Callous Jack wrote:
I've said this before regarding other applications........
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS brand name is only worth a nickle outside of the gaming hobby. In truth, I feel that putting D&D into the final title of any live action film is a bad decision on a studio's part.
It carries connotations of high cheese and pre- pubescent silliness. We may hold the name D&D dear, but we are a TINY minority.
It was a good deal, at the time, for TSR to let Soloman have a continual license to make films branded as D&D. In context; the company was failing, the hobby was flooded and the former player base were writing their own stories only slightly influenced by the game. Those stories were just as likely, even more likely to be turned into celluloid. There was a real chance for the brand name to be circulated and recirculated in a different medium at NO COST to the company other than having their brand name attached to yet another bad "B" film.
No, Hasbro would never allow such a deal. Which is why Hasbro still hasn't made a film or allowed a film to be cut of any serious work. They slacked off on Dragons of Autumn Twilight, which Should have been a money maker, they've yet to do a Drizzt movie or adapt a single one of their enormously successful novels into a feature film.
Prior to LotR (which is a D&D movie, since D&D is a LotR ripoff at it's core). The idea of a well produced, Oscar caliber, sword &sorcery film was a pipe dream. Now with the insane success of Jackson and Columbus with the Harry Potter films and Martin with GoT, the studios will greenlight anything for preproduction just to have something that could be a hit.
A film based on D&D is silly, since D&D has mined (or robbed) everything. I'm not sure that you couldn't make any generic fantasy film and use most of the basic elements without stepping on any legal toes. A film based on The Icewind Dale trilogy or Dragonlance maybe has merit though DL is probably too big in scope.
If Hasbro/Universal wants to make a movie let them. If WB/Soloman wants to make a movie, let them. Heck if Paramount wants to make a Blackmoor game movie let them. Let them all vet realeased at the same time ( like Armageddon/Deep Impact, Mars/Red Planet, or the 2 Snow White movies). No film is going to be good unless they take it seriously and the D&D name pretty much GUARANTEES that it won't get taken seriously, not even by Hasbro. Who hasn't learned from their mistakes and seems to think that their IP covers everything, it doesn't.
I've regretted taking Abjuration as as on opposition school on 2 different occasions. Now you're not planning on anything past 5, which takes out the best stuff. But still.
Shield is Wonderous at low levels, Prot from arrows is nice too. But the Resist energy is money.
Ahhhh, another meme I've managed to cut out.
It's hardly a tax. Most of the BSF's skill points would otherwise go to either Perception or Intimidate? They still do, it doesn't take max ranks to mend chain mesh. A single point investment in either Craft (arms and armor) or Profession (Soldier) will do.
And yes there are benefits for the wizard in harvesting body parts Knowledge (biology) or Heal.
Not being able to buy "cool stuff" in an equal manner is already written into the core rules with the default crafting system and the wizards free bonus item crafting feats. The cost of the feat is far less of a hit for a caster, who's real class feature is spellcasting, than a fighter whose class feature is combat feats. Rogues are even worse off, though they could steal magic items for free I guess, but that'll blow the WBL guidelines out of the water pretty quick.
Except, in practice, this seldom seems to happen.
Perhaps because the Fort Saves have a better chance of outright killing a character where will save just make them suck.
Thats not quite fair.
Also not everyone is convinced that the component rules are "flavor text". They are mechanically grounded rules. That the M is handwaived but the S is not is part of the reason for the thread. With each edition of the game the spellcasters get more powerful. But how much of it is a lack of system balance and how much of it is player base laziness?
If players disagree with a relative magic level they are welcome to do so, but if they aren't volunteering to run games as a GM then they can only complain so far. I play with a guy who outright bans spellcasters in any form. I like wizards but I still play with him because his games are fun.
I'd actually agree with the availability of odd items issue.
