Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Genie

Kain Darkwind's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,710 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,710 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
The fact we got an evil campaign before we got a dragon themed, fey/first world, dwarf themed, distant worlds, Arcadia, dark tapestry, Southern Garund, dinosaur/megafauna, lovecraftian, Vudra, Linnorm Kings, Azlanti/aboleth, Sarusan, under the sea, or a real Tian Xia AP is disappointing.

Really? Disappointing? One of them has to come first. Ignoring the fact that nearly a third of these have been done and another third have been featured as key elements if not the theme of other APs, if you considered 'under the sea' to be the least desirable of those you mentioned...

"The fact we got an under the sea campaign before we got a dragon themed, fey/first world, dwarf themed, distant worlds, Arcadia, dark tapestry, Southern Garund, dinosaur/megafauna, lovecraftian, Vudra, Linnorm Kings, Azlanti/aboleth, Sarusan, or a real Tian Xia AP is disappointing."

Spreading it on a little thick.

I've always found the execution of the AP to matter far far more than the subject matter.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Gosh, if people don't like Hell's Vengeance, what are they going to do? It's not like there are a ton of other APs out there to run that might cover more enjoyable concepts for their group...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Damon Griffin wrote:

How many timelines/branches are we even dealing with so far?

Timeline 1 - In the original timeline, Nora Allen lives, Henry Allen doesn't go to jail and Barry is raised by them, though somehow he still ends up becoming a forensic scientist working for CCPD. The particle accelerator is actually built by Harrison Wells and goes online in 2019. It explodes immediately, Barry becomes The Flash.

Timeline 2 - Barry killed as a child.

Timeline 3 - We join Timeline 3 already in progress as Future Flash #2 (more on that name later) arrives to intercept Thawne and save his young self. We don't yet know how old Barry was when he made this trip or how he made it. He fights with Thawne, gets his younger self out of danger and...then it's not clear what happens to him. Perhaps he had a fixed amount of time he could be in the past, and time ran out. In this timeline he doesn't have any other [red] Flash to interact with. In any case, as soon as Thawne is foiled, he kills Nora in a fit of rage, runs out of the Allen house and finds he's run out of juice. He can't get back home without making certain changes to history, so he locates Harrison Wells, kills him and his wife and takes over Well's identity, thereby spawning...

Timeline 4 - This is the timeline we were in when the show started. Nora dead, Henry in jail, Barry raised by Joe West. "Wells" builds the particle accelerator and brings it online in 2014 rather than 2019. The explosion affects the set of metahumans we're familiar with, rather than those who were affected in the original timeline. Along the way Barry and company discover that an adult Barry Allen was present in 1999, and assume it's Flash-2014 but as will later become apparent, it's Future Flash #2 instead. Stuff happens over the course of the season. Eventually Cisco discovers that Wells is Thawne and is killed around the time Mardon unleashes a tsunami on Central City and Barry runs one day back in time, creating...

Timeline 5 - With only one day overlap, it's not as dramatic a shift as the other branches have created, but the TV viewer never sees any more of where Timeline 4 would have gone from that day forward. There's no tsunami this time, and Cisco lives but Barry learns some things he wouldn't otherwise have known and Cisco retains subconscious memories of Timeline 4. Acting on this knowledge they learn about "Wells" more quickly than they might otherwise have, gain bits of knowledge about the (really, "a") future and force a confrontation. Thawne convinces Barry to take a chance on traveling to the past to try and save his mother. Barry runs around inside the particle accelerator, taps into the Speed Force at the snail's pace of Mach 2, and arrives in 1999 as Future Flash #1, branching to...

Timeline 6 - Flash-2015 is Future Flash #1 because his departure point from his own "present" is earlier than that of Future Flash #2. He is silently cautioned by Future Flash #2 not to interfere with what Future Flash #2 does. The scenario between young Barry, Nora, Henry, Reverse Flash and ure Flash #2 plays out just as it did in Timeline 3 except for Future Flash #2 waving off Future Flash #1. Then Barry says his goodbyes and returns to 2015 to stop Thawne from returning to the 23rd Century. There is no [known] timeline where Thawne does return to his own time from this point, but it's likely he would have managed it somewhere doen the line in Timeline 6 if Eddie had not sacrificed himself to create...

Timeline 7 - This is where the whole mess threatens to collapse. We need a comic book pseudoscientific explanation for how time alteration works for this show, to explain how, if Eobard Thawne is never born, any of the timelines from 2 forward ever occurred. Remember that Timeline 1 still includes Barry becoming The Flash and disappearing in The Crisis. The existence of Barry-as-Flash plus some set of Star Labs-created metahumans is covered. The real Harrison Wells can do in Timeline 1 much of what Thawne-as-Wells did starting in Timeline 3. But if Eobard Thawne were truly removed from existence, as his pixelization suggested, that [b[should[/b] have generated...

