Dezső's page

Hi. This is super basic, but I don't understand how ritual DCs work? In particular, what is the DC (primary and secondary) for Resurrect? Is there a minimum level for the primary caster? Can anyone (with the appropriate skill) be a secondary caster even if they don't cast spells? Are the components lost if the ritual fails?

Hi all. A problem I've been having in my group is that I think the fun of PF2 is being affected by how deadly the system is, especially past the early levels. Basically, PF2 seems to be a high damage/high healing system. But an interrelated problem is that tougher enemies get TOO MANY critical hits (just had a battle in an adventure path where the monster's crit range was something like 13-20). and too quickly put PCs unconscious. And then the wounded/dying rules make it so that a PC is at death's door if they get revived from unconsciousness twice, because one of those critical hits would put them at dying 4 (going unconscious from a crit adds two to the dying value). That limitation on reviving PCs kind of undermines the whole high damage/high healing design. I don't know if I've adequately explained the problem, but here are some possible house rules to make it so that every tough battle isn't just PCs constantly getting knocked unconscious and then revived and then facing death:

(1) Critical hits only add one die to the damage and only do double damage on a 20. A main source of the bloodiness seems that more powerful monsters have high to hits and just get way too many critical hits. It detracts from the spirit of the critical hit when they are constantly happening. This house rule would restore the magic of the 20. Of course, PCs will be affected as well, but I think the monsters have been getting more crits.

(2) Death is not keyed to the wounded condition, but instead the wounded condition gives -2 to rolls for every 1 wounded (or -1, but that might seem too modest). I would also want to think of some condition where death would actually result -- although I don't think the negative of constitution score from PF1 is a better option...

(3) In theory, hero points should help with dying in PF2 RAW, but in my experience a PC would need to be able to do it more than once in a combat and RAW does not allow it (because they need to use all remaining HP to avoid dying). An alternative to #2 might be to say the PCs start every session with 3 HP and that a critical hit does NOT add two to the dying condition and that only one HP needs to be spent to avoid dying. But in that event, PCs would basically just save HPs for avoiding dying, and I'm not sure it would be very interesting. (Note that I find it is awkward and artificial to try to make sure I am awarding one HP per hour to each PC, so I don't love reliance on HPs.)

Your thoughts? Other suggestions? Does anyone else perceive a systemic problem here? I love PF2 (the 3 action mechanic, the character versatility) but I do think this aspect is affecting the fun at my table...

Hi all. A problem I've been having in my group is that I think the fun of PF2 is being affected by how deadly the system is, especially past the early levels. Basically, PF2 seems to be a high damage/high healing system. But an interrelated problem is that tougher enemies get TOO MANY critical hits (just had a battle in an adventure path where the monster's crit range was something like 13-20). and too quickly put PCs unconscious. And then the wounded/dying rules make it so that a PC is at death's door if they get revived from unconsciousness twice, because one of those critical hits would put them at dying 4 (going unconscious from a crit adds two to the dying value). That limitation on reviving PCs kind of undermines the whole high damage/high healing design. I don't know if I've adequately explained the problem, but here are some possible house rules to make it so that every tough battle isn't just PCs constantly getting knocked unconscious and then revived and then facing death:

(1) Critical hits only add one die to the damage and only do double damage on a 20.  A main source of the bloodiness seems that more powerful monsters have high to hits and just get way too many critical hits. It detracts from the spirit of the critical hit when they are constantly happening. This house rule would restore the magic of the 20. Of course, PCs will be affected as well, but I think the monsters have been getting more crits.

(2) Death is not keyed to the wounded condition, but instead the wounded condition gives -2 to rolls for every 1 wounded (or -1, but that might seem too modest). I would also want to think of some condition where death would actually result -- although I don't think the negative of constitution score from PF1 is a better option...

(3) In theory, hero points should help with dying in PF2 RAW, but in my experience a PC would need to be able to do it more than once in a combat and RAW does not allow it (because they need to use all remaining HP to avoid dying). An alternative to #2 might be to say the PCs start every session with 3 HP and that a critical hit does NOT add two to the dying condition and that only one HP needs to be spent to avoid dying.  But in that event, PCs would basically just save HPs for avoiding dying, and I'm not sure it would be very interesting. (Note that I find it is awkward and artificial to try to make sure I am awarding one HP per hour to each PC, so I don't love reliance on HPs.)

Your thoughts? Other suggestions? Does anyone else perceive a systemic problem here? I love PF2 (the 3 action mechanic, the character versatility) but I do think this aspect is affecting the fun at my table...

Am I correct that with Wand Wielder + Close Range + Weaponwand + Spell Combat + Spellstrike a magus could have a wand of ray of enfeeblement embedded in their weapon and choose each round in a full attack to either: (1) take all melee attacks PLUS take a spellstrike attack using the wand, OR (2) take all melee attacks PLUS take a spellstrike attack using some other spell cast with the free hand. The idea is a magus wand wielder who can freely choose to do spellstrike attacks with the wand while leaving a hand free to cast other spells in rounds they opt not to use the wand. Being able to do so with a wand of ray of enfeeblement seems like a particular good option for going toe-to-toe with a beefy melee fighter, making the opponent weaker as the fight progresses. Any problems I'm not seeing? Thanks!

I’m making a high-dex, low-str investigator who needs to serve as the party’s rogue-type but also needs to be one of the primary melee combatants. I’d love suggestions on how to make him effective. I was thinking weapon finesse and then slashing grace (with Aldori dueling sword) or fencing grace (with rapier), taking a dip into fighter to help with the feat tax. Eventually planning on getting the weapon keen to get more critical hits. I’d appreciate any thoughts on that plan. I am also open to considering two weapon fighting, and I'd love to hear any other ideas. Thanks!

Hey all. The party in a game I am running are soon going to encounter a mirror of life trapping. If it captures any of the PCs, it will take a command word to make them appear in the mirror and another to release them. "Each pair of command words is specific to each prisoner."

My question is what would be involved for the other PCs to discover the command words. The rules state, "The spells detect magic, identify, and analyze dweomer all reveal command words if the properties of the item are successfully identified." But it seems ridiculous a ZERO level spell (detect magic) will allow the party to figure out the command words. Any thoughts?

Swallow Your Fear, which is a mass effect and lasts 10 minutes, provides "You make the affected subjects ready for battle despite their fear. If a target is suffering from a fear effect of any kind, he gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a -2 penalty to AC. If the subject is frightened, he remains in place and gains the confused condition for the remainder of the fear effect, except he treats all results of 'attack self ' as 'do nothing' and treats 'attack nearest creature' as 'act normally.' If the subject is panicked, he remains in place and gains the confused condition for the duration of the fear effect."

Does this offer ongoing protection from NEW fear effects. That is, if a PC has this spell on him/her ongoing and then is subject to a fear effect, does he/she benefit from the spell, or is the spell completely irrelevant in that instance (that is, it only effects fear effects in existence at the moment of casting)?

Odd for it to have such a long duration if it only is relevant to effects in existence at the time of casting.

I'm playing a telekinetic kineticist. I'm contemplating using throw foe against a potential foe that may not have many HP. Can I choose to do less than my full blast damage of 3d6+7, which might kill the target?

Elemental overflow provides that "a kineticist’s body surges with energy from her chosen element whenever she accepts burn, causing her to glow with a nimbus of fire, weep water from her pores, or experience some other thematic effect.... The kineticist can suppress the visual effects of elemental overflow by concentrating for 1 full round, but doing so suppresses all of this ability’s other benefits, as well. The next time the kineticist uses any wild talent, the visual effects and benefits return instantly."

How does this interact with telekinetic invisibility? Say that a kineticist has suppressed the manifestations of elemental overflow and goes invisible. If the character uses telekinetic healing while invisible and accepts burn, does the resulting elemental overflow effectively cancel the invisibility, or does it just decrease the effectiveness of the invisibility by creating some visual manifestations? Also, since the benefits return "instantly," does that mean those benefits (bonuses to attack, damage, and points of healing) apply to the healing performed while invisible, or an attack made while invisible that involves the acceptance of burn? Or do the benefits only apply to subsequent actions?

Telekinetic blast states: "You throw a nearby unattended object at a single foe as a ranged attack. The object must weigh no more than 5 pounds per kineticist level you possess. If the attack hits, the target and the thrown object each take the blast’s damage. Since the object is enfolded in strands of aether, even if you use this power on a magic weapon or other unusual object, the attack doesn’t use any of the magic weapon’s bonuses or effects; it simply deals your blast damage."

