Green Dragon

Duncan & Dragons's page

469 posts. Alias of Duncan Clyborne.


1 to 50 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I have few flip-mats with issues. Not really a product issue, but maybe somebody has ideas.

Issue 1 - I have an old flip-mat (steel sqwire era) that has the plastic peeling off the paper on one corner.

Possible Repair 1- I am thinking of putting a thin layer of elmer's glue and pushing the plastic back onto the paper. Then putting it under a book. It should dry clear, but brittle, right?

Issue 2 - I had a some water get into the basement and carpet. My flip-mats were stored on edge on top of the carpet. Moisture wicked into the paper. This has caused some "wrinkles" under the plastic.

Possible Repair 2 - Iron the flip-mat wrinkled area? Use a t-shirt to protect the plastic of the flip-mat?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Will the tiles be fairly compatible with WotC Dungeon Tiles? Meaning, are they of about the same thickness?

Note: I understand the danger of using Dry Erase compatible (your product) next to a Non-Dry Erase product. (Dungeon Tiles), but is your goal to make them similar?

I messed up. I moved from Boston back to Minneapolis and I forgot to tell Paizo. (I did tell all my Kickstart orders though, thank goodness.) So my order went to Boston and then got sent back to Paizo. Worse yet, it probably got back to you guys around Gencon.

I have updated my account address to list my place in MN. What else do I have to do?

Sincerely, - Pining for Pirates

The DF kickstart is still looking awesome. Over one million and I bet we hit $1.1MM by midnight.

Everyone who plays RPG should at least look. It is really affordable.

Thanks for the suggestions everybody. Especially the Pawn and Paper Mini ideas. Now I know to keep my extra Red Dragon too.

How many miniatures do I want to play the adventure path?

I got my cases and allot of RotRL miniatures. They are of course excellent but .. I have yet to DM or played RotRL so I do not know what I need. I also have Heros and Monsters.

Let's assume I want to get four of each Common, 2 of each UC and 1 of each Rare for both RotRL and H&M. In the adventure path, what will I need extras of to depict a battle? Lets ignore figures not in the sets. So if I need a bunch of Gnolls, no need to discuss.

As some examples, if I need about six Ogrekin in a single battle, I would want 1.5 times the usual Common allotment. (4 Commons x 1.5). Between H&M and RotRL I should have about 24 foot-goblins (6 Commons x 4). Do I want 1.25 times because I should have 30 in the first fight? (Numbers are totally ficticious.)

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Oh, one other thing...

For those who are saying "Pathfinder has earned my loyalty..." or similar comments...

If you enjoyed 3.5 and that's the reason you moved to PF instead of 4e... Well, your loyalty doesn't seem to stay earned very long. And I suspect if DDN ends up being better, it will earn your loyalty too. For a while.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to play the game that is the most fun to play. I'm loyal to the concept of fun.

I think people considered Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazines part of the Hasbro D&D family. Therefore, loyalty was to both Paizo and Hasbro in the 3.5 days. The creation of 4e gave people who had limited time/resources a choice between PFRPG or 4e. (I am assuming here that everyone knows PFRPG was created just to keep Paizo alive.) People did not really 'switch to PFRPG, they just stayed with 3.5.

Gorbacz wrote:

Wizards aren't aiming for getting Pathfinder people back.

They want the 1E/2E people back. Observe:

Monster statblocks fit into three lines of text? Check
PC charsheets fit on one page... Check
...and there are no skills there to speak of? Check
Playtest adventure by Gary Gygax? Check
No dragonborn warlocks in sight? Check
"GM is the law" stated explicitly? Check

5E is a love letter to Old School crowd with some 3E/4E innovations thrown in. WotC is going after all those folks who play OSRIC/C&C/S&W/T&T/X&Y and have no strong brand holding them. Smart move, but is it enough to satisfy the Corporate Overbeast?

What Gorbacz said.

They seem open-minded to taking good things from 3E (like the d20 mechanic) and 4E (like cantrip/orisons being at-will) but it seems more like early editions. I think they are not 'competing' against Pathfinder.

I think Paizo will benefit since Hasbro's D&D Next will be the intro to RPG gaming (assuming they mass-market). Pathfinder will, over time, get fresh blood from D&D Next if people want something 'more'.

Thanks for the response BigKilla. You got my hopes up when you said "I have probably at least 1 of every mini to trade". Bad luck for me.

I do feel fortunate that my one case had one of each mini. I know that was the Paizo goal, but it is still a roll of the dice. I wanted one Ettin and four Ogres though. Instead, I got four Ettin and One Ogre. Sad face.

