Jagyr Ebonwood's page

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

John, a straight guy with no gay friends, hears that Steve, a gay guy, will be attending the game tonight for the first time. John, like many straight men, finds himself slightly uneasy about the topic of sexuality, but he reassures himself. "He's just like any of my straight friends" John thinks, "he just happens to like guys instead of girls."
This thought process glosses over the fact that identity is more than just sexual attraction.

If you're talking more in terms of personality, then I still think everyone's the same in the "unique snowflake" sense. If I was John, I'd think Steve was just another guy who probably has his own hang ups and issues unique to him in addition to being attracted to men. I wouldn't think he fell off of an assembly line- but then again I don't think that of anyone.

The problem is that our hypothetical John doesn't see Steve as unique. His thought process is utilizing too many heuristics, and he's trapped by stereotypes.
He has (unconscious) issues with with "gay", so he tries to mentally fit Steve into the "straight" category. "Just like my straight friends, except gay." John sets him self at ease by expecting Steve's behavior to conform to whatever John's idea of "straight" is.
The problem comes when Steve doesn't conform to John's expectations. John is snapped back to that moment of "he's gay, he's different, what do I do?"
Some John-types get over this relatively quickly, and have their minds and horizons expanded. Others have it as a recurring hang-up for years.

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

There are some people who have gay acquaintances and think of them just the same as their straight friends, except that they like men instead of women. This is (generally) not true, and sets up unfortunate expectations and assumptions.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm a bit lost. Maybe it's because I'm mainly spending time on the party circuit(unless a gay friend shows up at a game or two), but to me, whether gay or straight, everyone seems the same.

This is what I'm talking about. While in some cases this idea works well, there are many times when it doesn't. This thought process glosses over the fact that identity is more than just sexual attraction.

And a final question to those offended by PDA displays- Would you truly be offended if it was a heterosexual display? Because from what I've seen, there sure is one large blind eye turned to such parings in public, even when things are going in the public indecency direction.

I'm not sure that's a fair analogy.

RE: Pride parades et al: As I said before, everyone has their own standards, and it's up to the individual to decide what crosses the line for them (and their children). A great many pride parades are modeled after Carnivale and Mardi Gras, and you can bet you'll be able to find at least one person who's gone just a little too far. Personally, I believe there's a difference between nudity (or near-nudity) and sexuality, but that's a different topic.

Suffice to say that most gaming sessions don't resemble Mardi Gras (although if yours does, send me an invite!). What's important is to establish a baseline for your group.

In my current group, we play at a game store, so we have to be fairly accommodating. My kilt-wearing, indiscriminately-wenching half-orc was a lot of fun, and set up a lot of low-brow humor, as well as some interesting side-scenes. When one of the players was candid enough to say that he wasn't really enjoying the "romance" aspect of the game, the DM and I made a conscious effort to step it back a bit, out of respect for him and the game. Unfortunately, since then, most of the rest of the players (who are mostly teenage boys...sigh) have been goading my character with various sexual things, and making jokes based off him - essentially picking up where I left off! I've had to say more than once, "dammit guys, why am I always the sex-joke guy?" A few "that's what she said" jokes here and there are one thing (Kuldak has one point in Craft: Double Entendre :D ), but I don't go so far as to make other people uncomfortable.

We have another player who is trying to play a bad-ass lesbian rogue, and insists that his half-elf is actually half-drow, and keeps referring to his character with derogatory slang, and constantly tries to have sex with every remotely attractive female NPC we encounter (by the way, have you noticed how many lesbian NPCs there are in CotCT? More than I expected, anyhow). Typical 17 year old male...*rolleyes*
Our real problem with him is that his character is like the sorceress from Gamers: the Dorkness Rising:
"You guys, I'm not evil!"
"You are evil, and a whore."

Wolfthulhu wrote:

I am a conservative Christian gamer. A traditionalist. I do not particularly approve of nor encourage the whole GLBT movement. That does not mean I hate you all and wish you to burn in hell, though that is the brush I am generally painted with by the intolerant of your side of the aisle.

In any event, while yes, your side of the aisle is often painted as "intolerant" that is most certainly not always the case (as I have personally witnessed). However, comments like "I do not particularly approve of..." tend to incite a deep level of defensiveness and anger from those who are in whatever group you do not approve of. For them, they couldn't care less about your (or others) approval because thankfully for them, neither you nor I have any right (or power) to make them behave how we behave (or would like them to behave).

