Bjorn Turoque (the "j" is pronounced like a "y")
Plus, these also work without changing them...
I thought that was what email is for. (or voicemail)
1) email is free,
That might be the first time it didn't annoy me.
Well, it could be. One if my groups (the one I play with the most) uses the crit and fumble decks. We confirm fumbles just like we confirm crits, meaning that you roll again. If you still miss, its a fumble. If you hit in the confirmation, then its not a fumble. Thus, its easier for bad things to happen vs tough opponents, but rarely happens against weak ones.
EDIT: Deathquaker, that same group does that, though we don't call it "exploding". It's a rare event when someone confirms a crit with another crit, but when it happens, it is exciting for the whole table.
This would have been my suggestion.
If it were a bow, I would give an equivalent penalty (confirmed critic, but you need to spend a standard action to re-string). For a bludgeoning weapon, I'd confirm the crit, but say it got wet with blood or sweat or whatever, causing the character to drop it.
naw, the only downside of playing as a dwarf is roleplaying tha accent.
Yeah. Most people play dwarves with a Scottish accent, but since they come from Norse mythology, they should probably have a Norwegian accent. Yet, the Scottish tradition is so prevalent, anything else just sounds wrong.
To the op, I may be biased (check out my avatar pic.), but I disagree. You can't compare any of the core races to the aasimar, because the
I don't think its possible without a major redesign of the rules. To ballance out the issues others mentioned, you would have to make CASTING a skill as well, like knowledge. For example, Casting Arcane (Divination) or Casting Divine (Conjuration). But once you get to that point, you are basically talking about a classless system, or at best, a semi-classless system like M.E.R.P./Rolemaster/H.A.R.P. You are better off just picking a system that does most of what you want.
You could just give everyone (adults anyway) a free level in an NPC class, and call that adolescence. It's the trade everyone was taught by their parents or guardians while growing up. No one teaches their kid to be an adventurer.
With this method, your average NPC would end up with 2 HD, and the PCs might think its cool to take a rank in aristocrat (comes with some minor title or official govt appointment), or warrior or adept (for the combat advantages). Some might even select expert for the skill bonuses.
Of course, more HP to start still doesn't solve your problem at higher levels.
A siege would have to be like an imprisonment, not a traditional siege. As you said, they don't need food or water, so time is on their side.
Look at the Battle of Alesia, when Julius Caesar defeated Vercingetorix, for an example of what I mean. The Gauls were inside a walled city, and outnumbered the Romans. So Caesar ordered a wall... built around the wall. He encircled the entire city with another wall, defended by the Romans, effectively turning the city into a prison. Of course, the Gauls were forced to action by virtue of their larger army needing more food, but besieging and undead army could be just a safe(er) way to deal with the threat than attacking their castle.
I like them for the jokes, which can be udderly amusing. No bull!
But I would steer clear of calling a minotaur cowvalier "Sir Loin". They might look pasture human faults, but most minotaurs will get mad (cow) if they field like you are insulting them. They will have a beef with you till the day you die. It is farm more safe to moove away and hoof these jokes in a place where you can't be herd by the minotaur. As humans, most minotaus can taurus limb from limb. You better bellieve it! I'd steak my reputation on it. But hay, who am I to offer advice? I tend to cattle, er, prattle on.
...Ok, that last one was a stretch. I think I've milked about every pun I could out of this.
As someone pointed out... Don't think of hit points as the amount of damage you can take. Think of it more as your endurance. How long you can continue to duck and weave to avoid the real hits... Which are anything that takes you negative HP or causes bleed or some other condition.
However, if you truely don't like the HP concept (ill admit to prefering systems with health levels myself), feel free to change it. Just keep in mind that spells beyond 1st level will become MUCH more effective if you limit HP. To the point of game unballancing. So you will need to limit the damage output (and healing factor) as well. Maybe even standardize damage for all spells of the same level (single Target spells should do more damage than multi-target spells).
Then of course, if you do that, then resistances to energy types become more powerful if spells deal less damage, and DR becomes overpowered... You might end up rewriting a significant portion of the game, as each change has a butterfly effect on everything else.
