Snorter's page

Understanding it's a fantasy game and everything goes, I really do not want to see horses in heavy armor, it's just silly.

Silly? Try quite historically accurate.

Link to Necromancer's Product page:

link

Look about a third of the way down.
The 3.5 revised version was never in print, but only available as a pdf.

<hops from foot to foot, in breathless anticipation>

Feel a bit uncomfortable reading that. Not sure Jason Nelson deserves being called out - the name is on the adventure after all. Gong through the 'chastisement' process with us isn't what it's about, is it? Mind you, maybe I'm a bleeding heart and it doesn't matter.

And when they slip by and we find out about them in print, well, that's just about the surest way to piss an editor(/former potential employer) off. So yeah, we're totally on the same page with you KinghtE, and don't expect references to Firefly, the 2008 elections, Golden Girls, or Thundercats in anything we do.

"Damn you, Schneider!"
"Damn youuuuuu!!!"

Since when is the warrior/smith making herself a weapon, a shield, and a suit of armor, possibly never to use his skill-based crafting again with any real relevance to the game, "Crafting willy-nilly?"

The willy-nilly refers to doing stuff pre-game, outside the constraints of time. Its not about the sheer amount of crafting being done - that's why I put a 'massive/modest' qualifier in there, as some examples were modest, others were massive, and I'm not doing the maths.

What's needed is a standard assumption, of how much is a fair amount of profit to start with, when making a PC of level 2+.
That way, you can take a PC to a con event, or another DM's game, without having to waste time debating the issue, and without the player feeling they've wasted feats and skills, or the DM feeling they're being taken for a mug.

A PC with craft feats should have more gear, but it needs to be a sensible amount, since not every gp of wealth is going to be used for crafting. A typical haul of loot consists of the folllowing:

Items you want to keep: count as full value. You aren't going to sell or dismantle a headband +2, to get the materials to craft an identical headband +2, are you?

Items you want to sell: count as full value. You're cherry-picking your equipment when making the PC, so you're already assumed to have sold them for half value, then crafted what you actually want, for half price. No net gain.

Gold/gems/jewellery/trade goods: These keep their value when traded, so whatever you craft from this portion of the haul, you get double value.

So, the only thing we need to consider, is what percentage of the PC's treasure, prior to PC generation, fell into that third category?
That's the maximum profit they'd gain, assuming they had the time and ability to do so (possibly not, sometimes they'd be on a tight timescale, and need to buy something right now. They also may not have chosen the crafting feat/skill at level 1, thus spending full price on all their gear up to the point they were qualified to make their own).

So, how much pre-game profit is too much?
Where is each DM's tipping point?
+100%? (Most seem to say Hell, No!)
+50%? (Still seems unlikely)
+25%? (Maybe...)
+10%? (Is that really such a big deal?)
+5%? (Player thinks 'Why did I bother?')
+0%? (Player thinks '<censored>')

I suspect that a lot of the resistance to pre-game crafting is from DMs, worried that if they give any player an inch, they'll all take a mile.
If he lets his reasonable player make so much as a set of tin spoons, 'that guy' will demand that the whole party would have started with +100% gear.
Better, in their opinion, to veto the whole thing, than risk one member of the group abusing their trust (which seems like a deeper issue in the group, which needs thrashing out, IMHO).

Snorter:
Ahh, the old numbers vs words debate... :D

Why are submissions (to any publication, not just this one) rated on number of words? Why not characters? Or number of lines?
Surely, it's the space taken up on the page that's the sticking point?

Otherwise, I'll start channeling Clark Ashton Smith, and those 1500 words will end up the size of a thesaurus. LOL

Have you seen what some have recommended on here, Snorts? Increase to d10 HD! Fighter BAB! Ability to take 10' as a 5' so can full attack skirmish!

Ha!

I was just about to recommend this forum to you, Matt.
Looks like you beat me to it.

Because I'd be willing, if I saw a PC who'd spent skills in non-adventuring areas, to give them a little something, in return for playing against the obvious cliche skill set.

And then your character misses a climb check by 1 point and falls to his death. 'giving them a little something' doesn't really compensate for that. There's a reason a cliche skillset exists, and that reason is the adventures the DM sends the characters on.

The actual, for real London. In the United Kingdom.

Are these auctions available to buyers in the UK?

I would take it as meaning you get the option to banish every round you're smiting, and the smite only ends, if the banishment is successful.

It would make sense, as written, if a banished outsider were unable to return for some time (a year and a day?). Then, banishment has the same end result as killing them, and forcing them to reform/regrow a new body on their home plane.