Thanks for the polite disagreements. :)
Steven, allow me to respond in a similar manner:

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

Even if your group glosses over any and all romantic/intimate moments in-game, you may not be as equal as you think out of game.

Why? Please elaborate because in the group I am in we just kick in the door and loot the room.

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

If you have a gay man in your group, he (most likely) isn't exactly like all your straight friends, except for his preference of partners.

You can say that again we have 3 (myself included) and all of us are totally diffrent in every possible way, ones in a commited relationship, another is desperatly seeking a LTR because he hit 35 and now he's terrified of being alone, Me I'm still slutting around because I still look great at 40 and a Long Term Relationship just seems boring to me.

I simply feel that while equal rights are important and yes I have done my part in the parade routes and the campaign trails but you wont find any rainbow stickers a on my truck or flags flying in my apartment(although the nude male calender is a dead giveaway)the reason it's called a PRIVATE life is because it should be.

I dont want the government in my bedroom...

...but I am getting a little tired of the bedroom coming to the streets too. I can't believe some of the gear that people think they can get away with wearing at some of these events.

As far as public displays of affection at malls or where ever as long as they are in good taste(holding hands, a quick kiss,etc) I dont think anyone would care.

If the spouses/significant others drop the gamers off at the game, does the group react differently to the peck on the cheek between the straight couple compared to the one between the same-sex couple? This is what I'm getting at - out of game, non-sexual displays of orientation/identity.

I'm not disagreeing with your statements but I feel some of the LGBT communiteies problems are self inflicted and we should be more respectfull of the straight/normal people that we interact with.

Just as every culture has hidden symbolism to identify it's members for those in the know, whether it be a ring worn in the right ear, a rainbow flag, or phrases such as "he's a friend of Dorothy", in Golarion that symbolism is the unassuming teapot.

I am all for common sense and decency, from all parties, gay, straight, transexual, or whatever. I've seen a few gay rights parades and in all honesty they were despicable. Anyone can do whatever they like in their bedrooms but please have some respect for others. No one wants to see some of what I have seen at these parades and it does nothing to help your cause. In fact, it probably makes things more difficult to be accepted. I think more people would be more accepting of homosexuals if they didn't see scenes on the news showing men in leather g-strings practically fellating each other on a public street. That can't help anyones cause.

I hope that doesn't make me sound intolerant?

I do understand what you're saying, jreyst. The "common decency" argument is an old one, and a tricky one. Most everyone agrees that some things are just plain inappropriate, myself included...the problem is that anti-LGBT folks have used the idea of "common decency" for a long time to legitimize their bigotry.

Also, saying "it doesn't help your cause" sounds a bit confrontational, and odd coming from an avowed gay-rights activist.

Please don't take offense at my response; I meant none. You, as a non-LGBT person, asked me (well, maybe not me specifically), as a LGBT person, if your statement made you sound intolerant. There's your answer. Hopefully I've helped you to consider your words from a different perspective :)

The intent of my original post was to address people who were thinking:
"Here's a person who has different sexual tastes than mine - who cares, this is game night, not singles' night."

And to have them consider this as well:
"Here's a person who is different than me in a fundamental way - is that going to make me or them enjoy the game any less (even if I don't show it)?"

Really, just putting out some food for thought, and helping people re-examine themselves (which is always good, from time to time). :)

Oh, and I also want to reiterate James Jacobs' sentiment upthread - the fact that this thread has been extremely positive and civil makes me all warm and fuzzy. :D

I've been following this thread with some interest, but for the sake of my own sanity have not elected to participate...until now! :p

A griffon rider who, as part of her training, raises her griffon from an egg and has the skills to do so? That makes sense and is perfectly reasonable.

Some schmuck starting out with a huge pile of iron pots to sell as soon as the game starts so that he can equip himself on the bigger stack of coins? That's just plain silly.

I don't see the difference. Why are some characters allowed to break the WBL guidelines and not others? Each has created extra value for his character. One just happens to be a useful pet, while the other is wealth (and presumably less wealth than than the value of the griffin, unless it was an incredible pile of iron pots).

The way I see it, if you're going to be doing game activities pre-game, you might as well do all of them. You should have to pay for food and housing while you're crafting, maybe even the cost to rent a forge (unless you have your own, in which case you should spend more time and money (and more day-to-day expenses) building that). Furthermore, to be more realistic, you should level-up and equip your character one level at a time, so you're not spending 5 levels of gold on a feat you've only had for 2 levels. But by this point, you're practically playing out the entire pre-game, which defeats the entire point of starting the game at a higher level.

