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. 1,381 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

Please unsuspend my subscriptions at this time and process them. Thank you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
So lets see, Magnus admits (give him credit) that he thinks APs as a whole are too easy.

Which they are.

Peter Stewart wrote:
Seannoss admits that this is the first AP he's played, and thus that he has no basis for comparison.
But, oh noes, doesn't that disprove your assertion that these AP's are built for beginners and they should be fine?

There's a difference between evidence and proof. This is neither, but even if it were a more solid example, it would fall on the 'evidence' side of the line.

Magnuskin wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Here's the reality. All APs are going to be too easy if your party is relatively (not even highly) optimized and you run them out of the box.
We are not running them out of the box. I for one am constantly adjusting and combining encounters as soon as the high levels hit and those encounters still get ROFL-stomped to a degree which can't be easily explained with "experience" and "non-standard group size". Something is off about assumed high-level balance and "expected encounter design".

You redesign and adjust encounters, and they still get rofl-stomped? You must not be very good at it then. At a bare minimum, you ought to be able to provide a mirror encounter that has an equal chance of rofl-stomping their dopplegangers. On the other hand, I don't like encounters that either side just blows through, so I design them against that parameter.

Quote:
The problem with mythic is that it takes what is already an unbalanced system (high-level gaming) and then applies several multipliers to the whole deal. At the same time, mythic monsters do not get abilities which appear up to par with what mythic PC's get. One of the problems with this AP is that the designers again insisted on placing single opponent encounters everywhere, of which should be clear after so many years of writing and feedback that they do. not. work! Unless you apply some tricks to diminish the importance of action economy, that is.

You actually make sense here. I don't agree with your further conclusions, but single foe encounters is a weakpoint of the system, mythic or no. If the foe cannot damage all of the PCs in a given round, it invariably proves invincible or a pushover. I ran a high level non-mythic fighter against the mostly mythic party at 15th level, and he needed every trick he had running to keep things tense.

Peter Stewart wrote:

Take a look at the NPC Guide which published characters that designers were playing or have played in the back section. Actually, let me go ahead and do it for you, since every time this is brought up you people seem to ignore it.

Magnusparaphrase wrote:
What do the NPC guide characters have to do with high level gaming?

They have to do with baseline expectations, as was pointed out, fairly clearly by Peter. If the designers' characters look horrifically unoptimized at 4th level, that divergence will grow greater in high level. The bottom line is that the APs aren't written for even moderately optimized parties. And your idea of 'optimization' is not the same as that of the designers.


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

I guess my obvious question is, how well does a thousand page hardcover stand up to use? My experience says when you get over day 300 pages you tend to get books that fall apart rapidly, and I'd rather not shell out a bill and a half only to have pieces of the adventure.

Can anyone speak to how the book has played out for them with regular use?

I read it every day, outside and in for about 1-2 hours at a go, for about nine months straight. If you don't tear the pages, the book isn't getting wrecked.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
That's BS. James Jacobs has said over and over the AP's are built with a 15 point buy standard.
As Seannoss has already pointed out, the iconics are built with 20 points....

Mmm. So the iconics are 20 point builds. And the APs are built for 15 point builds.

And you have more power than the iconic's build. (Or the actual PCs published in the NPC Guide, played by actual Paizo staff.)

You can keep talking around in circles, Magnuskin, but the point remains that if your characters are more powerful than expected by any given standard for the AP, then they are going to have an easier time.

I can't even believe that's under discussion.


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

It doesn't matter why your character is higher than the iconic build, just that your character is. The iconic is the baseline. If you exceed that baseline, you shouldn't be surprised at the lesser challenge.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coriat wrote:
I remember when our party was hacking its way through the wizard's guild they tapped into the armories and geared up the 1st level or so apprentices with a bunch of CL 9 Magic Missile wands with a handful of charges. Makes for very cheap yet reliable damage from mooks, in a situation where touch attack or saving throw effects would have been much less useful.

Oh man, was that the same adventure where the DM stripped you of all of your magical items and put dubiously CRed creatures in to beat you down? And sent an ogre in to sexaully assault the wizard in her antimagic cell?


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

At this point, those still arguing that Crane Wing provides any way to completely shutdown a T-Rex are either being willfully ignorant or lack reading comprehension, at which point further communication in this medium on the matter serves no purpose.

Anyone who thinks they can build a monk, level 1-5, with Crane Style and beat a T-Rex is welcome to have their delusion disabused. Get the build, set a time, download Maptool v77. I'll run a by the book T-Rex with monk on the menu for lunch. It has a built in die roller, we can use that so no shenanigans can be called on DM or player.

