|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Probably selling as collectibles at this point.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Not true. With PC wealth and PC classes, they're CR=Level.
NPC Gear Adjustments wrote:
You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR. Be careful awarding NPCs this extra gear, though—especially at high levels, where you can blow out your entire adventure's treasure budget in one fell swoop!
More importantly, not everything needs to be designed most efficiently to fight PCs. Spears are hunting weapons. Hide only bumps AC by one and penalizes stealth.Plus, as said above, they're tribal cave dwellers. Spears, slings and leather are appropriate, even if not optimal. If you're dealing with the Great Kobold Empire, they'll have better gear.
I think it really is that simple.
It's just not easy.
Honestly, I think you nailed it right there: Put it in place when a player has a concept that requires it.
Leave it fairly open otherwise.
How do you structure the game, either as a player or as the GM, so that short rests make sense?
In a wilderness kind of adventure, I can easily see being able to take an hour after nearly any encounter. In a dungeon setting, that's likely to run into all the usual problems of resting in the dungeon - unless the area is specifically broken up to allow safe places at a time of the GM's choosing. Retreating and coming back an hour later is pretty much guaranteed to cause problems in many scenarios, as is just sitting down for an hour.
Alton Underbough wrote:
Yeah. It basically adds all the hassle and complexity of running a AP PbP to the complexity of running PFS PbP.You're going to have people drop out, permanently or for random periods.
If you want to do it, I'd suggest taking advantage of the features of PFS: Get a group together and rotate GMs, instead of putting the whole burden on one person. And accept that you're going to have people coming in and out.
Personally I like to play PFS in PbP because I know that I won't be able to commit to a long term campaign, but I can start up a scenario when I know I'll be able to commit to a month or two at most.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
If you want to go a more gonzo route, you can have her family be okay with her liking women, but insist on magically transforming her into a man and marrying well, and maybe if she sires some respectable children she can change back in a few decades
Or just marrying a man, having the required kids and then going about her life. Or not marrying, or some form of time-limited contract marriage. If the kids are taken in/raised by the clan, the marriage doesn't even have to last throughout raising the children.
Also, while there may well be commonalities, there are a lot of dwarven settlements in Golarion, many of which have been largely separated for thousands of years. Plenty of time to develop different traditions, possibly influenced by the other races they're living near.
It's been a long time since I've read or played any of those, so I wasn't going to be that harsh.
In fairness, your earlier post said "fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying."
Which I didn't initially read as "because they'd publicly shame me if they didn't like it", but more as "It's hard to have fun unless everyone's on board with the way we're all roleplaying."
That post wasn't at all clear to me. I can see how Aranna took it that way. Your next one on the subject of course made it obvious that was wrong.
There's also a big difference between that and "The GM ruling on whether you're roleplaying". Or, more accurately, they're different aspects of the same thing. One just worse than the other.
The rules do not define what is distracting. They give combat as an example. If the rules just said "You can Take 10 except in combat", we wouldn't be having this discussion.
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
Yes, I'm sure they did.But that specific post was in response to a complaint that Paizo lacked minority villains. Nothing to do with Dragonlance or Paizo being the first and only to have minority villains.
She also seems to be a pirate, but not actually a villain.
But that's OK. We've already learned that Dragonlance is the bestest, most inclusivest setting ever. Putting all of Paizo's efforts to shame even decades later. :)
But the very FAQ answer that's causing the trouble talks about the outsider. The spell doesn't. It's been changed to just ban Take 10, with no explanation given.
So if you ignore the FAQ, there's no confusion. If you look at the FAQ, there's a reasonable explanation right in the FAQ, so again, there's no confusion. It's only when you look at the part of the FAQ and ignore the rest that the confusion comes in.
The other reasonable interpretation involves the actual words of the FAQ:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat
According to the FAQ, the stat loss is caused by enemy action, thus making it far more like combat than climbing a wall is.
Drives me insane. I still have to spend a moment every time to remember what they mean.
I know it's MMO terminology, but it just sounds wrong to me.
And on the comment about the lack of non-white-male villains. You do realize if there are minority baddies then they could be also accused of being racist.
Plus, there have been - A lesbian queen. A black (Garundi) pirate captain. A witch queen. Those come to mind immediately, just from the few APs I'm familiar with. I suspect there have been others.
That's not a surprise round check. At least that's my take on it. The surprise round/ambush check is for close quarters encounters or otherwise combat is starting now checks. Most often when you enter a room in a dungeon or some such, where you couldn't have noticed it before.If you spot the ambush as you're approaching, before it's ready to be sprung, or if you're just seeing if you perceive people ahead who may be hiding, but not necessarily in an ambush, then it's a different category.
More of a "You think someone's hiding in the bushes up ahead. What do you do?" than a "Roll initiative. Make perception checks to see if you can act in the surprise round." situation.