Instead of rewriting a core mechanic like HP, I suggest looking for the D20 Game of Thrones RPG (not the current one in print, the out of print one), which did pretty much what you are describing. Characters got 1-3 HP when they leveled, based on their class. Of course, magic is far less common in Westros, so you don't have to worry about a TPK from a single fireball.
Yes alcohol is a poison. So are drugs. In fact many drugs (even legal ones) are modified forms of natural poisons. Other times, the line between poison and food (or drug) is really just a matter of how much was ingested, and there is no difference.
Alcohol and drugs should count as poisons for all game mechanics. They are toxins that modify the body chemistry.
You said it yourself. The bad guys don't know the party's low on fuel. If they went in with guns-a-blazin, then at least SOME of the badguys will think that this is a tough group. I'd let them get away with it once. Maybe the bad guys try to gather reinforcements before attacking, or only the people that think the party is low on power attacks... Which will ammount to a probing attack if any of them escape.
I don't think that they necessarily need to be the most powerful if they are the most numerous. There is roughly 500 years of history involving European colonialism, that shows you can still be the most powerful while being vastly outnumbered. Go back even further and the Mongols, Romans, and Macedonians also showed power and numerical superiority were two different things.
You can still have humans, elves, or even orcs be the most powerful race, even if half elves are more populous. The empire fell for a reason...
That is an iconic adventure. Real old school stuff, back in the day when Arneson and Gygax got along, if I'm not mistaken. I've always wanted to play that, its been talked about enough. I started with this edition of DnD ("basic" was not its official name, just something it acquired when "advanced" came out), but I never got to play Keep on the Borderlands.
To the OP, you really want to see a difference in editions, pick up "basic".
EDIT: Nope, Borderlands was published in '79, Arneson left TSR in '76 and didn't work with them again till '86. So, Borderlands came out at the height of the feud.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I understood you. As was I. During design, the orientation of the grid as it is laid on top of the map should have no impact on how weapons work... But obviously once mobile features are added (like the PCs and monsters), the grid should be fixed.
So back to the diagonal charge, if the grid were oriented along the path of movement, the defender would get that AOO, so there is no reason that the same movement should bypass the AOO just because of an abstraction that doesn't actually exist in the character's world.
EDIT: Komoda, that may be (I don't have the book with me) but I think it jives with RAI and common sense.
...and yet, here is where I would disagree with you. As Benchak pointed out, the whole grid system is just to aid players and GMs when playing. It doesn't really matter how that grid is placed. You could take a picture of a room, lay a grid over it, and the weapons you use would work just the same as if you picked the grid back up and rotated it 45 degrees before placing it back down over that same room. In that angled hallway, or an angled charge, I would argue (or rule if I was the GM) that the mover DOES provoke an attack, because they are not utilizing the 5 ft step to cancel the provoke. So, when I answered the OP above, I was being specific to the 5ft step, not all movement.
I agree with this. I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The perspective should be that of the Target, not the attacker, or even the perspective of the ground or other bystanders. The Target moves, PROVOKING an attack of opportunity. The Target PROVOKES this attack, whether or not someone is in a position to take advantage of it. It is his action, just like many other things that a character can do, that causes the attack of opportunity. The 5 ft step movement (and, not to confuse the issue, but also the withdraw) let you bypass the provoke that you normally make when moving. In your scenario, the Target moved 5 ft FROM HIS/HER PERSPECTIVE, and therefore did not provoke the attack.
Prestige Classes give other benefits, so gaining the original class's cool features in addition to the PrC is too much. It might be easier to think of it an an alternate list of "cool tricks". You get those instead, because you chose to advance in that class instead. When the PrC indicates an increase, you get spells known/spell levels/caster levels only.
Somebody went through the trouble of creating a battlemap for this. They are awesome and much appreciated.
When I ran this, I cut out each room so that the players had a kind of "fog of war". As they progressed, I placed the next "puzzle piece" on the table. I recommend a large supply of paperclips or tape for this approach. Also, from experience, write the room number on the back of each piece.
Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:
What he said.
MANY poisons are used to developed medicines, especially anesthesia.