Google "Macfarlane Dragon" or "Schleich Dragon". Both make some nice, large, pre-painted dragons.

This is the one I want until Paizo gives me a Gargantuan Green Dragon. MacFarlane Fire Dragon

This has to be the best two headed dragon for the money. I got this one and I think it was $10 or $15 bucks. Schleich 2-Headed Fire Breathing Dragon

timothy putman wrote:
hello duncan and dragons, i have some of the pathfinder miniatures to trade.
bigkilla wrote:
I bought 3 cases of minis so I have a large number to trade.I just need to make a want list, but I have probably at least 1 of every mini to trade.

Alright you two, I got nothing to work with in your posts or that I can find on

To repeat, I have to trade:
Gargoyles x2
Ettin x2
Several Uncommons if we get a rare trade going

I want:
Frost Giant
Several Commons if we get a rare trade going

My email-

I was finally allowed to open my Heros & Monsters case for my birthday yesterday. I am looking to trade. I use MaxMinis dot com. Feel free to enter an account in MaxMinis and look for Duncan and Dragons.

Is there a better trade site that may have replaced or competed with MaxMinis? Hordlings is gone right? I have not seen a formal Paizo trading area so I think I am being polite to advertise MaxMinis. Not many people seem to have started using MaxMinis with Heros & Monsters.

Key highlites are that I have an extra Lich, Vampire, Manticore, Troll, Half-Orc, Spectre, 2 Gargoyles and 2 Ettin. Looking to trade and get a Frost Giant and Ogre in addition to some common and uncommons.

Sebastrd wrote:
I've played a 4E character (an Avenger) in a 3E game, and it worked out fine. I'm very curious to see what happens with 5E.

I have always wondered if the editions 3.5, Pathfinder, & 4e are 'fairly close' in the combat basics. Meaning, could you do small modifications to HP, AC and attack bonus and use Monsters for example.

I know there are bigger issues; such as possibly moving in combat and spell caster equality, but could you just bring your 4e figther into 3.5 and just reduce AC by 2, increase HP by 5% and reduce your attack bonus by 1 per 5 levels. (numbers totally made up). I am not inviting a mathmatical debate, I just don't see them as that far apart.

I took this article different than others. The blog was just an excuse to get customer feedback through a survey. Sure the author did reminisce about the Fighter class though the editions, but it was just a vehicle to discuss the direction the Fighter can take in the future.

It was just a discussion on the different Fighter 'types' (without judgement) and then asked which version you would like emphasised next.

Let's see if I can mis-quote Vic:

Vic Wertz wrote:
I ... recall promising ...only products everyone likes.

Thank you for your commitment to excellent products Vic!

NOTE: Hopefully, everyone can clearly see I am butchering his comment. It was just too tempting.

Search in ebay using "D&D Fortune feywild". I think both Auggies and Troll & Toad sell them from their non-ebay sites also. Well, maybe not Feywild yet, but they have the two older sets.

TOZ wrote:

I am so proud of this thread. I knew it was destined for greatness, and seeing it reach 1000 posts makes me tear up.

And the OP still only has one post to his name.

I think the thread should get credit in the post count for the comments Gary deleted. Or maybe some sort of record for thread with most deleted comments?

Devilkiller wrote:
Creatures in Gaseous Form can't enter water, but what if they're already in water? I think there's no clear rules answer.

I would think they just 'float' to the surface at maximum speed during their turn. No other action possible until they surface.

I generally only allow readied actions after initiative starts. Otherwise, every DM (in self defense) would have every Orc charge with a Readied Action if someone opens the door. I say 'Self Defense' since ever character will say 'I have a Readied Action to shot anything ugly in the room once the door is open'. It just become who says 'Readied Action' first.

In your example, roll initiative. If the character wins, his action; but you might want to mention they have four crossbows leveled and they look trigger happy. If the guards win, they have Readied Actions to fire and then tell your thief not to move.

Yes, when using a AoO on a non-Prone target you can use Trip (unless it is a snake or something).

There is just some stupid loop hole around Greater Trip that lets people create a do-loop if a Prone target attempts to stand and get a AoO-Trip-AoO-Trip-AoO-Trip-etc. cycle going. It would have been as simple as saying that 'Greater Trip can be used only once per target per round' or something. Instead they decided that you can not knock a 'Prone target Prone'. Again they could have just as easily said 'The stand-up attempt is not sucessful but does not count as being knock Prone. You are just maintaining the Prone condition.'

It is a common tactic to sweep someones legs as they try to stand up. They should have found a way for the rules to allow it, without abusing it.

