Penny Sue's page

You know I would have to agree now; it does seem not only sentient but also sapient given that it's wielding a dagger but more so that it's wielding a wand.

I however still don't think it's cooler than the illithid :) More horrid? That depends on what it's capable of!

Penny Sue wrote:

But things about them tip you off to them being sentient and not just a worm. They have hands with apposeable thumbs. Their faces render facial expressions which tell you it has emotion.

No, those things anthropomorphize the Hutts. Monkeys have opposable thumbs just like people, and monkeys have facial expression that mirror human emotions. Despite having those things, monkeys are not sapient. They are not going to build a rocketship and fly to the banana-planet. There is a big difference between "looking human" and "looking sapient".

So when you are looking at JUST the pictures of say a Hut, a Seugathi, and an Illithid that's really all you have to go by. Those features do anthropomorphize a Hut which lends to me believing them to be sentient. I look at the seugathi, it has no anthomorphic features, thus I conclude it seems not be nsentient (or sapient).

I think the term sapient goes a bit beyond what we are talking about and was not used until now.

Not trying to say anyone has to agree with me; these are just my observations and assumptions. Nothing more :)

As a DM I enjoy having everything in one book. There are tons of rules that a DM should know that are in the PHB.

Ideally I'd like to see a PHB, a DMG, and the combined version.

As much as I like opposed rolls for many of the same reasons stated above I'll gladly trade them in for, what I find, to be a much better system with regards to combat maneuvers.

- I wish they would streamline the mechanics more in any place they can and avoid complicating things more. For example I love what they did with skills and special combat maneuvers.

- Wish they would provide more free adventure modules (not entire adventure paths or campaigns; just single adventures) :)

Penny Sue wrote:

I still like the illithid better.

The seugathi looks like a weird worm. The illithid actually looks like a sentient being and far more creepy (to me).

Non-humanoid = Non-Sentient? The fact that it's wielding a dagger and a wand tells you it's not stupid.

Edit: That sounded a bit snarky, didn't it? My apologies. I didn't intend to come across that way. :)

Sure; it's human nature to assume humanoids are more sentient than, say, some ugly worm thing. I have no problems admitting that.

Now I think it could have been rendered in a manor that would lend it to look more sentient. For example the eyes; they just look like bug eyes. No soul behind them. It just looks like a carrion crawler with tentacles.

Take the Huts from Star Wars. They are just big ugly worm things. But things about them tip you off to them being sentient and not just a worm. They have hands with apposeable thumbs. Their faces render facial expressions which tell you it has emotion.

So if we are just looking at that picture, as the original poster said, then I disagree that it seems much cooler or more horrible than an illithid. Now if I read up on some of the fluff and crunch behind the creature I may change my mind :) It certainly is possible that non-humanoid creatures can be cooler, more horrible, and even sentient but I don't get any of that from this rendering.

(ps it did seem a bit snarky but thanks for pointing out that you didn't intend it to come off like that =)

Thing is, simple games are well and good for table top, but on the computer 'complex games' such as Pathfinder/3.5 can shine cos the computer does all the work for you.

I would disagree; computer RPGs are quite simple and table top RPGs are vastly more complex. There's no way current game engines and software can take into account and calculate everything involved in a table top RPG as complex as D&D or Pathfinder. Computer RPGs leave MUCH to be desired compared to table top RPGs.

In order for the computer to do 'all the work for you' they take away a lot of your free will, assume a lot of things, pigeon hole spells so that they have predictable results, and even completely leave out other things.

I really don't think Pathfinder is about newbies noticing a difference. It's about offering an improved version of v3.5 for those that want one. Frankly I'm glad it's not completely and vastly different because I actually liked v3.5. Yet it had shortcomings and problems which I feel Pathfinder is smoothing over, filling in, or fixing. To me it's a good thing new players wouldn't notice much of a difference; the game is already complex enough and transitioning to Pathfinder will be smooth.

You're right; it's not necessary. I could have just played on with out Pathfinder or any other OGL product out there. I don't think Arcana Evolved is necessary either. I find the vast majority of the splat books and other products released for 3.5 to be unnecessary.

I still like the illithid better.

The seugathi looks like a weird worm. The illithid actually looks like a sentient being and far more creepy (to me).

As much as I too liked the 'tome' look of the 3.5 core books I really enjoy the new direction of the artwork I've seen with all of the Pathfinder products.

Ok, I've just been reading a lot of aggressive posts on here lately and I just want to know... what gives?

This forum is far more tame than most; and that's a good thing! I enjoy this fairly civil forum. It's also great to see other people rejecting those that are overtly aggressive, passive aggressive, or just down right crude.

Really it's in peoples' best interest to state their requests and opinions on here with out aggressive or snide remarks and attitudes. It's not like that is some strategy that will actually convince someone to accept an opinion or suggestion. All that does is instantly switch off people who may have otherwise accepted what was being said.

Will RPG's be confined to the geek ghetto forever?

Not if you convince them it's something else. You say RPG or D&D and a lot of people are instantly turned off for various reasons. However I've enjoyed murder mystery party games with people who wouldn't be caught dead playing an RPG and they loved it. The party game was essentially what you are striving for; an RPG party game light on the rules and heavy on the inebriated fun.

I think you'd be much happier, and have an easier task, if you bought one of those murder mystery party games. Then analyzed the rules and mechanics of it. Use the mechanics in your favorite setting and reformulate it into what you envision.

