|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I went through the list of monsters and where their stats are found (so I know which books to bring / which pages to print off the PRD) and which Pathfinder Pawns I need. I still have question marks by Imanish (who doesn't seem to have a token in the Mummy's Mask pawns or the Bestiary 2 pawns his stats come from), Beheaded and Death Dog (don't have Bestiary 4 pawns yet) and Skeletal Jackals. If the Sahuagin and Giant Crab pawns seem weird, that's because they're supposed to be, so they're obviously stand-ins.
The page is here on Google Docs.
Gotta love that two year necro just to take a snipe at someone.
It wasn't really a snipe. Since this is what comes up when you search for Kasatha pathfinder on Google (as I did when the player's guide mentioned them), I figured I'd make a note that that has changed.
James Jacobs wrote:
Which makes it funny that the Iron Gods Player's Guide says that a small number of them exist on Golarion and that they are important to the story.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Once again, they were speaking draconic. He didn't know a word of what they were saying, only that people who had been fighting a minute ago were speaking a strange language at each other. In a world where speaking in a strange language is a common prelude to a fireball coming out of midair this isn't always the best sign, especially for a character without the "knowledge" of a monster's capabilities, or a decent spellcraft.
If you're going to ask that a wyvern not attack an armored troop of individuals walking through the forest, which is a common prelude to a fireball coming out of midair, I think we can ask that a paladin not attack a creature his party is talking to, in any language.
In any case, that's irrelevant. If the paladin attacks a creature his party is talking to, ignorant or not, if that's known, other creatures will be hesitant to parley.
Nathanael Love wrote:
That's my point. . . the OGL isn't super restrictive for asking you to not do things that you already can't-- the OGL asking you not to use anyone else's IP or PI including places, logos, ect, ect is really just reiterating something that already exists. . .
That assumes something still under argument. I contend that Boneshatter has no protection for pretty much anything but the literal words.
You can use Greece because its a real place, Ruritania, Sherlock Holmes, and Dracula because they are public domain. That's something completely separate entirely, and its not really applicable.
I don't see where the OGL says that. Either it applies only to things that are declared as Product Identity, or it seems rather unbounded.
And you did not check Sherlock Holmes, because he is currently the subject of a US lawsuit about to what degree he's in the public domain. The ultimate result, IMO, will be that the copyright on Arthur Conan Doyle's post-1922 stories will be reaffirmed, but the use of that copyright to control Sherlock Holmes as described in the prior stories (all out of copyright in the US--works prior to 1978 being protected in the US by year of publication, not life of author) will be denied. The estate has a valid claim in the US to Sherlock Holmes as represented by all the writings of Arthur Conan Doyle taken as a whole; does that make him Product Identity and hence off-limits for OGL works? (At least in the US, or does their ownership resound world-wide?)
Nathanael Love wrote:
Set stories in Greece? Ruritania? Publish Dracula or Sherlock Holmes? Can we not use logos of the SS or the New York World? Everything you mentioned, except for careful use of the Coca-Cola logo, would be prohibited by the copyright and trademark laws of most nations. What's the border line look like?
I would say that people who don't honor parley are likely to not get parley honored. If the bandits are talking to the paladin's party, and he runs up, they have every justification to strike down his party. They invade some neutral cloud giants territory, the fact that they broke parley before will discourage the giants from starting with anything but an attack.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Ghostwalk needs to be treated exactly the same as any copyrighted work, i.e. you need to not plagiarize from it.
Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different things. You can use ideas from a work in a way that could get you punished for plagiarism at a university, and not be infringing on copyright. You can copy entire books illegally and not be plagiarizing if you give appropriate credit.
Treat Ghostwalk the way you would George RR Martin's SOFI series, or DC comics latest issue of Superman, or the movie "Seven", or the songs of Wu Tang Clan. . .
None of which are closely parallel to the case at hand. Pure fiction has strong protection; game rules has little, and names have none. There's two questions; one, does calling a spell that does the damage it should considering its level Bonerattle amount to copyright infringement? I don't think it does. Second, does it violate the OGL? I don't know. Certainly the OGL goes further about protecting names and stuff then pure copyright law would let them.
Clearly speaking. You cannot tell negotiation, surrendering, or much of anything when you hear people speaking in a language you can't understand.
