Constantine's page

Hi James,
Hope you are having a good day.
I'm asking how you run something at your table. If someone has a headband that increases a stat, and has worn it for a while, and gets a spell cast on them that increases said stat, both the same kind of bonus, is the spells effect reduced? For example a belt of strength +2 and then bulls strength.

Hi, my GM is looking to start a game Sunday's at Greenfield Games in Greenfield, MA. He made up a flyer, and I thought I'd post it here as well.

PATHFINDER
D20 RPG.

Looking for 3-4 players to start new game on Sunday afternoons. It will be a small group.

Story/character based. RP heavy/combat light.

Contact GM at Oakheart@gmail.com with questions or to express interest.

Hi James,
Thanks for answering questions like this!
I'm a GM running Wrath of the Righteous for my friends, we just got down with Sword of Valor, and one of my pc's had a particularly bad time with the final boss of that AP. We are now on the downtime of the next AP, and that character has understandably become obsessed with what happened, so he wants to make a magic item that keeps him under the effects of a protection from evil spell at all times. I'm planning at making the item about the same cost as a cloak of resistance +3. Does that seem reasonable? My thoughts were that its more like a +4 cloak, but reduced a step cause it only works against evil.

DM_Blake, you are completely ignoring the fact that the OP's party members have attacked him IN GAME. They have earned their fate, if he does decide to kill them, though he seems to not be leaning in that direction.

Personally, if he does get released (and he will, you can just see this coming), I like the play along with the party until the end, and then become the final boss option.

really? REALLY?!?!?

Yeah, nostalgia first and foremost. It was the setting I cut my teeth on. I loved the idea of the two huge magical empires destroying each other, and the whole wasteland, Sea of Sand, thing. I know that is a trope, but it may be the first time I was exposed to it. I loved the little things they did, the little nuggets of story they put in the world for gm's to flush out. Again, i know this is SOP now, but it seemed magical back then.

So I've heard a lot of people and articles claiming that "MRAs" are complaining about the movie, but has anyone actually seen these complaints? I remember a similar press barrage when the Star Wars VII trailer had a black stormtrooper. Everyone was talking about how upset racists were at the black stormtrooper, but someone went to look for these upset people and found only a single messageboard thread on the IMDB page.

Was there really any meaningful pushback, or is this just a new form of viral marketing? "We made our movie progressive with this one weird trick! Bigots hate us!"

I never heard of these "MRA"s until I read about them in this forum.

Loved it, loved it, loved it! Just an awesome movie. Go see it, if you haven't already.

I had a bacon wrapped chili cheese dog for lunch yesterday. Bacon, it makes everything better.

The thing is with Punisher is he doesn't just kill, he kills:

A.) As a first resort.
B.) Without remorse or questioning of his actions.
C.) In cold blood, because it would be more convenient for him.
D.) Without discrimination.

Punisher is just as likely to kill that guy whose only crime is selling some weed on the street as he is to kill an enemy combatant, just because he doesn't like the way the guy looked at him when he was done ripping his fingernails out for information.

He's just an a@*$@$$ with a gun. There's nothing interesting or sympathetic about him besides his backstory. You could plug any supervillain into one of his plots and it would change NOTHING about the events or even reasoning as to why he's doing what he does.

Hell, it's BEEN DONE. There's a lot of plots (not just for comics) where some supervillain or assassin's family gets killed and he goes on a roaring rampage of revenge. Probably what Tak3n is going to be like.

I don't want to derail this thread with an argument about the Punisher, but I disagree entirely with your take on him. The Punisher doesn't kill indiscriminately, nor is he just an "a@*$@$$ with a gun." He's a soldier who has transferred his war to the kind of criminals who killed his family, and anyone who support them. He's a hero, an anti-hero to be sure, but a hero nonetheless.

I also want to chime in for Shadowrun. Very fun game.
Also a big fan of Champions, but the game is not for everyone. Character construction takes a while.

Rysky wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Did you ever go and look at the statues in the grand cathedral?

What do you think of the Nightmare Frontier?

I did... and I had indeed noticed them before and approved. By that point, I wasn't that surprised to see them though.

