Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Lopo

The Best Goblin!'s page

Goblin Squad Member. 44 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS


Why don't you ask your DM to let your blackblade be +4 agile instead of +5? It's equivalent, only sacrifices a +1 bonus to attack and damage, and sidesteps your concern. Then, instead of needing to use your arcane pool to add agile all the time, you only need to use it to add that last +5 some of the time.


Refuah shlema! May you come to a complete recovery!

Goblin Squad Member

Do I have it?

Edit: I do!


That might work, but I don't know if 16 or fewer unknowns are really gonna produce a viable redesign in the span of a couple weeks.


There's nothing that says that the effects of the Enlarge Person and Reduce person should perfectly mirror each other, but on the other hand, it really seems like they should. They're the same level, cast by the same casters. Personally, I would apply the Reduce Person's approach to both spells.

Has this been addressed before, or should we F.A.Q. this?


Viva Aroden! wrote:


2. Has it evah been explained how can gods die if mortals can be resurrected?

Any being whose body and soul are the same thing, such as outsiders, can't be resurrected because the soul dies with the body. Makes sense, right? Gods operate under similar rules.


North Star wrote:

That is not the point. An anecdotal example of what I'm talking about is that about or just over half of the tables I've played at, there is what I call a "crit culture". Rolling a 20 a joyous moment, and rolling a 1 is a calamitous event ('cause the GM breaks out the fumble deck). That's ridiculous. There is a 5% chance per roll of a 1 coming up. heaven forbid that someone casts haste on you.

I don't think that this kind of (fighter-type punishing) statistical absurdity would occur so often if the default rules didn't link rolling a 1 with automatic absolute failure.

I understand your dislike of the fumble deck, but that's an extra option, not the basic rule, so it shouldn't reflect on the rule itself, just the table that chooses to use the deck. The basic rule is that you fail, and leave yourself open to attacks of opportunity. Even the most skilled combatant does that every once in a while. Does that mean they fail so bad that they would always get hit by a much less skilled opponent? No, and that is represented by your normal AC protecting you in against such an attack.

Does said skilled combatant make such a mistake 5% of the time? Probably not, but since in statistics, we usually treat 5% as the boundary between rare and merely uncommon, it's fair enough for an abstract representation of such an event. When your fighter fumbled twice in one combat, that is rare. If it isn't rare, you should check your dice.

P.S. if you dropped that creature in one hit, you shouldn't be pulling from the deck for fumbling an attack you never made. If that mistake is happening a lot, not rolling all your attacks at once helps avoid that.


VRMH wrote:

It's a common enough herb, and grows easily without much care. It's also easy to find, and straightforward to recognize. And since it has medicinal uses, it should be readily available.

Were you looking for dried catnip, fresh leaves or a whole plant?

Good points, VRMH.

Medicinal uses might drive the price up even if it makes it more common. I should have mentioned my proposed price is dried catnip.


Based on a survey of wheat and catnip prices by the pound, and the fact that wheat is 1 cp per pound, I'd say 1 sp is fair. No biggie.


On a scale of one to ten, how excited are you to start the public playtesting of the Mythic Adventures rules set?


That's excellent. I was thinking he'd need to spend Engineering points on more improbable inventions, and I might still keep that idea, but I hadn't thought of design time, because knowledge checks usually don't represent any span of time. That covers most of it.

You're the bestest, James!


So, I'm running an investigative game using the Pathfinder/Gumshoe mashup, Lorefinder. The setting is western, so there are lots of guns, and one of the players wants to be an inventor that creates new modifications for his gun.

Now, normally I'd do the usual Knowledge (Engineering) to make sure he has the ingenuity to invent something new, and then Craft (Firearms) to actually make it, but in Lorefinder, Engineering works differently. It basically grants you any basic applicable knowledge automatically, and then you can spend points from a pool to get more specific information. This doesn't cover situations when you want a chance of failure, nor does it cover ingenuity, only the ability to access pre-existing knowledge without derailing an investigative game with bad rolls.

I want to accommodate this player, because he has some good ideas, but the Lorefinder rule leaves me letting him invent all he wants with little chance of failure or loss, and that could break the game. I have some ideas about what I could do, but I want to know what you think. Help!


Dern. I too, was about to say We Be Goblins, until I got to the end. The darn things is even about fireworks!


Jason Stormblade wrote:

@ Maxx, Deux, Paraxis - I agree. Revering nature does not equate to the modern belief of all animals having equal rights. Revering nature to me is about revering balance - life and death. The natural world.

Trading a normal and easily replaceable animal companion for trying to remove an unnatural predator from the plane; or saving a party members life, it completely legitimate.

