Gnomezrule's page

Gamers can be an opinionated lot. Just shrug it off. I have found that some people approach characters as all or nothing. Either they are the absolute best at something or "they suck." The generalist flies in the face of this character assessment paradigm.

I am rolling up a catfolk cavalier right now.

I don't think one on one for Pathfinder is going to have the right chemistry. Part of the magic of the gaming table is the experience, the chatter, the laughter as well as dynamic play and roleplaying.

Ideally a fighter or barbarian seems like a simple play but honestly invest the time in letting her get excited about the type of adventurer she wants to play.

Tone down the inside jokes and assumed knowledge. For example when combat starts give insights that her character knows that she may not and let them informer her choices. Even if the insights have no mechanical value it will help get into the mindset. If she is a fighter add tactical information about the room with words like, "you notice," "training has taught you," "experience has shown" and so on. This feels like you are describing the room but you are setting the stage for some of the options that a character of her class might normally naturally go for. This prevents the need to coach later. It is so much better when you describe the room and finish off with a statement like, "as an experienced archer you see a table already knocked over off to the right which might be ideal for cover and keep you from aiming around the backs of those who while likely charge into the fray." Or "As a monk light and fast on your feet know that you have a chance of reaching the enemy in the rear who seems to be casting some sort of spell or taking aim at one of your fellows."

Let the character roll up, give him just money and no gear. The last line of his back story should be, "Over the last few months I have been conscripted as a slave in Chelaxian Navy, aboard the pirate hunter 'Dominator.' Tonight have taken my chance as luck would have it the scoundrel of a leftenant beat me one to many times. I beat him to death with a batten, took his weapons, and money including a number of gems he kept on his person."

If you want to be generous give him a few items of your random choice not his off the Leftenant and the cash comparable to the party not WBL.

This fits into the book, it starts him out as a nobody and it gives him the cash but should end the temptation of viewing the character as some rich noble fop at a semi secret dry dock.

When ever I hit something I know what it is I make judgement call as to how obscure whatever it is. If I imagine that my fighter has only heard that trolls are hard to kill I race forward with my shocking burst weapon. If its a toss up. I will directly ask if I know. Chances are I will have to make a knowledge check. We always laugh when we make inappropriate conclusions.

Dwarves as has been said.

Vikings

Slash plays an axe not a sword.

Watch tomahawk fighting techniques.

You know the name of the adventure is the blood axe. Chances the principal mcguffin wont be a shield.

Because im a lumberjack (and im ok)

Well most bards I have played or encountered primary in something that they can do with a weapon in hand; comedy, oration, singing, dancing rather than whipping out the lute mid fight.

I tend to think of it more like the bard is insulting the enemy like Spiderman while kicking tail.

Dancing about acrobatically in a performance o death.

Calling out an ancient tale that invokes power that blurs the line between arcane and divine, Aragorn yelling about Elbereth while hacking at wraiths in Fellowship of the Ring.

My first thought is that your description fits just fine.

I have never seen The One Ring. I did read through the LOTR RPG fast play adventure and it was pretty cool. I have a friend who really recommends The One Ring.

I know for our 3.e excursion into ME I used a mix of homebrew and Merp adventures and that worked fine. I would just use analogous stat blocks and reroll NPCs.

The biggest thing I can suggest if you want the feel of ME. Put everthing in context. There are no such things as +1 swords. There are hardend blued steel dwarf broadswords. Purge as much metagame language as you can. Yes it functions as a +1 longsword but do your best to keep things part of the culture, or rare and special. Nothing is without a place or story.

Bilbo was not exceedingly wealthy no. He was however a Baggins and his mother was a Took. He was from a comparably upper class than most hobbits.

In keeping with my above theme I was thinking of another option that might be interesting in a "fantastic" 3rd level treasure trove.