Really? Because exact posture might change, but the surrendering party not holding weapons, probably having laid them on the ground before them, and keeping their hands where they can be seen strikes me as a classic for good reason. Perhaps some places there's social conventions that make surrendering easier, but not between a wyvern and an adventuring party, and if so, the paladin would have known of them.
Not to mention that these are people the paladin has traveled with 24/7 for months. You're telling me he can't read his party members well enough to tell whether they thought the wyvern posed an active threat or not?
Steve Geddes wrote:
Do you think Bonerattle counts as IP?
Huh? The concept of "IP" is just not helpful here; there's copyright and trademark rights that I went over above, and then there's patent rights (irrelevant unless WotC patented it) and personality rights and whole bunch of things that are completely irrelevant here. What laws are you asking about?
Trademark. You trademark names. To quote the US Copyright Office FAQ:
I don't think that copyright would ever apply to spell names or monster names or anything of the sort, unless you're going ridiculously long. "bonerattle" is not copyrightable, and I believe that the way WotC has not actively used it in a decade and then only as a small part of one book would preclude them from winning on a trademark claim.
Steve Geddes wrote:
What was the effect of the publisher declaring Bonerattle to not be open game content? If it can be used in a subsequent OGL product anyway what is the difference between open game content and material which isnt open game content?
It protects anything that's copyrightable that isn't open game content. Fiction is pretty classic copyrightable material. Games rules are a lot more hairy. There haven't been a lot of precedent, but I would believe if you take what the players do as akin physics rules, and what the books say as akin to (clearly copyrightable) books about physics, you might get the legal distinction. OGC is also basically non-trademarkable, since you have to exert quality control over your licensor to not lose a trademark you license out.
Personally, I don't think bonerattle has much legal protection; the idea of rattling someone's bones is not original in the least, nor calling it magic and adding on a mechanical damage amount doesn't make it more original. I'd rename it, avoid any literal text and play with the numbers, personally, to stay legally clear.
(And, yeah, amateur lawyer who is not giving legal advice, and I'm more familiar with copyright rules then trademark.)
The Block Knight wrote:
Or perhaps writers should just save these sorts of stories for a rainy-day-future, a future in which all of humanity finally achieves a reasonable level of common sense.
Were complaints about the Birth of a Nation just a lack of common sense? Or should authors listen to how their stories resonate with the society around them?
pH unbalanced wrote:
Like Ursula K LeGuin's EarthSea books?
I haven't read the Earthsea books, but looking at plot summaries, the plot summary of The Other Wind makes it pretty clear the Kargs are people who can play protagonist roles, not monsters. And having read "The Word for World is Forest", I can't imagine trying to read Le Guin without hearing the cultural echoes, and I think she intended that we should hear them.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
JRR Tolkien was heavily criticized for having orcs be dark-skinned with animalistic features. When asked about how this was a potentially racist image, he said something along the lines of: They are ORCS. Not PEOPLE. They are intended to be monsters to differentiate them from people.
Imagine a fantasy epic where all the good races were dark-skinned and the bad guys were pale-skinned, where the author dismissed concerns about the latter as "they are monsters". That would make me uncomfortable, and if I read it, would have to accept it with the racial undertones that were obviously there.
I tried the baseball card storage system, but they didn't work out for me. So I bought a plastic ArtBin box and balsa wood at my local art store and built a container.
There's about 300 medium size pawns in there, and 25 large pawns. I've decided to keep my bases separately, and I don't have a plan right now on what to do with Small or Huge pawns. Once I get them sorted, it should keep most of the pawns from the NPC Box easily available.
I hear how real world bases break immersion and don't make sense, but I see a lot of D20 fantasy as being a close real world analogue, except that it's a real world analogue of a very localized area. Like... a super-idealized England/Spain/France area with the conventions of a Renn/Medieval festival, occasionally with a vaguely Norse nation somewhere on the borderlands because viking raiders are awesome.
But that's not a close real world analogue; that's three nations and the conventions of a Renn festival hardly correspond to that of any of them at any specific time. Galt corresponds to a very specific decade in French history. If you look at Tien, it's not some super-idealized east Asia area; there are close copies of Vietnam, immediately post-Maoist China, etc. It makes the pieces stand out more and feel less as an organic whole.
