Art is seldom a deal-maker or -breaker by itself, but I do judge art quality when evaluating an RPG book. It can influence my opinion at least of how well a book is put together, and whether I will keep an eye out for future products by the same company.
Now, if the game itself sucks, not gonna get it no matter how pretty it is, as SlimGauge notes.
And if I am already familiar with a system and I like it, I will buy the product absolutely regardless of art quality.
BUT if I am looking at a system for the first time and the art is distracting because it's bad or poorly placed, then it may influence my decision to put the book down and not give the system a chance--mostly just because I have trouble reading the system because of the poor design.
Furthermore, if a product contains artwork I personally find offensive -- women are only portrayed as sexualized victims and never as heroes (the infamous half-naked ritual sacrifice victim, for example); offensive racial stereotyping, etc. -- then I absolutely will not buy the product because I do not back with money things that encourage values I consider negative and hurtful. If I heard someone on the street call someone a derogatory name and then ask me to buy the wares they were selling, I wouldn't, so I wouldn't do any sort of equivalent.
Other considerations for artwork that may influence my purchase/support:
- Does it look like a non-artist scribbled a sketch and scanned it in?
I've seen a lot of 3rd party/low budget game books who feel the need to have artwork but obviously cannot afford a good pro artist. And so they publish clearly amateur (figures are disproportionate, etc.) or low res/low quality drawings or both, which dramatically brings down the quality of the publication.
I would honestly prefer simple, clean line drawings or even meticulously chosen clip art/stock art/stock photos than badly drawn artwork -- or even no art at all. If you lay out your book well, I may notice there's no artwork, but I will respect it more than if you insert a picture of ridiculously scaled adventurers that look like you paid your 9 year old sister 50 cents to draw it for you.
- Does it have anything to do with what's on the page?
Picture needs to be close to the text talking about what's depicted. I get annoyed by artwork in RPG books that doesn't actually illustrate anything to do with what's happening.
- Has it been shoved into the layout willy nilly or does it use the space wisely? Good layout is one of my own separate but related aesthetic gripes, actually. If you can't layout the page that I can't easily follow the text, then I'm definitely not going to buy the book. Placement of artwork within the layout is part of this issue as well. If the artwork is placed such that it actually truncates a paragraph, making it harder to read, or otherwise distracts from the text, I'm not going to appreciate its presence, no matter how beautiful it is.
Likewise if artwork makes the page too "busy," that's no good. Usually artwork when used well is used to break up text to keep it from being monotonous, but if there's a picture and a table and a sidebar and barely any text between, that looks awful--and also goes back to, "does this addition of artwork make the text hard to read?" If yes, then bad.
- Are the artistic styles consistent with each other?
I am not too much of a stickler over style per se. Certainly there are styles of artwork I prefer more than others according to my personal aesthetic, but I won't refuse to buy a book just because the artwork isn't my favorite kind, especially if it's otherwise obviously high quality (high res, good use of color (or grayscale chiaroscuro), well placed in the layout, etc. etc.).
But it does bug me if a publisher has hired obviously several different artists who have very different, conflicting styles of artwork. If on the first page I see a gorgeous painted piece of pseudo-realistic fantasy artwork, and on the next page I see a cel-painted-style piece of Japanese-comic-style art, and then on the next page after that I see your 9 year old sister's disproportionate adventuring party in pencil sketch, then no. I'm okay with differing styles--every artist does things a little differently--as long as they are still complimentary. Think about how a museum curator might arrange paintings on a wall. He may put Matisse and another expressionist together, even though Matisse's picture has stronger colors and the other expressionist has sharper, darker, cleaner lines, but they still compliment each other in some way. But a curator will probably not put an Andy Warhol next to Da Vinci (unless they're specifically trying to make a point) -- both good artists, but their artwork will probably distract from each other and make each piece harder to appreciate.
Did you actually read my post? I only forgot twice.
Please stop nitpicking. Forgetting, not bringing money, same thing. Forgetting is actually a more reasonable excuse.
CommandoDude wrote:
And if you were seriously concerned about me mooching, would you not say something about it? Like, "Hey you owe me money for the last game?"
I would, but many people wouldn't. You seem to completely lack any sort of empathy or understanding of social situations, so I'll clue you in:
People don't want to nag. The nagging wife is an especially negative stereotype that many women hate to act as, so it's absolutely understandable that they didn't pester you about the money that you should have brought with you 3 times.
Why should they have to take upon themselves to act negatively in a situation where you are the offending party? And if you act in real life like you act here, you probably would have argued with them if you should even pay them or not. It's not a conflict that they should have to take, you should be excusing yourself to them in front of the others.
CommandoDude wrote:
Please, like that hasn't happened to you every once in awhile, where you thought you had cash on you only to open your wallet and see it empty, or with only half the amount you thought you had?
The difference here is that I repay my debt the next day, or in worst case whenever I get money for it. I might even loan from a closer friend if a more distant friend had to loan me money on the spot. I would absolutely go out of my way to get money if I forgot to bring money again, and I would feel very bad about putting someone else in the same situation again. Simply going "whatevs" and ignoring your supposed friends is violating social norms.
CommandoDude wrote:
One slip up is enough to get me labeled as a mil-moocher? Wow, if I'm being overly defensive, you must be being overly offensive.
Again, you are lacking even the most rudimentary social understanding. From your post I took it that you asked once if you could have some milk, and then drank of their milk every session from then on. Not only that, but you were expressly told not to drink the milk and you did it anyway. This is just a "WTF?" moment for me as a fellow human being. If I tell you that you cannot have something of mine and you simply take it and consume it against my will, that is simply stealing.
Now, take this together with your past history of just not caring about others money, food and even the game itself, I see little reason to keep you around. Your behavior is extremely anti-social. If you were a young child, say 10 or below, it would at least be understandable (even if it wouldn't be acceptable).
CommandoDude wrote:
Stop attacking a strawman and actually read the OP.
I'm making an analogy to attempt to explain why these social norms exist and why what you did was wrong. Now, you had plenty of time to put this down to Asperger's or some similar condition, but as it stands so far you are just a jerk with no excuse for your behavior.
Edit:
CommandoDude wrote:
Well, if there's one thing I got out of this thread, it's that it helped me decide that I was indeed not guilty, since I know the internet has a penchant for giving people the freedom to act overly viscous when tearing into other people.
I was looking for a "Well, it was X because of Y" and to be fair, some people gave me that. Other people blasted me for being "Overly defensive"
Wow. Just, wow. You decided that you were not guilty. After admitting that you did everything, you decide that you were not guilty.