The player should respect the sacrifice of the animal, but that also does not require weeping and hand-wringing.

Stormblade, Maxx, etc. could be right, if you think the forces of nature have room for such a philosphy. Paraxis's opinion that punishing him for his actions would be cramping his playstyle, however, is wrong. If there are no moral consequences for your actions, that's one less enjoyable challenge you've given the players and one less reason to be emotionally invested in the story.

What is your interpretation of the setting? What is the player's alignment? What are the nature gods like? If you're running this in Golarion, you should have these answers available to you. If you're running it in Greyhawk, where the AP is originally set, I don't know much about the setting. If it's a homebrew setting, you need to come up with the answers yourself. Even if nature is fine with the death of an animal companion for a cause or "natural selection", that doesn't mean that these forces or gods of nature are ok with a druid killing the companion bequeathed to them through their own action.


Drejk wrote:
Imbuement... But it does not sound as great as enchantment.

Ensorcelled!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HarbinNick wrote:

You need to have played at least once. That's my take on it. To DM and have never ever played is too strange, for one thing you may not know how to make characters.

Well, where did the first DM come from?

It is true, though, player experience helps when you first begin DMing. On the other hand, I had plenty of player experience when I started, and I still felt like I didn't know what I was doing.

In the end, you just have to dive in. And when you start thinking "but none of this is working the way I thought it would!" remember that most of us who have DMed for years (or even decades) still have that thought on occasion. If the rules don't do it to you, the players will. Here is a very brief guide to DMing skills:

Traits you need (In order of importance):
1. Amateurism: You love stories, and love to tell them. Number one. Despite its negative connotations, amateur comes from the French "amour", meaning "love". An amateur does something because he or she loves it. Be an amateur.
2. Humility: While your vision for the game takes primacy, because it holds together the story, the aesthetic, and the action, remember to not be so rigid that you can't make room for the player's vision as well. That doesn't mean you have to let them have a Raptor animal companion when you don't want dinosaurs in your game, but you do need to find things you are willing to compromise on.
3. Patience: With all the work that comes from DMing, you will improve your skills in the game faster than your players (rules lawyers and other DMs excluded). You need more game knowledge than they do, so don't get upset when they regularly try to do things they can't do, or ask you a whole lot of questions about very basic things.
4. Preparation: You need to make sure you set aside time to prepare your game. I have enough experience to wing a session and still have a good game, but I always regret it if I do.
5. A love of surprise: Players will ruin all your plans. Embrace it. Don't respond by railroading them, unless you are absolutely sure that the game will be better that way. This rarely is the case.
6. Rules improvisation: If flipping pages is taking too long to find a specific rule in the middle of action, be good at making something up and telling your players that when you find the right rule, you will use it next time.
7. Rules knowledge: You don't need to be an encyclopedia, but at least try to know all the rules that are used regularly. I still don't know the rules for very hot environments, and that's because I personally have only sent players into one once.
8. Rules innovation: No rules to explain what you want? Make them up ahead of time! You're not just the storyteller and arbiter, you are the group's system developer if you must be.

Notice that all the rules stuff is last and rules improvisation is above rules knowledge. Technically, you can run a game without using a single rule. Make your story good, and make the action fast. It won't always be fast, and sometimes the players will take much longer than you, but try. Don't treat the core rules as unimportant, because they've been tested more than whatever you make up, but don't get hung up on them, either. If a player of mine has misbuilt a character, or made a flaming longsword without first giving it a +1, or misuses an ability, I still correct them, but I'll drop a rule that doesn't work in a heartbeat. Do what works for your group. I know more experienced gamers can be intimidating, but they've all been there, too. Tell them to go easy on you, and if they are real friends, it won't be a problem. There's also an upside: you won't have to worry about #3, hopefully. Just remember, running a game takes four easy steps:

1. Trial
2. Error
3. Correction
4. Move on

Now find a story you love (or make one), outline it in detail, make your NPCs, detail your maps and traps, get your players, buy potato chips and soda/beer, and go get 'em!

I thought that would be much shorter.


Dear O Mighty Dinosaur,

Forgive the complainty-soundingness of this request, I only look to understand your awesome mind!

In the ARG playtest, many agreed that since the Skilled racial feature has the same relationship to the extra skill point favored class bonus as the Toughness feat has to the extra hit point favored class bonus, the Skilled feature should therefor be treated as equivalent in power to a feat. This logic seems unassailable to me, and yet the Static Feat feature's cost remains at 2 RP, while the Skilled feature is still double that, at 4 RP. What is your Wisdom, O Toothy One?


