good thing, as the Night Heralds are already there, and would have definitely turned it on. And the Whispering Way isn't far behind. The party rescues the archaeologist at this point, but finds that the NH cultists have gone into the mine to find the missing bits - in short, if the party doesn't act, they'll open the gate and Bad Things Will Happen. The archaeologist refuses to enter the mine. Kinda sucks for him, because while the party is down there, the Whispering Way gets to him. And of course, they now want to go into the mine, too. (Actually, the party might be able to ally with them. After all, vampires and liches don't want to rule a world full of alien horrors eating their food supply and research subjects.)
At first the mine is more of the same as the city, only worse. But it soon turns out that it leads DEEP down - as in, apparently the ancient civilization got their abysium as remnants from the path of a fallen rock that punched into a previously unknown Orvean Vault. In the Darklands. Luckily for them, it caused rockfalls in Sekamina and the Vault itself to seal off the area. Unluckily for them, they weren't content with the remnants and dug through anyhow. This is where they unleashed some Orvean horror - or maybe it was something brought to the Vault by the rock and then sealed away. Either way, they tried to save their civilization by calling on the powers of Abysium, found the Old Ones, and got "assisted" by being turned into monsters themselves.
So now the players have to travel down to Orv, stop the Night Heralds from activating the gate again, and probably stop the Whispering Way too.
It seems a bit busy, but if you think of it as an AP, with separate yet connected adventures, I think it could work. However, this would basically only be the first adventure and the last two. I still need ideas for parts 2 through 4.
I know the WW is a philosophy, and not a religion, which makes me wonder how it interacts with the churches of Zonnie and Urgie.
I mean, both of these deities have the Undeath subdomain, though I imagine it's much more important to the Pallid Princess. Do they like the Whispering Way because it encourages undeath? Or do they feel the followers are trying to "circumvent" them, get the benefits of undeath without the devotion?
Or are they ambivalent, and perhaps some followers of the Whispering Way are also members of either church - the Way being the path and the deity being the means, sort of thing?