Pax Veritas's page

Just wanted to add how user-friendly the Bestiary is, especially the grab-and-go approach to universal monster rules along-side the elemental pages spread! Fabulous! This reminds me a lot of the old 1e days, when the GM would open the FF, or MM or MM2 and grab on-the-spot and run with little prep. The art is so inspirational, and the description quality is great. This brought me even more joy in last night's game. Thanks again!

quick threadjack/

... M & Gene et. al: The PCs did not walk through the fire archway, managed to pull minotaurs out of bbeg's room and destroy them. A couple channel energys and they're at full, except the Sorc is out of spells - now feebly using staffs and wands. All things considered, in the next room they face:
>Cr7 LE CL
>Cr10 BBEG Thoon Hulk Gene-style
>Cr7 Champion Minotaur MMIV-style (the earthglider thingy)

My question is: what buffs or area spells should I drop as the GM to keep this fair but well-challenging? My PFRPG Bestiary minotaur minions got roached. Or, do you think I'm fairly set for an interesting battle that can tip either way? (which is what I'm going for... party failure here is fair/epic and would fit perfectly, so I'm not pulling punches.) Thoughts?

end threadjack/

Minotaurs out of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary last night fell pretty fast to the 9th level party.

Didn't finish the dungeon though. The bbeg, champion, evil priest are still alive. I set out the Thoon Hulk mini, and those who have been playing the game for centuries had NO flipping clue what was ahead.

Thats the best part about using these stats you make Gene - not only are they well made, but it keeps my players guessing.

Its then end of the dungeon crawl (4 game sessions long) and next week they will die or live to tell the tale. I'm a bit old school, and everthing they do is earned, paid for with their dearest blood!

Mwahahahaha!

Dunjinni is very good but given your situation - hands-down Fractal Mapper is the solution you're looking for. Over the years, I've found nothing with its balance of simplicity+robust features. Maps look very good without giving you a headache. I've fully mapped a few kingdoms upon a continent upon a world using it. I've printed and hung up my homebrew maps as large as 4x5 feet on the wall (taped together, but made at very low cost). The software is very intelligent and "knows" what a GM needs. Also, the software has been recently upgraded to version 8, and if you're looking for one holistic solution for your world/continent/country/barony/town/building/dungeon - - Fractal Mapper does it all!

-Obviously I think its awesome. I think you will too.
-Pax

EDIT: P.s. I own and have used CC2, CC3, Dunjinni, plus 1 or 2 others.

WARNING: Brown dragons are high in tryptophan and gas-producing chemicals.

HAHAHA!

Maximized Sleep Spell Effects and
Methane Gas + Fireball!

Okay - new cartoon image in my mind now!
Caption:
The Thanksgiving Dragon Family Dinner was always an explosive one, when Uncle Exunthicus Vox Kabor Tebor Rimanthric Arcanthor a.k.a. "Smellydoom" played a game of "pull my finger" with the hatchlings.

Happy One Year Anniversary v.3.5 Stat Blocks for 4e Minis Thread!

Thanksgiving dragon - - - HA! I first think about a plump dragon breathing out mini pumpkins and spitting cranberry and stuffing. Next, I envision the smoldering but juicy husk of the dragon, stuffed and set upon a grand giant table.

Don't know that any of that makes sense, but it made me laugh. Caption reads, "Adventurers Give Thanks. Elves and dwarves sit together to celebrate the slaying of the tyrant dragon."

Gygax as a masterful and challenging DM is a hard act to follow. He knew how to balance fun against balance and challenge.

I know I am no match for the awesome that EGG was, but I definitely aspire to some of that. The ability to challenge a player to think outside of their comfort zone. The ability to roll with the punches when my players come up with something totally out of left field.

Oh, and an absolutely unhealthy adoration of Kobolds (specifically of the Tucker's variety)

Three cheers for Gygax, without whom who knows where we'd be!

+1

Yes, i would love to hear how it goes.

Hey Gene - its great to see this project continue after all these months, now years...

Tomorrow night, the PCs are confronting your Thoon Hulk and a contingent of evil halflings and minotaurs!

They're finally rescuing that PCs soul that got VOID from the Deck of Many Things. The PCs soul was purchased by what is know as the Soulgrinder (thoon leader). They've crossed worlds now and find themselves in Castle Blackmoor (of the Arnesonian design) and must fight their way OUT! LOL.

Its gonna be marvelous! I've got a 7x5 dungeon tile layout built, replete with minis. I haven't picked up the new minotaurs, but I've got tons from the old sets.

There will be blood. Mwahahahaha!

Bring your stuff, hope for good weather, remain flexible.

I'd like to humbly remind folks that guys like Jason, Sean, Monte, and Erik have been playing since the dawn of Gygax and what's often not explained is that there's a hollistic "sense" of how stuff works. Rules simply stem from that "sense." Even amidst todays vast librams of rules, its fairly important for the GM to "get it" hollistically, and will find all the "rulings" about this sort of stuff stem from there.

Creating an illusion of torches in darkness or magical darkness doesn't cause a paradox or conflict with the general "light" spell. Generally strong magical darkness isn't disrupted by the light of other lessor spells. But dungeons are very dark generally, and color spray is the type of effect that is seen, but as an illusion is subject to belief in the illusion (or a saving throw as the mechanical determination of the illusions effect on the character).