The alignment system is great; but it's not a rigid or static system. It's a guideline to give people an idea of how a character (PC, NPC, or creature) typically behaves. Alignments also help people get in character; as someone noted above people would simply play themselves instead of their character or just do whatever they wanted.

Sure people don't fit perfectly into these little molds but it doesn't say in the rule book that they have to act like this all of the time (PHB pg.103). Good people have moments of sin. Evil people have swayed the other way. Lawful people have broken laws. Chaotic people can focus when necessary. However these are atypical to how they would usually behave.

Alignments are not static either; they can change by magic or the fact that people have free will. My players are very free and open to do as they wish and I've never said "your character wouldn't do that because of your alignment." However there are consequences for actions and alignments can change; either up or down. Not all consequences are bad!

I can't make out what she has in her mouth. A pen? A cigarette? A toothpick? A sour fruity stick?

I think it's a cinnamon stick. Keeps her appetite down so she can maintain her figure =P

Undead in 3/3.5 have always had a problem with hemorrhage of hit points

Wouldn't limit the lack of HP to just undead! More often than not I find that adversaries have far too low of HP.

I'm going to be blunt. Tact requires a great deal of work that I don’t feel like devoting. I refuse to sugarcoat my words for problems that have yet to be solved despite my bringing them up time and time again.

I hope you’re reading this, Jason. I also hope you don't get offended to the point where you ignore what I'm saying. Sometimes criticism hurts. You might disagree with the tone of some of the things that I'm writing--and trust me, it's far nicer than what I had originally planned on saying--but I think we can agree that my advice is mechanically sound.

On the one hand you say you aren't going to waste your time with using any tact. Then on the other hand you waste plenty of time adding your snide little comments to your opinions. Could have stuck to your word and simply not been tactful nor rude.

Your opinions and comments would go much farther and more well received (thus a higher chance of coming to fruition!) if you had truly done what you said.

Penny Sue wrote:

Number of rolls is simply being replaced by more complicated math. I really don't see a net saving of time or the process being streamlined here.

Resolving one attack with either a static bonus to damage or a few extra die of damage if you hit is way faster than resolving 3-7 attacks with different modified attack rolls. Serioulsy, this is a no-brainer. Compare the time it takes for a fifth level fighter to resolve his one attack to a 16th level fighter resolving his four attacks, plus maybe one more from haste.

Point noted; good catch.

However I also agree with Krome. Melee combat rolls are few compared to rolls required for spells. Much more time is spent rolling, crunching numbers, and adjudicating spells.

since the current rule is that they flee from the caster for 1d4+CHA modifier rounds, why not just say the undead may not approach or attack the cleric for 1d4+Cha modifer rounds but otherwise may act normally?

The idea of making it an effect like sanctuary that allows saves each round sounds over complicated

I agree; keep it streamlined and not yet some other thing you have to keep track of every round, roll for ever round, for every undead in range. Just going to bog down combat.

The idea of them being forced out of the positive energy range seems like a good idea. Perhaps both fleeing and holding at be could be used? Undead who fail an initial Will save within the caster's positive energy area of effect must flee from that area and may not enter it again for rounds equal to 1d4+CHA modifier.

This way you keep the classic D&D 'turning' undead yet they don't flee so far that it becomes a logistical nightmare. I'm not a fan of making them run in fear or cower in fear; undead are fearless by nature. I like the idea of them being forced out of range by the sheer divine power of the caster; not out of fear.

Number of rolls is simply being replaced by more complicated math. I really don't see a net saving of time or the process being streamlined here.

LogicNinja wrote:

Wrath wrote:

Hey listen, don't feel you have to hold back on the personal attacks or anything. Go the whole hog and attack my inteligence, ability to game and DM. Ignore the the number of years I've been playing and keeping the players at my table happy while bringing new members into the fold. Obviously my personal experiences are completely wrong and should be ignored. Allow me to start the group that needs to bow down before your obviously superior intellect and gaming prowess.

Sheesh

You're awfully butthurt considering that the onloy thing that remotely RESEMBLED a personal attack was "if you thought the Druid was weak you have no sense of what's weak and what's strong"... because it's true. The Druid is ridiculously, notoriously overpowered. If you thought it was *weak*, you made an enormous mistake and are probably bad at analyzing game balance.

You said something. I said that you're wrong. Why does this necessitate passive-agressive sarcastic whinging?

In this and a couple of other places you've said things in a more vehement manner than absolutely necessary. Passion is good and all, and having a good head for numbers and rules could be beneficial for Beta discussion, but it's best not to sabotage one's points by being a dick. It starts to rub people the wrong way and taints views of your future posts, whether they're valuable or not.

See also: Frank Trollman.

In other words: This isn't /tg/. Modicum of decorum plz.

Of course that should go for everybody.

Great job LogicNinja; you really know the subtle art of combining smart and ass into smartass. You must find it real easy to RP high INT and low CHA characters.

It's a shame really; I love reading what smart people have to say. Then when they act like you and just ignore them. Too bad I won't be reading your snide, condescending, over thought response.

I completely agree here; the skills seem to have been combined to streamline their use and that's being undermined by circumstantial bonuses.

These circumstantial bonuses also ad to the complexity of higher level play. These little things keep creeping in and adding yet more little nuances and circumstantial things that need to be remembered to even use and then kept track of during play when used.

I don't know how many times players, or myself as a DM, have forgotten some circumstantial trigger or bonus. Sometimes I outright ignore them just to keep combat rolling along smoothly and not get bogged down.