Can you point me to any rules text (book and page number) that supports the assertion that the animal companion loses any abilities if dismissed? I can't find it anywhere in the core rules.
The Paladin's mount is an excellent example. Thanks. That really puts me into "It's an animal no matter what it's intelligence is." territory.
I'm unable to find a rule that adequately covers this, so I'm seeking opinions (and if James or Jason feels so inclined, a ruling).
Is an Animal Companion still an animal if you raise it's intelligence to a 3 or higher?
Given the numerous provisions for Animal Companions with Int of 3 or greater, it's plainly allowed that they can become smarter. And their feat and skill choices increase. This is also encompassed by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
According to the Bestiary (p307) under Animal Traits: "Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
The logical choice would be that an Animal becomes a Magical Beast
However, the two types are sufficiently different that this does not immediately seem a good fit.
Further, an animal that has been the subject of an Awaken Spell has it's type changed to Magical Beast.
So I guess the question is, is an Animal Companion with an Int of 3 the exception to the Animal Type rule that limits intelligence, or does the Animal Companion actually become a Magical Beast. If it does, does it gain the larger Hit Die, Fast BAB, and Darkvision?
James Jacobs wrote:
Many thanks for stepping up and addressing all of my questions. As I stated later in the thread, it's more my problem than anything else.
I fully understand that as a company, your aim is to drive forward than to have to recircle back to fix things that got missed or miss-printed. [deliberate misspelling].
I enjoy the game. I enjoy the setting. I enjoy the organized play. I bring up issues in the hopes that you won't end up doing to Pathfinder what WOTC did to 4e. (I know, a whole other discussion for some other company's forum. Dropping that.)
Oh, I know this thing won't ever get covered in Organized Play. I'm talking about how/why paladins of evil could (and probably would) exist. I'm talking about fluff on my (well, not on, but next to) my character sheet. The type of thing that you start launching into at the table when people say "Really?? A paladin of X?" or (what I get) is "Really, a necromancer cleric of Ydersius with an animal companion that you Animate Dead on if it dies???"
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Politeness - yes, I think that generally, the Paizo boards are more polite than most other's that I've seen.
Officialness - What would be more optimal, to me were if there were one locked thread on the each of the Pathfinder, Golarian, and Pathfinder Society boards, where the only posts were official rulings. Mirrored in a PDF that could be downloaded through the "My Downloads". The thread would contain short synopses of rulings. (ie. on Pathfinder Society - [this is per an earlier ruling by Josh that has not yet been incorporated into the Guide to Organized Play] - "For clerics, the character must be with in one step of the alignment of their deity. For other classes, no alignment restriction applies. This is a change to page xx in the guide, and will be incorporated into a future printing."
But, that's mostly wishful thinking. The game has grown quite quickly, and it really looks like the Paizo folks are still overwhelmed on their website. A big push to come up with a organized forum strategy would probably help them out a lot in the long run, but it's always hard to justify the time required to do so.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Re: James Jacob's final post on thread - I thought about including that, but since it went right along with his first word on the thread, I left it out out of redundancy. Thanks for posting it.
I think that most Chelaxians profess to worship Asmodeus not out of fear of the Deity, but out of fear of the Paracountess and the rest of the hierarchy. The Cheliax book makes it clear that many of the church services in Asmodeus are performed as much to be seen professing faith as anything else.
I'm playing a Cheliax Cleric of Ydersius in PFS. His outlook (and role-played as such) of the Paracountess is much like a North Korean's outlook of the Great Leader would be - you had better be seen as one of the most ardent supporters, and you had better turn in anyone who isn't.
Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage.
This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses.
It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.
I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities.
But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.
Ok, this is more or less what I expected. So aside from adding fuel to the never ending batman/robinhood[alignment] debate, what part of this says character option? It seems like a clear plot element/flavor to me.
Ah. Well, this grew out of somebody asking on the Pathfinder Society forum whether or not Paladins of Asmodeus were legal to play. Which led to someone saying [paraphrasing] 'of course not', and someone else pointing to the article as a reason why they would be. And forth and back and so on.
The one take-away I've gotten from this whole thing.
