Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 18,181 posts (18,986 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 18,181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Abraham spalding wrote:

What is wrong with it?

I mean honestly, show your work behind your claims. I have.

Prices are constant. Supply and demand doesn't exist. All items cost twice the value of their raw materials. (Or is that 3 times for non-magic stuff? - whatever, fixed multiplier.) Bringing 10s of thousands of gold pieces into a village doesn't cause a price boom.

It's not an economy. It's a cost balance system for adventuring.


The original point wasn't Taking 20, since that's largely useless for finding stealthy people or ambushes. Takes to long.

It was rolling 2 checks per round, in addition to a Take 10 reactive check for noticing sneaky threats.

I'd argue that the average infantry man on patrol in a dangerous area or guard at a dangerous post is getting his reactive perception check - possibly Take 10, possibly rolling. His choice.
The infantryman who's just been shot at from ambush and dove for cover and is now frantically trying to spot the sniper - He's making multiple Perception checks per round.
If you're already using all your actions to make perception checks, you can't do any more. There's no way to step up your paranoia.

Similarly, when you're actually moving up on an enemy position, where you know you're going to make contact any moment - then you're using all your actions (move & perception most likely then).


trollbill wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


The rules say what type of activities and actions cause fatigue. Doing a million perception checks isn't listed under any of those, nor defined as it's own cause of fatigue. Thus it doesn't cause fatigue per the rules. Where are you getting this view that if the rules are undefined the default is realistic limitations? Almost nothing in this game works realistically.
The rules call out specific activities and actions that cause fatigue. They do not call out if this list of activities is (pardon the pun) exhaustive or that it applies only to those activities. On the matter of Perception, the rules simply don't say.

Thus hustling rules do specifically apply to Move and <other action>, which strongly implies to me that they apply to any combination of two actions.

Still we're far away from Take 10/20 and I'm really sorry I brought this derail up. :)


Andrew Christian wrote:
For the same reason I dont allow perma cackling.

Which has, IIRC, been shut down in a FAQ. Or at least the most abusive parts of it.

But yes, I was thinking of that too. It's a very similar approach to the rules.


Chess Pwn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Why couldn't he spend all his actions making perception checks? What's stopping him from doing so? Is he unable to take actions while keeping watch?

Because people don't do that. That's not how we function. No one can remain on full alert for hours on end while nothing happens.

That said, there is no reason by strict RAW. I wouldn't allow it. I also wouldn't allow it for your enemies.

People don't cast burning hands, or cure light wounds. That's not how we function. No one can cast real magic.

Do you allow pathfinder character's to follow these rules? Or do you not allow casting either in your games?

I'd lost track of the fact that this was in the PFS section: In that case, I'd grumble, but allow it. If players took advantage of it, I'd have guards do the same - pretty much negating stealth.


Lissa Guillet wrote:
bdk86 wrote:
A bunch of things I've been thinking on...
This Vanity Fair thing has bothered me for a lot of reasons. First I feel like she left her new name out of her interview because she wanted to use it to cause a spectacle. And she does it in one of the ways that makes me very uncomfortable in that I feel like this reflects on trans people, especially trans women, as all about the objectifying of womens bodies. This a line I myself tread very very carefully and I feel I'm very well thought on the subject and to see her sprint across that line and claim victory feels really kind of icky to me. I also feel like my criticisms make me seem bitter and I am super bitter in some ways. I don't know. Lot of junk to think on. Been navel gazing since last night.

As I said on the other thread: Kardashian.

What else would you expect? Trans or not, there's not a lot of moral high ground in any of that bunch.


Devilkiller wrote:
I think that the best time to rest isn't when you’re out of resources but when you have enough resources left for at least one more good fight. Similarly, if the dungeon seems like it is too dangerous to rest in you should probably think about finding a way back out before you're completely exhausted and or surrounded by foes.

This is one of the problems with attacking the players while they rest as a means to encourage them to try to do more before resting. Deciding they need to rest sooner so they can handle a fight if they're attacked while resting is also a reasonable approach.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Bomanz wrote:
I think PFS and other living games are ruining the hobby. I dont like a bajillion different players and bringing the hobby to the masses...its degrading the quality role player pool until its naught but a puddle. I yearn for the days of closeted gamers huddled over thac0 charts and actually being required to have a modicum of intelligence to "get" the game. Most new players I find to be stupid and vapid.
While I'm not sure Pathfinder Society is to blame for this, I otherwise want to give you a medal. RPGS are NOT "casual gaming," and they are not for everyone. Playing RPGs are like playing the blues; it's not enough to play the game, you have to know why the game needs to be played.

Well, this gave me something to add to the thread.

I don't find playing games to be some elite club with barriers to entry.

Yeah, very much this.

