Paul Watson's page

13garth13 wrote:

But, as I said up above, if B2 and APG are where we can agree to draw the line of inclusion, then as long as it's all up on the SRD, I can certainly live with that, as long as everyone else can as well.

As could I. APG + Bestiary 2 seems like a good compromise.

But in the end all that matters is what Paizo agrees to do, and as of yet they seem unwilling to commit to any specific constraint on AP resources. I believe they are of the opinion that a play-it-by-ear approach is best. I disagree, instead believing that time (and bloat) will underscore the problems with that approach. Time will tell. :)

In the meantime, I'll keep buying APs. But if the day rolls around that I need all of the above, plus Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Bestiary 3, Bestiary 4, and Ultimate Wombat to use an AP, then I'll be (regretfully) done, open content or no. Not out of spite, but simply because the AP product simply won't be of any use to me. The day I can't fit all the rules I need to run an AP into a modest duffel bag is the day I switch to Savage Worlds. :P

Eh, get a tablet, ya cheapskate. ;-)

Ok. Had a look through. Nice stuff.

Couple of issues on the downside:
Speed of Thought and Sensitive already exist as feats, one in Psionics Unleashed and one in the Genius Guide to Feats of Spellcasting. Having mutliple feats wih different effects but the same name is irksome, especially when one of the sources is your own earlier work.

Oneness. Why does this cap out at -2? the Magical Knack trait provides the same bonus to spellcasters but doesn't have the same limitation, making this underwhelming and alimit I'll be houseruling away.

On the upside, it's clear what the feats do, most of them appear usegul and interesting. And I like the Mystic Focus feat (take that, Kvantum).

So, when is the Genius Guide to Psionic Archetypes coming out?

Paul Watson wrote:

Not on Dungeonaday yet. Boo! Are you letting your intern sleep again? Soft supergeniuses.

It is now, in fact, up at Paizo, Dungeonaday.com, and OBS. Enjoy!

Yay! Amazing what you can accomplish with sufficient motivation. Thanks, Owen (and thanks unnamed intern. I'm sure the bruises will heal eventually)

Not on Dungeonaday yet. Boo! Are you letting your intern sleep again? Soft supergeniuses. I don't know what te world's coming to. Get out the motivational whip and get him to work.

bugleyman wrote:

This is exactly the kind of remark that starts flame wars.

First, you're essentially calling the people who like what you don't lazy. Second, your label could just as easily be applied to people who want newer content in the AP. After all, can't those people "lift a finger" to add that content?

Disappointing. And this thread had been going so well...

Yeah, it frustrates me, because the main reason I'm against adding new content without printing relevant rules is due to the fact that I'm worried it will be a problem for people new to the system, as it will require a larger and larger initial investment and become an obstacle.

In other words, I want Paizo to do well, so I'm concerned.

And yet, because I'm worried about a company being successful in the future that I have no direct stake it, I get called a lazy GM.

For what its worth, here's a link to my blog where I discuss what I do to prep for a session:

My Gamer Blog

Also, I'm getting a bit frustrated when people that are for including new content without the relevant rules reprinted continue to phrase this as a choice between "only Core rulebook and Bestiary" or "new material," when many of us have said we want new material, just new material that can be used out of the book.

I've been really respectful of the opposing view. I understand that the guys at Paizo work really hard, and it would help them to be able to cut the references down. I understand this isn't because they will be doing less work, overall, but it will make the AP volume a bit more manageable. I think I've been pretty clear that I respect them and understand the desire to go this route and what the benefit is.

I understand people that want more new content, and believe they will get more content without reprinting relevant rules. More adventure content is good, I'll not deny.

I also understand that this is Paizo's decision to do what is good for their business. As a fan, and someone that is trying to picture this from a newcomers point of view, I'm just concerned that it might be a mistake. That's all I'm trying to say.

KEJR,

The difficulty in communication appears to be what 'new content' means. You seem to be usng it to mean 'something not in the PRPG or Bestiary 1'. I'm using it as 'something that is in this adventure and not elsewhere'. So what you're calling new stuff isn't what we mean by new stuff.

As an example, the Haunting of Harrowstone uses two monsters from Bestiary 2 in reference only notation. Given that most stat blocks, with special abilities, take up about half a page in an adventure, that means that to include them so they can be played straight out of the box would require one page of the adventure to be removed to make space. That's quite a task given what's been noted by Paizo in the past about how hard it is to get the adventures under word count as it is. A page is at least one detailed encounter or several room's descrption if not. And that's with just two monsters, a high level class with all its unique abilities could easily eat up a page all on its own.