You broke the most basic of social norms numerous times, without regret and without ever attempting to fix anything.
The only way you'll be able to stay in any of the other groups is if they are as socially oblivious as you are.
Gamer-guest etiquette can be tricky. The fact that ours is a social hobby means sometimes there are problems totally outside the game, often based on expectations, and it sounds like you have run afoul of this.
I am often the host of games I run and/or play in. Inf act, I'd say that's the case 90% of the time. So, I can understand what frustrations the hosts are feeling. If you were a guest at a game in my house, I would have had a talk with you at this point, but I'd have been pretty firm that you'd crossed a line, and I needed you to know you'd crossed a line. I'd also feel like I shouldn't have had to talk to you about this situation, so I'd be annoyed.
As I read your post, in the past 3 game sessions in a row you a: failed to pay for pizza. Now, I'm not sure if you failed once and then didn't pay or eat pizza the next two times, or if you failed once, then skipped pizza the next two times (neither eating nor paying).
If the former, then you are guilty of a minor transgression, but still a transgression. You essentially borrowed money on a promise to repay, and then have failed to do so twice. That's inconsiderate. The group did you a favor, with no forewarning they would need to, in feeding you. Once they approve you eating their pizza with a promise to repay, you have an extra duty to make sure you do so. Failure to live up to that not once, but twice, shows a serious lack of respect for the people who did you a favor.
If you ate pizza three game sessions in a row and never paid for it (which as I said isn't clear to me), then you are guilty of a major transgression. You compiled all the problems I just listed above with mooching, knowing you already owed folks money, and without asking if it was okay the second two times (or else, presumably, they would have "mentioned the debt," which you say didn't happen).
This is the context by which the next two points must be seen.
Over the same time period you were mooching food form the group (pizza) and failing to repay it (on two subsequent occasions), you stopped bringing your own snacks. Even if you were the only person eating your donuts, you were showing a willingness to provide. I would strongly guess the perception is that since you didn't bring the snack that you normally eat, you ate more of the snacks brought by others. Whether this is true or not is immaterial, actually.
Not bringing snacks isn't a transgression lacking an agreement to the contrary. Not bringing snacks when you are already mooching pizza and showing disrespect by failing to pay for the pizza-debt over the next two sessions makes this look much less like a matter of being very forgetful, and more like a conscious decision to eat other's food without bringing anything yourself (money for pizza, or snacks).
Then, the milk.
If you were asked not to drink the milk, and you did so anyway, you are guilty of a major transgression. You violated the rules of the host. Taken to an extreme, you stole their milk. (You took something you did not buy, and had no reasonable expectation you were welcome to). That's way beyond merely inconsiderate. It doesn't matter that it was "just" milk or that you only took it once after after you were told not to. This is not the behavior of a good guest, or even a reasonable adult.
Combine these three issues, and you stopped paying for pizza, failed to repay a debt on the next two opportunities you had to do so, stopped putting in any effort to cover the group's combined food needs, and took milk you specifically had been told you were not welcome to. No one of these things is a big deal. combined, they show a pattern of disregard and disrespect.
I can't speak to the swearing. I cuss like an injured sailor. My ability to moderate this around others is not as good as I'd like. Certainly if I had been warned about my language and then cussed on even two more occasions, I would totally understand if a group told me I was no longer welcome.
If I was both cussing and drinking milk I had been told I was not welcome to, I'd expect to be asked to leave. That is classic "bad guest" behavior.
From the sound of things, you created a tend of showing disrespect for the food (and thus labor which bought the food), and rules of your hosts. Seeing each incident as a minor transgression by itself does not give the weight of events over 3 sessions the gravity I honestly believe it deserves.
I think at the very least, repayment of pizza money and an apology for violating the clearly laid-out expectations of you hosts regarding milk and cussing are in order. After that, if you care to, you could see if that bridge is permanently burned.
hosts never reminded me about my debt or asked to collect pizza money so it slipped my mind. Same happened at my last meeting. I was never called/emailed/or talked to at any game (even by the DM) about this.
Don't make other people keep track of your debts, That can generate bad feelings.
I went looking for some player advice and found this in B1 In Search of Adventure. Shouldn't this be in the new Players Handbook?
TIPS FOR PLAYERS:
Beginning players would do well to profit from some basic advice before beginning their D&D careers, and with that in mind, the following points are offered for consideration:
1. Be an organized player. Keep accurate records on your character [experience, abilities, items possessed, etc.) for your own purposes and to aid the Dungeon Master.
2. Always keep in mind that the Dungeon Master is the moderator of the game, and as such, deserves the continued cooperation, consideration and respect of all the players. If you disagree with him or, her, present your viewpoint with deference to the DM’s position as game judge, but be prepared to accept his or her decision as final-after all, keep in mind that you may not know all aspects of the overall game situation, and in that case, not everything will always go your way!
3. Cooperate with your fellow players and work together when adventuring. Remember that on any foray into this dungeon or wilderness, a mix of character classes will be beneficial since the special abilities of the various characters will complement each other and add to the Overall effectiveness of the party.
4. Be neither too hasty nor too sluggish when adventuring. If you are too fast in your exploration, you may recklessly endanger yourself and your fellow adventurers and fall prone to every trick and trap you encounter. If you are too slow, you will waste valuable time and may be waylaid by more than your share of wandering monsters without accomplishing anything. As you gain playing experience you will learn the proper pace, but rely on your DM for guidance.
5. Avoid arguing. While disagreements about a course of action will certainly arise from time to time, players should quickly discuss their options and reach a consensus in order to proceed. Bickering in the dungeon will only create noise which may well attract wandering monsters. Above all, remember that this is just a game and a little consideration will go far toward avoiding any hard feelings.
6. Be on your guard. Don’t be overly cautious, but be advised that some non-player characters may try to hoodwink you, players may doublecross you, and while adventuring, tricks and traps await the unwary. Of course, you won’t avoid every such pitfall [dealing with the uncertainties is part of the fun and challenge of the game), but don‘t be surprised if everything is not always as it seems.
7. Treat any retainers or NPCs fairly. If you reward them generously and do not expose them to great risks of life and limb that your own character would not face, then you can expect. a continuing loyalty [although there may be exceptions, of course).
8. Know your limits. Your party may not be a match for every monster you encounter, and occasionally it pays to know when and how to run away from danger. Likewise, a dungeon adventure may have to be cut short if your party suffers great adversity and/or depleted strength. Many times it will take more than one adventure to accomplish certain goals, and it will thus be necessary to come back out of a dungeon to heal wounds, restore magical abilities and spells, and reinforce a party’s strength.
