idilippy's page

Tangent: According to the rules for Acrobatics it doesn't cost a feat at all to move through an opponent's square, it is simply an acrobatics check at +5 to the DC as to move through a normal threatened area. Acrobatics link. It's odd to me that you're pointing out how you feel that is too strong of a benefit for a feat when it doesn't even cost a feat according to the acrobatics rules, but different people house rule different things. I know I house rule a variety of things I'm sure other people don't see a need to bother changing.

Edit: As for the main topic, I don't have anything strong to add one way or the other but I'm enjoying the discussion and seeing the different viewpoints.

Edit 2: Figure I should add the relevant text as long as I am talking about this, it's interesting to me how restricted acrobatics is when you look at it all, with the moving half speed and the provision on no acrobatics if wearing medium or heavy armor. Note: didn't copy/paste the table which gave the DCs to move through a threatened area (opponent's CMD) and through an opponent's square (opponent's CMD+5), or the text under the table noting that the DC increased by +2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round.

Except that the eel isn't a random encounter at all, it's an encounter set up in the AP, the DM didn't choose to put an eel there to screw over anybody. The eel was part of the AP in a logical place that an eel would use as a lair.

For me, having run a modified (heavily) Kingmaker campaign for the better part of a year and 3/4s I had a similar situation happen early on. One of the PCs, a halfling rogue, went off scouting on his own to try to get some extra gold or treasure of some kind he wouldn't have split with the party. He came upon a warg while scouting (at level 1 for the PC) and ran up a tree (smart PC) then peppered the worg with little arrows until it started to run off. At this point the little thief wanted to hop from tree to tree chasing the worg and keeping up with the arrow peppering, so I said ok and the PC promptly failed an acrobatics check to jump, ended up prone, and was eaten by the warg.

While the PC in my example pushed things further than yours, the lesson is the same, when you are facing a dangerous situation alone your options are severely limited, as is your margin for error. In the Undine's case the margin was as small as 3 rolls: a failed perception, a successful attack roll, and an inability to escape the grab. Lesson learned, PCs who scout alone far from the party have less contingencies for escape. It's sad that a PC died and can't be raised, but it's not GM malice or "BS", the PC put himself in the situation which could have been avoided easily, perhaps as easily as having a second set of eyes (another PC to make a perception check) or an ally who was close enough to distract and wound the eel once it had grabbed the PC.

I would add that there are playstyle differences. Some people prefer to play in such a way as their heroes are central to the story and plot and thus can never die. I, personally, have 0 fun with this method of gaming but a lot of people do. Having gamed with people who prefer this method, and disliked Kingmaker's sandbox where their PCs could, and did, find themselves over their head, I think it's important to talk with PCs at the start of a campaign about playstyle differences to avoid situations like this one. If you make it clear that PCs who do foolish things sometimes will die if it makes sense, then when it happens even if a PC calls "BS" (and some still might) you have already laid out for them exactly how things work. Or, on the other hand, you might find all your PCs want a world where they, by virtue of being PCs, are assumed to be a cut above and won't die except if they choose to do so for plot reason. In that case you can adjust the game appropriately or suggest a different DM, as I would do. The key is not to be condescending or superior about your playstyle differences, just acknowledge that there is a difference, try to compromise, and if that doesn't work just go your separate ways so everyone can enjoy the game they want to play in the way they want to play it.

Long overdue, but got a review up. This is one of my most used 3rd party products. I pulled out the War Creature template earlier in the year to beef up a couple of elite trolls for my Kingmaker game, and I'm looking forward to the time my PCs discover the Pyrrhic creations left behind by a slightly mad mage, or when the Riven Magic creature I've made sees the light of day. Thanks for publishing this book and all the other excellent products you've released!

I think some people are taking the Alexandrian blog the wrong way. The argument the guy was trying to make wasn't that you can only have NPC's below level 6, rather it was that below level 6 is where PC and NPC's still can model the real world and behave the way people in the real world do in situations. Thus, to calibrate your expectations you have to stop believing mid-high level characters are constrained by realistic physics, even the martial characters, and realize that they passed the limits of our world back at level 5-7.

He was pointing out that saying "Aragorn is a level 20 ranger" or "Einstein had to be a level 20 expert" and then being annoyed when the game allows them to do things they could never do isn't a fault of the system, but rather of the expectations of those playing it being off. D&D isn't at fault when you build a level 20 character and he survives falling off a cliff, or being immersed in lava, because D&D isn't simulating real world limits at level 20. It is perfectly ok for a world to have NPCs at level 10, 15, or 20 as long as the Players and DM understand what that means and don't constrain them to real world physical and mental limits.

Now, as to the actual topic of this thread, I personally think the NPCs in the GMG are not meant to be typical to everywhere in the world. All bandit lords aren't wearing a king's ransom in equipment, otherwise they'd all retire rich and happy, rather these NPCs are just blank slates with possible uses attributed to them.