I should find a video where an attack dog does not allow a person to stand because the dog keeps knocking the target down.

As Jiggy pointed out, the FAQ does say you cannot Trip someone who is Prone. I wish I had thought of looking in the FAQ first. I also agree that, because of Trip Lock, it makes sense not to give someone the ability to Trip a Prone person.

However, my first thought on the situation was that you should handle it like an AoO from Spell Casting. To quote the Injury section of Concentration Checks; "If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect." In other words, you interrupt the person mid-action with a chance of it going either way.

I would have said a successful Trip while you are ‘trying to Stand-up” would require a Reflex Save. A failed save would give the same result as a failed Concentration Check; you wasted the action and in this case, stay Prone. This creates parallelism between the rules.

I know AoOs usually happen before the action, but sometimes it just does not make sense when no one is moving between squares.

I would try to stay close to the system optional rules. Therefore, use the Wounds/Vigor optional rules from UC.

If you need it more gritty than that, I think you should tone it down a bit and change the penalties. Something that makes you want healing, but not loss the ability to hit. Maybe something like this:

Lightly wounded: 75%-100% of total hp. No wound penalty.
Moderately wounded: 50%-75% of total hp. -1 penalty to actions.
Seriously wounded: 25%-50% of total hp. -1 penalty to actions, -1 AC/Reflex.
Critically wounded: 0%-25% of total hp. -2 penalty to actions, -2 AC/Reflex.

You might have to change the 'wounded conditions' naming so that people understand it is based on Vigor Points, not Wounds Points. Maybe injured?

EDIT: In hindsight, just use the existing conditions. Make people 'Fatigued' at 50% hp (or Bloodied) and 'Exhausted' at 25% hp (Critically Injured)

This is my order of value for the next 'printing'.

1- 'Re-organized for usability'. This would help both old timers and newcomers.

2- Incorporating optional rules to make to rules easier for beginners. For example, default feats and skills that are always selected for your class. Later on you can introduce the concept of selecting different feats and skills.

3- Rule tweaks. What Paizo would have done different if they had omnipotence and infinite resources.

I am also assuming that errata would be addressed.

Gorbacz wrote:
I'm not going to shell out 50 bucks for a visual re-do of existing material.

Maybe not yet, but there will come a time where everyone needs to re-buy because their old books are falling apart. It would be nice if the new printing is better organized. And I think if it was better organized, people would adopt it sooner.

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
How else could he never have been successfully shot by the androids?
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Lazerguns have atrocious accuracy. Have you never watched G.I. Joe?

No, that was the next generation. Now I feel old.

I like the idea of being able to break down a specific weapon and being able to purchase its powers. However, it also opens the door about which powers should 'stack'. You should give the DM some room to make the weapon reasonable.

EDIT: Or else the DM will just say , 'No'.

Tim Statler wrote:
Thundarr's sword just had the brilliant energy and flaming properties.

Thundarr must have had a Light Saber and been a Jedi Master. How else could he never have been successfully shot by the androids?

You have to read the items power carefully. If the powers have the same type of bonus, they do not stack.

The Headband of Alluring Charisma is described as "grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Charisma" The Rod of Splendor is also described as "gains a +4 enhancement bonus to her Charisma". They are both grant an 'enhancement' bonus to the attribute, so they do not stack. You only take the larger bonus.

The Circlet of Persuasion, however, "grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's Charisma-based checks". So it would stack for checks with the other two items since they were 'enhancement' bonuses and the Circlet is a 'competence' bonus.

I think there is a list of bonus types somewhere, but I do not know the location.

Can you take a Pixie hostage and shake the pixie dust off against their will to grant Flight?

EDIT: I can see the black market application of this trait. Little caged pixies for sale!

Seriously though. A racial power to grant Fly to an ally for one round is reasonable.

Have you thought about Gestalt? It is from 3.5 and is giving every character two classes. You take the best of both classes for everything. This is a bit over simplified but I think accurate.

So you could be a Cleric - Druid with lots of Healing and an Animal Companion. The other person could be a Fighter - Mage. Strong both in combat and casting spells.

I think the example in the book is for this very situation where you have too few players to be versatile.

EDIT: The Fighter - Mage could specialize in Summoning and therefore usually have a Summoned 'Battle Buddy'.

EDIT 2: I know this is slightly off-topic, but it addresses the underlaying issue of only two people playing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I envisioned the Thailand style (Mu Tai?) of wrapping your hands in cloth wraps and then using resin to stick broken glass on the wraps. Then add poison!