Until such a time that one has actually beaten a T-Rex with a low level Crane Styler, you are engaging in armchair quarterbacking and theorycrafting of the weakest nature.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Coriat wrote:

is not at all accurate to the rules. It is not even difficult for either a T rex or hippo to defeat Crane Wing, due to their reach.

I thought we had been over this.

We went over an intelligent human fighter, not a hippo. If my questions are bothering you, let somebody else answer them. Which, y'know, people already did?

Coriat has numerous times, on this thread and others, pointed out that the idea that a large single natural attack creature with reach can wipe the floor with a low level crane styler. Your questions are 'bothering' because they cause people to repeat themselves, ad nauseum. If you can't be bothered to run a basic check on what has been settled and left unsettled in a debate, I'm surprised that you not only think your opinion is worthwhile and helpful, but that you can be rude about it as well.

However, for the sake of pointing it out once again, in such a combat, monk vs T-Rex,

Option 1. T-Rex goes first. Moves to or charges within its reach of the monk, eats monk.

Option 2. Monk goes first. Moves through T-Rex's reach, suffers attack of opportunity which can't be deflected because the monk has not yet attacked and thus can't be fighting defensively. Monk gets eaten.

It's just frosting that you're also wrong about combat maneuvers not being attacks. They are. The reason they don't matter with regards to Crane Wing is because they don't deal damage.

"Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you."

Since it doesn't alter any other effects, a bull rush still succeeds, a grapple still succeeds, etc. No damage, but the effect carries through.


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

Excepting external house rules or GM intervention, there is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing present in Golarion that justifies a shipping market that is not dominated by teleportation magic.

To me personally, this contributes to breaking my suspension of disbelief.

Ah, you are speaking specifically to Golarion. From what I've seen, a few things prevent the teleportation from dominating specifically, in addition to the general information that's been tossed about back and forth. I also think there is some teleport-utilizing trade that exists.

Absence of high level casters. Most high level casters are fairly unique, or dedicated to something other than shipping. Frequently, you will find really important people still only 7th or 8th level.

Presence of non-spellcasting dominated organizations dedicated to mercantilism. The Aspis comes immediately to mind. You've also got tiny businesses, like the trader who goes around to a bunch of villages. He essentially has a monopoly, but not a big one, and it wouldn't make sense for a teleporting trader to try to muscle in on that market.

Some of the problem with realizing that first point is the own broken and ignored settlement rules. Consider the Skull and Shackles AP. Within that AP, you find a metropolis where there is 8th level spellcasting, Port Peril. However, the only NPC capable of casting 8th level spells in the entire area is the Master of Gales, a 15th level druid, who lives some distance away in another city. Not only that, but he's enough of a bigwig that buying spellcasting from him isn't really an option.

How do you reconcile the concept of a setting where 15th level spellcasters are huge, rare entities and a ruleset that says 9th level spells can be purchased for a relatively small amount of gold? Are we to believe that while the Master of Gales is off being a badass druid pirate lord, there is also a 15th level witch, wizard, druid and cleric sitting around in Port Peril offering up spellcasting services to the PCs?

The settlement rules are entirely ignored when it comes to fleshing out a region, and inflate the amount of actual available high level casters. If the settlement rules are to be believed, there's a 9th level wizard in every Large Town. If the setting rules are to be believed, there's not.

There's your disconnect.


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

I've lost track of the specific disagreements throughout the thread. The main idea I disagree with is as follows:

There is no way to justify a non-teleportation dominated shipping market, and those DMs who use any of those completely outdated ships without explaining such are breaking their players' suspension of disbelief.

The second idea that I disagree with is:

There is no way to justify the non-presence of teleportation being used as a wide spread trade means in your campaign, although ships might still be in use.

Both of these are based on the varying degrees of intensity that the market will demand teleportation once it discovers it, and that there is no possible alternative. It is this asinine idea that there is no possible alternative in a game based on imagination that I'm against. Magical transport requires a high level access to magic (and specifically teleport), either through magic item or spell, pre-existing knowledge of where you are going to, and a means to transport lots of goods. Bags of holding and super strong mastodons have been the suggested options, both requiring their own level of access. It also requires a willingness to engage in trade as a means of making money. All four of these can come together in alignment, but they just as easily can not.

I do think it is interesting that the mundane ship holds the advantage in price per pound shipped. If the ship converted its holds to store portable holes, or bags of holding, even more could be shipped via fantasy ship than could be shipped via teleport. A DM could just as reasonably justify that the industry went with cost effective ships as they could going with speedy teleports. Either setup, or a merger between the two, will have its advantages, disadvantages, weak points and room for adventures that take place exploiting and exploring such.