Timeline 8 - which would be largely indistinguishable from the early part of Timeline 1. It would differ in that Barry would never encounter Eobard Thawne as Reverse Flash, even post-2015.

In both Timelines 1 and 8, sometime after 2015 Barry becomes head of the CCPD Forensics Unit, builds the Gideon AI and becomes a founding member of the Justice League.

Additions/corrections?

You have split the timeline in ways that did not occur. Timeline 3 and 4 are the same timeline...there is no timeline in which Nora is killed, but Zoom is not trapped and does not kill Wells.

Timeline 6 likewise is a false distinction. We do not know that Red Flash never encountered Maroon Flash, in fact, it seems likely that he did.

Also, Timeline 2 never occurs (that we see.)

We have Timeline 1 (Barry becomes Red Flash, with parents, Zoom fights him, Red Flash (thus far) never returned from his saving Young Barry)

Timeline 2 (Barry becomes Maroon Flash, with West as adoptive parent, is taught by Zoom/Wells, etc, aka The Show)

Timeline 2b. (Aborted timeline with tsunami and Cisco dying)

Timeline 3 (Reverse Flash never exists* due to Eddie killing himself.)

*This almost certainly leads to a creation paradox that sparks Zoom's interest in killing Flash, or Eddie's body is restored and he becomes Cobalt Blue, leading to the eventual creation of Zoom.

We will have to see how the temporal vortex plays out, because it is possible that Barry gets his mom back if Reverse Flash is never able to exist and thus kill her. We might end up back on Timeline 1.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow, talk about loosely based.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And then had Zoom react like Barry did, shifting into high speed, and pulling the bullet out of the air before it could penetrate his flesh. Good thing Eddie already had plenty of experience in shooting at Zoom and made the right call.

Also, this isn't a real cliffhanger. Go ahead and slog through ten seasons of Smallville if you want cliffhangers in your season finale. Every time.

Everything that was built up throughout the season, and even the episode here got resolved. Sure, there was a temporal vortex that showed up at the end, but that poses no more questions than "How is Arrow going to continue if he's happy now and Ras is dead?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Legend Lore can be cast again to turn incomplete information into more complete information. It points that out in the spell description. The rule of thumb it gives indicates that at some point characters become legendary, I don't personally care what that point is, the overall point is that at some level of "high level play" you become a valid target for the spell "Tell me everything you know about this person", including "where can I start looking for them" (the places where they perform their key deeds) and "what's their equipment" (the major magic items they wield).

I'm unfamiliar with that spell. Legend Lore certainly isn't that spell. At best, it gives you a legend.

What enhancements did Excalibur have? That's pretty much the iconic magic sword right there, and we have at least three different published d20 versions of it. You get legends, not game stats. And that's if the item is at hand. You get information enough to seek it out (sounds like a quest) if the item is not at hand. Legend Lore doesn't solve mysteries, it sends the casters (or their minions) on adventures seeking out those mysteries. That's like the exact opposite of a spell that ruins high level adventures. It literally generates them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Technically Kain, Dekalinder was saying that no other GMs [or at least a tiny microcosm of GMs] allow those spells to be used as written Admittedly even I dislike Simulacrum and Demiplane shenanigans, but I certainly have always permitted the use of Dominate Person as the spell is actually written.

No. Not once you understand the unstated citation implicit in everyone's posts here. He hasn't said anything about your games, because he can't. He's simply not qualified to speak on your games, anymore than I am. So in his experience, Simulacrum and Dominate person are DM stuff. In my experience, I just authorized the wizard PC in my game to utilize non-combat wealth to make simulacra, because the spell won't really be impacting combats and such. In Anzyr's world, simulacra are a stepping stone to infinite free wishes.

Now, we can argue about what the designers intend, or what the rules actually allow in the most legalistic manner, but essentially, no one discusses the hobby in a vacuum. It is always informed by our experience.

Really, it's rather surprising that a hobby based around a ruleset that explicitly allows the GM to both change or ignore actual rules and make up rulings on the spot rules for uncovered situations has the sort of connected and cohesive fanbase that it does. But such is DnD. Or Pathfinder, these days.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Seerow wrote:
Quote:

Create demiplan and Simulacrum are DM spell needed for world building. It's the same reason why dominate person is in the CRB, it's needed for the DM to set up some of the classical plots. You are not actually going to permit a 9th level caster to go around with 40 dominated people.