Splinter- This seemingly inacuous wooden toy sword is fashioned from sturdy oak. One could imagine a child swinging this sword about as a pretend greatsword. It functions as a +1 longsword in the hands of a medium sized adult. Normally such a mundanely crafted item would not be enchanted much less be an intelligent item. The sword is imbued with the spirit of an elderly paladin who in his later years often was the trainer of young would be knights. The sword loves and encourages righteous battle, often crying aload with war cries and taunts toward the enemy. Extremely opinionated, and honorable to a fault the sword expects and trains his wielder not just in swordplay but in the makings of a prooper noble warrior. If you want this item sticking around for awhile it can have abilities unlocked over time. Perhaps the personality does not make itself know at first.

Larger damage die and a free hand for the shield. Optimizers will now bring up the Falcatta.

Pirates are famous for nick names. Remind the PCs that they do not always get to pick the nick names their crew or other NPC's give them. Refering to them as Anchor, Deadweight, Coffinclad, Bottom-walker, Turtle, ect over and over again might help point the issue out.

I find very few monsters scary now that nothing has level drain.

Paladins exist as a representation of a very distinct archetype (in the literary sense not the PF sense). The are the quintesential knights in shining armor, chaste, true, just and so forth. You do not need the skills of the paladin class to create warriors of other alignments.

I did not play in this game but I thought it was a cool approach when I heard my former DM talk about it.

Basically the region was preparing for war against a demonic power that was established as an empire. The PC's began play as being pulled together out of other soldiers, conscripts and as recognized as particularly capable, uniquely skilled or not a fit for regular army. Essentially they were picked to be a kind of special forces. They took to the situation like water working to impress the general and stand out.

cnetarian wrote:

But at same time Players have to be able to control their characters. If a player can articulate valid reasons consistent with the paladin's code why their character finds an authority illegitimate, then it is unfair to penalize them from playing their character according to their character concept.

It doesn't sound like such a thing is possible in this case. If the nobles were drinking the blood of babies, had deposed the rightful heir to the throne, or were launching peasants out of balistias for target practice then the paladin can say "It doesn't matter what laws you've past, you're going to meet sharp pointy justice upside the head" .

Thats not whats happening here. You're asking a paladin to illegally overthrow the rightful government: ie, kill people, in order to put in an untried, untested group of people with no government experience, education, training,proven ability governing anything larger than a flock of sheep or ANY right to be in charge what so ever. There's no argument that killing people (which is bad) has any real chance of making things better. than a government that can at worst be described as "meh"

I do not think such an argument could succeed here. The paladin's code would have to be.. well pretty unpaladin like to be anti run of the mill government.

Players have a responsibility to make characters that fit the campaign. If the campaign is overthrowing the non evil and semi functioning aristocracy then a paladin is a bad fit. Try a chaotic good ranger or an anarchist alchemist.

That's just it. Some of the nobles are oppressive and are openly unjust. At least as I understood it so the Paladin in keeping with the principal of law goes to those nobles who are not oppressive and calls on them to act as rightful authority against those that are evil. When they don't they are culpable of allowing such evil to occur.

Well my plan was not to just dencounce exisisting authority it was to offer them an opportunity to what is good and lawful. In most fuedal societies at least in pretense the system is not just slavery, the Lords are the protectors and just governors of the people. While in many settings because such lords are the just authority the neglect arrest themselves ;). By going to Good lords in the region and demanding they act it puts them in a place where they have to chose. If they chose marital ties or economic treaties or tradition over carring for the people their position is to protect in favor of supporting evil Lords or not acting against them. At this point the Paladin is absolved of his normal Lawful ties to the system. It is corrupt, the rightful good lords have sided with corruption and evil. Your right it might make enemies but it creates a system where the Paladin should be able to maintain his code and support the Rebellion. If a few Good lords decide the Paladin is right that is just a bonus.

In the example given if I was playing a Paladin I would not sign up with the rebels day one. I would go to other feudal lords that I consider good and suggest that they are doing enough to limit the despotism and oppression of the other nobles. If they seem interested in acting try to bring the rebels and the good nobles to the negotiating table with the understanding that first oppressive and evil nobles will removed and held responsible for their crimes. Second a lasting change to the system will be the long term goal that gaurntees a better life for the people. If the "good" nobles refuse I will denounce them as evil for failure to act then join the rebels.