The point is, one of the main costs of the crafting abilities is time. By allowing crafting pre-game, you're removing that cost. The WBL guidelines say nothing about how much "time" a PC is allowed to spend, it only mentions gold. You seem to be taking the position that since it doesn't say how much time you get, you have an infinite amount (more or less), while I would say the opposite - you get none.

One of your arguments stopped me, and had me thinking for awhile:

The Master Crafter is going to end up ahead of the WBL charts during the course of the game anyway - that's just how crafting works. Why is it okay during the game, but not pre-game?

Of course, this is all a matter of opinion, and you have demonstrated well the extent to which your heels are dug in. ;)

I am of the opinion that WBL should mean "starting net worth", rather than "a bag of cash and an infinite amount of time." I am also of the opinion that the cost of time in crafting is an important factor that cannot be glossed over. It seems we differ in these opinions.
That being said, if it works in your game, and makes your players happy, all the more power to you. If we were talking about a convention game, or PFS-type game though, I'd like to think that the ruling would be somewhat more in line with what PirateDevon, Mirror Mirror, and others have been advocating.

*This is the default, but may not be necessary in your game. I once was in a homebrew game where one of the players was allowed to be a prince (the youngest of his siblings, but still a prince). His net worth (and expendable wealth) were enormous compared to the rest of us, but he wasn't a dick about it, and we thought it was cool for the story, so it worked (except for one jealous player who was a d-bag...but that's another story).

ADDED: In reading what was posted while I was typing, I see that you've pointed out how the WBL is used for awarding treasure. If, as you say, WBL means cost and not value/worth, how can the GM ever distribute magic items as treasure?
For example...let's say the chart said to give the party 1000gp. The GM could give them 1000gp, or he could give them a 1000gp item (say a cloak of resistance +1). If he gives them the cloak...what if they sell it? They'd only have gotten 500gp, not 1000gp.

I'd also like to point something out to the people who say "your sex life doesn't matter; we're just here to play" or a variation thereof. Please note that I say these things in the most respectful way possible; I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just attempting to share a viewpoint you may not have considered.

Orientation and identity is more than just sex - that's just the most noted part of it. The "LGBT community" exists for reasons other than being a support group - there's a reason they call these things "identities" and "lifestyles" (though the second one bugs me to no end).

Even if your group glosses over any and all romantic/intimate moments in-game, you may not be as equal as you think out of game.

If you have a trans person in your group, you have a person who may not look/sound/act like an "average" person of their gender, especially since many (if not all) states require TS folks to spend a year living as their goal gender before qualifying for any surgery. If you have a gay man in your group, he (most likely) isn't exactly like all your straight friends, except for his preference of partners.

It's all well and good to say "there's no sex happening here, so no problem."
But how is your group going to react when they notice that the new girl has an Adam's apple, or the new guy has bound breasts? When the session is over, what happens when Bob's husband comes to pick him up and holds his hand on the way to the car (or worse, kisses him)? Does anyone at your table use the word "gay" in a negative sense? Do they use the f-word (not the four letter one)?
If your group is like mine, they often go off on side conversations and tangents not related to the game. What's the reaction when Sally starts a story with "Last week, my wife and I..."? What if Gary says his favorite superhero is Wonder Woman because he'd like to have her powers? What if Alan says his favorite is Batman because the dark vigilante concept is sexy? Do they get laughed at? Do they make people uncomfortable?

I recall a moment when I was talking with a classmate during my freshman year of college. We were peer reviewing some kind of essay, and mine had something to do with modern acceptance of LGBT people. Anyhow, at some point she said something to this effect:
"My boyfriend, for example, has no problem at all with gay people, and he has friends who are gay; he just doesn't like it when they 'act gay' around him, or kiss or anything, because he thinks it's gross."
I knew her boyfriend, actually worked in the same building as him, and got along with him fairly well at a superficial level, so I had no problem flat out telling her "Yeah, your boyfriend is a bigot."
Oh, she was so offended. "But 'bigot' is such an ugly word! He's not!"
"Yes, it is, and yes, he is." I ended up very annoyed as well.

TL;DR: Take a step back and check yourself. If you claim you're tolerant because sex lives are private and don't matter, you might want to re-examine how you react to people when it comes to the everyday, public parts of their identity.

Meh, you'd hardly raise an eyebrow at our table.

The longest established player in our group (besides myself) is a Pagan/Wiccan/Spiritual Humanist post-op transexual bisexual, gay-identified man, who writes slash fan-fic when he's not working in a safe-sex outreach program for gay and bi men. And, he is married to a woman (and wow...marrying a straight woman was probably the most shocking thing he ever did to us!).

