I believe it was the female scientist you occasionally see and Greer. That is why during the psych interview she said she had made some "good" friends while here.
But listen, I ran plenty of 2nd Edition adventures in 3.0, and that's an even BIGGER difference. The conversion was TONS of work. It would typically take me over an hour to convert a single monster or NPC from 2nd Edition to 3rd. I once spent WEEKS converting a 32-page module to 3rd Edition. But I felt it was worth it, just because I really wanted to run 3.0, and I really wanted to run certain 2nd Edition material.
This is, of course, all just my own distorted, myopic view. I'm sure other people have had different experiences that made them feel completely different, based on more evidence than I could even imagine.
I think the point people are making is that while you did alot of conversions for 2e to 3.x, you knew that you were converting and thus little things midgame probably didn't surprise you because you dealt with it already during that hour of time it took you to convert the monster. With a change from 3e to 3.5 or 3.x to PF, there are likely things that you would think are fine and then midgame suddenly realize something doesn't match. This is because they are little minute changes that add up when taken together. That is the point. Sometimes being too similar is actually harder to deal with than being very different.
If Wizards could revoke the OGL, they would do so in a heartbeat. The Game System License (GSL) was Wizards attempt to do this in a roundabout way (accepting GSL meant giving up your rights under OGL), but smart companies like Paizo made their save against the Dispell License spell.
Funny though, Goodman is back to selling it's 3.x Dungeon Crawls in pdf form as well selling 4e Dungeon Crawls. Seems as if they weren't exactly stupid themselves.
Semantics. Pathfinder's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion, just like 3.5's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion. It does not work very well in the same way that 3.5's didn't work very well.
Did you ever try to run a 3.5 adventure under PF rules ? How much time did you *have* (as in, was necessary in order to be used with PFRPG) to spend converting it ?
A bunch of little changes just goes to the point that Monte Cook's issues with the switch from 3e to 3.5 still applies to the switch from 3.5 (or 3e) to PF.
What were the core design goals of PF? They could have changed basically nothing, republished it with errata and new art and new page layout, and called it Pathfinder if they wanted. That they made changes means that the changes are fodder for criticism.
And then be slammed for not even attempting to fix anything that was wrong with the core rule set? Yeah, that would have been a bright move....
How about just failing miserably? The number one issue with 3.x was the unbalance between full casters and everyone else. This wasn't fixed in the least.
These are as true of 3.0 to 3.5 as they are of 3.5 to PF.
Except that Pathfinder is an 'alternative solution' for D&D 4.0E whilst retaining backwards compatibility with the existing game. If Pathfinder had "D&D 3.75 Edition" or whatever on the front cover (as opposed to just being described as that), I would agree. Instead, the cumulative changes from 3.0 to PF (via 3.5) are more akin to the changes between 1E and 2E, and therefore appropriate as per Monte's argument that such changes should be held back for a new edition.
Might I suggest the Thanemage out of the Advanced Player's Manual, if you are looking for something that is OGL (unlike the Duskblade). It shouldn't be too hard to bump up to PF, toss in wizard-like specialization and cantrips, and it should be fine.
EDIT: I would also say, if you find the term "gish" so distasteful, why not offer up an alternative term. Most people understand that "gish" while originally/technically only refer to gith fighter-mages, tends to refer to fighter-mages in general. It is a nice compact term. So please, if you want to complain about it, give a better term in its place, and fighter-mage isn't one.
I might also point out that you didn't say you owned the 3.5 Monster Manual. You should really try to get a copy of that if you are going to DM (or even play if you plan on being a summoner at some point). Worst case, get a copy of the 3e MM and then use the SRD to make updates in it for the 3.5 stats.
Always plan for about twice as many encounters than the party is likely to handle in a single session. This gives you some leeway to adjust things on the fly. The party avoids the lake, well that shark encounter has to be tossed, but likely you have an extra grimlock encounter to toss at them. Usually this doesn't require that much extra work in the long run since any encounters you don't use are just pushed back to the next session potentially.
Also keep in mind that one way to "boost" encounters is by increasing the number of foes.
A loose rule is that if you double the number of a foe, that raises the EL (encounter level, it is like CR, challenge rating, but for groups versus individuals) by 2.
1 CR 1 foe = EL 1
2 CR 1 foes = EL 3
4 CR 1 foes = EL 5
8 CR 1 foes = EL 7
Going farther than that won't really be meaningful. In fact I seriously doubt 8 CR 1's are EL 7, but I'm just trying to show how the idea roughly works.
