Eeeeeh it's not entirely clear. Great Cleave gave you unlimited cleaves in a round but no movement.Supreme Cleave, a class ability for the Master Samurai PRC from Sword and Fist (3.0):
Supreme Cleave wrote:
Supreme Cleave: At 2nd level, the master samurai gains the ability to take a 5-foot step before making a Cleave or Great Cleave attack.
Now you can argue that the ability doesn't give you any more 5' steps in a round than you normally would, just that you can use your step between cleaves (that's my impression of RAI). It doesn't explicitly state this, but it doesn't explicitly give you more 5' steps either.
Vow of Peace does nothing to stop an avalanche since the feat specifies "a manufactured weapon" and avalanches aren't weapons, manufactured or otherwise.
Not being able to see the sun is silly because we have no stats for what sort of penalties to Hide/Stealth the sun has - that could easily be in the many millions as well.
As for the Knowledge checks, why aren't all the examples you listed DC 10 (or even less)?
Now if you want to argue that the Knowledge rules don't take into account locality, I am in total agreement.
No mention of contiguous areas in 1e, 2e or BECMI. The closest I could find to this was "sheets" rather than a singular noun. but this could just as easily be referring to the fact that it was similar to a Wall of Fire except three dimensional.
We've always played with it as contiguous, however.
You're missing the point. We aren't attacking Quixote's position on fudging, we are attacking the assertions that 'level-headed' arguments are a better choice to side with over vehement ones with no regard to actual content, and that the truth nearly always lies in between two positions.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Ah, that's where I was getting things wrong. I still tend to think of the 2e versions of spells instead of the PF ones. Didn't think to look at the spell text. Rather embarrassing mistake to make. Disregard most of my previous replies, then.
You are right, Bob, and your DM is wrong. Him actually threatening you and having the congregation move in weapons drawn is definitely a threatening act, and AOOs do not come into the situation at all. You should have gotten that +5 from the spell. I will also reiterate that even if you fail the save, any hostile action taken by the caster and his allies afterwards will automatically break the spell. I don't know if that was relevant but it is worth considering.
Ah, the joys of games where words have both their common meaning and specific rules meanings and the designers forget this when writing. (though I will say that the DM should have understood the difference in this particular case).
Derklord has brought up the most important bits. Especially players not know how their own characters work (the number one source of time consumption during combat in one of my groups).
Notes notes notes. Make notes of everything you think you will need and then make some more. While improvisation in an important skill as a GM, I find that proper planning makes combat a lot smoother, faster and more fun for all. Common tactics, morale, specific enmities or superstitions that might impact combat, etc.
For most opponents, I tend to give passive abilities that I can add during preparation and not have to worry about in combat.
simplified Aid Another. If you throw a bunch of mooks at opponents, instead of rolling a ton of dice for attacks, roll one that is heavily aided. I rule that AA works automatically in combat, which speeds things up and makes weenie monsters a tad more useful. E.g. a group of 11 bog standard goblins is hardly a match for a PC after only a few levels. 11 d20 rolls to hit someone takes time and is boring. 1 attack roll with a +20 bonus on top of normal stats is fast and has a decent chance of striking even powerful PCs even if the damage is not amazing. Alternatively one goblin hero with a posse of spearmen at his back aiding his AC can help an otherwise overmatched but potentially troublesome opponent survive a round or two longer.
I'm saying you should read the AoO rules. This has nothing to do with Charm Person specifically, and nothing to do with distance from the player. Player vs. character distinctions are important.
Going on what you have given me, with a few necessary assumptions due to lack of information, it sounds like the combat went like this:
1. You attack cleric. In this case you threaten each other since you both can make melee attacks against the other. You have used all your actions, so it's the clerics turn.
2. cleric moves away. You don't say how far he moved, so I have to make some assumptions. Probably a 5' step. He could have used a move action to move farther away, but if he was going to cast a spell, that would have meant he would provoke an AoO from you, so a 5' step is most likely
3. 5' steps are free actions so the cleric still has a move action and standard action left. He calls his congregation and tells them to put themselves between you two. Talking is generally a free action, but spending a move action on it guarantees he can get the point across. A bunch of people between you grants cover, which also prevents you from threatening squares. The priest is probably doubly protected from AoOs made by you.