F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
What about "Book of the Ascended", "Book of the Enlightened" or "Book of the Radiant/Shining"?
MORE METAL! I also ditched the "Book of that" convention.

More metal? Go to the OT, angels are pretty much a bunch of scary monsters in Ezekiel. Burning Swords? Thralls of the Light? Lords of Vengeance? Hands of Wrath?


Irranshalee wrote:

Look up the word "ain't" in the OED.

Look up the word "can" in the OED and see if there is a definition of its usage for permission.

Our language gets muddier by the day.

I don't like "ain't", either, but a dictionary that doesn't acknowledge common usage is a bad dictionary. The idea that there was a time when "can" could not be used to ask permission is an illusion. Shakespeare used it in such a way. And even if that was the case, you still haven't convinced me that I should believe you over Oxford.


Irranshalee wrote:

Sorry bud. The subtle difference between ethics and morals is respectively social and personal. Everything else you typed is cluttering the actual definition.

I am not a deontologist.

Jainism. I had to look that up. Sadly, not very realistic. One can only hope for a world based on those beliefs. In any case, I am not a Jainist either.

Let me retype what I typed once before...

Your response is baseless. Try again.

Actually, the Oxford definition of ethics, sense 1:

"moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity"

Oxford definition of morality, sense 1:
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour"

Hmm... only the definition of ethics discusses any sense of personability, but you said it was the other way around. Oxford pretty much equates the two, and tend to be pretty credible when it comes to the English language.

You are a deontologist, by the way, because you definitely aren't a teleologist or consequentialist, and those are the only systematic ways of characterizing moral action. And if you could please, please tell me what your source for moral decisions is, I can understand where you're coming from!


Irranshalee wrote:


What world do you live in? Kill is an action verb.

We shouldn't assume that grammar dictates reality. If I stab someone, stabbing is definitely an action I do. If it results in death, I have also killed. If it doesn't result in death, I have not killed. So killing is an action that is ascribed to me only after I have acted. It really is more related to the consequences of my actions than the actions themselves. This is something all consequentialists and most deontologists agree on.

Irranshalee wrote:


Most actions cannot be judged without context. Killing is one of the few that can be.

Let's use an example most of you agree on. Murder. Is murder evil? Most if not all of you said yes. Let's keep in mind that the difference between kill and murder is intent, first degree includes premeditation.

Hypothetically, it is 1930. You know where Hitler is. You have seen the future. You have seen that he is responsible for millions of deaths. You plot to kill him. You eventually go through with it and murder him. You have saved millions of lives.

First, since we all agreed that murder is wrong, but killing isn't necessarily wrong, you can't prove murdering Hitler is wrong to prove killing is wrong. It doesn't make any sense. Besides, most people don't consider a wartime political assassination murder, it's a war act, time travelling or not. To make that example begin to be admissible, we'd need to establish that wartime assassination is indeed murder, and that's a whole other discussion. Do you have a better example?

I'm still wondering what your source for characterizing the morality of actions is?

EDIT: Or... you're spent. Oh well.


Irranshalee wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Best Goblin! wrote:
Irranshalee wrote:
I am speaking about morality (good vs evil). It is morally wrong to take a person's life.
Based on what?

This. Why do you believe killing a person to be inherently evil?

Killing someone who's done no wrong is certainly Evil, but it's Evil because it's causing harm to someone who has done nothing to warrant that response. It's an injustice, an inappropriate and unwarranted act, and Evil for that reason. Killing a person in self defense is neither unjust, nor unwarranted. Why is it Evil?

Unwarranted? Unjust? You speak of ethics.

You response is baseless. Try again.

You're differentiation between ethics and morals is illusory, and seem more influenced by rpg terms than reality. Morality is a term used in religious and general conversation, ethics is used in philosophy and legal terminology, but they both mean the same thing, a code by which right action is defined.

You're obviously a deontologist, you identify the morality of an action by the characteristics of the action is itself. That's fine, I'm also a deontologist. But a deontologist needs an outside source to define these characteristics. The most popular deontological source is the Bible.

You quoted the Bible, albeit incorrectly, with the commandment to not "kill". I gave you the original Hebrew, proving that the word best translates as "murder" (look it up, the root is resh-tzaddi-chet.)

So, since you cannot use the Bible as the source of your assertion, I'm dying to know what you base the idea that killing is evil (period, end of story) on. For example, many Jainists espouse this belief. Are you a Jainist? If so, my curiosity is slaked, and I'm done. If not, what is the basis for how you characterize actions?