So if you are running a slightly lower module, you can just bump the number of foes up to help better balance it for a party.
One thing to keep in mind is the illusion of choice. Just like in life, many of our choices are illusions. As a DM you may construct an encounter for the party if they are in a city that involves getting attacked by a group of gang members. Let's say the group instead of sticking around in the city decides to leave before this encounter occurs (they have no knowledge of it, just decide they want to go "adventuring"). Does that mean you toss the stats and all the hard work you did? No. Instead the party later gets attacked by a group of highwaymen that just happen to have the stats you made for that group of gang members that never occurred.
There is no reason for the players know that you just reflavored that encounter, and so they believe that their choice lead to it. Now that doesn't mean that allow choice is something that should be avoided. Let players make choices, but don't throw your hardwork out of the window either.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are more players than the DM, which means occasionally they will come up with ideas that you won't have considered. Most problems should be pretty open ended, you should avoid making puzzles and such that can only be bypassed in one specific way, and try to stop players from finding other ways around it. For example, there may be a door that requires a special key to open. A PC might have the stone shape spell and decide just to make a hole in the wall beside the door. You should not say, "The wall is immune to this magic." Let them do it. Maybe there was nice fatz loot with the key that they missed out on, that is their loss.
Also allow plenty of table talk, you'd be surprised how useful that is for a DM. Say the party is asked to look into a bunch of robberies that are occuring. The latest place that was robbed was a cheese shop, one of the players jokes to his buddy, "Hey it was probably Mickey Mouse that did it, ha ha ha." Mickey ... Mouse ... were-rat thieves! Later the party finds the hidden den of the theives and finds out they are were-rats, "See I told you it was Mickey Mouse!" The player thinks that they are insightful and makes them enjoy the game more.
Of course my problem is my wife plays in my group and she knows me to well. There was one session when the party was defending a group of pilgrims. They party was a bit away from the camp engaging a group of foes. At the end of one round I said they heard from the camp, "ding --- ding --- ding", at the end of the following round they heard, "ding - ding - ding - ding - ding". My wife quips, "Sounds like a halfling with a dinner bell ringing it in alarm." To which I shot her a look of How the Hell Did You ... She saw my look and busted out laughing, "It is!" The camp was getting attack by a second group of foes and the halfling cook was ringing his triangular dinner bell for help.
I love these threads. This one got me to make a degenerate serpent folk-abollar-psychic(empath)-soulknife to use in my Freeport Trilogy game. That half-illithid lizardfolk miniature will make a great representation.
That sucks. Do we find out in the end that Sinbad is really just a character in a computer program?
When I saw the ad for the Clash of the Titans, I thought it was for a video game. I don't know if that means that the effects have gotten better in video games, or that movies have become more "artificial".
@Pres Man: I like Rokugan Naga, statistically, and tweaking them to work with Pathfinder shouldn't be too hard. Are they Open Content, though? If so I think I'll just use them rather than go with a Yuan-Ti bastardization. :)
I am no lawyer, so be careful listening to me. But I believe the stats in Creatures of Rokugan is OGL, from what I could tell glancing at the text. You might have to rename, I don't know for sure.
beholder/gauth
Eye of the Deep (The Tome of Horrors)
Eyedra (Creature Collection 3)
carrion crawler
Bonesucker (The Tome of Horrors)
Carrion moth (The Tome of Horrors)
displacer beast
Coeurl (Pathfinder #22)
githyanki/githzerai
Krish-dharjat (Penumbra: Fantasy Bestiary)
Navigator (Penumbra: Fantasy Bestiary)
kuo-toa
Tsathar (The Tome of Horrors)
Slime Reaver (Creature Collection 2)
mind flayer
Abollar Template (Dungeon Crawl Classics #29 The Adventure Begins) + Psychic Template (Advanced Bestiary)?
slaad
Protean (Pathfinder #22)
umber hulk
Crabman (The Tome of Horrors)
yuan-ti
Serpent Person (degenerate and civilized, The Freeport Trilogy)
Zha’lari (Denizens of Avadnu)
Inphidian (The Tome of Horrors)
Asaatth (Creature Collection 1)
Gorgon, High (Creature Collection 1)
Savant Hydra (Creature Collection 1)
Samat (Nyambe African Adventures)
Saurian Template (Advanced Bestiary)
Sesheck (Bleeding Edge Adventure #2: Beyond the Towers)
Sevren (Bleeding Edge Adventure #2: Beyond the Towers)
Naga (Creatures of Rokugan)
New races are the most difficult things to fit into a game world. New spells, new classes, new feats... ALL of those things are elements you can add to a character during game play as you level up, but you only get to pick a new race once, at the start of a campaign. A proliferation of new race options doesn't really work unless you're in a situation where your players get to build new characters all the time, either because you build new characters each session or because your campaigns only last for a few sessions.