I also practice a theory that spell components are one of the best impetuses to an unforeseen adventure. After years of it it's pretty rare that the fighter doesn't opt to tag along with the wizard as he scrapes poo off rocks:
The Spell Component Pouch is a glaring Achilles Heel for the prepped caster. I don't think it's a douche move to target it as such. It's not considered a douche move when you hit the fighter with Will Save Effects every other encounter (which happens in every game I play in as a pickup).
I'm not the OP, but I'll answer.To a certain degree, yes I do. It encourages Skill Usage. Specifically Craft, Profession which are kinda ignored in some games. My players tend to take them and I ensure that there are benefits beyond just not having gear degrade. In the end my goal is not to punish players but to leave them with more well rounded characters. *
I do use a variant magic item crafting system, that doesn't require spellcasting and also offers some non magical masterwork mechanical advantages. So there are strong reasons for non casters to take craft skills without getting feat taxed into obsolescence. .
I'd actually suggest dipping some kind of monk if the zen archer is too close to your no supernatural clause.
3 levels of base monk gives you the save bonuses that replicate all 3 save feats.
Grappling, casters suck at grappling. Even Druids who might, might be ok at it will be at a disadvantage if you focus on it. Defensive Casting is not hard to pull off, but doing it grappled is near impossible.
Gold is expensive for us.
One of those precedents is the Money Changer, a guy in town who converts foreign currency to the local currency for a small fee. Not uncommon in Old Europe. One of the reasons we no longer use precious currency is that it too easily can exit a state, which is bad for the (small)
Yeah I occasionally use some money fluctuation in my campaign worlds, it's a great way for characters to keep up with the wider world with an actual impact on them as residents.
Yeah I do (but I was in the other thread so you knew that). I wanted to point out I'm not a nazi about it though.
I too tend to slack off on the high strength guys but focus on the STR dumpers.
I usually require a weight/ encumbrance balance between sessions but only get serious in game where large loot ends up in someone's hands.
I also try to balance loot between high value, light items (jewelry, art, rare books, magic etc.) and heavy trade goods (bolts of cloth, raw ore, booze, manufactured goods). I keep coins to a much more manageable level. I also use some higher value coins that ive liked since Forgotten Realms, analogs of the Harbor Moon.
In this, when loot is found, the characters can take the quick portable stuff and move on if they want, or they can work out the logistics of transporting the big score. Both choices have upsides and downsides.
As an aside, my players are pretty resourceful in having spare mounts and pack animals when needed. In our Kingmaker campaign, the Alchemist went straight to the Rich Parents trait to completely outfit for a long term expedition including 2 covered wagons. They came in very useful as that campaign progressed.
Coins are 50 to the pound, so that is only 240 pounds of gold.
Yet another abstraction. And significantly lighter that previous editions. Basically all coins are now the equivalent of a US Quarter. Though that means that gold coins are even smaller, like dimes maybe.
Yuck, how underwhelming.
Finding arrows is awesome.
But yeah I've played in campaigns where material resources were completely irrelevant. It's fine for a night. But after awhile it strains my sense of immersion.
This is the type of stuff that gets handwaived and drives me nuts. It may be tedious to keep track of a wagon full of loot, but getting a dragon horde to market, 100 miles from the lair is an adventure in and of itself.
Now it's pretty much assumed that Bags of Holding, Haversacks and even Portable Holes are ubiquitous. It's also not likely that said horde is all gold. The copper coins are exponentially more difficult to get home.
This stuff may be "unheroic", but it's not really heroic for there to be no real challenges to adventuring. Every year the game "abstracts" more of the mundane stuff that actually made up a lot of the old game.
The cost may be irrelevant, but the actual space that's taken up by 80 arrows is quite significant.
Now an Effecient Quiver is a must for a Zen Archer. But at 15th level, that's not even adequet.
I usually like my Town guards to have cheap weapons. And less messy ones. Swords are messy.
To the OP.
I've never understood why the hand crossbow is an exotic weapon at all. The principle for firing one is pretty much the same as the big ones. Unless it's also a repeater, which also is a weird choice for exotic. These are easy to use.
But have you ever tried to use a stone age sling? That thing is a pain in the butt. It makes Nunchuks look like a huntin knife.
