Enchantment magic, in general, yields all sorts of terrible ramifications related to concepts of free will and consent. Something that should honestly get a bit of upfront discussion regarding relationships. But the description is hilarious, nonetheless. Though I think, rather than Valeros, it should be one of the resident shirtless iconics... Seltyiel and Amiri, maybe. That'd be a funny role reversal.
Save or die spells are awful, because they escalate things rapidly. PCs sometimes love them, because who doesn't love it when they drop the Big Bad in the first round? But they hate being on the receiving end, and that's inevitably going to happen at some point. PC death is more long lasting and damaging to a narrative than the death of a villain, as well.
It's what makes high level combat so very lopsided. In general, I try to work with a gentleman's agreement to avoid them if the players do.
still feel like Paizo dropped the ball when it revised 3.5 and failed to codify "precision damage" as a set type of damage, like a keyword. Rather than having to constantly spell out the text with things like this, we could have a "x is precision damage" comment and everything would be much more consistant and clear.
I believe that the initial intention was to raise the issue that costuming in Golarion seems to have shifted from the initial releases to have more, I guess, "codified" elements, and that several of the Iconics have costuming that doesn't fit into the established elements of the world anymore. So, if everyone from Cheliax wears, say, big feathered boas, then an Iconic supposedly from Cheliax without a feathered boa isn't correctly attired and may need a redesign.
It's obviously evolved from that into a discussion of appropriate attire and provocative imagery, but the original concept was whether, say, Seoni's attire is appropriate to the cultural norms of her established society.
This argument does, unfortunately, fall apart when one notices that not everyone dresses the same in our societies, especially when traveling abroad, something adventurers often do.
Tony Stark is a great example of a character with a high INT and low WIS. "I can build this armored power suit! I'll test it out in my garage! Looks like some of the prelimiaries are working fine. Let's fly into the upper stratosphere!"
The man knows theory, but application and patience are not his strong suit.
Jessica Price wrote:
This stuff is also contextual. Do I think that there should be art of Kyra posing seductively? Not generally, no. That has never seemed to be part of who she is. But if it's in something talking about her relationship with Merisiel, and it's directed at Merisiel rather than the viewer, sure. Just because someone doesn't emphasize their sexuality in public doesn't mean that they don't enjoy emphasizing it in private with someone they love, and if what we're depicting is a private moment between her and a lover, I'm happy she's having fun.
Wait. What? Kyra and Merisiel are a couple?
Huh. I had no idea.
There is another type of phylactery in Sandstorm where you split it 7 times, probably where that talentless hack of a writer got her idea from.
Order of the Phoenix, where the concept of Horcruxes were first introduced, along with the idea of there being a plan to create 7, was published in 2003.
Sandstorm was published in 2005.
Who was the talentless hack who stole their ideas from whom?
I've been running the same world since my first 3.0 campaign. It's evolved to include new rules and classes, but the bones of the setting have remained the same. Past characters are legends now, and my wife's been playing since before we were dating in the world. She's always finding some nugget that I put into new adventures that she recognizes from her old characters' experiences (there has been a literal ROFL moment in one campaign when a certain realization dawned on her).
My world is complicated, and I'm still trying to force myself to stop being lazy and actually get it all written down, but I've already gotten illustrations for the allowed base classes' iconics drawn up, and biogs for all but one deity done. Mechanical tweaks and flavor text are needed, and my goal is to eventually spin it all into a campaign reference document that can be the go-to for most house rules and flavor.
The world is vaguely inspired by action movies, anime, and Final Fantasy, with an eye to logical niche in the world for races and monsters. Dragons are extremely rare, dwarves are like shogunate-era Japanese vikings, elves are Heian-era Japan inspired (I was an East Asians Studies major...). This campaign has existed for almost 14 years now, so it's always interesting to see where the world turns next.
I did that once, but my boss told me I wasn't allowed to come to work dressed like Batman.
THAC0 wasn't difficult, but it wasn't intuitive, either. You got +2 Chainmail! Reduce your AC by 2!
Roll high for attack rolls, roll low for non-weapon proficiency checks (skill checks). I can't even remember if you had to roll high or low for saves, but you gotta love the six or so categories (rod, staff or wand, petrification or polymorph, death, etc).
Classes had ridiculous rules - your Druid wants to hit level 15, he better defeat another lvl 15 druid, or he drops back to 14. Neutral characters change sides to ensure "balance." Paladins have to have a Charisma 17 or higher. Unless your ability score is a 16 or higher, there's almost no mechanical benefit to having it.
The game was a mish-mash of rules. It wasn't awful as games go, and I enjoyed it in Junior High and Highschool, but by the time college rolled around, I couldn't convince anyone to play it. We wound up playing a lot of the old World of Darkness games, until 3.0 came out and I could finally, *finally* play a wizard with a sword.
I had a similar thought back in the day - I didn't see the reason for the "sci-fi version of magic" in a game with real magic, but the flavor and system both really won me over. Now, I find it forms a nice trinity with arcane and divine power sources (for want of a better term) that is pleasing on a mechanical as well as aesthetic level.