If your argument is better stated as:

Teleport could easily dominate the fantasy market as a means of transport.

or

Teleport could easily supplement regular and mundane shipping in a fantasy market.

or

The high level wizard with teleport has many advantages over mundanes who use ships to transport things.

Then I have zero disagreement with you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
That said, the exact number of tons in the carry capacity seems irrelevant - I think this thread has proven fairly well that there is an untapped market for teleportation services for the shipping of goods.

And that said untapped market in no way threatens to abolish oversea shipping via boat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
beej67 wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
Teleport needs 316 castings to move as much a ship...
Not if you've really capitalized on extradimensional spaces it doesn't.

So teleporters can use extradimensional spaces but ships can't? Nice try.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
beej67 wrote:
Quote:

Of course a sailing ship is an item that can be used over and over again, so you can spread out the cost over time to help pay for the investment. This makes the sailing ship a way better investment than any magic item if all you want to do is move goods from one place to another.

This of course doesn't take into account all the expenses a merchant might come across in shipping his wares, just the cost of transportation. No matter the method he would probably need to pay guild fees, taxes, license fees, warehouse fees, and so on.

Q:

Yeah, but how far can you get in a month at 2 miles per hour, which is the listed speed for sailing ships?

A:
1,488 miles, or roughly the distance between England and Gibraltar. Not exactly India.

If the scope of your campaign is a region half the size of the Mediterranean Sea, I can see vessel shipping still having some bearing on the economy.

He just showed it was ten times cheaper per pound for a month's travel. So roughly 14,880 miles at exactly the same price per pound? Caleb wins. All your "economy demands it" arguments are shot to crap. If shipping is cheaper than teleporting before you try a bunch of portable holes or a mastodon with an ant haul belt, then it's cheaper to ship a cargo full of portable holes in their 150 ton hold too.


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

Right. Science and technology are always embraced and accepted. Tesla called. He wants to know if you'd like to come over to my house and play Dreamcast with him.

We can do it after we get our vaccines, while chatting about the current actions taken to combat global warming and hunger, and maybe look up slides about the end of warfare. You can bring your solar powered car, so that when we're done, we can head out and maybe have some sensibly protected sex with various people or each other, if we're into that.

Because no one is against any of those things, or denies them, or starts huge movements aimed at ruining them.

Human progress, always going for the win-win.


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


I've already covered this more than once. The merchant king or guido the longshoreman or whoever is easily bought from the profits. For goodness sakes it's a win-win. New guy hires merchant king to use his contacts and pays him handsomely but best part is mk's costs went to near zilch. He can still pad his payroll with favored employee/clients and no longer needs to run extremely expensive ships. Guido gets to move it physically to the customs/retail stores or just pay them to sit on ass all day there's an obscene amount of money to be made and throw around.

What you continue to fail to cover is how, if things always resolve that simply, have they not resolved that simply in our own world? History is full of events where the win-win situation was avoided, lost, or deliberately walked away from.

Could happen does not translate to will happen. Almost like there was a reason we have two different words for those concepts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
beej67 wrote:

Um, no. If you're going with an internally consistent world, then whichever merchant king (there's always more than one) realizes it's cheaper to transport via teleport first starts doing it, and then all the other merchant kings start doing it too, to keep up, since their margins are getting killed by the teleport guy. In the end, all the merchant kings are using sorcerers.

One way or another, they will always end up using sorcerers unless there's something peculiar about either your house rules or your campaign that prevents it.

And if you don't really care about having that in your world, then it's no big deal. Have it. There's nothing inherently wrong with all long distance trade being handled by creepy guys in robes. Just don't go trying to squeeze nonsense like boat pirates into that world, or your players are going to call you out on it.

What a sad little world you live in, where there is only one possibility.


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


Or in a far less lethal manner, the merchant king hires a wizard to cast dispel magic on the shoes. The port-merchant now has to go through the whole expense of having new shoes made.
Dispel magic only suppresses magic items for a short time. But really it would make more sense for the merchant king to get into the teleport business.

"Make the most sense" has not underwritten much of human history.

If it is easier to kill the teleporter than to buy into your own teleportation technology (and running the same risks you are considering introducing to this guy), then that will happen. And if it happens enough, would-be teleporting merchants will get the idea that they need to be more discreet with their attempted monopolies.


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

Come gather round people, wherever you roam...