And, if you will indulge me in a minor point: serve your campaign first, the story second, the characters third. Rules are just one tool to help do that and need not be 100% internally consistent across rule types. I know that will make a majority of folks want to vomit inside their skull. I understand this is paramount for computer programming and digital game design. However, there are some areas of magic, illusion and phantasm that will make your head hurt if you try to apply empiricism and scientific laws to them. Realize there are some dichotomys, there are exceptions that prove the general rule, and yes, even after 30+ years, players should still need to accept that the skill of dealing with ambiguity and suspension of disbelief is an important aspect to the game. Thank you, gentle reader, for indulging these comments.

Pax, how do Weapon Speed Factors and casting times play into that?

Pax, how do Weapon Speed Factors and casting times play into that?

I don't use weapon speed factors, but that data can be found in first edition, and I seem to recall came into play whenever there was a tie, but I would need to check. Most of us didn't bother with those rules unless a player was attempting to weild a large clunky weapon under certain circumstances...

Casting times are usually listed in number of segments. You'll notice that Gary selected the d6 for initiative, even though there were 10 segments in the round! Magic spells with a casting time of say, 9 segments, easily happen toward the end of the round, but most of what we consider fundamentally hasn't changed from 1e to Pathfinder. Generally speaking, most GMs didn't fool around with casting times because after the surprise round opponents clashed in melee, ranged weapons fired and spells rolled in after the dice count was exhausted.

I still enjoy the surprise round(s) mechanic: If a 1 or 2 is rolled, someone is surprised! One round of surprise on a roll of 1, and on a two - they're surprised for two rounds! Ties provoke simultaneous combat, and yes - battle to the death sometimes fells both PC and orc to the ground together!

*Nowadays, I won't "defend" 1e, nor make claims about it. I enjoy my Pathfinder RPG game weekly (my preferred game of choice), but once a month I still run an OSRIC 2.0/1e game and it keeps the swift, fun, classic creative juices flowing! It also serves as a grounding point for me, and a teaching tool for others. Players are often overjoyed to finally see how/why the game evolved the way it did, yet enjoy the freeform fun 1e still produces after all these years!

1e's initiative may be better but until someone can figure out how the hell it actually works we will never know...

S.

When the party of adventurers comes into contact with enemies,

game-time no longer follows a sequence of turns (representing
10 minutes), but is measured in rounds (representing
1 minute), subdivided into six-second long “segments.” The
order of events is as follows:
1 Determine Surprise (d6)
2 Declare Spells and General Actions
3 Determine Initiative (d6, highest result is the winner, each
party acts in the segment indicated by the other party’s die
roll)
4 Party with initiative acts first (casting spells, attacking,
etc.), and results take effect (other than spells, which have
casting times to complete before they take effect).
Note: Some actions may allow the other side to “interrupt” with
an action such as a fleeing attack or attacking charging
opponents with spears set against a charge.
5 Party that lost initiative acts, and results take effect (other
than spells, which take effect when casting time is
completed)
6 The round is complete; declare spells and general actions
for the next round if the battle has not been resolved.

Summary: Fast-paced! Roll a d6 and your roll is the GMs count; the GM's roll is the party's count! Very cool. I won't explain this much more than written here, but I couldn't resist just putting it out there that the 1e initiative system is still actually kinda fun. I go quickly around the table and have each player INSTANTLY declare actions. See here for more OSRIC 2.0 information (clone of 1e). Its a FREE .pdf.

...I am continually humbled by two things:

>the creativity of the community to interpret, re-interpret, and make up explanations for rules and

>the tendency of the community to try to "figure out" how magic and rules work scientifically

...I cannot even remember how many, many times we shouted, "close your eyes" when playing 2nd edition D&D.

All of this color spray stuff used to be straight-forward. Yet, long discussion threads (I enjoy them btw) make me doubt myself. I'm not looking at RAW right now, but traditionally I seem to recall:
>close your eyes, no effect
>generally disbelieve and get a save vs. illusion (going all the way back to 1e and OD&D)
>Color spray and other such light stuff doesn't contextually work in total darkness IF darkness is caused by magic, otherwise color spray should go off in a dungeon room without windows or light just fine.

I might be wrong, but I know I've not complicated this one unnecessarily. Is this different than Pathfinder RPG? I'll be checking tonight, but I'm curious now.

The point is "bag over the head" or magical darkness would be things in-between the spell and the adventurer, along with shut eyelids - meaning it helps to cover up against this one, but it should cast just fine inside a traditionally dark dungeon as I don't remember "make sure your creatures have torches or ambient light" as a tip for GMs throughout the ages.... thoughts?

How I Survived 1e and 2e Most Perfectly While Adhering to Gygaxian Design

The CP Roll (Compared Percentile Roll)
What it is: To the world of willing GMs, I offer the compared percentile roll (CP Roll). This is a compared percentile roll, compared rather than opposed, used to determine the result of any one of millions of PC requests, without the need to consult any books. This new GMing technique functions well because it is simple and effective, and can create a quick, flowing, decisive atmosphere at your game table.

Philosophy: Sometimes the percent chance to do something, achieve an effect, or have something exist inplay, in the game world, is as random as a dice roll.

