Lets try this another way. You're making a claim that all sanctioned modules can be played with a "home game" character. Since you're the one making the claim, maybe you could cite your source? As has already been pointed out, the Guide to Organized Play doesn't allow "home game" mode, unless it is a sanctioned AP, or one of the new modules like Dragon's Demand.
And when the fireball takes out everyone in the tavern, the lone survivor says "He told me he was casting a spell to clean up a spill!"
Cars are more dangerous than guns. More people die every day from automobile accidents than from gunfire. Cars are considered "safe" because we use them every day. Spells aren't "safe". They're flashy, intrusive, destructive things that only certain people can understand or use. That's not something the average commoner is going to feel "safe" around, even though nothing happened "this time". Your assumption that the average Joe will be okay with random spellcasting doesn't take into account basic human nature, the fear of the unknown. Look at all the people in the world who don't trust modern technology, modern medicine, modern science... And yet you continue to think that magic would just be commonly accepted? Please.
In someways, I view casting spells as modernday firearms on Earth. Some people wear them openly and no one bats an eye (police, military, etc.), while if you draw a weapon while waiting in line at Star Bucks or at a recpetion with VIPs, then the reaction may be a wee bit different.
I think that's a decent analogy. In some parts of the world, civilian ownership of firearms is completely forbidden, just as the Laws of Man prohibit deity-granted spellcasting. In the US, civilian ownership of firearms is very high, but even in some parts of the US it is illegal (or practically so). Even in the parts of the country that embrace firearms, the majority of people hide the fact that they are armed. As someone who regularly openly carries a firearm, I can tell you from personal experience that the majority of people won't notice or care that you have a gun. However, the ones who do care, care very deeply and aren't afraid to vocalize their support or derision. If a spellcaster walks through your typical marketplace, most people won't notice or care that they have a spell component pouch. But those who do care probably care very strongly. Magic has probably affected them very deeply, for better or worse. There are probably large portions of the population who would support measures to curb magic use. None of that is likely to come up in your typical PFS scenario, so it gets glossed over.
As for casting magic at or around NPCs, lets continue the gun analogy. If I see you from across the room pull a gun and point it at me, I'm not likely to stop and think "Is that a tazer? Is that loaded? Are they blanks, or rubber bullets, or live rounds?" No. I'm going to take cover and draw my own gun before I take the time to ask you your intentions. Spellcasting is the same way. At best, casting magic without warning is rude, akin to fondling your gun in the checkout line. At worst, even casting detect magic could be enough to put you into initiative in an otherwise friendly encounter.
Thanks for that, Eric, but how do you mesh that with Jason's statement that the "ship has long sailed" on subbing out any of these classes?
On first blush most of these classes look really good, but some strike me as "meh" at best. It's a little off putting that even if the playtest response is universal dislike, the class will still make it to print.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
I don't see that eating flesh or drinking blood meets the definition for evil established by the game. I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation as to why this was arbitrarily defined as evil enough to be banned, but other established evils are still fair game.
If blood transcription is verboten, why not animate dead? Summon Monster and Planar Ally/Binding used to summon evil creatures? The Diablolist prestige class? The spells infernal healing, death knell, enervation, magic jar, etc.? Why are we even allowed to play Neutral characters when requiring Good characters would simplify so many gray areas?
Please note that I'm not asking these things to be banned. I'm simply requesting that the idea of "cannibalism" and the specific mechanics of blood transcription be put into perspective. If you want them classified as evil acts, that's fine. Instruct us to warn players and to make the appropriate notations on chronicle sheets. Whatever happened to "it's not the spell, it's how it's used" that was used to justify keeping animate dead and infernal healing as legal options?
I know I'm late to the party, but a chronicle sheet doesn't override the Additional Resources requirement to have access to the book. So, if you want Gauntlets of Ogre Power all you have to do is show me what book it's in and where it shows up on the Additional Resources. Sound fair?
More importantly, if a character dies, they are reported as dead immediately. You cannot keep playing with them.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Hmm, ummm, well, not all gods have a following of Paladins. In fact, of the LN gods, only Abadar does (per Faiths of Balance).
So if I buy Faiths and Balance, then my Paladin of (anyone but Abadar and maybe Irori) would be illegal, but if I don't buy it I can pick any LN, LG, or NG deity? Guess that's one book I won't be picking up. :P
My home group really hammed it up and went way over time on the roleplaying, so we had to finish it up the next time we met. I'd say we put almost 9 hours into it, over the course of two sessions.
At one point, we even tried to arrest the sheriff. He was determined to arrest someone from the carnival, despite all the conflicting evidence, just so he could be seen doing something. It was a nice touch by the DM, but he wasn't expecting the rest of the group to react so... vehemently. Eventually he backed down and gave us one more last chance. :)
So you think that the best way for Paizo to avoid the missteps WotC made is to repeat those very same missteps? To completely overhaul a system that people specifically chose to stick with, rather than a completely overhauled and rebalanced system released by WotC?
