|
|
|
 Recent posts by
Skeld:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnarionZelle wrote:
...
My [unsolicited] advice: Buy the PDF, print out the relevant pages in black & white, clamp it together with a bullbog clip. I do this for pretty much every thing I run (Pathfinder, Star Wars, and others) and it works great. This nice thing is you can go through it with a highliter (yellow for skills, green for rewards, red for enemies/threats, and blue for information) and make notes on it without fear. Then... chuck it in the shredder when you're done!
Alternatively, you might try starting a thread asking fellow Paizoans if they have seen a copy at their local book/game stores. People here are generally pretty helpful when it comes to spreading the Paizo-love. (I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone was willing to buy it and send it to you at cost; just because we're friendly folk.)
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UndeadDan wrote:
Sadly, it means that I have to resort to installing crappy, bloated adobe reader on my computer.
People often say something like this when they post to the forums about this problem. It always strikes me odd that the "crappy, bloated adobe reader" is the one that works.
Not picking on you; I've just noticed alot of comments like this over the past couple years.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frerezar wrote:
I think that was the intent, and the easies solution would be to challenge the rogue. Very ¨Come here and face me in true combat you scoundrel¨ kind of thing (which I like)
I know I said I wouldn't comment again until I've played it, but I've failed my Will save: You only get one Challenge per combat. For BBEG and Rogue minion, if you use your Challenge on the minion (because he's most dangerous to you persoanlly), you can't challenge the BBEG (and doesn't seem very Cavalierish to be so selfish). Challenge the BBEG and the Rogue will sneak attack such that you hope your d10's of HP last long enough.
It's an interesting choice it forces upon players. I'm still going to try it to see if I'm convinced that letting the Rogue have his way with you is a good idea.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rugult wrote:
However, flavor wise I do believe the sneak attacking rogues really would be the bane of a Cavalier's life. After all, the Cavalier is basically a knight in shining armor, going off to challenge his enemies in noble combat... then along comes the sneak rogue to ruin his day. It almost seems too perfect to change! :D
I see what you're saying, but I'd hate to make something unfun just because it's flavorful. I mean, if you have a player that's a Cav and he issues a challenge to BBEG, BBEG's Rogue minion(s) can just camp out on the Cav and he doesn't have any defense against it (you know, except for his hopefully high AC). The rest of the party quickly becomes all about protecting the Cav from Rogues, or healing him or whatever, instead of taking down the BBEG.
It is kinda cool to say that the Rogues everywhere are just waiting to jump the first Cav that comes along, but I see this making Cav player's very hesitant to use a major class ability for fear that a Rogue is going to take them down.
Just reading it, it sounds to me like the intent was to give a bonus to anyone attacking the Cav while he's challenging. I don't think the intent was to turn the Cav's banner into a "Free Sneak Attacks Here!" sign. (At least, I hope that wasn't the intent.)
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blake Duffey wrote:
The cavalier's challenge seems a little wonky. If the cavalier issues his challenge, and then a rogue gets involved with the cav in melee, the cavalier is dead. (ie - sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack) The challenge lasts until the target is dead or unconscious. You can't turn it off or redirect it. Seems like something I wouldn't use often...
That was the first thing i noticed too, "Melee attacks made against the cavalier, except those made by the target of his challenge, treat the cavalier as if he is f lanked." That seems like a huge potential boon to Rogues. I'd rather see it say foes other than the challenged get a +2 circumstance bonus to attacks made against the Cav, but to say treat as flanked is begging the Rogue to come over and kidney-stab the Cav. If nothing else, a parenthetical saying "treat as flanked (except with regard to the Rogue's Sneak Attack and similar abilities)" seems to be in order.
Beyond that I think not being able to turn off or redirect the challenge is an issue.
-Skeld
PS: I'm at work so none of my comments have any playtest behind them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. I can't access your poll KEJr. However, I can share what I'm doing here.
Currently, I'm running a modified Dawn of Defiance campaign.