I've had great times in some very intense role-playing sessions. I've had fun in some high stakes tactical combat games. I've had fun in casual beer and pretzels games where it was as much socializing and old jokes as anything serious.

I'm not worried about the quality of the role-player pool. More players means more people who might be people I want to play with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
I'm guessing the group that says that you can do the same action all day long has never looked at the hustling rules then.
Hustling is a specific rule that says what happens when you try to double move all day. Since there's nothing saying something bad happens if I double perception all day nothing bad happens.
Quote:
A hustle is a jog (about 6 miles per hour for an unencumbered human). A character moving his speed twice in a single round, or moving that speed in the same round that he or she performs a standard action or another move action, is hustling when he or she moves.

Not just double move, but move & anything else. It would certainly cover a guard pacing his rounds and also rolling perception every round. It's not much of a stretch to extend it to cover any double action in a round.

I still don't really care. If you really want to push it and make stealth even more useless, by giving everyone multiple checks against it under any circumstances, go for it.

In my games, unless you've got some specific reason to be on alert right then and there, you get your reactive check - Roll or Take 10.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You have people jump the tape then jump the foam blocks. Crowd is present for both, only one variable changed, experimental integrity is maintained.

Then you do it with an actual 20' drop and a real chance of death, just to see if that affects the chances. :)

In reality of course, the problem is that if things are random, we're rolling something with much more granularity than a d20 and plenty of everyday things we have a non-zero, but much less then 5% chance of failing.


Jiggy wrote:
Terquem wrote:
But that's just it, isn't it? It always seems to become an adversarial discussion, breaking it down to what the SYSTEM does or does not allow, as if to say, well sorry mister DM/Player (whoever you are trying to argue with) the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way.

It perplexes me that you would say that, given your own denial of houserules in your Castle Caldwell game. What you're saying now would seem to suggest that your own post where you veto'd a houserule I suggested should have been interpreted as "the system doesn't allow that so haha I win and you don't get your way". I know I certainly did NOT interpret that veto in such a negative way, and I'd wager a guess nobody else did either. You just had a preference to run things "by the book", and that was that. No biggie.

So why not assume the best of those discussing differences of rulesets, just as I assumed the best of my DM shooting down a request? Doesn't have to "become an adversarial discussion," as you put it. Folks can just talk. :)

Since I almost signed up for that game, his "no houserules" stance there was specifically to see if that's what was wanted
Terquem wrote:

I’ve seen a couple of 5e recruitment threads go belly up here (one of them was almost one of my games, whew) because of the tendency of Older DMs (like me) wanting to throw a lot of House Rules at players interested in trying 5e right from the get go

So I thought I’d try to convert Castle Caldwel and Beyond to 5e and run it with no house rules at all, just straight out of the core 5e books


BigNorseWolf wrote:
No, but they do say how long it takes to TAKE 20. Which would mean you'd have to take 2 minutes to spot something .. so you'll REALLY notice the rogue.... about a minute after he stabs you.

I at least wasn't talking about Taking 20. Just about rolling 2 active Perception checks every round, all night long. In addition to taking 10 on the reactive Perception check you get when anyone actually does sneak up.

You're right of course that Taking 20 only works for Perception when you're looking for something that isn't going to move - usually traps or loot or clues, though it could be for someone hiding from you and trying to escape rather attack.


Chess Pwn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Why couldn't he spend all his actions making perception checks? What's stopping him from doing so? Is he unable to take actions while keeping watch?

Because people don't do that. That's not how we function. No one can remain on full alert for hours on end while nothing happens.

That said, there is no reason by strict RAW. I wouldn't allow it. I also wouldn't allow it for your enemies.

People don't cast burning hands, or cure light wounds. That's not how we function. No one can cast real magic.

Do you allow pathfinder character's to follow these rules? Or do you not allow casting either in your games?

Following only strict RAW without any common sense quickly lands us in the Tippyverse. I like to play games where the people are basically people, despite there being magic.

None of this is relevant to Take 10/Take 20, so I'm done here.


SmiloDan wrote:
There are training rules. 250 days of training at 1 gp a day to learn a tool.

But only tools. Which is a weird distortion. Especially since a couple of tools are adventuring skills, IIRC, but most such skills aren't learnable.

More so though, I dislike balance by downtime. It's either completely trivial in some games or impossible in others.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Why couldn't he spend all his actions making perception checks? What's stopping him from doing so? Is he unable to take actions while keeping watch?

Because people don't do that. That's not how we function. No one can remain on full alert for hours on end while nothing happens.

That said, there is no reason by strict RAW. I wouldn't allow it. I also wouldn't allow it for your enemies.


Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Using the fortress full o' bad guys example, the players would be rather ... dense ... for not using such assets that are at their disposal to reconnoiter and gather intelligence.