Irranshalee wrote:
I am speaking about morality (good vs evil). It is morally wrong to take a person's life.

Based on what?


Irranshalee wrote:

Yes, killing someone for any reason is evil. Any reason. Thou shall not kill. Easy enough. If religion is an issue for you, I am sure I can find a few non-religious folks with similar viewpoints. This is not even a discussion. It simply is evil.

Soldiers are not evil by nature, but they must perform evil acts to survive and win.

I don't personally care if you think killing is evil under any condition, but you need a reason other than the Bible. I'm sorry, but your bible's translation is insufficient. As someone who studies in the original Hebrew, I assure you that the commandment is not "You shall not kill". In Hebrew, it reads "Lo tirtsachah", which literally translates to "Don't murder." Even the word "you" ("ata" in Hebrew) is not in there. "Don't kill" would be "Lo tihragah" or perhaps "Lo tinkahah".

Manslaughter is not permitted, but does not carry the death penalty that "Lo tirtsachah" does.

Exodus 21:22-23 treats the killing of a fetus more like destruction of property than murder.

Killing that the Bible permits:
Slaughtering an animal for food
Avenging the blood of a relative who died of negligent manslaughter
Lawful war acts

Killing that the Bible mandates:
Slaughtering animals for sacrifice
Execution
There are cases of mandatory war
Killing the Amalekite if he does not accept laws of basic morality.
Killing an aggressive pursuer to save the life of the pursued.
It is even Biblically mandatory to kill someone in self defense, unless you clearly cannot save yourself.

It's fairly clear that the Bible only forbids murder, rather than killing in general.


The Drunken Dragon wrote:


Perspective it also a nice little word here. From the perspective of the person you're killing (especially with the pious man example), what you're doing is evil, or at least wrong, unless their whole intention was to let you kill them. There have been entire plots upon plots built around forcing a normally good aligned character to finish off a victim and thereby "stain himself." But whatever. I decide, as a storyteller, to go with whatever interpretation of alignment makes sense at the time. For a group of players looking for some fun and not tedious philosophical debate, I'll make people seemingly irredeemable and cartoony-level villains (and he stole 46 cakes, and that's bad...). Morality is a subject which I tend to shoo away from, because it causes pointless argument and breeds no correct answer, despite 3,000 years of bickering, so as a storyteller, i try to keep as far away from its reinterpretation, because it ruins all the fun.

Most of this. Especially the culinary theft.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The alignment of the NPC should be based on the alignment philosophy of the DM.

Seeing that you're the DM, there is no way anyone here can give a fully thought-out moral doctrine in a small enough post that you can use it and then be informed enough to apply it consistently in your game.

This is an old, smelly can of worms and, as could be predicted, gets everyone pontificating as if they are the authority on a question that has never been definitively answered by the greatest minds ever, whether it be real-life morality or RPG morality, which should definitely be treated as different things.

For example, most here agree that sacrificing your child because God told you to is evil. Now, while I'd agree that anyone who does so today is almost certainly insane, I don't agree that the action is evil. If there is a God, such a being would define morality (we've correlated the two for most of recorded civilization, albeit with different gods and different codes), so if God really told someone to sacrifice their child, it wouldn't be evil. Nobody has to agree with me, and more importantly, if you wanted to say such an action isn't evil in your game, it doesn't matter what's true, or what anyone argues.

A better solution is to give you three simple ideas, let you pick one, and apply it in the way you see best in all situations, so as not to confuse your players, since the rules of alignment that you apply to your NPC should be the same ones you apply to them.

These three views broadly cover most, but not all, ethical systems:

Deontology (best known form: religious morals) - The morality of an action is defined by the characteristics of the action.

Consequentialism (best known form: utilitarianism) - The morality of an action is defined by its results. Long term results are usually only included in this if they are foreseeable.

Teleology - The morality of an action is defined by its intended purpose and/or the virtues (or lack thereof) that motivate the action.

The next question you need to answer is if you will use objective morality, where you apply alignment according to your view (or adopted view), allowing characters to easily believe they are one alignment, while they are assigned another alignment, or will you use subjective morality, where characters are the alignment they believe themselves to be, unless that's just unreasonable.

As an example, if you use objective morality:

Deontological - Your NPC is evil, because murder and torture are evil. Does he have rules for when he commits these acts? Lawful. No? Chaotic. Between? Neutral.

Consequentialist - Your NPC's actions have good results (I'm assuming this), so he is good. Rules? Lawful, etc.

Teleologist - Let's say your NPC is torturing someone because they did something very bad. Is your character more concerned with avenging a victim? Good. Is your NPC concerned with slaking his own desire for revenge? Evil. Rules? etc...

