Locke1520's page

Spanky the Leprechaun is banned. Why?

Ban-Jovi.

zylphryx is banned for eating the brains of other posters.

Spanky's Banned because the only song he knows involves bacon.

Now I want bacon...and eggs...9 hours til breakfast? ... And I have no bacon in the house. Darn it!

@ Nazard

I like both versions of your chalice but I really like the first version's concept. With a little work I think you could really tighten this up into a sweet low level item and I have a special fondness for low level magic items that deliver.

Aha, he's thinking in 3.5e rules, where you get 4 ranks at first level!

I suspect his expectations will implode with his rules assumptions.

Either that or he's misinterpreting (maybe unintentionally) the +3 class bonus as the same as ranks. If this is the case he's thinking 4 "ranks" at level 1, 5 "ranks" at 2 and voila prestige class available early and he's wrong. If he's wrong about that he may be wrong about a number of other rules he'll try to use at the table. Make sure you know how his powers work too and you'll avoid some of these issues.

Andrew, if only he'd had a clockwork conscience.

That would have worked for a round, unfortunately she had him for 5 days. It was over an hour at the table before someone finally remembered that the rogue had a wand of break enchantment, I didn't even knew we had.

It was quite a bit of fun anyway the other player and I kept bickering ICly.

**Edit: Yay leveling. Boo exploding boiler room demons. Welcome to Cheliax.

This has been an interesting read so I'll share too. I'll try to spare everyone a wall of text but as was pointed out before there's no word limit to reign us in so I can't promise anything.

When I was 10, I became involved in a summer board game program run from our neighborhood park. I hit it off with one of the other guys in particular, another Andrew. We played games of all sorts except RPGs but Andrew's parents bought him the red box basic set and he invited a few of us back to his place to try it.

I was hooked. I got my own set which was followed by the Expert, and Companion sets...then we moved to AD&D. From there we played more games than I can count. For a long time D&D was my system of choice but sometime during the second edition run I played it less and less frequently and it seemed unlikely I would really ever return to it. Until 3E. The advent of d20 rekindled the old spark. The release of 3.5 was a surprisingly welcome update. I ran a number of 3rd edition campaigns one of the most successful was when I ran Shackled City from the hardcover. I was already a fan of Paizo but that campaign also made me a fan of the AP adventure format.

I like to tinker with my games: create new spells, magic items, variant rules systems. So when Paizo introduced RPG Superstar I jumped at it the first year--and ended up in the reject bin. Second time I entered, same thing. This is my third time entering and I came at the contest a little differently than I had the two times before. Previously I worked from a full concept and constantly kept altering the text for this or that and worrying away at the design until what I submitted was pretty much a mess. This year I came in with three design goals and stayed focused on those goals and on making sure my entry wasn't going astray. I pounded out most of my entry in only a couple hours (any longer and it might have sunk into the same morass my first two efforts had.)

I bounced the finished entry off of a couple of beta readers: my wife and Andrew (whom I'm still friends with after all these years) then hit the submit key.

Geistlinger is banned for having a sordid past.

Only just found my way to this thread. Still a little stunned and excited. Congrats everyone!

This is actually the first time I've ever played pathfinder. My first character. I know I'm bad. I just wanted someone to help me:(

If what I've read in this thread is accurate and I have no real reason to doubt it then it's not you who's bad. It sounds more like your GM is either inexperienced or making mistakes typical of a novice GM. I have played in games similar to what you describe and it's not fun. Our group still jokes about some of those old games: "You have to find the fragment of the first world it looks like a grain of sand . . . and it's in the desert! GO!"

You may not survive it and that won't necessarily be your fault. It sounds like your GM has a solution in mind and if you don't follow that course you are bound to fail. Also, since he's usurped a number of your PC's choices (probably without a save since one was never mentioned) Don't take it as a personal failure if your character dies.

Unless there are compelling reasons to stick with the game you might seriously consider politely telling your GM you are not enjoying the play style and if he isn't willing to work with you then walk away.

Imagine a map tool, voice chat, character sheet, plus all the bells and whistles. Go a step further and have adventure paths in a downloadable format that can be plugged right in in.

Could be a whole new market to bust into.

I'd rather Paizo stick to book publishing. Granted I have software I like for map making and free software (maptool) that would serve for a virtual tabletop so I'm a little biased.

Dundjinni is excellent. I still use it quite a bit. I find it particuarly useful for my pbp (recent maps of a burning building in Sandpoint).