Now, if the group is a "kick open the gates and kill 'em all" bunch of characters, in which case the result can strongly resemble doing the same thing IRL to a large hornet's nest. And the players should be aware of such possibilities. If not, they may be unpleasantly introduced to it.

Some castles full o' bad guys may have fire drills in place, complete with fall back positions and all that wonderful jazz. Others may be full of goblin types that howl with laughter at "those other posers" getting slaughtered by intruders in the courtyard.

TL;DR: It varies. Recon to find out what you're facing. Or suck it up cupcake when the angry defenders bring their "A" game.

Far too often in the "fortress full o' bad guys example", if the fortress is set up intelligently, the "proper tactic" is "go somewhere else and look for easier prey". Which is fine if it's a sandbox game and there's no particular reason to go there, but if your in-game motivation is strong enough that's not going to work.

More simply, once you've reconned to find out what you're up against and you've found that the castle has "fire drills in place, complete with fall back positions and all that wonderful jazz", what do you do? Other than leave.

You examine what you've learned. Watch their routines, taking notes accordingly. Pick a weak spot and gain entry that way. Rare is the fortress that PCs must assault that they don't have a fair bit of time to afford themselves the luxury of reconnaissance. Often the most difficult part is getting inside.

Nah. The far more difficult part is getting back out and then getting in again the next day once you've left and rested as we've been told is the proper thing to do.


Chess Pwn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If the guards are on high alert for some reason, I'd actually have them doing both - Take 10 for reactive checks and using a move action to make a rolled Perception check every round. Your average guard isn't going to keep that up for long though.
The only thing stopping an average guard from doing it for 10+ hours is the GM. Everyone in the Pathfinder world doesn't get bored of anything.

True, but irrelevant.

That's part of the GM's job. Players should hold to the same reasonable limits.

p1 - It's time to settle down for the night

p2 - okay I'll keep watch for the night since I have the Keep Watch spell
p2 for those 8 hours is on full alert, unless are you adding drowsy penalties to his perception? Perhaps distracted penalties? Bored penalties? I've only seen and heard of Gm's telling P2 to make a perception check for their watch time or when the check was needed.
So since you're saying they can't maintain focus for that long how would you handle the PC's keeping watch during the night?

I would tell him he could take 10 or roll a reactive Perception check, assuming anything came up.

What I wouldn't let him do is claim he spent the full 8 hours taking 10 on any reactive perception checks and using his move (and standard?) actions to roll Perception checks.

Which I would let someone do if they had reason to think there was something to look for right then and there.


Chess Pwn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If the guards are on high alert for some reason, I'd actually have them doing both - Take 10 for reactive checks and using a move action to make a rolled Perception check every round. Your average guard isn't going to keep that up for long though.
The only thing stopping an average guard from doing it for 10+ hours is the GM. Everyone in the Pathfinder world doesn't get bored of anything.

True, but irrelevant.

That's part of the GM's job. Players should hold to the same reasonable limits.


Turin the Mad wrote:

Using the fortress full o' bad guys example, the players would be rather ... dense ... for not using such assets that are at their disposal to reconnoiter and gather intelligence.

Now, if the group is a "kick open the gates and kill 'em all" bunch of characters, in which case the result can strongly resemble doing the same thing IRL to a large hornet's nest. And the players should be aware of such possibilities. If not, they may be unpleasantly introduced to it.

Some castles full o' bad guys may have fire drills in place, complete with fall back positions and all that wonderful jazz. Others may be full of goblin types that howl with laughter at "those other posers" getting slaughtered by intruders in the courtyard.

TL;DR: It varies. Recon to find out what you're facing. Or suck it up cupcake when the angry defenders bring their "A" game.

Far too often in the "fortress full o' bad guys example", if the fortress is set up intelligently, the "proper tactic" is "go somewhere else and look for easier prey". Which is fine if it's a sandbox game and there's no particular reason to go there, but if your in-game motivation is strong enough that's not going to work.

More simply, once you've reconned to find out what you're up against and you've found that the castle has "fire drills in place, complete with fall back positions and all that wonderful jazz", what do you do? Other than leave.


Not just a different set of skills, but a larger set of skills - at the expense of something else. The only way I see to do that is to use one of your very rare feats to do so.

Any house rule thoughts on this? I generally like being able to spread my skills around, rather than focus on keeping a few maxed. (Irritates me enough in PF.) I'm naturally a generalist and prefer to be competent at many things rather than excellent at a few - that doesn't seem to be an option with 5E. Other than the "You can roll on anything and proficiency bonus isn't that big", which doesn't really work for me thematically either, since it now implies I'm good at everything.