Don't ask rules questions on the rules forums. Look for the answers in the Core Assumption (Core Rules + Bestiary + Seeker of Secrets). If what you are wanting to do allowed (or is not prohibited by a plain text reading of the rules), then simply make your character according to the rules. Show up at the game with the relevant rule, and if it becomes an issue with the DM, discuss it there.
The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.
Oh, one other thing. In an environment with strangers, leave all of the non-rule information (hair color, eye color, height, weight, religion (if your class does not specifically require a deity), place of birth, mother's maiden name, name of first pet, pin number, favorite color, etc) on your sheet blank. Keep your backstory on a separate piece of paper. There are a lot of people out there who will hate your fluff (it's kind of like not discussing politics, religion, or sex with strangers - somebody will hate something that you don't and then they'll hate you because you don't hate what they hate). It's better to have a fluff-free character sheet than one that can be objected to in any way.
relevant text from article, thus it is wrote:
I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful answers.
I believe you have a good outlook and interpretation of the use of the books in play.
Portions of the book (certain spells, and the customized summon list) are usable within PFS, but as you say, it's not all legal as player resources.
I currently run the Legacy of Fire campaign at my FLGS, and I understand that what to let in and keep out is the domain of the DM. I'm very liberal in what I let in, as I believe that players should have the opportunity to play characters that they want to play, not characters that I want them to play. As a consequence, I've had characters ranging from "I'm a generic archer" to "I'm an alcoholic pirate wench cleric who somehow wound up in the deserts of Katapesh".
[I keep writing things that devolve back to the locked thread, and then self-edit them out, as I don't want to re-fight a lost battle.]
So. Bottom line. I agree with you that most probably nothing in print or pdf will see any changes. I reluctantly agree with you that the best use of the Paizo material is as inspiration and not as canon, given that we can regard the Paladins of Asmodeus issue as a glaring reminder that print <> canon. Re: Pathfinder Society, I also agree with you that by and large, most judges will be cool with whatever you bring to the table, but the closer one is to any fine line, the more likely one is to find that line redrawn with oneself on the wrong side of it.
Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)
Cheers, Thanks. and good gaming.
Chris Mortika wrote:
...(I admit, I'm unfamiliar with any place where James recanted from the material in Council of Thieves, but honestly I wouldn't take a messageboard post as superceding written AP canon in any case.)...
Here's the relevant text from the thread in question:Paladin Pathfinder Society thread
James Jacobs wrote:
The original reference is (I believe) this:Paladins of Asmodeus thread
James Jacobs wrote:
I've been trying to figure out what bugs me about that whole Paladins of Asmodeus discussion thread. I'm not trying to argue for or against or even about Paladins of Asmodeus. That thread is closed. But the thread still bothers me.
On one side, you have posters insisting that a Paladin must be within x steps of their deity, otherwise they would lose all paladin-ness.
And I think that's what's bothering me most.
It brings a whole host of questions.
- Does the PDF still have this section?
Until very recently, I played in Living Forgotten Realms, and bought a whole host of WOTC 4e books. What drove me from their product and their organized play was (primarily) the fact that the rules had become a moving target. Put together a character today, and by next month, that character's feats, powers and class abilities might be entirely changed because some designer decided that he wanted the rules to work in a way that another designer had not wanted them to work. It made no sense to purchase a book because the amount of errata necessary to track in order to build a character began to outweigh the book itself. For a while, I printed out sections of errata and mounted them in the margins on the appropriate pages. Until whole pages needed replacing (stealth rules anyone?) Then I just kept the errata PDF on my ipad.
I've been recommending Pathfinder to a lot of people. I know of at least three different customers at my FLGS who bought into Pathfinder based on my recommendation. One of the big selling features that I'd been recommending to people about Pathfinder was the comparatively stable platform. No 100 pages of new errata every month to download, read and remember.
I'm not saying that Pathfinder has become 4e and I'm disgusted with it and am quitting Pathfinder, but I am concerned when designers begin to disavow the product as printed.
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. But I'm curious whether it's something that I'll have to deal with in the future again and again.