(Golarion is not the only place this is problematic, as other D&D settings suffer from this to some extent. A Traveller book called "101 Religions" also very much frustrated me for having Judaism with the serial numbers filed off, Judaism with the serial numbers filed off, Judaism with the serial numbers filed off (yes, three times), Speakers for the Dead (no filing done), worshipers of Levis Repsley.)
I was looking for a god for my cleric; maybe darkness domain, maybe madness domain. Then I found Tsukiyo, which is both. My only problem is that the description in Dragon Empires Gazetteer is pretty terse; there's no much more then http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Tsukiyo . Any advice on how to play a worshipper of this jade god of the moon and spirits?
When my players are... I no longer feel bad for DMs who hate on whiny players, also i have results about the entire party of wizards thing
One comment after all this hullabaloo? Expecting players of a certain age to RTFM is hardly onerous nor unreasonable.
I'm pretty sure that none of us could ace a serious test on the Pathfinder rules system. Even at a lower level, I can't recall a single college class that's actually made it through a textbook the size of the core rulebook in one semester. That's a heck of a commitment you're demanding from people to play the most popular RPG on the market, and I suspect if people were held to it, it would no longer by the most popular RPG on the market.
When my players are... I no longer feel bad for DMs who hate on whiny players, also i have results about the entire party of wizards thing
This thread really has no more reason to exist for discussion of my actual campaign, but more along the lines of when it is okay for a DM to stop doing his players favors.
What is "doing his players favors"? You should work for the game to be the most fun for everyone. If doing them favors makes the game more fun for everyone, do them favors.
I find that DMs like being hardasses better then players like playing with hardasses. I know some people like to make every victory count, but I think there are a lot of beer-and-pretzels gamers out there who just want to play without stressing out over every tactical detail.
I know that last week, had I as the GM known that our fighter was starting the day down 10 ST, I would have pointed out that the cleric should have memorized Restoration and done something about it. It was the players' mistake and she (and probably he) should have known better, but that didn't make it the frustration it added to play any more fun.
I could see keeping a bunch of lvl 1 monk/ lvl x rogues on board just to fight off such a beast (say, statistically, 20 of them... ensuring that the kraken will be stunned for one round allowing full on sneak attacks until that rogue's next turn).
I think this is one of those cases where acting as if the game rules are the world rules get silly. In game, a 5% chance of something ridiculous is usually fine; outside the table, I think the world has more realistic probability curves, so a 1st level NPC monk has effectively zero chance of stunning a kraken.
In APs, they usually have some stuff in the bestiary that's not in the adventure itself. The Prince in Chains is just one of them. I find him unlikely to show up here, but you can if you want. He is, however, an adventure that's likely to be a lot cooler for the GM then the players, assuming they don't know who or what he is.
On a separate note, the Danse Macbre was less then fun for my party. He dropped half the party through failed saves, so half the people got to sit there and watch the other people in the battle. Save or be incapacitated is problematic.
VM mercenario wrote:
Which is not the case in that quote.
I can't buy a paladin where people who know him can't trust his word, where they're forced to parse his statements like they would a devil's. I can accept lying under coercion much easier then technically not lying on a day-to-day, uncoerced basis.
"There are broken things in 3.5's utterly massive amount of splatbooks and extra material" is in no way equal to "Pathfinder has broken classes".
Saying that "none of Pathfinder's official set of classes is broken" is not equivalent to saying "there's no such thing as a broken class."
The "broken" classes comes from when someone is better at optimizing than the rest of the players.
Certain patterns in what those who are better at optimizing are playing is irrelevant, of course.
I had a 3.5/Pathfinder mix game. High power. High Min/Max. I told them to bring it on. I had a cleric who took my PF conversion Paladin Prestige class. He had a 3.5 feat that let him memorize wizard spells(Sword of the Arcane Order). He was a full Cleric caster, with Paladin abilities, and he could memorize wizard spells. I was ok with all of it. Had no issue... except for one thing. He had really REALLY good AC. It was hard to hit him.
So there are broken game features. Good to know.
I talked to the player. We came to a compromise.
I.e. do the stupid thing, what your character wisely wouldn't do, and what you weren't planning on, for metagame reasons. It's hardly a position without drawbacks; as a player, I'd rather have free reign from a restricted selection then have the DM shadow my choices later.