Depends where they are. Dresk isn't in the US, IIRC, but even here sexual orientation is only protected on a state (or sometimes local) level. This would be perfectly legal in many places, even if no excuse was used and they were told it was because of their LGBTQ connections.They were given their monthly notice, which I assume matches the terms of the contract.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Theros, I'll give you, though I don't remember him.For the other stuff - there are half-elves (and half-orcs) throughout D&D (and thus PF) from the beginning who could play the metaphorical role you describe. Similarly for the others - you can read things into the characters if you choose to, that may or may not have been intended. In terms of inclusiveness, there's a big difference between that and actually including open non-analogy characters.
And yeah, as xavier c said, nearly every fantasy setting includes Christian references at that level.
Even conceding the silly idea, it still wouldn't help. In play it would just go:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Well, I don't count myself an "internet expert", but I'm willing to concede WoD, with the caveat that as LazarX, it's our world with twists rather than a new creation. That said, it was also pretty Eurocentric and bits of their treatment of other cultures and groups made me cringe at the time - often being more US/European pop-culture takes than anything else.
For Dragonlance, I only read the original novels (maybe 2 series?) and a couple modules and haven't done so in decades. They did have women as major characters, though I can't really comment on their roles at this point. I don't recall (and a quick internet search doesn't help) much racial diversity - though I guess Riverwind(?) & Goldmoon(?) were basically Native American?
I have no idea what you mean to imply by "analogy for inclusion". You can also present an analogy for something without actually including it. In fact that's how you usually do it. The original X-Men were an analogy for racism and were all white. Then it became more homosexuality, but it was still a long time before there was a homosexual character. You could have a strong theme of "We need each other to stand strong", but just not include people of different races or give them narrow stereotyped roles.
And really, "Judeo-Christianity"? In Dragonlance? As an analogy or actual Jews and Christians? Cause that's hard to fit in.
I'm also not sure why you think Paizo shrieks in fear at including everyone. They don't have Judeo-Christianity, for what I think are obvious reasons. They haven't done much if anything with Native Americans, though there is a place in the world for them and there's been some talk of it. They do have atheism, blacks, interraciallism and heroes and villains of all sorts. So, near as I can tell, you're way off base there.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I'm sure there are lots of groups Paizo hasn't touched and maybe even some they've declared they won't touch, but "far from inclusive" and "pretty far behind the curve" are very strong statements and I'll need some evidence. At least examples so I know what you're talking about.
It is also explicitly representative of being in danger.Or distracted. Not necessarily both.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that argument, though I don't think it's as clear as you do and would rather it be stated before it comes up in game.I'm not happy with "because you don't have a full round" or because "you're not in a position to make a choice about handling your perception".
As for your obvious last point - would you accept a request from a player to have all secret Perception checks to be done as Take 10 if possible? Or am I reading the obvious reasons wrong?
We've talked about the danger part and I concede that's possible for surprise perception checks, though I'll point out that you're not in combat phases yet at the point you roll perception.
But that's irrelevant to the other point I think. If I read you rightly you're claiming that you can't Take 10 on any reactive check because you're not choosing to make that roll. Based on the bolded "may choose to take 10 on some rolls" phrasing, correct?
I don't think that's what is meant. You're not choosing to make the check, but choosing how to do so isn't the same as choosing to make the check in the first place. You're making a check. You're choosing to Take 10 instead of roll. That doesn't violate the text.
Edit: You've also changed your reasoning for why you can't take 10. I assume you're dropping the argument that it's because you don't have a complete turn.
xavier c wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. The Ascended Gods do and it would have been nice to have one or more.
I don't think there's anything definitive saying the other gods specifically default to one appearance, ethnicity or race. We've seen the "white" version because that's how they were presented to us in the first releases of the setting. There's no reason they couldn't be seen differently in different parts of the world and not have any of those be their default appearance.
Experience for roleplay maybe?Though generally it's still only given for good roleplay, not just a binary yes or no. And Good is still subjective.
Certainly true, but it also matters how it's presented to us the players. If all the actual pictures are of whites, but theres a note somewhere that other cultures portray them differently that still presents to us a very white set of gods.
Showing us white and black gods (and all the other hues!) and still adding notes that different cultures portray them differently gets the same point across, but also lets everyone see it viscerally. More so if they actually portray the same god in different ways. A picture is worth a thousand words, they say.
GM follows different rules :)Nearly everything the GM does is metagaming.
Big difference between that and having characters react to out of game information.
You can also just House Rule things if you think it makes for a better game. That has the advantage, if stated up front, of avoiding confusion in the heat of the moment about what you can actually do.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
If the monsters are using Stealth for an ambush, and the PCs are using Perception to determine if they are surprised or not, I could rationalize the monsters taking 10. The PCs will have more fun rolling anyways. I used to really dig opposed checks, but nowadays I don't always see the need for applying two randomizing factors into the same outcome.