As I understand it, the blast does the same damage regardless of the size of the object. So how large must the object be? Can it be a sling bullet? I ask because the aether kineticist does not want to run out of ammunition.

This is a quick one. For the kineticist, Kinetic restoration states:

"You recover from 1d4 points of ability score damage to one of your physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution).

This also eliminates any fatigue that you suffer, and improves an exhaustion condition to fatigued.

If you have the kinetic healer utility wild talent, you can use both kinetic restoration and kinetic healer on the same target with one standard action."

As I read that, although normally the ability can only be used on yourself, if you have the kinetic healer talent, then you can use restoration on another, right? In that instance, would it be one or two burn to do both in one standard action? Could I choose to only provide restoration?

Hey all. Quick question. The Kineticist's Telekinetic Invisibility talent requires a standard action to use, but does it need to be maintained with new standard actions each round? That would make it a lot weaker.

As I read it, Self Telekinesis DOES need to be maintained with new standard actions round after round. So, while it is good for mobility, it is not like a fly spell that would allow the kineticist to blast from the air, right?

For the weird fun of it, I've inflicted a few daemons on the PCs in my campaign (a few Vulnadaemons and, more problematically, a Derghodaemon). How do I justify in my own mind having these daemons on the material plane (helping a powerful evil magus and an evil alchemist). The planar ally and binding spells seem a little limited to explain daemons acting as, essentially, guards. Is there another mechanism? What rules are there about portals between planes?

Also, are you aware of any magic items that produce a dismissal-type effect? Ideally single use. If not, any suggestions for the form of such an item?

Also, are there any magic items that are essentially portals between planes?

Finally, is there any association between Urgathoa and Abaddon? Apollyon (the Horseman of Pestilence) certainly seems to have thematic overlap. Urgathoa is an element in my campaign, so some connection could be useful...

Thanks!

One big difference between simulacrum and lesser simulacrum is "The creature is not under your control, though it recognizes you are its creator." Does this mean the lesser simulacrum acts with the motivations and goals of the original? If a villain made a lesser simulacrum of a hero, the simulacrum would recognize what it is (that it is a simulacrum and not the real thing) and try to act against the villain? Any thoughts?!

The Oracle's "Erase From Time" special ability provides:

Erase from Time (Su): As a melee touch attack, you can temporarily remove a creature from time altogether. The target creature must make a Fortitude save or vanish completely for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your oracle level (minimum 1 round). No magic or divinations can detect the creature during this time, as it exists outside of time and space—in effect, the creature ceases to exist for the duration of this ability. At the end of the duration, the creature reappears unharmed in the space it last occupied (or the nearest possible space, if the original space is now occupied). You can use this ability once per day, plus one additional time per day at 11th level.

Also relevant:

Supernatural Abilities (Su): Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Two questions that came up at the gaming table:

(1) If the oracle attempts a melee touch attack but misses, can she try again? That is, can she hold the charge as if it is a touch spell? Or is the ability's one use per day (or 2 after 11th level) discharged when the oracle makes a touch attack, successful or not?

(2) Second, assuming the Erase From Time attack can be re-attempted, and because it is described as a "melee touch attack," does that mean that a high level (or hasted) oracle with multiple attacks and using the full attack action can attempt multiple times in a single round?

Thanks very much for your help! I need to make a final ruling on this before we return to the gaming table tonight!

The PCs in my game have a vampire in a monastery on the run. Can he go gaseous, seep through the presumably sufficiently porous stone walls of the monastery basement, and then hide out in the soil until nightfall? Or just move underground through the soil?

On that same note, it seems to me the vampire can move through the walls and floors/ceilings of the monastery virtually at will, as an ancient monastery will have cracks everywhere.

Basically, this gives the PCs pretty much no chance of catching the vampire (whose location they don't presently know) -- right? Is any of the above incorrect?

I'd love some input before my game tonight!!

Hi all. Can a spellcaster hidden inside a solid fog cast spells at targets outside the solid fog where the spells require line of sight? It seems like not, but if not I'm a bit confused why a Paizo AP would indicate in combat strategy that a spellcaster would put herself inside a solid fog...

Straightforward question that I can't find the answer to: if a vampire changes into a dire bat, is it still vulnerable to light?

Everyone check in here once you've created your profiles!

The party is engaged in a tense Battle Royale in Radvir's tailor shop, currently up in flames...

The Bestiary says that, after being reduced to zero HP and assuming gaseous form, vampires must return to "their home coffin" within 2 hours or be destroyed. This seems to clearly indicate that a vampire has a single coffin in which it must rest and recover. However, in a Paizo module I'm running for my PCs, a vampire has a couple of "guest" coffins to give refuge to vampires who are unable to return to their own coffins. Is this just an error by the author, or am I missing something? A rule that vampires must return to a single home coffin obviously makes it much easier to destroy vampires. I suspect that it what the Bestiary intended and the author just made a mistake.

The "bit of luck" clerical domain power provides: "Bit of Luck (Sp): You can touch a willing creature as a standard action, giving it a bit of luck. For the next round, any time the target rolls a d20, he may roll twice and take the more favorable result. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier."

Can it be used on a knowledge check? Presumably not if I just tell the players, "make a knowledge check." They couldn't then say, well, let the cleric touch me first and then I'll make the check. But what if they say, "we want to make a knowledge check on this. I'll have the cleric touch me and then make the check"

This seems wrong to me. Knowledge checks aren't like other actions. First, "In most cases, a Knowledge check doesn't take an action." And, second, there are no try again's allowed: "The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

While a clerical bit of luck could help someone climb a wall or hit a monster, how could it help them remember something they never learned? Also, giving bit of luck for knowledge checks seems overpowered, since such checks often have a big influence on how the plot unfolds.

Your thoughts?

Hey all. I'm GMing an AP that has a magical mace that I'm considering converting for use by the party's wizard, who doesn't have much to do when he needs to conserve spell resources. Any idea why wizards are proficient in clubs but not light maces? It doesn't seem like the light mace would be much harder to use, although it is one pound heavier. I suppose I could always home rule proficiency.

Anyhow, more generally, any ideas on what a wizard PC should do to get more versatility in attack options without having to devote too much gp (on wands) or feats (on becoming effective at ranged weapons into melee)? The wizard in the group I'm GMing for is burning through his spell resources, largely because he can't think of anything better to do than cast a spell every round.

Thanks all.

I'm playing a witch with a headband of vast intelligence with the linguistics skill. The item description states, "After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice." Someone else in the party has a circlet of persuasion. Can the witch briefly take off the headband and borrow the circlet for a minute or two (to perform a discrete charisma-related task) without losing the linguistics bonuses when he puts in back on?

If an enemy is at the level of a 10 foot ceiling, could a tall barbarian with a sword attack it normally, since the barbarian could easily poke the sword 10 feet into the air? What penalties would apply in this situation?

This is a total GM (my) judgment call, but I'm curious to get other views. We ended our last session with one of the PCs about to be charged and surprised/sneak attacked by three thugs. The PC wants to use a hero point to move before she is attacked. The player referred me to this use of hero points: "Act Out of Turn: You can spend a hero point to take your turn immediately. Treat this as a readied action, moving your initiative to just before the currently acting creature. You may only take a move or a standard action on this turn."

I'm not sure that technically applies, because this is a surprise round and the PC does not technically have a turn yet. I think the PC would actually get 2 things out of the use of the hero point: (1) getting to act in the surprise round; and (2) getting to act FIRST in the surprise round.

Would you let the PC use a hero point to act before her surprise assailants? If not, perhaps a compromise would be say that the use of the hero points means the PC isn't surprised, but the PC is still flat-footed if she doesn't beat the assailants in initiative? I'd probably roll the assailants' initiatives separately in that instance.

I'm running a game where the PCs are exploring a temple. One PC is presently in a room with doors to the North and the South. The PC is in the open North doorway, distracted and looking North. Four temple rogues are hiding in the room to the south. All four try to sneak across the room to sneak attack the PC. Three beat the PC's perception, and one fails. Which of the following is the right result?

(1) The 3 that succeeded sneak across the room and get a surprise attack (sneak attack) on the PC. The 1 that failed moves across the room but does not get to act in the surprise round.

(2) There is no surprise round because 1 of the 4 failed and thus alerted the PC. All 4 only get sneak attacks only if they beat the PC's initiative and catch her flat-footed.