What we on the 'if it's in the PRD, then it's fair game' side are sayng is that reprinting statblocks takes up a lot of space that would be better served by printing an awesome encounter. I understand your concerns about making it tougher to get into if this is done, but I find the alternatives to boil down to either a) reduce the effective length of the adventure to include only stuff from anything but the core books or b) don't use anything but the core books and keep the effective adventure length the same. And I don't see how either of those options is better than c) point to the free online resource that features the stats you need. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's a better one than either of the others.

I should also point out that at the moment, Bestiary 2 isn't on the PRD, and I think that it's a mistake to use those monsters without that sort of availability.

This thread still exists? If only we could harness the power of impotent nerd rage.

But if we coud harness it, it wouldn't be impotent and so would immediately cease giving out power, making it exactly the same as if we hadn't harnessed it. Maybe someone's already secretly harnessed it.

I have an email in to Tim and Thilo about the Concentration mechanic oversight. Normally the way we have handled this (as we did with the enlightened scholar) is that these archetypes can use concentration in the same manner a caster does even though they are not casters (the contemplative monk is). When those two get back to me I will update the file.

@Paul I am pretty sure the document states that Ch'i and Ki are interchangeable (as I wrote that part). I don't see another way to do this, because if we go on calling it Ch'i it causes us to be in violation of the PFRPG combatibility licence when it comes to mechanics.

Frank Carr was very vocal about it remaining Ch'i due to its Chinese origin and focus vs. the Japanese Ki, but the core book calls it Ki so we must call it Ki when referring to mechanics.

Steven,

You're absolutely right. Sorry. On vacation in Vegas, so clearly brain not funtioning properly. I was referring to the need for the Ch'i Awakened feat as a prerequisite in Kusa, but that's taken care of by the need for a source of Ki points to take any Ki feat, which I hadn't fully appreciated. As I said, I like them being the same source as it smoothes the mechanics over.

Michael Gentry wrote:

If a GM has access to the internet, anywhere, at all, (which everyone who is complaining here clearly does), then he has access to the APG and Bestiary 2. For free. Forever. There is no more necessity to include the full stat block for a dhampir than there is for a goblin.

Right now there would be if you didn't want to rely on a site other than the PRD.

This is true. So my preference is, if it's not on the PRD, it should get a full stat block. For practical purposes, I'd say that generally equated to the next full AP should be fully statted out, but after that it's on the PRD and is pretty much freely acessible.

There are a couple of feats (Animus Shield and Dancing Prana Strik) that use concentration as a prerequisite. As that not a PRPG mechanic, I preusme these are holdovers from 3.5?

I also notice they've hcanged from the presentation in Kusa of the Jade Oath. While I prefer the merging of Ki and Chi, this causes a bit of confusion.

On the positive side, I really like the variety of archetypes (ecept for hte Contemplative Monk but that's due to not being bowled over by Sutra Magic).

From the Core Rulebook...

"Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels
thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose
to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has
already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus
feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot
be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat,
prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change
one feat at any given level and must choose whether or
not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level."

So by my reading this means that a fighter can choose to replace a previously learned BONUS feat in exchange for a bonus feat being gained at levels 4, 8, 12 and so on. Now the fighter doesn't replace and old bonus feat AND learn a new one for that level as well, correct?

Incorrect. The retraining is in addition to the gaining of a bonus feat.

For many months now, fans of Super Genius Games' Pathfinder-compatible PDFs have asked if we could save them some time and effort by allowing subscriptions to our PDF lines. This is something we had hoped to eventually set up with Paizo, and spoke to Paizo about several times, but sadly that isn't currently an option for us. Since the situation with Paizo doesn't seem likely to change (though we'd be happy to set something up if it ever does), we concluded we needed to look at our other resources to make this happen.

And now, we have!

