Humans, elves, dwarfs, halflings, orcs, and much, much more.
Only filling a variety of roles, somewhat I guess for PC but mainly NPC. Why are all town guards human? Why don't you ever see a human miner? An orc rogue or halfling crusader?
Give me an orc samurai and you will have my dollar.
Heck, with the ARG out, give me a toolkit where I can cobble together my own (call be a traditionalist, but I think my players are not going to enjoy my chaos warriors of Tzeentch) and you can more of my dollars.
Heck, give me a war-wagon (ala hussite war wagon) so my dwarfs can fight in style and you'll have another dollar.
Give me creatures for my upcoming rokugan-inspired campaign (pulled from mythology or whatnot) and I'll give you more.
One thing I've noticed in preparing for that campaign is that with a very few brief exceptions, the stock of oriental monsters and npcs is fairly bare.
I understand this perspective but disagree. Unlike those who recently purchased the bundle, *I* have had the full use of the bestiaries for many, many months that they didn't.
It's a fair trade off to me.
This would have been the right course for our group, in retrospect the XP in the books didn't match the expectations of the next book.
I know I've been on Kyle for having an export to html function for the initiative window (so my laptop/tablet-equipped players can see it), but I thought I'd share with folks something else that may be useful to someone.
I got a Transformer Prime and oddly enough, there were only two programs I missed from my Windows laptop - Combat Manager and Hero Lab.
I looked into it and loaded up CM on a spare PC, then used the Prime's My Web Desktop program to remotely control the CM, then connected to my main PC to run HL.
The My Web Desktop program is better known as the Splashtop Remote Desktop and is available for $4-7 (Android Market, no idea about Apple Market) but worked well for me. I created characters from scratch, made encounters and whatnot and it was very responsive, even when I throttled my network connectivity to about 300kbs. I do admit that I look forward to getting my keyboard dock and mouse, because it'll make things easier, but even so, I found it very smooth to use.
Heck, I joined the club for Prime owners today and bought the THD version of the software and played Skyrim and logged into LOTRO (to check my in-game mail) on the Prime, which is what gave me the idea for using this for HL and CM.
So my fellow tablet users, it may be something worth checking into - although to be honest, I'd perhaps only cautiously approach it unless I were running a dual-core+ tablet, but if people are using any remote desktop software to run CM on a phone, no doubt many people would love to hear their experiences.
As for me, I've contacted the host player about using the basement computer to run CM and HL and allow me to stream to my tablet...which means that I won't need to lug a laptop around anymore.
Last note - I've mentioned Splashtop because that's the first remote desktop software that I've really played around with on my tablet (and mainly because of the Skyrim-playing buzz today), but I know there's other great and free software that would work like vnc (or be vnc) or that uses Microsoft's RDP protocol to connect and I'd encourage anyone interested in doing this to try those out.
P.S. Thanks Kyle, for 1.4.0. You rock, man.
I ran a WLD campaign that lasted almost a year and it was a fun experience for all of us, just like a recent Kingmaker campaign.
Just like that Kingmaker campaign, I'd never run another WLD campaign.
Kyle Olson wrote:
Again, from my perspective -
1) My players use Herolabs to track such things in-game, but if you were able to do this, then we'd switch to a CM method.
2) Individual webpages for each character in the Hero column (toggle it so it doesn't have to create one for NPCs).
3) Hey, if you want to make your program work via networks, I think there's plenty of people who have suggestions as to features - I think we discussed this before.
Why do I say self-refreshing webpages? Because it's platform independent and really wouldn't eat up any resources. Plus, for people who play via the Internet, it adds that capability without troublesome netcode.
So that's my suggestion - have CM output to a webpage and let us help each other out with DMs sharing it for their players. You can worry about other features.
I'd be very interested to see how it turns out - I have a tablet that I use in conjunction with my laptop, but then they players use laptops as well.
But if I have a refreshing webpage created that I can share (and I can handle that part), then it's gold for me.
Lava Child wrote:
Just guessing, but when it gets released (by Paizo or on d20pfsrd.com) then you'll see it in there since CM utilizes existing datafiles to add monsters.