You only pick a race at the start of the campaign, or you have a killer-DM or the game doesn't last long? What a very ... un-Gygaxian viewpoint. Sounds like you are suggesting that games shouldn't have potentially deadly challenges on a semi-regular basis.
Beholder -> Eyedra (Creature Collection 3), basically a hydra crossed with a beholder.
Mind Flayer -> Abollar (Dungeon Crawl Classics #29 The Adventure Begins), basically a half aboleth template, doesn't have mind blast but can be put on a human and given levels of psionic.
Yuan-Ti -> Numerous snake races out there, I'll do a quick collection of what I have later tonight.
Githyanki -> Nothing comes to mind immediately, but as I collect the snake races I'll try to keep an eye out.
Monte Cook had the idea in Arcana Evolved that you could acquire the abilities of an exotic race gradually by taking levels in that race as if it were a class. It's a neat idea to make a monster playable at 1st level, but it breaks the suspension of disbelief, I think, to start play as a medusa who can't turn anyone to stone and whose snakes have only the potential to become venomous.
I think the idea was that the creature was not fully grown, so its abilities had not yet fully manifested. As it ages (gains xp), it learns to tap more into its latent abilities.
Yes, shield bonus does apply to flat-footed AC. You only lose your dexterity and dodge bonuses to AC when flat-footed. However, it's a common houserule to say it doesn't, and it makes sense most of the time. Just warn the players about the houserule ahead of time rather than springing it mid-fight.
pres man wrote:
Not according to every entry (at least everyone I saw) in the MM where someone is using a shield.
Actually, according to the MM, you do keep it. Check out the gnoll. 15 AC. That's 10 base, 2 armor, 1 natural, and 2 shield.
The question was "do you lose the shield bonus?" My answer was "not according to the MM", i.e. you do not lose the shield bonus. Sorry if my response wasn't clear.
Electric eels breathe air. They can drown. They live in the water and have a swim speed, but can't breathe water. They're what's known as obligate air-breathers; there's actually a fair number of fish like this. And they CAN crawl around on land... just not that well. They're pretty fascinating animals... moray eels as well, with their second set of jaws.
For all of the animals in this book, one of the things we required our writers to do was research the real world animal. That's why you have air breathing eels and crocodiles with sprint and death rolls and so on.
But they rise to breathe every 10 minutes or so, therefore they should have had the hold breathe feature, correct?
The FBI agent is, so far, the most interesting character to me. Conversely, her son is such a flat character; he's a very stereotypical teenager and doesn't offer much beyond overactive hormones and teenage rebellion.
I think the son isn't there to be an interesting character, but instead to be another difficulty for the FBI agent - being in the resistance and having her son working for the Vs. And eventually having to convince him not to turn her in when he finds something out. Or if they go really dark, having to kill him so he doesn't turn her in. (I'd have expected that from Battlestar Galactica, but with V, I'm guessing they won't go there.)
Thinking of the original, either he is going to get grabbed to be consumed and the agent will have to try to find him or he'll get impregnanted with half-V kid or both. I'm just waiting to see how they do the whole pregnancy thing.
That's the one thing I would like to see change in the APs — a little more time built in to the stat progression. From what I've seen in Legacy of Fire, this seems to be the case.
I mean, AMiB is right, it can be alright for some games, but it is not for me.
The problem is for APs, especially those tied to a setting that other APs occur in, is how do you deal with the interaction between different paths, and the events occuring within them, spanning decades? If the events are significant enough, their impacts are going to be felt around the game setting eventually.
In 1e your class was a job that was hard work to become and hard work to get better at (and costly). You needed trainers and money and time. Now "ding" leveled up!
Yeah, remember that totally awesome chapter of the Odyssey where they all took a month off and practiced their profession?
No?