Without a doubt, there was some good art back in AD&D. There was also some terrible stuff going around, and a lot more of it was black and white and/or sexist. I love 3.x's stuff, especially WAR's work along with the stuff by the likes of Steve Prescott, but I'll gladly take some Tony DiTerlizzi as well (and am sad that I don't get much of his work anymore. His Catlord and Tiefling from Planescape still remain in my mind).
That said, I'd also like to see some more "anime-inspired" stuff in my game books. Aside from it being a highly popular art form and something that I like the aesthetics of, it's also a style that I do and I'd actually like to believe that I had a chance to contribute art to my favorite hobby (art major here, wanting to do illustration). Unfortunately, the highly vocal "get yer animes out of mah D&D!" lobby pretty much precludes me ever getting published in a game book (aside from the one time with a small-house publisher).
Give me my anime alongside my WAR alongside my DiTerlizzi alongside Brohm, if you want. It can all be highly evocative. White Wolf's Kindred of the East supplements were full of Melissa's very anime-styled work alongside some of their more standard artists, and they all worked wonderfully.
I'm okay with either catfolk style. I'm not actually a big fan of the B3 one, but I don't entirely love the one in the ARG, either. I do find it funny that everyone who's for the ARG style is willing to call the B3 style "anime" but doesn't feel the need to acknowledge that the ARG style is straight-up "furry," though. ;)
I think you meant to say "that one is ruined now. It's mechanically inferior to the heavy flail, which is a martial weapon. It was a good weapon before, perhaps marginally more powerful than it needed to be, but certainly not the be-all and end-all of weapons. It was one where you were actually justified in taking the EWP feat, unlike just about any of the others.
Huh. My Hargulka is a half-green dragon troll Swordsage 1 (the swordsage level nets him fire resistance, thanks to a Desert Wind stance). He ties in the "dragon" theme that I've been working to integrate more thoroughly into the campaign. (Similarly, my Stag Lord had ties to dragons, including an advanced, flying tatzlewurm instead of an owlbear, among his many other changes...)
In my homebrewed setting, arcane magic is the lifeblood of the world, functioning in many ways as the Life Stream from FFVII. While wizards use complex mathemagical formulae to manipulate the flow of the Arcane River to generate magical effects (and sorcerers do something similar, but are just naturals at it), the witch is more in tune with the natural flow of the Arcane River. This is why they have a familiar that's also their spellbook - they are imbuing the magic directly into the natural world, creating pools and eddies of arcane magic in the form of an animal that allows them to manipulate the energy without forcing it to do their bidding.
While high elves are often wizards, wood elves are much more likely to be witches. They both still love arcane magic, but one lives more in tune with nature, and therefore uses it more readily as such. It's the druid to the wizard's cleric, in some ways.
Someone else suggested that any Cohorts be drawn from the pool of existing NPCs as presented in the AP. That's going to be my approach as well. It has to be an NPC established, either as part of their background and worked into the campaign already, or one of the ones I've used or created. There's a good chance that one of the PCs may wind up with Elminster of Shadowdale as her cohort...
Very interested in this idea - I've been planning on making Halgruka more tied to the overarching narrative that I've created out of the modules, with a heavier focus on dragons. My Big H will actually be a half-green dragon troll for extra deadliness (and to make him a bit harder to kill due to acid immunity), because I've been sort of working more dragon-related stuff into the modules to help shore up the general dragon-ness and foreshadow all the dragons to come later. Very good ideas overall, and I look forward to seeing them in action as well. I'll probably have to see exactly what-all happens here, as we should be hopefully starting the second module next weekend, maybe...
Honestly, the legacy weapons were how magic weapons and armor SHOULD be handled in 3.5, minus the retarded costs. If you are required to have a certain bonus to attacks at a certain level, you should just get it at that level.
Honestly, once an AC hits 3, it's technically sentient, and doesn't need tricks anymore. It can actually follow (with limited understanding) more complex lines of thought and even act more on its own initiative. So, at that point, you can pretty much ignore the "tricks" section and let it understand everything better.
That's funny. Relying solely upon the DMG for magic items, there's almost nothing that's worth the price aside from the "big 6" or whatever - Stat boosters, Resistance boosters, Deflection bonuses, and natural armor bonuses, plus your magic armor and weapons. Most characters I've tried to build using the core rules just cannot justify the price of most core magic items for the ludicrously limited benefit they give (except for Handy Haversacks, Boots of Striding and Springing, and Hats of Disguise). Magic item costs are ludicrously high for no real benefit.
The Magic Item Compendium is actually one of the best sourcebooks for 3.5 in my opinion - it gives PCs something to do with their gold that gives them abilities, rather than just increasing their numbers. Some of the items are a bargain, but most seem to be costed about right, or be of such limited utility that I've still never seen them used before. I will never see a PC with a Helm of Brilliance because of its cost, but an Angel Helm actually gives them something that they might want to use their head slot on aside from a Headband of Intellect +6.
Honestly, I wish Paizo had actually, seriously looked at the costs of magic items when it put out the PFRPG and priced them appropriately, rather than using the ridiculously over-costed prices that many of them suffered from in 3.5.