This thread does show an interesting facet of the game. At some point the economics fail. After what the 5th level? The only thing that matters is the secondary magic item economy.
Shallowsoul has been defending me all day. I do enforce material component rules, and I make players re purchase component pouches as they adventure and power up. The pouches have an increasing cost.
I do not require a spreadsheet that states:
Yet I have 0 issue with requiring a recurrent cost for components. Just as I have 0 issue with requiring a recurrent cost for arrows. Or a recurrent cost for stabling horses. Or eating. The cost of living rules are an abstraction to prevent micro management. But I've met players who own one set of clothes, have worn them everyday for 2 years of in game time and then think they can start talking to the local lord and be taken seriously. Because there is no rule that says otherwise. Someone upthread asked if there was a mechanical requirement to eat. Seriously? Is that needed?
There is no mechanical downside to be being dead either. But try it my table.
It's often stated that the game is about resource management. Those resources are actions, HP and per day abilities. Somehow, somewhen it stopped being about equipment. Apparently characters never have to face poverty or deprivation. Which is funny, since poverty and deprivation are one of the few things that would get me motivated to get into the situations my characters find themselves in.
Why do Rich adventurers keep going?
As a flavor bonus, material components are a great reason for wizards to leave their towers, stop crafting, and travel the world. Doing stuff.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
This isn't a case of deliberate irritation. It's one of natural selection. Magic Missle, has no M component. Both Sleep and Colour Spray do.
Which is the better spell?
There are literally hundreds of posts on this forum discussing how much better Color Spray (my favorite spell incidentally) is than Magic Missle. Yet the difference, and value, of NOT having a M component is never figured in to those mental calculations. Yet that component and the component rules are there for a reason.
I always have Magic Missle as a player. Frequently Spell Mastery for Magic Missle. So I can always cast it.
If you pull out your CRB and go through all the "no brainer" spells you'll find that most of the better ones have a M component. Some of them have weird or not necessarily cheap or readily available components. Ground Mica? Gem Dust? Dragon Scales and Demon's Blood, these are but in limiters to more powerful spells. It's subtle but it's there.
On a completely different note there are a bunch of good spells that have no S component, so you can cast them in full plate without risk of ASF. That's there for a reason too.
It depends on who I'm playing with.
Yeah I enforce the M components.
All of which has led to me being called a jerk by certain "types" of players.
I'm old school.
While I appreciate players not wanting to play "Ledgers and Accountants", my suggestion is to not automatically go for the classes where that's necessary at some level.
I have a player who always, always plays a wizard. I've learned over time that he has to provide me with a spell list, each game day or I have to refer to him as Schroedinger.
If I don't check encumbrance, in a point buy game at creation, he will have dumped his STR to 7 and be wandering around with 45lbs of gear. He'll always be lightly encumbered, even after he just looted a small fortune in rare books.
And Spellbooks, are heavy and awkwardly sized.
Spell component pouches, are NOT infinite. They have everything a 1st level caster needs. As he levels up the pouch gets more expensive. Expensive Focus items aren't free (after 1st level), they have to be purchased.
Pouches are 10gp at Lvl1, that price doubles at every caster level. I don't generally go after the pouch, but it happens. I usually leave familiars and bonded items alone, it'll be rare that I go after one (familiars especially).
Profession and craft skills ranks can be used to supplement your pouch.
We also use a variant houserule for components, sometimes other stuff works. Weird components can actually duplicate meta magic. Ex. A Solar's arrowhead makes a Magic Missle spell Maximised for free; a Leonal whisker makes Cat's Grace function at +5 cl.
Bingo, this is the single truest statement I've ever seen regarding Caster/Martial disparity in several years of reading this forum. Most people have just come to accept that Wizards have no down side. It isn't true.
Now I don't require constant ledgers, but my regular group knows full well that some aspects of the game are actual parts of the game. If I ask for something pertaining to THEIR character, they need to know the answer. Like how much their gear weighs or if they have the ability to start a fire.