I was toying with the idea of counting up the actual skill points you get from proficiency in skills and letting you distribute them among more skills if you wanted. More complex of course, but a little more flexible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Gilfalas wrote:

I tend to think that if you, as a player, over extend yourself in a dungeon such that you need to rest in the dungeon you deserve what you get.

Seriously if you enter an enemy fortress/dungeon/tower/temple and think you can attack some of them and then rest right there without patrols looking for you or creatures moving about their business coming across you and finding you then you deserve to die as your character is too stupid to live.

I see many folks saying the GM should take character rests into account. I counter this with PLAYERS should take character rest into account and act accordingly. Use hit and run tactics on the enemy to draw some of them out and thin their numbers before entering. Have a fallback location outside the lair already planned before entering the dungeon so you can get there quickly when you need to rest.

SAVE some resources for the trip out/the evening so if your found you can fight.

Smart adventurers live. Dumb ones use up all their resources and then camp in the dungeon.

Using that same logic the denizens of the dungeon should track the adventures down when they retreat. Attack them in their camp away from the dungeon.

Also, what about if the dice do not fall in a normal distribution? A couple of extra crits by the bad guys can eat resources much faster than anticipated. A string of bad rolls and many more resources will be used, from spells that fizzled due to failed concentration and spell penetration checks, to more HP being lost due to bad guys being up and swinging from not being hit, to PCs being taken out by a failed save.

Some dungeons are not meant to be cleared in one go. Take a look at anything published from 1st or 2nd edition. There is no way to bull through in one try.

Not to mention plenty of stuff published in PF. There are APs where it's assumed you'll be one level starting a dungeon and another one before the final fights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:

I tend to think that if you, as a player, over extend yourself in a dungeon such that you need to rest in the dungeon you deserve what you get.

Seriously if you enter an enemy fortress/dungeon/tower/temple and think you can attack some of them and then rest right there without patrols looking for you or creatures moving about their business coming across you and finding you then you deserve to die as your character is too stupid to live.

I see many folks saying the GM should take character rests into account. I counter this with PLAYERS should take character rest into account and act accordingly. Use hit and run tactics on the enemy to draw some of them out and thin their numbers before entering. Have a fallback location outside the lair already planned before entering the dungeon so you can get there quickly when you need to rest.

SAVE some resources for the trip out/the evening so if your found you can fight.

Smart adventurers live. Dumb ones use up all their resources and then camp in the dungeon.

As long as that works. As long as there are no time limits. As long as you have an idea of the size of the problem you're dealing with before you go in. As long as there are safe places outside to rest - in the area that the enemy may well know far better than the adventurers do. As long as they respond to hit and run tactics by exposing themselves, rather than just doubling the guard and raising the alert levels. As long as, when you've withdrawn and rested and come back in, they're not ready to ambush you with all their remaining forces, plus reinforcements.

In other words, if they're stupid.

All of which is, of course, under the GM's control and part of what is meant when we say "the GM should take character rests into account".


Gronk de'Morcaine wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

...

You can take 20 on perception.

So, in order to sneak into and out a place undetected, the PC's take 10 needs to beat the guards' take 20.

Which seems appropriate.

See this I would disagree with even more than all the other stuff I've read here.

Everyone says taking 20 is taking 20 times as long to cover all the possible rolls you could have made. So the PC's are sneaking by sometime during that 20 rounds. Was it during the round when they would have rolled the 2 or the round when they would have rolled the 17.

Plus the number of people that can operate at the absolute peak of performance during long periods of nothing happening is vanishingly small.

Agreed. Technically, the guards can't Take 20. Practically speaking, if there are enough of them, they can - If there are 10 guards and your group is in range to be spotted for 2 rounds, they'll get 20 rolls - fair enough to assume that's a Take 20.

If the guards are on high alert for some reason, I'd actually have them doing both - Take 10 for reactive checks and using a move action to make a rolled Perception check every round. Your average guard isn't going to keep that up for long though.

In the interests of emulating genre fiction, I'd also make the guard's first success only a partial one, giving the PCs a chance to react and recover the situation - the classic "Oh, it was only a cat" trope. That's not RAW though.


kestral287 wrote:
Cevah linked the 3.5 version, not the PF one. It got tweaked apparently.

Yeah, they specifically changed it to make it riskier to use to camp with. As I said above - nerfed.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
thejeff wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, what if I am running a game, and some player has some odd thing from a Chronicle Sheet, that I need to read, to know where he got it from?

Can I read it?

Can I play the Scenario, from which the Chronicle Sheet I just read came from?

Just like you can play a scenario that you've GM'd, but you're expected not to use knowledge from GMing/reading it to your advantage, if you have knowledge from a Chronicle, you're expected not to use that for your benefit.

Of course you can check the player's chronicle. Of course you can play that scenario later. You just shouldn't decide to play it, or what character to play it with, based on what you saw on the chronicle.