In the future, I'd like to run:
- A no-Jedi, all-bounty hunter style campaign. This would be set in the Old Republic. The characters would all be members of the Bounty Hunter Guild. I was thinking of running PFS scenarios modified with Star Wars appropriate content and offer the PCs a number of "missions" to choose from, such that each mission would basically be a self-contained session. The "factions" would, again, be universe appropriate to Star Wars. Completion of the "faction mission" would earn the character an experience point and 3 experience points would earn a level. I wouldn't make any effort to keep the guys at the same level and the campaign would be deadly. The campaign would likely go from levels 1-12. This is the direction
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
How long does it take to play through each chapter in an Adventure path? Does each chapter only take a single session (meaning the entire adventure path can be played out in 6 sessions) or does each chapter take 2-3 sessions to play through?
It's completely a function of, a) what pace your group plays at, and b) how long your sessions are.
If your group is slow-paced (maybe lots of RP or side-tracks), it'll take alot longer than if they are encounter machines (jumping from one combat/encounter to the next with minimum downtime).
That answer probably isn't as helpful as you'd like, but it really does vary from group to group.
-Skeld
EDIT: For example, my group played Savage Tide AP (12 chapters, levels 1-20) in about 16 months. Since RotRL goes to level 15-ish across 6 chapters, I estimate it would take my group abut a year to play the AP and about 2 months to play a chapter, which makes it about 4 or 5 6-8 hour sessions. Granted low-level play goes faster than higher-level play, so I can skew the results to slightly shorter early chapters and slightly longer later chapters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wolf Munroe wrote:
...I find it odd that Heroscape has a D&D branded product.
Hasbro moved Heroscape out of their "games" division and over to WotC a year or so ago. WotC has been trying to figure out what to do with Heroscape exactly (it's somewhat outside the norm for them).
There are enough differences between Heroscape and WotC's other miniatures products that there isn't any real competition between products. Heroscape has a different vibe and is marketed to the casual (and younger) gamer audience. Heroscape can also serve as a good introduction to gaming, seeing as how the target age is 8+. This set is part of WotC's efforts to revitalize the game and cross-brand with their other products (namely D&D).
I think this is an ok move. No one will be fooled. Heroscape and D&D have practically nothing in common. If Hasbro were smart, they would start making expansion sets along the vein of the Marvelscape set they sold. Marvelscape wasn't a very good set because it came with just enough terrain to tease you, but not accomplish making a decent board AND the superheroes just weren't very compatible with all the other cool stuff they have (compatible from a power level versus point cost POV). Plain ole sets of figures would work better. Marvel heroes would be cool with some revamp. But keep in mind that Hasbro also makes GI Joe, Transformers, and hold the Star Wars toy license. Can you imagine a Star Wars Clone Wars expansion set for Heroscape? What about Jedi versus Transformers Versus GI Joe? they're sitting on a potential goldmine of popular cross-universe products and they're not doing anything with it. Shame really.
I've been using Heroscape figures for years and my biggest complaint has always been that the frigging bases aren't 1". Beyond that, the figures work pretty good for "D&D."
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yoda8myhead wrote:
Today is Tuesday!
Yes it is, Yoda.
Yes it is.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cthulhudarren wrote:
I KNOW my players will fix up their boats and not walk the IoD...
Also...
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emperor7 wrote:
Maybe, 'What is the meaning of a college degree?' in this day and age is a better discussion point.
A college degree means that you're able to set a long term goal (get a degree) and perform the work necessary to attain that goal (take all the required classes). Your GPA should be an overall reflection of how well you performed while trying to attain the goal.
At least that's how it ought to work in Skeldland.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Turner wrote:
The fact that it is in English reflects the military's philosophy that the area of study, save in cases where specialized education is required for work in a specialized field (e.g., medicine or law), is a matter of individual interest and irrelevant to the organizational expectations of the officer.