Okay, so, are we thinking something more like this:
• Type: Monstrous Humanoid
• +2 Constitution, –2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom. As larger creatures, Centaurs are hardier. They are also gifted with good instincts, but are not as bright as some races.
• Large: As a large creature, a Centaur occupies a 10' space in combat. He suffers a -1 size penalty to attack rolls and Armor Class, a -4 size penalty to Stealth checks, and a +1 size bonus to CMB and CMD. In addition, his benefits from increased carrying capacity, as a large quadruped, as described on page 170 of the PFRPG.
• Long: As a long creature, a Centaur may move through a 5' wide space such as a corridor without suffering penalties for squeezing, so long as there is always at least 10' of space for him to fit into. However, while squeezing, a Centaur suffers a -2 penalty when attacking flanking opponents, and suffers a -2 AC against attacks from flankers. In addition, his reach is only 5', like a medium creature.
• Medium Build: A Centaur counts as a medium creature when determining penalties for weapon usage. Typically, a Centaur wields weapons sized for medium creatures.
• Centaur base land speed is 50 feet.
• Low-Light Vision: A Centaur can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. He retains the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions. Despite being a Monstrous Humanoid, a Centaur does not have Dark Vision.
• Stability: As a quadruped, a Centaur gains a +4 bonus to resist being tripped or overrun, as normal.
• +2 Natural Armor bonus. A Centaur has a tougher hide than most humanoid races.
• Saddleborn Charge: A Centaur employing a lance deals increased damage when it charges, as if it was a rider on a mount.
• Mounted Combatant: A Centaur counts as having the Mounted Combat feat for the purpose of meeting all prerequisites, though he may not take the feat itself. (Maybe also roll Saddleborn Charge into this ability...)
• Natural Horseman: A Centaur gains a +2 racial bonus to Handle Animal skill checks made with horses and ponies.
• Wilderness Lore: A Centaur gains a +2 racial bonus on Survival and Knowledge (Nature) checks.
• Awkward Climber: A Centaur suffers a -2 penalty on Climb checks.
• Natural Weapons: A Centaur can kick with its hooves, making two natural secondary attacks (-5 penalty to attack rolls at highest Base Attack Bonus). These hooves each do 1d3 + half the Centaur's Strength modifier damage.
• Weapon Familiarity: A Centaur is proficient in the longspear and the lance. In addition, they treat any weapon with the word "centaur" in the name as a martial weapon.
• Favored Class: Ranger or Scout. (I am still using specific Favored Classes in my games).
I supped up the speed and hoof damage, as per the horse, but I'm keeping natural armor for the moment - the cost of armor for the centaur, along with the general likelihood of finding magic armor in treasure hordes makes me want to give them a bit of a boost in the AC department, and it's a net +1 after the large size penalty. Still not 100% on the STR bonus, especially given the +2/+2/-2 "standard" of the PFRPG races. Perhaps take a page from my minotaur rewrite and make it a feat...
Saddleborn Strength [Racial]
Your dual nature has made you stronger than a normal man.
Benefit: You gain a permanent +2 bonus to your Strength score.
Normal: Centaurs have no bonus to their strength scores.
Personally I don't see the likes of Jet Lee or Jackie Chan wondering around medieval Europe either, but that's not really relevant.
Personally, I don't see the likes of dragons or gelatinous cubes wandering around medieval Europe, either.
I'd say that IUS and a monk count as armed, and can swipe weapons all the live-long day. It's a lot of fun, really.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I'll obviously have to accept it, but I disagree strongly with point #1. If you are investing a feat, which is a limited character resource that you only get so many of, it should actually have a benefit. It shouldn't be solely for flavor. There's a reason no one takes EWP: Siangham or EWP: kama - because it's just not worth the feat. Even if a single level of monk didn't give you all those proficiencies for free, no one (except those who believe in punishing themselves for "role playing") would take a feat to use what is honestly a simple weapon.
If you're going to spend a feat, it should grant you a mechanical benefit, since it's buried in the mechanics. Flavor is flavor, but you shouldn't have to pay mechanics for flavor - I could just as easily say that my heavy flail looks like a spiked chain and get a more substantial mechanical benefit without actually sacrificing flavor, and I fail to see why I wouldn't if I really wanted to be wielding a length of chain.
I think, if this is the general concept of the Exotic Weapon feat, it should just be done away with. The spiked chain survived without change through three Alphas and an entire Beta, only to be changed in the final rules into something that frankly is inferior to another weapon simply because it "looks different." The whole category should just go away if it's just there to penalize people who want a bit of a different flavor to their characters.
*shrug* It's not like it's going to change anything, but this is just another thing I'm disappointed to see. There was a chance to actually make the category meaningful, and worth the feat cost, and it's been reduced to "that place you put funny things that you give out for free to races and funky classes." I'll just have to house rule it, and suck it up in Pathfinder Society games I play in (though I tend to err on the side of the rapier anyway, so I guess it's not an issue). Ah, well. Thanks for the insight into how Paizo's approaching the feat and weapon category.