With the help of Dungeonaday.com (created by Monte Cook), Super Genius Games is now proud to announce a subscription plan that allows fans to get all our Pathfinder-compatible products in one easy step. The All-Genius Pass is a subscription plan through Dungeonaday.com that allows subscribers to receive every Pathfinder-compatible PDF we create, plus access to the Dragon's Delve megadungeon through the Dungeonaday.com website. With more than 20 levels (originally written for 3.5 OGL game rules, but now updated with Pathfinder-compatible game stats for the first 5 levels, all new content, and rapidly expanding to cover the entire dungeon), the Dungeonaday.com adds 5 encounters a week to your game content and can be used as a single massive campaign, or as a place to steal ideas, monsters, spells, and traps to use in campaigns of your own design.

In addition to that content, every Pathfinder-compatible PDF product Super Genius produces is available free to All-Genius Pass subscribers. Plus if you ever lose your data, you can get replacement PDFs for every product that came out during your subscription period. So there's no way to lose, and an amazing amount of game material available!

An annual All-Genius Pass runs just $99, less than $2/week, and a quarterly All-Genius Pass is just $29.00 for 3 months. To subscribe, simply go to https://dungeonaday.ssl.subhub.com/subscribe/, and join now!

Linkified for you. And subscribed.

You might want to update your paypal account, though. It's still going to Hyrum's e-mail. Although I'm sure he'd love the extra money. ;-)

Darkjoy wrote:

Not a lawyer, but from what I gathered: the security council's resolution is a binding resolution and from that authority each and all states must comply with the resolution.

So because it is supranational US congress doesn't have to be involved, also because it is not a declaration of war. (it is war, but because we don't call it that your congress does not need to be consulted)

That is entirely incorrect. Only Congress may declare war on behalf of the United States. That's made very, very clear in our Constitution. The UN can only ASK us to go to war, it cannot COMMAND us.

And, as Darkjoy said, this, technically and legally, is not a war in the same way Vietnam was not technically a war. So no Congressional authorisation is required.

im making a human rogue sniper variant from APG. doing some reading to make sure i have it all correct, and i read about how the humans get a +1 skill rank bonus to all class skills. for having a favored class, you can either take a +1 hp inc, or a +1 skill rank increase. And then ontop of that, you have your base skill rank.

but the confusion is where it states that you cannot have more ranks than your total HD. so are the favored class and human skill ranks a bonus ontop of the base =HD, ie:

which is it below?
1st level human rogue (HD rank + human rank + favored class rank)= 3
or
1st level human rogue (hd rank) and thats it?

The second. The human and favoured class bonuses are additional skill ponts, not ranks, so you have more skills, but no beter skills.

Your Rogue would have 10 skill points, but couldn't have more than one of them in any given skill.

Two ISTJ and one INTJ so I'm definitely introverted, thinking and judging but vary a bit between intuition and sensing as the preferred mehoology. So, Scientist or Auditor.

Pretty much where every personality test always puts me.

amorangias wrote:

Assuming average roll value is just throwing random numbers around in a way that's not consistent with the game's mathematical model. Again, d20 rolls have a flat probability curve, so the only thing you can logically assume about a single d20 roll is that it will generate a number between 1 and 20.

I've done my homework on the metagame. I suggest you do the same.

EDIT: Yes, the game has a take 10 rule. This rule doesn't apply in combat at all, and thus has no bearing on DPR calculations.

Yes a single die roll (any die) has a flat probability curve. Multiple dice (of any size) have a bell curve. Which gives you an average of 9-11 for a d20.

I never said you could take 10 in combat, I was merely stating the fact that the game is built on a foundation of assuming 10 to gauge success.

Sorry, but that is flat out 100% incorrect. It only has a bell curve distribution it you are using it additively. Each d20 roll is an independent statistical even. It is not additive, so it retains the flat distribution.

Besides which, the d20 roll is used to determine if it succeeds. If you need to rolla 19 to succeed, your analyssi would mean you would never succeed, whereas in reality you would succeed 10% of the time.

Thus, using averages to determine the outcome (hit/miss) is massively inferior to using a proper prbablistic multiplier as is done in the DPR Olympics.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

If it is amicable, then it's probably OK. Doesn't sound like it is, though, so she is just being insensitive. Hey, you break up with the the arranger of PaizoCon UK, there are consequences.

Thanks Cassey and Aubrey.

When we see each other I keep it polite and she always says she doesn't want to talk. That's what really sucks about this - she's never explained why she wants this or talked through things. She wants to maintain the appearance that none of it matters anymore. I don't want to comment on her new partner but don't expect any understanding from that quarter. And she's never been able to accept that her actions and behaviour have consequences.

So I've told her I'm thinking about it and asked what she would say if our positions were reversed.

