|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Lancelot and Galahad were acknowledged to be the inspiration for the original paladin class.
And Ogier the Dane, from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. Which was also the source for the regenerating troll, and a heap of other stuff. Gygax loved that book even more than I do.
And Ogier ("Holger") ties in nicely with Doodle's reference of the Peers of Charlemagne. It's also worth noting that Gygax was also big into de Camp & Pratt's Harold Shea stories, one of which, The Castle of Iron, takes place in the world of the Orlando Furioso and features a number of the Peers.
So, no takers on any of my previous ones?
Question for you. If the king of a nation doesn't have the Leadership feat, does that mean he can't even command his own royal guard, much less his armies?
It means they're no more loyal than their pay and their own self-interest imply, and no more.
Speaking of armies, if a king's Leadership feat does limit that nation's army, then how do you deal with the fact that a decently optimized mid-level party with decent tactics can essentially completely overthrow the entire military might of any conceivable nation?
That happens regardless of army sizes, unless you do stupid stuff like declaring the average soldier is a 10th level magus or something, which I think is lame.
If a party invades Hell with the express purpose of killing an archdevil, does only that archdevil's personal summons get to engage the party?
If you are the king of a nation, a being of vast power in the multiverse, or even the head of government for a decent-sized city, you have "followers" that don't depend on your (possibly non-existent) Leadership feat, and you should basically ignore WBL.
In terms of gp? Sure, you gotta pay the troops. In terms of gear? Still strictly within limits.
What would constitute GM cheating, pray tell?
When I'm the DM, I hold myself to very strict standards. The bad guys are meticulously built, proper stats, exact skill points, correct hp, WBL, no more followers than their Leadership allows. Their abilities are strictly according to their race, class levels, feats, and items. They act according to their intelligence and situation. I roll in the open, and I don't fudge the dice (PCs have a limited supply of hero points to ameliorate fate, but again, that's subject to clear limits and is right out in the open).
I understand that some or even most people very, very strongly insist that the DM is entitled to do whatever he/she feels like, whenever, and are a lot looser about all that. That's fine for them, and as long as the players are both aware of it and are also OK with it, then it works for them. But it's not a ground state of existence -- people play differently, and just because the DM is God for Tables A and B, doesn't mean that every DM is god at every table everywhere. I, personally, feel like that style of DMing would be a cop-out on my part, and I'm very glad I left it behind in previous editions.
At the start of the second session I was following a character that was supposed to be my mother down an ally. Suddenly she cast hold person on me, while a team of archers use a readied action to fill me full of arrows. Each shot twice and was able to hit me rather easily; downing me after the first volley. The surprise round over, my "mom" pulls out a dagger and slits my throat. To me this seemed... excessive.
NOT FAIR:In this scenario, the DM is ignoring, glossing over, and outright breaking the game rules willy-nilly.
DM: So, you meet your mom, and she asks you to follow her down the alley.
You: Uh, OK!
DM: She casts a spell! Roll a Will save!
DM: You are paralyzed. A bunch of archers start shooting at you (rolls dice).
A guy at work asked me, "Hey, you're
And I had to tell him, yes, I'm a fan of the first two (not so much the third one), and that, yeah, this one is every bit as good -- a little slicker and less gritty because the budget was more than $10, but visually far more of a spectacle than Miller would have dreamed was possible in 1980. And with better acting.
(Sorry, purists, but Tom Hardy is every bit as good as Mel Gibson for the role. I don't really care for either one of them off-screen, but on-screen I'm very happy to see either of them as Max Rockatansky.)
One other question, when trading in bonuses from Personal Weapon and such for numen, the +1 is set at 6,000. I'm assuming that you have to keep at least +1 on the weapon so your trading in the second +1 which would be about 6,000.
Exactly right. You'll notice that 6,000 gp is the difference between the cost of a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon.
In hindsight, I'd probably get rid of metabreath feats entirely and use Innate Metamagic instead (as we walked through with the hell hound), and leave the "breath weapon" part purely cosmetic. I'd probably also allow Supernatural Ability as a bloodline bonus feat, to make the blast into an actual (Su) breath weapon.
Just got back from Cinemark. Thunder Road actually lived up to the hype, and then some. Tom Hardy was instantly recognizable as Mad Max, and was every bit as good as Gibson was. Charlize Theron was great. That was one bad-ass vehicular action film.
Baby Gersen slept through most of it, woke up for the final action sequence, and instead of screaming in fear amidst the explosions and spring-pole guys and killing, she giggled and cheered! Sadly, Mrs Gersen had to take her out because her enthusiasm for the mayhem got louder than the electric guitar guy. She caught the end, though, and we all came home feeling like we got our money's worth.