Kyle Olson wrote:
If you do something like this, let us select the output location, so we can put it a public Dropbox folder or the like.
Page 141, Thrown Weapons?
Kingmaker is made for horsemen.
As others have pointed out, there's a lot of built-in components that make this the case and my advice is to embrace it.
After all, how many other campaigns will you see that have the capacity for such steed deeds?
Embrace it. Start giving the height of people and objects in hands.
Heh, a few months ago I started a thread with a pretty identical thread title.
Wasn't really any positive answer then.
Be happy to work with you on making one, because to me the domains system is more elegant than just using a class/archetype for each alignment.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Again, I'm the guy who said "Have at it -- a lot of people would like it! And then went on merely to say that I, personally (and some of my players) would not. If anyone is making general claims of Badwrongfun, please keep better track of who that might be.
Kirth, please correct me on this, but I think you've maintained that (essentially) people getting together to play should have some compatibility in style preference and if not, they should go their merry way. Call it a no-fault gaming divorce.
Personally, I think that'll lead to more happiness on all sides.
Which is the point.
As a DM, I view the rules as a set of common guidelines but not set in stone, as in a wargame.
Thus, I feel no hesitancy about altering a rule, providing that I have informed the player before the changed rule would come up in game (so no penalizing a player on the spot).
Again, I have no problems with doing so.
Sometimes I'll alter a rule to fit into the style of the campaign (as an example, in my current Kingmaker game, all of the PCs go the Leadership feat for free - this let them have some NPCs of their own to play with but I don't feel guilty when they aren't there to bail the PCs out of every tight spot). Sometimes it's to try something out (you'd be amazed how different the game is without Attacks of Opportunity) or to introduce an alternate rule (such as Action Points).
I find blind obedience to the rules as if they were holy writ to be offensive. After all, as it was pointed out above, humans make mistakes and since humans made the rules to begin with...
Let's be honest, we all know where this is heading (and I wish I had TOZ's wisdom) - before calling everyone poopy heads, it'll revisit the old "balance of power" edition wars from when 3e first came out.
Search for them if you're unfamiliar with the concept, but the basic consensus was:
1e - DM rulez, players drooolz. "You activate the trap and die. No save possible."
2e - DM's job is to keep the players from wrecking his story.
3e - Players and the DM are equals, although whomever at the table is a better rules lawyer is more equal than the others.
Which is of course, still as false now as it was then. Because people are still making the same fundamental mistakes of thinking the rules actually matter.
Which is as mistaken as thinking that hidden DM dice rolls or 99% fairness in rules application actually matter.
Altogether true. However, GM fudging of rolls that don't by nature need to be concealed was actually the thing that led me to start the topic. Particularly saving throws.
Please explain what you mean, because it still seems like a trust issue, or at best simply differing styles rather than a DM committing some grave sin.
Also, as a DM, there are rules that I've glanced at and know I'll never use because they'll continue the unfortunate 3.x trend of over-complicating things. (UC vehicle rules, I'm looking at you)
I don't think having a rule for every possibility is a worthy goal.
Ultimately it's a social issue and nothing more. Arguments involving rules mechanics (on both sides) are red herrings.
It comes down to what responsibilities you place on the DM. Is the DM responsible for rules adjudication? Is the DM responsible for weaving coherent plots? Is the DM responsible for maintaining the pace of the game, in play? Is the DM responsible for a large degree the party's fun?
And naturally, there are a bunch of other questions that could be asked regarding DM responsibility.
And they in turn answer where the player responsibilities are, although I'd say that all players have the fundamental responsibility of voicing if they are or are not having fun to the DM and why or why not. Beyond that, I think there's a responsibility scale - the more you give the DM, the less responsible the players are and vice versa.
And note, I don't think any combination of any of the responsibilities is the "right" or the "wrong" way to do - the best circumstance is where the entire group, players and DM, finds the balance that works for them.
Screens, hidden rolls, fudged rolls, etc. are nothing more than secondary considerations - the primary focus should be spent on deciding the responsibilities before bothering with specifics...which I think become unimportant once those responsibilities are decided.