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0704/Johnson/Johnson.html (more detailed version of the story, giving insight into the programming methods)
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1056665 Published paper describing tournament, program. I don't have an ACM account, but the abstract is:
"During the month of June 1981, the EURISKO program was set the task of exploring the design of naval fleets conforming to a body of (several hundreds of) rules and constraints as set forward in Traveller: The Trillion Credit Squadron. EURISKO designed a fleet of ships suitable for entry in the 1981 Origins national wargame tournament, held at Dunfey's Hotel, in San Mateo, Ca., over July 4 weekend. The Traveller tournament, run by Game Designers Workshop (based in Normal, Illinois), was single elimination, six rounds. EURISKO's fleet won that tournament, thereby becoming the ranking player in the United States (and also an honorary Admiral in the Traveller navy). This win is made more significant by the fact that the program's creator, Professor Douglas Lenat of Stanford University's Heuristic Programming Project, had never played this game before, nor any miniatures battle game of this type."
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Thanks. Am I correct in assuming then that non-spell effects (ie Command Undead feat) also cease their effect at the end of the adventure?
I think the PSGOP would be well served by the inclusion of a paragraph something along the lines of:
"A character may only take out of the adventure gold or items specifically stated in the record. Spells, feats, or other effects that would create an item or beneficial effect that persists beyond the adventure will not do so. This is to prevent the creation of wealth not awarded in the adventure, which can upset the already difficult balance inherent in a shared world experience."
Austin Morgan wrote:
Yes. Almost my entire post is in regards to INSTANTANEOUS spells. Animate Dead and Atonement are both Instantaneous duration spells. Neither spell is still active at the end of the scenario.
I understand that any spell that you cast during a scenario ends at the end of the scenario.
I have two questions:
1) Spells with an instantaneous duration. The "ever popular" Animate Dead has an instantaneous duration, and would thus be over by the end of the scenario. Its after effect, the creation of the undead who is now possibly under the control of the caster would seem to be outside of the wording of the rule. Does this after-effect end at the end of the scenario?
2) The Feat "Command Undead" is not a spell, yet creates a lasting effect. Does this effect end at the end of the scenario?
which I guess places me into a third question:
3) If your rule is that both instantaneous duration's effect cease at the end of the scenario and that the feat's effect ends at the end of the scenario, then could this be specified/clarified in the next update of the PSGOP?
Also, how does this effect other instantaneous duration spells like "raise dead"? One would assume that the intent of:
is not to mean that a character who is raised will fall dead again at the end of the scenario, but if the same standard is applied to both "Raise Dead" and "Animate Dead", then one would affect similar results.
Can or should there be a way to distinguish between instantaneous spells whose effects end at the end of a scenario, and spells whose effects do not end?
Given that the PSGOP has been modified slightly now to include the allowance of an Alchemist to create enduring magical effects, I'm still not entirely sure what your answer to 1 and 2 are, and am asking this as a clarification.
Addendum: Looking at spells with duration "Instantaneous" that might have implications if their effect ends at end-of-scenario, I also find (partial list):
In PFS, can a character leave a feat slot open to fill at his next level?
Example - Could a paladin not take a feat at 5th level, anticipating taking the Lunge feat when he would qualify for it at 6th level?
This would in effect handicap him for one level (not filling a feat slot that he was entitled to fill) in order to not wait one level past the time that he would qualify for that feat.
Joseph Raiten wrote:
Who says it needs to stay standing? The serpentine evolution has no legs, yet it can make attacks. It could even take a limbs(arms) or limbs(legs) evolution and then take claws and attack.
I think the problem is that you are trying to look at the eidolon as if it were an animal that you have seen before. It isn't. It's a "fantastical creature". Try to imagine something with a prehensile body, multiple sets of tails, arms, legs, any of which can be used for multiple purposes. Perhaps it pounces, resting on a pseudopodal protuberance from the body and attacks with all limbs. Perhaps any tail it has is actually forward facing. Perhaps it has multiple tails facing in cardinal directions. Perhaps it doesn't even have a head, but has a gaping maw in its body with razor sharp teeth.
Given that the eidolon is a "fantastic" creature, capable of having multiple pairs of arms, legs, or even multiple tails, and that there is no limitation in the rules that claw attacks are limited to the limbs(arms) evolution, I don't see any expectation that a claw attack should be limited to just arms.
While the final version of the Summoner class may include such a limitation, it does not currently exist as far as I can find in the PDF, or in Jason's online updates.