Hmmm, I vaguely remember from my ROTC days that the area of study affected your score (along with GPA and score in Advanced Camp [measured on a 1 to 5 scale]) that was used to determine what type of commission you received (such as a Regular Army commission) and also your branch choice. I know your intended major definitely affected your scholarship chances (I'm talking the 4-year scholarship), with technical degrees (like Engineering) being more desired than humanities. I was in ROTC probably about the same time you were (if you went that route) from '92-'95. I'm probably wrong here, but that's how I remember it working.
[SlightRant] I don't buy the thesis of the article. I think you're going to get out of college what you put into it. I also think degree requirements are silly at most schools. For example, I couldn't get my degree in engineering without taking 2 english comp classes (understandable), 2 humanities classes, 2 world history classes, 2 humanities electives (in my case, literature appreciation & jazz appreciation), and a social science (intro anthropology for me). however, you can get a degree in any of those courses of study (english, humanities, history, sociology) without stepping foot in a basic science class. Apparently, producing well-rounded, educated people only applies if you don't study fine arts or humanities. Getting such a degree seems to make you well-rounded without studying any other fields. [/SlightRant]
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reebo Kesh wrote:
I've recently decided to come back to 3.5 D&D...
Hi Reebo -
What have you been playing since last you played 3.5D&D?
Pardon the threadjack.
Welcome back.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Self wrote:
If you have any ideas, share!
Chris -
I pointed out something new to Vic a couple months ago in this post.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treantmonk wrote:
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about "contentious posting" on the WOTC CO boards? Can you explain?
I think I joined the WotC forums in 2001 (I think), but I was never a big poster there. My first, and last, experience with what I call "contentious posting" was when I started a thread to ask a question about a character taking feat X (I don't remember the specifics). Before I stopped viewing the thread, 4 of the 5 replies of the "it's stupid for [that class] to take [that feat] instead of [some other feat] because [that feat] will make your character worthless" ilk. Honestly, it's a game. I have neither the time not patience to be berated in such a manner. From my personal observations, that kind of posting attitude was relatively common and accepted by the community.
Treantmonk wrote:
As for posters who moved here to get away from Optimization at WOTC, well, to me that stinks of prejudice and intolerance, so I can't really bring myself to feel sorry for them. It's like feeling sorry for a guy who left his old country club because it was mixed-race only to find out his new club is no longer going to be exclusive.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you equating people that didn't like WotC's CO forums to racists? That seems a bit harsh.
Treantmonk wrote:
As for Paizo's decision, I disagree, we are the consumers, and although the employees of Paizo run the company, we are responsible for its very existence, and our needs deserve and demand to be their highest priority. Companies that ignore the needs of their customer cease to exist very quickly.
If you hang out here for a while, you'll probably see that Paizo has about the best customer service and developer/customer interaction around. The customers here are not ignored. If enough people clamored for a CO forum, they'd probably make one. I just don't think there's the critical mass for one right now. I could very well be wrong, but again, I'm not a decision maker. I'm just a dude who like the atmosphere.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome.
Realizing I have absolutely no say in anything that goes on around here, I'll give my thoughts.
I have no interest in a CO board (and BTW, a Handbook board just sounds [from how you've described it] like another name for a CO board). Or a Role Playing board. Or a Casual Gamer board. Etc., etc. Personally, I just don't see the point (outside of the organizational aspect). It seems like everyone that comes around pushing for a new board is pushing their own pet idea. Or they want the boards here organized like some other board they're used to visiting. On the other hand, a CO board that contained all threads pertaining to CO would make it infinitely easier for me to ignore its existence.....
Personally, I prefer boards to grow organically. If the General board starts getting overrun with CO threads, then create a CO board. If there aren't many threads, don't make one. You'll find alot of long-time posters here are refugees from WotC's boards and many left specifically to get away from the CO board and other contentious boards (a large number also left when Dragon and Dungeon were canceled and still more as a result of the edition schism). A non-trivial number of posters view a CO board as an "if you build it, they will come" device. Put up a CO and its invites the kind of contentious posting that took place on those boards at WotC.