As for myself, I'm a Taoist, bisexual-identified man (1 to 2 on the Kinsey Scale I reckon), and my mother has run the office of the non-profit group that organizes the aforementioned outreach program for many years - point being, that I grew up around sexuality (alternate, safe, "normal", etc). As a kid, I would attend AIDS Day events, gay pride events, etc, our house always had books about sexuality/puberty geared towards children, and whenever I ended up at my mother's office, I was usually put to work separating huge strips of condoms in to single ones that would be passed out by the outreach programs.

My two most favorite characters: Serrek, a litorian half-vampire rogue (litorians = anthropomorphic lions...kind of a furry thing I suppose, though I don't consider myself one). I decided he was gay early in the campaign, on a whim - the DM was trying to use a standard female seduction plot hook on me, and I declared "I'm gay" just to be a jerk :p . However, it developed from there, with the almost-but-not-technically-evil Serrek developing a surprisingly touching relationship with a litorian courtier. It was very sweet.
My other favorite I'm still playing. His name is Kuldak, a half-orc rogue/barbarian. He's not so much "bisexual" as "not picky", and has a...ahem...healthy appetite. Your typical ale-and-wenches barbarian I suppose, but he's been an absolute hoot to roleplay. The faux-Russian "orcish" accent helps :D .

If anything about you would be unusual at my table, it'd be your previously mentioned "recovering munchkinism" (no one in our usual group has the skill, inclination or patience for much optimization in our characters) or perhaps your status as a Furry (I must admit, Furries fall into a category of people that I like to poke goodnatured fun at - this group also includes LARPers, fans of Twilight, and most anime fans).

Mute children.
You know the type: sad orphans with puppy dog eyes and a tragic past. They haven't spoken in years, but then the main protagonist comes along and brings them out of their shell.

Medicine Woman: Y-you got her to talk? It's a miracle!
River: Of course not, she's mute. I just read her mind. *crazy eyes*
Medicine Woman: AAAH! WITCH!

In some ways, Neutral parties are the easiest to motivate. Just imagine them as fantasy versions of Mr. Krabs from Spongebob Squarepants.

"Gold! Glorious gold! All mine! Mine mine mine!" They may kill each other over the loot, but that can be fun too. (And wow, am I up too late...)

If you're just starting out, you might be better off using a pre-made adventure, or even just looking over some of the pre-made ones and stealing ideas and maps from them.

You can find a bunch of free ones >here<. They are for 3rd Edition D&D, not Pathfinder, but they are close enough that you should be able to use them right off the rack with almost no trouble (although you could always use the conversion document if you wanted to be precise).

Also, don't worry about your first few adventures being "on rails." This is a hard thing for even experienced adventure-makers to overcome, and a lot of the time, it's not that big a deal. As long as you don't make your map as a single line, you'll be okay.
Some map-making advice: when you're drawing rooms and what-not, think of what the room was designed for. Was it made, or did it form naturally (a cave)? Dorms and private rooms will obviously be smaller than communal rooms. Audience chambers or temple centers will be grander than most - perhaps semicircular. Don't be confined to straight lines and rectangles! Hexagons, octagons, circles, semicircles, alcoves, pillars, daises, steps, balconies - spice things up.
Think about the layout of a building such as your house. Not everything is a straight line; rooms and hallways branch off. In most houses, there are "loops". For example, a door leads from the living room into the study. Another door leads from the study into the hallway, which leads to the kitchen. A door in the kitchen leads back into the living room. You get the idea.

Figuring out the actual encounters, ie. "what to fight" is another tricky part. Goblins and kobolds are great low-level dungeon enemies. They aren't very difficult to overcome, and they are always moving into abandoned mines, caves, cellars, ruins, etc. and using them as nests.
You can also easily give one of them a level or two in a character class and make them the "boss", or simply use a larger monster like a bugbear or some hobgoblins. Hobgoblins tend to boss goblins around anyway. Just come up with a goal or reason for them being there.
Are they building a base so that they can start raiding nearby towns? Maybe they came here looking for some sort of magic item supposedly hidden here, and they haven't found it yet (maybe it's there, maybe it's not). Perhaps they were kicked out of their tribe, and are now trying to remain hidden from their former fellows. Remember that not all bad guys are allies - perhaps there were some drow already living here, and they've been fighting with the goblins since they arrived (not to mention the handful of carrion crawlers, which were here before any of the others).

