KnightErrantJR's page

And since this is basically an alignment argument... I'll use my typical cheesy tactics to derail things:

Batman is Chaotic Good.
Jack Bauer is Lawful Good.
James Bond is Lawful Evil.

DISCUSS!

You keep forgetting Han Solo these days James. ;)

Just checking the Golarion calendar, and I noticed that Kuthona 30th is the Night of the Pale. Have there been any hints in any Pathfinder products about what the Night of the Pale is? Just kind of curious, and wondering if I've missed something.

It would be a bit strange for a street performer to make twice the amount of another bard for a six second performance.

Firest wrote:

If you can find it, the old Palladium RPG, Nightbane (originally Nightspawn) has extensive random creation tables for fantastic creatures.

Why do I get the feeling I know exactly why they changed the name to Nightbane and why do I suddenly hope someone whose name rhymes with Modd TacFarlane is stricken with explosive diarrhea right this moment?

Well, he did at least get hit by the Twisted Curse, if that's any consolation.

Not to mention the judgement against him in favor of a certain dreamy comic book writer.

I guess that would be Karma, yes?

Vic Wertz wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

(And for folks who aren't quite ready to shell out the full price for the print copy, there's always the ten dollar PDF for the revision-curious.)

Don't listen to him—the PDF is only $9.99. James is just trying to execute his hare-barined scheme that involves siphoning all of those rounded-off pennies into his own store credit account. The guy is a criminal mastermind, I tell ya!

Dang. There goes Criminal Mastermind Plan #421, wherein I stash 1 cent of every PDF sale in a vault deep under Easter Island and then cash those pennies in after another plan strips the world of all OTHER pennies, therefore making the ones I've stashed away super valuable.

Its okay James, somewhere along the lines you'd put a decimal in the wrong place and start taking .10 off of every PDF, and someone would notice, and you'd have to have someone burn down the office . . . best to play it safe.

I don't think the mortal voice could reproduce it, but I loved the effect in Perdido Street Station where the ambassador of Hell was speaking, but there were faint voices accompanying his voice that were saying the same thing, but screaming in agony.

So in that case, a mortal could never speak Infernal "fluently."

James Jacobs wrote:

Actually... Mengkare is NOT supposed to be "incredibly good." He's supposed to be incredibly lawful.

He's lawful neutral, in other words. He's let his little experiment go too far, and he's become too obsessed with its perfection to keep track of being good along the way.

I'd like to point out that this is only one interpretation. Personally, ever since I came up with Hermea, I've always held that Mengkare is indeed lawful good--at least in his own head. Whether or not you agree with his "for the greater good arguments" is up to you, and it's frankly not something he worries overmuch about. He's a dragon with his own country, and though he takes a pretty hard-line and contractual view of righteousness... well, so do a lot of snooty paladins and clerics out there (in Golarion and our own world), and they're still lawful good in their stat block.

Alignment is a weird issue, and not even something all of us in the office agree on. Absolutes are for deities, and we are but humans (or dragons). Decide for yourself!

-James

James (Sutter), I respect you, man, but honestly, I am 100% with James here. I tend to think the "I am whatever alignment I have convinced myself I am" concept is one of the things that actually adds fuel to the fire of people disliking alignment.

I usually accept that sometimes someone being lawful or chaotic is a matter of point of view and why they did what they did, good and evil in d20 fantasy tends to be a lot more clear, and treating other races like cattle (even well treated cattle), kidnapping, and punishing them (perhaps very harshly, and with deadly force) for disagreeing with your view of good isn't really good.

I'm just one guy, but I have to throw my support to James (Jacobs) in this case.

Also, please record the ensuing fight. Perhaps a trial by combat will determine who is in the right!

KnightErrantJR wrote:

I've often set my PDFs to read out loud so I can keep my hands free to prep stuff for my games. I've run into the "read watermark" issue a lot, but some of the PDF don't read the watermark. So some do, and some don't. Haven't tried this with Reader X yet or anything, but I have wondered if there were some settings I could tinker with.

The watermark is always applied in a consistent fashion, so I have no idea why the software would read it some times and not others.