Is one of those right, or is there yet another result?

A rogue with a humanoid shapeshifter bane dagger stabs a werewolf with DR 10/silver for 4 points of weapon damage and 10 points of bane bonus damage. How much damage does the werewolf take? Only 4 because neither the weapon damage or bane damage is silver? Or 10 because the bane damage ignores DR? Probably the former, but it does seem a little odd that the bane damage wouldn't bypass DR.

Is there some way to figure out if the misfortune and evil eye hexes take effect? Because cackling consumes the witch's move action, the rules seem to contemplate that the witch would be aware of whether the hexes worked (that is, whether the opponent made the will save). It seems a little odd that the player would have to decide to maintain a hex round after round without having any idea if it took effect. Maybe the witch senses whether or not there is a hex in effect to maintain? That would make sense to me.

Hexes have a 30 foot range and the description of hexes doesn't say the witch needs line of sight, but I'm assuming a witch needs to know the precise location of an opponent to use a hex on the opponent? What if the witch knows there is an opponent on the other side of a wall? Can she use a hex on the opponent?

Let's say that a rogue that is flanking a foe gets grappled by the foe. Can the rogue, while grappled, make sneak attacks on the foe, who is still flanked by a threatening ally of the rogue? If the rogue has three attacks, can it make three sneak attacks while grappled as a full round action? Thanks!

As my party goes through the Carrion Crown campaign, a question has arisen as to sale values of loot. Obviously gear and magic sells generally for 50% of value (potentially modified a bit based on local conditions or skill rolls). I think it is also clear that gems and jewelry sell for 100% of value, I think on the theory that those items are easily transportable and exchangeable, so they have as much value as money itself. But what about fine arts items? For example, "a Ebony Tribal Mask from Mwangi Expanse - 175 gp" or "Silver Torc from Land of the Linnorm Kings - 200 gp." One of my PCs who knows the rules well is quite confident that those should sell at 100% value, based on an elaborate chain of logic it isn't worth going into.

Logically, I think fine art items should only sell at 50% value unless the PCs take time to sell directly to a collector. If they are selling it quickly, they will need to sell to someone who is going to re-sell it, much as would be the case in selling magic or gear.

However, I don't know what is contemplated by Paizo when they put such items into an AP. I don't want to be shortchanging my PCs by giving them only half value when the author contemplated that the items could be sold for full value.

Thanks for your help!

I think this is probably an easy one, but I need to be sure. The Fly spell description says "The subject of a fly spell ... cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears." Does this mean that we ignore the weight of the subject himself/herself, as well as any equipment carried other than armor? So if Herschel the wizard has a max load of 150 lbs based on a STR of 13 (probably after the wizard casts bull's strength on himself), weighs 140 lbs, and carries 30 lbs of equipment, but wears no armor, can he still fly while carrying Kyra the rogue if she weighs 140 lbs?

I think this is probably an easy one, but I need to be sure. The Fly spell description says "The subject of a fly spell ... cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears." Does this mean that we ignore the weight of the subject himself/herself, as well as any equipment carried other than armor? So if Herschel the wizard has a max load of 150 lbs based on a STR of 13 (probably after the wizard casts bull's strength on himself), weighs 140 lbs, and carries 30 lbs of equipment, but wears no armor, can he still fly while carrying Kyra the rogue if she weighs 140 lbs?

When my PCs encountered the alchemikal zombies in Vorkstag & Grine's factory, they noticed that they did not move like regular zombies and that they seemed to have some intelligence behind their eyes. So, they tried to engage the zombies in dialogue. At first, the zombies just attacked, but when the cleric's channeling killed one (who was already injured) and almost killed the other, the surviving zombie stopped attacking and talked.

It occurred to me that, even though the module says the zombies are evil, they actually have a sympathetic story -- monks presumably captured by Vorkstag and killed then reanimated by an alchemical process. They are trying to hold onto the remaining scraps of their humanity by regular access Vorkstag's serum.

So, I decided the zombie was not really evil. He told the party everything he knew about V&G's operation (which wasn't much) and the party agreed to deliver the remaining serum to him. In fact, the party is quite sympathetic and wants to find someway to reverse the process. I'm not sure whether that is really possible, but I'm thinking that the party could get information that Caromac is a skilled alchemist who might be able to help. That would add another angle to Caromac's role in the story. In the meantime, the zombie monk could stay with the Crooked Kin (the PCs and the Kin have formed a strong alliance and mutual sympathy for outcasts such as The Beast, and this could be extended to the monk).

This may be too much of a stretch, but I'm wondering if maybe Adrissant or the Way stole a book from a monastery and monks were sent out to investigate the theft. Maybe these two got too close and the Way got Vorkstag to take them out (I've left indications that Vorkstag and Vrood have done a lot of business -- for example, all those corpses floating in the basement were supposed to be for the Way).

Anyhow, I'd be curious to hear any reactions or ideas you have on where I could take this.

One of my PCs just took a rank and linguistics and asked me ideas for good languages for this AP, which is fair enough as I'm concerned. But I've only read through the 3rd module, and I'm not sure what to suggest. Any ideas? He already speaks Varisian.

I've encountered an interesting issue in a Paizo adventure which requires the PCs to present evidence in court (I'll not mention the module just to be super cautious about spoilers, although I'm not revealing anything really), but the issue is really more of a rules issue than an AP specific issue. Anyhow, at trial there is a cleric associated with the court who constantly scans the room with detect magic to make sure no magic is used during trial. One of the testifying PCs is a barbarian/oracle with the "haunted" curse, which means "Malevolent spirits follow you wherever you go, causing minor mishaps and strange occurrences (such as unexpected breezes, small objects moving on their own, and faint noises)."

Thus, when he testified I had some strange things happen -- a glass of water flew out of the prosecutor's hand, the Chief Judge's gavel banged by itself, a door in the audience gallery opened and closed. I may have overdone it, but, in any event, it caused some nice chaos in the trial and the events could not really be pinned on him.

My question is whether there is any way the cleric could spot that the PC is haunted, or that spirits are causing the strange occurrences. Detect magic wouldn't spot the spirits. But would a potion of see invisibility allow her to spot the spirits? Anything else?

What is the nature of the spirits that haunt the PC, in game terms? The closest I can come is that they are a species of poltergeists that are associated with the PC rather than associated with a place. Like a poltergeist, they have natural invisibility and telekinesis, but they are less malicious than a poltergeist.

Could an NPC with see invisibility see the spirits that haunt an oracle with the haunted curse? Would they just appear as translucent spirits of people? Can the spirits hide INSIDE the PC so they cannot be seen even with see invisibility?

Any ideas or thoughts are most welcome!

Last night the party in my campaign was fighting a group of ghasts, two of which were engaged in melee combat with the party's cleric, who was up against a wall. The party's wizard cast web and I ruled that the web caught the cleric as well as the two ghasts, imagining that the web was anchored on the floor and on the wall. Of course, this allowed the ghasts to keep attacking the cleric from within the web.

I think I may have erred. Does the web spell allow the wizard to locate the web with great precision, and could the wizard have used two points of the floor to create a web over the ghasts while excluding the cleric, who technically was in a different square? I'm thinking maybe so, and my ruling was unduly harsh.

I’m curious what PCs in other campaigns have come up with as additional clues/deductions/evidence, in addition to those listed in TOTB, or additional approaches or glosses to the listed evidence. Here are a couple places where the PCs in my campaign viewed the Morast and Hergstag evidence a little differently than contemplated in the book (they haven’t gone to the other sites yet).

Morast: (1) The PCs had the brilliant insight that, although the elder said the Beast’s blood tainted their burial ground, which implies he saw the Beast bleed, the Beast does NOT in fact bleed. On the PC’s urging, Barrister Kaple (with a very lucky diplomacy roll) even convinced the judges to permit a demonstration, and the Herald (with the Beast’s advanced permission) cut the Beast to show he does not bleed. This seems even a better piece of evidence than the absence of a scar, because, for all the judges know, maybe flesh golems don’t scar, or maybe he got healed. (2) The PCs also pointed out that it is unlikely the Beast would have had knowledge of and used the colorful local expletives yelled by the victim of the blood caiman attack. (3) The darkvision extract clue doesn’t seem so great, because the PCs can’t really authoritatively testify that flesh golems have dark vision, and they don’t have time to find expert testimony. But, as my PCs pointed out, there is a ton of other stuff on the island that it also doesn’t make sense for the Beast to have -- fine surgical tools (have you seen the Beast’s hands?), a boat too small for him, food which he doesn’t eat, etc. All that does add up to good evidence.