But, since a banished creature is in no way prevented from simply coming straight back, then it is a disadvantage to be banishing them, rather than killing them, since you gain only a temporary reprieve.
You could also be accused of giving them an escape route?
The paladin has spent several years, and twenty levels, getting to the point of cornering the mastermind behind the campaign metaplot, only to give him a free ticket out?

If the banished creature chooses to return, not to the scene of the battle, but to a point miles away, then would the paladin be aware of this?
If not, then he will be oblivious to the creature's plans continuing unopposed.
If he is aware of the creature's new location (from a friendly diviner?), then he will be forced to spend the rest of his life, chasing round the world for the sake of one round of combat with the creature every day.

Sometimes, it's beneficial to banish, if the creatue is a minion, and not important to the diabolical plan. Get rid of him in one round, rather than 2 or 3.
Banishing the over-boss can also be useful, to give the party a reprieve, cure up, finish off the evil hench-creatures, stop the ritual, smash the Doomsday Device, etc.
Other times, you really want to end this creature, right here, right now.

Hence, it should be an option, not a default.

But the whole issue is that Villeta wants to assess everything from a cost perspective in null time....but keeps using words like "downtime" to describe the obvious passage of time (and actions) and then claims that based on the cost in null time comparison that regardless of the passage of time, only those who can derive cost benefit from the market in the form of crafting feats can have more and or better stuff than anyone else. Because the feats override the wealth by level chart but no other skill or modified action do.

I.e., as long as the Appraisers, Performers, Professionals (and whoever else can justify a wage) are allowed to get a piece of the action, there'd be no objection?

Because I'd be willing, if I saw a PC who'd spent skills in non-adventuring areas, to give them a little something, in return for playing against the obvious cliche skill set.
To do otherwise is to tell your players 'Don't bother ever taking these skills. They will never come into play. These skills may as well not exist'.
Then you have to look over character sheet, after character sheet, after character sheet, with the same old, same old, same old cookie-cutter choices, until you cry out in pain 'Whyohwhyowhy do my players make such boring PCs? Why do none of them ever put aside any skill ranks for interesting hobbies?'.
And the answer will be 'Because you stopped them'.

My lady, your hands should be caressing the stem of a thorn-shorn rose, not soiled platters. Let my servants see to that.

Well, that certainly sounds lovely. :)

I'd look for the interesting new things that the Bestiary introduces, like the Green Dragon animating treants, and find two monsters that have neato flavor/crunch combos to fill out those two encounters.

In the spirit of Snorter's 'last minute corrections',...

For the record, I sort of agree that there should be a limit on submitting amendments, so as not to drive the editors crazy.
Though I see a distinction between mechanical corrections, which have to be made, or the entry is objectively 'wrong', and descriptive prose, which is totally subjective, so can never be deemed right or wrong.

It's the latter that can get out of hand; many creatives are their own worst critic, and would be second-guessing themselves right up to the article going to press.

Thanks Cosmo,

That'll be fine, there's no rush. I can wait till next batch.

Hi,

I picked up the above order from the mail depot today, and everything else is fine (Bestiary, Seekers of Secrets, and Book of the Damned), but no Map Pack: Extradimensional Spaces (PZO4022).

(I'm thinking my PCs might be needing their Rope Trick very soon!)

My stupid parents make us do Stocktake on the whole store every week. My sister usually does it, but she's away overseas so I have been doing it the last month or so. I hate it and it takes me twice as long to do because of that.
I mean it's relatively straight forward, you just gotta count stuff. I just have to show him what and how.

I love most accents. The extreme northern accent hurts my ears, butI love the austrailan and british, and southern, and Irish...*sigh*:)

We have a food (Juicy Lucy), mode of dress (mask, avatar change) and song, but is there a special gift that Monanites exchange on EMD?

I don't think I want you high at my game table.

I'm already taking my life in my hands, when Lee sinks a bottle of red wine, and attempts to engage an NPC in 'conversation'.*

*i.e. wild gesticulations with a soon-to-be-expired wine glass.

For a great parody of Flanders and Swann, try these guys:

The Train Song
NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

And the original:

The Hippo Song

It's not paint; it's Teela O'Malley's Bouncy Bubble Beverage.
Much more dangerous.

it doesn't have to be porno to be adult.

Cheer up, Matt.

Sit down.
Calm down.
Breathe into this paper bag.
Think happy thoughts.

Have a happy fun dot

Absolutely crackers.
Funny, but crackers.

I must say, well done for voluntarily hitting the delete button.
So many threads would never spiral into madness if more people did that.

Welcome to the boards, and have some virtual cookies.