As a player, I'm happy to play under any type of DM, save the following: The Novelist (if I lose my voice from yelling CHOOO CHOOO, I consider the DM a Novelist), the unjust one (if I see a neon sign over their heads that proclaims "Arbitrary", I consider them unjust), and the indecisive one (I support new DMs - but "experienced" ones who are terrified at making a ruling bother me, just as in real life).
So as a player, if a DM wants to make all rolls straight, fudge rolls, use a screen, don't use a screen, etc., I don't care as long as I'm having fun.
I repeat, I only care that I'm having fun. (Note: I'm only speaking in terms of me as a player in relation to the DM - I'm not advocating asshatery to fellow players just as I'm not advocating the same to the DM. If the other players or DM are not having fun, then not being a sociopath, I can't have fun either.)
If I'm not having fun then maybe I'll look at the reasons why not, but I guarantee you, at no time will I scold the DM screen and give it a good thrashing. And you know, I expect the same of the other players.
As the DM, I place myself as being mostly responsible for the entertainment (notice I didn't say completely) - it's up to me to keep things exciting, engaging, and downright fun. I see no problem with fudging dice if I think it'll make things more entertaining, I see no problems with showing the nat 20 that'll kill a PC if I think it'll make things entertaining, and so on.
And yet, my DM style is very much PC driven - I recently abandoned running the Kingmaker AP as written because I found it was too stifling, too constricting. I prepare virtually nothing before hand and place a lot of emphasis on the PCs driving things - it's their show.
In short, I am a dictator.
My players and I seem happy with the arrangement. I suspect that if my DMing style were different and everyone was still having fun, we'd all be happy too.
Because D&D is a social activity first and foremost, the most important single quality of a successful gaming group is trust.
My players trust me. I trust my players. If I'm playing under a DM, I trust the DM.
Otherwise, I wouldn't be playing under that DM.
I expect the same of my players.
Once you have mutual trust, then you see that the specific issues in this thread (and indeed the OP) are meaningless diversions.
Btw Jeremiziah, great thread idea - I've certainly gained a lot of insight from reading my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Thanks for making it.
Richard Leonhart wrote:
To me, this makes sense because if you don't need to breathe, then you don't need air (choking) nor do you need oxygenated blood to your brain (strangling) so I don't see the vulnerability to this feat.
Likewise with bleed and critical hits - the general rules explanation is that you lack the proper physiology for such a tactic - for example, if you don't have a brain or if your brain is diffused throughout the body, you can't single out one area for attack.
I agree. Short of having tons of feats or setting myself up as an uber-grappler, I'm not sure I'd take this feat because of the circumstantial nature of the feat (although I may turn it into a trait for my upcoming Pathfinder Rokugan game), but I'm glad we have some sort of strangling rule to serve as a base.
edit: use suffocation with this, and it's much quicker, but the spell alone might be mostly sufficient.
Were I to write something from wholecloth, I might start with the suffocation spell, slow the effects somewhat but use the mechanics as a base.
Which, I don't know, I may end up where the current feat is.
It seems to me that you quoted strangling rules in the very beginning of this thread.
Later, someone mentioned rules for avoiding choking.
Not sure where the confusion is.
I do agree that 1/2 CON is likely too long (although if you figure the average person is at 10 CON, then 25 seconds isn't stretching it too much - I could see escalating CON checks each round after the hold is employed, but then you balance "realism" with bogging down the game with yet more rules) but then, there are so many factors at play.
These factors include things such as how well the hold is made, the strength and experience of the person using the hold, the position of body weight, the physiology of the person in the hold, etc. Short of making some sort of Rolemasteresque chart, you have to sacrifice some abstraction in order to make it actually playable.
It's always a balancing act between playability and reality. In reality, grappling with someone who has a knife is usually a fatal mistake but in D&D hit points usually let you shrug that off. In reality, someone armed with a sword will prefer to use that rather than grappling with someone.
Indeed the only real advantage a stranglehold gives you over attacking someone with a blade is a better chance of keeping them quiet, but there are a ton of real downsides, the most immediate being that you've placed yourself in easy range of their weapons. Oh and I guess you could potentially take a prisoner alive, which is a factor, but even with D&D rules that's the difference between -4 to hit or not.
