Gailbraithe's page

Part of time-honored debate tactics is to take someones argument, put it into different words and present it back to them for them to see how what they are saying is being perceived.

Actually, that's the pretty much the definition of a Straw Man Fallacy.

Part of the time-honored traditions of debate is to ask "did you mean" and then take someones argument, put it into different words and present it back to them. In order to gain better clarity.

Dismantling and reassembling someone's argument and then forcing them to defend your reconstructed argument is not a debate tactic. It's a disingenuous tactic.

I said: "Well, since the game and module writers don't write people as acting like actual self-interested people pursuing their own desires and instead write people as following their pre-determined plot points..." This is a restatement of "except when they, you know, do... as written in the books..."

No, brass, it's not. Not even a little bit.

What is wrong in how I restated your words?

You have inserted several assumptions into the argument that are nigh indefensible, in order to force the good Professor into defending things he never said.

Are you saying that I've misstated your point here? I think it's an absolutely valid way to restate your point. The fact that it doesn't do much to make your argument look very good is PRECISELY the point of it.

::facepalm::

Can I use this "debate tactic?" Let me try it out: So what brass is arguing here is that an effective means of "winning" a debate is to twist and manipulate other people's statements, load them up with indefensible assumptions, and then berate them for failing to defend things they never said. Since this is all extremely disingenuous and pretty brazenly underhanded, what brass is essentially saying is the best way to win a "debate" on the internet is to treat other people without respect and rely on completely dishonest arguments. After all, it's the internet, it's not like anyone can punch you for being such a dick.

Wow, brass, you're right. That is an effective "debate tactic." Your position looks completely ridiculous now.

DMchucky and other that are arguing that it costs those of us who do not want more high level support nothing for paizo to publish a high level book (and then continue supporting it) are simply wrong. The Paizo staff does not have infinite time and resources, and thus we are dealing with a zero-sum game.

Any amount of time spent by the Paizo staff working on a "mythic" level book is time they are not spending working on support for the game most people play, therefore it makes perfect sense for those who have no interest in high-level play to agitate against high level rules.

I want paizo to put out products that I have an interest in buying, and I don't want paizo to put out products that won't help me make my campaigns better. Sorry if that ruffles feathers, but don't try and sell people on this nonsense idea that we can all get what we want.

Pole Arm + Spiked Armor = AOO against any target in 10" sweep.

I know it is technically legal by the rules (at least in 3.5), but it drove me crazy when a player of mine pulled this stunt. It completely destroyed my ability to have fun playing the game, mostly because I did SCA and boffer fighting for years, and always used pole arms, so I had a really good idea of exactly how utterly impossible that particular combination is.

I just picked this up today and wasn't disappointed at all. It was exactly what I thought it was when I bought it: a compilation of all the existing information on Golarion Humans, organized and presented in a fashion such that I can hand it to a player and they can make a human character without pawing through all my books.

I'm definitely in the "Campaign settings material is for GMs, not players" camp. I wouldn't want any of my players buying the Inner Sea Guide. The Player's Companion series when combined with the Player's Campaign Guides for the various APs contain all the information a player needs (plus the core rulebooks, obviously), and I generally prefer it if the players don't own anything beyond that.

Gailbraithe wrote:

What are y'all complaining about. I turned mine in on the first day submissions were open and couldn't even get access to editors.

Not complaining in the least. I think this gives people who submitted early the same chance as those who waited and got a few edits to now get someone else's eyes on their story. So since we have time Gaibraithe, feel like meeting at the boards for a once over?

I'm confused. Can I edit and resend my submission?

The highest level character I have played was a 14th level illusionist in 2e.

By that time our party was flying around space in a faster than light magic sailboat. At that time Illusionists highest level spells were 7th level.

Does not compute. In 2E Illusionists were Specialist Mages, and used the same spell progression chart as Mages (and thus had 9th level spells). Are you sure you weren't playing 1E?