4. with a standard action left, the priest casts Charm Person.
Note that Charm Person is not a paralysis spell or a dominate spell. You are not helpless, nor do you mindlessly follow all orders. You look upon the caster as a trusted friend and are inclined to go along with seemingly reasonable requests, but that does not mean you automatically accept everything he does. He must make a Charisma check against you to convince you to do things you won't normally do, and hostile actions on his part immediately end the effect.
There you jumped from Fallacy Fallacy to Golden Mean Fallacy and pretended they are the same. Care to tell me what sort of fallacy that is?
To address your original claim about vehemence vs. 'level-headed'.
Which one is right?
As for the Golden Mean Fallacy: one side can be entirely wrong. One side can be entirely right.
It really depends on the setting, cultures and gods in question.
The empire of Thyatis is your typical late Roman/Byzantine knock-off, and one of its nearest neighbors is the superior empire of Alphatia. Thyatis really doesn't like Alphatia. Alphaks is an evil Immortal whose raison d'être is to destroy Alphatia. While worship of Alphaks is not legal in Thyatis, he has a fairly strong presence there as many feel that any god dedicated to destroying your hated enemy can't be all bad.
Vanya is the patroness of war and conquest. Think a super competitive by-the-books wargamer. While not actually evil as such, anyone dedicated to mass conquest is not good. She attracts the sort of fascist might makes right type of character you unfortunately always find. Part of the accepted Immortals of Thyatis and very popular, perhaps the most popular. People attracted to a sense of accomplishment, brotherhood and belonging, and building up the empire tend to be attracted to Vanya. Note that conquest doesn't need to involve bloodshed.
Thanatos simply wants to kill all life. An immensely old and powerful Immortal, he is patient and focused. His sects are illegal in Thyatis, but some people still flock to him. The resentful who want revenge on everyone, the power hungry who are willing to accept any deal to advance their goals, the mad, (and probably the disaffected youth who think it sounds cool and edgy). Conquered people who want revenge on Thyatis could easily turn to Thanatos in hopes of destabilizing the empire.
Nyx has no real presence in Thyatis, nor is she particularly evil, she is merely incompatible with most living morals. She is a creature of darkness and undeath, and she wants to darken the world and turn the living undead. She wants this because she values the beauty of darkness and undeath rather than from any hatred towards light or the living. in fact, she considers the living akin to children that can grow up to beautiful undead some day. In short, the ultimate goth god.
Religious freedom laws are a knotty issue. Unlike real world issues, D&D gods really do exist and their cults really do have power beyond politics, and ethics, in most settings, really is a fundamental component to the multiverse instead of mere social construct. Do you allow any religion, including horrible ones, or do you allow just the ones that say what you want them to say? Is there a matter of multiversal balance that needs maintaining (e.g. Dragonlance) or is it basically an all out war where one side can potentially win (most other settings)?
Mystara has pretty much every conceivable variation on religious laws.
You have monolatrist nations, like Hule, a theocratic hell-hole. The nations of the shadow elves, orcs and Azcans corrupted by Atzanteotl accept no other patron (amusingly enough, these groups have little to no contact with each other and would probably kill each other on sight if they did, even knowing they worshipped the same Immortal). In all these cases only the one Immortal is allowed in their respective nations.
Uncorrupted shadow elves have only one god because he's the only one that bothered to help them in need, so they don't need to enforce rules about religion. The dwarves of Rockhome and its colonies were created by Kagyar and are probably entirely devoted to him, but don't prevent the rare visitors from worshipping their own gods.
You have an actual monotheistic nation (totally-not-Arabia, with totally-not-Islam and totally-not-Muhammed) that is more 'golden age' Islam than IS, but still non-Eternal Truth religions are at best tolerated, at worst attacked on sight.
Thyatis is open to most religions that aren't actively disruptive or harmful to social order. Thyatis once had a thriving cult to the aforementioned Ixion, who is generally considered to be a decent sort, but it got politically troublesome and quite disruptive, and was banished. Most Immortals are allowed, but it has a set of very popular ones that people in general worship. Some Immortals are illegal, as mentioned, usually on the basis of being too disruptive.
The main issue of secret identities is that you have to be pretty much locked into a single location and have lots of non-work friends/family/jobs with significant screen time for it to mean anything.