[Citation Needed]

Not really, unless you have failed to comprehend what this sort of communication entails.

Dekalinder is sharing things from his games' perspective. As are you, presumably, as am I, and Kirth, and even Anzyr with his DC 10 local shopping sprees.

These perspectives might be pertinent to your own, or they might be foreign. But putting a disclaimer of 'in my experience' is rather pointless. No one is offering anything other than their experience or second hand accounts of someone else's experience. Some people control armies at 6th level. Some still can't get past the guard to the library to check out a book. Some people have mages run this mother. Some have them scrambling in the dirt for their components.

There is no citation needed, because everyone's citation is "in the games with which I'm familiar." Whether they've sat down to play those games, or just theorycrafted them up in their own minds. That's the citation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
The idea of teleportation inspiring lawlessness... is completely alien to me
Larry Niven has writing about that specific topic for the last 40 years.

I like Flash Crowd. It's a good story. Two things about it though.

1. It is set in a world where teleportation is cheap and easy. No 9th level wizardly studies, no 'needs to have visited' limits. See interesting news story, activate, boom, you're there. Commoner 1s have teleport is different than wizard 9 and sorcerer 10s have teleport.

2. It is one possible outcome. It is not the most probable outcome, and most importantly, it is not the only possible outcome. Most of the discussions on teleport and its effect upon society ignore that possible effects are not mandatory effects. For every world that fails to invent ships because teleport circle works better for their economy and trade, there are a hundred more where ships and teleport coincide.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It seems to me that defining the amount of time IC a skill check requires (by area searched) is not a bad thing.

I use 1 roll (or take 10, or take 20) for a room, regardless of how many 5 ft. squares or 10 ft. squares it has. The definition simply provides the length of time that search/perception check took.

Having someone roll ten checks for each 10 ft. square in a hallway as they walk down it would be madness. But knowing that a move action covers a 10 ft. square, I can say that it takes 10 rounds (1 minute) to search the hallway. 20 minutes to take 20 for the hallway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

James, a fantastic rakshasa caste system was implemented back in the early day of Pathfinder, in AP 9, if I recall correctly. Later, in the Bestiary 3, the system reappeared, along with different rakshasas. Basic rakshsa are born as adhura, and become darshaka or higher upon reaching adulthood.

What caste (or range of castes) would you put the different rakshasa (Raktavarna, Dandasuka, Marai, Tataka, Maharaja) in?

Castes
pagala (traitors)
goshta (food)
adhura (novices)
darshaka (servants)
paradeshi (rakshasa-kin)
hakima (lords)
samrata (lords of lords)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The movie is hard to separate from the real life events that claimed Paul's life. There is a lot of emotion built up within the film. The cast has enormous chemistry with each other, and a blow like that isn't going to go unnoticed.

I've seen a lot being made about the racially diverse cast and gender parity, but what really makes it work is that it clearly isn't trying to have these things...it just does. It's the difference between having black friends and a white guy saying "I need to go make a black friend." It's obvious when shows or films try to properly ratio out the mix of minority characters (as it is when they change everyone into white folk). Fast and Furious built this quality very naturally.

However, on its own, the film is still a great action movie. Like Pete mentions, the series has clearly built up from its roots as a local, low level criminal/cop story, into something clearly higher level. The jumps, survival of characters through clearly impossible situations...this is right out of high level Dungeons and Dragons games. Falling damage, environmental effects...these are minor hiccups for the Toretto Family. I don't think that it is a coincidence that Vin Diesel plays DnD.

Moreover, the film manages to tie events of the previously loosely connected Tokyo Drift tightly into the storyline. It's something so obvious, but simultaneously way more clever than one would give this series credit for being.

And finally, the ending. Wow. I thought it was going to go in a different direction, but the way they did it was perfect. Not big on public crying myself, but I was choking up. The girl next to me was bawling.

If you haven't seen the series, this is still a fun action flick, but you aren't going to get the full impact of it unless you watch it after seeing the previous installments.

RIP Paul. And thanks to everyone involved with the series. A real emotional ride.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thanael wrote:
Still an interesting topic. Related to NPC level demographics which are a pet peeve of mine. Unless it's anadolescent/young adult I would assume 2-3 levels in an NPC class. Higher levels if older.

Well, I agree, I tend to assign 1 NPC level per 10 years of age on average. However, I was just trying to reconcile the PF prices with the City of Brass ones...it is entirely likely that PF folks pay for cheap slaves.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

City of Brass has the price of a slave being their HD x Cha X Str score in BP, which is 5gp. Obviously that's not official rules, but using that as a base line. Assuming NPC levels are half that, I'll use gp instead of BP for a commoner NPC class.