All sorts of things are possible. Read through the Pathfinder Bestiary (or whatever monster book you have access to) and read the entries of creatures with a CR of less than 3 or so. See if those descriptions strike you in any way.

Furthermore, don't forget about traps and puzzles and other challenges. Your fighter and barbarian probably just want to hit things, but your bard would probably like it if some of the bad guys were able to be charmed, or reasoned with, or if he was able to bluff his way around them. And everyone loves getting hit with a good trap now and again. Even a good old fashioned pit trap can do wonders - it might not do much damage, but it gives the PCs a chance to use their skills: jumping over, climbing out of, searching the bottom for dropped coins, etc.

Wow, I went on a lot longer than I intended to. I hope that's helped, and if I can be of service in any other way, don't hesitate to ask. :)

Rounds per day is a terrible mechanic, though. (Bookkeeping yey.)

Rage rounds used: |||
7 rounds/day

Those are tally marks, by the way. It's certainly no more bookkeeping than hit point loss or spellcasting.

I'm not heading out to Vermont anytime soon, so I hope you don't mind me using your photos!

I would caution against walking on that staircase, tempting as it may be - it looks not too sturdy anymore, especially the middle and upper arches.

I do plan on doing as much diceless as possible, since I'd really rather not lose a d20 in the snow/leaves.

As regards your other advice...well, that's all pretty much SOP around here. We Vermonters know how to handle ourselves on a hike, though I'd hardly call it a hike; it's more of a short stroll from the parking area/entrance up to the ruin. ;)

Unfortunately, we haven't quite finished up the current adventure. I think we might on next Sunday.

So, the earliest this excursion could happen would be 11/29. Hopefully it's not too snowy by then.

When/if it does happen, I'll be sure to let you know how it turned out. With pictures, if possible.

This is just complicated enough that I'd hesitate to incorporate it into an existing game, since it would involve retconning a large amount of basic stuff.

That said, it's a really easy way to differentiate from the norm setting-wise, and I like it. A lot.

My tendency with published adventures that assume a certain sort of progression (e.g., the next module is for characters of level X) is to ignore XP altogether.

There's also the issue of one character, who by all rights should have more XP than the others, feeling cheated when he's at the same level as everyone else (but this is more of a social contract thing I suppose).

I toyed with the idea of using percentages instead of XP with my current Iron Heroes game (where one of the books actually suggests going XPless), but in the end decided that XP was familiar, served as a more granular reward/incentive, and allowed me to easily bring in sub-systems allowing XP expenditure.

On the original topic, though: IIRC, the XP needed for advancement in 3.5 and 3.0 is identical. I would use the "fast" progression in PfRPG for any 3.x adventure you run.

Bring your stuff, hope for good weather, remain flexible.

I don't want to bother bringing along rulebooks, battlemaps and minis. We already know the rules well enough to do a quick combat without referencing the books, I'd wager. And besides, I'm the DM, I can adjudicate anything we don't know of the top of our heads.

For PC position on the field, I expect we'll end up doing a just a tiny bit of LARPing - standing where our characters would be. I might bring along a measuring tape in case we need a reference.

Unfortunately, you should probably consider how the local constabulatory might react to your activity. I know around here, in suburban NJ, you have to be careful-YOU know you're not doing anything bad, but if the cops were to see a group of guys hanging out in the woods doing something 'weird,' they would probably start harassing them and tell them to get lost. Since 911, too, they are much more sensitive to anything they deem out of the ordinary. If it happens to be a place where kids hang out, drink, maybe smoke dope, whatever, you would be more likely to run into the cops, too. Hopefully it's not a problem where you live, but something to think about. It does look awesome, though. Good luck with it.

I plan to keep things simple. Each person would have a clipboard and some dice in their pocket. Nothing unruly or destructive.

I figure we'd get there and do a little sight-seeing and exploring, and then break out the actual rules (more or less) for a short combat with a single guardian monster. Then, we'd head back to civilization to continue the game into the dungeons.

The fact that we had 12 male dark elf ranger charecters, yes thats right 12( you can guess what series ALL their charecters were based off of)didnt matter to him either. Oh well the DM put in one figuiren of woundrous power(black panther) and 8 of them killed one another fighting over it.

I'm not necessarily talking about LARPing here...I have a "set piece" destination I'd like my players to see.

The PCs are currently in an area of my campaign world that is modeled after my home state of Vermont. I plan to have them explore a set of ruins (of which there are many) and the dungeons beneath it. As it would happen, there is a ruin only a few miles from my home that would serve as a wonderful stand-in for the site.