Gersen Jr. is still too small to leave with someone else. Luckily, she'll most likely fall asleep as soon as they turn the lights down. We'll also get there early and grab an end seat near the door, so if she starts fussing at all, Mrs Gersen (who kind of wants to see the movie but doesn't care if she misses parts) can take her outside immediately.
As a rule, I value the other patrons' movie experience as much as I do my own.
That said, we'll be seeing it at a big theatre where teenagers and their cell phones already ruin the movie for everyone, so a baby won't even show up on the radar. Not ideal, but at least I'll still get to see it on the big screen. The Alamo, as much as I love it and wanted to see this movie there, will just have to wait.
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'd call ahead and talk to a manager first before booking your ticket. The Alamo is pretty firm on that policy. Having said that, they sometimes have specific showtimes for films where they don't completely darken the theatre and tone the sound down a bit specifically for the parents bringing little 'uns.
Thanks for the advice! Manager said earliest show on Tuesdays ONLY - no exceptions. Good to know!(I'd dearly love to see Mad Max at the Alamo, but Mrs Gersen wants to see it, too.)
With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rolls
Unless any of the players are also poker players... I can pretty well guarantee that within a couple of sessions, I'd be able to tell with 90% accuracy when you were fudging and when you weren't.
Most people live around "white lies" as a matter of course: someone says, "Oh, I'd love to make it!" and then doesn't show up -- that sort of thing -- trying not to hurt anyone's feelings or whatever. Some very few of us, though, were lied to as children and were marked by it; we grow up mistrustful, and view nothing as more deadly an insult than lying to our faces as if we won't know it -- the lie itself triggers mistrust, and the assumption that we're too blind to see it triggers anger, because it comes across as incredibly condescending. So if a player asks you point-blank not to fudge the dice, maybe it's because they enjoy the added risk, maybe they hate being lied to, and maybe both. It might not be a super-bad idea to clear that up in advance.
For example, if I were in a game with TOZ, he'd be respectful enough say point-blank at the start, "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me on it I'll admit it." I can respect that approach far more than the people who fudge the dice and then pretend like they don't. Hell, I've run games for players who preferred the DM to fudge rolls; I roll in the open, but I'd occasionally say, "Screw that 20! I'm rerolling it, unless anyone objects!"
I honestly don't get this dichotomy between "no fudging: death always on" and "fudging: no death ever".
Well, I see it like this: if I get pulled over for speeding and say, "Well, officer, I usually go the speed limit, so it's totally OK that I was just going 90, right?" -- it's not really going to help.
I'm also more accepting of it in the first four or five levels than the next ten. Once we get out of "lucky crit instagibs a PC" territory, I'd prefer to play the dice straight.
I was hesitant to ask at all, given some of the threads on the topic a few years ago, but now I'm glad I did. I don't remember ever seeing someone express this opinion, and I find it adds an interesting new dimension to the conversation. Thanks!
DM fudging is integral to a fun game otherwise we can end up with 1 round boss fights or TPK's. This is not to say no one dies in our game--plenty of PC death is enjoyed by all--it just prevents complications due to the DM either under or over estimating what he's put us up against.
Thanks, b_o_f. I think you described your opinion as a player (and your reasons for it) very clearly. If I can follow up, though, can I also ask another question -- when you say "integral to a fun game," does that imply that the DM should override the other players (if they're like houstonderek and me) and fudge dice even if they ask him not to?
EDIT: I remember TOZ suggesting a "death flag" for each player -- you put it up when you feel like your PC dying might be suitably cool to tolerate, and lower it if you don't want to die by random roll. Basically, having it lowered tells the DM he can fudge dice, but when you raise it, it tells him to let them fall where they may. I liked that idea because it allows the same DM to accommodate both types of players, in the same game.
As referee, it's almost always reasonable to use Creature-Specific Spell, unless it's grossly inappropriate and/or relies heavily on metagame knowledge (e.g., the party is all humans and high elves, and the monsters always have civilized humanoid-specific spells; that's just being a jerk).
For the player, as in almost all things, referee and group agreement is the meter stick for applicability. Personally speaking, it seems entirely appropriate for an Incarnate of metal to pick metal-specific spells as spells known; I might define the category as "creatures made of metal (e.g., iron golems) or fully armored in metal (e.g., a knight in full plate)." Having done so, though, the referee is now obligated not to metagame that knowledge -- for example, giving metal armor to critters when it's wholly inappropriate for them, just to give extra use to the spell and make the player feel better.
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
EDIT: Let me add that, for an occasional less-serious game showcasing goofy characters and over-the-top scenarios, I'd heartily approve of any amount of fudging, if it sets the atmosphere. I just intensely dislike it when we're supposedly playing a more serious game in which death actually exists.