Even thought HD stole a little of my thunder. It's not that you roleplayed these in 1e - we didn't. It's just under 1e the time was accounted for.
What is a point of character age in later editions? I can't find one. In 1e you sit down and calculate the age of an archmage assuming he started at 18 years old. In later editions you will find the archmage is well still 18 years old. How can the fantasy world be taken "seriously" if a 1st level no body nips out from doing his house chores for his mother, then comes back several weeks later a 20th level fighter? I'm not syaing on the job training isn't possible just given what classes in D&D present (elite training) it's improbable.
This is no way make later editions bad or not good or not as good - rather different in their focus. Your completely right if you read the Odyssey and see it as a chain of events one after the other then later versions of D&D will appeal. If however you read the Odyssey and get a feeling for the time and hardships then perhaps given 1/2e D&D a trash.
Suggestions and musings only,
S.
Out of game time is totally a function of the campaign and not the edition. In fact, 3.x has rules for characters aging and for crafting items, which would seem to indicate that time is in fact a very real part of the system. If writers of adventure paths and campaigns and such have all the events happening in the span of a handful of months, well that is their lack, not the system's.
Well the Ranger does have the other people in the party to keep between them and the monsters, and it can take a wide variety of things that they can use as mounts (Camels/Horses/Pony/Dogs/Wolves).
Yeah, but if the mount is too weak it dies at the first fireball that hits the party.
Druids are full spellcasters as well as shapeshifters. Do they really need an animal companion that is really powerful? Rangers on the other hand are either archers and thus need something to keep foes off of them or to ride around and shoot from. Or are two-weapon fighters that need someone to flank with or assist with to counterbalance the penalties to TWF. It would seem from a power perspective, it would make more sense for the Ranger to have the "full" animal companion and the druid to have the "half" animal companion.
if/when he comes out of his coma, i expect there will be some very "interesting" conversations during his questioning - however, as an outsier, looking in and seeing the news, it doesn't seem to fit the "profile" of a terrorist attack (no setting affairs in order, no message to loved ones, no message explaining why), but does seem closer to some kind of "psychotic break", spree-killing or "running amok"
I don't know about the US, but in the UK serving service people, while offered counciling and the like face a huge unofficial pressure not to take advantage of it, and it does lead to real problems. I've never worked with an offence at this level, but i've dealt with, at court, countless violent (and a handful of sexual) criminal offences committed by people just before, or just after, a tour of duty
as a sad asside, i worry how this will impact on other serving muslim soldiers across the west - you do hear stories about the racism they face, and this incident could make the situation worse
Indeed.
But he did plan this, to some extent: He gave away some of his possessions to loved ones before it happened, I think.
Or maybe he was just down-sizing since it was likely he was going to be shipped off soon.
Is the re-imagined goblin something like a Paizo mascot now? And who was the concept artist? Are we the goblins in this analogy?
Obviously not as we are not meant to play monstrous races, duh.
No you may play monster races. But now it is wholly in the hands of the GM. I myself loved the fact they killed LA. For one it did not work, and for 2 it gave the players and entitled feel that they had a givin right to play such races.
No a GM must look and go" Humm does this fit?, is t too powerful? should I give the other players a bit of extra gear or a feat to balance? or leave it alone."
Not a bad thing if ya ask me.
Yeah, we all know that. Just as we all know that if a particular group wants to all be animated chairs riding in their animated gazebo, then the DM could certainly allow that. That doesn't mean that is how the game was designed to be played. As I said, we are not meant to play monstrous races, not that it was impossible to do so.
I think the wife was already having an affair with Telford and thus why it wasn't so hard. I think that is what we are going to find out when he shows up at the door.
As for the morals of using someone else's body for sexual contact, if you don't have the permission it is a rape, just as much as if you had drugged someone and used their body without their consent. The lack of memory doesn't change that. Likewise, going and getting drunk in someone else's body is probaby also inappropriate.
Frankly if I was Young, I would not be switching back anymore. I would have a subordinate do so and report back, since each time he switches the person who takes over him tries to start commanding the ship. Of course that is why the whole wife thing is there to make sure he keeps coming back to earth.
Hide shirt and hide armor are both +4 armor. I believe the real difference is in max dex and armor pen., which are not very important. I might have missed Armmor pen.s altogether.
Hide shirt is much more expensive (90 gp, I think).
And light armor, right?