Applications: There are many applications for this mechanic. Examples could include answers to the following questions asked by your players or their PCs:
· Are there any halflings in the tavern?
· During Bromar’s conversation, are the people in the next room are mentioning any specific names right now?
· Are three bottles of elven wine still available for purchase?
· Does the town reeve have a copy of the Urdanzer Doctrine on his
mantelpiece?
· Are there any broken splinters of wood on the floor of this dungeon
chamber for Yoggr to use as an improvised weapon?
· Would the writ of entry Kelestri is looking for happen to be amongst the pile of documents on the table?
· Is there a waterclock somewhere on the premises of Castle Bloodmede?

Basic Mechanic: The CP Roll is a comparison between the GM’s roll and the player’s roll. The GM first secretly rolls d%, then asks the player to roll d%. If the player's roll is under the amount shown on the GM's dice, the chance, effect, or existence of an item is possible. If the player's d% roll is over the amount listed on the GM's dice, the question receives an unfavorable response.

For example:
John, who is playing a tiefling rogue, is in an underwater dungeon
chamber fighting a water dragon beneath a ziggurat overrun by Sheshek’s
tribe of lizardfolk. John’s character has already picked up the artifact
scepter from the bottom of this watery chamber when he sees a water
dragon arrive.
John asks: “Are there any large rocks down here for me to pushoff
from to boost the momentum of my swim check more quickly back up to the
surface?"
The GM responds: “Please make a percentile roll.”
Instead of just saying yes or no, the GM asked for a % roll from John. The GM quickly throws d% behind the screen. If the player’s d% result is lower than the amount shown on the GM's dice, the GM can award a +2 to the PC's swim check (or comparable bonus in another game system),
determining that there are indeed large rocks to pushoff from toward the
surface.

Another example: In the heat of battle, the diminutive halfling PC named Yoggr is all out of stones as ammunition for his sling. The GM wishes to leave the chance of small slingsized stones lying on the dungeon floor to complete chance. He uses the CP Roll, and the player rolls above the GMs percent roll. Even after an extensive search by Yoggr, the GM determines that there is no usable ammunition available in the area.

The CP Roll achieves two things. First, it adds a swift dice interaction with the player, increasing suspense and keeping the player involved in the creation of the game. Unlike other systems, the players roll will actually determine the existence of an object in the world whether or not there are large rocks in the underwater dungeon chamber. Second, it provides the GM with a clean and fair way to determine a factor in the game that is not just based on her own whim.

Of course, there is nothing bad about the GM making that decision without this mechanic. However, in some cases the GM may prefer to leave the decision or result to random chance. In cases where the odds are truly random, the CP Roll helps to avoid any sign of favoritism to a particular player. In situations where character death may be imminent, the CP Roll avoids showing any act of GM fiat to help or hurt that PC’s chance of survival.

Try out the CP roll. I've used this mechanic to make quick, impartial GM
decisions with success for over 25 years. I now pass this mechanic on to you from one gamer to another.

... and so creative sharing is my example of Channeling My Inner Gygax.

Great thread! But where's Pax Veritas?? ;-P

HA!

Pax Veritas wrote:

Additionally, what are your thoughts about the "incredibles factor", if everyone is special than nobody is special.

Heh, I threw my two pennies in on that thought in the ENWorld thread of the same name that's been on fire this week. My contribution was that Syndrome's logic seemed to fit the concepts in Harrison Bergeron, where anyone who was 'too good' or better than 'the average person' had to be handicapped and 'keep their light under a bushel,' so to speak, to 'make things fair.' Mainstreaming the exceptional child, they called it when I was growing up in the public schools, where the smarter than average kid and the kid who can't keep up and needs things explained a little more carefully are shoved into the same class, preventing either of them from getting the sort of education or attention that would most benefit them.

Some people are better at some things than others. I'm better at English than a lot of other people. Just about every damn one of them is better than me at math. That's life. Pretending otherwise does both sides a disservice, downplaying very real excellence on some people's parts and encouraging a false sense of competence on those who could really benefit from admitting their weak points.

But that's probably just me being elitist, obviously. :)

Quote:

Applied to games, I am greatly surprised that the much-ado about sacrificing and trading benefits has survived. Since everyone is sacrificing - then nobody is. That is, if the GM just gives out benefits, without drawbacks evenly to players the net result is about the same (unless the benefits are more than just a handful, then what you have is added complexity because you haven't removed anything, or as some would call, power bloat. I seem to have no compunctions providing 2-4 benefits to a character whos more than earned them within the context of the story in the same fashion a GM might give out hero points. Over time, each PC gets her shake in the limelight so it all goes around

...

YES. YES. and... YES!

What has been lost in the world of vanilla so-called "fair" play, and what is lost by the folks who have become (perhaps unknowingly) "balance Nazis", is good gaming!

And fun and easy and meaningful gaming!

So, your comments resonate with me very much.

In-game, and contextually, the Druid PC confronted another misguided "lost and evil" druid upon her demi-plane. Long story short - the PC's actions were so wonderfully in-step with the tennants of the neutral gods, and the neutral gods were grateful the PC had finally come along to smite the wayward druid for her malifaction (is that a word?) that they helped the PC by not only removing a lost level bestowed by the Deck of Many Things, but also boosted the PC 2 levels (as a result of wishes made using the Deck of Many Things).