My illusionist had three artifacts, the helm of might, the staff of might and the rod of seven parts. The least powerful magic item he had equipped was probably an ring of air elemental command, unless the full set of Ioun stones is considered less powerful

Your DM's name wasn't Monty by any chance, was it? I mean sweet lord.

the inability of the GM to handle high levels, because it is terrified of what PC are capable and do not know what to do

I give this attempt at a troll a 4/10. While the insulting broadside at anyone who doesn't like high level play does a good job of inspiring a heated response, the generally poor grammar and lack of clarity force the reader to puzzle out what you've just said, which has a cooling effect on the temper.

You should have said "The problem with high level play is the inability of some GMs to handle it, because they are terrified of what the PCs are capable of and does not know what to do in response."

That would have done a much better job of communicating your point (that GMs who don't like high level play are incompetent cowards engaging in badwrongfun). Which would have been a really awesome troll. You totally would have got me, that's for sure.

As it is however, I'm going to go work on tweaking the base classes so they all have a 7th level capstone ability and then start thinking about how I'm going to convert the last three parts of Kingmaker to E7 play.

I getcha. I happen to see it the other way around - calling Pathfinder D&D is a dis at WOTC, since its essentially saying that WOTC may own the name but Paizo owns the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons.

And since I have no strong love for WOTC, I'm not bothered by the implied insult.

What are y'all complaining about. I turned mine in on the first day submissions were open and couldn't even get access to editors.

Dren Everblack wrote:

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is E6?

You basically stop leveling after 6th level. Any level you would gain after that instead can get you a feat or a slight increase in power. It helps balance out the casters who tend to get exceptionally powerful after this point.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?352719-necro-goodness-E6-The-Game-Insid e-D-amp-D

::jaw drops::

That is gorgeous. That has me rethinking my entire plan for my upcoming campaign.

I've gotten over the whole "no more remakes" thing. If studios want to remake films, I'm ok with it. I won't necessarily see what they put out, but I won't complain and moan about it, just like I wouldn't complain and moan about a theater company doing _yet another_ production of Hamlet or Les Miserables or Rigoletto....

So much this.

We, as a society, think nothing at all of different directors and actors trying their hand at the same body of classic theater works and operas. Nobody suggests a director is uncreative and out of ideas if wants to stage Hamlet (we might if he does a bad job of staging Hamlet, but we wouldn't say it for the mere desire to do it), but for some reason we act like film is a completely different animal.

Full Disclosure: I'm not a John Wayne fan. That said, "True Grit" is probably my favorite John Wayne movie.

I saw the remake of "True Grit" last week, and it's better than the original in pretty much every single way. And that's not because the original was a bad movie; it's quite good, in fact. The remake though? It's a GREAT movie.

Most remakes are pale copies of the original, it's true. But now and then, a remake outdoes the original. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

I agree with everything James said. I've never been a fan of John Wayne, don't care for any of his movies, and think he's entirely overrated as an actor - I just can't watch him without thinking he's parodying himself.

I saw this version of True Grit and was blown away. This is right up there with Pale Rider and The Magnificent Seven for my all time favorite western.

Not so much because of Jeff Bridges, who was great, but because of that Hallie Whatshername girl. My god, that girl can act circles around some of the best in the business.

I have a beef when people call pathfinder D&D...dunno why, i just find it insulting

Out of curiosity, who do you think is being insulted?

Shizvestus wrote:

Actually, compared to the Forgotten 4.0 or 3.5 there is not much going on. There is a nice developed backdrop but not a lot of NPCs that are mid to high level and not a lot of heroes in the world that are doing anything. The setting assumes that YOU are the only heroes around and can do anything about it. You can't go find an Elminster for advice or enlist a Conan for help.

Well, there are the Iconics.

Right, but think about that for a second. Where are the Iconics introduced? How do they enter the game? As pregenerated characters! Which means that if you're playing an AP, the Iconics are either your allies or they cease to exist, having been replaced by your PC.

This is, imho, far more awesome than having the iconic characters of Golarion presented as uber-heroes that co-exist with your characters and outshine them.

Some of the oaths/curses I've used in the Pathfinder fiction I've written so far include:

"Oh Hells" = An obvious play on the familiar "Oh hell," with a nod to fact that Golarion has nine of them.

"Devils and demons!" = Used as the equivalent of "g%+ d+~n it!"