Household slave = 1HD x 7 Str x 7 Cha = 49 GP.
Hard labor = 1HD x 12 Str x 8 Cha = 96 gp
Common slave = 1HD x 11 Str x 7 Cha = 77 gp.

Not exact, but close enough. But since it doesn't say, I would assume a 20th level fighter with base 18 in all stats. Perfectly obedient to your character.

Edit: And didn't see the thread necro. Curses.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If fighters can't swing their sword at someone while moving without having a feat, spellcasters sure as hell can't touch attack someone without it either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm running a weekly online Savage Tide camapaign. We're at level 15, it has run for more than six years. We are currently between chapters 6 (Lightless Depths) and 7 (City of Broken Idols).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
So... Would say everything else in that book is AP-specific?

No, but irrelevant to the portions of the book that are spelled out as AP specific.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Falcar wrote:
Why is the tarrasques regeneration worse than fast healing? Nothing can beat his regeneration so it's like fast healing save that it can bring him back from "death"

You've literally answered your own question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DualJay wrote:
To be fair, a wizard would keep his book in a waterproof bag just like a fighter would maintain his sword. And such statements are irrelevant anyways, as this wizard exists solely for this encounter, and had no chance to say something beforehand.

No, that's not fair. I used to be a soldier. We relied on our gear to keep us alive. And yet you still have plenty of idiots who lose their comsec, night vision goggles, rifles, etc. Plenty of them don't clean their weapons. Tons of them don't waterproof their books.

Unless it happens IC, it doesn't happen. Including poop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Also, as per RAW, his CR is only 1 lower without his equipment. So CR 19 instead of 20.

Which is ridiculous, but CR wasn't really designed for this scenario.

It is ridiculous. Also untrue. His CR is 1 lower if reduced from PC wealth to heroic NPC wealth.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
TOZ wrote:
My PCs aren't monsters.
Maybe it's about exploiting the reach of enemy monsters. To get in melee range you have to eat up an AoO, and unless they have Combat Reflexes you can now do a combat maneuver with impunity
Or your PC's can turn into monsters. A simple Alter Self can change you into a Sewer Troll with a reach of 10' with it's claws.

Polymorph rules are actually fairly unclear about giving reach, and nonstandard reaches are definitely not listed as an ability allowed for alter self.

So the jury may be out on that one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:
Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.

But that's just my point, wraith - those situations I was talking about involve the DM being a jerk. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether some Rule Zero line in the rulebook gives him whatever power he chooses.

As said before, there is a great many situations between the level-headed guy making a ruling on an unclear situation and letting you reverse an action since it was based on that ruling (or making it near the end of the session where the difference is trivial), and the other guy making up houserules on the spot and refusing to compromise at all because he doesn't know the actual rules of the game, and has the "right" to make them up as he sees fit.

And thus, I am arguing against the blanket statement that it makes a bad player to not always accept everything coming from a GM's mouth as gospel.

As far as 'blanket statements' go, you've now mischaracterized and misquoted mine.

I said that there is a time when you need to stop arguing with the GM and accept the ruling. You are welcome to look at any of my previous posts within which that very thing was stated, multiple times.

If you are referring to someone else's blanket statement, make that clear, since my name is the only one that has come up thus far with the terms "blanket statement" or "all in his head" applied.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ruthlessness. Integrity. Consistency. Imagination. Descriptive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In movies, I think my favorite villain might be the Devil, from Devil's Advocate. Or from the Prophecy. Potentially also Gabriel from the Prophecy. Or from Legion. I seem to have a thing for fallen angels.

From video games, Rubicant is pretty up there...along with Golbez, Magus and Kefka...Square did real good villains back in the day.

In TV, there is none more horrific than Griffith of Berserk, in my mind. That one really hurt, especially since in my first watch through, I missed the first episode that might have let me know that was going to be the end result. Lionel Luthor of Smallville might also take a place.

Books, I'm going to go with Quar and Kaug, from Rose of the Prophet. They were this close to taking over the world. And they would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those darn djinn.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Eh...on this particular matter, I agree with darkheyr.

I DM weekly, and put in a minimum of ten hours of prep time on a low week. I've co-authored a d20 supplement that was very rules heavy. I am happy to discuss the game given even the smallest of pretexts. I've got about twenty years invested in the game at this point. I read through five to seven different d20 sourcebooks every week.

And yet when my players start trying to smash through a wall, I still have to go look up material hit points, and whether or not hardness is applied before half damage for energy. And I have to go look things up if they start busting out the hero points and rerolls and whatnot. Or have Coriat do it.