The truth is, the PC is already ahead of the others and there are no issues at our table. We are all level-headed folk who realize that story arcs sometimes raise one PC to the foreground (limelight), but what goes around, comes around.

I too find PrC requirements wonky. Its almost a passive-agressive way the game designers tried to teach GMs that PrC are the off-spring of a contextual campaign story, yet didn't come out to say that. Instead, we have 1/2 million gamers walking around thinking there is more to a PrC than there really is. We've been using PrCs for as long as the game has been around! Oh - you've saved the King from sudden death?-Well his court wizard allows you to read a special tome to boost an ability score as special thanks!

I also agree the items you list as real problems - - - I have honestly tried, but cannot wrap my mind around leaving a core class for another class? Prestige is "a high standing achieved through success or influence or wealth etc." But as written and used in 3rd edition, I don't believe it drove the right behaviors...

My tenets: (An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.)
> The game should stop over-glorifying combat and combat rules. The pendulum seems to have swung far in this direction and more balance is needed.
> Players should seek to design or immerse their character to be part o the fabric of a good campaign. In this way the drive of the story does not rest solely upon the GM. Hooks are natural ones, and the stories write themselves.
> Prestige should return to the game as something more than LEVEL. Prestige involves either renown, diplomacy, notoriety, specialty, or otherwise melding/weaving of the PC into the campaign. The idea of fishing for prestige classes or meeting wonky requirements to have them is wonky.

...more to come...

Pax Veritas wrote:

Total side note: do you know why anyone bothered to make prestige classes something instead of the original class? Back in the day, we did this except we just added a few powers or benefits to the existing class, call it a kit or a path or whatever. PCs that ascended to weave themselves into the story fabric of the campaign were the ones who received these benefits as story flavor but also as a quid pro quo for helping develop the campaign so well. Now-a-days, it always seemed to me that PrCs were somewhat cumbersome since they required a whole new "class."

I vastly prefer Alternate Class Features, or just purchasing PrC abilities as part of a Feat Chain, rather than PrC, so I'm right there with you on this side note.

Pax Veritas wrote:

Now all of that aside, I'm thinking about writing this up. Once I do, could I post it here, or have you look at it for review?

Sure, and if I miss the post, feel free to shoot me an email. The address is in the profile.

Pax Veritas wrote:

Thoughts? I don't mean to sound heretical against the rules... i don't know if anyone else thought PrC were always a bit fundamentally wonky? I do like the idea of bestowing additional campaign-related pretige power paths though.

Sure, that's just another way to come at the same concept. Do it as a PrC, as a series of Alternate Class Features or as a chain of Feats, with some built-in prerequisites about joining some organization or something. It's just different ways of reaching the same place. It doesn't matter if you are gaining access to Class Feature X and the expense of Class Feature Y through PrC levels or Alternate Class Features, really. And buying the features as part of a Feat chain is similarly requiring a sacrifice on the part of the character, so it's just taxing the character for the bennies from a different direction.

More options is always better than less, IMO.

Thanks, Set.

Additionally, what are your thoughts about the "incredibles factor", if everyone is special than nobody is special. Applied to games, I am greatly surprised that the much-ado about sacrificing and trading benefits has survived. Since everyone is sacrificing - then nobody is. That is, if the GM just gives out benefits, without drawbacks evenly to players the net result is about the same (unless the benefits are more than just a handful, then what you have is added complexity because you haven't removed anything, or as some would call, power bloat. I seem to have no compunctions providing 2-4 benefits to a character whos more than earned them within the context of the story in the same fashion a GM might give out hero points. Over time, each PC gets her shake in the limelight so it all goes around fairly.

I'll give this all some thought. Feel free, in me mean time to post any ideas you have... talk to you soon.

Good stuff, very good indeed and well thought out.

Total side note: do you know why anyone bothered to make prestige classes something instead of the original class? Back in the day, we did this except we just added a few powers or benefits to the existing class, call it a kit or a path or whatever. PCs that ascended to weave themselves into the story fabric of the campaign were the ones who received these benefits as story flavor but also as a quid pro quo for helping develop the campaign so well. Now-a-days, it always seemed to me that PrCs were somewhat cumbersome since they required a whole new "class."

Now all of that aside, I'm thinking about writing this up. Once I do, could I post it here, or have you look at it for review?

Also, what if for Pathfinder RPG, since the classes themselves are so well-developed, what would you say to a GM who streamlined PrCs to the point where they were simply 1 added power-thingy/benefit per regular level of existing class? Maybe it wouldn't be a prestige class so much as a Prestige Power Path?

Thoughts? I don't mean to sound heretical against the rules... i don't know if anyone else thought PrC were always a bit fundamentally wonky? I do like the idea of bestowing additional campaign-related pretige power paths though.

Enjoy your chocolate covered fruity goodness - you deserve it!

Thank you, Erik, carrying forward the torch of tradition and game history, for leading and guiding such a wonderful team, for the highest quality rpg products on earth, and for taking a chance to accelerate rather than slow down during the rainstorm of 2007! Your name is spoken with reverence at our game table, and on behalf of my Pathfinder RPG gaming group, "Huzzah! Happy Erik Mona Day (observed)!"

After 27 years of gaming... here's how I handle p2p attacks.