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

If teleportation is the only shipping, then teleportation piracy will increase. And that's not a bad thing, anymore than a sorcerer who couldn't care less about becoming a merchant.

Seriously. There are people with massive talents all the time in real life, who go on to shelve that talent and pursue something different. When you are talking about magic, which has literally limitless possibilities, the idea that 'merchant monopoly' is the only allowed outcome becomes ludicrous.

For one thing, having hundreds of ships at sea ensures a variety of different destinations and trade routes. Having a single (or few) sorcerer doing the work via teleportation cuts down on the destinations, cuts down on the variety of goods being shipped, etc.

For a second thing, teleportation restricts the available destinations to those known by a single person (or by the teleporter). You can hand a captain a map and he can try to find the place. Or he can sail off the charts into new territories. A teleporter cannot.

For a third thing, sometimes people want to do things themselves. It's possible that waiting for a dragon blooded punk to grow up to 10th level and learn to teleport isn't ideal for Driver Dan and Sailor Sam. Maybe they start an anti-teleportation movement, based around honest work and back breaking labor. No doubt it will be a full fledged religion by the time the sorcerer comes around to his inescapable destiny as a shipping merchant. Driver Dan is now Deity Dan.

Or maybe someone links teleportation with autism, and starts a mass hysterical movement away from teleportation, and no matter how many wizards explain that it is perfectly safe to eat food that has been teleported, a sizable (and profitable) portion of the populace refuses to utilize it. "Organically shipped" and "No Mystic Additives" become slogans of the future.

This is a game based around imagination. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a reason for whatever shipping your world possesses.


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

Also, a major lack of high level casters in the setting with the interest of dominating trade via teleportation. That's the primary reason the Shackles makes sense.


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

Of course they have. That's why you'll find teleportation circles in the world. And 23,500 (47,000 for a round trip) gp isn't cheap if it takes someone a single 3rd level spell to undo everything. What they haven't done is mass produce it. Well, at least, in a world where they haven't. And there are good and logical reasons for it. Didn't care about the money, didn't want to get into logistics business, tried and got ruined, etc.

You know what costs less than 47k gp? An 8th caster level command word activated device that produces at will dispel magic. For 60k you can get an 11th level one, so that even 20th level permanency effects can be undone on a natural 20. 2 minutes on average to utterly flush your investment down the toilet.

And that's just for the people who need it done in 2 minutes. If you can wait a few days, try a 12k gp device that does 11th caster level dispel magic 1/day. If you have a spellcaster or Use Magic Device, a wand of dispel magic (11th caster level) provides 50 chances for the low low cost of 24,750 gp. (Of course, if you are making a habit of this, you'll get more ruined circles for your buck by spending the 45k gp to get a 20th caster level wand, with its 50% chance to nuke 20th level circles, and 65% chance to tear apart the 17th minimum caster level ones.)

It's probably the same reason that summoned boats don't dominate the shipping business. When your buff gets dispelled, it's annoying. When your teleport circle does, you are out 24k. This is very much similar to the concept of China's anti-aircraft carrier missile. If it is much cheaper to destroy your opponent's massive awesome thing than it is to build it, the awesome thing quickly becomes a bad, unsustainable idea.

Again, this is not to say that you can't have a system of interconnected teleport circles. Just that there are reasons to not have one as well.


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

Look at who wizards with 9th level spells are in the world of Golarion, and you can see why they aren't setting up teleport circles. They are busy running countries, masquerading as gods, creating their own worlds, etc. Permanent teleport circles are 23,500 gp, and one successful dispel magic away from being wasted money.

Which means several things. It means if you want to have a world where they are the norm, you can. If you want to have a world where they are a possibility not yet realized, you can. And if you want to have a world where they will never be realized, you have easy ways to stop it.

None of what I'm suggesting applies to PCs. If the PCs want to do these sort of things, they absolutely can, assuming the campaign doesn't provide motivation to do something besides ship cargo back and forth via the Astral. I'm simply pointing out that it can absolutely make sense for a world to not have teleport dominated trade, even if they have teleport spells.


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

You've already pointed out why teleportation circles don't exist everywhere. High level characters have their own agendas, and transforming the world into an interconnected teleportation ring is rarely one of them.

Also, knock off the 'if you consider the game...' bit. It's insulting. I've considered it, you've considered it, if someone hasn't considered it, they aren't likely to post on this thread either.

I agree with you that what you describe can happen. Where I disagree with you is where you take 'can' and turn it into 'will'.