There is a gap between 'minimum rules knowledge required to play the game' and 'rules lawyer level grasp of the rules.' And a single read through of the CRB isn't going to get you across it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Nope, screaming is a free action, not allowed.

You obviously haven't seen all the motion that goes into it. "Speaking is a free action" does not cover this particular process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Never. Nauseated only allows move actions. You can use it to stagger away or you can use it to puke or you can use it to scream at your boyfriend who is patiently holding your hair out of your face. Nothing else.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nobody is writing it, so no one has to organize it. I'm trying to draw out conversation on something that strikes me as interesting, but isn't immediately apparent to me.

For instance, I suspect the choices in the first MC were made based on popularity and likelihood of being immediately useful to the game. I would bet that more games need multiple different orc statblocks than treant ones.

But, for some games, multiple treant statblocks would be a boon. And I'm curious, for those who put treant on their top 20 list, what sort of treants are you expecting to see?

Now, for demons, the issue is different...we literally have more different demon types than we have orc statblocks in the Monster Codex. You could probably do a Demon Codex. So again, I'm curious how one envisions the demon entries, when you wouldn't even be able to put a single statblock for each demon in, let alone multiple.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Having taken over for a GM myself, and having handed over the GM post to someone else... nope. Fallacy. If no one else is willing to GM that might hold some sort of limited truth to it, but only then.

It becomes the new GM's game. Even if you are following notes that explain that Lavinia and Vanthus Vanderboren are really aspects of Demogorgon, you now have the responsibility for everything in the world. You may make calls that I wouldn't. You may make calls that I would. But no matter how closely it resembles my game, it is no longer mine. If you decide that the Aventi priestess is just using the party's wizard as a setup to an aquatic invasion, that's your call, no matter how far it might have been from where I was intending to take that thread. If I hand off a half woven blanket to you, the half you weave is 'yours', even if the blanket as a whole is 'ours'.

But even from that standpoint, the game was handed off BY THE GM, to his or her handpicked successor.

Quote:
And a GM has to find new players first, too - they do not magically appear in complete groups while that other complete group can't possibly hope to find replacement.

Completely irrelevant to the presence or lack of ownership.

Quote:
Plus, as to his game not going on: A campaign can be salvaged right from the point where you left off. It might lead elsewhere as the original GM intended, but that's not a problem by itself.

Not a problem, simply not the same game.

Quote:
Completely new players on the other hand mean you basically need to start a new campaign. You can't just 'drop them in' where the other guys left off.

Yeah you can. Done it for years now. To paraphrase Tim Curry's Cardinal Richelieu, "Players come and players go, but one thing remains the same. And that, is me."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was running a game in Oerth, but really liked Golarion. But I also longed for the RP of my old Army days, back at the dawn of 3.0, in the Scarred Lands and Freeport.

So I sort of smushed them all together.

There were a few issues. At the outset, I didn't realize from the Amedio Jungle maps we were using, that there was actually a huge mass of land between a theoretical port in Varisia that send the PCs across the ocean to Sasserine. And although I kept the two moons of Oerth, I didn't want to keep the geosystem rather than solar system, so that used Golarion.

Elves have a bad rep. Orcs and goblinoids get to live in Freeport. I mean Sasserine. They aren't well liked, but they aren't murdered on sight.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

The rules can declare the Gamemaster to be the supreme god of the universe for all I care. That still does not make it his game at the table, but our game. The GM is on the same team. There is no player versus gamemaster. He is as much responsible for the fun at the table as everyone else, and his role as a gamemaster does not give him any leeway in behaviour.

We're not talking rules here, we are talking social interaction - and that can't be regulated in a rulebook.

Quote:
And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.
You seem to be quite hung up that the only choice is for the player to move on or quit - as opposed to the GM getting his act together before the party decides they need a new GM. Or, of course, the GM walks away because he can't cope with whatever it is his players are doing.

Because that's the DM's choice. We're discussing rules lawyers, despite the derail. The DM's choices don't really matter for that. The DM can decide to give in. He can decide he is right, and that is the way the game is going to go until he decides differently. He can decide to kick the offending player out of the game. He can decide to ignore the argument and start running the game, pretending the arguer is not actually there.

The DM actually has a lot more choices in the scenario, because despite statements otherwise, it is the DM's game. Without him the game does not go on. Any single player cannot make that statement, only as a whole, and even then, if replaced with other players, the DM's game goes on, while they have to find another one. It's an imperfect analogy, but consider Paizo, and their customer base. If some customers leave Paizo, Paizo's products continue. If enough of Paizo's customers leave, they shut down, but then no one gets Paizo products. As long as enough remain that Paizo continues to want to produce their products, those who remain will be able to get them.