At my table, if you lay a hand on another player you are subject to initiative and all the facets that would protect playes from monster threats if the situation were different.

Originally, I did this to keep immature players from doing mean things to the kender, or to keep folks from refraining from throwing the dwarf. LOL

Nowadays this does come up. Usually though, I provide an RP solution to the same occurrence:

Valeros: Runs away with a look of fear on his eyes.
Ezren: Holds up his hands saying, stay with us! We need you here! Stay and fight!
Valeros: Says nothing but continues to push past.
Ezren: Tries to stop him.

DM: Roll for initiative, Ezren! (or roll to grab him as he runs past)

>> Situations where is p on p, you gotta tell the story of why a player is laying a hand on another. And the GM can use whatever discrection she wishes to augment, or disregard the rules as desired.

This is totally within the purview of the GM, as sometimes player on player confrontations enhance the story, atmosphere, or dramatic moment!
Go with what feels right in the moment.

No matter what rules you're looking for, provided you've got the jump on your target (be they friend or foe) you can cause something to happen.... stop them, kick them, etc.

The campaign story angle is the beliefs, tenants, and domains of three neutral gods. Due to a twist of fate while using the Deck of Many Things, the druid was 'touched' by the powers of three neutral gods. This was an exceptional occurrence, and we both agree manifested powers from this occurrence make a lot of sense in the story context.

Other settings have explored Triads, such as those in Forgotten Realms i.e. Triadic Knights, or the leage of the three dead gods there.

>At first blush, I'd like powers to be manifestations that represent the deity's presence in the world. I am thinking of drawing from the nature of each of the three gods, in the same way Greenwood drew from Ilmater, Tyr, and Torm.

Without sharing name specifics, in my home world the three neutral gods and their domains are:

1. FATHER STRONGBOW, THE WAYFINDER, GOD OF RANGERS & DRUIDS, NATURE'S ARROW, NATURE'S PROTECTOR

God of the forest, forest creatures, harvesting, hunting, nature, tracking, rangers, trade, and woodlands

Alignment: N

Domains: Animal, Plant, Luck, Protection, Time

Favored Weapon: Bow (any)

Portfolio: Forests, forest creatures, harvesting, hunting, nature, tracking, rangers, trade, woodlands

2. THE EARTHMOTHER, THE HEARTCLENCHER, THE ETERNAL WOMB, THE ETERNAL GRAVE, GENTLE MOTHER

Alignment: N

Domains: Balance, Creation, Death, Water, Repose

Favored Weapon: Unarmed Strike

Portfolio: Agriculture, Changelessness, Earth, Stillness, Perpetuity

1. MATRIARCH OF MAGIC, LADY OF SPELLMASTERY, GODDESS OF WONDROUS POWWER

Alignment: N

Domains: Magic, Rune, Spell

Favored Weapon: Quarterstaff (or wand/rod)

Portfolio: Magic, Spells, Potentiality

Wouln't it be goofy looking, or uncomfortable?

Is there an existing druid prestige class you can recommend? (book & pg#) or can you help create one for my L11 druid player? I have thematic detail for anyone interested in helping. Need asap.

Would you allow a player to wear a mithril shirt under leather armour? Would you impose some sort of penalty for doing so (upping the type from light to medium? Stacking spell failure?)?

The player in question is a rogue in my gaming group who has purchased a mithril shirt and explains, in his opinion, that it should fit under leather armour, thus stacking the amour bonus.

Any thoughts on the matter?

no. I would advise there is no stacking. Although, I would allow rabbit-fur underwear =)

Even a casual reading of someone using the phrase, "even a casual reading" tells me you're inflexible and static in your opinion. Adversarial DMs have always been those who don't understand the game very well, and not what Gary advocated for. It is a plain misinterpretation to perceive it the way you do. I reject your bullhockey-and recommend you read the game he invented and wrote about, especially his guidance in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Even your phrase choice on the subject, "custom-made rediculous" gives away your youth of knowledge on the subject.

The wotci capitolized on the myth of the adversarial DM by marketing to players the need for character builds using so many products to survive their DM. Further, its kind of sick that the rules and the company's obsession over them has transferred into the community a belief that excellence comes from twisting rules knowledge, rather than using critical thought or imagination. It was adversarial DMs, who wanted to kill characters, that sucked—and now they think they're masters because they are rules lawyers and detail nijas. NEWS FLASH: Munchkins, meta-gamers, and rules lawyers aren't masters of the game. I argue they're not even playing it. Further, the shift toward 100% rules details discussions on thread/boards/nets/during games provided a comfort zone for who wanted to play but not be challenged to use their imagination.

The fact that a game master has at her disposal UNLIMITED combinations, permutations, powers, levels, forces, armies and deadly thingys is a GIVEN. The fact that someone crys about a creature they could not overcome, or an event that is deadly/lethal, reveals the generation who has lost the mind-expanding art of this game.

A Man In Black wrote:

And if your goal is just to be unfair to stop people from doing things, then you're better off having a chat with your players than channeling your inner Gygax.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with Gygaxian DMing. Gygax killed players arbitrarily for doing things "wrong". As in, if you put your ear to a door to listen and try to find out what's on the other side, there were insects that lived in doors that would crawl into your ear and kill you unless you received a remove disease within 3 rounds. That's got nothing to do with using the same tricks the players use.

