James Jacobs wrote:
As it turns out, that information DID get into Lords of Madness. It's right there on page 28. The fact that I couldn't just use those names for the elder evils is what annoyed me, but being able to put that section in anyway was a good consolation prize.
Oh my bad ! Sorry. I missed that. Anyway, I think that adding the Cthulhu mythos in D&D or Pathfinder is a great idea. And since I love Lovecraft's writings, all the better for me. ^^
Hello again James
James Jacobs wrote:
The closest thing aboleths have to deities are the Great Old Ones and Outer Gods. Which is, more or less, the same as how aboleths worked in "Lords of Madness," save that Paizo's not afraid of using names like "Yog Sothoth" or "Nyarlathotep" or "Azathoth" as part of the game setting.
And I would like to know if you had designed the Elder Evils in Lords of Madness to be equivalent to some Lovecraftian's entities, and so could you give the "equivalencies" (which one is which) ?
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks a lot for this answer. It's kinda sad since this seemed very promising, and I really enjoyed what Paizo have done for the Greyhawk setting in the Dragon/Dungeon era. I put it on the same level that Carl Sargent has done back in 2nd Edition. And I wanted also to congragulate you, Erik and Jason for the amazing Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.Thanks a lot again.
I have a question not related to Golarion if you don't mind.
I concluded that Eclavdra had dealings with Graz'rt well before the priestesses war in Ereilhei-Cinlu or the events of Against the Giants, am I right ?
Sorry for such a long question not related to Golarion, but I really enjoyed what you have done for the Greyhawk setting, so I was wondering.
I'm wondering. Did you use 3.5 or PRPG ? Because with his blasphemy spell-like abilities at caster level 30, it's a automatic kill for 20th level characters, baring silence effects or SR.Also his Implosive Strike should be a DC 38 accroding to the rules, so it's pretty high, and since he can use it 3 three times after he strikes. Since I'm currently DMing it, I'm wondering how my PCs will survice this.
As for the foreshadowing, I'm not sure it is entirely the problem. The 3 last adventures are fairly standard dungeon crawls, without much originality. Which is not good after all the preceding adventures.
That's the point. Why is there an attack roll and a save, except to nerf the spell ? Why finger of death has only a save while slay living or disintegrate have an attack roll and a save ? I can't see the logic.Nerfing ray of enfeeblement by reducing the duration and adding a save make this spell a joke IMO. Compare it with touch of idiocy: no save, long duration, and caster can lose his highest level spells and more. It just doesn't scale with levels.
My point is to have a more unified magic system. You save against spells, you make an attack roll with a weapon. You get rid of a stat, it gets simpler, and you also lose a paragraph in the rules.
Of course not, that just doesn't make sense and it's ridiculous. The normal AC, and the touch AC are not the same except for a very few creatures. You have a save for half damage on fireball, why can't it be the same with scorching ray ? Of course you'll need to rewrite some spells or balance them differently.
That's just my thoughts to make the game evolve. And some things can't please everyone, we already know that.
But I'm waiting to hear Mr James Jacobs here, it's the ask James Jacobs thread. ^^
Do you think that touch spells (melee or ranged) could be changed to an appropriate saving throw instead of an attack roll ? That would remove the touch AC system, and some characters/monsters would have a better chance to avoid or diminish the effect of these spells (negates the effect or half, or partial). On a lot of creatures it can come quiclky to the point that the caster must roll a natural 1 for the creature to escape the spell.
I agree with the bow, not with the scorching ray. Since the rays are fired simultaneously, you shouldn't provoke more than one AoO from an opponent, and you shouldn't have the chance to change target it it's get killed. With simultaneously, you need to declare the targets before rolling, or I don't understand what simultaneously means.
Like Chobemaster said, it's really easy to kill a creature with regeneration now. It's just a little more useful than fast healing, and will not be in much cases the characters know what to do.