But again, that's my take. Should a player of mine want to strangle someone using the chokehold feat, I'd likely let it go with little if any modification - there's a balancing act. As written, I couldn't see myself wasting the feat choice for it (it takes too long against everyone I'd want to use it on - beefy fighter types with higher than average CON) but at the same time I wouldn't want to make it so good that it becomes the tactic of choice. So I don't know, I might cap it at 5 rounds or something, but I would never allow a player to cite the holding the breath rules to try to delay the effects of this feat to them.
Were I DM, I'd rule that the "Chokehold" is in reality a "Stranglehold" and thus the bit about holding one's breath doesn't apply.
From my judo days, there was a clear division between choking and strangling.
Choking was the prevention of air to the lungs, such as what happens when someone gets food stuck in their esophagus.
Strangling is the prevention of oxygen-rich blood from reaching the brain, by inhibiting the carotid arteries. This covers virtually all of the combat "choke" holds I'm aware of. Yes, you may be stopping the flow of air to the lungs, but the more immediate danger is the lack of bloodflow to the brain.
Chalk it up to language. Choke means something specific. Strangle means something specific.
Choke is often used to mean both.
And even at that, I wonder at how many people can hold their breath to maximum capacity in the middle of grappling, but ah well. It's D&D, not "Reality: The Game".
No, I got the suckitude of it, but saying that if it succeeds you've given a free PA to the monster, who doesn't have to attack you (and is therefore free to PA someone else) is disingenuous.
The feat is already terribad; no need to make up more reasons why that's so.
Did Caustic Slur get errata'd or something?
Seems to me that you are giving a foe that attacks you (the wisdom of that is up to you) power attack, but it has no effect if they don't attack you.
However in this thread, it seems implied that you basically just buff the monster and they are then free to go about tearing the arms off the sorcerer, but that's not how the above reads.
Is it different in print?
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
The forums will play when the devs are away.
Anyway, I've been thinking some more on this and I think I may be able to articulate where the disconnect is.
As I see it, it basically comes down to whether the standard monk abilities are dropped the second qinggong is chosen (to be later replaced by ki powers as desired) or that the qinggong retains all standard monk abilities until the option to individually replaced is made.
In the former case, then the wording on the qinggong is horribly murky, but it does seem to comply better with existing examples.
In the latter, then this is fully intended to be an exception to how those other examples work, but it isn't plainly said. This is a paradigm shift in how archetypes are viewed and potentially used (replace standard abilities with ala cart purchasing, while still retaining the ability to mostly mimic a standard). And again, cool but because of this, it needs to be explicitly stated.
I remember how underwhelmed I (and many others were) with the 3.0 ranger and how happy I was when AEG released the Mercenary Ranger class which provided a slight increase in power and ala cart purchasing. I feel the same way towards the monk - I'd love for the 2nd case to be true but hey, if they wanted it to be the 1st, so be it. I may end up house ruling it away.
However, I think they need to clarify it.
I don't participate in the PFS - is the qinggong legal for society play?
It's a fair point and something I'd thought when looking at it - is it replacing one feature or is it replacing multiple features?
Let me quote the first two paragraphs relating to the ki power:
Note "This replaces the monk class ability the monk gives up for this ki power."
That seems to suggest the multiple nature of the ability, while being singular.
One could argue that even in line with the rules for Alternate Class Abilities, it's simply pointing out that a qinggong can't have both the ki power and monk ability - the player must choose one or the other. (As per 1,2,3)
In context, that does seem to suggest that the qinggong is able to choose at the appropriate level to swap, as desired.
The second paragraph continues this line of thought, pointing out that a qinggong can replace non-ki with ki.
It is a fairly convincing argument.
I still think there's room for ambiguity, but you make a good case. Again, I wish they'd make some sort of clarification - if this is meant to be a somewhat unique (as far as I know) archetype (basically turning a set class into an ala carte one), then I'd want to see the writer's intent.
I apologize in advance for this post.
I trust we're all in agreement that the use of the word "can" in "A qinggong monk can select a ki power (see below) for which she qualifies in place of the following monk class abilities..." is problematic?