Alternatively a Paladin could be convinced that an existing system of law is inferior because it allows for injustice to become entrenched. Perhaps a system like the Rebels represent could be a higher order of law that ensured more good.

I am reading through 4 right now. It is a cool dungeon but it is a dungeon . . . and a lot of dungeon at that. I prefer small intense dungeons to gigantic complexes where every section has a new enemy waiting as if in the history of the world no room is just an empty old room.

All of the chapters so far have had ships to prey upon in the back. So I think there is room to add a lot of piracy but they leave it to the players to seek it out or the GM to dangle the carrot. Also there are several X marks the spot treasure maps in every chapter they are almost complete there just to tease you but they are there.

I really would have liked a more free form nature to things. Something I intend to add with my players. Let them chase their own goals.

As for the Island in 4 I don't mind that they get an island nor the added expectations (many pirates after a certain point took a stronghold or "retired" to live off their riches).

I will definately be adding Vikingson's and Dudemisters suggestions.

I have had in my head a huge paddle boat powered by coral golems (moving them like hamsters in a wheel) eversince I saw the name "Coral Golem."

Let me lend machette to your intelectual thicket.

There are at least three things muddying the waters here.

1. "Messing with"- I interpreted Caleb's goals here to be more shenanigan in nature than disruptive to the other players. Further I took for granted that he was not asking for advice on how to ruin the game for others. Though I understand that some might think along different lines. I think quite abit of screen space has been spent explaining that Caleb's goals at least in intent were to be fun for all. Second this was encouraged by the GM so likely the intent was for a group benefit not to hurt or disrupt the game for others.

2. First impressions, secrets and cavorting with evil folks- Pathfinder is a game where betrayal is not an uncommon theme, creatures such as dopplegangers, vampires, and a host of others ner do wells roam the storied shores of the Inner Sea. As such adventurers can be a paranoid bunch. So lookng at what has been revealed Cableb is playing a nuetral character (who expects the goodies to be respectful of evil people). I think that as a player I would take note of this as suspcious and potentially threatening. Secrets from ones companions put them in the position of interpreting motives behind secrets that if they had not be secrets might never have come into question. Combine such suspicions with the first impression of being aloof and insulting might cause problems.

3. Baggage- We have all had different experiences at the game table. So groups hate group tension others love it. So groups want only action and rp light. Others expect to haggle over the price of every item purchased and interact with the lowliest barmaid and low ranking guard posted at the gate. Beware that we do not read into this situation our own fears and remembered bad experiences into the mix.

Now as for the original concept of how you might mess with the rest of the party. Well as a ratfolk you do have the one great advantage of looking to the untrained eye exactly like an evil disgusting wererat. Get some of your ratfolk allies to use alterself and such to switch between forms let them start to think maybe you have a secondary form. This could even be used to get you more in the good graces of the party. Use that hat of disguise and after they think you are an aflicted wererat, get cured, and adopt the form and personality of a now freed from the curse human. Thus throwing off suspicions and giving some understandable excuse for behavior they in the past hold against you.

I have to say I really like Pathfinder Art. Wayne Reynolds is amazing. I have liked his stuff back in 3.5. Some don't like all the scrolls and knick knacks I love it. Given the equipment lists some people have I think it lends an authenticity to think its not all out of sight.

So I have a hippogriff which has listings for light medium and heavy loads. But what I cannot nor my GM cannot find is if the creature or any creature can fly at medium or heavy load. We are currently assuming only light load.

yes I think a more human shapped face is best, but that is likely the thundercat fan boy in me.

Well if your dead HEAD TOWARD THE LIGHT!!!

Unless it is a harsh red glow . . .