In fact I think in combat it's better to have fast healing now, because it can't be stopped. If you fireball a group of trolls, all their regeneration stop in the following round. They will lose at least one round of healing. Which won't happen with fast healing. How to nerf regeneration....
Well I really didn't know.
I hope that +50% minis will not equal +50% price.
Also, I hope that one case (whatever price and size it will be) will be engouh to have a complete collection like Heroes and Monsters.
Richard Leonhart wrote:
If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.
I began to play rpg with Maléfices and Judge Dredd. I began to Dming with the red box (basic, then expert and companion). Moved the following year to AD&D1.
Actually it does.
This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. The subject gains resist energy 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature's hit points. The value of the energy resistance granted increases to 20 points at 7th level and to a maximum of 30 points at 11th level. The spell protects the recipient's equipment as well.
I don't have time to read all the thread carefully, so maybe somebody has already told that.
With only one sinergy on diplomacy (let's say that the bonuses don't stack), the same character would have +16. I think it's still too much but that's not really the problem.
Noah Fentz wrote:
I don't make a check for every square even it the character is searching every square. I make one check, unless there is more than one trap in all the squares. Only the roll for the square where a trap is, is important. Also, even if there isn't traps, I roll a die, just to make the player have doubt.
I'm doing that currently. I just give half the base price of a magic item to enchant a new one. Since the base materials are never named of decribed in the rules, they can be used for any type of items.
I would like a game true to the D&D legacy like Pathfinder, but with "lower powered rules". I love the spirit of Pathfinder RPG, but it has too many rules/feats/options/powers and it got worse at high levels. I'm really bored with high numbers ("hey I dished 253 points of damage").
If a lower powered game true to the legacy of D&D/AD&D was released, be it pathfinder or wotc's D&D, I would go for it in a heartbeat.
Smarnil le couard wrote:
Oui nous n'avons joué que les trois premiers, et la campagne s'est arrêté par manque de joueurs motivés y'a bien deux ans. Elle reprendre peut être quand il y aura assez de joueurs réguliers. Seul truc, c'est que même moi qui est surement le plus motivé, je suis moins tenté, car le DM est décidé à jouer la campagne avec un système light dont je ne suis pas du tout fan.
Gary Teter wrote:
If you've unchecked the "Remember new payment methods by default for future orders" checkbox on your My Payment Methods page, then the site will always prompt you to enter re-enter your payment method information during checkout.
It was unckecked, so I needed to reenter the card. But it seems to solve all.Thanks for the quick answers.
I came across a thread that stated natural attacks are not the same as unarmed attacks. Is that so? I know in the rulebook on pg 182 it describes them both but on table 8-2 under standard actions, it lists attack (melee), attack (ranged), and attack (unarmed),but no attack (natural). Are natural attacks melee or unarmed?? Could you please document your answer??
Natural attacks are armed attacks. A creature without natural attacks can make only unarmed attack (unless attacking with a weapon of course).See the entry of natural attacks in the bestiary monster universal rules.
It may be a team effort, but not all groups have the classic four. That is why the fighter should be able to stand on his own.
What do you mean by "stand on his own"? Because as I see it, no class can stand on his own (ie without a teamwork effort).
It's funny. I never had problems with fighters in my game, even at high levels. There is always a single class fighter in every group I've DMed.
Maybe because I have house ruled very early (since 3.0) the DC to concentration checks to add 2*spell level (for every use, not only casting defensively), and forbid the "make a 5-foot step and cast spell without risk" and these kind of things.
Maybe also because, there is not much prestige classes in my game (very few of my players are interested in these). Same for other base classes.
Maybe because players have learn to not cast every powerful spells right away because they know they can't rest everytime without any risk of being embushed while resting.
Maybe because casters would be killed in one/two round(s) without a fighter to stop the monsters.
Maybe because all these reasons, I'm still hearing players at my table saying regularly "the fighter saved us all!".
They all want to play a fighter, and few want to play a wizard.
The way of playing a game with a few twists can really lead to some different views of the game.
It's really funny.