9. Use your head. Many of the characters’ goals in the game can be accomplished through the strength of arms or magic. Others, however, demand common sense and shrewd judgment as well as logical deduction. The most successful players are those who can effectively use both aspects of the game to advantage.
10. The fun of a D&D game comes in playing your character’s role. Take on your character’s persona and immerse yourself in the game setting, enjoying the fantasy element and the interaction with your fellow players and the Dungeon Master.
Sometimes when you read in an NPC's tactics for Morale "This guy fights to the death," that's the wordcount creeping in. We COULD put in more details on how they react to being captured, and we try to do that as much as we can, but doing so would force us to spend less time talking about that NPC's history and personality in the first place... which makes them less interesting to redeem. It's a catch-22.
Appreciated, James - but the odd sidebar could make us feel like we're not 'fighting the system'.
Take the latest AP module. I kinda feel that if the challenge is 'get a treasure map off the skin of a lady pirate', and the PCs only options are 'kill her and take her stuff', then that's a missed opportunity for all manner of stealth-based or diplomatic options...
We can change that if we're of a mind, but the written text tells us plainly that we can't do it. Why not present alternatives as an option?
Sometimes when you read in an NPC's tactics for Morale "This guy fights to the death," that's the wordcount creeping in. We COULD put in more details on how they react to being captured, and we try to do that as much as we can, but doing so would force us to spend less time talking about that NPC's history and personality in the first place... which makes them less interesting to redeem. It's a catch-22.
Fortunately, Pathfinder has something that video games do not—GMs. If you as a player want to be able to have the chance to redeem Bad Guys... Tell your GM. Most GMs won't even think this is something that the PCs want since the game's got close to 4 decades of fight fight fight built into it.
For a setting with an actual god of redemption in it, that particular example of Good at its best doesn't seem to get much love, or at least it feels that way much of the time. Whenever I've asked "where are the non-evil _____ tribes when they have free will and Sarenrae exists", the general answer is along the lines of "that's what the PCs are for", but that doesn't really get a lot of love either.
Most of the time redemption is mentioned in APs, it seems it's to say that so-and-so is beyond it or that characters interested in pursuing redemption for an NPC are just taking the bait for a trap.
I got to thinking about Council of Thieves recently, specifically the matter of
Spoiler:
Khazrae.
I read that AP after we wound up not playing it and went with Kingmaker instead. I remember thinking that that would have been an awesome opportunity to finally getting to have a PC that managed to redeem a character, and that certainly presented an interesting opportunity that my character concept for CoT certainly would have pursued. But thinking on it further it likely would have blown up in his face like most every other attempt in the past I've made with my characters simply because the possibility of it suceeding wasn't even mentioned in the text.
And that's the frustrating thing. Far too many GMs simply will not deviate from the text, so if the possibility isn't mentioned, it isn't there for them.
The one actual NPC that I can think of that actually had redemption written in as a possibility was actually
Spoiler:
in Curse of the Crimson Throne, and her redemption she pretty much takes care of herself without the PCs having much of a hand in it.
Maybe I'm missing some other examples in APs I can't read(due to playing, even if two are stalled indefinitely) but I certainly can't remember any more in the APs I've read.
This isn't confined to the APs either. My all-time favorite fey, the Forlarren, was presented in Tome of Horrors(where I first learned of it) as a creature ripe for this sort of thing. It was as if that creature had been made for the sort of player that would be interested in redemption rather than just Detect Evil-Smite Evil. Then in Bestiary 2 and all of that richness and possibility is lost because it's now presented as a gleefully evil creature that's all about the evil, and where before there was depth there's now just a mechanical debuff.
Could we see more support to let good characters interested in redeeming evil characters, be they player race or monster? I mean surely there's enough room in Golarion for that form of play as well, right?
Could we have opportunities to have a hand in the redemption of a fiend? Could we have opportunities to lead orc tribes out of the darkness of their evil cultures? Could we see redemption actually given full attention and love once and a while rather than just lip-service?
It would just be nice to be able to play a good character in an AP, ask WWSD?, and actually have a decent shot at it working.
If this comes across as gripey, sorry. Just been fighting some burnout on this issue for a long time now.
Hello folks. I did a search and did not see a how-to guide for this. This isn't a technique for people who build fancy paper models. This is an illustrated guide to making dirt-cheap paper minis for players and GMs who have limited time, limited budgets, and limited hand-eye coordination. This is for folks who want something presentable for a table top RPG that they can quickly produce en masse.
Materials Needed:
Color printer
Card stock – the heaviest stuff your printer can run
Art – Get the artist's permission, or use something open source
Photo editing program
Glue stick
Hobby knife
Skills Needed:
Very light image manipulation
Time:
Ten minutes if you take your time
Now, Paizo's paper minis are extremely cheap and easy to assemble, so really consider using them if you're on an adventure path. Other companies do make paper minis, though they tend to be either the ugly as sin tri-folds or else a pain to assemble. These minis are designed so you can use any art you have the rights to use, so they are extremely easy to assemble, and so they aren't bad looking on the table.
She doesn't have a purpose yet: maybe she's a druid seer who has given herself over entirely to some animal shape, or an an animal spirit or a strange tribe.
I am using 225 gm/m^2 card stock, which is pretty thick.
Step 1: Find an image.
We've already got one. Artist: Laura Siadak, used with permission, all rights reserved, etc. Her gallery is at Fallen Lights. Yes, that was a shameless plug. Warning, not all her art is safe for work or appropriate for minors.
I'm using an old version of Photoshop CS. Every feature I'm using is extremely basic and should be on all versions of PS. If you happen to have another program, you'll need to adjust your technique.
Step 3: Resize the image.
Set your background color to Black and White, then resize the image. Since this creature will be Large Size, I will set the Width to two inches. You should use the size of the creature you are creating - for example, a 1 inch width for a medium PC. You may have to crop an image in order to make it fit. I will also save the image at 300 pixels per inch, since I want to preserve as much detail as I can for when I print this.
Now you need to adjust the canvas size. I double the canvas size, allowing the black background to show through. Because I want to create a two-sided image, I will select the box on the bottom, so the image goes on the bottom and I have a second, equally-spaced blank image up to. Double the size by increasing the height to 200%. Leave the width alone.
Step 5: Select the background with the magic wand tool and then select inverse. Then, copy the image, paste the image, then slide the image over the background.