Nightmare Frontier is SUPER HARD AND SCARY.

Sorry if your answer answers this as well but how do you feel about that and how open the church is about what they're actually worshipping as opposed to corrupt religions in other media that mask the creatures behind them as usually being beatific and angelic.

I think it's pretty interesting; the idea that the things you worship might actually be BAD for you is pretty cool.

*GASP*

Are you saying Desna is an EVIL space moth?!?!

:-)

Your gm is the final arbiter, but clearly the intent of the feat is to let you do damage or effect with your sorcerous bloodline power, not just growing the claws.

Yeah, give em 20 pts, and restrict it to core unless they bring something to you that you approve. That way they can just play the base stuff, but it they want to play around a bit, they can.

There's nothing wrong with members of a protected class having a meeting space that excludes people who AREN'T in a protected class.

I went to one of the last remaining all-women's colleges. An all-male college is an abomination because men are the privileged group, so excluding women is a sexist holdover. An all women's college is an acceptable thing in our society, because women are a protected class, and studies continue to show that females in a mixed-gender environment participate less, and females in an all-female environment are much more assertive during and after that experience, and tend to achieve more/better for the experience.

This is similar. If POC want a place to meet that has only POC, and be able to discuss POC issues there, they shouldn't be criticized for that, and it isn't racist. Because they aren't excluding a protected class.

If caucasians want to go somewhere where there are predominantly caucasians, I expect they'll have no problem - pretty much anywhere at the con, they'll be the majority of the crowd. So they don't need or deserve the same consideration.

This (and other posts) is a complete derail to the thread.

Quote:

t does it matter what the voters views are? It shouldn't at all. As long as they vote for a work that they enjoyed and thought was good, that is all that should matter. Do I think all the Puppies read every book, no, I don't. Do I think most of the other non-Puppies voters read everything they voted for as well, nope. And the very nature of voting for one thing excludes another, we certainly can't start to try and figure out why everyone votes the way they do, that is impossible, nor should it be attempted. They paid their money, they get to vote.

Their views don't matter, what matters is that the glue that holds them together is a shared world view. It thus makes sense that a group wishing to compete with them will also have to be ideological (or have an even stronger unifying characteristic, but that's just another sort of clique).

If a fan finds himself having to be affiliated with the faction he can identify with the most in order to have a chance of sneaking in some of the works he/she liked to the nominated list, then the entire process becomes a contest between factions rather than between books. That's bad for the authors, for the fans and for the genre.

I know no simpler way of saying this.

Simple don't make it right.

You are missing the point. Sad Puppies voted for stuff they liked. This is, to my understanding, the whole point of the awards, vote for what you think deserves an award. Nobody has to be affiliated with the Sad Puppies for the Puppies to vote on their stuff. It just has to be good!!!!

Constantine wrote:

Lord Snow wrote:

Quote:

I again don't believe the SP's are 'gaming' the system at all. They formed a group to vote for a certain shared outcome, without coercion. As a result, I don't see a reason why they should have to abandon the Hugos to the ones who've taken control of it.

I still fail to see how during the normal operation of a voting system, is somehow now more terrible because people are organizing into a bloc. Political parties, the Tea Party, a group of friends who gets together, me telling my friends about how much I like Taco Bell, this is all a part of that.

A voting system is only damaged when it is made coercive, when votes are thrown away illicitly or falsified.

The group that SP formed to vote for a certain shared outcome has much more power than the sum of its individual components. That means, as have been shown this year, that they could easily prevent works NOT on their slate from being nominated (in some categories more so than others, for example short stories) unless others start rallying behind competing slates.

So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.

Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?

Snow, can you go through the ENTIRE list of the SAD Puppies author noms and tell us what cause they represent? If you do, I think you'll find that there are several political points of views, even some people that don't share political views. The WHOLE POINT of the Sad Puppies list was NOT to base nominations on political views, but of DESERVING authors whose works they felt

... It's less about the authors nominated and more about the people nominating. The glue that held the puppies lists together was not that they all thought that Skin Games is an awesome novel (you don't need a slate for that), it's a common set of beliefs. Other people, with other sets of beliefs, are now incentivised to response in kind, and the only way that will work is by rallying an entire social clique to vote together.