In Character. What would the characters do if they found a magic sword. Go from there. As players of games we want things equitable and fair and evenly divied out. The players some of whom are selfish jerks want what they can get when they can get it period. Typically those who can use the sword look at each other and base it off who is going to get the most use out of it. The ranger can use it but he is a switch hitter, the barbarian on the other hand melees all the time so it would best serve everyone if he had it. Unless it is more important for whatever but let the personalities of the characters work it out. I have played multiple characters in the same campaign and they handle finding treasure differently.

1- The thief keeps what he can whenever he can
2- The paladin keeps it all to equitably divy out . . . though no one told him not to take the tithe out of his own stash.
3- The bard keeps a good mental track of where things went but made sure one of the heavys carried as much as possible because he was always weighed down.

Sure this might cause some kerfluffle in character but that is part of the fun.

Mad props to Paizo for daring to write Elves as something different than high-magic-tree-hugging-tolkienesque-FR wimps.

Bit of shame dwarves didn't get the same treatment.

I am on the otherside of this one. I prefer the old school elves. It is proably the pastor in me and that in the last few years the gaming group has included one of my friends teenage daughter.

Having worn some of the heaviest armors made by man, both new and old, I've come to the conclusion that the ACPs being as big as they are is just silly, at least if the armor was made for you. The plate armors in particular have ludicrously high ACPs. Maybe I have lots of levels of fighter, the endurance feat, and I've only ever worn masterwork armor, but somehow I don't think so.

I'm not even going to get into why they have max dex modifiers, that's absolutely ludicrous. I can see them having dex penalties based on weight, but if you know how to operate a suit of armor well enough, you can function almost as well as you can without the armor.

Here's a thought that makes ACP look incredibly silly: The heaviest modern armor is worn by bomb-squad units, who use disable device to turn off bombs, disable device is a skill affected by ACP.

Furthermore: do you really think a suit of full plate, made for him, would slow Jackie Chan that much? Think about it.

The funny thing about this is whenever I watch the history channel and they put someone in armor or they talk about the armor they always talk about how heavy and restrictive it is.

I have no doubt that fast people are still fast in heavy armor but I doubt they are as fast. I do not doubt someone can climb in heavy aromor I do doubt the can climb as fast and for as long. The other thing I think if funny we keep bringing up weight of gear being more an issue probably so, but the character in no armor has usually less in his pack than the guy in full armor when we talk about game terms. Hence the weight of the pack was dealt with a mechanic of encumbrance.

Thunderbird8804 wrote:

mem0ri wrote:

I'm actually rather surprised that so many people in this thread think that "lying for good" is not an inherently dishonest or immoral act. It's classic "ends justify the means" Machiavellian philosophy and it definitely does not jive with being a Paladin.

That's me ... and as said above, every DM is different. I would, however, strongly disagree with anyone who states that it's ok to "lie for good".

I don't think you realize just how wrong that is, and how much even you disagree with it, so here's a simple scenario to illustrate.

You're a paladin who's protecting a family of innocents from a tyrannous lord. You've stopped and holed up in a house for a bit while you think about what to do next. Stopping here seems fairly safe because nobody in the village looks like they're going to give you up to the authorities, and you've got the family well hidden so that even if the house was given a once over they wouldn't be found. Then a bunch of heavily armed, shady looking characters that are part of a very large military division that's searching the town knock on your door and ask if you've seen the family (the one you're hiding). Fighting isn't going to work, you're quite outnumbered and outgunned, and they would probably guess that something's up if you attacked them. So what do you do: lie, or tell the truth?

Tell the truth. "Yes. When I was out in the field yesterday, I saw them beseeching a mighty warrior for aid to protect and hide them. After they walked into the town I lost sight of them."

And then the DM makes you role a bluff check because in that situation you are trying to hide something. Your not lying but you are trying to hide. Pehaps the no lying tanget to this thread had gotten away from the core question as whether or not you can bluff. But most GM's I have been with when I have attempted this kind of thing expect a bluff check because not because I am lying or not but to see how well I am diverting the guards from their goal of finding the family.

I have always wanted to have party run a circus. Have all members of the party inherit part ownership of the circus.