Without knowing anything more about the characters and campaign, all advice will be shots in the dark. So for one shot in the dark, taking inspiration from Superman, this is the PC's chance to be a normal person again. At 16th level you are powerful. You're probably quite famous too (depending on the setting), so getting anything done in town without everybody crowding around you can be a pain. With a secret identity you are just another normal guy who can meet people, go to parties, live a quiet life without everything you do being gossiped about.
I don't so much fudge rolls as I fudge rules. Usually this is to get things to move along if a particular scene is taking so long it isn't fun any more.
Apart from that, we live and die by the rules and the dice. Sometimes the PCs roll s@#+ and feel useless. Last session of RHoD the sorc cast six spells on a dragon and SR took care of all of them. Sometimes the opponents roll s++@ and flail about like fish on land while the PCs are criting right and left. Sometimes PCs die, be it heroically or embarrassingly pointlessly.
I've long been convinced that you can make a strong case for the ancient Egyptian concept of the soul being how many (default) settings work.
You could just steal from Threshold #1, the fanzine for Mystara.
Yes, the Mystara fanbase has people who actually sit down and crunch the numbers instead of just arbitrarily assigning them.
There's no obvious way to remove that though. Maybe via remove curse, or dispel magic? It doesn't say.
And you need to specify whether the target can read a scroll or other non-linguistic inscription.
I assume these two posts were addressed to me.
1. There is a duration and it's a magical effect, so it stands to reason that can be removed by anything that can remove magic will work. Not to mention that it's a reverse form, so it cancels and is canceled by Comprehend Languages. Most spells do not bother to say they can be removed by Dispel Magic, and ones that can specifically be removed by other spells like Remove Curse or Break Enchantment tend to state this.
2. a) By 'scroll' I assume you mean a spell scroll. Depends on if you count spell scrolls as being based on language. If so, then you can't read them.
Converted from 2e
You render one creature unable to understand spoken or written language. The target is allowed a saving throw to resist this effect. Alternatively, you render one inscription incomprehensible. This effect allows no saving throw.
Related to this, there is babble, the reverse form of tongues, which renders all speech incomprehensible in an area.
1e/2e: for all your 3.x needs.
Let's look at the older rules.
Dragon Magazine # 26
Roll percentile dice!
This version doesn't create new bodies, it inserts the soul of the lich into corpses near the phylactery. Corpses receive a saving throw, modified by their in life alignment. Lich can retry once per week until successful on its own corpse, but other corpses are immune after a successful save. If in a body other than its own, the lich has limited abilities until it finds the remains of its original body and consumes those. The only way to completely destroy the original body is to disintegrate it. Returning to a jar costs a level and if its level went lower than 11 the lich died the next time it is returned to the jar. They cannot level up or use scrolls.
Wizard's Spell Compendium
Potion is sparkling black with blusish radiance and must be drunk within 7 days of creation, and over the course of six rounds the changes occur. Once a potion works, you don't die or transform quite yet. Craft the phylactery in no more than nine days (insert 2e crafting rules), using EAI, then TtS, and NN and MJ within 10 minutes of each other. Your soul is drawn into the phylactery and you lose one level and the top three spell levels are wiped clean from your memory until you have rested 1d6+1 days in your own body. Now you are a lichnee (I'm not quite dead, sir) until you die. After this, the same as the DrMg version, including failure chance for potion. No mention of inability to increase level or use scrolls. Phylactery can be anything.
Van Richten's Guide to Liches
The first half of the seasons was definitely the better of the two. The second half, while it had a few bright sports like the Bollywood number, was more like the older seasons of LoT - a lot of stupidity and pointlessness (pointless annoying character, thy name is Gary).
It remains to be seen if John sticks around for the next season. Much though I like the character in general, I think I would prefer him to leave. He's better as a loner than a team player.
Slim Jim wrote:
Then I guess I'll have to throw in with the die-rollers: D&D needs rolled characters for my sake. I've had far more fun with rolled stats than point buy or (shudder) array. Most of my players agree, or don't much care either way. Sure, sometimes you get s~+! characters in good groups, sometimes you get god characters. Never has this significantly impacted gameplay or enjoyment.
And this whole discussion falls into the trap I tried to warn of in of my first point in my last post: Fun is the Number 1 priority. What works for a group works for a group and you shouldn't worry if other people don't like it. If your group likes point buy, fine. If your group wants to roll, fine.