I haven't done any kind of scientific study of this, its entirely possible that these have been different version of Reader, for example, as I went from 9 to 8.

As I said, I'm not sure if there are some settings I'm not properly tinkering with or what.

I've often set my PDFs to read out loud so I can keep my hands free to prep stuff for my games. I've run into the "read watermark" issue a lot, but some of the PDF don't read the watermark. So some do, and some don't. Haven't tried this with Reader X yet or anything, but I have wondered if there were some settings I could tinker with.

But i noticed that long bows were up to 1d8 damage now in 3.5, but they use to be 1d6 in the old D&D game.... just wondering why long bows got the damage increase.

Actually, sheaf arrows were introduced that did 1d8, but the "default" in earlier editions was the longer distance flight arrows. By third edition, the "default" ammo was sheaf arrows that did more damage.

That having been said, I have two points.

1. I voiced my opinion regarding not wanting a new base class. It was not based on anything mentioned in that disclaimer. I don't want another new class so soon after the ones in the Advanced Player's Guide and the Magus in Ultimate Magic. Its much more of a rules bloat issue than a game theory thing with me.

Heck, I buy new class products from Super Genius Games all the time, but part of that is that its very clear that those are optional and will not be setting the baseline of how fast Paizo puts out rules and they don't set the bar for how abilities should look, with rise a bit too quickly when classes start coming out too quickly.

2. I think its a lot better to have people voice their opinions, respectfully, in one thread than to have a "New Class in UC" and "No New Class in UC" and "Maybe a new class in UC" and all the other threads that will spawn from splintering the topic, and yet will ultimately converge on the same issues anyway.

Plus, I have to admit, it feels a bit like "padding the results" to say, "post in this thread, but not if you don't want a new class," since you can generate a long thread of people that "obviously" want a new class if people follow that particular appeal.

As for the heroes thing, yes, you're right. Kind of makes me sad, however, when I'm constantly working against players who want to play a conflicted character. By conflicted, I mean willing to kill innocents and flaunt the law in major metropolitan cities. I'd punish my home groups so hard, and have so much fun doing it. In PFS, my only good response seems to be, "You're arrested, this scenario is over," or, "You're character is evil, you're no longer allowed to play it." That seems a little harsh. Instead, the workarounds all become my own efforts.

I guess what I was saying is, if we open up even more evil deities, this problem will grow. I realize they're not heroes, but if they're worshiping good gods, at least they'll have a code of ethics.

We may disagree on this, but I really don't think that allowing evil deities causes this problem. I'd be willing to bet most of those guys would be worshiping Gorum or some other god like that if they didn't have evil gods.

I could almost understand that logic, except that by opening up Gods and Magic:

Heck, most of those guys even look more obscure than the archdevils and such in Princes of Darkness.

Also, no offense, but Pathfinders aren't heroes. They are adventurers. Its not a heroic campaign, its an adventuring campaign. Some Pathfinders may be heroes, but its not intrinsic to doing the job, and at times is anethema to the job.

Can anyone expand on why series of seemingly any genre cant make it more than 1-2 seasons without turning to crap?

The longer something in television is successful the more executives pay attention to it and decide they know how to make it even more awesome because they "know" the television watching public?

There are tons of house rules, though: Sometimes, all money you lose through cards are put into the middle of the board and you get it when getting on free parking. And the way you get out of jail (or can stay in) is often different from game to game.

I was just going to point out the "Free Parking" variation, and the fact that I've played Monopoly with many people that never realized this wasn't the "core assumption."

I am imagining a Character with like 20 of these floating about him, he would be like his own Solar System!...

That was more or less the "thing" of the uber lich Larloch in the Forgotten Realms . . . he had tons of ioun stones floating around him all of the time.

Yeah... it kind of sold out a lot faster than we expected.

Congratulations!

I don't think Paizo originally wanted to even do the Magus, but there was just such an enormous demand for it that they decided to go ahead. I'm pretty sure that the Arcane Duelist Bard archetype was supposed to satisfy the "gish" crowd, but failed them. Heck, Even the Magus isn't making some people happy. I expect that the reception to the Magus will go a long way toward determining if a new melee class is warranted for Ultimate Combat.