LOL young otyugh ew.

Bluffing guards because the party's rogue loaded their wagon with Pesh and hopes to make a big score . . . this the Paladin should not do.

Bluffing guards because in the wagon are freed slaves who without the party's help will continue to be oppressed and exploited . . . this the Paladin should have no unwillingness to do.

The penalties for wearing armor are absolutely ridiculous and just one more way that the designers of 3.0 D&D went out of their way-- completely, unjustifiably out of their way-- to screw over Fighters in the name of unrealistic 'realism'.

If heavy armor were really as cumbersome as the rules depict it to be, real-life warriors throughout human history would have never worn it.

The reduced moevement rate and inability to run? Make perfect sense. The penalties to Stealth and Swim checks? Just about right. The penalty to Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, and Sleight of Hand? Need to be halved. The penalties to Disable Device and Ride should be eliminated entirely.

And the 'maximum Dexterity bonus to AC' needs to have its head severed, stuffed with garlic, and buried separately from its body-- which would be buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart-- in a location clearly marked 'THIS IS NOT A PLACE OF HONOR' in every language spoken by Man and angels with burning swords standing guard to prevent foolhardy grave robbers and game designers from ever even thinking about trying to dig up such an inexcusably stupid mechanic ever again. It is the very worst kind of fool-headed idiotic unrealistic 'realism' to have ever blighted a fundamentally and deliberately mythic roleplaying game in the history of roleplaying games.

The worst part of it is, in the game from which this ill-conceived abomination of a rule was derived, it actually worked. That game was actually detailed enough and realistic enough that even with mobility penalties, armor was useful enough that wearing the heaviest armor you could afford and were trained in was an absolute no-brainer for anyone who didn't have to walk around naked for spellcasting purposes.

But that game was Rolemaster, and rules that work in Rolemaster have absolutely no place whatsoever in a game as abstract and mythic as Pathfinder.

How do you really feel?

This post would have been better if you mentioned that you typed it while wearing steel guantlets.

Simple exercise. Go play racket ball. Half way through put on shoulder pads, shin guards, knee pads, elbow pads and those wrist thingys that keep you from "s" curving your forearms while rollerblading. As you and your friends laugh your butts off at how much slower and imbobile you are think wow all this gear is lightwieght plastic and foam and only covers a few points on the body. Then please come back and tells about your experience preferably with pictures.

Death is part of the game. I tend to answer this question of whether I would go for the kill on a downed player at the start just like I prepare an escape or not for their adversary. The tacts of enemies will change and yes sometimes it will be taking the coup de gras. Is it a monster looking for food . . . when was the last time you saw a lion abandon the wounded buffalo to go kill the rest of the heard. No the down the creature and drag it off to eat at their leisure. They will defend themselves and keep others away from their prize. Assassins are jerks they will always make sure you are never getting up again. Always.

I am sure there are others. There is a naval comander in Varisia named Keyra Palen turned fiesty political leader. Not sure if it was intentional but If I ever have to play her as a GM she will speaking in my best Sara Palin impression. I thought Andoran's Lady Liberty and Eagles running around was obvious perhaps so obvious to not be hidden enough to count as an easter egg.

Well the magus typically uses a one hand weapon and the elven curve blade is a two hander. I think the magus is holding an aldori dueling sword.

You have to love the open mindedness here. "That's not my playstyle so it sucks." "Gnomes and Halflings are slow they suck." "Fighters are boring they suck." "I don't like prepared casters they suck."

Without fighters the party dies. Yes they might be out damaged but they are the first line of defense. In our current campaign there are a few spell casters and two largely melee classes. There have been fights that one or both of the melee types was down or on the ropes, while the others have rarely felt that threat. From conversations I think they think the fights are easy. But when one or both frontliners go down . . . they will get mopped up pretty quick. Fighters buy the casters the time to get through several rounds of spells that control, blast and kill the enemy. Without the meat shield the casters are torn apart before they can drop the second pit, or blast.