Blood, blood, glorious blood!
Nothing quite like it while chewing the cud.

Come with me, down to the hollow
Where we will wallow
In glorious blood!
<repeat>

I assume there's a minimum casting time, because you have to unroll the thing and read it. Even if the spell were Quickened, there's the logistics of retrieving it, unrolling it, reading it, having it burn up, shaking the ash off your fingers, and going for your next scroll.

Even with a Handy Haversack, there's a delay in asking for what you want, and getting it, that prevents the casting from two scrolls in a round.
Or if you already had two scrolls in your hand, then it would interfere with your ability to handle them. Like trying to read two newspapers at once.
In the wind.
While being shot at.
While running.
While Tumbling through a swordfight.
Etc.

I played a Wizard with a Handy Haversack for a few years in SCAP, and I took these restrictions to heart; I don't know if the other players noticed (probably not), but I would be trying to predict what my next scroll would be, and setting it up for next round.
I don't know if that was the way everyone else plays, but I certainly imposed that restriction on myself, as being fair and justified.
It sometimes meant that, if it wasn't in my head, or in my hand right now, I'd tell the other PCs to wait their turn, so they did accuse me once or twice of being contrary, but I believe I was playing by the Rules As Intended.
Being able to cast from any scroll, any time would have made a lot of the encounters a cakewalk, instead of a fun challenge.

Maybe when people complain about the uber-ness of the casters, it's partly because their group is handwaving the logistics of swapping items, retrieving components, etc?

It occurs to me, that one of the reasons evil channelers are at an advantage, is the following clauses:

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric..... A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.

By allowing them the opt-out automatically, it allows them to blast away, and still be as useful as a regular cleric, feat-wise.

Anyone considered removing that?

Keep in mind with channeling, it is basically essentual you be in the middle of combat. Otherwise you are just wasting it.

But does it matter if you do catch some of the enemy in a healing wave, if they arent yet injured?

My houserule fix for this channeling issue is to have the channel ability provoke attacks of opportunity like a spell. In 3.5 there was no access to healing while engaged in melee without suffering the AoA (except with use of some magic items). Now the channel, combined with selective channel feat, allows the cleric to heal their self and allies while engaged in melee. That is really the only part of the channel feat that seems to be wrong to me. Although I don't mind having to houserule this because it does require a feat to work in most cases.

HeroScape minis have a plug (usually an extension of a foot) that fits into a slot on the base. This plug is accessible from the bottom of the base, so you just 'push' through to pop the mini off the base. The plug then fits readily into a 1" slotted base (I use round, but square works also - you can also find black plastic ones that are much cheaper, but for the life of me I can't remember what company makes them).

Now, who makes black plastic slottabases? Hmmm? Let me see?
LOL

As a quick and dirty house rule: Add negative and positive energy to the list of energy types covered by the "Resist Energy" and "Protection from Energy" spells.

And shouldn't the Consecrate spell, as well as boosting positive chaneling, now have an equal and opposite effect on negative channeling?

It wasn't required before, since living PCs weren't affected by rebuking, but now that evil Channels deal actual damage, there should be justification for such a change to the spell, and wards built using that spell exisiting in-game.

Totally agree.
It's intuitive to assume 'attack action' is 'whenever you make an attack'.
Therefore Full Attack gives you multiple 'attack actions'.

Even if that isn't the case, and it's spelled out in the rules, every DM out there is going to have to waste time debating it with every player, who picks a feat, and then tries to apply it that way.

Let's face it, a lot of groups don't have the time to sit down and read the book from cover to cover, or even if they do, it's going to take time to work through it, and many will want to start playing, assuming things are the same as 3.5 until they hear different.
That rule may never be spotted, and a group could play for years, unaware of the intent.

It would reduce a lot of the threads re Cleave, Vital Strike, etc, if they actually stated they use a standard action.

A standard action to cast Feather Fall is no biggie. If it's a huge fall, it'll take more than a round. Just grab the scroll somewhen in the fall and cast.

:)

Great way to get new players!
I wrote up some homebrew Fimir for D&D 3.5.

I don't know if you're up on Warhammer lore, but they're Daemons, unconnected with Chaos, but still dangerous to Humanity, needing to kidnap humans for breeding purposes (though you may want to gloss over that part, for younger players).
Warpstone 25 really went to town on them, giving them some much-needed exposure.
Take a look at the link to Legion 6, with the Skaven's account of the origin of the Fimir!

For the above reasons, I did them as LN(E) native outsiders.
I did the various castes (Shearl, Fianna, Dirach and Meargh), and IIRC, the base caste (Shearl) came out as 2HD, just like the lizardfolk you're substituting.
If you want a look, give me a mail.