According to the RotRL Player's Guide, it's medium armor. Which means it would actually now provide a +5 armor bonus in PRPG games.
Now, whether it should remain medium armor might be an open question. Has that been errata'd somewhere? I think hide shirts were nominally intended as a hide equivalent to chain shirts (which don't feel very "barbariany") combined with hide armor. (roughly speaking)
The armor catagory is incorrectly labeled Medium.
James Jacobs wrote:
Yeah... the table has an unfortunate typo. Hide shirts are light armor; they're there to give barbarians some barbarian-looking armor that doesn't impede their speed.
You'll notice in the description it calls it clearly "light armor" and the speed is not reduced as a medium armor would. The CotCT Player's Guide fixed the misprint on the table.
Hide shirt and hide armor are both +4 armor. I believe the real difference is in max dex and armor pen., which are not very important. I might have missed Armmor pen.s altogether.
Hide shirt is much more expensive (90 gp, I think).
...we -need- meat if on the mere grounds that proteins of vegetable origin are comparatively poor in quality so yes, if you try to raise your children on a strictly vegetarian diet you -will- have a case of malnutrition, and criminal charges of child neglect...our organisms -need- animal protein to properly develop...
But I'm sure the "dietists" in your family know best. :rolleyes:
As I said, it can work, it is just harder to keep track of, something that is a bad idea for lazy, dumb, or busy people raising children (which is something like 99.9999% of the people raising kids).
As an aside, I was told in a class I took in college (ok it was weight lifting) that beans and rice both have incomplete proteins and that you need the other to complement it to get a complete protein. That is why you see so many ethnic dishes with both beans and rice. I don't know if this is true, don't actually care enough to verify it since I get plenty of protein myself (picks bit of dead carcass from between teeth).
Not to suggest that it is impossible to raise a child in a vegan style, but it is more difficult as you have to manage the proper nutrition more, especially if you are moron and don't even breastfeed the child when appropriate.
Eating meat is easier for dumb/lazy/busy people to help their children to develop properly. Once those children are adults, if they want to become vegan and be responsible for their own welfare, then that is a legitimate choice.
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.
Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, there's a popular theory that humans were not meant to be omnivores, but herbivores. Reasons: Our teeth, for one. For another, our inability to eat meat raw. Finally, our slowness. There are a buncha other reasons, too, but I can't remember them. :D
As opposed to our ability to process raw vegatation with our single stomach, lol.
My question: Do you see bonobos and chimps eating meat?
When it comes down to it, because of all the resources and chemicals that go into meat production (grain for the animals, water for the animals, water to raise the grain, pesticides for the grain, antibiotics for the animals, oil to transport all these resources, the amount of forest that gets destroyed to create grazing land), going vegan is one of the best things a single individual can do to help the planet, let alone their own bodies.
Then why did we evolve as omnivores?
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, there's a popular theory that humans were not meant to be omnivores, but herbivores. Reasons: Our teeth, for one. For another, our inability to eat meat raw. Finally, our slowness. There are a buncha other reasons, too, but I can't remember them. :D
As opposed to our ability to process raw vegatation with our single stomach, lol.
Skill points:
succubus: 9(8)+6(2) (84 skill points)
rogue: 15(8) (120 skill points)
*but remember the succubus is going to get an +6 Int boost eventually
Saves:
succubus: 5+2 = 7 in all
rogue: Fort +4, Ref +8, Will +4
BA:
succubus: 6+3 = +9
rogue: 9
Feats:
succubus: 5
rogue: 5
Ability adjustments over 12 levels:
succubus: Str +2, Dex +2, Con +2, Int +6, Wis +4, Cha +16
rogue: 3 points to be distributed by choice
At first glance, I almost want to say it is too powerful with this variant, not insanely so, but still. I would say given the number of skill points they get overall and the skills they have racial skills and their boosts to stats, the succubus would make a pretty good roguish inflitrator character.
*:
1d4+con hp
1/2 BAB
all poor saves
2+Int skills**
**The skills for the racial HD would be considered class skills for the LA or the first class's skills if there is no racial HD.
Because before the agricultural revolution, being an omnivore was a big survival advantage. No longer. Ten thousand years is an eyeblink in evolutionary terms.
From an efficiency standpoint, though, it is pretty self-evident that the higher up the food chain one goes, the less efficient the consumption of resources becomes. Think of it this way: Everything below us on the food chain is just a way for us to get solar energy in a form we can use; the more layers of inefficiency (steps in the food chain) that energy has to pass through, the more energy is lost.