Hergstag: (1) A pretty basic piece of evidence that the PCs don’t even need to confront Brother Swarm to get is that the children are wraith spawn, and the Beast doesn’t make wraith spawn. The cleric in the party is competent to present that evidence. (2) It is a bit silly to count the evidence related to Karin’s bedroom as two separate deductions -- that it is hard to climb the outside wall and that the window wasn’t tampered with. That seems more like one piece of evidence to me, and I’ll treat it as such, using the above as a replacement.

Have your PCs come up with any other interesting insights, or approaches to presenting evidence at trial, for those or other investigations?

I'm playing Pathfinder with my 7.5 year old second grader. We started playing before the Pathfinder Box was released, so we have just been playing with the regular Pathfinder rules. I've also introduced the game to two of his friends, also 7-8 years old (and lots of his other friends are interested). Trying to get them hooked before they start playing too many video games.

We've been working through the old module Crown of the Kobold King. They will be about 3rd-4th level when we're done and I'm trying to think of what module to run next. I don't want it to be anything overly gruesome, dark, or investigation oriented. I've been playing them encounters a bit below their level so that they don't get taken out too easily (they are still working on tactics), so the module shouldn't be an overly challenging or tactics-oriented one. Any suggestions?

The cleric in my game has become haunted by Father Charlatan. The party finished their prison explorations for the day and headed back into town without the cleric taking any damage and thus even risking triggering manifestation of the haunt. Now they are back in Ravengro and they are going to be doing research, visiting Father Grimburrow, etc. before heading back to the prison.

It seems weird that she should have this haunt following her around without there being some effects. Any ideas on stuff that I can have happen without giving it away that she has a haunt on her?

I'm thinking animals may show hostility to the party (hostility directed at her specifically may give it away) and that she will have a spell failure chance. It definitely seems like there should be some consequence to her walking into the Temple of Pharasma with a haunt hanging on her back.

I'd love to hear your ideas and your experiences with this haunt if it hung around for awhile.

Hello. My players may soon be finding the five prisoner's special items and I know the wizard in my party will want to know which are magical and if so, what schools of magic. How have you handled this? It seems like in a sense only the Lopper's axe is ,magical, but, on the other hand, all the items have magical effects. Would you say that all are magical and if so what school of magic?

Also, it seems like the vault is not hidden behind sufficient stone to block a detect magic spell, so detect magic cast in the room would reveal the objects behind the wall, right?

Among the party in my campaign is a half-orc. We've only had one session so far, and she was in disguise at the funeral and walking to the Lorrimor home, so I haven't yet had to play out the locals' reactions.

I know there is a previous thread generally about hostility to monstrous races in Ustalav, but I'm wondering if any of you have half orcs (or other problematic races) in your parties, and how specifically you've handled it.

Currently, I'm planning to handle it on a case-by-case basis. I figure Jominda, Sarianna, and Zokar are likely to be open-minded. Jorfa and Benjan may be more hostile. I don't know about Grimburrow. The others are likely to be in between. And the vast majority of villagers are likely to be very wary? I've said that Lorrimor spoke to Hearthmount about this character, so it ultimately shouldn't make things impossible around town.

Any thoughts are appreciated!

I put this at the bottom of a dead thread a couple weeks ago (taking inspiration from something someone else posted), so I thought I'd re-post it to see if anyone has any comments or suggestions. I start running this AP tomorrow night.

The Five Recurring Nightmares

Each of the PCs will have a recurring nightly nightmare associated with one of the 5 ghosts, starting the first night in Ravengro. I have 5 PCs in my group, so it works out perfectly. During each nightmare the PCs will have a feeling of helplessness and/or paralysis.

These are the nightmares I’m considering:
• The half orc rogue will be haunted by The Piper of Illmarsh. She will hear the Piper’s mournful flute dirge while numerous stirges suck the blood from her body.
• The half elf cleric will be haunted by Father Charlatan. She is repeatedly beaten with a heavy chain with her religious symbol attached to the end.
• The human ranger/alchemist will be haunted by The Mosswater Marauder. He will have the sensation of his skull being crushed by a hammer and he will observe (floating above the bed, out of his body) as a dwarf picks through the remains of his skull.
• The human barbarian/oracle will be haunted by The Lopper. He will lie helpless as a deranged man with long arms and twisted legs hacks off each of his limbs with a bloodstained hand axe.
• The human wizard will be haunted by The Splatter Man. Glowing hands hold the wizard’s spell book and rip out the pages one by one. As each page is ripped out the wizard feels a sensation like a sharp spike is piercing his heart.

TSM’s imprisonment nightmare would of course be on top of the above, so that unlucky PC might wake up from his/her recurring nightmare to find himself/herself imprisoned. If I deliver these nightmares as lain out above I will obviously be giving significant hints about the identity of the five ghosts, but I think that will help increase the sense of dread and better tie the adventure together. The wizard’s nightmare obviously gives a pretty big hint as to how to use the book against TSM but, considering the extent of the book’s curse and the challenge posed by TSM, I think it is ok.

I’m considering having the PCs make rolls each morning to gauge their level of fatigue. If they fail a DC 12 roll, then they are lightly fatigued (-1 to STR and DEX), if they fail the roll again the next day they are fatigued (-2 to STR and DEX), and if they fail the next or subsequent days they take 1 pt of CON damage for each failure. I’m also considering that the DC increases by 1 each day after failures (so it is DC 13 the second day in a row, DC 14 the third day, etc.). Of course, it all resets each time the PCs get a good night sleep or can be relieved by magical means.

I’m also considering that each PC will have to save against a fear effect when they encounter the ghost associated with their respective nightmares. Maybe a DC 15 to avoid being shaken and a DC 12 to avoid being frightened. Perhaps the character can repeat the will saving throws each round to shake off the effect.

My campaign starts tomorrow night (Thursday). I’d love to hear any reactions or suggestions.

All weapons function as written because Paizo hasn't said they don't. There is no mechanic for suits leaking so they don't.
If you are looking for true science in your space opera game you really aren't playing as the game is intended. It is more fun if you suspend belief and play like you are in a Star Wars/Trek/fantasy world. Just as in regular Pathifnder, if you want to have true science it wrecks the game.

Ok so let's all start at level 2 or 3....then that can be all of our first levels. maybe then we can rename and reorder that level and all subsequent ones to reflect that being our first. but then we all start at level 1 again.....

Mekton Zeta?

No clubs are obtained for no money, not bought. The rules list them as costing 0gp because you can make or find one easily if you spend enough time to make an uneducated craft check. Looking around an area with wood...construction area, trash area, wooded area...for a bit will get you a usable club with a check. Without the check you have done the same thing but either in a rush, or you weren't knowledgeable on the harder woods, or you picked a badly shaped piece of wood that slips in the hand or is difficult to swing because the balance is crap. If you want to buy a fancier one in a store that is pretty then you can, and the DM can assign a cost or the PC can say "I want a nicer club, something that has a leather wrapped handle and some carvings on it" for 1+GP depending on their desire for fanciness. I constantly have people in my group asking for custom weapons that are less than masterwork but better then minimalist. They tell me how much they want to spend and what they want it to look like and I tell them if it's possible at that price.

I don't really post as much these days. Forums just seem not so great anymore. So I just stick to Starfinder and maybe gamer life, as well as my google+ crowd.

I stopped posting a while back also...I was encountering harsher, ruder posts from people and it seemed like most threads lasted about 6-7 posts before someone was letting fly with some sort of viciousness. There is enough of that around in the real world so I didn't feel like hanging with it virtually. I drop on every couple days, look at a few posts, see if anything new is going on and very rarely post except on videogame or movie threads (they seemed the safest). Frequency has been declining again lately though.

It looks interesting, but not $299 or more type interesting.

Maybe a $99 or less type interesting to me...at this time.

If it had backwards compatibility (it doesn't), that might raise some of my interest.

Right now, however, it has some interesting ideas, but nothing that I would spend a lot of money to obtain or utilize.

How the heck can you even say $99 with a straight face for a console? The 3DS is more expensive by almost double and games are running $60 a pop. It makes it hard to respect your opinion if you are going to just spout nonsense.