The software is very user friendly. The art selection isn't bad especially if you add some of the map packs. I've had the software for a number of years and have now purchased all of the available art which is pretty reasonably priced and picked up most of the free user art sets available.

armor stolen from Tony Stark and repainted

No that belongs to me.

DJ-Bogie is banned for coming to the thread with pink eye.

Move along. Nothing to see here. No posting, no posting. Move along. Move along.

Kat's Eye is banned for not following the rules when he first posted and ninja-ing me with his edit.

zylphryx is banned for giving me the mental image of hundreds of tiny half orcs scurrying under my fridge.

CHL is banned for thinking orcs use cookbooks. Clearly they have the internet.

Gruumash is banned for embracing himself in public.

Locke1520 wrote:

Having read the 4e books I don't think that cards or WotC miniatures are required for play.

I think the reason people say this is because the powers are explained using squares, and it's much, much easier to visualize the battle with miniatures and a battlemat.

Kind of like chess. You can play it in your head, but even Bobby Fischer used a board and pieces, though I'll bet he'd say it wasn't "required". ;)

I know miniatures make it easier to play. They are very nearly essential...The randomized prepainted plastic figs from WotC not so much. That was my point.

Well the phrase "profit is bad" sounds dumb out of context. I think people mean that if that is your singular motive in product design it is bad. I do not think WoTC is necessarily guilty of this however. Obviously a lot of well thought out hard work went in to designing it.

I don't think it was out of context, I was just paraphrasing the post above ("money grab") as well as a number of posts I've seen over the years and comments I've heard too many times to count. Even if profit is Hasbro-WotC's singular goal (I don't think it is) the best way to get there is through quality and marketing.

My beef is not with WotC trying to profit - my beef is with its tactics. I subscribe to Paizo and buy way more adventure paths than I'll likely have time to play. But I like the idea I could play them, and I know what I'm getting. With randomized card packs and miniatures, I'm encouraged to buy more not to gain options, but because they're trying to act like a slot machine - if I keep pulling the lever and they infrequently reward the behavior, hopefully I'll end up getting what I wanted in the first place. I think it's bad business. Make money by creating and communicating value - not by trying to game impulsive behavior with a bunch of filler crap.

I don't play 4e so I don't know about them using cards in the RPG but i think (as far as minis go) that WotC is aware of the same market forces that Paizo and Wizkids have explained in regards to the Pathfinder Battles miniatures line. Having read the 4e books I don't think that cards or WotC miniatures are required for play. In that, any product in those areas is filler which may have value for someone even if it's not you.

TTalent wrote:

Why should I even trust WOTC? Why should I believe that 5E isn't just another money grab? Mike Mearls needs to answer these questions before I'll have any enthusiasm for 5E.

All RPGs are designed to make money. Given that WotC is composed of a bunch of gamers, I'm confident it is also designed to be the best game they think they can make.

Now, that doesn't mean it will be a game you will like, sure. But I'm not sure where those questions ever really come into it. You should have enthusiasm for 5E if and when you see previews of it that look exciting and fun to play. Judge the product on its own merits - or, if you already are happy with other games, don't worry about it.

If the product looks fun, check it out. If not, don't. I remain confounded by how many people want to make it so much more complicated than that.

Can someone explain to me why profit is bad? Seriously.

Every company designing games is trying to (to use the derogatory term from above) "grab" a bit of your money. In exchange they are giving you a product. Pretty much the only way to get your money in a constant stream is to produce a top notch product that people want to buy. It's a combination of quality and marketing.

WotC isn't wrong for wanting to make a product that makes a profit and I don't think that the designers are any less passionate about making a good game.

Scott I know you enjoy the 4th Edition and think it's the best itteration of the game to date. Many of us disagree and when you say that the only mistake was in marketing the new edition to the current pool of gamer's because we're a bunch of hyper sensitive nerds is as offensive as many of the comments against 4e.

It's also disingenuous there were a number of mistakes. Some they might wish they hadn't made, some the they may rethink , and some they don't see as mistakes. For example:

Talking about how bad the last product was, when clearly they had a strong fan and vocal base.

Too much, too soon. 2e (1989) 3.0 (2000) - 3.5 (2003) - 4e (2008)

recalling every licensed property and even going so far as to

shut down the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon too close to the 4e release.

Ignoring the impact and brilliance of the OGL and losing out on the early support of 3pp.

There are also subjective mistakes: like the game doesn't "feel" like D&D etc etc. WotC doesn't OWE those players an apology for the changes but maybe they should get the marketing people to put together a statement that attempts to appease those players without denigrating the 4e ruleset and the current fanbase.