Of course any ambiguity makes the NPC a candidate for neutrality.
With objective morality, you can do things as you see fit. For example, you mostly like consequentialism, but you have a problem with the fact that can consequentialism can justify letting a few innocents die to save many innocents, or even allowing children to die to save many people. So say that there are still a few universal no-nos, such as killing children or the innocent.

Now, if you use subjective morality:

Is your NPC doing evil for good results (consequentialism; chaotic good)? You said yes.
Are his intentions good and virtuous (teleology; neutral good)? You said yes.
Is he doing thing within a rigid moral structure (deontology; lawful good)? You said no.

Your NPC is either NG or CG. Based on the theme of his moral problem, CG seems more appropriate. You can still use universal no-nos, but if morality is largely subjective, your players will have a harder time guessing what those universal no-nos are, so you shouldn't have a lot.

My advise is to answer these questions as you see fit, whether or not you agree with my examples. Then you will know what your NPC's alignment is.


Looking at the breakdown of mental abilities, we can see:
Intelligence governs the ability to process data, whether it be memorized, like history, or analytical, like math.
Wisdom covers both the ability to process sensory stimuli in you surroundings and social interactions.
Charisma is a poorly defined ability covering the last, and very broad, category: social output.

Just as it doesn't make sense that Wisdom governs both sensory stimuli and social stimuli, it doesn't make sense that Charisma equally governs: how attractive you are, how sly you are, how charming you are, how scary you are, how relatable you are, and how convincing your rhetoric is. So, we must pick and choose what parts of the definition apply to you.

It doesn't make sense to make you more ugly. Saying that you would have an abrasive personality doesn't cover it for several reasons. First, you are only one step above having no personality at all. Just as an INT 8 is somewhat dumb (but in a more normal range), and INT 1 isn't even thinking on a human level (it's the dumb side of animal intellect), a CHA 8 is more consistent with an abrasive personality. Also, let's remember that CHA 22 is just as much "super scary undead" as it is "super charming and attractive", so we know that if an abrasive personality is coupled with an intimidating figure, it would merit a higher CHA, rather than a lower one.

So we know that you're personality is extremely low-functioning, and it isn't going to create a personality that people might follow out of fear or charm or whatever. You're wisdom is fine, so you can process social ques, you just don't know how to react to them. Just because you know someone is sad or lying doesn't mean you know what to do about it.

Your social output is crippled, so you probably resemble a very low functioning autistic person. You know what's going on around you, and you're not mentally handicapped, but you don't know how to react to anything socially demanding of you... at all. You don't talk, unless you absolutely must, then maybe. If you feel cornered, you would either shut down or lash out. Other ways to express this are numerous, but I think that low-functioning autistic sums up where you are. Do some research on it, and you might find it to be an interesting character option. You'd need to fudge some stuff, since such a person wouldn't adventure, but it might give you something cool to work with.


Actually, things do just pop into our perceived existence, they're just very small. It was theorized that subatomic particles pop into our perceived existence at the same time as their antiparticles. At that point, they are called virtual particles. Since these virtual particle pairs are antiparticles to each other (for example, an electron and a positron), and they pop in next to each other, they are quickly drawn to each other, resulting in the obliteration of both particles. The theory went on to say that both particles would remain if something flung them apart.

So, scientists tested the theory by shooting subatomic particles through a particle accelerator. The idea was that if they came between two particles whilst they were busy popping in, the accelerated particles would fling the virtual particles apart. In short, the experiment yielded positive results, particles do just pop into our perceived existence.

A property of virtual particles is that once they are observed, they have been around long enough to remain, and so they follow the law of conservation from that point on. That's why we call them "virtual" particles before they are observed, because if we aren't calling them actual, it doesn't fly in the face of Newtonian physics. :P

The predominant theory concerning this phenomena is that the particles seem to just spontaneously exist because they are "falling" from higher dimensions. This keeps the law of conservation intact.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Would anyone like to look into making the Strain-Injury Variant OGL-compliant?

I really like these rules. I like to run low-to-no-magic campaigns, and this really helps with healing issues in such a game. However, I don't understand. I could start a game and apply these rules effortlessly in 3.5 or Pathfinder as it stands? So, how do you mean "make it OGL compliant"?


I actually really like the Holster of Goblinkind. Although I agree with the judges, epsecially that it needs to be more expensive, I think this would work very well in a certain (albeit limited) context. It just so happens a friend has a homebrew setting that fits exactly that context, and he's gonna love it for a goblin gunslinger NPC he has (who just so happens to be named "BANGBANG!"). Copy and paste, consider it ganked.