I have to agree. There didn't seem to be much enthusiasm for a class like the Magus, so I was a bit surprised when it was announced for Ultimate Magic. I really got the feeling that it was put on the schedule by "acclaim."

While the info on aboleths in "Lords of Madness" isn't official in Golarion canon... it fits in pretty perfectly, and when we DO start doing stuff with the aboleths, I'm gonna make sure that, even though we can't really expand upon the info in "Lords of Madness" (I wrote the aboleth chapter of that book, among several other sections), that it'll remain viable and usable in Golarion.

Of course its handy that the Elder Evils in Lords of Madness actually have Mythos equivalent suggestions, and Golarion tends to be more likely to directly reference Mythos entities.

The Mendevian crusade is mostly under the control of the church of Iomedae, who does NOT get on well at all with the church of Asmodeus. Further, the Hellknights themselves aren't all that greatly interested in things going on outside of Cheliax or their neighbors/thrall states (like Isger). There might be some Hellknights involved in the Mendevian crusade, but not many, and they don't have an official presence there, and most Hellknight Orders would actually consider teaming up with Iomedaean crusaders as sketchy at best... ESPECIALLY when there's so much law needing to be enforced back home.

"When those Iomedaen fools finally prove too weak to hold back the tides of the Abyss, we'll have Cheliax shored up and ready to resist any potential thread that could strike us. The demons will scour away the weak and disordered, and we will move into the void left behind and finish off what's left of the demon hordes."

You know, I'm starting to picture some of the nations of the Inner Sea as viewing the Worldwound kind of like the Seven Kingdoms views the lands beyond the Wall in the SOIAF, not worrying about the potential thread because they don't have to deal with it directly.

Hm, now I'm thinking about low templars getting sent to Mendev in exchange for a pardon for issues back home . . . ;)

Can I be a wench?

*passes out on the deck*

You already are . . . you already are . . .

Gnap!

[Smurf]

I always kind of wonder about "network drift" when it comes to cable channels, such as music stations that start producing shows about anything but music, cartoon networks that start programming more and more live action shows, and science fiction channels that show, say, wrestling.

I know there has to be some strategy for this. Its probably worked for MTV becoming a general "young adult pop culture" channel, and I'm sure "generalizing" gets you better penetration and ad rates, but I also wonder how many networks loose their base before they pick up more "general" viewers.

I think "pulp" is a better description than "serious." If you look at Fritz Leiber's Fafhard and Grey Mouser stories, for example, there were other humanoid races that were numerous in some areas (like the ghouls), but they weren't as common as humans, and weren't too powerful compared to humans or considered the "baseline."

Ah, but I'm not making an argument that Mengkare is evil, just not good. He regards these creatures as breeding stock, and I just don't think a good-aligned character (even a dragon) would take such an objective view of a sentient race. True, there are good aligned characters that lean towards similarly flawed modes of thought, but Mengkare is nearly defined by them.

Plus let's not forget that the entry implies that he secretly toasts those who wish to leave Hermea.

I agree. I don't see him as evil, but not good either. Then again, I personally think that gold dragons, with their natural draconic view of things and being so far removed from what the "lesser races" have to deal with, would be more likely to "fall" to neutrality.

That's one of the several problems I had with Classic Dragons. When it talked about awesomely good and incorruptible gold dragons were, I immediately thought of Menkare and how he would have to at least be skirting the neutral line pretty hard about now.

I'll be interested to see Hermea's write up in the new World Guide in a few months.

Stop. Base. Class. Bloat. Please.

I'm not saying I never want to see another base class, but I would like to have a few "player focused" hardcover rulebooks that don't have new classes in them.

That does seem to be one change with Bestiary 2, Entropic and Resolute templates can be added to summon monster and planar ally creatures.

Not what you're looking for, but it's a small change to be noted.

Oh, I appreciate that, and its a nice expansion. Just still have my dream of actual outsiders to fill all of the niches.