By all means be aware of what others have found problematic in order to fix easily issues that may pop up, but don't assume that because some people find something problematic that it is inherently so for everyone.
This bit is actually the most believable bit of the episode for me.Some people just naturally try to come up with what seems to them to be a believable story but which sounds nuts to everyone else. I have one of these in my gaming group. He loves to play social characters but his attempts at bluffs and persuasions are just plain whack to everyone else.
Some general philosophy.
The game is supposed to be fun
No. 'Checks' are rolls to see if you hit a specific number, while caster level is a static component of spell power. It's the Dispel Magic that is making the caster level check, not the WoF.
A cross between Ledger and Nicholson, methinks. Good actor, but what we've seen of the character looks pretty tame and uninteresting. I dislike giving the Joker an origin story. Part of what makes him good is that whatever he was before is mysterious and possibly irrelevant to what he is now.
I know Leto wasn't terribly popular but it was a take on the character we 8or at least I) hadn't seen before and I would like to see where they could have taken him.
*insert joke about incorrect use of player vs. character *
Short answer, yes. Take any undead in the game, allow player to play it. Done.
If you want an undead race balanced against core races, you're out of luck in PF core. The best thing to do would be to introduce the necropolitan. Just remove the bit about giving them d12 HD and you're good to go.
Generally I'm in the camp of number 3. If s@~! happens, it happens. The notable exception is if a TPK occurs because I as the GM have messed up somewhere, like given faulty information that causes bad choices, if I've misread an ability the enemies have, if I've made bad calls during the fight, etc. TPKs that are on the players or the dice are fine, those that are on the GM are not.
Never 2 do unless this is plainly stated to be how things work when you start the game. Then find out why it only works for the PCs and no one else.
There is also option 6:
One thing I did when faced with a TPK was bring in backstory. One of the PCs was a princess and her great-uncle was a powerful sorcerer who was grooming her to be a potential heir (mostly just a convenient guinea pig), and though the PC had run away, the great-uncle kept a magical eye on her adventures and exploits and when he discovered she was dead and her friends weren't in any condition to bring her back, he intervened and killed the baddies, left the other PCs to live or die as their stabilization rolls dictated and spirited his great-niece away (the less said about his experiments on her the better).
Then the remaining PCs had to get themselves back to full strength and quest to save their friend from the unpleasant great-uncle. Technically an arse-pull solution to a TPK, but one which had background character justification and, most importantly, lead to more story down the road.
I'd rather no movies were Citizen Kane, but that's just me.
My gf thought the movie was ok, for much of the same reasons I did. The most poignant feminist point, according to her, was all the sexist s@&+ she had to go through on Earth and how she figuratively told everyone to go f$#* themselves and showed she was better than anyone, woman or no.
Putting it in the 90s might not have been necessary for the story itself, but does work well for the MCU as a whole because Carol has to be an established badass who can be a credible threat to Thanos, and who doesn't setting-wise get thrown in last minute. Now she's got the power, some time to master her control and personality, and reasons why she wasn't around for anything else that has happened on Earth recently.
Oh, and I am really, really sick of this (usually American?) thing of telling people to not think but go with their feelings. I truly hate this cliché and every time it gets trotted out my enjoyment of a work takes a serious hit.
I know. And it's not like all the cqc action in the Marvel movies is bad. just enough of it and (seemingly) it's getting worse as time goes on.The DCU has managed to have good fight/action scenes in pretty much everything they've dpme. Say what you will about the movies otherwise, the action has always been very good. Snyder, whatever faults he may have, knows how to do superhero action, and the others they have hired for the other movies have done a good job as well.
MMFR is one of my favorite action movies in forever. John Wick has good action but suffers in everything else.Also Atomic Blonde, by the action choreographer of John Wick and starring Charlize Theron, has some great fights. Very good, underrated movie.
Just got back from the movie, and it was OK+. Pretty standard Marvel fare, not their best, not their worst.
The good: some decent spaceship and pew-pew stuff, Goose
The Meh: Carol, the 90s, Coulson, obvious secret baddies are obvious, the skrull
The Bad: Fury (nothing but a joke), cqc fight scenes (the unfortunate tendency in some MArvel movies of being filmed too close to the action and wanting to move the camera around all the time to prevent you from getting a good look at things).
