First, I think that OOTS had a good take on good characters dying.
Second, if I was running a campaign, and one of good players wanted to be "immortal", then they would have to go the Gandalf route.
They would have to have permission from their sponsor deity. First, the deity would chuckle at them for their immature understanding of immortality. But that deity would be patient, understanding that mortals are limited creatures.
That character would have to have a purpose for immortality greater than their own pleasure and power. Except for maybe Chaotic Good characters, LG and NG characters would have to have some sort of celestial oversight. CG characters might be required to lose a key part of themselves that essentially changed their personality.
The key is that striving for immortality would have to cost something for a good character and serve a purpose outside of themselves. Those two factors would place a different feel than the grasping, selfish motive typically ascribed to evil characters.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Wow! This actually makes the Heal skill very powerful. I normally think of the heal skill as advanced first aid, which seems useless against diseases.
Hmmm, HMMMMM! Microbes? Fantasy setting? This made me think of magical and/or intelligent bacteria. Wouldn't that just be ... evil? Or very useful.... Tarrasque? No problem. Just toss this little bottle in its mouth.... Of course one of you will need to volunteer to, um, administer the dose....
Really enjoying this thread.
This is more of a fluff / RP question than anything...
But I was thinking the other day, the Dark Ages/Middles ages were a pretty tough place for the common folk: oppression, disease, starvation, etc. I was wondering, in a world with access to nearly routine displays of divine magic: creation of food and water, healing, etc., would the the common folks have more access to better food and health. Could even low level clerics stem the tide of famines, plagues, etc. Stipulate that the political situation would not be much better for the average Joe.
The Scarlet God has my vote. It may need some tweaks or even a new paint job (swapping out the Leng), but the engine is running fine.
Interestingly, the Scarlett God and the Doom Comes to Dustpawn are very similar. In the first, the PC go get the Cthulhu-esque villain, in the latter, the PCs wait for the Cthulhu-esque villain to come to them. I am sure it is merely a matter of personal preference, but it seems to me that it is easier (and more fun) to run an adventure where the PC must go DO something rather than run an adventure where the PCs must wait for something to come to them.
It seems like the whole Cthulhu/horror theme space was, shall we say, very well explored this year. More Cowbell?
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. Thanks to Erik for his detailed response, especially the references. The idea that the pictures are what the devils look like in hell is probably how I would run it.
It still goes to show that LE takes a lot of thought to run.
Is it my imagination but didn't Orcs used to be LE in 1st edition?
I think that the LE alignment is underused in D&D settings. A lot of potential for conflict. I am curious though .... Something that has tickled my mind since the days of 1E, so I thought I would toss out a question: should devils have a different visual theme than demons?
I am sure that I am missing something, but it seems that on first appearance LE outsiders should have a different look and feel than CE outsiders. Think of Tolkien's "look fair, but feel foul" rule of thumb for LE compared to "look foul and feel foul" for CE.
However, it seems that most of the graphic images in the Bestiaries show grotesque LE creatures that look little differently, thematically, than their CE counterparts.
I'm sure that it comes down to a personal preference and 'whatever works for your game' but I am curious to hear what others think.
Mike Welham wrote:
Ah, ok, that makes sense to me. I'm glad that you said that. I was having a hard time seeing why an evil (or chaotic for that matter) monster would participate. I can definitely see a neutral evil monster totally digging this group. A lawful evil monster would like it, but could absolutely NOT keep a straight face or stop drooling while trying to participate in such a group. ;)
Congrats on advancing in the competition! This entry seems to fall into the "people really like it" or "people really don't like it." Interesting reactions. No such thing as bad publicity, eh?
Regarding the organization, I have a question: (I think sort asked by one of the judges): "why would evil monsters want to be accepted by a fantasy society?" By acceptance, I assume that you mean more than just be left alone. But rather, inclusion in a fantasy world ecology, economy, society, etc. I am curious about your reasoning/perspective.
Good luck in the next round!
Stefan Hill wrote:
I have to say that that player is a real trooper. Sounds like an unfun character to play. The game is supposed to be fun. Rolling less than half your hit die is is not fun.
As an option, you could allow the player an extra feat or trait if they get a low hit point roll. Something to keep things interesting.
Leafar the Lost wrote:
Dude! Wrong planet. Jeesh! That is for planet P475G1.
Sorry folks! Nothing to see here! Move right along!
I like this one. I have players that would obey a 'kill command' in order to have a dog like this....
that said, your intro text, "..however some lack the finesse with equines required to be proficient riders. Still wishing to serve their order..." almost makes it sound as if the Hound Masters are second class Cavaliers. I would guess that they would not think so...
A cool, big idea....
If I was GM, use of this item might have alignment repercussions. Might even register a visit from one of your alignment outsiders who notice the change and pop by to say, "What Up? Why weren't you happy with what we gave you?" Lots of neat RP possibilities.