I'm not saying that the DM can't abuse their greater amount of social capital. I'm simply pointing out that they possess such. You seem to be under the impression that they are equal, and that to point it out is to undermine some principle of fairness.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've done precisely the opposite of put blame on the player for the DM's actions. I've spelled out multiple times that the DM is bad, that I don't agree with their actions, etc.

But, and this is where you seem to refuse to move on past, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. In fact, right there in the PRD, under 'getting started'

"Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."

You seem to be hung up on the shared experience and all the players, etc. And I'm saying that final arbitrator means just that. Once they've contributed their thoughts when the rules were in doubt, we turn back to final arbitration.

And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.

I don't see why anyone would think that prolonging it was the ideal choice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Why are your requests always so mechanically specific, Dragon? For instance, why does it matter (to you) if a dragonewt is related to a dragon or not in the game? When you have a mimic, why do you need another monster that takes the form of a monster and is of the creature type aberration? Or monstrous humanoid, as odd as that seems?
Because the little details are some of the most fun aspects to design of a monster, essentially.

Nope, that isn't what I was asking. Compare Dragon's first set of requests to his response to me.

"More monsters that take the form or resemble objects and are of the creature types of aberration, magical beast, vermin, ooze, or monstrous humanoid."

That's very mechanically specific, but it doesn't really tell us much about any such creature that would grow from such a request. It seems bizarre to really want a vermin that changes shape over say a creature that changes shape. Now, compare that to:

"Poisonous vermin that were breed to look like coins would be fun ether as a single creature or a swarm."

That isn't even the best idea he listed there, but it is still tons more evocative than the original statement, which implies that the important facet for this creature is that it is a vermin rather than an outsider or such. The distinction between humanoid and monstrous humanoid has never been the defining characteristic of a creature.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Aboleth are arguably the strongest candidates of the 'odd' monsters for such treatment. I could see multiple different versions, maybe putting the veiled master in as their 'affiliated monster'

But for instance, what sort of treant statblocks would you expect to see? Would you think the treant section to fill up the same page count as fire giants or drow?

Etc.

Basically, I wasn't saying "you shouldn't have X in the Monster Codex II", I was asking how you would implement it, because it doesn't seem as intuitive as say, hobgoblins and orcs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Moore's Bond was LG. The Adam West Batman of Bonds.

Dalton's seemed pretty CG. He wasn't operating in any fashion other than revenge for his friend and wife, but he didn't put innocents in danger and went out of his way to save those he could.

Craig's is on that corner between N/NE and CN. While ruthless, he doesn't peg me as trying to harm for harm's sake, simply not holding much above his own goals. I'd go with NE.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

While just about everyone here agreed that most cases don't need immediate rules discussion or are easily resolved now or later... At some point things stop being that simple. If a GM choses to ignore a clear-cut rule to the detriment of the player, it will piss that player off - and the resulting argument simply cannot be laid squarely on the player's shoulder.

He is not a 'bad player' because he doesn't just shrug and accept the DM being an idiot - and you implying this is the direct cause of the argument.

Including me, yes.

But like Coriat (may I introduce my group's rules lawyer?) has said, filibustering the game is the worst option. No one, least of all me, thinks that the DM is behaving in a proper manner, making the wrong call, and then changing things on the fly so that he is right, you are wrong, especially at the cost of your character. I would not play with that DM further.

But you might. And the guys at your table who aren't losing the character tonight might. So I can't say walking out is the only option. But refusing to let anyone else play until you get your way isn't a good option by any definition. No matter how wrong the DM is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vycamros Chandler wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?
It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.

That has not been my experience at all. I am the DM in my group now, but I have seen bickering and arguing consume the entire night in other games that I have played. To me, that's not fun at all, and so I do not return to those games. But also, in my own games, there is a point at which I say, "this is the temp ruling, we'll figure it out after the game". And at that point, I expect all arguments to stop for the remainder of the session. We have limited time to play, and I'd rather take the group through the gold strewn floors of Opar than bicker over whether or not you can use a swift action while nauseated.

Moreover, I did not "put the concept forward". It was in specific response to the disagreement that was offered against what I thought to be a fairly inoffensive statement (which I didn't make, someone else did), that you make your case, and when the DM rules, you stop.

None of that is 'just in my head'. It is present here in this thread and present in the actual gaming community, which I know encompasses more than my personal experience. But also more than yours or any other single member of the community's.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Out of curiosity, those of you asking for demons (and other similar fiends), how do you imagine them fitting into a Monster Codex format?