Joseph Raiten wrote:
(bite) - free with quad
So far we're only at level 3 (5 points), which gives:
pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw
4th level - add another limbs for 2 pts (+10 speed)
pouce, bite (1d6), trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw (1d4)
6th level - add large or rend, remove trip?
pouce, bite (1d8), trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw (1d6)
hmm. Only problem is that the claws are secondary attacks, and even with multiattack, they are still at -2 with 1/2 strength bonus.
If we could go a biped,
We could go:
Slam (arms) - 1pt. Primary attack (1d8)
If we go serpentine
We could go
bite - free
The nice thing about the sting and bite is that at 7th level, we can pick up poison, and do multiple poison attacks. We can take improved damage (poison) and up the damage to d6's. I'm not sure whether or not it's worth the 2 extra points to make it CON damage.
I keep coming back to the serpentine as a viable form. Especially if we take weapon finesse as a feat, using dex for attacks on natural weapons.
Re-looking at the evolutions, the "arms" evolution states that arms with hands will allow the eidolon to wield weapons. So this is an indirect statement of the requirement.
On further review, it really seems like the pounce evolution combined with multiple claw evolutions (with improved natural attack) might make a formidable melee fighter.
pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, rend.
from the PRD:"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell."
So if the spell is listed as having a casting time of 1 round, the spell-like-ability will also have a 1 round casting time.
1) "An eidolon secretes toxic venom, gaining a poison attack. Pick a
Can an eidolon with the poison evolution apply their own poison to weapons?
2) "Weapon Training (Ex): An eidolon learns to use a weapon, gaining Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat. If 1 additional evolution point is spent, it gains proficiency with all martial weapons as well."
There does not seem to be a requirement that the eidolon possess the Arms evolution in order to wield weapons. Is there such a requirement, or is the ever-changing form of the eidolon assumed to be adaptable enough to wield without arms?
I bought a Kindle DX about 2 weeks ago. (well, I got it a week ago as a birthday/xmas present) I'm still deciding whether or not I want to keep it.
It's slightly smaller than a 8.5x11 sheet of paper. For straight text, it's pretty awesome.
For PDF's - It will shrink the pdf of core rules or bestiary (or any other pdf game book I have) to fit the screen. For some games with smaller text (pathfinder being one), this creates readability issues. You can turn the screen to landscape mode, and the text will be pretty close to actual book size. You cannot zoom in either mode. (The pdf support is pretty basic).
Some pdf books take much longer to switch pages on than others. WOTC 4e books switch pages fairly quickly, but Paizo books are much slower (3-5 seconds?) I believe it is because of the extensive graphics that Paizo puts in. (I love the graphics, but in this instance, it might be nicer to not have quite so much).
Other general remarks:
Directory structure. I really wish that it wasn't a flat directory structure (you can put things in subdirectories, but they still all appear on the same table of contents.) Right now, my home page table of contents is 14 pages longs. You can order alphabetically, or by author or by most recent, but it's still a lot of paging to get anywhere you want to go.
Web browser. There is a free wireless broadband web browser. It's slow. It's flaky. It can't go to a lot of sites. (Can't visit wizards.com at all.)
Speed. This thing is slow. Going to d20srd.org, it's practically locked up. Sometimes it does seem to freeze for a long time on graphics intensive pdf's.
Screensaver. If you don't touch any buttons for about 10 minutes, it goes to screensaver. This makes no sense as it only requires power to change pages, not to maintain pages, on e-ink. You can't turn off the screensaver. I'd like it a lot more if I could simply set it down and come back in an hour or tomorrow to the exact same screen. Instead it cycles through a bunch of artsy greyscale images. (Like I really want Jane Austin on the cover of any book I'm reading...)
I really want to like it. I've got all my shadowrun, paizo, wotc and deadlands books on it. This is the largest screen currently available. I just wish:
1) Get rid of flat file system.
Cool. Any problems from RPGA with the "no reskinning" rule in the MYRE adventure guidelines? (Just noticed that after I posted.)
Okay, cryptic title.
Here's the gist. Living Forgotten Realms allows DM's to run their own adventures for the shared world. I'd love to be able to run some of the Pathfinder Society modules as LFR adventures. (Kind of hoping to bring people over to paizo by showing them how well written Paizo's adventures are.)
Has anyone done any conversion work on PFS modules to LFR format?