So for example, now Jim Butcher is nominated, but there is no way for him to know if that is because his novel was awesome or because a group of people decided that Kameron Hurley is too left wing for them and voted for his novel in their slate, thus blocking her?

And, say that fans of Hurley want to see her nominated next here for her next novel - they might suspect that the only way to get that done would be to find some left-leaning people and incite them to vote for Hurley in droves, because if they don't get organized the Puppies win. Now Hurley gets to doubt if getting nominated was an actual professional accomplishment or a backlash against the Puppies

What does it matter what the voters views are? It shouldn't at all. As long as they vote for a work that they enjoyed and thought was good, that is all that should matter. Do I think all the Puppies read every book, no, I don't. Do I think most of the other non-Puppies voters read everything they voted for as well, nope. And the very nature of voting for one thing excludes another, we certainly can't start to try and figure out why everyone votes the way they do, that is impossible, nor should it be attempted. They paid their money, they get to vote.

Quote:

I again don't believe the SP's are 'gaming' the system at all. They formed a group to vote for a certain shared outcome, without coercion. As a result, I don't see a reason why they should have to abandon the Hugos to the ones who've taken control of it.

I still fail to see how during the normal operation of a voting system, is somehow now more terrible because people are organizing into a bloc. Political parties, the Tea Party, a group of friends who gets together, me telling my friends about how much I like Taco Bell, this is all a part of that.

A voting system is only damaged when it is made coercive, when votes are thrown away illicitly or falsified.

The group that SP formed to vote for a certain shared outcome has much more power than the sum of its individual components. That means, as have been shown this year, that they could easily prevent works NOT on their slate from being nominated (in some categories more so than others, for example short stories) unless others start rallying behind competing slates.

So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.

Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?

Snow, can you go through the ENTIRE list of the SAD Puppies author noms and tell us what cause they represent? If you do, I think you'll find that there are several political points of views, even some people that don't share political views. The WHOLE POINT of the Sad Puppies list was NOT to base nominations on political views, but of DESERVING authors whose works they felt were being ignored by the Hugo voters.

I bought all the books, love the system, and will not convert! SAGA!!!

First one that comes to mind that's Pathfinder related is Santiago: A Myth of a Far-Flung Future. I think Star Wars SAGA Edition had an adventure path, though I'm less certain about how commercially available it is.

Are you talking about the Dawn of Defiance, for Star Wars saga? Its out there, or was last time I looked. Its pretty Star Wars centric, heck its all about the rise of the rebel alliance, so I don't know if it would make a good conversion. But its out there, its free, and I enjoyed running it for my friends. We got through the first few parts.

Second Darkness, please!

Caineach wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If that's really the case, then just pushing other people to vote, without pushing them to vote for a specific slate, should be sufficient. You'd need more, of course, but if there really are hordes of fans upset with the current state, just getting them to nominate should work.

Again, I'll point out that the last couple years when Sad Puppies was successful in getting a couple of nominees on the slate, they still lost.

It takes time to get disenfranchised people active in something.

So just break the system instead. Good plan.

Maybe there wasn't a conspiracy and the stuff these guys like just didn't win.

/sarcasm on

Honestly, people paid their money to vote for what they wanted. Who cares if they only voted because someone else told em to? They paid for the privilege. Who are we to tell them they voted wrong? The system allows this. Whether they perceived bias or not, whether or not that bias actually exists or not, they paid their money to be able to vote for whoever the heck they want to. That is the system. Now, the people who vote for the nominees get to do their part.

Wow, finally got to the end of this thread. Oh, yeah, a question.

Are there cookies? :-)

Yes. I wanted to play a ninja, but the gamemaster insisted on no eastern flavor. So, it became the Spy class, and instead of ninja tricked, I had Tradecraft instead of Ninja tricks, and a Trick Pool as opposed to ki. We had to rework the weapons somewhat as well, but very fun character.