Also, if passenger rails and hubs were so obviously a good idea, how come Detroit lacks them? (Spoiler: GM bought the lines decades ago and tore them out. Didn't like the idea of something competing with the then emerging automobile business.) Just because something makes sense and helps doesn't mean it will happen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
So you think teleportation for cargo transport is viable and makes economic sense. Because it does if I ever start running a campaign I'll limit the magic unless I want magically transported cargo. In which case I'll simply embrace it and make it part of the lore of my campaign.

I think we have multiple forms of moving cargo in today's world, and yet ships still sail the seas. Teleport does somethings better than a ship, but not everything. Thus, it won't obsolete shipping like the automobile did to a horse and cart. Instead, it will complement it, to the degree that the DM deems necessary.

Simply put, a ship captain is a 3rd level anybody, and a teleporting sorcerer/wizard is a 10th level somebody. The rules leave open the possibility for a world where all cargo is teleported, and also that of a less magically reliant transportation system. I know that if I had the super power of teleportation, I wouldn't use it to try and outdo UPS.

Quote:

@Kain Darkwind

That is a very interesting list, but near as I can tell each example is an exception justifying a particular party having to move stuff the oldfashioned way - it doesn't change the fact that if played straight, the default option for long-distance bulk shipping would be teleportation magic.

As for people hiring assassins to kill the teleportation wizard etc, teleportation magic is the equivalent of what the steam engine was to the industrial age.

It's really, really, really hard to stop progress when people realize what opportunities that progress represents.

So I hear you saying that mundane shipping will still be the go-to method for somethings, and for others, that teleportation will be more practical. Sort of like how you don't use an airplane or hang glider to get everywhere, even though the technology to do so exists?

The thing that differentiates technology from magic is that much of magic is personal, while technology puts the power into the hands of the masses. Direct spellcasting is more analogous to science than technology. Command word magic items maps better to technology. And the rules do not suggest they are automatically mass produced.

Our own world has better access to technology that duplicates or surpasses the power of many Pathfinder magic spells, and yet all of its problems have not been eradicated, and many of our oldest technologies are still in use, largely unchanged from their pre-historical discovered status. The idea that having the potential to change the world means that the world will be changed does not have any support in real life.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
beej67 wrote:

**

"Oh great adventurers, my name is Sorcerer Steve, and I wish to hire you to guard this treasure on its way to a far off land by boat!"

"Why don't you just teleport it there yourself?"

"Because it's 100 tons of antimagiconium."

"Because it's an artifact, notoriously unreliable to teleport."
"Because it's a zoo, with over thirty species of exotic animals."
"Because I will be tending to over twenty other plots of mine while you minions get minioning."
"Because this is a decoy, you stupid patsies."
"Because I don't know teleport."
"Because I've never been there."
"Because I pay little peons like you to do these things, so that I am not assassinated by my enemies who are moving to counter my actions in the world."
"Because the land you are taking it to is hostile towards those of magic, and I am building up their trust in me. Be careful in displaying your power openly, Wizard Willy."

beej67 wrote:

"Oh great adventurers, my name is Pirate Pete, and I wish you to join me in my mission to waylay a boat filled with fabulous riches on the way to Sorcerer Steve!"

"Why doesn't he just teleport his stuff around by himself?"

"Because the rich and powerful do not deign to dirty their hands with manual labor like you and I. Viva la rivoluzione!"

"Because the treasure is the princess, Steve's spoiled niece, and she is decidedly unwilling to travel. We will kidnap her and force the king to abdicate and hold elections. Viva la rivoluzione!"
"Because this treasure is a golden statue 169 feet tall, in obvious contempt of the proletariat's fear of the number 13. It's capture shall allow us to fund the people's struggle against the bourgeoisie, as well as destroying the symbols of their oppression. Viva la rivoluzione!"

beej67 wrote:

"Oh great adventurers, we are Pete and Steve! We wish you to join us in stealing a great artifact from Evil Eggbert!"

"Why don't you two just scry on his location, teleport to him while he's asleep, and take it yourself?"

"It's dangerous."

"Plausible deniability."
"Teleport trap."
"Artifacts."
"Guarded against scrying."
"High Will save. Might want to not put all your eggs in the compulsion basket either, Enchantress Esther."
"He doesn't sleep."
"It's in his bloodstream."
"Lead."
"Faerzress"
"We're cowards."
"We're rich."
"We dislike risk."
"We're secretly trying to ruin your reputation, setting you up for the next part of the plot arc."
"Golems."
"Dragons."
"Off plane."
"Demons."
"Traps."

beej67 wrote:
If you're going to build a game world, and that game world is going to be immersive for your players, the game world should make sense.

