Artglow Saltband's page

"Multiple Ability Checks"

'Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so: the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating a check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again.'

So what is Role Assumption and how is different from Role Playing?

Why not go online and download some 1e or 2e modules? Their available for free from some websites. Your pkayer wants 'classic' and there few things more 'classic' then early DnD modules.

At least to me this was unclear....

The 2nd paragraph said it was to the GM as to how long training took and how much it cost.

But the 3rd paragraph stated it took 250 days and 1gp per day.

Maybe I missed something....?

Ok I think I got it. The 2nd paragraph talks about finding a teacher which means training always takes 2/3 of normal year.

Sorry forgot to specify 5e.

So there isnt a 'caster level' in 5e? Ok cool that makes it easier.

So we've seen a lot of talk concerning the conversion of adventure paths, but not as much about the appropriation of modules.

I recently ran the Retribution adventure by Raging Swan, and thoroughly enjoyed it, leaving me to wonder what other modules might be good to convert.

I've been eying some of the older modules as well, and I imagine them to be even easier to convert than newer products, especially in paring down treasures. What do you all think? Any experiences with classic modules?

Bump, sounds like stuff I be interested in.

You know, this might just be me as well, but if your encountering Beholders before 9th+ level then you might want to try a different GM.

This is a little off topic....

Why, do you think, the dead condition doesnt spell out that you can no longer take any actions?

When a creature gets the dead condition does it slump to the ground or does it remain standing?

When you GM and a group of creatures, standing around with weapons in hand, fail their save against the 1st level Sleep spell how do you discribe what happens to the effected creatures?

I havent read the thread so dont know if anyone has said this already.....

The way I look at the 'nature of evil', if you have to ask if what your doing is evil or not, then its probably evil.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Larkspire wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

In their defense Anzyr, it only seems unfair if the group is keeping track of the value of equipment characters get.

In the playstyle they're using, the only person keeping track of this stuff is the GM. The players get what they get, and they either like it or petition the GM to give them the opportunity to acquire what they do want.

Why would the group, competent adventurers who are out for profit, not keep track of the value of their haul? I honestly can't wrap my head around this. (Around their group's PCs not keeping track, not your post.)

It's weird to me too. My players are like this though...they pay little to no attention to the value of items...they just give the item to the character who speaks up as needing it the most. They then divide loot evenly....Even when I point it out "Ya know that cloak was worth 8,000gp" they pay no attention.

It's basically left to me to balance them out with the types of items I drop.

OK.. so what are you balancing?

The value or quality of items given to each character.

So, if the players dont see a problem why do you feel a need to balance what the players dont see as an imbalance?

If one player has 5k gp and the others have 8k gp and everyone is having fun and enjoying the game without complaint....

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Was this party agreement to weird for everyone?

In most groups I've been in, we've had an agreement that a magic item went to the person who could put it to the best use. If he didnt want it someone else could ask for it. If no one wanted it it was sold. When all wealth items where sold we divided the cash equally plus a full share to the 'party pool'. The 'party pool' was used to buy wands and potions and such, and was used to pay for raises, restores, etc.

That sounds about right, except that if say a Fighter took a +3 weapon it would be counted for the full value and however much extra it was over the rest of the party's split would be held against them next time. A party pool to maintain wands of cure light wounds and other assorted party items was also divided evenly in cost. So no one ever really ends up ahead of anyone.

The magic items werent counted againt anything and maybe its just the groups I've played with but no one was all that worried about WBL.

...Stuff...

You know I have no problem with the way you guys like to play but personally I dont think of my characters as superheroic lava swimmers so I PREFER my games to be more realistic. Doesnt mean your way wouldnt be fun, but just like playing an mmo, I'd probably get bored eventually.

...Stuff..

The long answer. If I wanted to play superheros I'd play a superhero genre based game.

Now this is the way "I" see things and I couldn't give a f*!+ whether you think its wrong thinking. When you accidentally fall your adrenaline is rushing and your mind is going "gotta grab onto something! gotta stop!", so you get the 'luck factor' to help save you if possible. The 'Luck Factor' is rolling the damage dice. If you just jump off a cliff because you "know" it cant kill you and its the fastest way down, I remove the 'luck factor' and just apply the maximum damage. Same thing with walking into lava as opposed to falling into it.

Also I have always though that capping the dice at 20d6/200' was lame. It wasn't so bad in the earlier editions of the game since 20d6 was alot of damage back then, a 20 lv fighter with an 18 con would have a 168 hp MAXIMUM. 20d6 would kill most character.

Question....

If you were GMing and a player said that his character takes a longsword and cuts his own throat, what would the outcome be?

Jacob Saltband wrote:

So let me ask all of those who continually say that PC's are at a minium superheroic after 5th level. Is the way you play the game the 'One True Way' to play PF?