Preface: I've played some Living Greyhawk, a lot of Living Forgotten Realms, some Pathfinder Society and have run some of each of the three.
1) There are relatively few PFS scenarios, and it is becoming harder and harder to do a regular PFS game where someone hasn't played in Scenario X.
James Jacobs wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for the quick answer. Followup:
In the Bonus Bestiary, Ascomoid has Improved Overrun, while not meeting the prerequisite of having Power Attack.
Is this an exception for Ascomoid, Creatures in general (it's listed as a possible feat for animal companions), or simply an oversight?
Duh. No armor check penalty.
That means I don't need "Armor Proficiency (light)" and can spend the feat on something really fun like "Eschew Materials" <g>
Here's something I'd like to throw out.
I played a cleric during playtest. Our playtest group leader wrote regular reports on what he thought worked, and didn't work.
Nobody in our playtest group thought the beta cleric was in any way overpowered.
How many of those currently praising the removal of heavy armor proficiency from clerics either:
1) playtested a cleric?
One of the few saving graces that cleric's have had was the ability to walk out to the front line and heal the tanks. And then to help hold the line while the tank struggled to his feet.
The argument has been made of "big deal, if you want Heavy Armor, take the feat." Well, at low levels is where the cleric is most vulnerable. Which means taking the feat at low level, which means a first or third level cleric is spending all or half of his feats just to retain the means to do his job, and is now weaker than other members of the party who are already taking feats to define their character.
Fighter: I'm taking a nifty feat so that my charges do X.
As I said, I playtested a cleric during the beta. I probably won't be playing one in the final version.
The placement of the cocatries at the first encounter of the adventure was unfortunate. I had a player whose wizard was turned to stone on the single hit the cockatrices scored (he rolled a 1 on the die). I allowed him to roleplay his familiar for the rest of the adventure, which made the night a less-than-disaster for him. I was surprised to see that an experienced pathfinder who regarded the trices as pets wouldn't have a supply of stone-to-flesh ointment available for the unavailable accident that his lab assistant might encounter, so I provided such in the lab equipment.
It was somewhat strange running this, as our group will not be playing again before gencon and season 2 begins. Assuming that every PC at the table will undergo a radical change with the season 2 and new pathfinder rules, I was especially inclined to make this a "fun" event, rather than a sour note to end season 1.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
I've played a cleric with quicken turning applied to channel energy.
It really didn't seem overpowered to me, even when using Selective Channeling so that only allies got healed.
In the big fights that really needed healing, it was there to keep usually the tank alive and still be able to do something like bless, or protection from evil. One channel per turn only buys so much, and it wasn't like I was taking anyone out with it, I was simply keeping the team alive.
Re: Intimidating Glare
If the fear effects that stacked in the beta still stack, this could prove to be an overwhelming ability.
Round 1: Attack. Move Action Glare (Shaken for X rounds)
Last week, when I heard that the pdf would be priced at $10 (okay, $9.99), the first thing I did was tell my local store owner that I would be able to buy the book directly from him.
With his discount to people who pre-order and pre-pay, I will end up paying just about the same for book and pdf that I would by subscribing at Paizo and getting the book for free.
But this allows me to support the store that I spend so much (too much) time in.
Not to bring in 4e to the argument, but this is also in issue in the LFR campaign setting, with clerics and paladins of Mystra. (LFR has recently specifically ruled out both, but their error is not germane to my post <g>).
I can very much see a player/character taking this position:
"When I entered the service of my god, I pledged my sword, my life and my honor in her service. Such an oath is not to be broken or amended. I do not know if my mistress is truly dead, or simply slumbering, waiting to rise again. I do know that for all the days of my life I will serve her. It is for theologians to debate where my powers come from, if not from her. I see it as a sign that she yet lives. Others may speculate to the theoretical nature of divine power, and bonds that cannot be broken. Yet even if she is truly gone, and she no longer has power to give me, my lady had allies and friends among the deities, and I suspect that they too might be honoring her by allowing me to act in her name."
Yes, but the converse of that rule isn't in DMG. It's not in the book, but it's probably an easy houserule that forced movement of the mount will move the rider.
Except that houserules can vary wildly from DM to DM. Especially in something like Living Forgotten Realms.