Most classes will be fine.
That's virtually equivalent to saying that there are broken classes.
When did Thron become the Prince in Chains? Was it before or after the Age of Creation?
When Zon-Kuthon came back from where ever came back from. Besides the fact that it was before Starfall, I don't think they've specifically said, and they haven't bothered to be consistent about that period of time; all we have is various stories, similar in some ways and dissimilar in others.
remember that someone that has a 7 int has a IQ of 70, with that IQ they would be lucky to know 1 or 2 skills trained after that they would be untrained in almost everything. Its not the skill points that need to be changed its the ability for people to dump stats that needs to be changed, think if someone had a 70 IQ would anyone want to adventure with them for any amount of time, would you want them on watch at night or watching your back?
INT has no clear connection to IQ, and certainly not a simply * 10. One in a billion is six standard deviations; there's no reason to expect any human on Golarion to have above a 100 + 6 * 15 = 190 IQ. But human characters with 20 INTs are a dime a dozen, not unique.
If 10 is an average stat, then "no dump stats" means that you can't have a character who is subaverage in any way. That's quite a limitation on character concepts.
Because CR's are just a very loose guideline that's not very good (better than in 3.5, but still hardly what I'd call reliable.)
Which doesn't really answer my questions about level and XP, or even CR. And of course CRs aren't very good if you have a character labeled as 1st level in a "can't-be-broken" class that gives them DR 15/- and BAB +10. CR and level are based around the concept that power level can be quantified and thus there can be overpowered classes.
There is no such thing as a broken class... only broken games. Any and Every class can be the catalyst for a broken game if allowed to do so. Its the job of the DM to make sure this doesn't happen. If you police your players its impossible to create a broken class.
I do police my players; I don't let them take broken classes. I completely fail to understand why you would play a game with this elaborate system of CRs and levels and XP if you didn't believe that it mattered.
In real-world mythology, Devils are original fallen angels while Demons are the result of the death of the offspring of Angels/Devils and Humans.
In what real-world mythology? I find little evidence that devils, plural, exist in standard mythology; Devil usually uniquely refers to one being.
On a side note, the whole Angels/Devils mating with humans (typically females) is the origin of the tradition of women covering their heads and faces in the Middle East; to hide them from higher beings that would covet them.
I don't buy it for one second. Perhaps that's been put forward as an excuse, but the real reasons are sociological, not mythological.
Terminal velocity is 60/mph varying slightly by wind resistance.
It depends on the creature, but human skydivers hit around 55 meters per second (120 miles per hour), unless they're actually trying to gain speed.*
* http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=15562
In my current campaign, I keep reading these morale blocks that tell me when the NPCs will retreat, and I've learned to ignore them. Very rarely do NPCs foolish enough to interact violently with the PCs survive to get away. I'm not sure I'd expect much more if the tables were turned.
So how does anyone know how many spells a cleric (or sorcerer) has left for the day? OR that a cleric can covert spells into cures? would they know that?
Because they can count. Because they aren't stupid, and they've probably talked to other professional adventurers or clerics before.
You can simply say i dont have spells left for that, Im sorry,
Yes, you can lie to your party members. I don't see why you should expect them to back you up when you need help.
By not healing you are doing wrongbad things?
Many countries have "duty to rescue" laws that make your inaction criminal, even for random strangers. Failing to provide assistance (at no cost to yourself) to people you are thrust into life and death circumstances with is pretty bad; I think soldiers and police officers have killed their own for that action.
so if someone is injured, I MUST heal them because Im the cleric, so I can NEVER cast my flame strike or earthquake or whatever I MUST convert it into healing?
I see the strawman is out in full force. I clearly said "There's a lot of tactical choices that get left to the player, but if the character has daily resources left over that could help the party, if you're part of the party, you have to use them." It's not about tactical decisions; it's about wasting resources that could have gone to helping your party.
Dark Immortal wrote:
So if someone is playing the sorcerer with a bunch of spell slots left and the appropriate spells, you're cool with your character outside in freezing cold weather instead of inside a Tiny Hut or safely protected from everything in a Mage's Magnificent Mansion? I'm not. A party member has to support the party. There's a lot of tactical choices that get left to the player, but if the character has daily resources left over that could help the party, if you're part of the party, you have to use them. If you don't, it's no better then attacking them.