Wintergreen,

Adivce from someone who isn't currently, and hasn't been for a while, in a relationship so take it for what it's worth.

I sympathise with the desire, but it is absolutely the wrong thing to do to ban her. Is PaizoCon UK going to be in two rooms again this year again? If so, make sure she and her partner are in the other room to you to minimise contact. I know this won't make you feel any better, but if you don't act as the bigger man, it might hurt in the divorce itself as it makes you look unreasonable. No, that isn't fair, but it is a possibility.

Also, don't comment on her new partner. After all, you're the organiser so during PaizoCon you are always going to be too busy to talk to her.

As I said, I'm sorry you're going through this, but even if it feels good and is understandable, revenge isn't the best thing you can do. I'll see you in July.

My players have no interest in most 3PP products, being more than happy with the current Pathfinder RPG classes, races, etc. Thus, if you're a 3PP, tell me about your products aimed specifically at the GM (e.g., alternative rules, settings, mods, templates, monster books, etc.).

Not a 3PP, jus a fan of some.

So, some GM goodies:
Super Genius Mythic Menagerie series. Lots and lots of monsters around a common theme. So far they've done Constructs, Undead, Harpies, and a Christmas themed one for a less seious campaign. They've also just starte a new line, Codex Draconis, that deatils drahons at all stages of life, one type per PDF. And one night stands, simple stand alone adventures.

Rite Publishing Evocotive Sites. Tailor made urban adventure encounters or jusr background. They've also got their own campagn setting, Questhaven, a city run by adventurers, but I haven't got that so can't comment directly.

Alluria Publishing. Fey Folio and Creepy Creatures. Two monster books featuring Fey and aWideAssortment of vile terrors in the other. They, too, have a campsign setting out, Cerulean Seas, which is an under ocean campaign.

Adamant Entertainment. Three mini bestaries. Warfare, system for running battles, although it is much more wargamey than Pathfinder's own more abstract system.

Open Design. Apart from Kobold Quarterly, packed full of goodies, they produced Sunken Empires to run a sea based campaign. Also has their Midgard setting (haven't got that one, either).

Trivky Owlbear. Have Forgotten Foes, a collecion of older edition creatures. Although many have now been Pthfinderised in the Betiary 2, this bok is still good to throw variants at players who know too much.

Jon Brazer Enterprises: Books of the River Kingdom. Includes a bestiary, and kingmaker rules for running a realm.

Obviously, there sre plenty of other good 3PP. And, even if he players don't want new options, that doesn't mean the GM should miss out, does it?

bstern wrote:

It looks like there is a typo on page 7: "Feats Toughness (${{$ts}}3)"

I'm guessing that this is supposed to indicate how many HP he's getting from Toughness, but I'm not sure.

That means a typesetter mark failed to get noticed by our typesetter. It means x3, so he took toughness 3 times. The hit points listed in that stat block are correct, and the second +24 represents the +3 hp per HD for 8 HD as a result of taking the feat three times.

Even so, I'll put in for a correction and revision. Thanks for the spot!

Can you take Toughness mulitple times? I thought that had changed when they revised i to be 1hp/level rather than a flat +3. It also doesn't have the standard "you cantake this feat multple imes" blurb.

General advice: Go pick up Advanced Feats Secrets of the Alxhemist from Open Design. Even if you don't use their feas, there's also discussion on how to build Alchemists and three sample builds, one of which is the Carpet Bomber.

For an Alchemist, you need hifh Int fpr more bombs and high Dex for better ranged atacks.

For discoveries, Precise Bombs is a must. Nothing kills fun like being caught in your zupposed ally's attack. Force Bomb is also very useful, primarily if you expect to encounter a lot of icorporeal creatures, and to it those annoying things immune to fire. Infusion is almost a rerquirement. but proably less for for a dedicated pyromaniac.

Feats I'm not sure on but anythig focusing on splash attacks or Extra Bombs/Extra Discovery can't be bad.

Make sure you have lots of vials of acid and alchemists fire (and maybe some liquid ice fr variety) as you can easiky run your bombs down.

EDIT: And go for it as it sounds like a fun idea.

I got the book he wrote, and that the article seems to be cribbed from, Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks. Its a good read, but a bit apologetic for his love of fantasy. It's definitely written to introduce a normal person to our corner of geekery rather than for those of us who already live there.