If not, then why when someone says they play PF a different way then you do, you come off as saying their playing the wrong?

At least that is what I'M getting from your posts.

I wrote this post to you earlier, but you didn't respond. Could you please?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

No that's the way the game is. At high level spellcasters *are* superheroic. The reason people see it that way is because it is. Thus you shouldn't play the non-superheroic characters at that level. At least not if some people are playing superheroic characters.

Again thats you and others using those terms to describe certain levels, the game just describes a level 9 fighter as a level 9 fighter not a level 9 superheroic fighter.

Let us assume a level 9 Fighter starts play with 14 constitution, and puts his Favored Class Bonus into HP every level. By level 9 he has an item of +2 constitution, giving him 16 total

By level 9 he has a total of

10+[5.5*8 =44]+ [3*9=27]+9 = 80 hit points.

Being fully submersed in lava deals 20d6 hit points per round.

Your level 9 fighter can spend one move action submerging himself into lava, completely and totally, and more often than not [nearly 90% of the time, if Anydice's probability calculator is correct] walk right back out of it no worse for the wear, aside from some burns that don't affect his combat functionality.

If I was GMing and a 9th level character with 80+ hp said he/she was going for a swim in a pool of lava, just because they think their tough to survive it, I'd tell them to reconsider because I would deem that perposely taking a swim in lava is doing a self CdG and I'd apply the full 200 pts of damage. The same with jumpping off a 200' cliff 'because its the fasting down'.

The 20d6 falling damage cap makes perfect sense.

Terminal Velocity is a thing.

Problem with this is that when the 20d6 cap was set most characters barely have over 100hp at 10 lv. The 20d6 cap was set back in 1e where a 15 lv fighter/paladin with 18 con and MAX hp had 153hp. 3.x/PF raised hp capabilities but left falling damage capped at 20d6.

Things along this line is why I personally say that the PF, and 3.5 before it, are easy mode.

Makes Sense means it is logical in some way.

Common Sense means it makes sense according to whatever the viewer feels is 'normal logic.'

Funny because I always thought 'makes sense' was 'common sense'.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Have you checked out Kendle Unlimited? There are some good older books available sometimes.

I haven't yet; isn't it a subscription service? That would keep me from using it at this point in my financial status.

$10 a month unlimited number of books a month. Of course not all books are available through Unlimited just a large number.

Edit: I think limited to 10 downloaded at a time.

I didn't read the Hobbit or the LotR until after I began gaming, but I read the Elric Saga and Shannara, as well as Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs so those were what came to mind as I was first getting into the game back in 1985.

The first author I read when I was in my early teens was Edgar Rice Burroughs' series such as the 'Warlord of Mars' books, the 'At the Earth Core' books, etc. So I'm hopelessly Hero bound in my rpg games and you know what? I'm fine with that.

Terquem wrote:

Yes, but don't you thing those changes were made because of the "zeny" store (I think it was called) in Legend of Zelda and other such video games.

I really think the idea of creating a need to keep buying new gear came into the rpg (table top) hobby from outside developments

I blame Diablo. :)

Also, as an older gamer I find it interesting that the literary touchstones for my gaming peers were things you didn't mention: Thieves World, Brust's Dragaera, and Glen Cook's Black Company series.

I expect the party to be underpowered and underequipped at every turn, against enemies that don't fight fair. Playing 3E/PF has been...strange.

"3.x/PF is easy mode." I've seen this posted before and agree somewhat.

30 point buy with a 1:1 ratio......I can get behind that kind of PB.

18 15 15 14 14 14 pre racial.

My last group met mid-week and most worked before the game so we only had 4-ish hours once a week. This wasnt bad for me since I work nights and weekends so mid-week was great. 4-ish hours a week doesnt bother me because just being able to play makes me happy. I dont need to fit as much as possible into one session so long combats dont effect my fun since I like the combat part of the game as much as the story thats unfolding and a little roleplay.

There is nothing wrong with that. If you lived in Australia you could join our games (we play on the weekend though).

We role-play in combat, we combat role-play, you just have to watch the movie Fury Road to get an understanding how Australians play the Pathfinder game.

Thanks Morzadian. If I ever get a chance to go to Australia I'll let you know and we can meet and maybe play. Not that that is likely you understand but would be nice. For the record I live in San Diego CA.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

To test things in my area I posted a 'looking for game/group' in a locate gamers forum. In the post I said I was not a heavy RPer and loved the story and combat more then Heavy RP. There have been 114 views of the post and not a single email to 'check me out' to see if I'd be compatible with their group/game. Even if only a third of the views were actually looking for people that still over 30 people.

So looks like heavy RP is there way the players in my area like it.

Oh well, we can always hope to find a compatible group sometime.

Dont get me wrong, I like some RP I just dont think it needs to be the most focused on thing of the game.