A nice taco salad with a couple of chicken wings thrown in for good measure.

I stand corrected, and relieved!

RAW yes.
Common sense - no.

OK, sure, but where did Paizo say Core was intended as hard mode? Does it actually say that anywhere?

And, yes, as someone who is interested in PFS play, but has never before participated, and a member of these forums, I will express my concerns about this topic.

Tamago wrote:

Dorothy Lindman wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the proposal that started this thread was just to not auto kick characters out of Core for playing a non-Core game, not letting any non-Core character play in a Core game.

But if Core characters can play Standard mode and come back to Core, there is nothing to prevent a Standard mode character from sitting at a Core table.

If a Standard character sits in at a Core table, then the table just reports as Standard. The Core characters just promise not to bring anything back to Core at their next Core game, so they can continue in Core. There is nothing that separates the two campaigns any more.

The thing that would prevent the Standard character from sitting at the Core table would be if they had used any non-Core resources for their character. If there is nothing on the Standard character's sheet that isn't from the Core sources, then why not let them play in a Core game?

(I realize that the two "modes" are separate for reporting purposes right now, and that what I just said wouldn't work in actual play given the current rules. But to me, it seems reasonable to allow characters to mix & match "modes", as long as a "core" table only has PCs built in "core mode".)

Just because it "seems reasonable" to you, doesn't mean it is reasonable. There are enough problems with reporting logistics under the current system as it is. Having people flip-flop at will would make the whole thing explode.

Well, the reverse works as well. If you find something unreasonable, does not mean it is. I agree that there are problems with the reporting logistics now, but those will be ironed out in time.

Constantine wrote:

Granted, I don't play pathfinder society at all, but that said, this seems needlessly restrictive. As long as you don't have non-core stuff on your character sheet when you come back, you should be allowed to play in whatever damn adventurers you want.

To be honest, I think you aren't understanding the restriction that is being referenced.

For PFS, you can play the exact same scenarios, modules and AP segments in both Core and Standard mode. You can, even, play it for credit once in each mode.

If you want to play Core, however, you have to play a Core PC who has never been used in a Standard mode game. That is the restriction, and it has a basis in multiple sources, one the way the two modes work, and the other in the way the reporting system works.

In the reporting system, once a PC has had a non-Core game reported on them, they are no longer Core, so no longer eligible to be used in a Core mode game.

For the way the modes work, Core is very restricted in what is available to the PCs in it. Core Rule Book, faction material (including traits) from the Guide to PFS OP, the languages on the blog, the traits form the Web Trait document. What the PC finds on chronicles.

Now, a Core PC, in general, is going to have a bit more difficulty with some games than others. Waking Rune, for instance, is going to be a tough game, even in normal mode for a Core PC. Now, if a Core PC were to play it with a bunch of Standard Mode PCs, and be able to go back to Core mode, does the unlock that scenario provide go to Core mode, or stay in Standard mode?

I do understand. I read the whole thread, and I've read other threads about PFS play as I've been thinking about getting into it. I understand the difference between core and standard. In your post above, you seem to indicate that core is supposed to be some kind of hard mode. Nothing paizo has put out says this is the case. Perhaps its you who really don't understand the difference between core and standard? Regardless, I don't feel core or standard should restrict what you play, as long as you yourself don't have anything on your character sheet that isn't core, you should be allowed to play. And, I certainly don't think that because someone made a mistake and had something non-core on their character sheet, and the gm didn't notice, that all the players at that table should be restricted from core, which seems to be happening.

ITS NOT AN OGRE!!!!! LOOK OUT FOR THE S.... *Constantine is dragged away from his desk by the spoiler police*

Doh! Spoilers. I SO want to spoiler!!!!! Gah!!!!!

Granted, I don't play pathfinder society at all, but that said, this seems needlessly restrictive. As long as you don't have non-core stuff on your character sheet when you come back, you should be allowed to play in whatever damn adventurers you want.

The summoner is totally not the way he wants to go, but is the suggestion that struck me as the coolest. Heck, I may use that the next time I need to make a Pathfinder character...