Looking at the DMG, the interesting question (to me) that comes up is. If you are mounted and knocked prone, you get a saving throw. If you succeed, you stay mounted and are not knocked prone. Do dwarfs get 2 saving throws? One for being a dwarf and one for being mounted. It seems that it would be very tough to knock a mounted dwarf prone.
Hmm. I'm thinking about area of effect spells that target all creatures in a burst, and have a "Push the target x squares" effect.
What happens if you hit the rider but not the mount, or vice versa?
This doesn't target one but not the other, per the DMG rule.
And there are a lot of AOE's that force movement. Both for players and monsters.
Just to lighten things up...
I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.)
Orc: "What are you looking at?"
I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.
DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls, but find only a few gold pieces on their bodies."
(Couldn't resist the title.)
So my players got to the alchemy lab in the undercrypt last night and faced the mold. (We're playing a Pathfinderized version of LoF).
Given the mold's -3 to hit with its slam attack, and an even worse grapple, I'm wondering if it is intended that a PC become the moldspeaker, or if it mostly never happens.
I was really hoping that one pc would become infected, but alas - no.
Is there any real advantage to the party to have a moldspeaker in later chapters? Should I retcon one of the pc's getting infected?
I wonder if the first real indication that Dark Sun is getting 4e release will be at athas.org.
Here's the statement that is at the bottom of there webpage (has been for a long time):
"This site is recognized by WotC as the Official Dark Sun site on the internet. Content created on the official website is considered to be derivative work (as it is based on the intellectual property owned by Wizards of the Coast). This means that fan-created add-ons (such as new net books, adventures, etc.) are jointly owned by both Wizards of the Coast and the creator; neither can do anything outside the official website without the permission of the other."
I'm guessing that once Wotc decides to publish new Dark Sun material, this site will lose whatever license they have.
Yes, the spell darkness in the beta is much different than the 3.5 spell darkness (as is Deeper Darkness).
It functions as a negative torch, rather than giving concealment to everything.
I don't have a problem with it, but I don't know if it's going to be the same in the final product.
French Wolf wrote:
I've got a similar (recent) die quirk. I was cleaning out my shed about 9 months ago, and came across my original D&D dice from 1984 that had been put away untouched for at least 23 years. I've been using those almost exclusively lately. (except when I need extra d6's or d4's to roll damage).
I would (only slightly) dispute the "dice roll randomly", only from a physics standpoint. If you've ever seen the Gamescience dice booth at Gencon, they have a display showing a stack of d20 from Chessex versus a stack of their d20's. Apparently the polishing tumblers that most dice manufacturers use to smooth out the edges will wear the die faces unevenly, resulting in some faces having more surface area than others. This results in some degree of patterns in the rolls of any one die. It's probably on the order of some numbers coming up a few percent more often than others, and nothing to dispute in a game. (It's probably not at all related to the "this die comes up 20's more than any of my other dice" feeling - that's probably more superstition than reality.)
Charles Scholz wrote:
I actually just put together a pdf. You can find it at the bottom of this page: PFOGC Links
Chris Mortika wrote:
Wow. A little more bloodthirsty than I would expect. (Not that bloodthirsty is a bad thing, it just surprised me.) While I hate killing characters, I do understand that acting stupid can get you killed, and PFS is no exception.
Of course, taking down a spellcaster probably won't actually drop them to dead, especially at lower tiers. But it will probably make the players a lot more cautions for the rest of the adventure.
Doug Doug wrote:
Some very good ideas. I like the idea of letting the PC's shoot from a distance, but then adding pirates to keep the challenge up. I guess the other side of the coin might be that if the PC's fire from distance, all of the pirates could as well, with half switching to swords as the boats close.
So I'm running Perils of the Pirate Pact tonight, and in reading through the module, there are combats where the tactics are 'half the pirates engage in melee while the other half use their bows'.
As a player, the smart thing is to have your artillery concentrate fire on the players who need to be taken out first, then move down the target list. Somewhat the same with melee. Have two players flank an enemy to increase their chances of hitting (or provide support for the rogue).
I've always disliked stupid villains, but it strikes me that this tactic could take down party members, thus decreasing the "fun level" of the event.
So my question is, how do other DM's run combat? Do you use sound tactics, or do you run mindless minions? Or something in between?