Even if inappropriate for a player, it makes a fun concept for an Lawful Evil Enemy.

I think this is the last post on the page and is a good transition point....does anyone have more on Monte?

P.S. I liked this whole marketing discussion de-railing, as it is not really an edition flame war, but it is about the business of the game we love. However, I want to hear at least one new fact about Monte so we can start rumor mongering exponentially.

I have the old version of the character builder but it has a page for your companions. It is under the 'Manage' tab. I presume the Essentials version has the same function somewhere. I have not used it but I believe when you gain your companion 'power' you pick your companion and it adds it to the companion tab. The 'Shop' tab allows you to add items of equipment to your companion.

Are wrote:
The article was a bit too short and should have been more in-depth, but I'm thinking that he wants to know if people like passive perception as it is in 4E, or if they'd prefer a different approach.
Jason Beardsley wrote:
How's this different from taking 10 or 20?

I may be reading too much into the article, but I think he is talking about introducing a concept called 'Expert'. An Expert has an Expert Passive Perception somewhere between his Passive Perception and an Active Perception check, but only in a special area.

So a Rogue who is a 'Trap Expert' might have a Trap Passive Perception that is higher than the usual Passive Perception. A Elf might be an Expert at Secret Doors and a Dwarf might be an Expert in Stonecraft.

To make up numbers, if you have Perception Skill of 5 your Passive Check is 15 and you have a high of 25 with an active check. So maybe an Trap Expert, has a Passive Check of 20 vs. Traps only. (This is a educated guess and is not specifically from the article). This way a Trap expert has a good chance of seeing the trap, but you do not need to make trap checks every five feet.

Maybe training in a skill gives you the usual bonus, but maybe an 'Expert Feat' has an additional 5 bonus in their passive check in that area.

If I am right, I like it. However, I am reading allot into his twice use of the word 'Expert'.

You are right .... it doesn't suck anymore... wait, that is not enough to say.

I was using the PRD during a game the other day and noticed the change. I like the format and I am impressed how quickly the new content is being added. You are the best! Now I have another reason to get an iPad.

Will the ill-mannered, wretch formerly known as 'Lilith' be giving whippin's now that she is Custom-arrh Service? It seem a fate most fawl.

I think the Professor covered the DM preparation subject quite well.

I also add that in game play the rules, and specifically powers, are very easy to adjudicate. Less arguing at the table about what you can do.

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
Ouch. Does this work at all levels? For example, maybe 80% hp at Heroic tier, 70% at Paragon tier, 60% at Epic tire? Or is this a Dark Sun thing because you want it gritty?
Malaclypse wrote:

Fights take much too long using the normal stats, and equal level or level + 1 encounters are just boring and not dangerous at all for the party. I have a long running planescape campaign, where I used to just double monster damage and half monster HP.

I got that reducing the players HP is much more efficient then reducing ALL the monsters HPs. This way is a clever twist.

I was just curious if it works at all levels of play. I guess, 'Yes' is the answer.

EDIT: Wait, are you reducing the PLAYERS HPs to 60% OR BOTH players and MONSTERS?

Malaclypse wrote:

One house rule I also used in my DS campaign is to set all HP (and therefore bloodied HP/Surges) to be only 60% of official 4E values. I used to modify the monsters, but that's too much time wasted. This is simpler and it worked quite well - now even equal-level encounters are dangerous for the optimized player chars...

Ouch. Does this work at all levels? For example, maybe 80% hp at Heroic tier, 70% at Paragon tier, 60% at Epic tire? Or is this a Dark Sun thing because you want it gritty?

Yes, I read the thread.

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
Finally, if you do decide that it is a Small creature and that the character can invent something to act as an opposable thumb, he has picked a creature that has already been characterized as 'non-violent'. If the character tries to train the monkey for violence, let him try to train the creature with negative modifier of -2, or maybe -4, and see how the dice fall.

I was using the term 'train' since up thread we were talking about training humans as soldiers. Subsititute the words 'Diplomacy Check' for the word 'train' if you like.

I was trying to suggest that this does not have to be black-and-white. You as the DM can let the character try to influence an NPC to become an Animal Companion/Combatant but with a negative modifier to the chance of success. Just like they can try to talk the King's daughter into becoming an Assassin. But if you have already decided 'she is kind and good' there is a negative modifier to trying to influence her to do something against her nature.

I think I have upset you so I will drop from the thread. My apologies.