The Monster Codex took one creature, and provided a bunch of different statblocks with that creature and class levels, providing a longer range of challenges than just the base creature, because those creatures can be encountered in a variety of different ways.

When you have 'demon', you have a minimum of twenty creatures, from CR 1-20. Devils are almost as close. Same goes for fey, and whatnot. What would the 'devil' entry in a Monster Codex look like to you?

For other creatures, like 'treants' or 'aboleth'. These creatures are often solitary, few campaigns involve an entire village or tribe of treants, for instance. What would the treant entry look like to you? I personally would want to wait for Occult Adventures to come out before providing a bunch of aboleth with class levels, but that's just me.

So tell me. How does it look?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Paul McGann was in Disney-teers and Doctor Who.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I could easily go for a Giant Codex, with ogres to rune giants, so just assume they are all on there. So...

1. Giants

After that though,

2-5. Genies (all)
6. Minotaur
7. Centaur
8. Doppleganger
9. Dark Folk
10. Medusa
11. Merfolk
12. Lamia
13. Azer
14. Morlock
15. Nephilim
16. Jann (because I forgot about them)
17. Tiefling
18. Aasimar
19. Dhampir
20. Elemental-touched (Ifrit and company)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

20 statblocks for 11 classes = 220 blocks
10 statblocks for 5 NPC classes = 50 blocks
4 statblocks for 10 PrCs = 40 blocks
Total = 310 blocks

APG/UM/UC

20 statblocks for 10 classes = 200 blocks
4 statblocks for 8 PrCs = 32 blocks

~80 blocks to play with.

If they were set on filling them out, I'd suggest maybe 5-8 blocks for each Core class using a different archetype, preferably one that gets them some of the cooler abilities of the tradeoff.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They had cansin (chaotic) and anaxim (lawful) back in the 2-3e day. Wouldn't be horrified if they showed up in some form or another.

Dragon78, isn't outsider (elemental) exactly what the mythical salamander was? A spirit of fire, akin to the gnomes (earth), sylph (air), and undine (water).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:

Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?

I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?

Let me turn that question around: The DM rules that another player's character dies despite it clearly being a misinterpretation of the rule, and further denies the possibility of spending 5-10 minutes to make certain, or at least making the judgement call initially in the players favour.

I don't know, would you really be annoyed at the player insisting on making sure? Because quite honestly, I'd probably stand up myself and tell the DM to damn well look it up, despite it not being my character involved.

How you can even pretend that the arguing player is the one costing the others the game and not the DM is beyond me, really.

Except, very clearly in this scenario, the player has already gotten his say, and the DM has already made a call.

We're clearly talking past one another.

You are saying that for life or death issues, more time should be given to a potential rule mistake, to avoid needlessly killing a PC.

I'm saying that once you've spent that time, however much you get, making your case, and the DM has ruled, it's time to move on. Whether that means to a new character, a new game or a new hobby is going to vary from person to person.

VC wrote:
It's important to remember that if you consistently piss off your players you can easily alienate your player base too. Then you have no players and the game you own isn't going anywhere either. Part of speaking up is making the whole group aware there is a problem. Furthermore, in normal healthy social interactions if I misuse a word or pronounce it incorrectly or have my facts wrong about a topic; I'd rather have the people I'm comfortable around correct me so I know for future reference then have them let me go on looking like an idiot. And if I then insist on continuing to be an idiot I expect to be made aware of that too.

Yes, yes, every nerd ever is just so desiring of honest criticism online. In real life, of course, it all changes. Being put on the spot when you are supposed to be the one making the calls can easily fluster someone, or put them on the defensive, or make them double down on whatever they decided previously. And if these boards show anything, it's that nerds can argue ad infinitum on topics, regardless of the logic or reason in the opposing side's position.

But that's all actually irrelevant both to my point about DMs and the topic at hand. We're not talking about a bad DM. You can be a bad DM. If you lack social skills, even more likely. And bad DMs lose players. Terrible DMs probably lose all of their players and can't run their game anymore. I certainly wouldn't play with someone who was so rules weak and also unwilling to check and confirm a potential mistake.

None of that changes the responsibility of the players. Rules lawyers or no. "Don't prolong an argument that disrupts the game unless the DM is an idiot and then it's ok" is not a rule to live by.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

I think I see where our disagreement lies; I don't see being a good player as a requirement of being a good rules lawyer.

I think it is completely seperate discussion about how to read the table and decide if dropping your topic is apropos (good player) and persuing a rules discussion that has a serious impact on game regularity (good rules lawyer).

If you are separating that out, I suppose, but I've never thought of 'good' rules lawyering simply being competent with the ruleset, as that is rather inherent with the term.