No one has mentioned it.
The Madu is remarkable in combination with CE and Fighting Defensively or both.
Now you need an Exotic Profeciency, which is a tax, but think about what this actually gives.
Shield Bonus +1
It can be combined with Crane Style.
But yeah you're right it's worthless for ranged attackers. Unless they are vulnerable when they get "based", where it becomes pretty handy. (Like a character that is so ranged focused that he has no melee abilities at all).
And no, Touch Spells don't qualify for Power Attack.
The example is not really a case of balance.
CE does prove useful in games where players get outnumbered. Those are likely not the norm, judging from forum examples; but it happens.
I agree that 8 on 1 is super unlikely, unless the overall odds are 6 to 1 or more, which is unwinnable unless there is a huge CR deficit.
But 4 on one, yeah, and that scenario means the PC is also flanked. AC boosts are indispensable there.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
This is where RPG combat FAILS to accurately represent the historical melee.
Players are always attempting to conduct an ongoing threat assessment of the battlefield. In effect, PLayers are all generals who survey the battlefield from a detached aerial viewpoint. Characters don't have that advantage. It's meta thinking, but it is unavoidable.
Why, why are the 8 Orcs disengaging from the opponent that is within range of their falchions and great axes to step back and find a new target? This makes no sense. At best the argument is that the Orcs would disengage (wasting possible full attacks) to provoke an AoO to then move and engage another target.
Wasted actions. In a tight action economy.
That makes Combat Expertise an exceptional feat.
Of course the above example is actually rare. Very few encounters are written that way in the modern era, because humanoid swarms are extremely dangerous to PCs and have an ability to kill off PCs almost accidentally. To most players that is ignominious.
Wouldn't detect magic pick up lingering effects?
Like the sword that got cracked and hand a mending cast on it.
Or the gold coin or staff that had been repetitively used as the focus for a Light cantrip.
Or any form of construction that had ever been spell manipulated. Stone Shape, Wall of Stone, Excavate etc.
If Prestidigitation was used to clean and polish some boots? Or spice up some food?
Detect Magic as an always on forgone conclusion has problems as well.
I use this house rule on occasion. If a player operates on the assumption that these abilities are ALWAYS on they have to RP it.
You must say RESISTANCE' ( in a bad French accent ) every 60 seconds of REAL time.
This works with Detect Magic as well. Except it's DETECTO MAGICA ( in a Hermione Granger accent ).
This is realistic, and it's hysterically funny on the first night you use it.
To paraphrase what I said erlier: It MAY be ok for one pc to cheat on the other pcs IF the players are ok with it. But it is never ok if one player (with the help of the GM)cheats on the other players.
DING DING DING!We have a winner!
You're being set up. This is a trap.
I'm guessing Andy is the old 2nd Ed. Player? Or is he A newbie?
If it's the latter, this is him not getting what the game is, PVP, while long established is a very different sub-genre of RPGs. One that everyone needs to be aware that they are potentially participating in. The CORE game and it's mechanics don't actually facilitate this type of play. It makes the GM's job much harder. You can hit him with STD checks and local law enforcement as a" get on track " technique but that's playing to HIS game, him vs. everyone.
If it's the former, and he is a veteran of old school Rpg games, he knows that this will end poorly. He has seen it before. It may have been a case of being mistrained in his neophyte games but I doubt it. The old game actually had rules to handle this sort of stuff, but they weren't great.
On the upside, it doesn't sound like he wants the money for more gear. Which is just candy asssed whiner gaming.
I'd let him swipe stuff, make him roll a d20, when someone(else) asks why, make him explain it. If they want to counter roll, they now have that option.
I don't ascribe to the school of thought where the DM is playing against the group. It's a component of the job but a minor one. Yet a DM who is in collusion with one person against the group without freely offering that option to everyone else is not only in an adversarial position but FAILING to do his basic job. Referee & Judge.
That thing is massive. It'd be heavy as heck.
I'd go with Curve Blade stats.