I am fond of the "Let the PCs roll" approach.
Though if the PCs are in the habit of relying on Take 10, I'd probably roll for the bad guys. :)
Actually, if the guard's really being vigilant, he should be getting a Take 10 as a reactive check and actively looking as a move action - taking a roll on that one. Then using his standard action to walk his beat. If he's stationary, use that as another Perception check.
Luckily for infiltrators everywhere, it's not really humanly possible to maintain that level of vigilance long.
Then he shouldn't get a check at all. If he gets one, it that's not a reason for it not being Take 10.
I'll just reiterate that when I talk about this, I'm not talking about the GM enforcing or dictating anything. I suppose the GM could rule it not roleplay, but that doesn't need to have any effect.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
As you should be able to guess if you've been following the discussion - some would say definitely yes, others definitely not.I'd say it depended on whether they were basing the suggestions on their character's persona or on other criteria.
Cost is based on spell level * caster level. Since they're 6th level casters they have to be higher level to use a given level of formula.An alchemist can use a 3rd level extract at 7th level, not 5th as a wizard would for a 3rd level spell - so the base is 21, not 15.
It's not a bulleted list, but generally an "or" means that either condition is sufficient. You seem to be arguing that danger only counts if it's also distracting, correct?Does that apply in reverse? Only dangerous distractions count?
I can't actual derive either of those from the language.
A or B. Either Danger or Distraction are sufficient.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Not really an early warning system. He drops the ball the same time he gets the reactive perception check for the surprise round. If he fails the check, by the time he realizes what the dropping ball means, the surprise round is over and he's rolling initiative for his first action.
More seriously - Take 10 is a metagame call. You can't base actions on whether you can do it or not without cheating.
Draco Bahamut wrote:
Did you see Erik Mona's statement earlier?I certainly don't think that's Paizo's intention. I guess the question might be more "How high of a priority is it?"
Other than deities, do you think they're do a bad job?
Your gut is uninformed, and is unskilled as an arbiter of rules. Better to ask your head. And your head, upon reading the rules, will discover that T10 is intended for EVERY skill unless a specific exception is given (such as UMD).
But that just means it's intended for Perception in some circumstances.According to the Take 10 rule, that's "When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted".
So the question is, does being ambushed count as "immediate danger"? I think it's pretty clear it doesn't count as "distracted", since it hasn't actually happened yet.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Practically speaking, I'd actually rather not have everyone Take 10 for surprise checks all the time. Not because I don't want the game to run smoothly and quickly, but because it means the same people are always going to be surprised - or not surprised depending on how you look at it.
Rather than it just tending to go that way due to better skills - the low perception PC will never be the one to spot the ambush. If he sees it, everyone else will too.
The official rule is "in danger or distracted".
I agree and would run it as you suggest, but the language is certainly open to "Can't Take 10 if you're in danger" whether it's related to the task at hand or even whether you're aware of the danger.
So, by that argument, you could Take 10 on reactive perception checks other than surprise round checks - to notice the guy sneaking towards your camp, but not openly attacking, for example.
Still, I think that falls in the same category of question as "You shouldn't be able to Take 10 climbing because of the danger of falling". If the danger in question is tied to the skill, is it still a problem?
There's definitely overlap though. Plenty of modern western CRPGs put a good deal of personality and narrative into the main character.Those closest to TTRPGS tend to leave it more open to the player. These also tend to be the ones with more complex character creation mechanics or in fact character creation mechanics at all.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
Did you take actions, choose dialogue or different paths in the game based on how you thought the character would behave? I'd call that roleplaying.
To a large extent though, video game RPGs take the form of table top RPGs, but not the actual roleplaying part.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
I guess the real question is "Do they?"
Or were they talking about something else that you interpreted as "acting out the scene"? None of the examples you gave specified that and could be read as any of the other uses of roleplay we've been talking about here. Generally it might just mean "something other than just rolling dice in combat".
If we did in real life what we do in Pathfinder we'd attack a faith we didn't like or approve of and poop on their altars. *tries to shove the train back on track*
Cause that's never happened in real life.
Edit: Nor is it something I often do in game, for that matter. Barring the kinds of faith that are sacrificing captives or some such. Those altars get desecrated after stopping the sacrificing and killing the murderers. Usually not desecrated by so crude a method though.
There's a difference between voluntary organizations and racial/ethnic or other groups you are part of whether you like it or not. You can leave a church if you don't like its behavior. You can't decide not to be white anymore if you decide white people do too many bad things.
Churches also, as you say, do good things along with bad ones. And they can also change. It's up to the individual to decide whether the good outweighs the bad or whether it's worth staying and working to change the organization.
But people will still judge you by it. Both for good and bad.