Since the term assumes someone who is competent with the rules who will bring them up when they aren't followed, I consider the 'good' and 'bad' to depend on how they bring those rules up.

Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?

I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

'Common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided' is obviously something people can disagree on.

There is a rulebook. If I play Pathfinder, I expect those rules to be followed. If those rules are changed, I expect the GM to tell me. And I expect him to tell me before I bring myself into a situation entirely based on the expectation that rules work a certain way. Preferably even before I start playing in that game if it's a significant change.

Besides, I tend to play with friends, not strangers. So what I expect to gain from not shutting up is making it clear to said friend who happens to be the GM right now that he is acting like an idiot.

Luckily, those situations rarely happen among even minimally reasonable friends.

'Rule Zero' does not give a GM free reign to be an idiot.

Yeah, almost none of this applies to the situation other than as a nice roast red herring.

I expect the GM to know the rules too, and to inform people of changed rules (or at least change them in a consistent manner). But that's irrelevant.

What was said is that a good rules lawyer speaks up, then drops the matter after the GM made their ruling. And you agreed with the poster who said (paraphrased) hell no, GMs have to play by the rules too.

So you are supporting the idea that a good rules lawyer continues to argue after the GM has made up their mind.

And you and Dtbone are both wrong about that. That's not a good rules lawyer.

Again, being a good rules lawyer has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing with a good GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)

We're not talking about 'speaking up'. This is specifically in regards to having spoken up, having the GM make a decision, and then refusing to allow that decision to stand because 'it's not in the rules'.

What do you truly expect to gain from such a scenario? Unless you simply possess the social capital to browbeat the DM into submission, once the DM has made the call, that's the ruling. Arguing over a character death for an hour of game time simply robs the other players of what is their session time too. So even if the DM was completely wrong (say, he said that you have to beat the DC to make your save instead of match or beat it.), once you've spoken up, demonstrated the rule, and were told no, what do you want? Is it fair? No. The DM is making the wrong call. But once you've said/shown that and been denied, what more do you expect? You think that bickering and complaining will succeed where logic and reason failed?

Either you continue to play under the unfair call and its consequences, or you find a different way to spend your free time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Using a headband of alluring charisma...
** spoiler omitted **
So beyond the bad illustration, and also garnering enough of peoples opinions concerning the removal of equipment and possible loss of attributes, I think it's time to close the thread. Thanks for all the input.

I liked your example. I thought it was quite amusing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But it couldn't be used to make everyone have to stop and recalculate their stats because one of their items got suppressed.

As a player whose GM just asked us to prepare a list of all magical items worn and how our will save will deterioriate as they're turned off in order, God bless you.

Disjunction is a !"#!"¤% nightmare.

Took half an hour in my game when it got dropped on the party, and they only failed the DC on a 1.

Honestly, most of the spells I hate the most are ones that slow things down like that. Detect magic being at will costs me more game time than any simulacrum or planar binding ever did.

Also, prestidigitation, since it seemed not to get carried over to this thread from the bathtub, doesn't clean creatures, only objects. Sorry nerds, you'll have to shower. Or stink.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vycamros Chandler wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.
No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too. If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight. I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM. At a table all the players need to be on the same page about what they can and can't do. And if you're arbitrarily making decisions on rules as opposed to figuring out how they really work you're doing everyone and yourself a disservice.

^ There we go. That's a bad rules lawyer. Particularly when that attitude and approach is holding up the game.

Sometimes, at a certain point, even if it kills your character, even if the GM is wrong, you need to shut up and accept what has been ruled. Or leave the game.

There is such thing as a bad GM. That doesn't actually have any relevance on whether or not you are being a bad player.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah, see, all those shifter ideas sound much cooler than the bag of mechanical specifics you tossed out before, even the ones I don't care as much for. (And I didn't mean the second monster in that sentence, that was a typo. I did mean object...hence my mimic example)

The monstrous humanoid/magic beast idea doesn't strike me as fitting that well. I'm trying to make the logical leap that goes from centaur and hags to 'turns into a magical sword'. The ooze and aberration types seem like they work better, although with the mimic and cloaker, all you need to do is adjust the size and you have your aberration. Perhaps baby mimics go around as lady's handbags.

As for the dragonewt, I don't see what that brings to the game over a 'variant half-dragon or wannabe draconian'. At this point, if my game called for such a thing, I'd fire subtype a lizardfolk, slap a breath weapon on him and call it a day. It just doesn't seem like the game is begging for something like that. Or even casually asking for it. But maybe firenewts are really cool and I'm just not seeing it.

1 to 50 of 1,710 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.