Good luck getting a res out of him... :-)

See, as a DM, that banned in PFS thing is a big red flag for me. Why are they banned in PFS? Too much bang for the buck? When something gets banned, its usually for a good reason.

I'm listening to/watching the x-files as I browse these forums!!! Season 3 is pretty good.

Two weapon fighting isn't really that much more or less useful in relation to good or average BAB. In fact you could argue that TWF is less useful the higher your BAB, because as you have more iterative attacks, the value of an additional attack also decreases. To over-simplify, if you have one attack, then an extra attack would be like double damage. If you already have 4 attacks, then one extra attack would only be like 25% more daamge.

Was going to do some loose math on two weapon fighting, but got lazy. At any rate, two weapon fighting is not bad for a ninja at 5th level. There may be better choices, but using TWF is hardly gimping yourself.

1st Level:
75% chance to hit for 1d6+1d6 = 5.25 average damage
2(65% chance to hit for 1d6+1d6) = 9.1 average damage

5th Level:
75% chance to hit for 1d6+3d6 = 10.5 average damage
2(65% chance to hit for 1d6+3d6) = 18.2 average damage

It all depends on what AC the thing your are fighting is. Though, honestly, with the -2, i usually just roll the dice and go for it.

Don't forget poison. I know it isn't always optimal, and it can be expensive, but my ninja is built around using poison. Can be frustrating when they make their saves all the time, but when it works....

I still like aspergilligoons better... :-)

Are we post-cull? I swear I just saw a wonderous item conversion... not to mention what character is his right mind would be caught dead in such a thing.

How obvious is it that the sihedron medallion can also be used as a scrying device by the runelords? When a pc examines the medallion with spellcraft, should they be told about this? Does it depend on the roll? Just wondering how others are handling this, as one of my pc's did decide to use the medallion.

I 2nd the Hero System/Champions. You can do just about anything with Hero, but it shines with superheros.

I've also actually had good luck using the old Vampire the masquerade system for scifi. You can expand the skills/stats to 10 dots for longer running campaigns. They actually made a VtM version of a scifi game called Aeon or Trinity or something, but I never played it.

dien wrote:

A ramble about pluralizing aspergillum:

Move that we call warriors who wield exclusively aspergillis, "aspergilloons." Seconded?

Maybe a prestige class...

Or "apergilligoons"

Did Paizo get less entries this year? I swear I'm seeing the same items over and over again. I don't think I've voted THAT much...

I've only been wow'd once or twice, but I've seen a lot of neat items.

Terquem wrote:

Hold on, let me go get a list of every single person killed by type 2 diabetes, cause that's about as relevant as the information you posted.

People die. Police officers are at greater risk of dying than most people. That is not an excuse

While you do that, I'll grab a list of civilians shot by police officers. Oh wait, I can't because they don't report them even though the law requires it. I guess police officers are criminals too. Now who do we trust?

We are just supposed to believe you on that? Honestly, people say anything and claim they are facts....

Hi James!

Lemme just say that I think its awesome that you take the time to do this (even if you don't get a chance to look at mine!).

Maybe this is a question for the rules forum, but here goes. Feats and animal companions. Is there any limit to the feats an animal companion can take, besides the sheer numbers of the prereqs (like Dex 15+)? Was it intended for animal companions to be able to take any feat they qualify for, numbers wise?

Ive always run flaming sphere as occupying a space, but not restricting movement. Any character that enters the square makes a reflex save or takes the spheres damage.

I agree. Its a freaking ball of fire. If you get in a hex with it, you suffer the effects of the spell.

I'm freaked out that you guys are talking about me... :-)

I listen to a lot of the frog pants shows:
The Morning Stream - a geeky morning show podcast
The Instance - World of Warcraft podcast
Film Sack - 4 guys watch old movies, and tell us about them
Comic Dorks - A show supposed to be about comics, usually devolves more into comic movie news
Sword and Laser - This might be the one to replace your SF/F book podcast

As for non-frogpants stuff, I love Chronicles, the pathfinder podcast, when the guys can actually get their crap together and put out an episode. Happens far too infrequently.