And mostly, the idea that Gygax was trying to kill characters is a lie conveyed by wotc to distance themselves from him and to sell more books to players under the marketing guise of "needing" these rules to survive and combat the GM. What a bunch of nonsense over the past 9 years from the wotci.

I appreciate the mention of Gary Gygax though. The idea of rot grubs in doors is very Gygaxian insomuchas the ecology of rotted doors and rot found in dungeons make sense for such things to exist. And yes, things were deadly.

Unfortunately, in today's gaming culture - the thrill of the "metagame" seems to have supplanted the actual game, or discussion of it. And to be clear, so many threads, including this one. Think about it: the discussion is about meta game decisions whether to allow metamagic to exist with reference to books that posit levels of meta-game powers at the table for the player.

The crisis here is that for 9 years the wotci have indoctrined gamers to think dungeons and dragons was or is about character builds, power widgits, and all about individualistic choices. None of this necessarily relates to character-development or story development. Much of this has nothing to do with collective roleplaying, but seems more akin to finding loopholes in the game and exploiting them.

Its no wonder that so many game tables still find an adversarial culture between payers and GMs - not in-game, but meta (above) it. I think its a gross misunderstanding that the game itself was ever about these things.

An analogy: a group of friends get together to play Conquest of the Empire. The ship movement rules are exploited because they don't specifically exclude 1 persons interpretation of them. That player then "wins" because she got to do something with ship combat that other players didn't know/understand or really care about. What is troubling to me, is that nowadays, dungeons and dragons games have become (to extend this analogy) an event by which players get together not to play Conquest of the Empire, but rather to spend their evenings getting together to exploit the rules against one another. This was never what the game was meant to be.

Tough part about initiative and grid play is that its awefully convenient to match one with the other, but this can cause some issues.

Really, if there was no combat, and Valeros opens door, a surprise round could occur at that point. It could have been resolved, and then regular initiative could commence. Most of this is just a technicality, but I find that it confuses players when the GM assigns init before combat begins. (just a side comment).

No.

I am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.

I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.

No.

Thanks Vic. On desktop! Tks.

We, as players, insist the DM rolls all his dice in front of us, for example, because we don't want to be let off.

Okay, I need to drop out of this thread. I hadn't realized the damage done to the game by wotc and video games was so culturally systemic.

IMO I don't think you have any kind of gamemaster at your table. Just a sucker whos been asked to be the banker in a monopoly game.

Happy Erik Mona Week!

I remember seeing a thread about this where someone was claiming blog posts as OGL or something... anyhow, yes its a shame. I too used to keep PAIZO art as my desktop art, but no more. Sad, but I understand this decision. Though, it would be a nice feature to have desktop art available in mydownloads. I would certainly use it, and would even be fine if the PAIZO logo was on it too! Its PAIZO I'm proud of, and their art, in this case.

Hey all. Just wondered - how much of the testament book is OGL? I mean truly open game?

Does no one believe in restraint as a dm? Just because an enemy can do something doesnt mean he should. Why exactly are dms having evil clerics spam channel energy over and over? The clear result of that especially from multiple evil clerics is a dead party. Theres a pretty simple solution, dont do it. Clerics also have spells, cast some. The cleric does not have to use channel energy every round untill they run out. Your objective should not be a tpk, and your monsters/npc's tactics should reflect that.

Agreed.

I think its sad that a game about imagination and story was hijacked for nearly a decade and taught to the new generation as a "battle" game between playes and the GM. Folks, its a big lie that was designed to get you to buy a bunch of books. WOTC didn't want to sell 6 books to the DM and 1 book to players, so they promoted this kind of "tactial" think. Stop a moment and listen to what Kolokotroni is saying....

Show restraint! You aren't a better player because you can point out how a publishing company has created a channel negative energy effect that "nerfs" your PCs. Just for once, just ONCE, I'd like to see a community threat that talks about how this might affect the story of the game world, where evil clerics hold punishment over the heads (or in a 30' radius) of the non-believers. Just imagine the story arcs and threads you could create in your campaign!

>Note: I played PFRPG alpha, beta and now the final version, and yes, this effect is quite devastating - and its about time. A first level party should think twice, contextually, and in-story, and thoughtfully about confronting the evil 3rd level Priest! I'm so tired of this chess match cock-fighting already. DM's should show restraint, and players, for crissake-play your characters and quit meta-gaming based on buffs/nerfs/and ruleset compaints.

*apologies to anyone who feels offended-this is not directed to anyone specifically in this discussion, but just a general observation/plea.

I'm not sure why Zaister decided to be a snot with his response.

welcome to the boards though. eveyone should feel comfortable posting any question for help, no matter what.

I ran a campaign where the party was evil. After only a little while, they complained to me that the whole world seemed to be against them. I explained:

GOOD: Helps Good, Destroys Evil.
NEUTRAL: Helps/Destroys/Ignores Good/Evil.
EVIL: Destroys Good, Destroys Evil It Can't Subjugate.

When you play evil, there's more things lined up against you. So, yeah, you're going to be running the gauntlet a lot more.

Interestingly, my players stopped playing evil characters after that.