The PS shortcuts once you're done with the Magic Wand are CTRL-C, CTRL-V, and CTRL-T for “Transform.” You can also select Edit: Transform.
Select Edit: Transform: Flip Vertical. (You should be on the duplicated part.) This will flip the image again. Now I will adjust the canvas size one last time. Since the creature is large, I want the base to be two-by-two. That means I want to add two images to the canvas height, while leaving the modified image in the center. Use the same tool to edit the canvas size, but this time just add two inches (1 inch for medium/small creatures, 3 inches for 3x3 space, etc).
You can decorate that base if you want, but I believe flat black can go anywhere without looking strange.
Step 8: Print on cardstock and cut out. You can certainly arrange multiple images on one page. A really easy way to do that is to import the images into MS Word or a similar program, then arrange them. I won't be doing that during this tutorial.
A yellow-tan card stock really fits thematically with the colors I use, so that's what you'll see. Forgive the poor image quality; my phone's camera leaves a lot to be desired.
That's it. There are great ways to create much more fanciful paper minis, but this seems to be one of the easiest ways to get the job done. It also means you can use any art you have the rights to and are not limited to designs you buy or find. Hope this helps.
As you can see, this particular mini fits perfectly on scale for a large-size creature. By adjusting the width and the amount you expand the canvas in Step 6, you can scale for any creature.
The take 10 rules in the skills section do not restrict it, but the lore master bardic class ability seems to suggest that you cannot normally take 10.
I am sorry if this has been answered before, but my search fu is not working. In general PFRPG, we can just rule however, but my question is important for the purposes of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and a designer's opinion would be appreciated to help end an ongoing and somewhat contentious discussion.
You can take 10 on knowledge checks, as with all checks. The bard lore master ability lets a bard take 10 at all times, even in the middle of combat.
The whole thing seems full of good ideas badly realised, none moreso than Isabella. I mean, the PCs have to get a treasure map off the skin of a sexy lady pirate... Is it just me, or could that situation be absolutely loaded with fun possibilities? But no; it has to be combat and death. Talk about missed opportunities...
I agree so very hard. I expected her to be a memorable, interesting enemy. No. The worst part about this book (and it's like finding the bad egg in the basket the golden goose laid) is the sahuagin and how uninterestingly they're shoehorned into the book-- especially because everything about the sahuagin is pretty cool. They're just forced on the PCs, though, and have little to do with the plot. The return of the revenge of the random encounter. And Isabella, a super cool NPC, is basically... the revenge of the random encounter. It's disheartening, especially because my favorite kind of pirate is the ridiculous, bombastic Blackbeard-esque pirate, and I keep building up a hype in my head for "is this new NPC going to be the one" and keep getting let down. I wish there was another really good villain in these APs.
Also, RE: Isabella Locke's backstory:
I'm seriously so very sick of cross-species rape in adventure paths. So extremely utterly sick of it.
One of my players wants to play something like a 'White Mage' role (from Final Fantasy)- that is, a divine caster with no armour but strong spellcasting abilities, weilding wands and staves more than melee weapons.
I was interested in the Oracle after seeing the iconic character, but it turns out that class is really just a melee beatstick just like all other divine classes in 3rd and 4th edition.
Which is especially galling because she looks as if she's a pure caster with those exotic robes - shouldn't the 'Iconics' have the armour and weapons the class actually uses?
I looked through the archetypes for something that would fit, and so far nothing did. I'm thinking of letting the player play a sorcerer and just swap out the arcane spells for cleric ones.
Or if I used a cleric or oracle, but cut the armour feats, maybe offering two more appropriate feat choices in exchange for losing Light & Medium armour?
Something I have done is allow people to take the exotic weapon proficiency to handle changing a simple or martial weapon in one of the following ways:
1. Handiness (moving it up or down one category).
2. Damage increased by a step.
3. Critical range increased by a step (maximum 18-20 critical range).
4. Improve the critical multiplier by 1.
There was talk some time ago of implementing this, as many of us PbP GM's like to use the short description to quote a character for example, or set up various links to useful resources or character sheets, etc.
Pretty please? 250 characters is not particularly accommodating and the short description box has the potential to be really useful :).
A remove disease or heal spell cast by a cleric of 12th level or higher cures the affliction, provided the character receives the spell within 3 days of the infecting lycanthrope's attack. Alternatively, consuming a dose of wolfsbane gives an afflicted lycanthrope a new Fortitude save to recover from lycanthropy.
My friend says that the dose of wolvesbane also needs to be taken within three days, I say that according to RAW it can be taken any time to get another save. Which is it?
Rylar, there is basically no point in killing a PC if you are just going to let them come back with the same experience and or wealth. I'm not sure what your rule is.
I'm a paramedic. I'm amazed at just how wrecked people can be in real life and survive until they get to surgery, or how dead they can be and be revived. When is someone dead? When they are brain dead? When their heart stops? Hearts can be restarted. People come out of comas. How much easier would all this medical crap be if we could just pray and receive 3d8+6 hit points back?
I don't kill characters if they receive magical healing after the fight. The only time I kill them is if the cleric retreats or their healer gets knocked out. This fights are so defeating I think players can respect that - as long as they respect the game and enjoy the fight.
Sometimes these things change - you might be reaching a point with the group where they are story gamers and just want a story. Maybe they don't care about feeling challenged and just want to RP? That happens. A lot of RPGs out there don't expect deadly combat and are just for RP. Pathfinder can transition into that sort of play depending on the temperament of the players, and while I agree that it isn't the kind of play that the books encourage, it is a fine way to play. You might have to become flexible and learn something about story-telling.
While I love running my hard sandbox games with lots of death, there is nothing I like more than players who are really attached to their characters. It is a blessing that can make RPing a shopping trip worth a million bucks. It is precious. It does the work of making the game fun almost for you and not all players are capable of it.
I think, while the painting and art history analogy is good, a better one might be to look at music.
Casting a spell is like singing a song. Some are untrained naturals (sorcerers), some are highly trained if not naturally talented and sing by rote (wizards), and some download their favorite tunes every morning for playback later while lip synching and playing air guitar (clerics). The end result is the same: You hear a song/spell coming out of someone's mouth.
Spellcraft is like having perfect pitch mixed with training in sight reading and writing music. You hear someone singing. You can recognize the notes, and that it's in 3/4 time, and before someone has sung more than a bar, you can recognize that they're singing a waltz.
Knowledge Arcana is like Music History. Music History does not let you know how to read sheet music, nor can you tell a B flat from a C sharp, but you know that "The Waltz of the Flowers," used in Disney's Fantasia, is originally from "The Nutcracker" by Tchaikovsky.