Also, what if you force fed a sorcerer one of these puppies?
I think that the negative level should be very hard to remove. Wish or Miracle.
Matthew Morris wrote:
<thud> <thud> <thud> <thud>
I was waiting for the Fred Saberhagen reference.
Ah, ok, the size issue.
Maybe if I had a pony? <joking>
Thanks for your assistance!
I am building a first level Cavalier, named Axelte. I have included the stat block below if you are interested.
As one of his feats, I selected the Teamwork feat SWAP PLACES for Axelte well.
Swap Places is a teamwork feat, meaning that you can only use the feat if someone else has the same feat. (Different topics, but the whole teamwork feat concept seems problematic. How do you coordinate with the other player characters to get them in action. Seems unlikely.)
Cavaliers also get an animal companion. That animal companion is the same as a druid's animal companion, meaning it gets a feat at first level. So, in a fit of creativity, I selected Swap Places for the animal companion.
I sure hope that that is allowed. Seems like a cool concept: the cavalier fighting alongside his trusty steed? Does that sound reasonable or is a animal companion not smart enought to use teamwork feats?
BTW - If anyone is running a lowlevel PBP game and is accepting new characters, I would love to try out Axelte.
Male Half-Elf Cavalier 1
Created With Hero Lab® - try it for free at http://www.wolflair.com!
BELLWEATHER CR 2
Created With Hero Lab® - try it for free at http://www.wolflair.com!
In many ways it comes down to the nature of the game: Are the players metagaming to 'beat the GM'? (a futile, but strangely popular, exercise), or are they metagaming because they're thinking of their characters as themselves (see 'faraday cage' example above)? Or are they metagaming to make the story flow (example from a previous post of the barbarian suddenly arriving on the scene of action).
A good breakdown.
James Jacobs wrote:
I'd even consider having only hunter's bond get replaced and changing favored terrain so that you only ever can choose "urban" as your terrain. This way you still get the later two abilities, but you miss out on the normal ranger's ability to branch out into new terrains. In fact, that might be the best way to go.
So, in essence, a Sable Company Marine would be giving up three abilities (2nd, 3rd, and 4th favored terrains) in order to gain the Hypogriff as a mount?
That's a very good deal at lower levels since the Marine would get their enhanced mount a full four (4) levels before they feel the pinch of their 2nd favored terrain loss. It will pinch a bit at the higher levels as they lose the subsequent terrains.
Too bad there is no "Air" Terrain? Or maybe a Sable Marine should be allowed to select Air Elemental Plane as a favored terrain at 18th level? So, they would in effect lose their 2nd and 3rd favored terrains and essentially be force to take Urban and Air Elemental terrains at 4th and 18th levels.
Corollary question: can Rangers take multiple levels in the same favored terrains and have stacking modifiers?
I was recently reading through my pdf copy of Bestiary 2. Really enjoyed the sections on the Aeons and Inevitables. But my thoughts were immediately drawn to the World Wound as I read about the Bythos Aeons and the Lhaksharut Inevitables.
In addition to the obvious demonic activity there, I would imagine that the Aeons and the Inevitables would also display a, um, curiosity, shall we say, about the apparent planar breach.
A mysterious emmisary, representing an unknown client, recruits your group to help with a dragon problem. With a different twist. This dragon is not an intelligent scheming creature, but rather a brute beast that must be put down. The mysterious client is, in fact, another dragon that wants the bestial dragon put down for many reasons, not the least of which is the humiliation of seeing his noble kind so poorly represented. The twist? The bestial dragon is in fact ensnared by a sorcerer who has afflicted the creature with a spell that removes its intelligence.
Question: are there any spells in PF that remove intelligence? Any creative combinations to create this effect? Of course, I have no problem designing my own spell for that effect. Just wondering....
Perhaps you could substitute another penalty instead of the loss of rage powers? If the player could come up with a creative alternative and you were okay with it as GM, it would add to the player's experience and probably provide some cool RP hooks that the player would be really invested in.
To be honest, if one of my players had a cool idea that added to the game, then I would be inclined to let them make a change as long as they were consistent with its implementation.
Sumthin like this: Paizo Twitter
'Preciate the folks who have taken time to 'splain me. Maybe I am overthinking this...
But, what is the practical difference of having the re-roll before the result is "announced" and just plain re-rolling a failure? Isn't that a trivial difference? Why not just say, "re-roll any result, keep the new roll"? Seems more clear that way.
Hmm, now that I think about it, a re-roll before the result is announced would serve to protect the existance any hidden modifiers that the GM may assign. Otherwise the player could metagame any hidden modifiers if he knew the exact result of the roll.
Okay, nevermind. I got it now. :)
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. However, my question may return. :)
The mechanic says, "... before the result of the roll is revealed....".
Could someone describe an example where the player would benefit from re-rolling before he knows the result of the original try?