I want to see 4e/5e survive and thrive I no longer play official D&D and given my investments in Pathfinder and 3e I probably wont play 5e, but I don't wish WotC/Hasbro any ill will.

Because I still win. Thank you DJ for clearing that up.

Carl is banned for thinking answers are the answer

There are two 3.5 books (the Spell Compendium & the Magic Item Compendium) I allow at my table but beyond that it's pretty much Paizo only and if it doesn't appear on the PRD I review it on a case by case basis.

On my own PCs my exact choices depend on the GM's rules but I typically put together a reference packet for all of my feats and spells not easily referenced from the PRD and sometimes even those.

Captain Merelith is banned for missing 50 aliases by 5.

I win.

[citation needed]

"Citation needed" goes both ways. How about you show us where UMD says it fools the item in absolutely every respect then? My statement was one of interpretation just as your arguments are of interpretation. If the books were clear and cite-able on this subject we'd not be having this debate.

Nope, there would be no such precedent because UMD clearly says magic device that you are you using. Since you are not the one using the hold person wand, you do not get to make a UMD check.

You are still changing the intent of UMD.

A minotaur who picks up a wand of enlarge person doesn't get a UMD roll to use it on himself . . . He can get a UMD roll to use it on a alternate valid target but not himself. He's not a valid target of the spell.

Again this is a corner case situation and GMs may rule differently.

I liked aspects of all three of the main Star Wars games. If I were to run it again I would probably use the Revised Edition with a few Saga and WEG tweaks and use the E6 framework.

I don't think I understand why any of these people would even have stats. Who gives a crap how many hit points a barmaid has? Are people fighting barmaids? The only people that should matter are people with real class levels. I've never bothered with NPC classes before, and I doubt I ever will.

So, I guess I agree with the original poster to a degree, but I don't think what was proposed as an alternative (the "Typical Commoner," "Thug," and "Knight" thing) is especially meaningful or important, either.

Regular people don't matter--that's kind of critical to D&D sorts of stories. The only reason bartenders get levels and stuff is to punish PCs for being jerks and not following rules and laws because they can (and should be able to) kill anyone in a typical town without breaking a sweat. I'd much rather rely on the, "Hey, don't be a jerk" method.

There are also the occasions where having the stats of an NPC like a barmaid is helpful because they are the target of an attack the PCs are on hand to stop.

Ex. Barmaid is making her way home at night and is set upon by thugs and the PC's are in earshot and rush to help. Having a stat block in this case and similar situations is useful. Will you always need such a stat block? Probably not but when it comes up the NPC gallery might come in handy.

No Way!

NO WAY!

NOOOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAAAY !!!!!!!!!!!!

.

I just finished it tonight.

I can't wait for Cold Days. I can't wait!!!

I know exactly how you feel. Been there for awhile now. Sadly I don't think he's even started Cold Days yet.

Come the new year, I'll start Cold Days. With any luck, there will be snow on the ground when it happens, and I can write the first few chapters with the only light in the room being reflected from the snow outside. That would be perfect. :)

I like my zombie to born again, my friend.

steely dan Sign in stranger

Something was wonky with the link so I figured I'd fix it for you. It looks like you transposed the URL with what was supposed to appear in the post.

Given:

A) Time restraints of the sessions.

B)Take 10 represents a "normal" performance.

C) Take 10 doesn't affect anybody's fun if anything it speeds things up so we can squeeze in more fun.

I don't see (other than the listed exceptions of combat, UMD, Day Job and if the scenario says so) why a player should be prevented from Taking 10 and having it take the same amount of time as if the dice were thrown.

EDIT--HEY! I don't know who you are, but no fair deleting your post after I started to reply.

LOL

Sorry, It looked like I had duplicated my post (my intenet + these boards have done that before) and I thought I was deleting my duplicate post...only it wasn't a duplicate but my original.

It didn't seem to be worth it as I was replying to someone very early on.

My basic point was that there are a number of non critical things we do everyday that we just do (take 10) and that take 10 is a reasonably realistic representation of that. Otherwise there would be wildly different results when performing basic daily tasks.

**Edit** Quote I was replying to added below:

I've always been a little sketchy on the "activate blindly" option of Use Magic Device and which actions, if any, a character *must* perform to activate a magic item.

srd wrote:

You do have to perform some equivalent activity in order to make the check. That is, you must speak, wave the item around, or otherwise attempt to get it to activate.

Does that mean that, when attempting to activate blindly, a character can freely choose to babble gibberish or wave the item around or shake it wildly; whichever is most convenient regardless of the item's nature? That is to say, can a character attempt to blindly activate a scroll or wand merely by waving them around?