I agree with a previous post, it could have something to do with the description of what kind of role-playing games you are interested in.

It comes across as someone who is inexperienced (obviously you are not) and is interested in only combat. Maybe a bit more information and make it a bit more self-promoting.

Jacob, good luck

Thanks Morzadian.

Here's the post I did, let me know what changes you thing might make a difference.

'Hello, my name is Stephen and I'm looking for mid week (wed/thur) group to join. What is being played doesnt matter but the only game I've played in the last few years has been Pathfinder. I'm 52 yrs old and would perfer a mature group. I'm not that heavily into RP I like the story and combat over alot of RP.'

In earlier editions at what point/level did spellcaster start to be considered powerful?

Then the changes to 3.x and PF, did spellcasters become powerful earlier then in 1e/2e?

Mr. Jacobs,

For RPGs like Pathfinder do you perfer to play in:

A game that emphasizes role-play over all other aspects of the game.

A game that combines all aspects of the game more or less equally.

Or something else (please give an example).

Many great stories are told from the third person perspective, I believe that Tolkien wrote this way.

Why does the stories being told by RPGers have to be strictly first person perspective?

Again this is the impression I get.

Also no body said anything about prop or clothing requirement when talking about Acting. Improv Acting doesnt use props or setting/period clothing.

When did being able to Act become damn near a requirement to play an RPG?

This is just the the impression I've been getting from alot of the threads and posts I've seen over the last couple years.

Example are:

"How do I my player role-play more?'

"....will reward role-play and creativity...."

"We sometimes go entire sessions with out rolling dice."

Edit: How much RP is required in your groups? Not everyone is comfortable RPing, is the game going to be unaviable to so people in the near future?

Mr. Jacbos,

If you care to share, what are a couple of the noted differences in how you GM compared to the GMs you get be a player with.

I'd like to appologize to the board.

I find it easier of late to combative and argumentative then reasonable. I'd understand if you dont except my apology. My excuse/explanation is that live has been annoying of late. At the end of last year, dec 31, my company reorganised and I got a pay cut so now I make roughly $500 less a month. In Feb I left the group I'd been with for 3-ish yrs and havent found another...sucks. March my mother got sick and because I now have no money I took the train instead of a plane and she passed away 30 min before I got there.

So being an ass is easier right now.

Again I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Beware the clicking of FAQs, lest you be locked into an interpretation you disagree with.

Eh, it's a toss up mechanically. Either it's light armor and you can use the brawling enchantment with with it, or it's medium and you can use the Defender of the Society trait and hosteling enchantment.

I'd rather it be one or the other than have to deal with table variation, especially considering how common mithral armor is.

Why is it one or the other? Would it be game breaking to allow mithral armor to qualify as both?

How much would a +1 Buoyant Mithral Breastplate cost?

6,250gp. Best of both worlds as Gauss says.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Beware the clicking of FAQs, lest you be locked into an interpretation you disagree with.

Eh, it's a toss up mechanically. Either it's light armor and you can use the brawling enchantment with with it, or it's medium and you can use the Defender of the Society trait and hosteling enchantment.

I'd rather it be one or the other than have to deal with table variation, especially considering how common mithral armor is.

Why is it one or the other? Would it be game breaking to allow mithral armor to qualify as both?

If its of any interest to anyone....

I've heard that when the paizo staff game they do 4d6 drop lowest.

Not what I meant.....BE only ignores non-living matter so armor made of living matter should still work normally, i.e. atill gives armor bonus to AC against BE weapons.

Armor and shields made of living matter effect brilliant energy weapons.
Why would armor or shields made of greenwood be bypassed by brilliant energy? They are made of living matter so the 'ignores non-living matter' part of the disrption comes into play.

Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.

Mage Armor and Shield spell are magical force effects, in what way can they be considered living matter?

Greenwood Armor is living armor. Because Brilliant ignores Armor bonuses, no exceptions given, it goes through them. Greenwood armor has no language that it prevails over Brilliant weapons.

Greenwood special materials is living matter it doesnt need to have anything specifically spelled out about Brilliant Energy in its discription as the Brilliant Energy discription covers it under the 'non-living matter' part.

A Tower shield being planted and providing cover effectively turns it into an object, akin to a table you kick over, and thus not providing Shield bonuses. I have no problem with Brilliant not punching through once you transform the use of the item.

This is assuming the 'non-living matter' discription is fluff, and of course YOU not having a problem with it working that ways doesnt mean that how it should work.

Kindly note that you can use feats and weapons to get Shield bonuses. Brilliant passes through them.

And if your using non-living matter objects to get these shield bonuses Brilliant energy weapons will just pass right through as in the Brilliant Energy discription.

Kindly note that parry rules require you to use a weapon to parry. Weapons are non=living objects. Thus, you can't parry a Brilliant weapon except with your bare hands.
except there's no rule saying Brilliant weapons can't be parried, either.