She attacks one handed as a spin maneuver, that'd take 2 hands to get going. It is basically a huge chakram, but 1d12 is too much unless it's a 20/x3. Plus it'd tick me off if someone wanted that and a heavy shield.
I don't know about being a double weapon, it only has one "head". If it's double you get into weirdness with enchantments and pricing. Also it could only be made with one special material.
It's really a big Moon and Fire Wheel, but that weapon isn't statted in Pathfinder.
All Virgins to PNP games should be started at level 1. IMHO.
To the OP.
If it's a bunch of newbie players, just use the CRB. Block the rest of it, APG, UM, UC etc. Too many options is bewildering to new players. I'd also advise NOT to advance their starting levels. Use the KISS principle.
One of those work for everyone.
SAD vs. MAD.
Although I'd be fine with removing the extra spells all together, the DC boost is enough of a positive that you'd still see the stat booster items chosen before most everything else.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Combat Expertise, I became virtually invincible against most enemies. It never occurred to me until I started reading these forums that it wasn't a good feat.
Don't make the mistake of confusing the highly subjective opinions on this forum as facts.
The feat is not horrible.
Most of the arguments against it here are based on it not furthering a SAD build strategy. That's Power Gamist, which is bad usually. Most of the arguments fail to recognize that the value of certain feats depend highly on game style, encounter design, play style and story.
I do not mean that in a bad way. Most people play with the same people over and over, certain expectations are met in every session. Point Buy is being assumed, And lethal force is always your first option.
Let's look at CE.
Int 13 is a weird number. It's odd and in point buy that means it's one you want to boost later. Sadly the characters that would use this feat are not Int boosters. So yeah a 12 would be better.
BUT, having more skill points is not a bad thing for Fighters, Rogues or Bards (or Monks who can actually bypass this and get the maneuvers anyway). Most of the arguments in this thread ignore this benefit, likely because they play in low skill focus games. More languages is ALWAYS good, unless you play in one if those games where everyone speaks Common like it's Star Trek. That's silly common actually.
CE stacks with Fighting Defensively, so the original premise to this thread is shot. Yet it points out one of the HUGE advantages to CE, it stacks with a bunch of other things. This gets missed by even experienced players.
It does add to your skill with Maneuvers, specifically your ability to resist them.
It's a dodge bonus to AC, so it boosts your Touch AC. Which is stupid good against things like Shadows and Spell Casters.
So it's not a straight feat tax.
And where it really, really shines is when you have to fight your Dominated team mate or a bunch of mooks who swarm you. Not that this ever happens in some games, because that's not fun for some groups.
I'm probably the last person with a vested interest to see this.
Thank you to the rules team for the clean up. This was well done and more importantly simply done.
The flurry adjustment was one that could have become unnecessarily complicated. While they're are people that will intensely dislike this decision, I thank the lord that the end result is simple. For hardcore gamers, simplicity is almost a bad thing. For those of us who play more casual types, simplicity is a godsend. This method can be used and understood by a neophyte player without the need for a coach to hand hold them. That's good for the game.
The Ki Pool adjustment. Is likewise simple. It solves a longstanding problem. It prevents the "Monk's Arsenal" issue. It's cheaper and easier than my houserule fixes. It keeps the value of a single "special circumstance" weapon, yet that weapon will change over the course of the character's life and level progression. A nice balance has been struck.
The AoMF; I've been a very strident critic of this item for some time. I'm not sure that this fix is going to change that. It's still a Druidic (now Summoner) item. It's only boosted those classes. Yet the Monk is not quite crippled by it's necessity. It's cost reduction addresses its principal flaw, for the monk. Yet it's still not a Monk Item in the way that a Staff of the Hierophant is a Divine caster item or a Holy Avenger is a Paladin item.
James Jacobs wrote:
Undead aren't ALWAYS evil. Just almost all of the time.
See Normalacy is restored.
Honestly though I'm not getting where the 3rd level spell trumps Pharasma argument is coming from? No where in the spell description is the former bodies soul even mentioned.