If in your world you want the bandits in an area to be a weaker threat don't feel constrained by the CR 6 Highwaymen and CR 11 Bandit Lord. Make the average bandit a pickpocket(CR 1/2 rogue 1) or bandit(CR 1/2 warrior 2), toss in a couple Caravan Guards(CR 1 fighter 2) or Street Thugs(CR 1 fighter/rogue) as more elite members, and set a Burglar(CR 2 rogue 3) or Slaver(CR 3 fighter/rogue 2/2) as the band's leader. That's the beauty of the NPC Gallery, it's pages of pre-done stats that can be appropriated with whatever flavor is needed, usually by just swapping a couple skills, changing a weapon to one better suited for what you have in mind, and maybe swapping a feat or two.

idilippy wrote:

I allow, and even expect, that rogues built as thieves will attempt to skim off of the top when it comes to treasure, that's part of what the class can do after all. I generally leave it to my players to handle in character, with multiple perception checks for every sleight of hand attempt the rogue makes if this is a constant thing it will get found out soon, while if it is a once in a blue moon, picking the right spot kind of thing it doesn't really hurt the game in my mind.

So the rogue who is willing to invest a lot into sleight of hand can get a few extra coins, a gem or two, maybe even a potion or piece of magical jewelry, what's the problem with that? If you are playing with friends or at least friendly associates a few dozen or hundred gp difference in character wealth isn't going to cause out of character problems, and a rogue who pushes his luck will get caught and dealt with by the other characters soon enough.

Still, if the other players all feel that the rogue's thievery is hurting their fun, then it's time to go to the DM and the rogue's player, explain that his character's actions are infringing on their enjoyment of the game, and ask him to tone it down. Offer him alternatives, pick-pocketing NPCs, or keeping his frequency of skimming down but still letting him do it once in a while, something like that, and see what he and the DM say.

So you are fine with Fighters pressing money and Clerics charging money for spells they cast?

And he can get the reward for his skill investment by stealing from NPCs, just the thing the skill was designed for.

That's not quite the same thing, but I'd allow it(especially the mercenary fighter) if my players didn't veto the new character. I would also allow wizards who cast their spells when they feel it is appropriate rather than at the insistence of the party, characters being "a little slow" to defend others who they may have in character rivalries with, a cleric who refuses to heal someone who worships a god his is violently opposed to, and a whole host of other potential conflict points if they come from in character instead of out of character reasons and they don't disrupt the game.

The key is just to play with people who want to have fun and not be jerks. There are multiple characters who can pull off this same sort of skimming or self-serving behavior: the thief pulling the wool over the eyes of the party and helping themselves to a small nimble fingered bonus, the bard who negotiates the price of a gem up and "forgets" to mention to the party that he got a better price when it comes time to split loot, the wizard who shrugs and says he can't find anything magical in the pile of treasure then taking the plain gold ring as part of his share, the cleric(depending on the deity) who tells a rival character that he hasn't memorized that necessary spell today and leaves the character with a disease or curse, or the wizard who firmly tells the party he is out of useable mystical energy when he has a last spell or two held in reserve to save himself in case of an emergency.

Any of those characters could be excellent additions to a party of adventurers so long as the people playing them are not jerks. It is only when the game becomes a competition between players, or the in character conflicts become out of character, that there is an issue. In either of those cases, if the other players in the game feel somebody is ruining their fun and come to me(the DM) we'll hash out what changes to make to the disruptive character. So far I haven't had any complaints about the minor roguish skimming that has happened with characters, and pretty much the general response among my players has been chuckles and reminders to the rogue that their perception skills will win out eventually.

I actually don't believe that Raise Dead has as many consequences for a setting as the Antagonize feat has. For one, you need to be at least a 7th level druid to cast reincarnate, a 9th level cleric/10th level oracle for Raise Dead, or a 13th level wizard for Limited Wish to emulate reincarnate or 17th level wizard for Wish to emulate Raise Dead.

While there are high level NPCs, 9th level clerics of the proper faith to want to raise somebody aren't all over the place in Golarion, and Resurrection/True Resurrection spells are much, much harder to get access to as clerics of higher levels get more and more rare. Secondly, the price is prohibitively expensive, and coin is not enough, the cost must be paid in diamonds, which are rare and coveted enough in our world where they don't fuel resurrection spells.

Some things I do think would occur:

1. Diamond mines will be the most fought over pieces of earth on the planet, with the wealthy and powerful taking them. Diamond jewelry would probably be more of a liability than an investment, as all it takes is a couple desperate family members or less than scrupulous adventurers needing a resurrection to come along and rob or murder you for the bit of diamond.

2. Churches will be either controlled, placated, or put in high positions of many nations whose leaders want to gain the goodwill of the churches and ensure they are seen in a good enough light to receive a raise/resurrection upon their untimely death. Also raised/resurrected leaders will make succession even more convoluted than it usually is, which can cause quite a few problems.

And many, many more.

I don't care what Antagonize does in the middle of combat.

What should bother everyone is what it does to social encounters.

A roleplaying game can change the laws of physics and still work just fine. But if it contradicts everything we know about human psychology, then it has ceased to be a roleplaying game, because there is no longer any way to play a role. Your character is just a piece on a game board, with feelings and motivations that can deviate largely from anything humans experience in real life.