The answer is simple. Hillary has these two things on her chest. Too many people those two things are not something that can be compatible with behavior we expect from the half of the human race which lacks those two things. Because when we see those two things on a person, a different set of perception filters slam into place so that the same behaviors trigger different responses.

I love that because I don't want to vote for a wholly corrupt politician that supports many policies that I hate and has made a career of lying, getting caught, and magically getting free, I MUST be sexist.

Large ships-
Yamato, the ship from the original Star Blazers cartoon...link
Battlestar Galactica, the original from the first series on TV...link
Romulan Warbird...link

Small fighters-
Buck Roger's ship from the tv series in the 70s? link
Hawk's ship from the same series link
and the Colonial Viper from Battlestar Galactica original series link

DeathQuaker wrote:

wall o' text

Granted, a LOT of mods are crap. But there are some modders who've become staples of the modding community, and people look for and anticipate their contributions.

They do it because they LOVE doing it, and take pride in their work. They tell you which other mods or dlc are required. In short, they do a professional level of service out of love for the game and their love of modding.

I'll probably only use a dozen or so, maybe twenty, mods when they come out. On console, I can't improve the detail of meshes, etc., too much because of the limitations of the hardware.

But what I've experienced in the past (Oblivion, when I was on PC) is that there are modders who do better work than what comes from the publisher themselves. It always makes we ask: Why didn't the publisher do this with their product first? The improved textures, skins, animations - all were better post game release by the modding community. Shouldn't the publisher be bringing out the best stuff, generally?

If Bethesda was just getting started, that's one thing. But now that they're established, I feel they should raise the bar on themselves knowing that the modding community has done better in the past. They should be trying to better the best mods that came out on their last game when they release a new one.

I know - "should". The real world doesn't work that way, but I can still hope.

I believe a lot of it is about trying to get a product out in a timely manner. If I have to make the choice to wait several months longer for a game to have photo-realistic graphics or I can have it earlier with a step or two down thee graphics ladder, I am gonna probably choose to dine earlier. These games are made to hit a time-table, often revolving around some sort of holiday, for their releases. I really appreciate excellent graphics but I also want to not have years in between releases of the franchises I like because they want to have arm hair on the characters react to wind.

PT.B=The Devil wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

In that method, rolling an 18 was very rare. Even when it switched to 4d6b3, an 18 was still fairly rare. So having an 18 put a character in an imaginary little elite club.

When people started using PB and buying an 18, that imaginary little elite club became a free-for-all that anyone and everyone could enter.

People use to tell stories about that one time Bob rolled an 18 - it was an event. No one tells stories about that time Bob bought an 18.

My players reminisce about the time they played a ranger who became a city vigilante. They talk about the time their Bard became Baron of a small wilderness country. They talk about fighting dragons, old ones, and beholders. They never ever talk about their stats. Ever.

This.

This so so so so so much.

Ah, got it now...someone talking about getting a good stat through rolling is badwrongfun. I wish someone would just put a list together of all the badwrongfun so I can reference that and learn more on how to ridicule others for doing things on that list.

lemeres wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Kahel you are literally the least fun person on this thread, and that's including lemeres the dead bird on a stick.

Hey! Are you implying that I have a stick up my bum?

Because I clearly have a cloaca. Or...y'know...the rotten remnants of one. Anyway. Completely different.

Let's not drag cloacae into this.

This post sponsored by "I know how to pluralize obscure words and you need to see it". Sorry I read that and literally that is all I could think of afterward. lol.

I have 2 guys in my extended gaming group that have published their own game system based on a D5 system and was very impressed with how professional the books they had made looked and the quality of the end product. Perhaps you could talk them through their site and see if they feel like giving some first-hand knowledge on doing EXACTLY what you friend would be trying to do.
Shroud of Ancients, Randy or Rod will most likely be ready to tell you anything you want. They are pretty cool dudes with a ton of knowledge on the subject and a very nice finished project to show for it.

I finally got around to paying a visit to the Glowing Sea, safe inside my Mark VI X-01 power armor modded out with leaded parts. That is one cool, disturbing place.

Also, having had a few run-ins with them, the Children of Atom can all just die. Hate those guys.

I came over one small hill in the Glowing Sea and got to watch a really awesome little battle between a Deathclaw and a Radscorpion it was pretty epic until I mini-nuked them both....lol.

As an aside, there is some really funny, kooky stuff in the world....I walked into a bar and was looting behind the counter/bar and noticed 2 teddy bears wearing hats with cigars in their mouths set up to look like they are playing checkers on the shelves under the bar. Stuff like that is really cool to find and makes me almost laugh aloud as I play and there is little stuff like that all over the place. I appreciate the extra time that went into something like that.

Oh my, Mr. Swan, what big....everythings...you have.

Oww, almost forgot my awesome assassin snails (black and yellow banded cone snails that kill and eat other snails), I have them in all my tanks to keep pond snail explosions from happening (little buggers come in on the plants, hard to get rid of).

What do they eat when are no snails around if I may ask?

Also to contribute, I currently have no odd pets except for my 2 rescued dogs that are just not right in the head. The one (Irish setter/Golden Retriever mix)has horrible separation anxiety and the other (Cockapoo) has a bum leg and seizures about every other month.
I used to have a beautiful iguana that REALLY disliked his reflection and busted 2 mirrors with his tail trying to attack the "other iguana". I would walk him on a leash and he went with me most places, usually perched on my shoulders.
Had several snakes but nothing really exotic...mostly garter or rat snakes that I had found and kept.

Aelryinth wrote:

Main problem with slingers is how long they take to train to become accurate.

At that same range, with the same targets, likely an archer could have hit two to three times as often, and a crossbowman more often yet.

And while slings are great on bombardment, they don't work as well against rigid armor (but can still break bones on lighter armor and with head shots). Mechanically, the simple fact is you can reach MUCH higher concentrations of force with the use of bows.

Not that slings can't be awesome in their own way, of course.

==Aelryinth

It was either here or on the old WOTC boards, but I read one of the typical threads that came up once about medieval weapons (you know the ones, where everyone has a black belt and practices with slings or longbows or whatever 4 hours a day).

But I went through a lot of the links and did some reading.

Not sure if something like an English Longbow would be included, but the sling is just as lethal and accurate at the same range as most bows.

The caveat is what you said. The proficiency thing from hardest to master to easiest is something like sling -> bow -> firearm.

There were some slingers from some islands off the coast of Spain (Balearic Slingers?) that trained from childhood with the sling, and the Romans found them utterly lethal and dangerous to face in combat.

I guess I could google and find some of that on the web somewhere. And I won't swear I don't have one of my facts wrong.

But the Romans had a very, very healthy respect for the slingers I mentioned. (And as most here will be aware they were using "bullets," not random stones from the ground.)

Here is a great site on slings, crafting them, using them, and history of them. Slinging.org They also do a good comparison of ranges and accuracy and such in comparison to other stuff like English Longbows and stuff...

To answer the question....no. People don't think they are mutually exclusive. Here is the caveat though. People who look at the game and tend to be into number crunching and trying to "win" aren't usually putting the roleplaying in a high priority. There are always exceptions to the rules and there are shade of grade all along the scale also. It isn't an either or proposition, it is that everyone has a sliding scale for numbers and a separate scale for roleplay and unfortunately enough people slide up the numbers scale and don't focus on the other and vice versa that it makes some absolutists decide it is an either or state.

Co8 is mostly about fixing a ton of the bugs in the ToEE game....it adds some stuff also but it is mostly there to make the game run well.

I like it, they more or less emulate emotion and behaviors that have been taught to them to try to remain inconspicuous. Lots of RP-able stuff there and good fodder for integration into plotlines.

Seth Dresari wrote:

That Bounded Accuracy thing sounds cool, but it also takes the uniqueness out of certain items, traits and/or feats that provide bonuses to certain skills, including but not limited to circumstance bonuses.

Those things are gone, too. And let's be honest: in a game where the math is a pile of +1s and +2s all adding up to be a level-appropriate total, there's nothing "unique" about those individual pluses. By contrast, in a game where the math is your stat mod plus a binary yes/no for adding your proficiency bonus, the small handful of things that actually further modify the math are far more "unique" than any given brick in Pathfinder's mathwall.

In 5E, the fact that the rogue can double his proficiency bonus on a couple of skills is actually special. In 5E, the fact that some bards can add half their proficiency bonus to every skill they're not already proficient in is actually meaningful. In 5E, bless can be your math-changer for the whole game, instead of fading into insignificance around 4th level or so.