My party is of various alignments, the Paladin just found out that one, possibly, two people in the party are evil. One of the rogues have prestieged to Assasin, the other one is looking to go Shadowdancer (no evil required, but he's done some evil acts anyway).

The party have already had to make new characters due to death, is there anything I can throw at them to force them together regardless of alignment?

Party is:
human paladin
human rogue/assasin
human rogue
human barbarian
ogrin barbarian

No. Do not mix Paladin's and Evil player characters. It doesn't end well.

No one's mentioned Avatar The Last Airbender yet? If the Razzies make up a category jut for your film (most eyegouging use of 3D), and you win Worst Film, Worst Dirctor and Worst Actor as well, I think you deserve to be on this list, if no right a the top of it.

According to the chart in the APG, an inquisitor knows 4 orisons at 1st level up to 6 from 3rd level onwards. However, the list in the Spells chapter only lists 2 orisons for inquisitors: Brand and Sift. Was this an error, do they also have access to Clerical orisons or what?

As for domain powers, the APG states "Each domain grants a number of domain powers, depending on the level of the inquisitor." Am I correct in that (for most domains) that means one power at 1st level and another at 8th, just as a cleric does? Also, while they don't get domain spells, they do get any additional granted powers (such as bonus class skills, etc.), correct?

Look in the class section. The Spells chapter only shows which new spells in the APG they get. their full list is at the end of the class description.

And yes, you get the special abilities but not the bonus domain spells.

Bob,
Here are some wizard schools and their product. Not exhaustive, just the onces I know of from 3PP
Cold (Genius Guide to Ice Magic)
Crystal (Genius Guide to Crystal Magic)
Earth (Genius Guide to Earth Magic)
Nature (Kobold Quarterly 15)
Sleep (Genius guide to Deam Magic)
Wind (Genius Guide ot Air Magic)

With the exception of the Nature School, all are from Otherworld Entertainment (also known as Super Genius gaems)

Paul Watson wrote:

Full attack, Natural Attacks only:

Claw +13/Claw +13/Bite +8

Full attack, Sword and natural weapons:
Sword +13/Sword +8/Claw+8/Bite +8

I don't think two-weapon fighting makes a difference as claws are still...

That's what I thought but at the bottom of p182 it states

"All of your natural attacks are treated as secondary attacks, using your BAB minus 5and adding only half of your STR nod on damage. IN ADDITION all of your attacks made with melee wpns and unarmed attacks are made as if you wrre two weapon fighting"

This is the passage that causes problems.

Ah, misunderstood. In that case, I'd agree with your second option.

Sword +11/Sword +6/Claw +8/Bite +8

It says your weapon attacks are affected. Your natural attacks ate already penalised.

Need to check my interpretation of how natural attacks work. So I have a barbarian player (two actually, same build) with the beast totem pathway. He gets TWO primary natural attacks (claws) and since he is a half orc he gets a second bite attack (secondary attack). He is level 6 so his BAB is +6/+1. Lets assiume he gets a further +7 ATT for STR etc In a full attack does his base ATT is +13/+8..

+13Claw/+13claw/+8bite (bite at -5 since it's secondary natural attack).

+13Claw/+13claw/+8bite and another +8claw because of his +6/+1 BAB (ie the itteritive attack). My reading of the rules says NO - no itteritive attacks due to high BAB.

If he chooses to use a weapon in one hand - he gets to use his other claw and bite - but as secondary attacks - so -5 ATT. He will however get the +6 and +1 att with his weapon due to his BAB. how do the two weapon fighting rules apply?

Is it +13sword/+8Sword and then +8Claw/+8bite (so two added natural attacks since he has two natural attack forms)

or +13Sword/+8sword and either +8Claw OR +8 bite(so only one additional natural attack which he can choose from)

My problem arises with the two weaoon fighting rules added in. In this case he could use his claw as a second weapon (?) and his bite as a additional secondary natural attack (?). This means he gets...

+7sword/+1sword/-2claw and his bite +8 without two weapon fighting feat (due to the -6/-10 penatly for two weapon fighting)

or +11Sword/+6sword/+6Claw and bite +8 with two weapon fighting (since claws are light off hand weapon).

My appologies if this idea has already been discussed in another post, I did try searching unsuccessfully and would appreciate any feedback.