Poison is a tool. It can be used in hunting, much as a bow, crossbow, or gun. Some Amazonian tribes use tree frog poison in their blow darts. So, like a bow, crossbow, or gun, it all comes down to how it is used. Yet, of all these, only poison has the possibility to benefit the "victim" (as a medicine), so by that standard, it would be LESS evil than a bow, crossbow, or gun.
Contrast these items with a sword, which basically has only 1 purpose...
Poison is also a weapon, certainly. But depending on the type of poison, it can be seen a more humane way to kill someone. That's why some states in the US use lethal injection when carrying out the death penalty. Socrates was sentenced to death by poison, and carried out the sentence himself.
That said, modern armies are prohibited from using poison munitions by the Geneiva Convention... Even though many, including the USA, keep stockpiles of them.
Since you are looking for advice, I'll give mine. I would rule poison as a "grey area", much like necromancy. Not exactly evil, but certainly frowned upon. Many historical cultures viewed killing by poison as cowardly, because it could deny your opponent the chance to retaliate. Interestingly, denying your opponent a chance to retaliate could be seen as good tactics in military campaigns. I guess that's national honor vs. personal honor.
I'll close by saying that there are many types of poison, and some of them are painless. So it depends on the type of poison, and how it is used.
I agree, class doesn't matter.
Believe it or not, I actually DID have a merchant character. I sold wine, but I neither harvested the grapes, nor fermented the wine. I simply purchased it from a well known and respected monastery (in a dangerous part of the wilderness) and transported it to the nearby cities to sell to innkeepers. I was a sorcerer (high charisma class), with some ranks in Profession (Teamster) to drive the wagons, and Diplomacy (to negotiate price).
Many merchants don't actually make/grow what they are selling. Many merchants in a medieval setting just buy-transport-sell their products. Look to the Silk Road, Hanseatic League, or the British East India company for real world examples.
To me, power gaming is when players min-max their character. That is, minimize combat penalties (typically by using charisma as a dump-stat) while analyzing and maximizing feat and weapon combinations to get the best attack/most damage possible. See the DPR Olympics thread for examples of power gaming.
That said, I don't think power gaming is inherently bad, as long as that is the goal everyone agrees on before play starts. Otherwise, if only 1 or 2 people are doing it, it is disruptive to the group.
Right. That's how EVERYONE learns a language. When my daughter was an infant, everything I said was gibberish. It was only through repetition and association that she learned English. It's also how I learned Spanish (and some French) as an adult. Repetition and association. Currently, Klingon sounds like Garblefraggle... But if I took the time, maybe I'd learn what Garblefraggle means in Klingon. (I'm not going to take the time).
I actually feel familiars are a bigger achillies heel. Useful, yes. Especially those that fly and/or talk. But then, so is an item that let's you spontaneously cast. Unfortunately, familiars are much more visible, and vulnerable targets than items, and require much more effort to ensure their safety.
But that may be a topic for another thread.
Does anyone else wish that the sorcerer and wizard had different spell lists, if only to stop this endless debate?
To the OP: For my play style, I prefer sorcerers. Also, my DM loves low-magic, low-money campaigns, so constantly scribing scrolls (or even finding spellbooks to copy) is difficult, making the sorcerer a superior choice for this particular DM.
However, one thing wizards have, which no one has yet mentioned, is the ability to bond with an object, instead of a familiar. I like this option, and it gives wizards some of the flexibility of a sorcerer, maybe more flexibility, depending on the size of your spellbook.
Though, I see (and sympathize) with the OP's point. Living in the US, I didn't realize other countries had this issue in their editions.
Also, sorry, but I'd ask that the Klingon edition wait until after we see a Tolkien Elvish translation. Also, Huttese... Just sayin.
Good point, though I'd say a Clydesdale would be pushing it. Don't forget the height of the saddle, the fact that your "bottom" is NOT at your center of gravity (so more than half your height will be above the saddle), and the natural up-down motion of riding. So, while it would be possible to ride a clydesdale in room with a 10ft ceiling, the rider would be hugging the neck of the mount to avoid striking his head. However, clydesdales are draft horses. This scenario is more plausable with another, more likely type of horse. So, in theory, riding inside a dungeon COULD work, with the right horse.