It's called Madame Sherri's. Madame Antoinette Sherri apparently ran some sort of brothel and was a rum-runner. She had a grand, unique house, which burned down, leaving behind its impressive foundation, including an incredible staircase. You can Google for more information if you'd like, and you can see some pictures of it here:
East side (approach), south side, west side (rear, basement entrance).

Now, I could simply show them the pictures, and say "This is what you see." That would still be pretty neat. But wouldn't it be much cooler to actually take them there? It's only a 10-minute trip away.

The question is, how to play once we're there? We could just turn around and drive back to my house, but that's the back-up plan. Ideally, we'd be able to do a little bit of gaming while we're there. I just don't know exactly how to make it work (I don't want to bring along all the accouterments of gaming).

Help me brainstorm.

Hummm . sorry .... just couldn't resist....

Seldriss wrote:

In the meantime, CMD-A, CMD-C and CMD-V are our best friends :)

There, fixed it for you. ;-)

That really dumped Code Red on my battlemat.

Power Word: BOOM Goes The Dynamite

For real though, I like this. It's the kind of thing that I'd incorporate into my game if I was running a Golarion campaign.

if you note they use the words, "it's perfectly okay to rule" not, the rules state you can. In other words the standard by the rules is the half movement, but they're adding a caveat saying if it's not to complex for you to use it this way if you perfer.

In my original post (which I've edited out of existence) I supposed the idea of a situation in which a character with speed 30' had to move across a single threatened square during a move action. If you use my way, it works out perfectly fine. If you use DM_Blake's way, you better hope that the threatened square isn't the 4th or 5th one the PC enters, or you'll rip open a paradox in the rules.

Also the PFRPG says half your movement.

DM_Blake is right, but that doesn't mean it isn't perfectly reasonable to use it the other way, which is what the FAQ is saying.

I dug up the relevant part of the 3.5 FAQ.

When a character tumbles (at half speed) during a move action, does that mean he is moving at half speed for the whole move, or just in the squares where tumbling?
Although it’s easiest to apply the half-speed penalty to the entire move action, it’s not strictly necessary to do so. If the player and DM can handle this additional level of complexity, it’s perfectly okay to rule that you pay an extra movement cost only for each square that you use Tumble to exit without provoking an attack of opportunity (as well as for each square of an enemy’s space that you enter using Tumble).

I'm sorry to say it Blake, but you're wrong. Don't worry, it happens to every DM once or twice in his life ;)

Woo! Collective youth five!

I would just call it gaming as well. Non RPGers are just confused about the differences between different games.

Okay, I have none of the Golarion campaign setting books, so I didn't know that "Puddles" was a district in Absolam.

I thought this was going to be a satirical post about unnecessarily detailed minutiae in settings. Humbug.

I totally thought this was going to be about thri-kreen.

The dwarves' similar Stonecunning ability is listed under the racial abilities while the elves' is not.

The only mention I can find in the PRD of this ability is a single, very non-crunchy sentence under the secret doors entry in the environment section.

These two things combined make me want to err on the side of "the ability should be eliminated."

Also, I just hate elven door-radar so damn much. It is an extremely silly piece of flavor, and it is a legacy from days of yore when almost every single adventure was entirely underground in some inexplicable dungeon complex riddled with secret doors and traps. Not that that's a bad adventure set-up, but it was the default, and racial/class abilities were based around that environment, even if they didn't make very much sense. "Bend Bars" anyone?

The player new to tabletop roleplaying said something along the lines of, "I like this. I get this. It's fun." Enough said!

Dear God !!! Not This Again

Zurai wrote:

No. Channel Smite doesn't follow the same rules as normal channeling. You use a channel to activate the feat, and the feat either damages undead with positive energy or damages the living with negative energy. You get no choice in the matter.

The only way that'd work is if you were a negative channeller attacking a level 8+ cleric of the Death domain, who absorb negative channeled energy.

This is also why you can't use channel elemental to Channel Smite an elemental for example.

By that point there are more powerful spell options, but I'd wager most aren't swift actions to complete.

Does this look correct to you all?

Where do you live?! I probably know you, being from Londonderry VT myself. Let me know what's up, and where you are.

http://burlington.craigslist.org/cto/1373557447.html

Thank you all for your thoughts and advice.

I live in southern Vermont. Low-income housing (and its close relatives) are in extremely high demand here, and the waiting list is months (if not years) long.