A follow up question: since constructs are created in the same way as magic items (with item creation feats, raw materials and spells) can a character attempt to command them via the Use Magic Device skill?

I think of activating a scroll as being a bit like the scenes from television and movies where someone tries to puzzle out the words on the page.

In the mummy Jonathan reading from the book at the end of the movie getting help from Evelyn on the symbols.

Ash in Army of Darkness.

The difference here is you have to "trick" the scroll. No I wouldn't let someone just wave the scroll around to activate it. But getting close enough to fake it is part of using the skill successfully. Doing it blindly means you won't know what you are casting until it's cast.

As for golems...They're made in a similar fashion but...Their not quite magic devices they're constructs. If my PCs encountered a dormant construct I might let them reactivate it and control it in a limited fashion but not so much with active ones.

But he has "tricked" the scroll into thinking that he is a native. For the purposes of casting the spell he counts as a native. Picking targets is part of casting the spell. Therefore he is a native for purposes of picking targets. This is akin to an outsider UMD'ing enlarge person to work on themselves.

UMD tricks the vessel not the arcane energies within the vessel. This is a scroll not a wondrous item. Once the spell is cast the spell functions per the normal rules UMD just allows someone who could not normally USE the scroll it to use it. This is a weird corner case though that would have to fall under GM discretion so YMMV.

**edit**

Personally, I'd say that because it enables you to do that, doesn't mean it requires you to do that, so you could ignore that section and cast it while you're not on your home plane against something else that isn't on its home plane. And you'd be a valid target for that if you were on another plane. Plus, it's really clever, and I like clever uses for spells.

Enables. Good word and it clears this up some.

But then because he UMD'd himself into a native, he just UMD'd himself out of being valid target.

No he'd still BE a valid target he'd just faked it well enough to use the scroll. UMD does not change your class, alignment, etc. it just lets you use stuff that has those requirements.

Gestalt is a good tool in a solo game. Played a portion of the Shackled City AP with my wife as a gestalt character a number of years ago and it was doable. I did step down a few of the challenges but it is much easier to run the game if the single PC has a few more tricks than your average PC.

Also if you want to play as a part of a group but have limited available time / live far from other gamers, you might look at the play by posts on the boards and try to get in on one together.

Also try Gestalt characters - normally I don't like Gestalt games at all but in this case it makes sense.

http://roleplayinggods.com/content/view/27/63/

Linkified

Crit bleed really favors the PCs as many opponents do not have access to healing and will bleed out quickly particularly in the case of option "C".

We use the Crit Deck in my regular game and my PC's love pulling bleed cards. Where as they hardly flinch when I draw one.

I would not go any more potent than option A.

If we do that, then we might as well bring everyone back to 0 and just use dex, as you'll be basically canceling out the differences.

I'm just kinda thinking out loud as it were. I was just thinking the progress scales up as PCs go up in level and rewards martial characters.

*edit* Poor attack bonus characters would get a poor Init bonus.

Sorry I think I was unclear. what I meant was: If the character has a good attack progression give them an initiative bonus equivalent to a good save progression.

*edit* I also didn't mean it should be a choice between 1/2 BAB or save progression for the players I meant it as a choice between the two for the system. Sorry.

I haven't had a chance to play d20 with this system yet, but it doesn't bog things down as much as you might think in Exalted, because of the way the tick system works. Actions take a certain number of ticks to perform, with different actions requiring different numbers of ticks. That tends to spread out the actions fairly quickly, even if they start out fairly bunched up.

Ah. I haven't played Exalted but once or twice when the game first came out and didn't remember how the ticks worked at all. Thanks.

The currently proposed set-up almost makes me want to add casting times back into the game but that would go beyond the scope of small changes.

Half BAB could work or use BAB quality (good-poor) determine the Init bonus equal to a save progression of a similar quality.

Actually, that's not bad. They're mostly all within a 1d10 roll of each other. Even the fighter and cavalier are within 10 of almost everyone else (except the rogue). And I'm not against the rogue having a nice to have for a change.

Yeah having read the breakdown list it's not too bad most of my concerns are assuaged enough I'd consider giving it a try in play. If it doesn't work what's the worst that happens--you stop using it and go back to the old way?

*edit* Although the very fast wizard could be a balance issue as pointed out above but I'd still be willing to try it.

I was thinking of it as a matching bonus working off Dex and not getting every modifier that could be added to the Reflex save otherwise Lightning Reflexes would be much better than Iron Will and Great Fortitude. Even Improved Initiative would not be as valuable as it is now.

But the slowed fighter is a valid (and problematic) point too.