Is this really that hard?

Not exactly. You see the Chronicle Sheet. It has something Monk specific on it. Now, you have a chance to play through it. Both your Ranger and Monk PCs would be perfect for the Scenario, and group dynamic. Now, however, you have to deal with the Taboo. Suddenly, you have to choose run a PC who will not benefit at all, from the special boon/item the Chronicle Sheet provides, or choose the PC who will benefit, but suffer social mistreatment, for "cheating".

You're not likely to suffer any social mistreatment for "cheating", unless you make a habit of doing this regularly. Or of announcing it.

Or flip a coin to pick, for all I care.

But honestly, is it really any different from an in-game situation where you know something your character doesn't and you still have to pick what to do? We firewall that kind of decision all the time in game - whether it's someone who's GM'd the scenario before or just someone who knows something about monster that no one made their Knowledge roll on. It's the same problem.


Orthos wrote:
Wrecan's shield looks like a giant button, especially in panel 3 where... I'm not really sure exactly what he's supposed to be doing with it there.

That does seem wrong. Every other shot he's got it strapped to his back. Shield probably would look like that from behind, but he's facing us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

So, talking with my Dad who is post-op female for about 12 years now, her first comment was, "what did she look like yesterday, before the hair extensions and make up!" My mom added, "why would you use such an objectifying image to come out?"

So... Anyhoo, that another perspective.

She's married into the Kardashian clan, what do you expect?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, what if I am running a game, and some player has some odd thing from a Chronicle Sheet, that I need to read, to know where he got it from?

Can I read it?

Can I play the Scenario, from which the Chronicle Sheet I just read came from?

Just like you can play a scenario that you've GM'd, but you're expected not to use knowledge from GMing/reading it to your advantage, if you have knowledge from a Chronicle, you're expected not to use that for your benefit.

Of course you can check the player's chronicle. Of course you can play that scenario later. You just shouldn't decide to play it, or what character to play it with, based on what you saw on the chronicle.

Is this really that hard?


Does anyone else find it strange that both Marvel and DC seem to being the same kind of reboot - explicitly mixing up a bunch of their old worlds - at pretty much the same time.

The stories leading up to them are different enough, but it looks like the result will be pretty similar in the end.


jemstone wrote:

They're claiming they've had the World's End/Future's End/Convergence/Divergence plan since they positioned Flashpoint to bring in the New 52.

I am dubious about this.

Then again, I've never liked the idea of Flashpoint/New 52 since the beginning. I mean, DC had just done a soft-reboot by way of Identity Crisis/Countdown/Final Crisis, which I always felt was a really good way of handling a lot of their loose continuity threads and bringing new and old characters together. The Max Lord/Ted Kord storyline, especially, was really poignant.

And then all that hard, emotionally charged, world-changing stuff got brushed under a rug and we got... this.

No sir, I did not like it.

It's possible they did. I had the feeling at the start that the whole New 52 thing was temporary. Mind you, I didn't think it would last as long as it has, so that's not really showing great insight on my part.

It could well have been a contingency plan - Stick with New 52 or reboot in this direction depending on how things are going.


On another note, does this stand as the quickest full scale reboot we've seen yet? New 52 was only a few years ago.

Or does this somehow not count as a reboot?


Greylurker wrote:
The real kicker is that DC is claiming this change now gives them to freedom to tell any kind of stories people want so they do have the openings to do Earth 5 Captain Marvel or return to the classic Legion.

Which is kind of silly, since they'd returned to classic Legion, written by Paul Levitz no less, with the New 52.

Then they cancelled it. No reason, other than sales, they couldn't have kept it going or brought it back without a major change.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

25,000gp is 500 lbs of gold, which is 8,000 oz of gold, which means, at the $1,194 per oz current gold price, that 25,000gp is equivalent to 9.55 million dollars.

So that's the cost of a True Res... that's the worth of a life for those who have perished in ways where the body is not really recoverable. This means this is for the rich indeed. And the heroes... well... they better mean something to a well funded cause or temple... ;)

This one sold 10 millions, so you could say that's what you need for True Resurrection. Extremely rare (on Earth, anyway) so you might want to have a house rule that you need 25,000gp worth of diamonds (not a single diamond worth that... ;) )

Except that these prices were set in the early '70s when Gold was $100 an ounce or less.
that's the beauty of gold, or land: their value never change... it's the money's value that changes. One ounce of gold in the 70's is exactly one ounce of gold now.

Of course the value changes. That doesn't even make sense.

An ounce of gold is still an ounce of gold of course, just like an acre of land is still an acre of land, but you can get different amounts of other stuff for them. Or even when you're trading gold for land, the ratio isn't always the same. The value of one of them much change.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

25,000gp is 500 lbs of gold, which is 8,000 oz of gold, which means, at the $1,194 per oz current gold price, that 25,000gp is equivalent to 9.55 million dollars.