Yeah. It should. Hopefully your DM can come up with something better than I could after being awake for thirty some hours. But if not, he's welcome to borrow from my impromptu list, assuming he cleans it off first. Straw seems to be everywhere around here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
beej67 wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
He could do good business for himself, sure. He's not going to monopolize the tea trade though.
So yes, he is absolutely going to monopolize the tea trade. Don't make me do an ROI calculation on that, because it's going to be laughable.

Don't make you prove your point? Sure, as long as you realize I won't be buying into it either.

You don't need to nerf teleport. You simply need to have people not want to go into tea business with their world shattering power. Or maybe they don't want to work 365 days a week, since they can do enough business to be comfortable with significantly less than that. I know which one of those is easier as a DM.

The idea that assassins is laughable because the guy makes many people rich is also laughable. That makes him a bigger target. And since he needs to have waypoints along the path, ambushing him is simply a matter of setting up the teleport trap or even readied actions to take him out. We're not talking about boat guilds (since in a world where teleporting merchants dominate the market, boat guilds wouldn't really gain power) either, we're talking about criminal organizations, mercane cartels, etc.

Bottom line, teleporting merchants is great. It doesn't replace ships unless you want it to replace ships.


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

Please place all of my subscription lines on hold until April 16th. I realize that will not change the order, but due to pay schedules, the order needs to charge my card on that date, and not before.


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

I generally have a vague idea of the kind of character I want to play, and then maybe a better idea of what I want over the next 2-3 levels. However, I'm always looking more to the experience that I'm having, rather than the experience I will be having, so the plan can be dropped or altered based on the events I experience over the course of the game. I don't really get too hung up on being 'effective', as I'd rather have cool and interesting things to do. But I'm that guy who will take the combat maneuver and AoO even though I don't have any feats invested in it.


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

Geez, Ashiel, you keep talking like this and I'm going to have to reassess your position as someone I generally disagree with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
beej67 wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Relative expenses aside, a river barge floating down the Nile is actually a much better tool for trading grain than a 10th level sorcerer with teleport and a portable hole.

Sure. But a sorcerer with teleport and a portable hole, within the core rules, could transfer more tea from India to England in a year than the entire Dutch East India Company did in the same time frame.

If you want long distance trade in your game to be handled via physical means, which is paramount for any game themed around seafaring or pirates or the like, then you must nerf teleport in some way. There's no getting around it. Otherwise, nothing is transported by ship, and there's nothing to "pirate" in the first place.

A portable hole can carry what, 282.74 cubic feet? That's roughly the same amount as a vessel with a tonnage of 8. Your average carrack has around 80-100.

So assuming this powerful 10th level sorcerer wants to risk a 6% chance each 1000 mile trip (it's greater than that at first, but we're assuming he eventually gets particular waypoints up to studied carefully) to bounce back and forth every day between Point A and Point B, while doing a ton of physical labor in transferring tea into a portable hole and unloading it out of the hole, he could, in theory, move more tea than a ship.

To go from London to China is 6 trips. 12 teleports for a round trip. Looking at the NPC Codex, a 10th level sorc has 4 5th level spells per day. 3 days for a round trip, at a tonnage of 8. In a month, he could move as much as a carrack does in a single trip. He's also teleported 120 times, suffering approximately 1.2 mishaps, ended up in a thematically similar area 2.4 times (which might be out of range for his next teleport) and ended up off target 3.6 times.

He could do good business for himself, sure. He's not going to monopolize the tea trade though.


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

GMs are actually within their rights to run a game with only human fighters as the available options. I don't even know why it needs to be said. You don't have to play if you don't like the game that is being run.

No one is (or should be) talking about what can happen. What is under discussion is what is the ideal.

It seems ridiculous to assume that the ideal is player dictation. It's not dismissive to say that DMs put in 10x the work a player of the same caliber and commitment level does, easy. It's factual.

It seems equally ridiculous to suggest that the ideal is the GM refusing to communicate to see where compromise is an option and where it is not.

It does say a lot about the games you people come from though, if the examples both sides are giving are real, and not just ridiculously inflated hyperbole.


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

Yes Simon, his false dilemma pairs nicely with the goal posts you shifted on Coriat.

Ultimately, there are lines. Should a player be able to demand to play a 20th level space marine in a low magic fantasy world? No. Should a DM flatly ban anything out of hand? No. But compromise is needed to find the actual middle ground.

Could you do me a favor and let me know how I shifted the goalposts? I honestly missed it if I did and I'd like to know where it happened.