4e is a great system with a bunch of loyal followers, but it doesn't feel like D&D to me. 3.x and Pathfinder feel like D&D to me. Several of the 4e fans I know are upset at the direction 5th is taking, and are acting a lot like I did when 4e was first announced. If/When Paizo announces a second edition, I hope they are wise enough not to make the same mistakes as WotC made before and is making now.
...Unless of course they want to pick up the disgruntled 4e fans. It would be delightfully ironic.
As a GM, I may let you look something up in one of my books. However, me owning the book and bringing it to the game day does not absolve you of the requirement to provide the material yourself. Expecting the GM to no only run the game you get to play in, but also be the source for all of your characters abilities, is rude at best.
It's also been my experience that players without access to the source material also tend to be players with the poorest grasp on what their characters can actually do.
I'm no longer allowed to accuse Drandle Dreng of being a lich to his face.
I'm no longer allowed to "accidentally" cast disrupt undead at Drandle Dreng.
I'm no longer allowed to curse in Celestial by talking like Ned Flanders.
I'm no longer allowed to use "stabilize" as a code word for coup de gras, nor am I allowed to offer to "stabilize" party members.
I will no longer ask if I can get my sneak attack dice with a catapult.
I will never again name my dragon blooded sorcerer Trogdor the Burninator.
I'm no longer allowed to ask the wildshaped druid to hold still while I fit her for an exotic saddle for my barbarian.
I'm no longer allowed to animate fallen party members by telling the player "You get to play as a zombie!"
Thurston Hillman wrote:
I am sorry the demons killed your paladin.
I'm not. I don't know who told you it was going to be easy, but they lied to you. At least you got to play it. I'm sure if I had been there, I would have been one of the GMs and you bet your butt I would have remembered to power attack. Death is part of the game, and it can even be a fun part if you let it.
Back on topic, wouldn't it be the same as any other masterwork tool, +50 gp, +2 to task, no bonus to use as a weapon? Or are you specifically asking if you can buy a "weaponized" crowbar by applying the masterwork weapon price to an improvised weapon item?
That is, I believe, what the original poster was asking.
Just to give you an idea - one of my characters is a green-skinned half-elf witch.
Hate to be "that guy" (Bluff 23) but re-skinning is actually, specifically, not allowed. Too many people think that yellow tengu (or in your case green witches) are badwrong fun, so now it's verboten.
If it wasn't Evil to hack them to death with an axe in a bloody and wanton display of carnage involving much pain, suffering, and splatterings of gore while they were walking about then it's similarly not Evil to give them a quick and relaitively painless end while they are napping.
Apples and Oranges. As much as the OP wants to make that the comparison, it isn't. The real comparison is between a quick, relatively painless death at the hands of one party member, or the quick, relatively painless sacrifice of a soul to an Evil deity at the hands of another. One is clearly Evil, the other isn't.
A coup de grace is no more inherently evil than a climb check.
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
Besides, isn't striking the space where your opponent just vanished practically a trope? Don't forget the Big NOOOOOOOOOO! when you miss. :)
N N 959 wrote:
I don't care if people don't like the rule. What matters is that those who do not need to retrain their characters should not be made to feel like they are bad people for using that option so that they can stand on a level playing field.
I agree that people should not be made to feel bad for using a legal option. I'm on your side about that, remember? You're the one who thought I was going too far by suggesting those GMs making players feel bad be censured for overstepping their position.
N N 959 wrote:
Eliminating any doubt from the minds of first time players that they can recoup the cost of their equipment, imo, is a big deal. If even one person takes advantage of this where they would not have previously, imo, it's worth it.
That's not what the retrain rules were meant for. Being able to "sell back" your equipment is a side effect of the retrain, not the point of the retrain itself. If you feel that selling back equipment for full value is necessary for other players to "keep up" with players who retrain their characters, then that's the issue you need to raise.
N N 959 wrote:
Perhaps I did misunderstand you. If so, I apologize. As for my "judgmental attitude"... Glad I could help?
More rules are never better. Why needlessly complicate something that works just fine the way it is? The benefit of your proposed change is far outweighed by the hassle.
As for GMs influencing players towards not retraining, that is outside their scope. If there are GMs that are "discouraging" legal character options they need to be reported to the event coordinator, or a Venture officer.
If you want to go back through an old favorite, just grab a group that's already played it and say "Let's play _____ just for fun." There's nothing stopping you from enjoying another playthrough, you just won't get credit. Think of it as a chance to test out that new build you've been wanting to try with no penalty for failure.