The pluses you accrue in Pathfinder aren't unique. The pluses in 5E are.

Exactly my thoughts. I love the simpler math instead of the "I have a +8bab, +4 from strength, +2 for flank, +2 from weapon, +2 from spell, and...damn, missed..." next round: "crap, I missed last round because I forgot about my X bonus or I would've hit last round".

5E makes any bonus into something special and makes magic items mean something again instead of just a bonus that needs to be worked up level appropriately just to stay viable in the game.

That said there isn't really anything I would shunt over from 5E to PRPG. They are 2 different beasts that behave totally differently. Change one minor thing in PRPG and you may find you need to revamp entire areas of the system that are effected.
I liked Pathfinder but I love 5E and since I switched I really don't miss it. Prep is a breeze, combat is fast and easy to follow, adding in homebrew classes, races, backgrounds, etc.. are simple to do.
Pathfinder to me is it's own thing, as is 5E. Trying to shoehorn elements of one into the other is not a great idea IMO. Just play whichever one suits your group better.

Why not allow Fly to work as burrowing also? I'll answer, because it's a dumb assumption. Air is gas, Water is liquid, Ground is a solid. The three are vastly different and there are rules to govern each. Flying does not give a swim speed just like walking doesn't give a burrow speed. There are different rules for the different modes of travel and if you are using a spell to give you a different mode of travel then it is specific to that mode of travel. You don't fly through water, you don't burrow through water, you don't climb through water. You also don't climb through the ground, swim through the ground, or fly through the ground.
Come on, common sense. Fly spell. "Can I swim with it?" is just a ludicrous question from someone wanting to make a spell do more than it should.

Every badDM has a bias or personal preference.

Fixed that for you.

So you genuinely don't see the difference between making a personal PC that the DM takes control of and has personal vested interest in vs giving your players the ability to call upon allies made in game to work with them on their own terms?

Because the former only works if the DM is really, really, good at avoiding personal bias. In my experience a lot of them aren't. I'm conscious of it being a problem, and still would rather avoid it by putting most of the power there into player hands rather than maintaining direct control. Games where the DM insists on running their DMPC isn't...

If you show me a DM who runs a DMPC badly with personal biases and such I would place a bet that the DM also is one of those that has his favorite Big Bad Evil Guy escape at the last moment no matter what the PCs do, and somehow combats last exactly as long as the DM deems it to despite whatever damage the PCs have done, and NPCs seem to always survive as long as he decides they do, and the PCs will be knocked unconscious and taken prisoner when he decides that is what he wants the story to do.....This is all bad DMing. It isn't about a certain aspect of the game being wrong, it's about a DM's inability to properly use a certain aspect of the game fairly without bias. If a DM is gonna lay favorites with a DMPC he is gonna do it with NPCs and BBEGs also. Part of being a good arbitrator(which is what DMs should be) is being unbiased. I roll in the open so the PCs can see that I don't "cheat" rolls for effect. I do not adjust HP on the fly to make things more harrowing. I do not play favorites with BBEGs by making up a last minute way for them to survive the encounter. If a monster is fighting 2 PCs and needs to attack one and neither has stood out as the more imminent threat, I roll to see who he attacks. Fairness. That is what DMing is about and if it isn't done well then the problem isn't in the tool (the DMPC) it's in the user of the tool.

Would greyhawk inspired adventures for 5e be of interest to anyone? I can't do Greyhawk itself, but I can certainly make adventures that would fit will in Greyhawk.

Absolutely, maybe with a section in front of the adventure advising what area(s) would be a good sub in Greyhawk.

I personally love Greyhawk because it was the default for a long while and some of the best old adventures were set there. There was never a feel that the world would end if the PCs didn't do there job which always seemed more believable to me. A world that could end every couple years if the right group of heroes doesn't come along in the nick of time to save it just isn't something I find attractive or feasible.

So, question - for those of you who think a GMPC can be done right, do you prefer built before game so it compliments their needs without outshining anyone, or introduced as a regular NPC who may or may not join and evolved naturally into a companion?

Say you had a party of an aasimar oracle (undecided mystery thus far), tiefling unchained rogue, half elf bonded and white haired witch, human gendarme cavalier, and dwarf zen archer monk, what would you toss their way?

Can you maybe tone down the "one part from each book" characteristics and make the list into something easily digestible? Many of those characters could be played to cover different roles.

If you have every played in a module or AP that you had previous played either as a GM or player, do you play as if you always have the answers and make the other PCs bystanders? Why or why not?

I have run The Sunless Citadel twice for different groups and played in it once afterwards and each time it was 3 totally different adventures besides the areas and creatures being the same. I had intimate knowledge of all the encounters which according to some in this thread would ruin the game for me or make me act in a manner that showed partiality to the knowledge I have. To those I say, Roleplaying. That is part of the game's name and it involves immersing yourself into a character including knowledge that the character has and removing knowledge that a player has.

The whole argument breaks down into 2 sides: People that are good at running or have DMs who are good at running DMPCs and People who are not good at running or have DMs who are bad at running DMPCs.
There is no absolute "DMPCs are BAD/WRONG" or "DMPCs are TEH AWESOME" because their usage is based on the DM doing a good job at running them. If the DM can't do this, whether due to inability to not metagame, desire to play the Lord of the PCs, lack of time and effort to put into the roll, lack of fairly applying the rules across the whole table including his own PC, then a DMPC is gonna be a failure.
Mine are successes and my groups have agreed to the point that several people who were skeptics to the idea have switched sides on the issue. Long story short: DMs define whether the DMPC is going to be a success in the party or a failure by their ability to DM impartially and fairly without metagaming.
If you can't do that that doesn't mean everyone else can't also. No absolutes. I can do it as can many others on this thread. If you can't perhaps you should look to improve your skills and see this as a chance to broaden your skills or accept that there is some shortcoming in this area that effects your ability to play a DMPC but doesn't make you a bad DM.

DrDeth wrote:

Ashiel says he always runs one. Ashiel says he always runs one.

Actually, I said "pretty much every time thereafter" referring to that specific group. Sorry if I was unclear. Perhaps amusingly enough, it began at their suggestion and then continued by their request so I assume that it's not merely conjecture that it was being done in a way that was good for the players.

One of the benefits I've found for GMPCs* is that it provides a roleplaying opportunity for players in virtually any situation. It can make dungeon crawls less of a crawl, for example. It's also really spiffy for dropping bits of lore into the game that would otherwise be overlooked, such as the character commenting on things or asking characters questions about themselves.

I have the same sort of experience with GMPCs. I use them a lot and the group(s) have all liked them because they are basically followers that are there to fill a role that no one in the party seemed to want to fill (like a locksmith/trapfinder or an arcanist). Their personality is more of a background character and i usually build them to be a totaly average PC but if there is some cool story element to get to the PCs I can use the GMPC as a delivery method or a sudden inspiration. I don't outshine anyone else with them and if the GMPC happens to land a final blow to a mook then there is not a jealous kill-steal moment.

I find that I hit a slump when higher level combat starts coming around between 8th and 10 level in 3.5 and Pathfinder. A well constructed E6 (or P6 game) worked well to alleviate that feeling for a while but it came back as soon as I went back to normal Pathfinder/3.5 games. I have figured out that as I got older, my tastes are more about description and the adventures than it is about combat and tactics. I tried to find ways to simplify Pathfinder, having abandoned 3.5 totally, and kept hitting walls until I started playing games with simpler systems like Legend of the Five Rings, Castles and Crusades and a few others and I now realize that I like a fun game with simple combat rules and less focus on "crunch".
I waited to try 4e and judging by some reviews from sources I trusted and scanning through it in the store I decided it wasn't for me.
5e came out and I waited and heard some good things and some bad things...but the funny thing was that most of the "bad" things sounded like things I wanted in a game. Resting, spells being dialed back at higher levels, magic items not being prolific, etc. all sounded like good things to me. I tried it out at home with the basic boxed set running the boxed adventure for my 2 kids and I have to say I really love the system, combat is fast, neat, and fun while still being a challenge and I feel like I did back with the Basic, Expert and Companion versions of the BECMI version of D&D. The game is fun for me again.

You need to figure out what is dragging you down in YOUR game and find a game system that solves that issue. If the group doesn't want to change, then you may have to find new people of like mind to your own and make a move. The difference between playing an awesome game and playing a game that doesn't really move you is huge and makes an enormous difference in your quality of life. I walk on air for days after running my 5E campaign or when I am playing in the alternating game of Call of Cthulhu and traipsing around 1920's Tuxedo Park looking for a 3 armed lady's head that made my buddies sink their car into the local lake.
You have to really, honestly analyze your game and find out what you need to move you. It's worth the change-up.