Someone said they'd like to see a half demon build in Israel.

Coriat provided a story about such.

You suggested that the story proved the opposite, because the setting would be hostile to them.

Goal posts were shifted from "DM allows Character X" to "DM ensures setting bends over and kisses Character X's arse."

Don't get me wrong, Anzyr's premise that anything that can ever be allowed should always be allowed is rot and bunk, but I'm seeing a lot of extreme positions when the reality for the majority lies somewhere in the middle.


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

Yes Simon, his false dilemma pairs nicely with the goal posts you shifted on Coriat.

Ultimately, there are lines. Should a player be able to demand to play a 20th level space marine in a low magic fantasy world? No. Should a DM flatly ban anything out of hand? No. But compromise is needed to find the actual middle ground.


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

The Paladin in Chains has been making his way through Knot of Thorns. However, the NPC populace is very opposed to his calling himself a paladin. In fact, despite him doing the right thing, they get pretty huffy and particular about it. I'm starting to think they know mechanics and abilities better than they ought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
The Democrats are pussies.

I was raised Republican. I stopped once I realized the intellectual contempt they hold most of us in. Fox News in particular, once I started checking the sources and the claims, and finding them bogus, caused me to lose a massive amount of faith in them.

I've never liked the Democrats though. I like some concepts of liberalism, and some of conservatism, but I don't really have a party who represents me, or who represents enough of what I believe in to justify voting for it. It seems like the Republicans are trying to do things I don't like and the Democrats are too incompetent to do anything I do like.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vermilleo wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
My GM used Cry Little Sister as Vanthus' theme.

Interesting choice...I like it :) I liked having multiple "themes" for Vanthus, though...he was too multifaceted a character (killing, betrayal, murder, hate, vengeance, arson, family, demons, pirates, uh...etc. :) to tie down with just one song.

:P

Probably why I had a second one as well.

:P


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

If there were a "moar versatility" option, I would vote for that. I suppose that might fall under more fighter only feats, but of the small smattering of fighter only feats that there are, not many follow along those lines rather than something like "+2 damage with one specific weapon."

Fighters - IMO - have two Achilles' heels in combat (one for each foot? :P ). One is resiliency/defenses, the other is versatility.

As it stands, they are among the bottom rank in defenses in general (more so at high level than low level, since at low level the one defense they can be fairly good at, non-touch AC, is more relevant) and possibly the very rock bottom on versatility to overcome any challenge of mobility, obstacles, nonstandard defenses, almost anything other than rolling attack vs AC/CMD.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there needs to be better narrative martial power.

I'm a little bit at a loss as to how you would accomplish mechanically it without rolling attacks vs AC/CMD, because from a versatility perspective, the wizard can only throw out spells and hope for a failed saving throw...yet no one would agree they aren't versatile. The amount they are able to accomplish with that mechanic is fairly large.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
williamoak wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
We in the D&D/PF world like to think of things in absolutes, like a god of water. But if you look at Celtic beliefs (let alone Japanese), every river, lake, pond, stream, bay - has its own divinity. There tends not to be one god of water, rather if your land has 100 rivers, there are 100 deities dedicated to each river, 50 more for each lake, 10 for the bays, so the idea of infinite deities isn't too hard to swallow.
I think in D&D/PF terms, those various "gods" would be more akin to lesser outsiders. Not quite deities, like the empyreal lords.

Well, the kami are a good example of that type of 'god'. Another would be fey. Which is hardly a surprise, as many 'tiny gods' get turned into generic mythological monsters.


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

Wolfgang Baur's Midgard setting has something called 'masks' of deities, that I found an interesting concept. It mostly works with option B), and essentially some gods are merely masks that the main gods wear to diversify their flock.


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

My back up characters if my samurai dies are

Cleric of a machine god.
Unseelie hunter(elf ranger with faerie template if I can convince the DM to say yes)
Human rogue.

I'd play any of those at 4th or 12th level, or anywhere in between.


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

But why did you bother to fix it with such an underwhelming addition? It's senseless, since not a single person here is the voice of G-D, and our postings here are by nature, when not citing specific facts, our opinion. This idea that something that is 'just an opinion' is somehow on par with all other opinions and thus can be dismissed is a relatively new one. A well supported opinion is far superior to someone's off the cuff gut feeling when it comes to utilizing them to formulate one's own position.


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

Hey now! My advice was pretty good. Fighters and Monks are ill-suited to out of combat (Fighters doubly so) and they should probably pick different classes if they want to be less useless out of combat.