Using Detect Magic with Spellcraft to analyze a magic item without operating it is like using a screwdriver to open a music box to read the pattern of the pins. You open the music box, look at where the pins are and what notes they strike, and you recognize that this music box when wound will play a waltz. Knowledge Arcana is like Music History, letting you know that this particular waltz is the Waltz of the Flowers.
As for Concentration, this is a separate skill because you use Concentration to stay on key when some starts trying to whack you with a sword while you're singing "The Waltz of the Flowers."
While that's an amusing scenario, I could really use some sort of mnemonic device to discern between the two. The criteria you gave would still require me checking the PRD and scratching my head. :(
Spellcraft is to Knowledge Arcana as Painting is to Art History.
If a spellcaster watches another spellcaster at work, they'll understand the technique the other person is using, the same as a painter can understand what another painter is doing by watching them while they paint. The caster understands the techniques to use the various schools of magic the same way the painter understands stuff like underpainting, forced perspective, color balance, and so on.
The person with lots of Knowledge Arcana is like the person with a lot of knowledge of Art History. They can tell you all of the formal names for various things, all the names of the great masters of the art, and so forth. The knowledge doesn't give you any technical skill, but gives you knowledge and perspective to understand the end result.
There are of course overlaps with other Knowledges. If you've got a religious painting, both an art historian and a religious scholar will understand something about it, including the name of a particular saint if he or she was a popular subject of religious icons.
I still think the identification of magic items and spells should fall directly under Spellcraft and esoteric magic subjects and monsters should fall under Knowledge: Arcana.
Investment should never be a form of "plot armor".
The reason for this is the fact that not every player has the know how when it comes to character investment. Why should I show you any favoritism because you know how to write a 5 page background while the other guy has a few sentences?
Who said anything about favoritism or plot armor? I'm talking about having fun and actually gaming rather than spending another hour making yet another character because twenty archers decided the bpc squire at my side was suddenly much more threatening than the reality altering wizard behind him.
I'm not sure what kind of group you GM for. But it sounds like the kind who enjoys the form of GM vs. Players you seem to be going for. Do have fun.
But I fail to care anymore.
I curse thee with three Ashiels in your game with none of the personality. And two Ravingdorks who hate eachother.
I always make my PC's roll for anything like scrolls and books if they are hit by spells like fireball or a fire breath weapon. Now if their scrolls are in a case then they are protected but a book just being in your bag doesn't protect it. I might give the save a bonus but it still can be effected.
PRD wrote:
Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.
If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
Some people want all the advantages of a class but not the disadvantages.
In situations like this I hate the following excuses:
1: It ruins my fun.
2: You will lose players.
3: DM is a control freak.
4: Ruins my verisimilitude.
5: It took me X hours to come up with this character.
Is there a point to making this thread? You started out with statements and I did not see a single point of question or asking for comment.
Did you do this just to announce that you are the kind of DM who will make as their first priority in EVERY encounter to..
1. Target the Witch's Familiar
2. Target the Wizard's Spellbook
3. Target the Wizard's Familliar if a Witch familliar is not available and you've already burnt the Wizard's spellbook.
4. Target the Cavalier's or Paladin's Horse, the Druid's animal companion.
5. Target the player's mounts,
....or in short target everything but the players themselves, just because it's there and a major character investment?
A DM who wants to screw their players around has all the advantages, they've got knowledge of the NPC's and knowledge of what the players do.
Sure many of these moves may seem the most "logical" at least on paper. They also make for very gamist, and not very interesting combats as opposed to simple dick moves. But if that's the way you run your games and your players put up with it fine. But if you expected to get some form of salute or award for your GM style, you wasted your time in posting this thread.
There's a fine line between what makes sense tactically and metagaming.
If a baddie tries to hit a horse in combat, that's not an issue. If he fails and keeps trying over and over again instead of hitting the guy on the mount that's actually doing the damage, that leans more towards the metagaming side. If every single guy you fight all go after the horse every single time, that's pretty much metagaming.
Same goes for spellbooks. If suddenly every Tom, Dick, and Harry is trying to steal and burn your spellbook, the player is going to get ticked. There's a time and a place for these things and while yes, the player does have a weakness that CAN be exploited doesn't mean that it has to be every single encounter. Or else you start getting into an arms race that no one is going to enjoy.
And really, if one person keeps trying to sunder my weapon or stab my horse over and over again without success, I'd have to question it's intelligence.
It's all about running a balanced game. Enemies should do what makes the most sense to them at the time. Note, however, that what makes sense to them at the time may not be the optimal thing to do according to the mechanics.
I'm generally against letting players die, and have found that having characters who never die is often better for generating tension and suspense then having characters who die frequently. If death happens too frequently, they will not be attached to their characters and will in turn not fear death as much, better to frighten them with failure and suffering for the players they are attached to than death, especially if death is going to ruin their fun. It also allows for a lot more role playing and character development.
As for what to do, I would say that you should not save the players with an NPC, that cheapens their struggle, makes them feel powerless, reduces suspense, and makes them reliant on NPC's for help. I would allow them to fail and be defeated. This can include getting captured, losing items, having to flee, having importance NPC allies get killed, making enemies, failing to achieve major objectives, and so on.
I would, however, keep it a secret from the players that you don't let them die. You can say that you prefer for them not to die, but always leave the possibility open at least in their minds.
Have to agree with this. Honestly, I'm mystified by the idea that a player becoming attached to a character is a bad thing.
I'd have to agree that when it comes to making PCs feel threatened, there are better ways of doing things than just killing them off arbitrarily. High levels of character death just make them see their characters as stab blocks and ability scores instead of characters. Nobody's going to spend time working out character backstory when their PCs die after two sessions.
Plus, the games provides so many different ways of messing with a party without killing anyone. There's a reason one of my GM-mottos has always been. "I don't kill PCs ... that would be merciful."
Except for Goblins. They'll probally go for the horse every time, although maybe at range. =)
Want to keep a couple of goblins busy? Spam them with summoned Riding Dogs...
As for 'going for the mount / the familiar / the coup-de-grace'... I prefer to play the players' opposition realistically, and in character.
The battle hardened veteran unit will employ radically different tactics than a horde of orcs does.
A random bandit will not pause for slitting a downed enemy's throat if someone else is still attacking him (even if I, as GM know that said bandit would survive the AoO), while a hired assassin might, and a raving madman who is on a personal vendetta agains said downed enemy will.