Stairs shouldn't be a problem. I'm not a great rider, and I've ridden a horse in some VERY rough terrain, up and down inclines, and across gaps in the rocks. I was nervous as heck, but I did it, and I would think the evenly spaced stairs would be much easier to ride up or down.
I like the class too. Sure, there are other classes that can probably dish out the damage faster or better, but the cavalier is fun, and can hold his own in a melee.
Not to self-promote or anything... Ok maybe just a little... But there are 3rd party books available if you want more orders. "Knights of France", available here on Paizo's website, and other places, is a campaign sourcebook. However, it includes a decent amount of "crunch"... several cavalier orders based on historical real-world knightly orders (and 1 fantasy one), plus several other knightly options (traits, purebred mounts, jousting, etc).
I would be willing to bet some other publishers have also taken a shot at cavalier orders. A quick search for "cavalier" on this website shows one by Green Ronin, though I've never read it so I couldn't tell you if there are orders or not.
My favorite spell is Alter Self, though the Pathfinder version is not quite as cool as the 3rd ed. Version. Still, I've gotten a lot of mileage out of that spell. A lot.
Also, while magic missile and fireball are both good and iconic, they are not my favorites. I now make a point to avoid those spells. I'm just bored/tired of them. Give me a chill touch or vampiric touch instead.
Of course, there is always teleport. I like to play hoarders, who squirrel away trophies and loot at some "home" location. This let's me do that without carring that stuff around.
Other than those 4, my mind is blank. Maybe ill think of a few more later.
As I said, I agree with you, for my game. However, I disagree that "modern" is the inherent assumption for anything in a game involving pre-steam technology. I'm saying essentially "to each his own". We are obviously not going to convince each other of anything.
So to the OP: you have my opinion, but ultimately its your table. If you don't like it, make it clear to the player, without being vindictive or retaliatory. Ultimately, EVERYONE is there to have fun, and being extra harsh on a player to teach them some lesson or another (like throwing extra, unplanned encounters at them to show them how much they messed up) is wrong. It destroys the fun.
I'm not seeing anything saying "this game assumes a moral code from culture X, time period Y.". In fact, it implies the opposite...
" Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other."
So, while I agree with you FOR MY OWN GAME, the core rules are specifically written to be generic enough to be played in different genres/styles/cultures/eras. Every table has a unique story to tell.
I use modern ethics as well, because its easy and familiar, and there is no reason to complicate the game with a history lecture, but I disagree that "the game" does, because every campaign is different. Is there a page reference for where it is presented in the rules?
Yes, he made an assumption, but it was a reasonable one (ill explain that more in a moment). However, hasn't EVERY poster made their own assumptions about this situation, namely assuming a modern moral code. What is or is not moral changes over time and with society. In the Late Republic of Rome (up to the time of the Caesars), it was entirety moral to torture slaves, and sources say a slave could not be a witness in a trial unless the confession/statement was extracted with torture. What is or is not moral changes.
Now, as to why I feel Mysterious Strangers assumption was the most relevant... Because we were talking about chivalry. Chivalry was INVENTED in medieval Europe. The name itself is derived from the French word for knight, chevalier. Chevalier : cavalier. However, its important not to confuse chivalry with honor. They are similar, but distinct concepts. The original code of chivalry did not apply to commoners. Even after barons and counts and other nobles took to acting like knights and started following chivalry, commoners still fell outside the bounds of chivalry, and it was up to the individual knight to determine how to treat them.
So, to answer the OP's question:
Alignment: the cavalier PROBABLY acted within his alignment, depending on the local laws (ie, if they faced execution anyway, then he just greased the wheels of justice)
Chivalry: it depends on the definition, historical or modern pulp fantasy.
Edict: ah, now here, he may have messed up. He needs to show mercy. The key is, what were the alternatives? If the faced a jail sentence or a fine, then no, it wasn't mercy. If he faced being drawn and quartered, then yes, it was mercy. But was it showing ENOUGH mercy. I'd say probably not, but its up to you to decide.