Actually, now that I think about it, I had the same question on another part of PF. Isn't there a character class perk or a trait with this same feature? Re-roll b4 you know the result.
I am running a home brew campaign using PF, but I am changing the money scales. For example, 1 copper piece is a respectable sum to a commoner/peasant. He could buy a simple meal with that. 10 coppers a day could be a living. 100 coppers equal 1 silver piece.
Commoners don't often see silver pieces. If you wave a silver in their face, they will be either entranced or scared out of their wits.
A silver piece gets an adventurer a meal, two rounds of mead, and a night in a decent 'adventuring' inn. Two silvers gets you special treatment in that establishment for the night. You haul 20 silver off a monster and you are actually pretty happy at low levels.
Now 1,000 Silver pieces equals 1 gold piece. How's that for not having to manage sacks full of coins?
1 gold is the coin of nobility and merchants. Gold is not flashed around AT ALL. Commoners and low level experts probably have never seen a gold piece and probably wouldn't believe that it was real if you showed it to them. One gold piece is a respectable sum to launch an adventure. One gold piece might pay for your resurrection at the local temple.
Any thoughts or comments? How much would a common adventuring weapons, such as a longsword go for? 20 silver? How about a horse?
Congrats to Hero Labs and Paizo!
I own HL and I bought the Bestiary. I will eventually buy their other offerings as well, over time. I have already gotten my money's worth in time saved making characters. Not to mention the fact that walking through the character creation process on Hero Labs helps me learn the PF game. Not to mention the fact that it is incredibly convenient to have the journal feature which allows you to track XP and money. Plus the custom magic item making tool.
I have fun just playing with the character creation process. Letting my imagination roam through the possibilities.
Best of all though is the incredibly responsive customer service at their site. I mean, I am a pretty infrequent poster over there, but I think that every single questions that I've ever asked has been answered by the staff. I've even re-initialized my license a couple of time due to computer changes and/or updates to the program. No problem at all.
I am eagerly looking forward to the character sheet customization upgrade that was hinted at above. I would also like to see a comprehensive set of GM tools in the future. Maybe Gencon 2012? :)
This tool is well-worth your money and support.
Okay, I have looked through the Core Rule book and the bestiary and this forum. I can't find any description of the Slam attack. Specifically for a Fire Elemental. any hints?
The medium Fire Elementals has attack:
Melee: slam +7 (1d6+1 plus burn)
So what does that mean?
Does the Fire Elemental do 7 points of slam damage plus 1d6 burn damage with a DC14 save against the burn damage?
Or does the Fire Elemental do 1d6+1+1d6 burn?
What does the +7 next to slam mean?
Very interesting discussion. I have 5 kids, ages 7 to 15. The oldest four play RP with me and a couple of additional adult friends. My adult friends were aware, from the beginning, that my kids were playing. In fact, the sessions started with kids only and the adults joined because they enjoyed playing. A significant portion of my enjoyment of the game is watching my buddies react to my kids during the session. Another twist, one of my adult friends serves as "assistant DM" He RP major NPC and help herd sheep. It is pretty fun that way. Especially since I am rather new at GMing.
The age of the kid matters, but the personality matters as well. Two of my kids get pretty emotional if things are not going well. I have to resist the urge to go easy on them. I feel perfect freedom to allow them to swap character details around or even take a whole new character of the same level at the drop of a hat while they are getting used to the game. I wouldn't take any of my younger kids to a convention. They would not have the attention span for that experience.
My oldest is fifteen. He would do fine with other adults at a convention. A PFS might be enjoyable for him.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Paizo held a kids only gaming session? I bet that would be fun. Educational too for the adults who observed.
Another advantage of having kids play. I feel perfectly free to stop the game session and teach the kids how to roleplay. If they want to use their bardic skills to negotiate, I make them at least attempt to come up with some dialogue to accompany that request. Maybe it's just me, but would be more reluctant to "instruct" and adult in the art of RP. What do you all think?
I have a rather large group with a lot of young players. On any given session, we will be missing upto half of the players.
On a current mission, they were guarding a caravan. I ruled that the absent players were on the end of the caravan fighting basically the same mobs that were raiding the caravan and therefore too busy to help the PCs who were present for the evening.
That way I gave all characters the same XP for the evening. They are only 2nd level, so every little bit makes a difference.
I purchased of copy of HL after looking around at various different software. I like HL a lot. They software is stable. The customer service is awesome both on the forums and through e-mail. The updates are plentiful. I really like the ability to record notes and journal the adventure with the file. Makes record keeping much easier.
The basic use of the program is comprehensive for Pathfinder. Anything I need for character generation is there. You can also manage combat. You can also create customized classes and more. I am still learning about the capabilities of the software 6 months after I bought it. I probably use about 1/3 of its capabilities and I am completely happy with my purchase.