Loner/Brooder: Usually has something in their past that keeps them from trusting others and/or that they're brooding over. RESOLVE THAT ISSUE! Let Wolverine nail Jean Grey, have Eilistraee's NPC Good Group destroy Menzoberranzan and bring drow to the surface in a major public relations campaign so not every Mickey Mouse farmer goes screaming for Martha to get his pitchfork when Drizzle comes waltzing along, have God dispatch a batallion of angels commanded by the Arch-Angel Michael to wipe the floors of Hell with Lucifer ("I did this once, I'll do again, and again until Eternity ends, Satan!") thus freeing Spawn's soul from condemnation.

The more players choose this archetype, the earlier you should resolve it. Hey, take care of it by 3rd level if you have to. Then, in character, they've no reason to be brooding/loner!

PC: "I'm a loner. I'm not going to help the group!"
DM: "Why are you a loner again?"
PC: "Because my wife betrayed me by seducing my brother, killing him, and then killing herself."
DM: "But last session you learned that a wizard, bitter over losing to you at hop-scotch in the 2nd grade, killed your wife and brother, polymorphed himself into your wife and cast an illusion of "her" having carnal relations with your brother. You tracked this wizard down, and avenged your wife's and brother's death in a bloody, public display of retribution. So, it turned out that your wife had been faithful all along."
PC: "Oh, yeah, guess I'll help this group that helped figure that all out."

Yes.

This is a very good point. Helping playes to see that character stories can develop and lead toward a character change - is true character development. Once done, work with your player to develop new character goals more in-step with the fabric of your campaign.

CourtFool wrote:

good stuff

Agreed, and I think it comes down to a matter of trust between the DM and players that the DM is going to provide the kind of fun the players want, and the players are going to reciprocate by respecting the DM's game (because it's their game, too). For the DM, seeking player input and setting out clear expectations up front can solve a lot of problems before they appear.

And if a player really, really wants to go off and "scout ahead" or something that's going to take the rest of the party out of the game for an extended period of time, that's when his character stumbles into a serious ambush... and the rest of the party becomes involved again to rescue him. Stopping the game for everybody else is just rude.

** spoiler omitted **

No defense - however, disappearances in the middle of the night would have my PC hunting as well, especially if the previous PC was dependable and nothing like this ever happened before....

"Get Past It" has always seemed a cop out to me. When those words are invoked by anyone - a player, or their spouse, it usually means the story got wonky somehow, and the suspension of disbelief was shaken somehow. This is one of the effects that happen when meta-game decisions make a story change - I'm not defending anything with this comment, merely pointing out there is a relationship here, and tropes aside, many players would prefer the player not make a munchkined character in the first place (that suddenly compromised the story and affected the game's believability). Heind-sight though is 20/20.

... and I would encourage the GM to apply bonuses or penalties...

Part of RAW is not only the 'GM's best friend' - what I've always considered a cheezy phrase.

The GM is the rules and should feel free to modify as contextually needed. One thing I do is avoid reporting anything to players. As their approach, plans, and context of the attack becomes more favorable.... I just adjust the decription of the result.

As for RAW, my hope is that we share the good news that CMB/CMD is a clean, easy, effective rule enhancement in Pathfinder RPG. The rest of the modifiers is, and always has been, the purview of the GM.

The GM is not beholden to RAW. That is, unless folks are playin in, or think they are playing in a sterile Wal-mart of dungeon rooms. Think about it - - - a lot of gamers think that RAW is the one way things need to be adjudicated because its more "fair" or "perfect" or "balanced" but really, it kind of implies that those players are expecting every hallway to be exactly the same. How fun or creative is that?

And think about who is the greater game designer: the designer who tries to write rules for everything, or the one who knows where the rules should end, and the context of the game and the mind of the GM should begin? This is why I see such good, quality, and judicious work within Pathfinder RPG. Now, it is up to us as the community to really get this important feature, and work together to change the previous "demand" for rules bloat that exists within the community. I belive we're doing that through discussions like these. Thanks.

Hello all,

It has been many years since I've played, so please forgive this very basic question :)

Does casting a spell from a scroll take up one of a wizard's or sorcerer's spell slots for that day?

Thanks,
MoFiddy

Welcome to the PAIZO message boards and to the community! Lilith will stop by to offer you some cookies soon.

Great question. No question too basic to ask! Welcome back! What a great time to return! Take care.

... this will sound silly but....

If my monster uses an EX or SU on its count (usually a SA),I know it can still take a move action. But, is there anything close to a 'double-attack' with like powers when a full round action is available?

I forgot to brew coffee this morning, so maybe I'm not thinking straight...

The pictures are reused art from Pathfinder Chronicles: Dragons Revisited. They reflect the Golarion branch of dragonkind - as does your avatar.

Some, I believe also appeared in the regular Pathfinder Adventure Path series... this was done a long while back too. To the OP: I'm great with it. PAIZO and the artist they've carefully selected have done an amazing job honoring the tradtions of our game while still presenting something fresh and new. Brillaint, well done imo.

Pax Veritas wrote:

Hi, Azhrei fje! Thanks for clarifying...

I do not read En World. But I would like your expertise if possible....

I don't visit them as much as I used to. Their 3.5 forums don't get the traffic they used to get, so I don't need to visit as often to keep up to date with the threads.

Quote:

Now, there were no other PCs in the area, so I did not need to cause damage to other players, but is that possible? I would think so, right.