I'm pretty diligent about screening my players. I tend not to invite people I don't really like, or see eye to eye with, so honestly, I don't worry all that much about players cheating.
As DM, though, I'm usually very careful not to. The BBEG always has rules-legal abilities, strict WBL, and mooks allowable under his Leadership score, for example. NPCs' skill points and other stats are carefully derived. Dice are rolled in the open, no fudging from me. Etc. My rationale is that the DM already has enormously wide areas of creative control; he/she shouldn't need to cheat with the rules on top of that.
My observed experience is that without any representation of position people spend as long asking where they are and what's within reach as they do fumbling around working out where to move with the battlemat. Speed comes from something more abstract rather than anything which has precise positioning that then doesn't get implemented. YMMV.
I tend to trust the players a lot. If someone announces they're moving into flanking position, I let them, unless I previously described them as being in an elevator or a closet or something. If they're in a tavern and someone announces they jump onto a table, I assume the table is there and they go ahead and roll the check. Etc.
Celestial Healer wrote:
Don't forget, I'm the guy who got a $250 ticket for going 55 in a 55 mph zone (quote: "I'm tellin' you it's FORTY-five now, boy.")
Has he renounced his U.S. citizenship to go play king?
Has he left Virginia to go live in his desert kingdom?
Is the area permanently uninhabited, or do people move through there? If the latter, do they recognize his sovereignty? If not, he can either subdue them and enforce his borders, or accept that his claim is meaningless.
Finally, Daily Kos is, as usual, behind the times; this story broke a year ago: link
My opinion on John Carter:
(1) I thought it was a really fun movie.
(2) However, 99% of the viewers had no idea that the story predated Star Wars by 60 years, rather than post-dating it by 40. So it came across as extremely derivative to the point of being totally unoriginal.
(3) On top of that -- and this was the real problem -- Taylor Kitsch has absolutely nowhere near the kind of larger-than-life screen charisma that propels an action-adventure movie franchise. Look at successful ones: Harrison Ford carried two of them, Ahnold two more, and Robert Downey Jr (much more recently) two more. James Bond? Moore was the Saint before that; Brosnan was Remington Steele; Dalton lasted only 2 movies before they realized he simply wasn't up to the task. If Kitsch had the goods, people would have overlooked the campy, derivative feel, they way they still do for new Bond movies.
I mentioned convergent evolution because, for some problems, when you try different solutions you eventually find that one of them works better than the others, for that particular problem, regardless of which ones you try or in what order. With "Kirthfinder," we've gone through so many rules iterations now that I can't think of them all -- every time throwing away things that sounded good on paper but didn't work in practice, and comparing the new idea against what we were trying to accomplish, and why it wasn't being accomplished.
Paizo seems to have done much the same with the rogue. First they threw a bunch of lame talents at it, but since they'd hamstrung his combat potential by nixing the blinking flask hurler, those weak talents and d8 HD didn't do a lot to fix that. Then they tried a bunch of archetypes, which mostly sucked except, coincidentally, the vivisectionist -- which isn't even a rogue archetype. So then they started playing with alternate classes to fill the rogue's role: the investigator and so on, in the Advanced Class Guide, which were arguably better in combat and had fewer lame options. But the main problem was still that the rogue, in addition to being weak in combat, wasn't really all that skilled, because skills << magic in Pathfinder. That's why the vivisectionist was good: he had extracts (aka spells). But Paizo is obsessed with non-spellcasting rogues and monks, so the obvious next step was to give rogues a way for their skills to duplicate spells, but call them something different.
So, yeah, they ended up in a similar place, but it looks to me like they took a different path to get there, although the process itself was similar. Much how a shark and a dolphin, both inhabiting niches in which it pays to be a fast, medium-sized carnivore, ended up looking quite similar -- even if one evolved from a small, heavily armored fish and the other from a pig-like mammal.
Did the Incarnate take his 2 NPC levels in Adept, so at least he's got 5th level spell capacity? Red Hand of Doom is supposed to have some very challenging fights
Spoiler:, so a group without a full caster may have a hard time even in Kirthfinder.
in which flight and battlefield control are key elements
Black Dougal wrote:
"License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations. Man, free to kill gophers at will. To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit - ever. They're like the Viet Cong - Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that's all she wrote."
"I enjoy skinny skiing, going to bullfights on acid..."
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
The Naked Gun. Almost as good as the TV show:
Ed: "That was the lab. They've got the ransom note from the kidnapers. Frank, they're demanding a million dollars!"
Boxer: "I could beat him with one arm tied behind my back!"