"Erastil's Horns!" = As in "caught up on Erastil's horns," used as the equivalent of "son of a b*%+$!" Used primarily by a ranger character.

"Shelyn's tears" = Used to mean roughly "this whole situation is all fouled up."

While I have no issue with profanity and use it liberally in my modern/urban fantasy fiction, it looks out of place in high or low fantasy. But making up substitutes is pretty easy.

ETA: I find it hilarious that internet forums such as this one, which are completely protected under the first amendment and have no legal need to filter profanity are (as can be seen above) generally more prudish about "curse words" than broadcast television, which actually does face legal sanction for using foul language. (All of the words bleeped out above can be used on television. Not looking for a debate, just find it amusing.)

In addition to the reasons Sean mentioned (or perhaps underlying the reasons Sean listed) is the simple fact that "palette-swapping" is not value neutral.

Fireball is a pretty decent spell. Sonicball is downright devastating. Fire resistance and immunity are extremely common, sonic immunity is fairly rare. So being able to switch out [fire] for [sonic], [electricity] or [acid] without increasing spell level actually does have a meaningful game effect.

Hey Vic, Gary, whoever handles this stuff:

First of all, just so you know what I'm going on about, I'm talking about this page, which I get to by clicking the PATHFINDER logo over there <--- right under the paizo logo, and then clicking on the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatible Products" link.

Now, maybe I'm just being nitpicky and overly concerned about semantics, but I think that link should only show third party publishers, and not paizo's own products. Because Paizo's Pathfinder books aren't compatible with Pathfinder, they are Pathfinder. A thing can't be compatible with itself; that's an irrational nonsequitor. It's all noon blue apples.

But the real reason its bugging me and I'm posting is because I can't find any page that shows all the 3PP stuff sans paizo with a Bestselling sidebar, which I really want because the bestselling 3PP stuff is a) probably of decent quality and b) more likely to be familiar to more players, and thus more likely to actually be allowed/get used/provide value after purchase. You'll notice that the Bestselling list on the Pathfinder page is the same as on the Pathfinder Compatible Products page, so its redundant and doesn't help.

Anyways, it seems to me that the Pathfinder Compatible Products page should be that page. And the page that the PATHFINDER logo over there <--- links to should be more like this page that takes you to everything paizo sells with Pathfinder on it.

It wasn't until I started poking around trying to find the Pathfinder page (as opposed to the Pathfinder RPG page) that I realized you guys are actually making a distinction between Pathfinder and Pathfinder RPG, which I personally find counter-intuitive (since most people refer to the Pathfinder RPG simply as "Pathfinder"). I know whenever I click on the PATHFINDER (RPG) logo over there I am subconsciously expecting to be taken to the Pathfinder page, and always find it a bit disorienting to not be able to reach modules, APs, companions, etc. from the Pathfinder RPG page.

Long story short, I think it'd be nice to a) have a page with a bestselling list that is just Pathfinder compatible third party publishers, and if b) the Pathfinder link over there took you to something that combined the best of the Pathfinder and Pathfinder RPG pages, maybe ditch the randomized image and add the box with links to the faq, forums, etc.

Maybe change the name of the Pathfinder RPG page to the Pathfinder Core Rules & Expansions page?

Just some suggestions. Take 'em or leave 'em.

It'd be cool if they remade Krull. The basic story is solid, but the effects simply didn't live up to it - especially the glaive and the beast and the whole end fight. Major let-down.

But do it with modern CGI and it could be truly awesome.

Depends on the campaign/setting.

If it's something like Darksun, it's a major element of drama, to the point that PCs may need to consider what N/PCs count as emergency food supplies.

Oh yeah! Way back in high school I ran a Dark Sun campaign, and at one point the PCs were deep in a lifeless salt desert and encountered a Defiler. They killed him, but discovered that all of their rations had putrefied. I had to send in the cavalry, eventually, but not until they were all hovering near death.

Good times, good times.

Looks pretty cool, but what is "multi-talented (druid/ranger)?"

Jeranimus Rex wrote:

I like Serpentine Bloodline if only because it lets you play Jafar.

Does it give you an arcane bond? You most definitely need a parrot familiar.