Is it absolutely certain that mindless undead are inhabited by the souls of their former selves?
My opinion on Undeath has always been that it is unnatural and in some way defies the the physical (and metaphysical) laws of the universe. Much like Aberations, which are also almost always evil.
I've never viewed zombies or skeletons as a wholly evil abomination on the world. Neither would I say they lack sentience, they are at some level self aware. The process that creates them summons some form of Animus, that at it's core is not a benign being. If that animus is a being that, for whatever reason, is not supposed to exist on the mortal plane, it is at some level Evil.
Now Vampires are a whole different thing. They are self aware, self identified as their former, living, selves. In some way they are simply in a different state of being. But they subsist on the living in a parasitic fashion and they are not a component of the natural world. They have hunger; not the "I could go for a sandwich" hunger, but the "I'm fixated on THAT particular girl, I HAVE to tear out her throat" kinda hunger.
Liches; Liches are always evil. They are always evil because you have to do some seriously messed up stuff to become a lich. Now you could hand wave all the messed up stuff a lich needs to do to become an effectively immortal high level god wizard. In doing so you now need a reason why the world is not overflowing with kooky undead wizards, since wizards deal with weird unsavory stuff their whole careers so a couple of centuries as a lich doesn't seem that bad, unless it requires you to do some really heinous things to get there.
I can see a place for no evil undead. But it should be rare. More importantly, Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in Pathfinder, they are actual mechanics. If the mechanics say that evil=inimical to the Material Plane then the state of being that is Undeath, is evil. The actual intentions and motivations of individual undead are irrelevant, their existence is an evil act. That's their lot in (in)life.
Of all the post AP stuff, Galt has been the most fun. Also some of the hardest to do since their is almost no source material. If Paizo ever publishes a campaign book about Galt, the Aldori, Northern Casmaron or the Rogarvias it'll likely not mesh at all with the beast this campaign turned into.
What I think I'm getting at is, you're kinda on your own at some point and just gonna have to make some stuff up. Just don't get upset when some sourcebook comes out in 2 years and contradicts all your made up stuff. Some people get crazy about Cannon, try to prep folks ahead of time for that.
I'm not in the hate Eberon crowd. There is some cool stuff there. But I like steam punk, I liked Gamma World and Star Frontiers heck I even liked Boot Hill back in the day and I'm pretty sure I'm in a very tiny club there.
But I also like ancient Egypt. Now I get what you're saying, why is it so derivative? I think it comes from the simple truth that nothing in our historical framework comes close to ancient Egypt. Ancient China, Mesopotamia and India, even the Pre-Colombian cultures fail to have what Egypt has. Endurance? I'm not sure what it is. Egypt is old, older than most others that we're adequately familiar with. The art, fashion and architecture is extremely distinct. Their theology and it's development is known and understood. Because of the Bible, Egypt is Historical and yet Fantasticly alive for most people. The other cultures have never captured that kind imagination to such a broad degree.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
I know a BUNCH of gamers who HATE Eberon.
Have you ever encountered a campaign setting called Tek'umel, the Empire of the Petal Throne? It's old, like Blackmoor and Greyhawk old, arguably a little bit older as it was the setting for stories in the 1960s. It's one of the truly original campaign settings. It was created by an anthropologist named M.A.R. Barker who taught at some college during the early years of RPGs.
It's not surprising. I've only met 3 gamers in 30 years of gaming who were even aware of it. AND it was published by TSR, at least I think it was.
There have been others, over the years. Dark Sun is pretty different. Spelljammer too, but for wildly different reasons. Planescape took root, but it's not even close to the "copy/paste" settings.
There was a setting from the 80's called Sky Realms of Joreune, actually a discreet game. Totally alien setting, absolutely awesome in every way. The art work looked like something from a Dutch Master. Way way ahead of it's time.
Totally original settings are the province of DMs, as home-brews. The simple truth of this sort of thing is that to make something totally original also accessible requires a spectacular story teller sitting at the table to make everyone "get it".
Not all DMs are created equal; and the default settings have to account for that.