This case, withholding healing was part of an ongoing PvP action that had the effect of making the cleric's opponent hurt for the next day. That's par for the course; the cleric not expending remaining spells for healing is a PvP action.
John Kerpan wrote:
You brought up the fact that getting treasure gave you XP, and then in the next breath you are criticizing someone for mentioning the fact that thieves could get treasure by ignoring monsters and stealing treasure. Is there any reason to believe that you are posting with any intent but to cause arguments?
If you paid attention to what I was writing, you might have reason to believe that.
The point is that he's wrong for saying that 3E made some major change here. Using the official rules, 3E's XP is given for the exact same reasons as 2E's XP was.
Maybe, maybe not. A scenario like this could make a fighter more of a detriment then an advantage.
The point is, when they get back to town, if they kick the fighter out, the player of the fighter is probably going to be pissed off. That's why a player "playing his character" against the party's wishes is problematic, because such players rarely accept the other players playing their characters and refusing to travel with the troublesome PC.
No those weren't optional rules, you got 1 xp for every gp recovered. Most XP was gained in 1E through the mountains of treasure recovered vs. the monsters killed (which were much less of a reward than they are now).
1E had official XP for treasure rules. The 2E rules that give XP for treasure were optional and only for rogues.
Lord Snow wrote:
There's a quite a bit left undone at the higher levels. Crown of Fangs has pretty much all the significant work left undone.
I don't get it. Maybe the paladin should feel guilty for lying to the demon under torture. But in real life, what you do under torture is not held against you, at least not by reasonable folks. Lying under those conditions is not deep evil, it's not venial sin, it's an action taken with no good options under extreme stress. To punish a paladin for that, much less make him fall, is completely unfair.
There were optional rules for the rogue classes to get XP for treasure. Yes, the optional individual class awards disappeared after 2nd edition, and optional rules for per-adventure awards (that could have the characters doing anything) showed up. That's hardly "Third Edition is the one that took away practically everything else a character could do to earn XP."
Why is there this idea on the forums that proliferates that a player can't play his character but must concede to the party's wishes?
The problem is, none of my characters would have traveled with the fighter after this point. A couple of them would have left him to die. From everything I've heard, the same players who will play the fighter as attacking something the party absolutely doesn't want to attack will get all upset when the other players play their characters and tell his character to get lost (or just let him die).
There has been XP for killing things ever since original edition. Third Edition is the one that took away practically everything else a character could do to earn XP.
The good old AD&D DMG pages 84-86 give XP for 2 things: monsters slain (slain, not defeated) and GP values of treasure taken. One sentence handwaves "Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively..."; another couple paragraphs suggest that 1,000 XP can be given to raised characters. Comparing the 2ed DMG with the 3rd edition DMG (pages 36-41 in 3.5) I don't see substantive difference; both put a lot of emphasis on defeating monsters and offer a little handwaving on story rewards, with some optional rules tossed in there.
There's many sources for the information on Gorum besides FoB, like Gods and Magic and the Inner Sea Guide. As much to the point, the little the Core Rulebook gives about him says he's a CN god of strength, battle and weapons, and gives domains Chaos, Strength, Destruction, Glory and War. So he expects you to show strength, earn glory and destroy stuff, not sneak around and avoid fights.
(The gods aren't OGL, btw.)
I don't care who you are in the party. If you have on your character sheet, in whatever form, n times per day heal xd8 damage to any person, and you have uses left over at the end of day, you use them on your party members. There might be specific circumstances where you don't, but in general, if you don't, you're just hurting the party for no reason. So unless your cleric took spontaneously inflict wounds, or really burnt every single spell that day, the cleric should be healing at the end of the day.
(As for this case, I wonder about a cleric of Gorum who disapproves here, and don't find withholding healing reasonable. I might dump the fighter, though.)
Complete and on a budget don't usually work well together. Everything but the Inner Sea Guide is focused on one land. I suppose if you wanted the whole world, you'll want the Dragon Empires Gazetteer. If you're using it as gaming material, I wouldn't worry about complete and focus on the books for the areas you're interested in .