Didn't the parrot betray him? Doesn't sound very familiarish to me.

Mechanically, arcane is king.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), it's also the most boring bloodline thematically. I couldn't ever bring myself to play it.

Thirded.

I find the very idea of asking this question from a mechanical standpoint obnoxious. Which is the best mechanically shouldn't even weigh into consideration. This is a decision that ought to be made purely on the role-playing considerations.

Personally I think a Dhampir Sorcerer with the Undead (Sanguinary) Bloodline is an interesting route, but I'm also intrigued by the Rakhasa bloodline (patiently waiting for the errata, if any paizoans are reading) for the sheer why-didn't-I-think-of-that awesomeness of it. I played a Celestial bloodline sorcerer in a Beta test campaign and doubled down by taking the Celestial Bloodline feat from the Dragon compendium -- It was a lot of fun, everything I ever wanted the Flavored Soul to be.

I made the mistake of buying a copy of Krull a year or so ago, having not watched it since I was in my teens, and showed it to some friends. They were like "This movie is boring and sucks," and all I could do is say "I remember this being so much cooler."

Still, FIREMARES ARE AWESOME. This is a FACT. I've included them in many, many campaigns and players who don't recognize their source always think I'm some kind of uber-genius for having thought them up.

Does anyone require the tracking and active use of rations in their game? Does anyone find tracking rations as part of the role play fun to do? If yes, can you describe how this works for your group?

I am trying to decide if I should mostly ignore rations or use them. I have never played in a game where they were really tracked or required by the GM.

I track them when doing long-term wilderness exploration adventures, where starvation and dehydration are serious dangers. That kind of gaming can be very fun with the right group of players. I personally like playing in 'track every arrow' mode. But I like resource management games.

Generally I simply require players to start off with 3 days worth of rations and a waterskin on their character sheet, and then tax them between sessions depending on the quality of life they are maintaining for their character. As long as that tax is paid (the "low level adventuring scum" bracket is like 5 GP/week), then I just assume that when the PCs hit the road all their rations have been refreshed.

If PC is a Ranger or Druid then they pay no tax. Rangers and Druids never have to pay for food and shelter. They just sleep in a tree and eat wild game, or in the case of druids, twigs and berries.

I wouldn't say that high levels are unplayable, but I would argue that the game doesn't really support high level play. At high levels the sort of plots and adventures that work for levels 1-12 stop working, mostly due to high level magic, which can (IMHO) suck the enjoyment out of the game entirely. Combat encounters often become cake-walks, and when they aren't they can become monotonous slogs that take forever to resolve.

The solution, of course, is to move the campaign away from the tropes of dungeon exploring, looting monsters, and saving the village. But the rules don't really support that, which is why people say the game becomes "unplayable." It's not unplayable, it's just that what WOTC pushed as high-level play doesn't really work so great, and they never supported anything but bigger and bigger CR dungeon encounters.

The Kingdom Building Rules from Kingmaker help a lot, but it feels less and less like "adventuring" the further and further you move away from the good old "wizard in a bar recruits you to retrieve the book/rescue the princess/save the village."

Hmm. I'm working on something right now that is intended for gonzo GMs who like to screw with their players. Some rules subsytsems and a bestiary that will cover a range of "you got your sci-fi in my fantasy!" type scenarios, from encounters with away teams from a certain intergalactic confederation of planets, to getting swept up in the adventures of a certain time-traveling do-gooder, to an invasion of a bunch of grim, dark space knights on a crusade... Plus it will have robots. Lots and lots of robots. And chain guns.

I was thinking it'd have no competition. I really should have known better...

Gailbraithe wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Either complain about all of it or none of it.

Make me?

Seriously, what kind of demand is that? Get real.

The same kind as complaining about evasion -- especially complaining about evasion in a game where one can be immune to VX gas.

I don't think there is VX gas is Pathfinder, so there's that. Then there's the difference between me complaining about a rule I don't like and you telling me that I'm not allowed to complain about rules I don't like unless I complain about everything you think is wrong with the game, even if I think your complaints are baseless.

You are essentially telling me to shut up. You don't have that right. You're being rude. Stop doing that.

Get real? ABOUT A GAME? A game of make believe? Honestly?