So that's the cost of a True Res... that's the worth of a life for those who have perished in ways where the body is not really recoverable. This means this is for the rich indeed. And the heroes... well... they better mean something to a well funded cause or temple... ;)

This one sold 10 millions, so you could say that's what you need for True Resurrection. Extremely rare (on Earth, anyway) so you might want to have a house rule that you need 25,000gp worth of diamonds (not a single diamond worth that... ;) )

Or you know, a bit less than the cost of a +4 sword.

Or a little more than a 7th level PC should have in total. Still not pocket change by the level they can cast it, but easily affordable - even for awhile before then.

Perhaps comparisons with modern prices aren't particularly useful.


I'm fond of the rational used in Earthdawn: All the PC classes use magic. Some do so obviously, casting spells and the like. Others channel their magic into more mundane martial abilities - being superhumanly tough or fast, for example.

This is also used to explain how adventurers gain in power and skill so quickly.


McBaine wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, pretty much this. Figure out why the characters keep needing to rest in the dungeon. If they're novaing and blowing through a couple encounters then resting to do it again, then you want to convince them not to do that. Preferably by talking to them, but making it dangerous to rest can be an backup option.

If they're clearing a significant chunk of a dungeon that isn't designed to be swept in one pass, then resting has to be accounted for, one way or another. Leaving and returning. Safe areas to rest. Something. Often the dungeon can be designed in such a way that it's broken into poorly connected sections and resting after clearing one of them should be fairly safe.

Even with leaving and returning, there's a temptation to punish the party by having the enemy reinforced or on high alert, ready to ambush a returning group. That might make sense, but design around it.

I do not design the dungeons myself, I'm using an Adventure Path. I have no idea if the dungeon was designed to be cleared in one go or not.

I told the group that they have to go deep into enemy territory and have to plan accordingly though - and then the druid blasts the first guard she sees with her only level 7 spell and a level 5 one (admittedly, it was a giant, but starting with the strongest spell does not seem to be minding the ressources).

That falls into the "nova then camp" approach I'd say. Of course, if they've reached 15th level, it's probably too late to start enforcing a change in behavior. :)

It's fairly easy to tell how the dungeon was designed. Look at the CRs for the encounters, see how many there are. From my general impression of APs, they usually go with a few more weaker encounters than the standard 5 room dungeon, but still often go far beyond what can be reasonably expected to be handled in one pass. It's not uncommon to expect PCs to level in the course of a dungeon, which usually means at least resting once.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

You asked what the party would do. To answer that, you would need to be in the party and make a contributing decision.

I don't remove choice from my players, I think it is key - and their choices may get them killed, or they just keep being attacked and they can't get to sleep. *shrugs* I let the dice decide if they are attacked, if I have nothing planned or on a schedule. My players have made some fantastic fortifications in their time, all to get some shut-eye.

You're still doing the design. You're setting up the scenario and laying out the dungeon. You're not "removing choice", but you're setting the conditions that drive those choices.


KestrelZ wrote:

Go with what makes sense.

Know what the opponents have in place to protect their domicile, and what means they have to know if something is amiss.

If team sneaky tries to case the place and infiltrates, they might be able to rest within a fortress.

If team clanks-a-lot and the boom-boom mage kicks in the front door, they will gain some traction at first due to the sudden shock of an assault - yet will have the whole dungeon piling after them in a few more moments.

The point is, do what makes sense. NPCs don't automatically know there's a break in on their fortress. That doesn't mean they are senseless either. The more a group causes disruptions, the quicker the group is found. If there are miles of caves, there might be a place to rest for eight hours with only a moderate chance of being discovered. If the place is a manned castle, the group better have wands, scrolls, and potions to fall back on because getting more than a five minute break isn't in the cards once the alarm is sounded.

Go with what make sense, but consider that when building the scenario. If there isn't going to be an opportunity to rest, then the area needs to be weak enough that they party can accomplish their goal and get out in one go. Or be able to leave and return later without too serious a penalty.

Wands, scrolls and potions only carry you so far.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

"Nova then camp" is a very amusing phrase.

If they have enough of an area they could also set up traps, depends on the area and terrain (would be amusing to turn traps upon the inhabitants trying to reclaim their dungeon).

They can also ignore the dm's advice or what the dm shows them with the dead party. They have the choice and maybe the dm is bluffing...

You're still missing the actual question I'm asking.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
thejeff wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

No, I have a better solution.

The party want to find a place to rest. The dm suggests you find a safe spot.