It goes as follows:

Single attack:
Sword: +13
Single claw: +13
Bite: +8

Full attack, Natural Attacks only:
Claw +13/Claw +13/Bite +8

Full attack, Sword and natural weapons:
Sword +13/Sword +8/Claw+8/Bite +8

I don't think two-weapon fighting makes a difference as claws are still natural weapons and follow those rules.

But it says that the Screaming Bolt is a +2 bolt, meaning that you get +2 to attack and damage rolls, that means that it's a +2 "weapon" and has a special ability.

You are correct. I misunderstood the question. I withdraw my objction.

Page 468 = Caster Level for Weapons =

The Caster level of a weapon with a special ability i given in the item description. For an item with only an enchantment bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enchantment bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.

..........................................................

+2 enchantment bonus x 3 = CL 6

This is the higher of the two caster level, so why does the item not use CL 6 ??

Added a bit of bold to your quote. Wraithstrike is correct. The rule you quoted only applies to straight enhancement bonuses. Screaming is a special ability and its CL is determined based on the spell used and other esoteric formulae.

If you're allowing 3PP material, there's a feat in A Fistful of Denerii by Tripod Machine that grants an animal companion mount. It's called Signature Mount.

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Who the HELL is Greg Vaughn? Can I skip #46 in my subscription?

He is one of my cultist.

Isn't everyone?

In roughly 20 years of gaming I have never had a single DM who would allow one iota of 3rd party content in their game, not even stuff out of Dragon Magazine. Everyone sighted the likely hood of rules abuse/ over powered characters as the reason. Its a shame too because there is some good 3rd party stuff out there, but I am guessing none of their previous players culled enough wheat from the chaff for me to get the benifit of the doubt.

As a DM I allow you to bring anything that has seen print to the table for review. But I reserve the right to ban or nerf it on a case by case basis. I recognize the fact you spent some hard earned bucks on a shiney new book and I will try to let you use it as best I can, but I will not let my game become Magic the Gathering where the guy who spends the most bucks wins.

This. I allow pretty much everything from SGG, Rite, JBE, Open Design, Dreamscarred press and a couple of other products as of right, with anything else being 'let me see it and I'll tell you next session'. I go so far as to produce a guide of what's allowed from where.

Our current campaign includes a Justcar (SGG Inquisitor variant), a multiclassed Phantom (Kobold Quarterly Cleric variant) who uses feats from A Fistful of Denerii, a Cleric who uses the Exalted Destruction domain (SGG again), and the bard has some spells out of Rite's 101 First Level Spells. So, yeah, I play with. fair bit of 3PP stuff.

Looks cool. Would you mind answering a question? Where can I find the rules on dhampir? I don't know anything about them and one of my players asked about playing one in Carrion Crown. Are there stats for them anywhere? Thanks if you can help.

They're introduced in Bestiary 2 and will eventually end up on the PRD eventually, I'm sure.

Chalk it up to aspergers....but I'm fixated on the changeling and can't wait.

Are we talking half hag and half some other race ???
Or something else ???

More or less. Changelings are the (always) female children of hags and pretty some poor (soon to be deceased) male of another species. One of their abilities varies depending on the type of hag their mother was.

Beckett,
2nd try at explaning.
You are saying that same sex marriage should be blocked because of the threat you perceive from terrorists and illegal immigrants using it to get into the US. When people point out the flaws in ths position, such as the miniscule risk compared to that provided by hetero marriages, you don't explan how that flaw doesn't invalidate the position.

As you're suggesting that people's liberties cntinue to be restricted on the basis of ts threat, not engaging with te discussion looks like te reason you've given is a false one to hide tge real, prejudiced reason you oppose it. I'm not saying ths is te case, but there have been many examples of people hiding their prejudices behind argumets tat they can't defend when challenged and your arguments seem to fall into this category, even when they don't. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so it's being treated as a duck.

Jagyr's point is that at the time, mixed race marriages were seen as just as wrong, improper, ungodly and so on as gay marriage is seen today. The arguments used against it are geerally very smilar. As you don't think mixed race marriafes are a problem, Jagyr was trying to ask what the difference is?

I'm soon to be introducing some experienced 4E players to Pathfinder and I could use some advice. The main thing that I've notice people worried about is HP, specifically the random nature of it when going up levels. I'm considering giving them a choice: they can roll for it or they can take half the maximum roll, but they have to choose before the roll.