If you play the encounters realistically, taking into account knowledge, personality, goals and morale of the opponents, the chance of reasonably being accused of making a dick move should be reasonably slim.
Simply taking the mathematically optimum choice, on the other hand, will lead to 'dick move' accusations. This is not a computer game we are playing.
I am not lazy about encounter design. Im murderous about it. I use all you said and more. BUT I also roleplay the monsters appropriately. Horse = food to many (not all) of the dumb monsters. Horse = easiest weakpoint of the mounted combatant to the smart monsters. Within those two points exist a myraid of reactions.
Yes, players put time, energy, and emotion into these things. This is why I use the hero point system. If the mounted rider wants to save his mount at a critical juncture: use a hero point. Alternately, use shield other. There are a number of ways to counter how monsters will (Rightly) go after the weakest link.
- Gauss
Alternatively. Not bother playing those classes.
Why? If opponents focus fire on the horse, it's a big win for all the players, because their characters remain alive, the cavalier included. A raging barbarian with -2 to AC wouldn't have as much survivability if he's the target of a focused fire.
I think you fail to see my point.
All the strategy, tactics, rolling, writing, and roleplaying are simply a means to an end. That end being fun.
Ruthlessness works for some groups. In other's not so much. When you ask your players to bring multiple character sheets and expect lots of death and destruction then they know what to expect. However this expectation is where the problem lies. If you ask a person to make an elaborate backstory with detailed relationships and then proceed to murder all those people you do little more than slap that persons work in his face. Many GM's I've noticed make the mistake of believing that there player's have no attachments to their characters, or to the tropes of their character that make them work and ruthlessly. Other GM's make the opposite mistake as has been pointed out before. They coddle the players, make it too easy or routinely remove them from tough situations with arbitrary deus ex machina or with easy encounters.
Personally, I believe in a balance. The end goal of the bad guys in a fight is not "tpk the group" it's "end the fight". I can always kill everyone once they're unconscious, paralyzed, helpless and what not. Or I can use the opportunity to take the story a different route. They can wake up imprisoned, enslaved, dressed for a gladiator brawl, or banished to a different plane of existence. The player's are still punished for their failure but I don't ruin the gaming night by forcing them to spend the rest of it rolling up new characters. I think it's fine if every once in a whole a Bullette attempts to chow down on the paladin's mount or if a cohort bites it in a face off with a major villain or if a crazy book burning cult gets inflammatory with the wizards spellbook. But this kind of thing has to be balanced with some kind of reward down the line to make it worth it. And it can't be seen as trivial. If you routinely target a mounted characters mount or shatter a cleric's holy symbol or go after the various "weak links" of classes you quickly erode the player's fun as they're forced to take ever more drastic measures to keep from having these weak links ruthlessly exploited up to and including not playing those classes from the start. It feels arbitrary even if that's what you think that's what smart bad guys do.
However I will concede that if it works for your group than good on you. However don't believe that the practice will work for everyone.
This is really no different then a GM going to of his way to coup-de-grace cohorts (and PCs) in the middle of the fight just to get rid of them.
Just to be clear, you're not entirely against bad guys finishing fallen good guys in battle, right? Because in a world where one turn later that fallen good guy could be right back on his feet at full offensive capability thanks to the party healer, that's a legitimate tactic for a smart foe who knows there's a healer in the mix.
And a bloody nuisance for the player whose character you straight up murdered.
As a GM I really don't want to deal with the hurt feelings and wasted time of a player trying to rebuild a character or familiar or cohort.
Let's cut to the chase. Each of these things requires an investment of time on part of the player. Investment in writing, investment in book keeping, and investment in reading.
This investment is what attaches players to their characters and to those aspects of that character.
This actually is a good thing to me since I tend to run character driven games where much of the plot is determined by the actions of the characters.
You see I understand the investment that players have with their characters and understand that it's an immense nuisance to have to make a new one up particularly with the demands I make in detailing characterization and history to bring said character to life.
This does not mean I softball my players. And I think my players would agree that any softballing on my part is an illusion leading to the acid filled pit. The thing is I find practical ways of negating advantages and resources without resorting to making the player waste an hour of his time writing a new character.
Let's take for example the mounted character. "Kill the horse" feels like the mantra of a GM who is lazy with his encounter design. Why aren't your archers using low cover such as a wall or a log? Why aren't they disrupting charge lanes or flying out of reach of the mounted character? Where's the hindering terrain?
You want to kill the horse. I think that's a great way to have an angry cavalier rip your head off and a disgruntled player consider rerolling a barbarian with a far more annoying characterization because you keep murdering his mounts. I'd rather disrupt it and make the cavalier waste actions trying to fish out that potion of remove paralysis to force down the horses throat.
And TOZ makes an excellent point about the failure of communication. Player's need to know what they're getting into before rolling the dice. If you love targeting familiars and killing animal companions because that's "smart" they need to be aware that's a favored tactic so they can choose to work with something else. Fair warning is often all a player asks or needs.
Personally, I think some enemies - such as oozes - would be more likely to target the mount than the cavalier. Why? Because the mount is typically bigger and meatier (or being bigger, may seem more threatening to a creature with very low intelligence), or because the monstrosity in question makes heavy use of tremorsense while hunting.
Naturally. In our party's case, it was giant leeches writhing in the mud. Delicious horse underbelly slogging overhead is just too tempting to resist. Same with stirges and other bloodsuckers, especially if the horses aren't wearing barding or anything. Wolves and other animals known for hamstringing their prey (look for animals with the trip attack property) are also very likely to go for the mount. In this case, though, it may work against them, as horses, especially murderhorses, are difficult to trip.
More intelligent opponents, especially combat veterans, will quickly figure out that taking out a character's mount will reduce his mobility and ability to charge. For example, one tactic for breaking a cavalry rush is to take out the horses of the front riders with ranged attacks, turning men and mounts into so many marbles for the other riders to trip over. That's not as big a deal in PF, as there's no required mechanic for being impeded by dropped riders unless the GM says so, and there's no mechanism for being pinned under your horse like there is in real life. But still, attacking a charging rider's horse is just common sense. I'd be insulted if I was the charging cavalier/paladin/fighter and the GM's BBEG didn't go for the horse.
Now, if the PC is already dismounted and in melee, few creatures will bother to attack the horse. They're too busy fighting for their lives to waste actions. If the horse is also in melee separately, they might attack it, but only if the horse is in the way, serving as cover for another attacker, or for whatever strange reason outshining the PCs as a threat (not often, but it is a murderhorse, after all). Otherwise, there's just no tactical advantage. If the enemies are goblins, kobolds, or other suicidally psychotic creatures, they might go for the horse anyway just for being there, but even then only if it's at least as close a target as the rest of the party.