I'm hoping that soon I can compile all of the relevant articles from the WotC site for easy reference. The site itself is not easily navigable.

I agree totally. Their site's layout is difficult to navigate and is confusing. I also find their messageboards to be the same. I wish they could work some of the confusing elements out and make their site work better.

I'll do my best to continue updating any other free resources. At some point I will also link the web enhancements so that we can just have them all in one place. Regrettably, my time has been spent on other projects, but I don't want to forget this, so bear with me.

Another 35 D&D 5E resources!

I figured I would lend a hand Lorathorn...

Where's that damn horse when you need it.

Someone called for a....oh. The other horse. Nevermind.

Are you looking at my teeth?....

Back to the original topic.....
In life I generally give a degree of trust unilaterally to everyone. I tend to take people at face value and assume they aren't actively out to screw me over. As those people perform actions in life around me I give or take away trust depending on the action. The initial degree of trust is usually rather low and grows or shrinks rather quickly.
I follow a similar method with D&D/Pathfinder GMs. When I GM a game tell the players the rule that are available and how I run a game. I tell them that I roll in the open and the dice fall where they fall. I explain that they are the stars and I am setting the stage for them to tell a story.
When I am a player I come to the table with expectations that I am part of a team of people trying to have fun and create a cool story.
I have seen GMs that after several sessions I realized that they are telling THEIR story, not a story of the characters, and there was no variation from their plotline or deviation from how they wanted things to play out. This has shown up as on-the-spot-rules to de-power a player or empower a bad guy that MUST make his showing, or in GM fiat that eliminates a player's action.
I have seen 4-5 bad GMs in my gaming life of around 34 years. I usually figure out after a few sessions what a GM is like and then I decide if I can adjust to their style or not. I have been blessed with long-term groups in the past with good GMs, and I love GMing so it usually works out well but before those and now recently I am finding that since I moved away from long-time group, there are some bad GMs out there.
Currently my tolerance level is lower than usual but I still portion out the trust and try to back that up with privately voicing concerns with GMs if there is something going on that I don't particularly like. If they choose to totally ignore my concerns then I can see that there is a gap between our play styles that either I have to bridge or I have to walk away and find a new game.

I am currently in a game where the GM is using some vague houserule for passing through ally's squares, perception checks for looking past allies into a combat and random ridiculous checks for stuff that is covered in the rules but doesn't fit his view of things and when approached about it was dismissive and showed no concern for my opinion (which mirrors most of the other player's). The group is planning to split shortly with me and another player going to alternate GMing.

I don't have a problem with the books or the movie's kink and sex parts. It is fine. What I have a problem with is outside of that...it is a story about a dude who is using mental and verbal abuse to reduce his girlfriend's mental image of herself into her being nothing but his property to do with as he pleases, not just in a sexual manner. He is imposing martial law over her entirety. If you replaced the BDSM elements with straight up beatings, punching, yelling and such you would see better the controlling abuse and mental breaking down of the victim until she has no self-worth and is nothing without her man.
Why women see this as a sexual awakening film is beyond me. I like BDSM, participated in some cool stuff and have no issues with such but is there really a large population of women in the world that want to lose all self worth and be nothing but a meat-puppet for some spoiled brat to play with? I don't think so. I think some are interested in the BDSM parts and purposely blinding themselves to the mental and verbal abuse that goes beyond the bedroom games.

I will agree with the people saying Rise of the Runelords and Crypt of the Everflame, but here is an option you should definitely explore.....

Hollow's Last Hope. It is a FREE download of a Free RPG Day adventure that has 32 reviews on this site and 4.5 stars out of 5.
I thoroughly enjoyed the module and if you like it there are several other adventures set in the area that can be tacked on to create a mini-campaign, all of which are great modules. Crown of the Kobold King, Carnival of Tears, Hungry are the Dead....all modules that add onto the region of Falcon's Hollow (the main town in Hollow's Last Hope) and expand on the area and campaign. There is also the Guide to Darkmoon Vale that gives a ton of info on the region...64 pages of it!
But like I was saying....for a free, short adventure to test the waters you should absolutely check out Hollow's Last Hope. At worst it isn't what you want, at best you took a risk-free step into a campaign based around 4 adventure modules and a regional supplement book with a ton of details to flesh out your campaign.

Good luck and have fun.

No, by 'vendor trash' I meant:

"Okay, the fight's over, you search the bodies and find 20 +1 items."

"Okay, stick 'em in the Bag of Holding and we'll sell them back at town.'

In other words, extraneous low-level magic items that exist only to be sold to shops. My players seriously think it undervalues the concept of magic. They want something other than 'Diablo' or similar games where trash loot is commonplace.

So you want a game that fixes the Christmas Tree Effect and the rampant magic items everywhere? That is 5E. I don't understand where you are getting that 5E is going to be mostly represented by MMOs and boardgames...they have slowed down with the supplement books a bit from their past, but they are focusing on good adventures and quality supplements. You have knee-jerked the system based on absolutely zero understanding of how the game is progressing...hit the forums and troll around and you will see more about the path forward, unless you already closed off your mind to 5E. It really is an awesome game for eliminating the magic mart/christmas tree syndrome.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Alchemical Allocation is pretty powerful, in that it basically makes something free that would otherwise be living beyond your means (regular use of higher-level potions). I'm not convinced publishing it was a good move. Of course, now that it exists, I'm using it too.

And then there's this Elixir. I'm fairly confident that whoever wrote the elixir, and whoever wrote Alchemical Allocation, did not expect those two to be used. I mean, now that both of them exist, it makes sense to use it, but it's not likely something that the writer(s) planned. It's just an unexpected combination.

I can see how a GM would be frustrated that you bypassed an adventure. The first time, it'd be annoying but the right thing to do would be to say "well, I didn't see that coming.. you're not getting loot from the encounters you never ran into of course, but you're well on your way with your main mission". The second time, he could've been ready for it;

- You still actually need to get to the hostage. He could plan the challenge of the adventure more around getting in than around getting out.

- You might have encounters on the shadow plane. And given how you're getting there at relatively low level, that could be scary.

- Since you don't have a lot of control on where you exit, you might stumble into a random encounter on exit. That could just be a fight, but it could also be something more creative, like in the middle of a tense negotiation between two organized crime cartels. Who now both think the others hired the PCs for a double-cross, so there's this confusing three-way battle.

Have to agree with this. Part of the GM's job is to roll with the punches when your players come up with something legitimately clever.

Yup, too often GMs use "No" as their answer to rolling with the punches or they just plain ban stuff. I can understand that they don't want to be steamrolled but a good GM would find a countermeasure and use it sparingly to show that there is some risk to using a certain action....not that they should constantly use the countermeasure but slip it in enough that the PC knows that the exploit isn't free and without risks.

Another older player here. I started playing D&D in 1974. I'm 56 :) 5E is looking pretty good. For me, it's about the world and the adventure, not the perfect character build.

I started in '79 and I feel the same way...the personality I instill in the character has more to do with who he/she is than any mechanics. I love the options presented in 5E and think that they make a great base to build on. I find the game to be quick, fun and easy to play. This is a welcome relief after spending huge tracts of time creating PCs, NPCs, and customizing monsters. I haven't DMed 5e much but I find that enjoyable also.

I prefer games where you spend more time adventuring with the character than creating him / leveling him up.

Also agreed...the games I have played in 5E have awesome pacing to them and at the end of a night I feel like we have accomplished something and advanced the storyline well. In 3.5/Pathfinder I found that often a whole night was spent clearing 2-3 rooms of a dungeon and it sometimes took weeks to get out of dungeon combat mode and into some story advancement.

Laurefindel wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.

David, stating your opinion is one thing, trolling is another... please cut it out.

There's a fine line, isn't there?

Yeah, back about 10 pages of puking on anyone's opinion that likes 5E was the line.

David Bowles wrote:

"since your PCs aren't going to be facing creatures built using the PC rules which probably changes the analysis "

Why not? It doesn't make any sense not to fight other PC classes. PCs are not unique in the world. Throwing that out is a mistake, I think. It also ties the GM's hand in terms of fighting fire with fire when it comes to PC builds.