I've looked over the arguments and in my games, choosing to play a qinggong monk means immediately losing the 11 abilities, to be replaced with items from the list at the appropriate time.
In other words, I (sadly) agree with seeker's original argument. Yeah, I wish the qinggong worked differently and it was a true replacement for the Monk, but based on reading the actual rules, I can't agree that it is.
(And again, this is only for my campaign - were I to play in another DM's sandbox and they wanted to go with the majority on this, I'd have absolutely no objection)
Here's my reasoning:
I like to start at the basics and build to the end, thus let me set aside the wording of the qinggong for the moment and start with what it says about Alternate Class features.
(emphasis mine and formatting mine)
I broke down the sentences into numbers for easier reference.
1, 2, and 3 seems straightforward and simple enough. If you choose to take advantage of alternate class features (such as by choosing an archetype), then you swap out the specified class features. Likewise, 5&6 seem equally straightforward.
However, #4 seems to be the key to me. It says that if there are multiple class features, then all of the original class features are replaced with the new ones.
(And since I can't think of any published examples where there aren't multiple changes, essentially the second you choose an archetype/alt class, you immediately lose all the original class abilities, which are class features)
Now let's look at the troublesome part of the qinggong.
A qinggong monk can select a ki power (see below) for which she qualifies in place of the following monk class abilities: slow fall (4th), high jump (5th), wholeness of body (7th), diamond body (11th), abundant step (12th), diamond soul (13th), quivering palm (15th), timeless body (17th), tongue of the sun and moon (17th), empty body (19th), and perfect self (20th). This replaces the monk class ability the qinggong monk gives up for this ki power.
Even with the word "can", I don't see how any of that overrules or explicitely creates an exception to the rules regarding Alternate Class Features.
Why the use of the word "can", O Amazing Creskin?
I dunno, maybe the writer was being extremely polite that day. Maybe they wanted to cater to the players that like to nerf themselves, in which case they'd have the option of not taking any ki power, to the dismay of their comerades. Maybe it was bad writing. Maybe the class is meant to break the Alternate Class Features. The list of whys and wherefores are endless.
However, I'm not psychic and have never claimed to be.
My reading is that as soon as "qinggong" is chosen, then those 11 "standard" monk abilities are lost. However, they may be chosen later, if desired as per the alternate class feature.
Shisumo makes an excellent point regarding later text that includes the phrase, "Even if a monk selects a different ki power in place of a monk ability..." which I very much agree that one interpretation of it makes it seem that one has the option of swiping out a monk ability for a ki power, but it is not mandatory. The argument is then made that suggests that the Paizo writers would have to be some of the worst in the world to include that sentence without intending for the class feature to be optional.
I disagree with the quality of writing that would be required to write such a sentence and not mean it to give the qinggong player a choice, although it is a poor sentence.
After all, if the intent was to convey that should a qinggong monk choose not to take a ki power that corresponded to the equivelant monk ability at the appropriate level, then they could still take that ki power later than a "standard" monk, it would be badly written. (and no, mine is certainly worse)
On the other hand, if it was pointing out the optional nature of ki power choice, as argued by most in this thread, then it should address #4 in the overall rules of Alternate Class Features. It should explictly state that it is an exception to the rules.
And y'know, if that were the case, I'd be thrilled. You have no idea how much.
But what was the author's intent? Short of an official clarification, I don't think any of us can intelligently say.
After all, I think I'm right based on the rules for Alternate Class Features, others disagree and cite the specific wording of the alternate class feature.
Short of that official clarification, this is basically Schrodinger's Monk. I for one wouldn't say those in opposition to my interpretation are wrong because I don't see it as clear-cut.
However, I'd love to be wrong.
Someone earlier pointed out the parentheses used in a table over on d20pfsrd denoted the optional nature of it, but this was rightly pointed out to be unofficial.
Short of Paizo making an official clarification (and I hope they do), I can point to an auxillary official source that treats the qinggong exactly as I interpret it - Herolab, which as I understand is the official Pathfinder character generator.
Of course, while I'd like to think that the Herolab folks had the same discussion and asked Paizo about it, short of any statement to the effect from either party, I'd give it the same weight as d20pfsrd - unofficial interpretation.