Hey, those are not the same things at all! They're not even on the same sliding scale. The world may be bigger than the party, but the story should always be about the PCs. The story may end with them dying at level one to a Kobold ambush, but it's still their spotlight.
If your GM is constantly using NPCs to upstage the players, then he's not being "gritty" or "realistic", he's being a jerk. I ran Forgotten Realms for years, and I never once had Elminster swoop in to save my PC's from anything. My players knew if they got in over their heads, they were on their own. They knew death was a big deal, and they played smart.
It takes a move action to direct something that isn't intelligent...maybe. Anything trained or intelligent is basically free to direct. Huzzah the personal army.
Handling a trained animal is a move action. Pushing (trying to get it to do something it isn't trained for) is a Standard. Commanding undead is, apparently, a free action. Eidolons and Familiars (and other intelligent companions) can be commanded verbally as a free action.
I don't know why animals are harder to control than mindless undead, but MAGIC! ;)
I will conclude no such thing. Arguing that the spell mage armor counts as "armor of any kind" is preposterous. The same logic would apply to a Monk's AC bonus, because the words "unarmored" and "any armor" apply.
Since we can (hopefully) agree that Monks are allowed to benefit from the spell, eidolons should be able to as well.
Does that make me reasoning and resulting feelings make more sense, Lemur?
Yes. Still, something about your post(s) rubbed me the wrong way. I don't like the implication that some character concepts are "good" and some are "bad". If I want to play a Paladin in the Cheliax faction, tell me why you think I'll have a hard time. But don't tell me I wouldn't make a good Pathfinder.
Executing prisoners isn't necessarily evil. Executing a prisoner just to use speak with dead on them is. Killing someone because its easier than dealing with them alive is evil.
Dealing with someone who has or hasn't negotiated terms of surrender is a question about the Law/Chaos axis. Why do people always get Order and Good confused?
Well played, Thod. I didn't realize that video hadn't been updated to PFRPG. I'm sure its on the to-do list right after the Season 0 mods. ;)
Does it not make sense for a holy symbol to be used as a masterwork tool for UMD checks made to emulate a cleric?
Every time someone says something like this, I think of that one guy from the Mummy who wears every holy symbol and tries half of them against Imhotep. When he pulls out the Star of David, I can just hear the player saying "Hah! Nat 20!" and the DM smiling that evil smile.
If you can tell me how a 4 legged animal can grapple ill let it have that chain of feats.
Two words: Police Dog
(P.S. The video has an example of a grapple lasting more than one round, and even other people joining in on the grapple.)
Edit: Really though, this thread just goes to show that an ape wielding a weapon really wasn't that far out there, and some people need to just chill.
Michael Brock wrote:
On a side note, all the above makes me reconsider if on line play is serving the purpose it is supposed to or causing more trouble than it is worth. Thoughts? Comments? Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on online, PBP and the like play so I know how the vocal minority here feel about it.
I think you've already heard the vocal minority in the original post. I enjoy having PbP as an option, even though most of my games have been in person.
The biggest problem with PbP is maintaining the flow of the game during combat. Imagine someone who takes 5 minutes to take their turn at the table, and then translate that into a one post a day online game. That is why many GMs adjust the initiative system, usually allowing the combat sequence to follow the order of the posts with the GM posting once per interval. Skipping someone's turn in PbP is roughly equivalent to skipping someone's turn because they were away from the table during combat.
One advantage with PbP in particular is that there's time to look up the rules of whatever it is you're trying to do. So even though some rules are bent because of the format, in general the rules are followed more closely, without the on-the-fly calls a GM sometimes has to make at the table.
Although I am happy for the players who won the boon, I have to ask if this is really such a good idea considering the recent unpleasantness.
We just had some archetypes dropped partly due to their flavor not meshing with the ideals of the campaign, and now you are allowing players to play a race that is flavored as wholly evil and destructive. Not to mention that they despise the idea of writing, which Pathfinders are expected to do quite a bit of.
Once again, I'm happy for the players, but I'm confused and sad that both of these things have happened together.
The forum has been giving me problems the last little while, so maybe you didn't notice that two people, including me, have answered your question. There's no need to be rude just because one person, who was going out of their way to try to be helpful, misunderstood what you were asking.
In case you missed it, the answer is no.
If you want to keep it in character, have them roll a heal check. Success gets them numbers, failure gets them vague descriptive terms like those above.
I consider most of the lists above too grainy. Mine would look more like:
The GM marked your chronicle sheet because he decided that trying to subdue a party member and save the life of a bystander was an evil act. You really can't make this crap up.
In a PbP game I'm in, the NG cleric just cut down a drunk commoner for badmouthing his god. I'm the LE rogue-type who's standing up to him and calling him out on his actions. You want to talk about inter-party alignment conflict... The DM is going to have a cow when he logs in and reads that crap.