Party goes looking for a bit, find a broken door. Inside are the remains of an adventuring party. Their bedrolls are laid out, as are their bones, with dry leathery skin still clinging to them. The dark pools and great dried bloodtrails indicating they were hit hard, that something tore through them spraying their blood to the walls, with a touch even making it to the roof. Rending may have been involved, and axes, and no corpse has all its limbs attached.

"You might want to think about where you sleep" says the DM.

And then what?

Obviously the group was already thinking about where to sleep and looking for a safe spot. So what do they do?

What would you do? Think, consider, act.

You have control of your character. This place is obviously not safe for a camping trip.

That's fine.

But this doesn't happen in a vacuum. The GM designs the dungeon. It's easy to say "It's not a camping trip. It's stupid to rest in the dungeon." It's also easy to say "Well of course they were ready for you when you came back the next day, what did you expect?" Or even: "Of course they attacked in the night, what did you expect? You only retreated X hours march from the dungeon."

It's not entirely a matter of character choices. It's easy to logic yourself into a no-win situation.

Which is not to say the party should be able to nova then camp for the night after every fight, regardless of what else is going on. Just that the GM, when designing the area that's too big to clear in one pass, needs to take into account how the party is going to rest and not screw them over in the process.


Orthos wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gark the Goblin wrote:
Paizo is heavily moderated, though, yes.
Paizo is about the least moderated forum I know, save one other.

I see this claim thrown out a lot when this sort of thing comes up, and it provokes a O_o out of me every time.

What other forums do you guys who claim this spend your time on or have been on in the past to make this sort of comparison?

Because Paizo is the only board I've ever visited where post-deletions happen on a near-daily basis and at least one thread is locked every other week. Reasons why and the justifications for and against are irrelevant at this point and let's not re-open that discussion as Chris has asked; this is simply an observation of fact. This sort of thing hasn't and doesn't happen on any other forum I've visited, past or present, for any extensive amount of time (longer than 6 months or so).

Granted, every other forum I visit avoids this by simply completely prohibiting the topics that tend to generate half of those locks (politics and religion), so I might be able to see how someone can construe that as "strongly moderated".

But the other half get locked over gaming arguments and general forum disagreements that simply don't happen (or at least don't get to "this thread needs to be locked" severity on a regular basis) on any other forum I've ever been on.

In comparison, it's been over six months since we had a thread locked (that wasn't an announcement or other sort of thread where replies weren't desired in the first place) on the NWN community forum I admin for, and I can't think of a single time we've deleted a post that wasn't spam. Despite much desire to do so, thanks to a few passive-aggressive responses from some unhappy players after a certain in-game incident, it's always been our policy to leave posts as they stand to avoid the appearance of censorship or suggestion that posts that disagree with the admins will simply be removed.

Is it just because the only forums I've ever spent...

What kind of traffic do those other forums get? The need for moderation often seems proportional to size.


It is. It's also basically useless until 8th level (when the casters can rest long enough to regain spells.
It's also GMs of the Thou Shalt Not Rest in Dungeons school keep nerfing it or giving advise about how to make it too dangerous to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

No, I have a better solution.

The party want to find a place to rest. The dm suggests you find a safe spot.

Party goes looking for a bit, find a broken door. Inside are the remains of an adventuring party. Their bedrolls are laid out, as are their bones, with dry leathery skin still clinging to them. The dark pools and great dried bloodtrails indicating they were hit hard, that something tore through them spraying their blood to the walls, with a touch even making it to the roof. Rending may have been involved, and axes, and no corpse has all its limbs attached.

"You might want to think about where you sleep" says the DM.

And then what?

Obviously the group was already thinking about where to sleep and looking for a safe spot. So what do they do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BobTheCoward wrote:

Do the players always seem to find themselves in dungeons with challenges conveniently in range of their abilities? If so, it is only one more leap to a dungeon where it is convenient to rest.

If your dungeon is designed to be completed with or without resting, that should dictate monster reactions to resting. Building a dungeon that cannot be completed without resting, and then saying they cannot rest is pretty close to randomly dropping meteors on players.

Yeah, pretty much this. Figure out why the characters keep needing to rest in the dungeon. If they're novaing and blowing through a couple encounters then resting to do it again, then you want to convince them not to do that. Preferably by talking to them, but making it dangerous to rest can be an backup option.

If they're clearing a significant chunk of a dungeon that isn't designed to be swept in one pass, then resting has to be accounted for, one way or another. Leaving and returning. Safe areas to rest. Something. Often the dungeon can be designed in such a way that it's broken into poorly connected sections and resting after clearing one of them should be fairly safe.

Even with leaving and returning, there's a temptation to punish the party by having the enemy reinforced or on high alert, ready to ambush a returning group. That might make sense, but design around it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Sure orcs are stonrg, but set up to be incapable of being worthwhile spellcasters of any variety.