Does anyone anticipate any problems with this? I'd rather not just tell them to suck it up as I'm already enforcing this system change, baby steps, and all that. Still, I don't want to mess up the balance.

It should be noted that I'm new to Pathfinder myself, so if I'm totally miscontruing the rules here please call me out on it.

This causes no problems. I do it in my game without trouble.

CourtFool wrote:

Sorry. No. Stop looking for a scapegoat and look for the real cause of our problems.

And what is that? More interestingingly, why is it so easy for you, Sam, and others to hide behind villifying me, name-calling, and jumping to conclusiones like I'm attemptingt to find a scapegoat, when I have already said I have gay friends and no issue with homosexuality?

Beckett,

The problem is they have nothing else. to go after. You've presented nothing to support your assertion. In light of that, people will naturally assme that it isn't te real reason and react accordingly.

To quote Hitchens, something I'm loathe to do, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed the same way." Basically, you haven't defended a quite inflammatory assertion. This has put people into an aggressve mood.

As a counterpoint, the UK, hardly radical Islam's favourite country, has same sex unions but has experienced no attempt, that I'm aware of, to use it to breach immigration or allow in tterrorists. Thus,your bald assertion seems ludicrous and as you provide nothing to back it up, suggests that you're not being honest, even if you are.

Loztastic wrote:

which makes it illegal in the UK to deliberatly do something JUST to cause "Harassment, Alarm or Distress"

Egads, half of my forum posts are criminal offenses in the UK!

Only half? Have you been making lots of sensible posts recently?

I've got to agree with mdt that negative energy affinity is ambiguously worded.

James Jacobs wrote:

Channel positive energy hurts dhampyrs as if they were undead, and channel negative energy heals them as if they were undead.

Channel positive energy always hurts dhampyrs as if they were undead, or only when it's being used to affect undead? Channel negative energy always heals them as if they were undead, or only when it is being used to affect undead?

Does checking to see if the dhampyr would be affected by a channel effect count as "reacting" to the channel effect, or does the effect have to actually affect the dhampyr first before the "react" clause of negative energy affinity is invoked?

I don't know. I was certainly confused. It seems I was reading the ability an entirely different way than it was intended.

To me, it was perfectly logical that an ability involving "reacting" to channeled energy wouldn't resolve until after it was independently determined whether or not the energy in question was "acting" on the creature in the first place. You can't have a reaction unless something is acting on you in the first place.

I have to agree wth Karui Kage that it's pretty clear.

Chanelling positive energy to heal has absoltely no effect on undead, so would have exactly the same effect on Dhampirs, i.e. none. Same applies to channeling negatve energy to harm. It has no effect, either way on undead so would equally have no effect on Dhampirs. Why are people adding rules to the base rules that confuse the issue?

My question is this: When did "donations" become so freaking mandatory? Frankly, if I were in charge of the world for a day, I'd declare the US foreign national dept as nil, citing the millions that we have offered virtually every nation on the planet in aid.

I'm not saying that this type of aid shouldn't exist. But it is what it is, a donation. It shouldn't be automatically expected, and when we're pumping out millions of dollars worth of aid, you damn sure shouldn't criticize us for not doing more.

I'm sure that this post will generate a lot of hate thrown my way. But I stand by it.

It's expected because you, the US, promised it. If you're going to welch, accept the consequences of being unwilling to keep your contractual agreements.

I seem to recall somewhere there being a bloodline for doing a Rakasha sorceror but cannot quite remember where (suspect it was either Kobold Quaterly or Wayfinder but not sure) If someone could tell me where to find it I would be most greatfull.

It was Kobold Quarterly website. It was put on the site in late January 2010 and was called The Magic Circle: Rakshasa Bloodline, by Rob Billingham.

avert attack became True Shield

and I don't remember what we changed the name of mental sentiel too I will double check.

Once 101 Cantrips is done I plan to go back in and fix all the minor errors with errata versions. (yeah for the PDF)

That makes sense. To be honest, I only noticed because of your very helpful documents on the Rite forums suggesting what spells Alchemists, etc should have access to.

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:

Okay, going to stop you right there. I don't believe in the existence of 'God' such as is written in the bible and other religions. Most religions are control methods created by man, to control man, for the benefit of a small percentage of man.