True to an extent. Not all environments are suitable for "crop" growth. Some areas do not make farming a good choice, but there are plants that grow there, plants that are not consumable by humans but are by other animals. Having those animals go and graze in those areas, thus gaining access to "energy" that was "going to waste", that we can now consume indirectly by consuming the grazing animals is not inefficient.
A lot of vegans also quote the amount of methane gas that cattle release into the air, since methane is a greenhouse gas.
Damn those cows! They need to stop farting!
Yeah, I always laugh at that one. Personally, my thought is that the cows exist, they're going to fart whether we raise and eat them or not. So really, trying to blame global warming on another species' flatulence, and using that as a reason to guilt trip people into changing their diets, is in my opinion misleading and underhanded.
I only included the factoid because it is in most vegan's arguement for people going vegan.
Except that if we weren't going to eat them, we wouldn't raise them so they wouldn't exist.
** spoiler omitted **
So because we stop raising cattle, the entire species is going to disappear? I don't think so.
It would likely decline due to natural predation. However, it would also create huge populations of feral cattle. I saw this on Life After People.
If we didn't have any use for cattle, they would probably be killed off. People can talk all about how much they love animals, but if they are vegan and gangs of cows are tramping through their soybean farms eating all the plants, those vegans would be for the culling of the cows. Would they go extinct? Some breeds probably would, while the more "exotic" ones (longhorns?) would probably still survive in some kind of protected environment. Much like the american buffalo (bison) has, though I think the numbers have started increasing more since people started considering eating them.
One thing that always cracks me up is when someone says, "Eat Organic food". I thought the stuff I was eating had carbon in it, was I wrong?
Let's help the environment. Tell the greenies to shove it and allow us to build more nuclear power plants. These are reliable which solar and wind is not, have a much less effect on the ecosystem and are not tied to geographic location unlike hydropower. And they give off zero greenhouse gases which coal and other fossil fuel planets do not. Come on, if a bunch of french guys can do it, what is stopping us but an irrational fear? If you care about the environment, then you should support nuclear power.
Because Chyrnoble (sp?) is an irrational fear?
Being locked into fear because of a single disaster is irrational. It is like being bitten by one spider and suddenly being terrified of all spiders.
ChrisRevocateur wrote:
Yeah, I know that they have increased the safety of nuclear plants so it's not as likely to happen. But we increase the number of plants, and have them run for a time, and that safety increase isn't gonna mean squat, because it's going to happen sooner or later, and personally, I don't care HOW much energy is produced, or how "clean" the energy is, it's not worth a meltdown. It's not worth creating a dead zone that will last 50 years, and cause horrible mutations for another 50-100 years after.
Actually the area around Chernobyl is thriving with life. Mostly because there are few people around which is the number one killer.
ChrisRevocateur wrote:
Not only that, but I am kind of a paranoid conspiricy theorist, and I definitely don't rule out the possibility that nuclear powerplants can (and are) used as a cover for covert nuke making. Do I think it IS happening? I have no clue. Would I put it past our (or any other) government? Heck no.
Nuclear Energy - Myths and Realities
Nuclear Power has been in decline since the TMI accident in 1979. In fact US nuclear plants are producing 50% more energy than they did in 1980. Nuclear orders appear imminent as plans for 31 new reactors have been announced.
Nuclear power is dangerous: radiation emissions and potential accidents are intolerable. In fact there have not been accidents in the US that harmed the public, and only one accident world-wide for a design and operating procedures that would not have been allowed in the US.
Nuclear power is too expensive. While expensive to build, it is very inexpensive to run, and can run continuously. That is why when other fuels get expensive it will be only logical to turn to nuclear for more energy.
Nuclear power generates intolerable amounts of wastes. Per unit energy, the volume of the fuel and the plant is the smallest of any other power source.
Nuclear power will lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. The fuel used in nuclear power plants is not suitable for bombs as it enters or leaves the reactor. There are lower cost options to weapon materials than nuclear power.