Naturally, I saw several things I didn't like about my item immediately after sending it in, I'd love it if I could find even more things I missed. Thanks, guys!

Lich’s Flask
Aura Strong Necromancy; CL 17th
Slot --; Price 175,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Description
A devious favorite of necromancers, the lich’s flask drinks in the soul of anyone who puts his lips to its mouth (Will DC 23 negates). Such a victim is unaware of the transfer, and functions as normal. The flask may only contain one soul at a time. Once a soul is consumed, the holder of the flask may cast both dominate person (Will DC 19), and finger of death (Fort DC 21) once per day on the owner of the soul using different command words, except the range for either effect is 100 miles. Another command word releases the soul to its owner. A living humanoid can also use the flask as a lesser phylactery, enabling the use of resurrection if the humanoid’s body is completely destroyed. In the event that both the body and phylactery of a lich the flask is attuned to are destroyed, the flask can destroy the soul within (killing its possessor) and transfer the lich’s soul to the flask, making it into a new phylactery. The lich the flask is attuned to is chosen by the creator at the flask’s creation, and may not be changed. If the flask is destroyed, the soul within immediately returns to its owner. If someone whose soul is trapped in a lich’s flask dies, any spell used to return his body to life such as raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection must be cast on the flask, not the body. The flask has the same hp, hardness, and break DC of a phylactery.
Construction
Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, soul bind, magic jar, finger of death, dominate person; Cost 87,500


Congrats, winners!


Kolokotroni wrote:
The Super Genius Archetype Line of products(Arcane, Archer, Divine and Martial). Different from the paizo style of 'archetype' these allow you to mix and match groups of options regardless of class. Want to add some divine magic to a fighter? No problem. Want a wizard with a bit more combat oomph, we got you covered. These were also the key to my replacement of the wealth system and the vast majority of magic items in my game, allowing me to forever say goodbye to magic mart and the idea that magic items have become mundane and common in my game.

Hmmm... I'm wondering, if archetypes are a one time swap, how did you use it to circumvent the wealth and magic item system? I'd like to know, so I could use it.


My solution lately is to run folklore and fairytale plots, rather than modern fantasy plots. In folklore, wizards and clerics might be helpful sagely support characters, but for the most part magic casters are villains. Main characters translate best to fighters and rogues. In short, when I run these plots, I don't allow casters.

This isn't really answering the question in the way it is intended, but utilizing the awesomeness of wizards for the villains without allowing casters in the PCs' party adds to the sense of being a small man against an overwhelming force, returns the sense of mystery to magic, and alleviates that pesky problem of one player's character being clearly more powerful than another at later levels. The game doesn't even need to be low magic. In a folklore oriented game, the GM just needs to make sure the magic items are relevant to the plot, just like in real folklore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I only switched to Pathfinder in the last year, so my perspective is pretty fresh. Because most experienced gamers I know are primarily concerned with their stats and builds, and power gaming in general, I don't really talk with my local gaming community, as I'm a story and role playing guy. Most other experienced players I do talk with have left the gaming scene at large, and still use D&D 2.0 or earlier. I keep a group of less dedicated gamers I GM for, because I like their laid back attitude, and their lack of experience means less clashing over some idea about how gaming "should be". At the same time, they don't really search out their own material, I bring the books and they say, "I'll do that".

The point is that I don't talk to other up-to-date gamers often, so I somehow missed out on Pathfinder until last year. Like many, I never moved on to D&D 4.0, because it was neither involved or versatile enough for my taste.

A year ago I was running an epic (not epic level) 3.5 game, and was working on my own system for kingdom building and mass combat, and running into problems. Relevant 3.5 3pp material sucked, and my opinions on 3pp material in general were still in the 3.5 "undependable, improperly powered in one direction or the other" realm. The other experienced gamer in my group brought in a player in his own game, who told me about Pathfinder. I took a quick look, and switched immediately. Although I couldn't switch the then-current game to Pathfinder because I didn't want to bother converting already unbalanced classes into a new system with a slightly higher power level (lots of non-core D&D classes, too much work for the payoff), since it is cross-compatible, I wanted to see what Pathfinder had to support kingdom building. Nothing core, but I saw there were 3pp books, and I cautiously peeked. Slamming into 2011 from the 1995 gaming world, I can say 3pp material is very different.