Do you even understand where you are? Yes, I am complaining about a rule/mechanic in a game. A game of make-believe. On a gaming forum. It's totally surreal, isn't it? I mean, it's only like...what the forum is for.

Were you not the one that pointed out the game world does not have physics, only metaphysics? The metaphysics of the world state a character with Evasion can avoid harm from an inferno blast no matter the circumstances of that inferno.

If its a metaphysical effect, then it should be a Supernatural ability, and not an Extraordinary ability. Extraordinary abilities are, by definition, not magical effects. Look, evasion specifically states that the rogue avoids damage by "great agility," and agility is not metaphysical. The description of Reflex says that Ref Saves "test your ability to dodge area attacks and unexpected situations."

Digressing into discussions about Fireball in particular just get away from the point: I'm just saying, if a reflex save models dodging an area effect, then it should do that. And it currently doesn't. And that bugs me.

A successful Reflex save should move the character 5' and leave them prone as they duck and cover, and Evasion should move the character to a space just outside the AOE. That would actually model dodging an area of effect through an act of (possibly great) agility.

Either complain about all of it or none of it.

Make me?

Seriously, what kind of demand is that? Get real.

Now I don't think shower scenes have to be about teasing though.

::headdesk::

When I said "shower scene," I was using that as shorthand for "the common trope of low budget, exploitative sci-fi/horror films made 80's," not for "every scene set in a shower."

The Ace Ventura example you gave, for example, is not a shower scene, so much as its a comedic version of the Shower of Angst.

But this has less and less to do with Conan. So we should stop.

I'm seeing the problem the other way around.

If you felt the PCs had no chance to evade the flames or protect themselves in any ways that could vouch for the reduced effect of a successful save; why did you allow a saving throw in the first place?

Short answer: Because I like to keep players, and arbitrarily removing their class abilities is not an effective strategy for doing that.

As a GM I can obviously work around rules that don't make a lick of sense, but as a person paying for the rules system, I'd rather they just make sense in the first place. I don't like dissociative mechanics (one of the reasons I disliked a lot of later WOTC and 4E so much), and Reflex saves are high on that list.

If a Reflex save is a mechanic to represent the ability to dodge out of the way of an area of effect attack, then by god, it should actually involve dodging out of the way. That's just common sense.

You don't believe that fireball does not fill the entire area?

It's nothing but flame. You've never run your hand through a flame without being burnt? The flames of a fireball only last six seconds at most.

You didn't really just equate a forty foot sphere of fire with a candle flame, did you? I mean, because that would be kind of silly, don't you think? But a candle flame is the only kind of flame I've ever seen anyone pass their hand through, and their hand spent significantly less than six seconds in contact with the flame. Less than one second, generally.

Try this: Have you ever passed your hand through the center of bonfire without being burnt? Of course not. Because that would be impossible.

A fireball does not fill every square completely full of flame. No more than a grenade fills the blast radius completely with shrapnel. Evasion is just a representation of the action hero getting caught in an explosion and coming out with merely cosmetic singe marks.

Granting move actions on successful saves will lead to the party wizard using his fireballs to boost his allies movement speeds. As long as you're okay with this, go for it.

Not if I determine direction of movement with a scatter template it won't!

And I don't buy your explanation. Maybe if the rogue was on the edge of the fireball, sure. But at it's center? No way.

gigglestick wrote:

Elminster (the creator's Mary Sue character...) is the main reason I HATE Forgotten Realms (well, him and Drzzt) and the reason I don;t read anything Greenwood writes if I can avoid it.

It's probably impossible to eradicate this myth since facts so rarely enter into it, but Elminster was never a PC. We have so many novels starring him because that's what sold best, which is just the reason we have quite a few more novels about Drizzt.

Calling Elminster a Mary Sue doesn't imply he was a Player Character.

Gailbraithe wrote:

I got the exact opposite impression from the Inner Sea Guide. I saw a world falling apart at the seams, barely held together by armies of incompetents and governments more attuned to their own internal politics than what's actually happening in the world.