Simple. Accurate. Problem-solving.

Your advice was terrible. It tries to assume a buy in to a fabricated issue, and doesn't aid a player who wants to accomplish something with a given character.

Useless. Antagonistic. Unreasonable proposition.

------------------

On top of what Coriat said, I find that figuring out what a player wants to accomplish out of combat goes well with any class and game. All characters can be challenged to find things to do out of combat, depending on the inclinations of their players and the DM's approach. Whether they want to found a school, romance a spouse or just have the best brew in town, figuring out their own personal ideas of success goes far beyond what class they chose.


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

Right. And I see three possible situations.

Everyone is on the same page in the group that you cannot use simulacrum/planar binding/whatever to get free or low cost wishes. (No problem.)

Everyone is on the same page in the group that you can use simulacrum/planar binding/whatever to get free or low cost wishes. (No Problem)

Some people expect you cannot use the spell to abuse the rules. Some people expect you can use the spell to abuse the rules. (Problem)

This is literally only a problem if there are differing expectations.


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

Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument. In any game where people don't have the same concept of the rules, you will run into problems.

Case in point, some kids were playing checkers in a classroom the other day. They were playing that kings could not only move backwards, but they could move as far as they wanted, jump anything in their path as long as there was a space to land on, and some other craziness. I was beat, under those rules, because I made moves that I would have never made if I knew they were using kings in that fashion.

That's not the same thing as a bad rule that needs fixing. In MMA, you used to be able to use groin shots and eye gouges. Now you can't. That was a bad rule and was fixed.


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

Well Buri, perhaps I'm not looking at the variables. I am not a DM who has an issue with either planar binding or simulacrum. I expect them to be useful weapons in a mage's arsenal for their level, and I do not expect them to be game breaking nonsense.

I would be very surprised to find a DM who was able to handle planar binding, yet found simulacrum too much to handle.

None of that should be taken as that I disagree with wanting the set of guidelines that Coriat suggests, simply some suggestions as to what legitimately can be done when you cut a monster's HD in half. I do think they would be helpful; I don't want to see them reduce the possibilities to run the game focused or ridiculously, as one wishes.


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

And none of that stops someone from doing it, other than the DM. My players don't do the stupid stuff Anzyr does with simulacrum, because I won't stand for it. But if I wanted a crazy high magic world where that stuff is standard fare, I wouldn't hesitate to run it that way. I'm not claiming it's broke, I'm claiming that a wide variety of potential power levels and rulings on its power is probably it working exactly as intended.

The mind boggles to see a DM too timid to put an end to simulacrum nonsense from his player who somehow finds his big boy pants when it comes to not allowing planar binding to be abused.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jlighter wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I sort of like the idea that you can have one game where simulacrums of efreet can't cast wish, and another where they can.

As long as all players and GM are on the same page, why does it need to be enforced to one side of the fence or the other?

As mentioned by others up-thread, conflicts can ensue between players who expect the latter side of the fence while the GM prefers the former. Even if an FAQ is released, nothing forces the GMs to abide by it except in PFS games, and Simulacrum is a spell you can't get there anyway. But having that clarification helps show which interpretation is more in keeping with the intended power level of the spell.

The very issue you are speaking of is the opposite of what I posited. "On the same page" means just that.

To be sure, I wouldn't oppose something like the general guidelines Coriat suggests, for depowering monsters. However, I'm very much against the idea that either the nonsensically powerful or the narrowly defined version is "right".

Honestly, even if you seal up the simulacrum nonsense, you still have the three wishes from a normal old planar bound efreet.


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

I sort of like the idea that you can have one game where simulacrums of efreet can't cast wish, and another where they can.

As long as all players and GM are on the same page, why does it need to be enforced to one side of the fence or the other?


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

I can compare martial damage to spell damage when that's what we're comparing. If you think there are spells that will deal more damage than a 20 target 200 damage wail of the banshee or an empowered (or maximized) disintegrate, feel free to provide your own analysis. Most of the time, the maximum potential of that damage is going to be lost, because you won't have 20 targets, or some will make their saves.

Whatever. The point is that martials can be outstripped even when getting full attacks on the fly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Laurefindel wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
I disagree that seekers of balance end up as Lawful Evil.

So do I, but the keeper of balance going mad/turning evil/becoming power hungry is a common trope in sci-fi and fantasy, and I'm sure it has its reasons.

While the keeper of balance does not have to be systematically evil, it's sure looks like a slippery slope.

No doubt why I included and acknowledged that trope in my post.

1 to 50 of 1,381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.