That said, while Religion has been the excuse for some of the greatest and most terrible tragedies and abominations the world has ever seen, it is MAN who does this.
Aethiests are potentially even more horrific because we will do just as terrible in the name of Science, for our Country, for our Leaders, and sometimes Just Because.
The Religious at least have the excuse (and that's a poor choice of term, I apologise) that they are following commands put down in manuals that have been written and re-written countless times over centuries by ambitious and politically driven individuals to fulfil their own objectives, noble or base as they might be.
For those of us who reject the concept that we must bend knee to an unseen and often uncaring entity, the burden is there that no matter what we do, we chose to step out from the main herd on our own, and to decide our course for ourselves. Whether that leads to a good or bad ending is firmly upon our own shoulders, and nobody else can be made to shoulder that for us.

I did not mean to imply that athiests will act like willy nilly asshats becasue they have no guidance, or that they even need guidance.

I was merely stating that some Christians forget when they spew ignorant, hateful crap that it does not edify Jesus one iota.

We all seek to be better people, we just have different motivations.

And often, different definitions of 'better'. Which is why this thread has trouble living up to its title.

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:

lotsa good stuff

Sadly, some Christians don't realize that you can be a Christian and have common sense. Some leave it at the door...

Same applies to atheists as well. Not believing in God doesn't automatically grant you common sense.

Marc Radle wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Yeah, this has been so well received I begin to wonder if we should just do a short PDF of Loot! that gives 20 level of pregen treasure.

Wow - cool idea!

It 'd be a last to do illustrations for ... just sayin! :)

Okay, fair question; How much would people like to see illustrations of treasure in A: The next Codex Draconis and B: In a product called Loot! that was just pregenerated hoards?

A) Not so much. Loot isn't the point of Codex Draconis, so should probably not be the focus of the illustrations.

B) Definitely.

Two spells appear in the spell lists bt have no main text with them. These are Avert Attack and Mental Sentinel.

Forgive me if this has already been posted and/or answered but I didn't find anything in the search.

My group had some questions regarding how Mastar Craftsman works. From the sounds of it, you do not have to be a caster of any sort to create magic items (magic arms and armor and wondrous items). Now of course I know that I need to have the appropriate feats to create the items in the first place.

I am currently playing a Gunslinger class and was wondering if it is possible for me to make magical weapons if I have the feats needed, with no outside help from caster types. If this is correct, would I also be able to create weapons that are Thundering, Bane, ect...?

Thanks in advance for your help.

If you have the Master Craftsman and Create Magic Arms and Armour feats, you can create magic items. You use your Craft (Gunsmithing) skill, or whatever equivalent the GM says you use, ijn place of caster level. You also take a +5 modifier to the DC as you don't have the spells on your spell list (because you don't have one). But with that proviso, you could create a Thundering, Bane, etc gun.

I'm curious, so open question to the group:

What are your thoughts about religious tolerance? Is there such a thing? And should there be such a thing?

I think this is an Oscar Wilde quote:

"We should tolerate a man's belief in religion to the same extent we tolerate his belief that his wife is beautiful or his children smart."

If people's religion doesn't bother me, I don't bother them about it. If they try and make the law reflect their religion without any kind of reason behind it, just 'my religion says so' then I have more of a problem with it.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

He is not god of law but very much a god of order and traditions.

I don't think so. I think he is a god of survival, the initial struggle for the life of one community. There must be some rules to survive, but it must be adaptable, and that is something that not fit with lawful religions, where the things must be donde in the right time, in the right form. Erastil do what it needs to do to ensure the survival of his followers. He dont need strict rituals and holy books containing all the standards.

That's your definition of Lawful. It does not appear to be Seeker's, or Paizo's, definition. Ritual is not necessarily the be all and end all of Lawful.

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

Interestingly, whenever the militant union members express interest in joining the joint safety committee or anything like that, management breaks out in a cold sweat. Why? Because they know that if we actually held them to the safety standards that the insurance companies require and that they have publicly committed themselves to we'd be able to shut them down.

I'm trying to understand the bolded part. Are you saying it is in your interest as a worker for a company to get the company shut down?

I'd venture it's more in a "These are the rules you agreed to. You are currently breaking them. If you fix the problem, we won't mention it loudly and publicly, which would screw us all over" kind of way. It's a negotiation stance to improve safety up to the levels they've committed to but aren't actually adhering to.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

But how is it structured? I.e., is Gary the scum or the villainy?

Gary was caught once twiddling his thumbs, well, tentacles and now has to cover both scum and villainy.