Since we already know the worst spellcaster > than the best possible martial from other posts on these boards, then the -2 to all mental attributes is nowhere near being worth +4 strength.

You know who gets +4 strength? Human spellcaster with Bull's Strength. That spellcaster also got +2 to Int or Wis or Cha to match.

Again, I'd much rather have orcs who have genuine PC attributes (two +2s one -2) than +4 str imbecilic, moronic, stutterers.

Casters are built up as better than martials for their versatility, not because they always kill things better. Barbarians kill things (Especially puny wizards!) damn well.

I just ask myself, "What are orcs?" They're raiders. They don't spend a lot of time in quiet contemplation or study, and their gods are venerated by war and bloodshed - not burning incense and meditating on the universe.

Being simple works because they have the Strength to back it up.

Especially at low levels. Which is where you run into the vanilla orcs. Low level is where martials shine compared to casters.


Jaelithe wrote:
Coriat wrote:
That said, I don't think it's an absurd decision. There are reasons to avoid it that make sense to me - mechanical reasons that relate to the problematic nature of Pathfinder at high levels. If the high level rules were more balanced and robust, I'd really love to have god stats. And such can indeed be produced by individual GMs tailored to the mechanical state of a particular campaign. But in the messy state of the rules currently, where campaigns and parties at the same high level will wildly diverge in mechanics and potency, I find the decision not to publish broad, generic versions of deity stats to be pretty reasonable and non-absurd.

So you're saying, in essence, a better game would be better able to allow for deity stats.

Since y'all vastly surpass me in knowledge of Pathfinder, I'll certainly accept this.

Now here's a question: Could a third-party source produce statistics of the deities without ruffling feathers at Paizo?

A third party could produce statistics for any deities that are Open Content. I don't believe that any of the standard PF deities actually are.

They could produce stats for those deities based on real world myths - The Egyptian ones, Asmodeus, probably others. They wouldn't be able to use any existing Golarion specific content though.

A 3pp could of course make up their own deities and give them statistics.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.
unless your talk about GM cheat (look! The kobold crits you! Again!), then no, by no means that's true. Your can play tactically sound with your orcs and flank and focus fire and whatever, but an orc with a club and skill focus is not goibg to be as dangerous as an orc with a great axe and power attackattack that is equally tactically sound

Except I'm not talking about cheating, nor about tactics. I'm talking about what the GM does with a monster.

That orc with the greataxe is nasty, but a good GM would send him in alone, or in very small numbers. The club-wielding orcs would likely be more numerous.

It's about ethics in encounter design. (God, some phrases just feel ruined for me at this point.)

Yeah. That's the point.

The argument is that the common kobold is still CR 1/4 even with better gear, so it would just replace the common kobold with lousy stuff. If you just make there be less of the better kobolds, you won't be more likely to TPK.


Milo v3 wrote:
Puna'chong wrote:
Much easier to explain that you're not just constantly being stabbed by things all the time forever.
Isn't it actually easier to not handwave stuff and just have them all as meat-points? It might damage some individuals immersion, but it's still easier .

Mostly it's easier not to think about it too much. Accept it as an abstraction and run with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Nyarlathotep has many forms with the black pharaoh being one of them, the 'black pharaoh' is kind of like a polymorphed form than a true representation of a deity.

That's the real issue, though, with this entire line of discussion. Wikipedia includes a good list of (some of) the forms Nyarlathotep has taken in the writings of Lovecraft, which include not only the Black Pharoah, but also "[a] bloated, batlike creature with a single three-lobed burning eye which appears able to kill by fear alone," "a putrid, living fog," and "a bluish, red-veined jellyfish-like creature."

It seems rather odd to try to classify weather by racial type.

But given how easy it is for a divinity-level power to change the appearance of its avatar, and how some deities are explicitly described as doing so, it seems odd to complain that Shelyn ["all who see her see what they envision as the most perfect beauty (meaning she appears different to everyone)"] is not black when that's explicitly how she looks if your crumpet is buttered on that side.

Except that all the actual art of her isn't black. And overwhelmingly the same for the other gods in PF. A pictures worth a thousand words and all that. Saying "Gods can look like many things and sometimes they'll look black" gives a technical out, but doesn't do a thing for representation, if they're not actually shown that way.


Kobolds live in small sized tunnels that they've usually trapped. Their enemies have trouble getting at them.

They also likely have some more skilled, better equipped leaders of their own.

Even with slightly better gear, the base kobold is still very weak in a dangerous world. Wouldn't really make much difference in the long run.

But yeah, feel free to arm them better if you like. Hell, create the Glorious Kobold Empire in your world where they're not mostly isolated tribes, but world conquering soldiers.

1 to 50 of 18,181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.