Just some random thoughts. Personally, I haven't seen that there is a need for one yet; and if there's no need, why create it? Honestly, I don't care much either way, I just prefer to err on the side of not making changes that aren't needed. In the end, it's Paizo's decision, not ours.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
I'm sorry, but which subscription do I need to get a pallet of Seonis ?
And how much would I need to feed them ?
They eat bacon sandwiches. A disturbingly large number of bacon sandwiches.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As already mentioned, the version 9+ of Adobe Reader killed some of the tools/functionality to extract images. You need to "downgrade" to an older 8.x version. By "downgrade" I mean download and install the older version. You can actually have v8 & v9 installed at the same time (I've done that on my home PC and one of my work computers).
Adobe 8.x can be hard to get to. Try this:
1) Go to Adobe's website.
2) Selected "downloads" from their navigation bar (at the top) and then "Get Adobe Reader" from the drop-down menu.
3) Next to the big, red Reader symbol under "Download the latest version of Adobe Reader," click the link for "Different language or operating system."
4) Select your OS from the drop-down menu (and assuming your language is English), click "Continue."
5) With any luck, v8.1.3 is available as an option under your OS of choice. I think the v7.1.0 has the functionality your looking for too.
When you download v8, be sure to save the whole installation executable to your harddisk; that way, if Adobe decides to stop offering older downloads or something, you'll have a copy squirreled away if your system crashes.
Happy hunting.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denim N Leather wrote:
...is it simply a matter of selecting an attribute and bringing it up one point?
Pretty much this.
The more challenging part can be, depending on the score that is raised and the final value that it is raised to, adjusting all the things that rely on that ability score's modifier (like AC for Dex or attack bonus for Str).
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Let me exemplify: ...
You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?
Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vic Wertz wrote:
I'd just like to point out that there's a line between contentious discussion and libel.
Further, "socially responsible" and "legally responsible" are not always aligned with one another.
And that is all I'm saying on that point with respect to this topic.
I think Vic's post is very insightful as to why the thread may have been removed, regardless of whether it was light-heart satire.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me preface this by saying I don't really like psionics. I didn't care for it in editions prior to 3e. The 3.0e psionics book was an abomination. The Expanded book from 3.5e wasn't much better. So far as I'm concerned, psionics has a historically poor track record within the D&D gamespace.
I will agree that the flavor is somewhat different. Arcane magic lets users taps into the magical energy fields of the gameworld. Divine magic lets the faithful call channel the power of their deities. Psiconics allows characters to manipulate the physical world with their minds. Make sense; all well and good.
My main problem with psionics is that it uses and entirely different set of mechanics than the magic system that already exists. Different mechanical systems are harder to balance than like mechanical systems. This was a big part of the balanced/over-powered arguments inherent to psionics in 3.xe. IMO, if the pathfinder magic system (both arcane and divine) are going to use a Vancian system, then Pathfinder psionics should use a Vancian system as well. This will maximize the ease of integrating psionics into with the core system and minimize the "psionics are over-powered!" arguments that will ensue within 3.2 seconds of the rules' release.
Vancian psionics should satisfy the need for a thematically different system (the flavor is different) while remaining mechanically similar to the current magic system.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lisa & Vic -
Catalyst Games has come up with some method for selling PDFs at FLGS's. Maybe you guys should find out how they're going about it.
-Skeld the Generally Helpful
Edit: With Linky Goodness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kevin_video wrote:
Does this replace your full attack? Like, if the Archer has five attacks thanks to rapid shot, would these feats replace them? And if that's the case, why would you ever take it as opposed to the full attack? Is this more meant for clerics and other characters with lower BAB?
VS (and by extension, IVS & GVS) are standard actions. You can't take both a standard action and a full round action (full attack) in the same round (without some corner-case ability).
So, yes this replaces your full round attack, BUT leaves you the ability to still move in the same round.
-Skeld
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skeld
(Pathfinder Chronicles Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber),