The problem with this sort of thing is these people are all one-trick ponies. At will, in some cases quite powerful, but still rarely more than can be modeled with a single spell or Su ability.
Ben's ability was basically Evard's Black Tentacles, and the only other ability we've seen Klaus have is an inconstant Speak With Dead, so either a cleric with a special spell, or a wizard with a special spell (or Limited Wish).
Do you count TSR/WotC as 3rd party?
Weirdest thing I've played in any game: a sentient photocopier called zzzzzzzDONK! - in TOON.
I don't really have any strong desires of weird stuff to play these days. Mostly I am fine just playing, since I mostly GM.
The physics of the medium are one thing, but the main point of the skill in both Fly and Swim are how to move your body effectively in that medium, which has zero applicability to knowing which controls to use on a craft. The fact that piloting small boats isn't hard has nothing to do with swimming. That just means the DC to do it isn't high.
Let's put it another way: do you really feel that someone should be able to swim because they can pilot a ship?
Has any RPG publisher ever kept publishing an 'obsolete' edition at the same time as a new one?
Anyway, converting adventures from one system to another is pretty easy* so publishing ones for multiple systems shouldn't be necessary. Even if you stick to P1, if you want more APs, I can't imagine that adapting P2 to P1 can be a problem.
*as long as you know the target system pretty well
Dave Justus wrote:
By this logic knowing how to swim should be the same as piloting a boat or submarine.
I hope we can agree that is not the case.
Um, why can't they use Piloting to fly the ship?
Or did you mean to say "But without the pilot skill from Starfinder"?
Personally, I'd introduce Piloting but not allow them put ranks into it without some actual practice. They don't have teachers, training sims, training vehicles, and they have no cultural background to indicate how this might work, so anything they do to learn the skill is with the ship itself, and probably going to end horribly.
Far more fun is if you can pull off a proper Doric accent.
I'm mostly the GM so my characters are not very many or all that often.
Currently: Viconia, 7th level bard in RHoD set in Norwold.
and....(thinks long and hard)
Some 3.5 rogue in an abandoned game from a few years back. Can't remember her name, only that she rarely got to SA things*.
*I would have suspected the GM of creating encounters that f+!&ed over my characters if it isn't for the fact that it would be very much against how he comes across in all respects. My supercharged could only charge three times in his career, being constantly stymied by terrain or positioning otherwise, and one of the three times he could he went up against someone who had Sidestep Charge. My rogue met nothing but elementals, constructs and undead after the first combat.
For those a bit unsure of what OE is, and how it relates to ME or EMdE.
Note that the older a language is, the more guesswork is involved in recreating sounds, and you can find wildly varying attempts at pronunciation and intonation. An actual person from 9th C England would no doubt be sorely puzzled by our atrocious attempts at their language.
Depends on the god. Some probably want a unique, exaggerated titles and constant epithets to stroke their egos (Oh magnificent One, Unparalleled in all the Multivers, please ....) Others are probably fine with a simple "Lord" or "Great One" or something.
On the subject of PCs telling gods to stuff it:
In one game the gods came to earth for certain reasons, and rather than stop a pointless civil war started taking sides. My character was fed up with this b!!!+&!%, and strode up to them and said something to the effect of:
"What the hell?!? Why are you doing this? You're supposed to be better than us and You squabble like children, wasting the lives of your followers for petty pride. Now act like gods worthy of worship!"
Nevermind that speaking in this way was grave blasphemy and no one would have batted an eye if my PC and his entire clan was eradicated for such insolence, While the gods never actually admitted their mistake, they did stop the fighting and got one with the business they had come to do. And intense religious debates and exaggerated plays sprung up about the whole incident.
Marc Radle wrote:
To clarify my position:
I have generally enjoyed the Marvel movies - some have been less than good but most have been fun - but I'm feeling a little fatigued by them. They are very safe and by-the-numbers, and while that has worked well, it also gets old after a while and Marvel has been cranking these movies out like there's no tomorrow.
The Snap is obviously going to be undone somehow and I don't care about who most of the ones who 'died'. All I'm here for is the end of the story and hopefully some good flashy action that isn't yet another superhero slapfest.