I still want a sidhe with a racial class that gives it things like shapechanging, illusions, plane shifting, and teleporting. But that's just me . . . ;)

I totally understand Paizo's reluctance to go hog wild on adding summon options. However, I have fairly specific wishes when it comes to expanding the summoning lists.

I really just wish that for divine casters, there was an appropriate (alignment, i.e. lawful, chaotic, good or evil) outsider option for each summon monster spell. In other words, an actual outsider, not a templated creature.

For arcane casters, I'd like an elemental/neutral outsider option for each summon monster level.

I'm not so much interested in an ever expanding list, its just that sometimes templated animals don't feel particularly appropriate for a theme. For example, when I was playing a cleric of Sarenrae, I really wanted a good outsider for each level, instead of dog that gets to smite evil, but is still pretty much a dog from Heaven.

Its a bit of an aside, but I do kind of miss "Summon Undead" style spells since they helped to flesh out Necromancers, so to speak, although I always wished that spell chain was necromantic instead of conjuration.

I did try, in one campaign, to open up Summon Monster spells to "CR of X level," based on a 3.0 Dragon Magazine article, but it was a bit more messy then I would have liked it. Too many options, and too many monsters that push the bounds of their CR that become too obvious to use over and over.

We have done a construct race, half elf half orge mage, the restless souls, giants, gargoyles and now minotaurs.

What racial class would you like to see us do next.

My current thought is a Dhampir (Daywalker, half-vampire), but I wanted to find out what our customers wanted.

You know, I've always wanted a really cool Sidhe kind of race, an elf looking race that gets more kind of "fey" natural powers. Heck, it would kind of go along with the Gargoyles product . . . ;)

I've also always wanted to have a cool plant race, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for in a plant race. Perhaps its just a misspent youth reading Swamp Thing.

.

I like it for a group of 1st to 2nd level folks.

It also seems like it would be a decent option for someone that's kind of hit a rut as far as finding adventures in their current tier to bump them up to another tier.

I'm not saying that this is a major issue that has to be addressed or that it has to be done, but has there been any thought given to adding the "archdevil" type faiths from the back cover of Princes of Darkness?

While Asmodeus isn't thrilled with people worshiping his subordinates, thematically it still seems that it might open up some variety for Chelaxian characters regarding domains for divine characters, and I can't imagine that the various dukes and archdevils presented are more obscure than some of the deities that were allowed in play from the cover of Gods and Magic.

Its just something I was wondering about.

They're there. For example, I was reading Dragon #109 just yesterday, and there's an article about dwarven demi-god / heroes, and the female entry has a beard, decorated with jewelry.

The 2nd Edition Forgotten Realms supplement Dwarves' Deep also clearly mentions dwarven females having beards, and I know, but can't recall of the top of my head, that other Realms products mentioned this as well.

Specifically, its been mentioned that dwarven females often times keep bundled up in furs and/or wear heavy armor and grow out their beards, and keep they helmets on and hoods up, so that no one outside of a perceptive dwarf would pick up that they are, indeed, a female.

As far as depicted, as in pictures, I'm fairly certain there was a flash back in the Forgotten Realms comic by DC Comics back in the day of Minder before she became an iron golem that depicts her in armor with a beard, but I can't recall with 100% certainty that I'm remembering this correctly.

It seems to me that the majority of people dislike or despise dwarfs...

Can someone explain why?

Bonus points if your explanation is funny or creative.

I'd never assume that just because you have several people willing to post on a message board that they constitute a majority. Honestly, I like dwarves, though I have ideas on what I would like to see done with them to help blunt some arguments about them.

The hell, dude? How many diminutive bears are there in the history of bears? How many huge cats? You can't b*%!% about there not being useful animals when your definition of useful is, apparently, 'non existent'.

Obviously you've never been mauled by a microbear swarm. Shudder

I'm all for more animal stats, but I'm not a fan of having too much of any one type of monster, so a sprinkling of new animals is cool. I'm still waiting for a chance to use my druid with an elk animal companion idea I'm kicking around though.

Gopher.