Personally, I think there are probably enough places to fit traditional(ish) D&D-style adventures in Golarion. But it seems odd to spend so much time and effort detailing places where those adventures wouldn't fit very well. For instance, in other threads where folks have been asking where Shackled City/Age of Worms/Savage Tide/Rappan Athuk/Temple of Elemental Evil/GDQ/etc. might fit in Golarion, there answer is almost never Andoran, Taldor or Cheliax, even though those are probably the most detailed nations.

I agree, and you could add Osirion and Qadira to that list. So far it seems that most of the effort has focused on detailing the places PCs are likely to be from, especially if you're doing Pathfinder Society play, with less emphasis on places they are likely to go.

This is not entirely strange though, since so far the most detailed parts of the setting are those that have their own Player's Companion, and it makes sense to focus the PC series on places PCs are likely to be from, leaving the more obvious adventuring areas -- the Sodden Lands, Numeria, Linnorn/Mammoth areas - underdeveloped to allow GMs more freedom for designing adventures.

It makes sense to start with detailing the areas players are likely to know about so they can use that information to generate characters, then to start with detailing adventuring areas that players should know very little about (thus enhancing the mystery of those areas). I suspect that in a few years (maybe as little as two years), we'll be complaining that there isn't enough undefined space in Golarion.

I like the idea of using a Players Roll Everything system, with players making traditional saving throws for their characters, and making a "spell attack" roll when casting at NPCs. I'm thinking about using that system for my next campaign - If I never have to roll 30 individual saves for a horde of orcs again, I'll die happy.

But you know what I don't like about saving throws? Reflex Saves. Fort Saves and Will Saves I have no problem with, but Reflex Saves make no sense to me. Here's why:

There are three PCs. Two Fighters and a Rogue, all 3rd level. All of them are naked. That's right, NAKED. 100% in the raw. It was a crazy night, you had to be there. They are standing in a 100" diameter round room with a smooth marble floor and no obstructions, obstacles or objects to hide behind. Completely featureless. Each character is exactly 20" from each other character, in a straight line, with the Rogue in the center.

A 5th level wizard is flying above them. He casts Fireball. He centers the fireball on the rogue, which means he just barely catches the two fighters on the very edges of the spell. Everyone makes a saving throw, all three saves are successful.

The fighters each take 1/2 damage. The Rogue takes none.

How? HOW???? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? The rogue doesn't move at all, he has nothing to hide behind, and he's in the middle of a burning inferno that reaches out for twenty feet in every direction he can move. Plus he's naked.

HOW DOES HE SAVE!?! FOR ZERO DAMAGE!!!!

Does he fold time and space and slip into a temporary pocket universe? Because no amount of ducking, dodging or moving inside his 5" x 5" space is going to get him out of the way of all that fire. Yet that's exactly what happens.

I think Evasion is broken. Not in a "It makes the rogue too powerful" sense, but in a "I go insane trying to figure out how that happened" sense.

I also think that making a successful reflex save should grant an immediate move action (up to the radius of the spell) and leave the character prone. Because if a Reflex save is defined as diving for cover, then dangit, there should be some freaking diving involved. And that goes double for Evasion.

donato wrote:

I'm just happy the Ranger provides a second class that can disable magical traps!

Bah, anyone can disable those. Just use a hammer. :P

Pssh. Why waste a perfectly good hammer when you've got halflings around. Just roll 'em down the hall, presto, no more traps.

I hate labels like "mythic", "epic", and "legendary." Do you want more content for levels 15-20? How about levels 21-30? If you want 20+ what would be a reasonable level cap?

James says that popular interest is what best guarantees the genesis of a product. Weigh in with your thoughts folks.

I have very, very little interest in high level content. Few of my campaigns continue past 12th level, and high CR monsters almost never see play in my campaigns, and should one of my groups reach those levels, I'm more likely to use some of the classic high CR creatures that I more or less never get to use that players dream about defeating than something new and unheard of.

I'd rather see paizo focus on content for levels 1-12. Mid range CR creatures (CR 8-14) are going to get a lot more use and thus be far more useful than yet another CR 21 demon or devil.

It's Intelligence seems a bit low to make effective use of its abilities.

Poor giant lizards. Australia is no place for a giant lizard. It's full of creatures that are actually dangerous.