This is what I hate about the feat. Combat is bad enough, if I'm the best archer in the land I am not going to drop my bow and pull a belt knife when the dragon insults me, I'm going to unload on him with as many arrows as possible, but that's an easy fix in my opinion.

The social situation is where it gets utterly ridiculous. If I'm playing a diplomacy based bard who grew up as a noble and has been accustomed to the courts since childhood, not to mention having full ranks in sense motive, bluff, and diplomacy, there is no way in hell that I'm going to get so insulted in a King's court by someone with this feat that I run screaming incoherently in their direction with a melee weapon, or just my fists, and give them an excuse to discredit me in court.

And to quote a Pathfinder Designer.

"I don't know if you've noticed.. but poverty sucks!" - Still one of my favorite quotes on these boards.

You know what else sucks? Getting poisoned, cut by a sword, shot with an arrow, hit by a molotov cocktail, mauled by a bear, attacked by a shark, falling off of a building, scorched by a flamethrower, hit by a bat, trampled by a horse, charged by a rhino, being a thief, being a pirate, living at all in the middle ages. Oh, and dying.

You know what all of those things have in common? A low to mid level character in Pathfinder is expected to be able to do them without having to be as bad off as they would be in the real world, while a high level character isn't even inconvenienced by most of those. So "poverty sucks" is not an argument for purposely making Vow of Poverty a bad option.

I think you're being a little unfair to him Ashiel. You said, "Heck, make a character with 15 Point Buy, as you describe. Make him a decent warrior who's good with people. Then show us how it is supposed to be done."

He did that, he made a 15 point buy character who has decent potential for combat as a 1st level character while having decent people skills and above average(slightly) intelligence and personal magnetism. It's not a "correct" built because there are none, however it's outline meets the qualifications. Decent Warrior? He has a high strength and good constitution, so he can take hits and dish them out, and his low dexterity at 1st level just means he doesn't have to worry about how restrictive the splint mail he buys is compared to paying a premium for field plate of banded mail. Good with people? Well, he has a slightly above average charisma and a rank in diplomacy, so compared to the average man he can function better in situations requiring diplomacy. How you play this is up to the player, maybe he is just a man of impressive stature with a voice that makes you want to listen, maybe he's a beat up old sergeant with a face only a mother could love but talks and acts as if he expects to be followed, so average men do, or whatever justification sounds good to you.

Changing around the specifics of how you roleplay an advantage or disadvantage is different than ignoring it. If this same fighter had a 7 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy, but during role play spoke of his great leadership of the forces at X battle and is described as having dozens of noble women knocking down his doors as a DM, or fellow player, that would irk me. Heh, of course I could justify it as a DM by saying that in the first place his "leadership" was a front, he thought he was in charge but the men under his command hated him and followed his second command, letting the 7 cha/0 diplomacy player think he was leading, and in the second case the women knocking down his door were seeking his wealth and station but not him.

SKR, I am all aboard the role playing before mechanics issue, and agree that not every option can or should be the best one. My problem, however, is that the vow of X monk is a pretty well known character concept that is going to be completely worthless in any of the adventures or adventure paths that Paizo itself is publishing and pushing as their main "bread and butter" line of products.

To me it is wrong to say, "hey, here's this really awesome, flavorful option that will let you play that ascetic monk who travels the world with only the clothes on his back and does good works based on his faith. Oh, wait, you're going to play him in one of the Paizo adventure paths that our line of rulebooks support? Sorry, guess you should've picked a character concept that will survive instead of the one you thought had roleplaying potential."

Also, claiming that a monk with a vow of poverty is like playing a wizard with 8 intelligence or a dex-based fighter with 8 dex is frankly not a good comparison. A monk with a vow of poverty or who just happens to live with nothing but plain clothes and his fists is a fairly common theme and has been supported in the past, while the other two are not(a person who casts spells without knowledge or study is a sorcerer in Pathfinder rules, while a fighter with no coordination who tries to fight in a coordinated way is an oxymoron).

Finally, your belief that because the character is making a sacrifice the player should make a sacrifice is incomprehensible to me. If I make a monk with a vow of poverty I can't have any interesting items, I can't pick up or even hold treasures for other people, and I can't carry consumables, but I get to play the wandering man in a rough-spun coarse tunic, sandals, a walking staff, and a wide-brimmed hat that interests me. I shouldn't as a player also be forced to ditch that concept once we hit mid-levels and the rest of the party get tired of supporting my wandering monk with the vow of poverty who can't contribute to the Adventure Path anymore because I have no way of raising my ability to hit the enemy, avoid being smashed into a pulp, or resist an enemy's spells.

Anyways, I respect you as a designer and love your Forgotten Realms work and what I've seen of your Pathfinder work, but I have to disagree with you here. Something can be awesome, flavorful, and even sub-par without being impossible to play in the main product line of the rules it is designed for.

This is excellent stuff. My Kingmaker game is still in the first book but when I get to the kingdom building I'll make sure to use some of these events on my players.

@idilippy: What, like spending a wish on a frosted donut with sprinkles? =]

That and, Spoilers ahead,

Heh, those all look pretty ridiculous out of context, but if you've read the series you understand.