Non-mount animal companions, familiars, constructs, and other pets will follow rules similar to the above paragraph. Note that some of them do outshine PCs at low levels and, thus, will pull aggro, at least from whichever bad guy the badger is currently mauling. If your dog clamps down on the ogre's foot to grapple it, don't be surprised if the ogre just clubs Lassie over the head instead of breaking the grapple. If it stays out of the fight or sticks to enemies that it can handle, there probably won't be any problems.
In short, play it so that it makes sense from the bad guys' perspective--and the animal companion's perspective, if you're the kind of GM that prefers to control companions' turns as well.
And it breaks my sense of verisimilitude to pieces. If he does that, he should tell me up front so we don't waste each others time.
shallowsoul wrote:
Having "bots" just stand there while you play wack-a-mole could arguably be worse.
I don't see a distinction. In both cases they are acting like game pieces and not real characters with self-preservation instincts, emotions, etc.
Would this help you understand better? I want to know what the DM expects from the game, because if we have incompatible playstyles, I want to drop out so another player who fits the DMs style can get in. To avoid making both of us miserable, we need to communicate. Do you see where I'm coming from?
No - a magical item is one that has been created over a time, with a process that interweaves magical abilities among its very essence. If that item is broken, then the magical abilities are considered broken as well.
For example, I could make a wand, which I will call a "Light Wand" - use all the relevant crafts, costs, etc, and have a magic item that sheds a light spell continually, ala the Continual Flame spell. Could make it permanently on, or be command-word activated, whatever.
Should someone detect magic upon it, the entire item will radiate magic.
Should that item be sundered/broken, whatever, it would be considered broken, and the magical ability - the light - would stop working, until the item was repaired.
Now, if instead, I cast a Continual Flame upon that wand, I now have a mundane item with a magical spell affixed to it.
Should someone detect magic upon it, it is quite realistic that they could narrow the magical emanations down to the aura itself, and probably center it upon the specific point that the spell was cast upon.
If the item is sundered/broken, then you still have the Continual Flame emanating, only from the piece closest to the specific point that the spell was cast upon. Break that piece down, then that piece down, etc, and you could conceivably end up with but a shard of that wand, with the Continual Flame still merrily lighting up the corridor.
What you're trying to do here just spreads negativity.
It's not a negative thread, unless you're 'one of those GMs'.
I think the forums are a perfect place to vent.
I'm not sure 'finding a new GM' is the 1st thing you should do (most GMs try to please) or the easiest thing to do, but if you're not enjoying yourself and the GM really wants to run things this way, it's probably the best idea.
I don't feel too bad for GMs that take the time and effort to come up with campaigns if that GM also doesn't listen to his players. It's a two way street. If it's all about you as the GM, you might find yourself without any players.
I agree. Firstly, it can be funny to see some of the silly things us GMs do. But, secondly, and more importantly, I'm getting criticism without it being about me. I like to think I have a pretty non-existent ego, but I know I do have some. I think other people will agree with me that non-attacking criticism is kind of nice. If someone does something that I also do and I find it irritates people, well, I can learn from that.
If you roll a 1, you miss, then roll again at the same Attack Bonus. If the second roll would miss as well, it becomes a critical fumble.
If you hit with the second roll, it is just a miss. This allows for a fighter who is good at what they do to roll a 1 but still recover from it easier than someone who has a worse attack bonus, thus working around the "experienced warrior shouldn't fumble as much as a novice one" idea.
I'm a big believer in confirmation of fumble, just like confirmation of critical. The downside to your approach is that the confirmation is dependent on the difficulty of the creature, not on the skill of the fighter, which means it never gets easier for fighters to *not* fumble, even though they're clearly more skillful at higher levels. The one approach I saw online that I actually like a lot is a test of fighting skill more than a test to hit the creature. It works like this (I can not take credit for this - these rules are based on 3.5ed):
Your target number is DC20. If you fail to beat DC20, then you have confirmed the fumble. You may only fumble once per round. It is possible to fumble on a 2 (hey, if you can crit on a 19, why not?), but only in certain circumstances.
To beat DC20, you get use the following modifiers:
+BAB
+Dex Bonus
+1 for combats feats as relevant, such as: (Imp) Wpn Focus, (Imp) Wpn Spec, Wpn Finesse, [Gtr/Imp] TWF, Imp Bull Rush/Disarm/Trip/Sunder/Overrun, Mtd Cbt
- any penalties for multiple/offhand weapons, wrong-sized weapons, non-proficiency in weapon or armour, mounted archery
-2 if Charging
+1 for Masterwork non-magic weapon
+2 for a +1 to +2 magic weapon
+3 for a +3 to +4 magic weapon
+4 for a +5 or better weapon
+1 for a 2-handed weapon (not a double weapon)
-2 to -10 for an Improvised weapon (eg -2 for a chair leg, -10 for a sofa)
-4 for a flail, spiked chain, nunchaku or other flexible weapon
-2 to -20 for situational penalties (eg slippery or treacherous ground, water, strong wind, steep slope, darkness, etc)
If your modifiers are less than 0 (as might happen for a clumsy 3rd level wizard fighting stirges on an icy ledge in a high wind), you may fumble on a 2 or on other attacks in that round. In this case the DC is 0.
==================
So, that's a lot of modifiers, but it's not nearly as problematic as it seems. Most of that stuff is able to be predetermined as a separate confirmation number for fumbles. Figure it once and set it aside as a "fumble avoidance number" and then all the DM has to do is provide a situational penalty, if appropriate. I find it works fairly well. It scales with improved opportunities. It scales with improved skill.
I question that there's and "abuse" of any alignment that really necessitates this argument.
I don't, for I have seen it often.
I do agree however that this conversation is (as all other alignment treads invariably become) about how others interpret alignment, which for me is proof enough that alignments as written are ill-defined. I honestly cannot think of any element of D&D that has created such levels of argument since the dawn of 1st edition (or whenever alignment appeared).
Many had such bad experience with this subsystem that they removed it completely from their game and never looked back*
*except for TOZ, he says he never looked back but he's always poking his roguish head in threads like this one :)
It's a massive jump in the power curve to be able to completely negate the attack that's most likely to hit you. It doesn't matter what sophistry is used by its supporters and users. At the end of the day, you are still able to negate the most likely to hit attack in many, many situations. And that is overpowered.