Gailbraithe wrote:

ETA: Wait, I think Hogarth is right, I think you mean sleet storm, not ice storm. In that case, as as mechanics go, you'd use Ash Storm if you were fighting monks or some other creature that isn't ever going to fail a DC 10 Acrobatics check, but might be slowed by difficult terrain.

I think you're misreading things. For sleet storm, with a DC 10 Acrobatics check, they move at half speed, same as with difficult terrain; without the Acrobatics check, they can't move at all.

You're right, read it too fast. Don't think I've ever seen anyone use it in a game. 3rd level slots are for lightening bolt and fireball, apparently. That's all my players ever seem to cast.

I don't normally post in these kinds of threads, but I'm listening to the B*$&*%## Surfers. Specifically the song Birds.

Yep. I just posted to say B%~!~@$~.

B$*!$~+*!

I got the exact opposite impression from the Inner Sea Guide. I saw a world falling apart at the seams, barely held together by armies of incompetents and governments more attuned to their own internal politics than what's actually happening in the world.

I don't think the issue with Golarion is that it has no need for heroes, I think the real question is "Does it have enough heroes?" And as the APs make fairly clear, the whole world is just a giant game of Evil Whack-A-Mole. Crush one plot to destroy the world, and two more spring up in its place.

It's certainly better in this respect than Forgotten Realms, where one often wonders "Why doesn't Eliminister just port in and put a stop to this nonsense? What's keeping him so busy?"

Does anyone remeber the City-State of the Invincible Overlord?

Hells yeah!

I recall thinking when I was young that this was awesome, but I came across it again and I am not sure I can use it.

It is massive, but not organized at all. Has anyone used this recently? Or at all?

The 3.5 edition put out by Necromancer (I think) was very well done, and works great if you also have their boxed set for the Wilderlands of High Fantasy and the Player's Guide to the Wilderlands.

It's a very primitive and rough setting, very reminiscent of Hyborea, without the intrusions of 18th and 19th century inventions that one sees in Golarion, Forgotten Realms, etc. It's a really great setting if you're into old school 60's and 70's sci-fi/fantasy/sword & sorcery type stuff like Gardner F. Fox's Llarn books, or the John Carter of Mars series (which I am, very much so). You know, the kind of stuff where it wasn't consider genre breaking to throw in the odd alien overlord, malfunctioning robot warship, or rayguns. The kind of stuff that made Psionics a necessary part of the game.

Plus, it has multicolored people. Not like white, black and asian. Like Red people, Blue people, and Green people. I still have a ton of red-skinned barbarians in my miniatures collection from when I ran a Wilderlands campaign. I love my red barbars.

And the Wilderlands Box Set is fantastic, it has a coded hex map covering thousands and thousands of miles of terrain, with a massive book telling you exactly what is in every hex. Like Hex 1096 has 3 catoplebas (sp?) living in it. Which makes it excellent for true sandbox gaming, where the PCs can just wander around with no idea what they'll run into (and no promises that it will be suitable for their party level).

Gailbraithe wrote:

I don't understand this question. The two spells aren't even remotely similar.

Pretty sure he meant "Sleet Storm", not "Ice Storm".

Yeah, I saw your post after I'd posted. See my edit above.

I don't understand this question. The two spells aren't even remotely similar.

Ash Storm is third level, Ice Storm is fourth level. That right there is a major reason to use Ash Storm over Ice Storm. If you can't cast fourth level spells, then Ash Storm is far more useful.

Ash Storm completely obscures vision (including darkvision) and makes all terrain difficult, Ice Storm only gives a -4 to Perception checks. Ashstorm also covers twice the area (20'r vs 40'r)

Ice Storm deals damage, Ash Storm does not. Thus you can Ash Storm your allies without accidentally killing them.

Very different spells.

ETA: Wait, I think Hogarth is right, I think you mean sleet storm, not ice storm. In that case, as as mechanics go, you'd use Ash Storm if you were fighting monks or some other creature that isn't ever going to fail a DC 10 Acrobatics check, but might be slowed by difficult terrain.