Whatever ones preferences, that's not how 5E is designed to work. It doesn't have the same simulationist approach that pathfinder does in that realm.

Quote:

"The classes which "lose" multiple attacks "gain" other features and it's difficult to view one feature in isolation (it's not right to consider the various class features as a change - its a different approach to encapsulating a similar concept)"

I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the cleric didn't lose way more than it gained from PF.

My point is that there wasn't a switch from pathfinder to 5E. They're two different approaches to representing similar concepts.

The risk in thinking of it as a change from the pathfinder default is you focus on one difference and interpret it as a "reduction in power" based on how that feature would work if it were imported to a pathfinder game.

I have a friend tossing up between rogue and fighter, for example. He's building spreadsheets, running simulations and doing what he enjoys with character building. The fighter gets more attacks than the rogue, yet the rogue can out damage the fighter (just) - paying for that damage in a reduced survivability. It's not immediately obvious that the two classes' DPRs are going to track so similarly. He hasn't got any interest in a cleric, so I haven't seen similar analysis - nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet there's some feature a 5E cleric gets that a pathfinder cleric doesn't which mitigates the lack of multiple attacks.

Well said and this covers most of my 5E experience so far. It is a different game and saying "allowing movement between the various attacks is powerful and uber" is flat out wrong because in 5E it is balanced. In Pathfinder it would be broken without overhauling the rules a bit to incorporate it.

i wish people would stop hating on 5E without even trying it....just go through the introductory adventure that takes you from 1st to 5th level and you will have a great idea on how well the system performs as a whole. It is elegant, fun, and fast in combat. I also love that the game gives a bit more creative license back to the DM....it's refreshing.

captain yesterday wrote:

i like the picture of the halfling in the player's handbook, makes me laugh every time i see it at the bookstore:-)

Yeap, I laugh too as I toss the book on the shelf and pass on buying it.

I hated 4E, but I gave 5E a chance and I am glad I did. If you pass it up for a drawing without even looking at it, then you do yourself an injustice and should be cursing your closed-mind. It isn't perfect but is a good game with some good ingenuity and some nice mechanics. I was staunchly Pathfinder and now I am swayed to 5E and it's elegant simplicity and a return to D&D.

I'm sorry to say this but as soon as any person says "Quit being a baby" when I express dislike of a ruling or gaming situation I am done with that person. Who the f**k thinks they can talk to someone like that without a bunch of players that don't want to play with a bully GM? Even if I was one of the other players in the game I would have been out, how dare you disrespect and degrade another player in front of everyone...I don't want to around people like this in a paying job or life in general, why the hell would I put up with that treatment during my fun recreational time.
Most of my old groups would have banded together and told him to leave. We play a co-op game, not a GM is God VS the players.

If a friend of 25 years walks out over something that had this much meaning to you then I would seriously re-evaluate the friendship and see where it actually ended, because it's been over for a while if it ever really was in the first place. A friendship is about give and take and compromise, like any relationship.

I would love to play a "low magic" magic game, but i guess i simple don't have the time for it.

I often wonder if what many GMs really wanted is a SLOWER game, where people has time to discuss the lore about that +1 longsword, or tracking over half the kingdom a potion seller who has potions of cure moderate wounds. After years and years of campaing, people deserve to be teleporting around the continent because they already been everywhere.
Some people long for a more literally game how was played back then in 1E. But nowdays everything is fastpaced, you didn't even used that 3rd level spell and you already learning the 4th.

I guess it's sad.

Yup, pcs can hit 20th level in a couple of months of adventuring. I love a slower paced game. I liked the years of campaigning to get a character to grow. Everyone seems to be on a "1-20 in as quick a timeframe as possible then onto the next PC". We used to cherish the journey and now it seems to be all about the destination. It is sad...and I have seen quite a few times where I got new shiny abilities without using the ones gained 2 sessions ago when I leveled before. I want a slow burn, lots of downtime, not gaining 2-3 levels in one adventure/dungeon. Even on slow XP rate it isn't slow enough for me. I want to play once a week for 3-4 hours each time and take a year to get to level 6. Another year to get to 12....I want to invest in my PC instead of keep wishing for more and more faster and faster until I wish my PC into retirement because the campaign was over so quick....

Great question, Ragnarok.

I started playing D&D way back in the red box days.

We moved on to AD&D, then 2nd Edition, then 3rd Edition. When 4th Edition rolled around, I and my gaming group (mostly friends from college by that point) decided it wasn't for us and liked the feel of Pathfinder more.

I guess you could say it felt like a better progression of the rules to us.

I personally liked how PF guided players away from multiclassing mayhem, beefed up some classes that needed it (sorcerer, for example), and rewrote some of the more problematic 3.5 options such as the Scout class in order to bring them back down to earth.

Today we play Pathfinder because we're still running one campaign that started about three years ago, and the other GM who is just starting out is using PF because he's most comfortable with it. The general consensus seems to be that we're getting ready to move on to 5th Edition D&D, though.

PF has just become too "bloated" for our tastes -- there are many ways to describe this, but the one that comes to mind first (because I've been doing it this week) is that it takes forever to pore over every PF book that exists trying to build characters for fear of missing some interesting or competitive option. Don't look at me like that -- if there's ONE powergamer at the table, EVERYONE has to be one or they'll be swimming in his wake the entire campaign.

So, the short answer would be -- I switched to PF because I didn't like what I saw in 4e, but I expect I'll soon be switching to 5e because I'm seeing it as a possible refinement of PF, or maybe a palatable synthesis of 3.5 and 4e, as I realize PF has grown to have lost much of what I liked about it in the first place.

I switched to 5e a couple months ago and it is refreshing....the bloat from PF made higher level games a grind and lower levels were a constant scouring of books so you didn't miss something that your character would love. I may look at Pathfinder 2 when/if it comes out but D&D 5 would have to really make some mistakes with splatbooks to lose me now.

What I want to know is, does it rhyme with "Zebu?"

And more importantly is a Zebu the same as a "Cebu?

I didn't have a Phantom Cat instance but I remember something distinctly when I was younger, around 6 or so, and we lived in an old 2-story farmhouse in South Jersey. I woke up one night, looked across my room and saw my Lion piggy-bank(Cartoony character, not a realistic lion) climb down off of my dresser, using the handles of the drawers to climb down. I was terrified and it felt like my throat was paralyzed and my body refused to move. I could hear it coming across the wooden floor to my bed. I felt the pull of the covers at my feet where it had grabbed them and started pulling itself up onto my bed. Then I heard the sound of ceramic tinking against my footboard as it hauled itself up and I finally was able to scream and I continued until my mother and father were both in the room holding me as I cried hysterically. They asked me what was wrong and when I could speak enough I said "my lion-bank was coming to get me..." they looked at my dresser and didn't see it then they looked around the room. It was lying on floor by the foot of my bed.
I slept with them for several weeks after that. I had several weird things happen in that house while we lived there but nothing that was so real and that stuck with me in such detail. I don't know if it was a creative nightmare or something else but I am open to the possibilities...

I think there's already been discussions about this.

So don't link to them or anything...just pop on and threadcrap away.

To the OP, I love what 5e has done with casters and I would just say Yes. Yes to anything and everything that 5e changed, port it all over and add it to Pathfinder....however you are going to get resistance from players that like being wizzo-gods. I took another path. My group just straight-up switched to 5e and we are loving it. The game is fast, simple and easy to play and everyone is feeling like an equal part of the game instead of one or two players with uber-game mastery or an interweb-build of destruction being the main reason the party stays alive.

Other than that, you could shoehorn in parts of the system into the existing but I doubt that many players are going to like it and you are left with a mish-mash of game rules that weren't meant to coexist. It will take a lot of tweaking to make them run smoothly together imo.

So my group is playing 5E and we are enjoying it very much. I am not seeing us using the Advantage/Disadvantage system much though and I want to figure out why.
The actual rules surrounding when they should be used seems to be mostly "when the DM determines you have one". It doesn't clearly define when to use them though.
Here are some questions:
*Is it basically a replacement mechanic for +2/-2 adjustments?
*If you are a rogue using your sneak attack do you get advantage?
*Does higher ground/lower ground trigger use of Adv/Disadv?
*How about surprise round? Does everyone participate in combat on the surprise round with the surpriser getting advantage on attacks and the surprised getting disadvantage?
*How would this work with skills?

I really like the rule but it is so vague on when to use it that it almost doesn't seem to exist in my game currently and that is really a shame. I want to rectify this.