There's a possibility of being able to borrow the money from someone, but that would put the person I borrow from in a tight spot as well. And no, neither of us belong to a church. My wife has made efforts to distance herself from the church she was raised in.

The car financing issue...sigh. I admit to probably getting suckered a little on that front. It really pisses me off looking back on it. However, it's unprofitable to curse a situation I can't change. Instead, I'm considering the possibility of selling the new car and keeping my (admittedly not as nice) old one. Tomorrow I will be calling dealerships.

The idea of my landlord letting us stay st a reduced rent is probably the most likely outcome, assuming something else doesn't work itself out.

Hey everyone, don't mind me, I just need a place to vent to the anonymous crowd...

In April this year, I lost my job when my workplace went out of business. Since then, I've been on unemployment, and I've been able to get some work once or twice a month at a local graduate school. However, this doesn't compare at all to my previous income.

My sister-in-law has been living with us while she's finishing her last years of high school. Her parents (who are divorced) had been paying her portion of the rent while she was here, and that helped to offset my lost income a little bit. Then, just a month or two after I lost my job, her parents just stopped paying for her (partly due to some sort of dispute over childcare payments).

So, my income had been pretty much decimated, and we were no longer receiving rent for the sister-in-law, plus we ended up subsidizing the cost of her food and other necessities. That's just the monetary part; I won't go to the extent of complaining about the injustice of basically being forced to adopt a teenager...

Taking all this into consideration, we decided we needed to downsize. We found a new cheaper apartment downtown, told the sister-in-law that she would have to move back in with one of her parents, and decided to trade/sell both our cars and consolidate to a single, more fuel-efficient car. Our move in date for the new apartment is October 1st.

We had everything all sorted out - it was going to be a big zero-sum equation. Trading in my wife's Jeep would pay for all the upfront costs of getting the new (well, new to us) car. Since we paid last month's rent upfront on the current apartment, we could take the money that we would've spent on rent, combine it with our security deposit, and use that to pay first/last/security on the new apartment. The sale of my Honda would just be icing on the cake.

However, things took a bad turn. Something went wrong with the financing for the new car (I suspect that it had something to do with the fact that my wife has some health problems, and the financiers didn't like the medical bills on her record). We ended up having to pay a down-payment that was more than $1,000 more than we expected, and instead of staying the same, our monthly payment went up by $100. All of a sudden, we were in a different position; instead of wanting to sell my car, we had to sell it. If we don't sell it, we won't be able to afford to move in to the new apartment, and there's no way we'd be able to stay in the place we are now.

When I talked to my landlord about this, he confessed something truly scary: he was in a financial tough spot himself, and until a new renter paid him first/last/security, there was a good chance he wouldn't be able to pay us our deposit back.

So, now I have two weeks (less, really) in which to come up with approximately $3,000 out of thin air. There has been next to no interest in the apartment, and literally no interest in the car. I feel trapped, and it's driving me crazy. We can't afford to move, we can't afford to stay...we have nowhere to go. I really don't know what to do.

Any useful advice would be appreciated...it feels a little bit better to get it off my chest, but venting my feelings won't keep me from becoming homeless at the end of the month...

Man, that pic really brings out the "delightfully non-Euclidean" aspects of the place.

Where can I find you?

Matthew Morris wrote:

Hmm, Did Larry Craig approve this message?

Yeah, those bathroom solicitations can really tank your political career. :)

Well, I was using common sense on that one. :-)

That's gotta be a typo! I'm sure it should have said wizard level, stacking with any cleric levels, to boot. Just my guess.

Interestingly, the feat sets the DC as 10+Caster Level+CHA, whereas the necromancer ability specifically changes it to be 10+Wizard Level+CHA. Two things about this bug me:
1) They already changed the way the feat works for the necromancer...it should've been easy to make the change to the HD rule while they were at it.
2) This makes the ability even worse for wizards than it was. As a cleric, if you have some effect that increases your caster level (levels in a PrC perhaps), your Command Undead DC increases also. This doesn't work for a wizard.

Actually, it's worse than you think, Hogarth: if you go by a strict reading of the RAW, a wizard gains absolutely nothing by getting Command Undead as a bonus feat.

As a standard action, you can use one of your uses of channel negative energy to enslave undead within 30 feet. Undead receive a Will save to negate the effect. The DC for this Will save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your caster level + your Charisma modifier. Undead that fail their saves fall under your control, obeying your commands to the best of their ability, as if under the effects of control undead. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each day to resist your command. You can control any number of undead, so long as their total Hit Dice do not exceed your cleric level. If you use channel energy in this way, it has no other effect (it does not heal or harm nearby creatures). If an undead creature is under the control of another creature, you must make an opposed Charisma check whenever your orders conflict.