My friend the FLGS owner would appreciate this notion:

Armored Gopher Games

;)

The first 24 hours you wear the item, its a temporary bonus, and can't be used as a prerequisite for anything requiring a minimum ability score. Once you have worn the item for longer than 24 hours, your ability score is considered to be permanently that ability score, and can be used as a prerequisite for anything that requires a certain ability score at a minimum.

If you ever take the item off, the 24 hour counter starts over again.

As far as a raw bonus to your ability score, it doesn't matter that much.

Dwarven music being all about the workchants and forgechanties and underground drum-signals is very cool. I vaguely recall something like that in the 2nd edition Complete Bard's Handbook, and it was very inspiring.

Yeah, I think that that idea bounced in from somewhere, whether the Complete Bard's Handbook or the Complete Dwarves Book from 2nd Edition. Oddly, between the older Realms stuff, Dragonlance, and the generic supplements, it seems like there were actually some cool dwarf ideas, but sadly, the loudest "voice" of dwarven flavor seemed to be RAS' "drunken, brawling, silly last name comic relief" dwarves.

I like the notion of only facts being permanantly graven in stone, but my own preference is to go the opposite direction and have dwarven writing be more like kennings, or runes with multiple possible interpretations, making even 'factual' recountings subject to multiple interpretations.

Yeah, I like trying to walk the line between the really stern, hide bound dwarven culture that we've seen in D&D in the past, and more Norse influences.

I set up a side discussion on how people might have revised dwarves in this thread:

How Would You Have Revised Dwarves?

I'm starting this one and linking from the elven learning thread because I think its kind of an interesting discussion. I'm not knocking what Paizo has done with dwarves . . . honestly, I don't want things to change too much, but I do have some ideas that I would have love to have thrown into the dwarven culture.

Names: One of my favorite concepts that died an ignominious death in the Forgotten Realms was the dwarven naming convention introduced in the Old Grey Boxed Set. In there, dwarves didn't have the Flintstone-esque last names that they have now.

In the Old Grey Boxed Set, dwarves had their names, followed by "son of X," and then "blood of X" if they had a famous relative further back than their own father, and if further distinction was needed, they listed their place of dwelling.

So, for example, you might have Gharve, son of Hardrin, Blood of Merok, of the dwarves of Janderhoff (or something like that). Dwarves that wanted to show disdain for someone wouldn't tell you their lineage, so you would only get a terse "Gharve" if the dwarf was trying to blow you off.

Honestly, I would love to have seen this for dwarves instead of the constant stream of Goldlickers or Adamantinearse or a million other compound names that start to dive into the downright silly (for every relatively respectable name like "Fireforge," you get a . . . sigh . . . Muffinhead, or even a McKnuckles . . . sigh).

Ancestor Worship: I really liked this aspect of the dwarves from Dragon Age, especially with their respect for history and families. Now, if I were to try and use this for Pathfinder, I would probably phrase this a bit more like saintly intervention. Dwarves that want to pray for something will ask an ancestor that is generally acknowledged to be in good standing with their gods.

Only the priests routinely pray directly to the dwarven gods, and even then, they usually preface their prayers with a few imploring words to priests that passed on and are in good standing with the gods.

What gets written down: The only things that dwarves commit to stone are facts. An alchemist or metallurgist that is working on theories might jot down notes on paper, but when he comes up with some proven formulas, they get carved into the walls of their workspace in runes.

Dwarven settlements have huge caverns recording history, but dwarven history that is recorded is very factual. Dwarven bards may tell elaborate stories about King Forgrat killed the red dragon Threxistes and how he buried him under an avalanche and tore his wings off, and all, but in the histories, only what is actually know to have happened is recorded. So the walls recording history would only say "King Forgrat killed the red dragon Threxistes on X date."

Books are only used for theories, fiction, or portable writings (spellbooks, alchemist formula, etc.).

Also, I really loved the detail in Dragonlance that dwarven historians will not record the names of the dishonored, so if someone turned traitor or betrayed his house, his name would never appear in writing.