I detest gnomes. I refuse to play one and I constantly mock them when I play. Why? There's nothing that gnomes bring to the table that another race doesn't do better.

1. Want to be small and sneaky? Play a halfling.
2. Want to be an underground dweller, perhaps with a penchant for things mechanical? Play a dwarf.
3. Want to be in touch with nature and magic? Play an elf.

They're worse than Jawas!

First of Jawas are awesome ;)

You left off your list of three the best reasons to play a gnome. They are one of the best trickster races. Even your list of three a gnome can do all of those things in a different way than halflings, dwarves and elves do. Lets face it gnomes have a difficult time fitting into little boxes that everyone likes to pigeon hole the other races into and then point out that the gnomes are difficult to pin down. That is the point. The are ironic characters. I get that people don't want all humor all the time at the table but some do.

lol when I read the title of this thread all I see is captain morgan scolding puritians for not haveing enough fun.

Hexes are far superior in almost everyway. The one area were they are not superior is manufacturer buy in. Which blows. Its like the offical car of Nascar being a Pinto.

Check the cartographers guild website.
www.cartographersguild.com

They may have something like what you are looking for.

The new kobolds are growing on me but I remember the days they were little rat like gnolls.

It's kind of hard to look back on anything rules-wise to hold onto from editions previous to 3x. As an old timer, I vociferously hated limited race/class combinations,obscure multiple exp levelling (great, the rogue in the party's now four levels ahead of everyone else) as well as level caps that effectively made you expand into a useless-until-equal second and third class, that never did grow beyond that.

Pathfinder maintains a huge 'anything's possible' ruleset, while trying to hold back against the tide of personal publishing power creep that was seen in 3x.

cant stand tall elves though. seriously. they're ELVES!

Tolkiens elves were tall. Dragonlance elves are christmas elves dressed as Tolkien elves.

The really valuable part of this is the math, reading and problemsolving are encouraged by simple participation but as the kids get involved you can have them be part of world building, learning about mythology as others have suggested, social sciences getting into historical, economic and political elements of the game. It really is a game that lends itself to a huge variety of opportunity. Perhaps some of the kids like to build models or have art skills they can paint minis for the other kids or design dungeon terrain on the PC or out of paper mache. It really could be cool. The only thing I would suggest especally being a summer program is that 1 hour a aday is little light. See if you can get it set up before or after the lunch period so to steal some extra time.

Magical art gallery. Rooms are actually paintings, scuptures, ect that are enchanted.

The Ned Stark Approach: If you have the prerequisit legal authority which many paladins might, you give the speach. "I Humphrey Dogooder find you guilty of murder and your life forfiet to the king's/god's justice." *waits a moment* *Thwack*

The Wyatt Erp Approach: Beat him about the head and shoulders and kick him as he flees and yell, "Run dog, run back to rest of your foul kin, and you tell them justice is coming, you tell em I'm coming and the wrath of (insert god here) is coming with me." This is especially good in conjuction with some sort of compulsion spell ;) Send the poor gobby back to his tribe or if you just wiped them all out the nearest tribe warning them to watch it.

The Superman Approach: After sufficently binding said goblin. Drop him off with the nearest and lowliest law enforcement offical possible and condesendingly say while smiling, "You take it from here officer."

The Professor X Approach: "Yes poor thing I know you are homicidal evil thing but that is because your mind has been twisted by evil. Come with me I will teach you how to untwist it."

Keep up the good rp. You serve Abadar that sort of behavior is in line with the fluff and I personally would love it even if my character hated it. There are really good ways off set this. If the other players respond to it in character rather than whine out of character. If you were in my group and you pulled that just about every character I play would take a portion of your share of the loot. "Let's see I killed an orc trying to kill you so . . . I took a small body guard fee from your share. I am sure you understand I need to be paid for my skill."

I know you like bard but you might want to consider magus. They mix fighting and spells very well. Also you might want to split levels between bard and rogue it adds a nice complentary mix of skills and after a few levles you can switch over to arcane trickster.