But hey, at least someone else thinks the interpretation to be plausible.
tl:dr - I see nothing to suggest that qinggong is meant to be exempt from the rules for Alternate Class Features.
I can only speak for myself, but thank you for that bit of courtesy you'd like to extend.
I generally give my players free-reign to look at kingdom building thread for suggestions and whatnot, but would prefer (and trust) that they won't look at meta-plot threads, so again, I sincerely thank you.
enrious and Troubleshooter, please lose the snark. I was posting an opinion. If you have a different one, fine, but the snark is not called for.
Dude, you completely convinced me 100% that the spoiler tag is useless because you and others have decreed the Kingmaker sub-forum to be GMs only.
I was completely out of line in asking for someone to show someone else some courtesy.
In other words, you won.
This is you being a winnner.
You've convinced me. The problem is that the boards have the spoiler tags to begin with, clearly they're not meant to be used.
They should go, because they give the impression that hiding spoilers is in any way positive on the boards.
Hmmm, RD, THIS isn't your group by any chance, is it?
Snorter, I wish I'd seen your Poirot post earlier, that was classic.
In the book it basically says if the players don't find him by x day, he gets away.
That said, the DM looked to have been off the mark with the hanging and subsequent escape as the book doesn't say the guy can fiat his way out because he's anything special.
My read is it was a bad call by the DM and that maybe he'd rather just move on past it, which can't happen if you want to rehash it (by way of a solo session).
Not saying you're wrong, if that's the case. More of it simply being the way things are.
I noticed this the other day and thought some of you may be interested.
It's basically a project to create a handful of D6s, that could then be used to create a dungeon. If you pledge enough, you can get PDFs of the sides for use as battlemats and so on.
Looks kinda neat (I'm a fan of dice), although personally I have to be bribed liberally with beer before I will run a dungeon crawl for my players, thanks to the WLD back in the day.
And sorry, if this is in the wrong place. No, I'm not affiliated with the guy behind it (although I use his hex mapping program).
On the other hand, I really don't think that RC is a joke in itself. Lou agresta, a bunch of proofreaders, the Ling9000 (is that the correct codename?) sweated way too much over it to consider it a joke.
That's a very fair point, IMO.
Matthew Morris wrote:
The ability to hide/unhide a specific hex with the click of a mouse button is what made me switch to it for live mapping - plus it gives the player who is manually writing out the map a quick visual reference.
I gave my players the blank hex map and they use it to manually write down the exploration and as the DM, I use Hexographer to unhide individual hexes as they explore them (and it's hooked up to a projector).
Were I a player and doing this as you are, I would use the paper to write it down during the game and then use Hexographer between sessions to update - it'd probably only take you 10-15 mins to put in the updates.
It seems that most of the responses to you believe you to be the DM, rather than a player as your post suggests. For a DM, I'd say there's merit in using Photoshop to manipulate the map (I tried using Gimp at the table and it was adequate, but fussy compared to Hexographer) but were you a player in my campaign, I would probably not be ok with you having the entire map to start with.
I think going the paper and Hexographer route may be the best approach for a player.
But that's me.
I had the same experience as Cutter - every crash save one was when I was using the new ability to damage/heal via the menu.
The one exception occured when I had simply clicked on a monster, but I believe I had just finished using that menu.
Level of enthusiasm about this program after all of the crashes tonight:
This is a great program and will be evilgasmic when this bug is squashed.
Kyle Olson wrote:
I think it'd be nice to import in .stock files from HL - they're basically just multiple .por files in one.
I think the only thing on my personal list would involve adding items to the monster/npc list, such as with an editor and especially from Herolab/PCGen.
But honestly at this point, it's like asking for a cherry with a stem to replace the stemless one on your sundae.
I know that you feel like this is the worst system ever,
I'd appreciate it if in the future you didn't put words in my mouth, especially when it's not a sentiment I agree with.
Thus far, I see an increase in uniformity of characters, which if your goal is to have more cookie-cutter characters, that's fine.
And thus a downside to customization and creativity.
At the end of the day, I think this system is no improvement over the core on and I'd rate it worse.
But that doesn't mean I think it's the "worst system ever".
Good luck with it.