There is nothing in the wizard section or the errata that changes this part of the feat to key off your wizard level instead of cleric level.

So, a character that only takes levels of wizard (necromancer) will be able to control any number of undead, as long as their total HD don't exceed 0.

I realized this the other night when I switched over my 2nd level necromancer from Beta to PFRPG. He lost HP (we were using racial bonus in Beta), he lost ray of enfeeblement 1/day, his primary attack (grave touch) stopped doing damage, and he gained an ability that keys off a stat he wasn't built for (Charisma) and that does absolutely nothing by the RAW. Considering that I was already the least effective member of the party, I wasn't too happy.

I use two different methods. Usually, I'll just add another monster or two for the NPC to fight, or I'll increase the monster's HP if there's only one monster. To be honest though, I won't really keep track of the extra HP or the HP of the extra monster or the damage rolls of the NPC.

Basically, I want to give the illusion of the NPC being helpful (so the PCs don't regret teaming up) without having them make the encounter any easier. This allows the PCs to get the normal amount of XP.

However, I sometimes make an exception to this. If the NPC is supposed to be a hindrance or a hero, I'll play them that way (although, in the case of the hero NPC, the first tactic can often be used: just add an extra monster of a higher CR). If the PCs specifically go find and hire someone with a specific skill-set, you have to take that into account as well. I.E. they hire a rogue to help with traps or a ranger (favored enemy orcs) to help with orcs.
This can turn into a balancing act. If the NPC rogue disables the traps in a way that puts the PCs at no risk, that's hardly a challenge. I wouldn't give much XP for that, since they are trading XP for safety. On the other hand, let's assume that the ranger makes the orc battle really easy. Should they get reduced XP? What if instead of hiring the ranger, they spent the same money on a single-use anti-orc item that made the battle just as easy; would you reduce XP in that case?
When the PCs use their resources wisely, they should be rewarded. It's a hard thing to judge.

The original question was, how do I use a 3ED prestige class that has a skill pre-requisite after PFRPG's changes to skills. To do that, you have to adapt the prestige class in question. Papa-DRB got it exactly right.

Is "chibi" even a word??

Also, this shows up on page 3 of a Google Image search for "chibi tarrasque".

Also, slightly more on topic: I am a fan of "giant" or "advanced" templates over the old advancement by HD, because it's easier for me, the GM.

If there is no way built into the system for PCs to use(at the GM's discretion) the same templates as monsters, i am immediately very upset. A larger gap between the mechanics of a PC and a monster is a bad thing to me. It seems like a symptom of a weak game.
It really annoys me that in 4th Ed. if you fight a "monster" of your same race, especially as a monster race, they are very likely to have abilities that you could never possibly gain.

Papa-DRB wrote:

Not quite as simple as the above posters make it seem, but not really complicated either.

For example (completely made up!)
Prestige class requires 8 ranks in tumble, and 5 ranks in intimidate to qualify. If the class you are coming from has tumble as a class skill, then you would need to be 5th level to get the ranks in tumble (4+1+1+1+1). If intimidate was cross class, you would need to be 7th level to get the ranks in intimidate (2+.5+.5+.5+.5+.5+.5).

So if it is a class skill then ranks-3. If it is a cross class skill then (2*ranks)-3 are the formulas.

-- david
Papa.DRB

Not exactly. According to PFRG "If the skill you're using is a class skill (and you have invested ranks into that skill), you gain a +3 bonus on the check."

That's a bonus to check, not extra ranks. You need to stop thinking in 3ed "class/criss-cross class" ways :)

Personally, I hate hate hate hate cross-class penalties, and I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing that some PCs might be able to qualify a little easier than they used to. If the nature of the PrC makes it essential that you can only qualify at 7th level, then make "Character level 7 or higher" a prereq. Though, to be honest, I can't think of any PrCs off the top of my head that would need such a thing.

I stand by my previous statement: use the PRPG version of the PrC. If you only have the 3.x version, just drop the skill prereqs by 3.

Not an oversight, not really an issue.

Extremely simple.

You'd probably be better off inquiring at the product pages.

Pathfinder GM Screen
Pathfinder Bestiary

If he had a scroll of it, maybe he could make a Use Magic Device check to imitate a native of the plane he's on (since UMD is usually used for imitating class, alignment, etc).