Music: One of the things that bugged me back in the old Castle Guide for 2nd edition was the comment about dwarves celebrating, commenting that they got drunk and sang very badly. Why? Again, Dragonlance and a really cool detail about how dwarves were actually often very good singers, with deep resonant voices, but that they didn't sing casually.

Dwarves sing when they are working, they sing in battle, and they sing for festivities, but there are specific songs for each situation, and its not done casually. But dwarves that sing usually sing very well. In fact, in cities with mixed populations, churches that have both human and dwarven adherents often have dwarven cantors (for example, temples of Abadar or Torag in non-dwarven cities with a dwarven population).

Drinking: Dwarves are resistant to poisons and intoxicants. They are well know for making strong, high quality alcohol. But getting drunk is disdained in dwarven society. It shows a lack of self-control and a failure to recognize one's own limitations.

Dwarves drink alcohol with nearly every meal, because they often don't have clean water sources. They eat a morning meal and an evening meal, and for mid day, they often drink a very hearty "meal brew" instead of stopping to eat. Strong drink is reserved for after work is done, and even then, strong drink is for pushing one's limits. A dwarf can drink enough to down most humans and elves, but as soon as they begin to feel its effects, they tend to stop.

Dwarves view drinking very potent alcohol as pushing their limits and making themselves stronger, but showing signs of drunken behavior is a sign of weakness.

Reminds me of the Michael Jackson/Paul McCartney thing in the '80s. The Beatles became the "intellectual property" of a guy who blocked the guy who actually wrote half the damned songs from getting them back.

And yet they seemed so happy together when they performed "Say, Say, Say," and "The Girl is Mine." ;)

Makes me want to play an elf with a fetish for orcish and dwarven women just to make them rage.

Slight side bar here, but I always got the feeling that 2nd edition started distancing itself from the pulp side of D&D's influences, and 1st edition elves, which were part Tolkien/Part Norse Alfar/Part Poul Anderson Fey Creatures/Part Elric influenced race in decline became more and more 100% Tolkien style elves, which meant playing up the the "perfect being" side of things.

Don't get me wrong, I like Tolkien and all, but LOTR elves are horrible PCs.

Great. Now I want to make an alchemist named Gargamel. I hope everyone is happy.

Different strokes for different folks and all, but I strongly recommend not cleaving close to the 2E Complete Book of Elves if you don't want the other players to hate your elven PC.

I still believe that book did more to paint elves with a "Better Than You" brush than any other D&D supplement ever.

"Elves aren't arrogant, they are just misunderstood. They really do feel bad that you aren't as awesome as they are."

;)

See also: The comic book industry. Anything related to the Miracleman properties for just one example that has been drawn out over decades.

It's a @#$%ing mess out there.

Heh . . . or calling anyone Superboy for a while.

Of all the stuff that's OGL/closed, the stuff that's most jarring to me is the artwork changes. I loved some of the Lockwood dragons (the black, red, brass, bronze and silver, particularly) from the Monster Manual, and the new appearances are taking longer to grow on me, although I like the Dragons of Golarion looks for the blue and white dragons better.

Black dragons look pretty vicious, and apparently there is a legacy of having messed up horns.

The thing that strikes me with reds is that some look pretty similar to the "red dragon standard," but other artwork goes way overboard on the number of spikes. The pictures that are a bit more subtle about the spikes I can live with.

Honestly, I'd much rather not open the "Gith" can of worms. From what I've seen in various geek properties regarding ownership of characters and the like, there are often repercussions that no one really expected waiting to jump up and bite people in the ass, and to me its not worth it to test a theory.

In other words, while its highly unlikely, the more WOTC is said not to own, the more its possible it could be said that they also cannot grant to right to use other things in any kind of license. The higher up the legal food chain things go, the more it seems like things you think you know are no longer known, and its not uncommon for for judges to rule that anything that even tangentially touches on those topics have to be on hold.

Well, mugtuggle . . . I just picked up a bunch of PDFs yesterday that I've been eying for a while. I really like minotaurs, and I enjoyed In the Company of Giants. Might have to break down and make another PDF purchase.

Smurf!

Gnap!

(The Gnap Apocalypse has begun!)