Nuclear power is useful for electricity generation, but cannot help meet the transportation energy sector needs. Nuclear (heat and hydrogen) can in the near future lower the carbon intensity of heavy and unconventional oil extraction and refining. It can recharge car batteries or fuel cells in the future
Let's help the environment. Tell the greenies to shove it and allow us to build more nuclear power plants. These are reliable which solar and wind is not, have a much less effect on the ecosystem and are not tied to geographic location unlike hydropower. And they give off zero greenhouse gases which coal and other fossil fuel planets do not. Come on, if a bunch of french guys can do it, what is stopping us but an irrational fear? If you care about the environment, then you should support nuclear power.
At that point, why not just create a monstrous progression with racial HD?
Because that's a metric ton of work. :P Like we said in the PF monster PC threads.
Really, because I knock this out in very little time. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is necessarily a good progression, and I think probably a couple of the LA's can be knocked off, and those that are kept could have the stuff I listed at the beginning of this thread. But it wasn't anything like a "metric ton of work".
Spoiler:
Level 1: HD, +5 Natural armor, claws, darkvision 60 ft, Int +6, +4 listen and spot, detect good
Level 2: DR 5/cold iron or good, immune to poison, Cha +2
Level 3: HD, wings (glide only), Con +2, detect thoughts
Level 4: immune to electricity, +4 listen and spot, Dex +2, change shape
Level 5: HD, wings (average), Cha +2, summon demon
Level 6: +4 Natural armor, resist: acid 5, cold 5, fire 5, SR 18, tongues, Cha +2
Level 7: HD, Str +2, Wis +2, suggestion
Level 8: DR 10/cold iron or good, cha +2, energy drain
Level 9: HD, telepathy, Cha +2, charm monster
Level 10: resist: acid 10, cold 10, fire 10, Wis +2, Cha +2, Greater teleport
Level 11: HD, Cha +2
Level 12: Cha +2, ethereal jaunt
I'd also suggest allowing the character to be an "apprentice" (see 3e DMG) in their first PC class, until level 13 when they gain the full benefits of it.
A normal ogre is a CR3 monster, but it's an ECL 6 PC, so before class levels, a player running an ogre should be able to take on three of her exact clones by right of being an ogre. Which, of course, is nuts.
Sorry, your statement is a bit deceptive here. A PC ogre is going to have better stats and better gear and unless you are doing duels/arena fights a party to back them up. True, it is a bit off and perhaps the LA should be reduced or even removed (stick only with racial HD), but not as badly as your "by right of being an ogre" statement would seem to indicate.
Viletta Vadim wrote:
An orc Druid and an orc Barbarian are both orcs, despite having completely disparate ability sets. They're still nothing alike.
Nothing? Light sensitivity? Darkvision? Stronger than their human counter-parts? Dumber than their human counter-parts? I think they have some similiarities.
Viletta Vadim wrote:
Again, you're getting way too caught up in that one representation in the MM. You're decreeing that this thing from the Monster Manual is the one and only true succubus in the universe, that there can be no other, that any deviation ceases to be a succubus, or is a lesser succubus, and it cannot be tolerated.
You seem to be getting a bit riled up here. Let's all take a deep breath. No, there are certainly different versions of a succubus, some have class levels, some have more racial HD, some have not fully matured (monstrous progression possibly). What I am saying is I am not interested in making the base stats totally different for each individual succubus, which in the end makes things like Knowledge (Planes) meaningless or worse utterly ridiculous.
When a PC in my game visits a Demon-Lord who has 5 succubus concubines, are those concubines going to be based on the MM stats (with some modifications: class levels, outsider HD, etc) or am I going to make unique stats for each and everyone? Well, I am lazy, that is why I use a MM, so they will be based on the stats in the MM. Then the question becomes does the PC version "fit" or is something so different that it would qualify as an entirely different race? I also have a hard time telling a player, "You are going to take levels in a PC class, but you HAVE to use this class with these modifications." At that point, why not just create a monstrous progression with racial HD?
Which is pretty much what mine and perhaps others problem was with it. If the PC "succubus" doesn't fit with the NPC succubus, then there is a problem. As I said, I thought it would work good for a special type of tiefling, a succubus-touched (now you don't look at me like that) being. Doing work arounds (I said WORK), isn't much different than playing a human and taking various classes and feats and calling yourself a "succubus".
... and don't need to be picked on when I'm in the mood for a salad.
You get taunted for eating a salad? You must hang around some strange people. Last night, we had two guys eating salads at the game (6 guys total), and nobody made fun of them. You sure those folks picking on you aren't doing it just to pick on you (that is they don't give a rat's ass about your salad).