I found Jon Brazer Enterprises' Book of the River Nations, and I found it very satisfying. However, I wanted something more involved for mass combat, so I picked up Adamant Entertainment's Warpath, and was also greatly satisfied. So, I needed to think how I'd use BotRN rules for army production to create Warpath armies. In 3.5 3pp materials, this would be an enormous headache. But both publishers created something so together that their systems can mesh almost seamlessly. With very little legwork, I had exactly what I needed. Now, I'm buying 3pp blind, but still confident, from the aforementioned publishers, as well as Tricky Owl, Rite Publishing, Frog God, and the list is growing. With all things, there is good and not-so-good, but I think there's only two purchases out of dozens that I'd really label "disappointment". I'm getting happy just typing this.


145
272
327
462
584
837
937
Great contest! Good luck, me!


32 people marked this as a favorite.

We were playing in my friend's comedic setting, and a new girl joined as a halfling sorcerer. The GM was using the random encounter table, and he had a knack for rolling a vampire encounter during the day. He doesn't ever reroll encounters if they aren't too high of a CR for the party, he goes with it and accepts the natural consequences. The first time, he said a vampire jumps from the bushes... and immediately explodes because it's daytime, end of encounter. We all laughed hard. The second time, we got a chuckle, but the third time, he states a vampire jumps from the bushes, and we said, "yeah yeah, and he explodes." He corrects us, "no, make fort saves, those who fail are blinded for 1d4 rounds by his radiant sparkling caused by the sun." He points to the nearest girl, a fighter, "he professes his love for you, but says you must stay away from him because he is a horrible monster. Pass a will save or become angsty!"

A Twilight vampire.

So the new girl looks through her spell list, checks the Core Rulebook, grins, and says, "I cast erase!"

The GM says, "OK. Why?"

She points to the rulebook and says,"It says here that it removes mundane writing!"

We all roflmao'ed and the GM ruled in her favor, killing the vampire.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to say, Darkholme ftw on this playtest! His "What is a feat worth?" thread shed a whole lot of light on RP pricing. I think if the designers can get the right price for a fixed feat, they have a great gauge now on how they should price everything else.

I am, of course, leaving out dozens that also put in amazing work. I'd encourage anyone who thinks someone else did a great job, say it now.


@Peanuts: If I seemed confrontational, I didn't mean too :) I don't think that it's wrong to focus a race on a certain class-role, but I think it's more fun when a race is versatile, even if that means losing a little to a lack of specialization. But there does have to be a balance. If you make a race just so you have something perfect for such-and-such class, that's egregiously min-maxing, and shame shame. But if you just give the race something for everything, it will be good at nothing.

For example, the race is viable for three very different classes, which helps keep the imagination alive for the race, and the creative juices flowing.

By the way, didn't notice the half-construct thread before. Thanks! I'm about to brush up on the discussion.


It's daunting to even think of getting a word in on this thread, it's become so in depth. But if I may, just a few thoughts.

First, for those who are concerned about the point that feats become devalued over levels, and so an open feat should be cheaper, this makes it in no way different than most other racial traits. Most racial traits are fixed values, and become increasingly irrelevant over the levels. That's why standard races are more or less on par with advanced races at 6th level, and monstrous ones at 11th (or 16th for 40 RP races). You accumulate all the class abilities, and although you still need the feats, you could drop a few and never notice.

Now, this isn't directly related, as I'm about to mention other pricing issues, but based on other threads, the human breakdown should be this:

Humanoid (0 RP)
Medium (0 RP)
Normal Speed (0 RP)
Human Ability Scores (0 RP)
Linguist Array (1 RP, most think that languages are overpriced, and I agree)
Bonus Feat (4 RP, kept the same to illustrate the point)
Skilled (2 RP)

Total: 7 RP

Skilled is changed to 2 RP because, as Darkholme has pointed out in his own thread, an extra skill point a level is a favored class bonus, which makes it equivalent to an extra hp a level, which is also the Toughness feat, which makes it, ultimately, equivalent to a fixed feat, worth 2 RP.

This makes the race weak in comparison with Elves and Dwarves, and maybe that's true. But I don't think it should be that much weaker. My most successful players prefer humans, and they seem to be successful because they put their extra feet exactly where they want and their extra skill points exactly where they want.

Assuming my players are representative, this leaves us with three possibilities:
1) The flexibility (extra feat and skill points) of the human is very advantageous, but in a way that is nebulous and therefor cannot be adequately expressed in RP, or any other quantitative or otherwise objective system of value.
2) The Elf and Dwarf are also worth less than 10 RP.
3) The open bonus feat is worth more than 4 RP.

#1's conclusion is unacceptable even if it is true, because it is unusable. #2 may be true, and I think the Elf is actually 9 RP. The Dwarf, however seems to be more than 10 RP, and this seems to be the majority opinion. But if we find #2 to be untrue or not ture enough to justify the Human's competitiveness, then we are left with #3, the open bonus feat is under-priced.