No rule except sommon sense, you can still parry Brilliant Energy weapons because the weapon isnt completely made of Brilliant Energy so you can use the non energy parts to affect a parry.

The Defender enhancement assumes you are using the weapon to parry once it is activated. Weapons are not alive. Brilliant should ignore Defender since it will pass right through the weapon. It doesn't. It only ignores shield and armor bonuses.

Couldnt find the Defender Enchantment so cant comment on this.

The Brilliant Energy enchantment costs at a minimum 50k gold so it should have some pretty good effects to go with the cost

Something to make note of....There was not Greenwood spcial materials when Brilliant Energy was written.

This does need a FAQ my VL is currently saying that it is with in the rules to cast simulacrum off limited wish because it is on the summoner list as a lvl 5 spell.

I think your VL should have followed PFS rules in place long similar lines like this from PFS.....

All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. For example, a scroll of lesser restoration must be purchased as a 2nd-level scroll off the cleric spell list and may not
be purchased as a 1st-level scroll off the paladin spell list. If a spell appears at different levels on two different lists, use the lower level spell to determine cost. As an example, poison would be priced as a 3rd-level druid spell instead of a 4th-level cleric spell.

The 3.5 version of this spell was much more limiting because in the text it stated that only the arrow head was brilliant energy.

The PF version leaves things much more open to interpretation.

Personally I'd say that ammunition fired from bow/crossbow/ etc is a 'significant portion' of the weapon. Not sure why anyone would pay to have just the ammunition enchanted as it costs the same to have the bow/etc enchanted.

Also a bow/crossbow etc confers(imbues) the magic to the arrow upon being fired but the bow itself does not benefit from the magic. A flaming bow isnt on fire it confers9Imbues) the flaming ability to the arrow.

of course there are some special bows that might benefit but thats special not standard.

A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects.

I just dont understand how people can read a paragraph then only quote parts of it to make their arguement.....

The paragraph has to be taken as a whole to fully understand what the author was trying to get across.

"A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter."
This sentence tells me that non-living matter is ignored...pretty easy but not clear on what ignore means.

"Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor."
This sentence clairifies that armor is considered non-living matters and that brilliant energy items pass through non-living matter.

This is how I read it so its RAW to me.

Edit: Forgot the last part.

"A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects."
This sentence further clairifies that undead, constructs, and objects are considered non-living matter and are thus ignored/passed through so they cant be harmed by brilliant energy items.

I'll admit I like getting into the story of my games, so when I make a backstory, I get a little detailed. Like, about the length of the Iconics backstory. So I might be biased. Regardless, I can't stand when someone shows up to a new game with a backstory two sentences long. Or worse: Amnesia. How is your character related to this world/setting/game at all? Did you even try? It might just be me, but it grates on my nerves like nothing else.

Looks at his 3 sentence background....shrugs.

I dislike anyone under the age of 60 that comes to gaming wearing a fedora.

-Skeld

*hides fedora behind his back*

Yeah, because in a show with superhumans who can absorb other materials we should worry about realistic physics.

Yes.

I like Agents of Shield.....but

Kind of disappointed in that the villian got ahead of a fast moving vehicle without any apparent why, and a human shaped piece of asphalt was an immoveable object against an SUV moving at a high speeds.

Edit: Yes the SUV would have still been in an accident......but mister asphalt guy would have been crumbs all over.

This is some thoughts I have to houserule some thing so far. I havent seen the PH yet so dont know if there are any changes since the Basic rules came out, but I'll probably drop the concentration parts of most buff/duff spells. Reason is because the casters have had their number of spells reduced, AND having buff/debuff spells as concentreation as well, reduces spellcasting even more.

I've noticed that most spells have a set duration that is not changed by caster level, this is another reduction in caster ability as well. Even if some spells have had their durations increase, like mage armor has an 8hr duration, it still reduces casters flexability.

I'll probably change the Shield spell to +2 or +3 AC and protection from magic missiles, not sure what duration to set it at yet.

This is just my opinion but I feel that casters got screwed over more then nessecary for "balance".

We still have 3 months until the DMG to see what they have as options.

Monsters that were scary in ealier editions....not so much in 3rd and later.

The Mummy was a very scary monster and tough for mid levels (9+) because you needed magic weapons to damage it at all AND power magic weapons to really start doing some damage. +1 and +2 weapons only did half dmage, you needed +3 or better to do full damage.

I'm talking about just the standard mummy for 1st and 2nd editions.

Now it has a DR 5/- and its a CR 5 monster.

Oh well, progress I guess.

Way back when, AD&D 1st edtion, my 9th level fighter failed a saving throw against a polymorph other spell and also failed his system shock roll. Now hes a dead blue baboon.