Definitely.

Quote:

Next, if I don't read anything on EnWorld, could you summarize what is the point of contention there? What is the main issue?

Hmm. Well, you should visit that link and read the thread. There are a lot of nuances in the following summary.

Point #1: the wall spells have an area of effect that isn't described adequately by the rules. Wall of Fire for example has "opaque sheet of flame" which doesn't actually say it's a line, although that's how most people play it.

Point #2: because of #1, it's unclear whether the sheet of flame must be unbroken. For example, could it extend through a closed door? Spell effects generally allow this and only require that the caster see the point of origin and then declare that the spell travels in a certain direction up to the limit of its length.

Point #3: what happens if the sheet of flame doesn't follow a grid line precisely? Again, the effect isn't defined (see #1) so a wall could move "up five, over 2" and traverse across the edges of some grid cells. If it does this, which squares are affected by full heat and which by half-heat?

That's what I can remember off-hand. But I cannot stress strongly enough that you read the other thread. frankthedm and HyperSmurf over there on ENworld have particularly keen insight into the 3.x rules so I typically afford them more credibility that just a random forum user over there. :)

Thanks so much for the reply.

With all due respect, I'm not going over to EnWorld. You've summarized the situation nicely. Thanks.

Jarik wrote:

Here's an example of a guy using maptools with a projector, with the added plus of a hacked Wii remote that gives it multitouch capability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1WqdPy655k

That link is broken, but I think I have seen it before.

Strictly speaking, you don't have to "hack" the controller — that makes it sound a lot harder than it is. A wiimote is a plain old bluetooth device, so all you need is a bluetooth capable computer and some software that works with it. I recommend RemoteBuddy on the mac (Darwiin had some fatal bugs for me).

One other thing — I don't think maptool is set up to work with multitouch. I can't remember if they're actually using multitouch functionality in that video or if the pen is just basically a mouse. It would be great, obviously, for controlling zoom and the like.

I actually have most of the expensive ingredients for a setup as good or better than this, but it's not worth it since I play over the web. When I hit the Seattle area next spring, I'll have a regular face to face group, so I will definitely be building one.

So, what is your setup? I am always interested in game bling. ?

Okay - sounds reasonable. And, you've appealed to my need for learning how your material is different. If it is in-step with the kind of thing you would find in a PAIZO book, or like kind, I will have a look at your item with the caveat: please avoid the word "controller" and like kind such as "artillery", "battery" etc.

The optimizing step you're taking does seem to provide insight, yet could potentially cater to an audience who's ostensibly playing blackjack (a tactical minis game) against the dealer (the GM). In immersive tabletop games, or even light roleplaying games, I'm very much opposed (as you may have guessed) to power gamers, munchkins, min-maxers, and the like. Sometimes even the theoretical builds and power-builds you've described (and knowledge of them) can do more harm than good for any one particular aggregate cross-mix of players. That is, rarely does a good GM find a homogenous group of like-minded players. As such, tools that exploit the rules, as you already know, in the hands of even poor player are a like a nuclear weapon if misused (a bad apple can spoil the bunch). The shift from class-based teamwork toward individualistic tactical approaches to combat, such as those used in and adorated by 4e, are of zero interest to me.

However, as you have taken the time to explain, you are offering something that may actually help someone play Pathfinder. I will humbly reserve judgment until I have a look to see just how close you get to revealing the smoke and mirrors, or speak the ineffable "unspoken" rules of game play. I'm sure you can appreciate this position, and I thank you for your clear civility and positive intention.

---Pax

Why do these thread go so long without receiving any clear answer?

Its a shame because I think CMB/CMD were two very clear enhancements to Pathfinder RPG. Yet, I begin reading long threads with so many various explanations, and it serves to confuse and doubt of my understanding sets in.

Was this determined?

Seems like using CMB/CMD require the path to be clear as a pre-requisite. For example, nothing can obstruct a charge. If nothing obstructs - you may charge or overrun or whatever.

Where are we at with all of this?

What is this thread all about.

Edit: I do not even comprehend why anyone would want a so-called character optimization board? Sounds like a throw-back to the munchkin training grounds of 2002-2005. Haven't we determined already that the spirit of the game lives on, and those who do extreme optimal builds tend to cause discomfort for most players looking to have fun and don't wish to watch the one person who seeks loopholes in the rules continue to botch every potentially balanced scenario?

I've said this before.... The ability to exploit grey areas or gaps in the rules or optimize a character to the point that even the GM doesn't have the time to analyze all the complex ways you did so, doesn't make you a good player, it just demonstrates you don't "get it".

Now, if "character optimization" if that is what we're talking about is something different that this, please explain. I'm actually pretty open minded and would love to learn.

Last night during a monster mash the Froghemoth landed a crit (using the crit hit deck) that resulted in the golem being permanently blinded, is that possible?

It was already established in another thread that constructs could bleed (the golem was already suffering bleed damage from an earlier crit deck hit) so I reasoned it may be possible for the golem to be so badly damaged that it couldn't see.

Any thoughts?

I just ask, what particular right does the creature (a golem) have to see all the time? It sounds perfectly reasonable, especially since golems usually possess an area deemed to be a head. No issues here.

1d20 + 15 ⇒ (8) + 15 = 23

EDIT: Cool, thank you PAIZO!