I think that support for all types is ideal, as well. But if the developers want to avoid that, for whatever reason, they could at least make a half-dragon subtype, like they did with undead and constructs. Half-dragon was a really popular template with my old d&d group.


Of course, you can't make a race that is good at every class. The human is the closest to it, and that's what it's for. But that doesn't mean that a race needs to be made with only one or two classes in mind in order for it to be useful. I'm very roleplaying oriented, and so while I can find races more suited to a specific class, I'd want to play this race on the basis that: 1) its stats are good enough for it to hold its own next to the core races, and 2) it's a fun concept.

Having said that, I'm sticking with the three classes I've mentioned.

A wizard gets the intelligence bonus, the con bonus makes him more durable, and small size with natural armor gives him a cumulative +2 to AC, very helpful to the fragile wizard.

A barbarian gets the con bonus, and while he gets a penalty to combat maneuvers on both the offensive and defensive side due to his size, his size also provides that +1 to attack. The cumulative +2 to AC I mentioned with the wizard is helpful for the light-armor-only barbarian, and if he is working with another Tonomode, swarming provides a means to an easy flanking bonus, even with cornered creatures and creatures that are dangerous to get around due to large size.

A rogue gets that int bonus to increase her skill points, and although con isn't one of the core ability scores for a rogue, who's gonna say they couldn't use more hp? In addition to the attack bonus from size, the rogue will love the killer +4 to stealth, and when working with another of her race, swarming provides another avenue to put in that sneak attack damage. And I'll mention the +2 to AC again, because it's always relevant.

But the reason we're here is to test the Advanced Race Guide, so the ultimate question is, "is this race in any way underpowered or overpowered in comparison with the core races?" I agree with points on other threads about the problems with ability scores, and traits such as Skilled or Hardy, which is why I avoided using anything questioned in those threads. We already know that they're broke.

So, what's in question here is whether the traits used here, especially half-construct, natural armor, and swarming, are priced appropriately.

Personally, I think the rules hold up excellently in this case, and the race here is pretty balanced. Although I think if you absolutely must charge RP for language arrays, xenophobic should be -1 RP, standard should be 0 RP, and linguist should be 1 RP.


We wanted a more versatile race, so we didn't focus on a particular class idea. I would totally play a wizard with this. Barbarians would be great, both for the stats and the comedic setting. While running a modron game, I lifted the alignment restriction and allowed a lawful neutral modron barbarian, it was hilarious. A barbarian would also benefit from the swarming trait. While we're one the swarming trait, a rogue Tonomode would also benefit from the feature, and can use the intelligence bonus.

Also, thanks for liking the languages, guys. We thought they were appropriate for robots.


The Tonomode is a Modron-like race my friend and I have been working on for our comedic setting.

Using the rules, here's what we got:

Tonomode
Humanoid (Half-Construct)

Tonomode Racial Traits

+2 Constitution, +2 Intelligence, -2 Wisdom

Small: Tonomodes are Small creatures and gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack roles, a -1 penalty to their Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.

Slow Speed: Tonomodes have a base speed of 20 feet.

Half-Contruct Traits: As Half-Constructs, Tonomodes have the following traits:
-Tonomodes gain a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against disease, mind-affecting effects, poison, and effects that cause either exhaustion or fatigue.
-Tonomodes cannot be raised or resurrected.
-Tonomodes do not breath, eat, or sleep, unless they want to gain some beneficial effect from one of these activities. This means that a Tonomode can drink potions and can sleep in order to regain spells, but neither is required to survive or stay in good health.

Illusion Resistance: Tonomodes get a +2 racial saving throw bonus against illusion spells and effects.

Swarming: Up to two Tonomodes can share the same space at the same time. If two Tonomodes that are occupying the same space attack the same foe, they are considered to be flanking that foe as if they were in two opposite squares.

Natural Armor: Tonomodes have a +1 natural armor bonus to AC.

Languages: Tonomodes begin play speaking Beep Boop. Tonomodes with high intelligence scores can choose from the following: Hexadecimal, Binary, Basic, and Common.

Breakdown:
Humanoid (0 RP)
Half-Construct (7 RP)
Small (0 RP)
Slow Speed (-1 RP)
Standard Modifiers (0 RP)
Language: Xenophobic Array (0 RP)
Natural Armor (2 RP)
Illusion Resistance (1 RP)
Swarming (Small, so 1 RP)

Total: 10 RP

What do you think? How does it look as a standard race?


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.