Sophistry? The only difference between it and Deflect Arrows, is that melee weapons come up in a fight more often. This means that it has more chances to be useful. I bet you dollars-to-dimes that if a DM stuck you against archers in every combat, that you'd be decrying Deflect Arrows as being "overpowered." You'd say, "Huh! That negates 1 Longbow Critical hit every round! that's 3d8 + X per round I'm not taking! OVERPOWERED!!!111 NERF IT!!!!!1111"
It negates 1 Melee Attack in a round. Any character with Improved Unarmed Strike can take Deflect Arrows at level 1. Call it sophistry, but I call it fair for the cost of 3 feats prior at no sooner than 5th level with the exception of a Master of Many Styles. If you can't do something really cool after 4 feats in a feat tree, then it's not a feat tree worth taking.
Evil people don't act for the purpose of hurting others. That's stupid, comic-book evil genius evil, and nobody works that way. It's generally an attempt by evil people to shove evil so far into the realm of ludicrously stupid that they'll be considered neutral or even good. Neutrals do consider others in their dealings, because it's easier that way, so, sorry, this isn't cutting it.
Good/Evil - Morality - there is a definable position regardless of intention that cannot be broken and is set by forces far more powerful than human intention.
Lawful/Chaotic - Ethics - do your actions benefit the majority or the minority (possibly even a minority of self).
In that sense, I agree with your definition of Good/Evil, but disagree that Law/Chaos simply defines long-term behavior. For example, a LG character would likely defy orders, possibly even rebel, if they discovered their lord has always been a succubus (remains dedicated to justice). By your definition, such a character would continue to follow orders until ordered to perform something evil (consistency trumps moral position, as the "immediate" action is not part of the characters normal behavior). Or am I missing something?
OMG! I just realized if it was summon butter you could eat it, but have no calories/fat because it would disappear from existence after the spell timer runs out!
Nothing says the grease is actually made of butter.
The principles of sympathetic magic says that it should be. And if you check two other similar Conjuration (Creation) spells, Minor Creation and Major Creation, the material component is "a tiny piece of matter of the same sort of item you plan to create."
If both Minor and Major Creation work that way, there's no logical reason why the butter used for Grease should instead conjure I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
There are plenty of material components that don't actually become part of the spell.
Those components are usually based on other magical principles or are puns based on sayings like the "penny for your thoughts" for ESP or the marbles you lose for Feeblemind.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Nothing suggests that the grease is actually flammable.
Nothing suggests it isn't except a ruling from James based on game balance, not metaphysics.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I tend to go with what's written as much as I can.
I tend to follow the spirit rather than the letter. The letters have changed from edition to edition sometimes for game balance, but often just to sound better or just different. Sometimes this inadvertently loses meanings that were clearer with the previous phrasing.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Spellcasters already have the upper hand in the game.
True but immaterial. The question is whether a magically conjured item can be used in the same manner as its mundane counterpart.
Let's say a party needs to chop firewood for some important reason like not freezing to death. They do not have an axe. The fighter has a sword. It can work but this would likely damage the blade. But the party has two clerics, both of whom can cast Spiritual Weapon. The holy weapon of one of the clerics is a whip, but the other cleric's god uses an axe.
Now the question: Can the spiritual weapon be used to chop wood, and is it reasonable to say that the spiritual whip will work just as well as a real whip--meaning not at all--while a spiritual axe will work as well as a real axe, which is somewhat better than a sword for the purpose of chopping wood?
Same thing here. If it's magically conjured butter, why can't it work just as well or badly as real butter?
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Giving them more than what's described only makes them more potent.
I'm only wanting what is described, which is a conjuration (creation) spell that involves butter.
If it's instead some strange spell that magically decreases the friction coefficient of the affected area, making all items in it miraculously slick and slippery, it should be a Transmutation spell.
Similarly, if the conjured substance is actual butter which behaves in all ways like real butter, including burning, that means it can be removed by mundane means such as soap and water or magical means such as Prestidigitation which has among its uses cleaning an area. Yes, that's using a cantrip to cancel a 1st level spell, but if it's grease then it should behave as grease, not some strange metaphysical substance that is somehow aware of game mechanics.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
That being said, I also do enjoy when players think outside the box and use spells and equipment in ways that were not intended.
Some spells are designed exactly with this in mind. I remember when a GM had a black dragon hiding its eggs in a pool of acid and my character used Minor Creation to conjure nine cubic feet of powdered lye via Craft Alchemy and the knowledge that lye is derived from wood ash which easily falls under "vegetable substance."
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I wouldn't allow it to deal much damage and I would probably have it use up the grease in the spell quickly.
Both of which are fine and logical.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
There is no reason why the spell should be more potent than other first level spells.
Some spells are more potent than others even at the same level. And having Grease conjure magical butter that is exactly as flammable as mundane butter can be a double-edge sword.
The reason why people think Grease is flammable is the simple logic of sympathetic magic. In 1st ed, when it showed up as a 1st level spell in the Unearthed Arcana, the material component was a pork rind, butter, or similar greasy material. It logically follows that what you're conjuring is more of what you use as a material component. A pork rind conjures lard. Butter conjures butter. Goose grease conjures more goose grease.
Whacking things with the nerf bat because it's "only a 1st level spell" and making butter via sympathetic magic somehow conjure some sort of magically nonflammable KY Jelly makes no sense from a magical standpoint. If the resulting substance is slippery jelly, then the material component should likewise be jelly, seaweed, banana peels, or just a pinch of soap flakes.
If you must beat Grease with a nerf bat because you're tired of 1st level wizards flambeing goblins with burning butter, just sub in a 1st level Sorcerer/Wizard spell called "Soap" that acts in all ways as Grease except it requires a hotel-size soap bar as material component and has a logical reason for why it doesn't burn.
A week ago I showed off a proof of concept of a Google Map of the Inner Sea.
I've since "started over and done it right", and it is now available for public perusal.
Maps of Golarion offers an unofficial interactive Google Map of the Inner Sea, with clickable markers, info windows with a blurb about the location, and additional links to the Pathfinder Wiki or matching products on paizo.com. It currently has about 60 locations defined based on the hardcoded values in the Community Use Inner Sea map. The first data milestone will be to fully mark out all those hardcoded values. After that, I'll be adding any and all other locations that have been mentioned (which will take a loOoOong time), as well as Adventure Path and Module "journeys". There are pie-in-the-sky plans for future functionality like on/off filters and custom user-uploaded locations for your own campaign setting.
It also works and was tested on an iPad, for game table use.
Posts