For those who care, re-basing HeroScape minis is easy and reversible.

The version of your article that you sent in should have been your final one...though you might get a chance to update it before it goes out to the editor. (Not likely though, as we're cutting it close to the wire for the release date.)

In my case, remove any reference to fly speed, or wing attack, and chop reference to flight in the Tactics section.
Add the word 'mithral' to the armor (and reduce armor check penalty to -1).
That frees up some word count to add to the PC hook, and I'll see if I can rebalance the wordcount between backstory and current info.

That pic from White Castle(?) needs some red LEDs, to emphasise the demonic grin.

Also, some metamagic feats are pointless.

No point having a Quickened scroll, for example;

Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

YES! But do the trap rules (as written), for example, support these kinds of options? Nope. The DM is stuck, as always, standing on his head manipulating reality in order to keep everyone active. Personally, I got tired of that after a while, and started thinking that some rules changes up front would be a help.

It bugged me that we were always being told that a party could consist of any combination of classes, or at least a combo of 'one warrior, one divine, one arcane and one skilled', when in practice, you HAD to have a Rogue for traps, you HAD to have a Cleric for undead and Raise Dead, and you HAD to have a Wizard for versatility of spells (rather than the Sorceror, aka 'Johnny One-Note' or 'the wand on legs').
The only class that was at all replaceable in the tedious traditional F/C/W/R monopoly was the Fighter. Many groups would never see a Bard, Druid, Monk, Sorceror, or any class from non-core, except as a DMPC or fifth wheel.

The current PF rules seem to relax the necessity for always having a Rogue, though they will always be the best choice, thanks to their class focus and high skill points.

I just think many traps should be defeatable by, if not 'brute force and ignorance', then at least by other means than Disable Device.
In return, I reserve the right to reduce the xp they give, which I've always found ridiculously high for the piffling danger posed.
But this probably deserves a thread of its own.

Alright, here it is. There are a few things within these files that I've wanted to change a bit, but PC issues have prevented it.

With that in mind, I am open to critique, feel free to comment as you wish.

Kyrt's Pathfinder Revisions

Is it deliberate that there's no revised Barbarian, Druid & Rogue?
I.e. do you believe they're OK as is, or have not got round to them?

"Story Hour" is a shorthand Kirth and I use for a particular style of gaming. A style that really has little "game" in it at all.

You can thank Vampire for that by the way.

I actually deleted that line (I blame WoD) right before I posted that...

It would be nice if, for the sake of simplicity, something like this was the case:

the rogue had a 4 in 6 chance of dealing with a trap and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6;

the wizard had a 4 in 6 chance of winning a magical duel and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6;

the cleric had a 4 in 6 chance of laying the ghost to rest and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6; and

the fighter had a 4 in 6 chance of defeating the giant and everyone else 1 or 2 in 6.

Instead, when it comes down to rolling, we find that an intelligently-played wizard has a 5 in 6 chance, for ALL of them. The fighter has maybe a 1 in 6 for his best challenge (fighting) and 0 in 6 for everything else.

Disabling traps: This one drives me nuts. So many times, the DM will describe, or show a handout, of some fiendish device, and then all attention will go to the Rogue, as being the ONLY person allowed to contribute. And if he's dead, or KO? TPK. Whoops.
Why can't others contribute? Because the only solution is a Disable Device check, of DC(X).
Yet, in many cases, the solution is blatantly visible, for all to see.
Why can't the Fighter smash the mechanism, bend the blades, so they don't fit flush, block the crusher by hauling furniture, hammer pitons into the cogs, demolish the door to the exit?
Why can't the Cleric Stone Shape the gas vents shut?
Why can't the Wizard's Unseen Servant pull the reverse lever, or confuse the targetting sensors, so they don't shoot the PCs?

Laying the ghost to rest: What does the ghost want? What's tying it to this world? How do we fulfil it's unresolved issues?
Let's tear the room apart, playing '20 questions', until we get the McGuffin that releases it.
It shouldn't have to require a cleric spamming Turns and Channels, till it goes pop.

By allowing multiple solutions, you keep all players in the game.
By making some of those solutions require multiple, simultaneous actions, you train teamwork ("I can reach the trigger, but I need you to hold back the crushers!").
And it stops it being a boring die roll, or a solo session, where the others go raid the fridge.

"You can tell by the way I use my slots,
I'm a sorceror, and you've got the hots.
Look at my Charisma stat,
And try deny that 'I'd hit that!'

Ah-hah-hah-hah
C'risma Twenty-FIIIIIiiiii-i-i-iiiiiiive!!