Other than that, I'd think Hama nailed it: Some spellcasters go for thematic spells, and Ash Storm fits a Fire theme better. Like if you're an Ifrit Sorcerer with the Fire bloodline, then Ash Storm is your better bet.

Gailbraithe wrote:

It's like putting a shower scene in a horror film then shooting it all shoulders up/knees down. Why are you bothering to used contrived devices to show nudity if you're not going to show nudity!?!

That would be pretty stupid thing to do.

Congratulations, you found the only exception to the rule and in doing so completely missed the point. Way to go. Two thumbs up.

ETA: Here's an example of the kind of scene I was mocking. (sadly SFW). We get Jessica Alba, naked in a shower, holding her hand over her boob so we don't accidentally see a nipple (shock!), and then getting out of the shower and...and...why was she in there in the first place? Does it have anything to do with the story? Is it important in any way?

No, it's this BS titillation scene made "safe," because apparently gratuitous nudity is, I dunno, sexist or some rot. I say that you either go whole hog and just revel in your own crepulence and use the shower scene as the excuse it is to show off an actress wet and naked, or you cut the damn scene out of the script in a effort to be non-exploitative. I don't really care which way a filmmaker goes, but this half-assed let's have our cake and our dignity too nonsense is just annoying.

Freesword wrote:

How much can I get for this brass chandelier? And how much does it weigh?

Also...a brass chandelier? o_O My groups are never, uh, quite that thorough. I can see the importance of having at least a ballpark estimate though.

One of my favorite characters of all time, Elar Stravan, was originally created specifically to mock my own players tendency to do exactly this. Elar's weapon of choice was a "large crowbar" (treated as a maul), and his primary motivation to adventure was entrepreneurial. He didn't give a crap about the BBEG or the plot, he was just interested in how much he could get for the villain's four poster bed on the antiquities market. He also was full of schemes to turn every dungeon cleared into a resort/casino.

I would say Elar was willing to salvage anything not nailed down, even if it was worth only a few coppers, but thanks to his crowbar he was willing to go after a lot of stuff that was nailed down. Did you know there is an aftermarket for used doors?

I just watched the red band trailer (NSFW) for myself, and I'm still pretty excited about this movie. The red band trailer does include some footage not seen in the previous two trailers, and confirms that there is both nudity and some pretty excessive gore in the film.

That's good, because I thought the thing that really held Kull the Conqueror back from being a great movie was the ratings induced stupidity of things like the harem scene sans nudity -- why even bother with a harem scene if you aren't going to have nudity? The only reason barbarian movies are famous for harem scenes is because, duh, they justify a lot of mindless T&A. It's like putting a shower scene in a horror film then shooting it all shoulders up/knees down. Why are you bothering to used contrived devices to show nudity if you're not going to show nudity!?!

Anyways, I think this new film is going to blow the original Conan out of the water, and even if its got a dumb plot and poor characterization, I think on special effects and fight scenes alone its going to be better than Conan the Destroyer by a mile.

Yeah, seriously. Conan the Destroyer is one of the worst films I've ever seen. It's like the reigning champion of Adapation Decay, taking elements from several awesome stories and reducing them to utter garbage. And for what that film did to the sheer awesomeness that is Thoth Amon it may never be forgiven.

Never Forget! Never Forgive!

I've always been a fan of Rangers, and they've always been one of my go-to classes. With the new archetypes the class is truly A list.

I'd like to see some different options for Favored Enemies -- I've always thought that Rangers should be able to pick a Class as a favored enemy, because an Urban Ranger who hunts Wizards makes a lot of sense to me, and it shouldn't matter if the Wizard is a human, half-elf or elf.

I also like Quandry's idea of an Arcane variant Ranger, which would go well with a lot of Urban Ranger concepts.

More options to replace the animal companion with something else would be nice to, because if there is one thing I don't like about the Ranger, its the "...and his dog" aspect of the class, which is a holdover from the 1st edition Ranger's followers list.

I don't think CR ratings go lower than CR 1/3. There probably should be a CR 0 or CR -- category.

I think the real problem here is that someone decided to stat out a thrush. I assume this is so that the GM knows how weak that little bird your druid just turned into is, and thrushes aren't meant for encounter building.