My comment on size was that it appears more of a Tiny animal than a Small one and is inappropiate as a combatant. Tell him to buy a Chimpanzee (which I guess is Small) and start training it from an infant. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Remind him that these creatures do not have opposable thumbs and therefore can not use weapons. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Finally, if you do decide that it is a Small creature and that the character can invent something to act as an opposable thumb, he has picked a creature that has already been characterized as 'non-violent'. If the character tries to train the monkey for violence, let him try to train the creature with negative modifier of -2, or maybe -4, and see how the dice fall.

Isn't a Spider Monkey like six inches tall? How much damage can a bow six inches long do? 1 hp on a critical?

EDIT: I guess they are about 24 lbs. I thought I saw some monkey once that was tiny and called a spider monkey.

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
But someone will say you should have made the map different for the Haunted Dungeon. That way we can make the Haunted Dungeon levels 2 and 3, and the Beginner Box level 1.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
But then people who pick up F-M: HD would have to buy the Beginner Box to get level 1.

Bah, Humbug.

The flip-maps and map packs that compliment each other are still great stand-alone products. So this could be. The maps could stand alone or be used in combination.

It does not matter, we already know it is going to be terrific.

Joana wrote:
Is that a new or pre-existing Flip-Mat? If new, will it be available apart from the box?
Vic Wertz wrote:
One side of it is the same as one side of Flip-Mat: Haunted Dungeon (and depicts the location used for the introductory adventure); the other side is a blank grid taken from Flip-Mat: Basic, so new GMs can make their own maps for further adventures.

So I have to also buy the Haunted Dungeon to get both maps. I am OK with this, but some might complain. It probably makes sense for a 'beginner' to give flexibility. But someone will say you should have made the map different for the Haunted Dungeon. That way we can make the Haunted Dungeon levels 2 and 3, and the Beginner Box level 1.

For my part, I intend to get both and then cut up the Beginner Box map as 'geomorphs' for the other dungeon flip-maps. I have done this on purpose before for things like the city flip-map. It almost looks like the Haunted Dungeon map is meant to be used with 'geomorphs' since it is more 'modular'. This sounds like a map pack idea like the new sets that have the building interiors for the shops/crypts.

There was book called "The Power Gamer's 3.5 Wizard Strategy Guide". I don't have it, but if you read some reviews it might be what you are looking for.

Prime Evil wrote:
Perhaps Paizo could put out an anthology of the best third-party Pathfinder material either as a dead-tree book or in PDF format?

I think part of the success of Monte Cook's 'Best of' book (if one book can be called a success) was that there was allot of low to mid-quality product available. So Monte was helping people ignore the worst and find the best.

I presume (presuming maybe a big mistake) that the market is more stable now and has more quality control. So a 'Best of' Pathfinder book would give less value.

This might not help, but I have several times considered the idea of a 'possessed' item as a character. Basically, a sword or something inhabited by a ghost.

I never got far, but it was around when Ghostwalk came out. I could not figure out how to make it so that the ghost can do things that help or compliment the carrying character or party without becoming a 'super' character (invisible, intangible, etc.). Also not over-shadow the party because the person carrying the possessed item became 'as powerful' as two characters. Maybe the ghost could only talk to the bearer out of combat (and see through their senses), but in combat the ghost would be released to be a combatant.

I wanted to make the ghost's goal to get resurrected or something so that the character was not a dead end.

I throw it out there because this might get you some of the role-playing you want without the need for domination or the liabilites of the 'host'.

I don't have the strength to read this thread, but in an effort to give people what may be a twist on this topic to reach 1000 posts, the thread seems totally PC oriented.

Charisma is one-sided in favor of PCs. PC's have the ability to ignore NPC's charisma and specifically Diplomacy checks.

Characters expect their high CHA/Diplomacy to give them everything from lower prices, room & board, Ball invitations and members of the opposite sex. But when the mayor of the town (high CHA and Diplomacy) gives a impassioned speach for assistance (DM gives great speak and then rolls a natural 20). PC's can give it no credance.

DM as Mayor: "Blah, blah, blah...Help us!"

PCs: Let's go to the next town.

DM: I rolled a friggin' 20 and that makes it a 50 Diplomacy check! You feel the need to help.

PCs: Don't try to railroad the plot. We want to do something else.

nice, I....ahh... mean, sick
good article, bad pun

Not sure what this would exactly be, but it does raise interesting questions about MASS COMBAT SIMULATION using skill challenges.

I have always wondered why I have never found a bow magical property that allows an arrow of force to be evoked everytime you pull the bow string back. Maybe +1 property? If the 'force' arrow is too powerful, since it can hit ghosts, make it summon a mundane arrow.

Is it really that powerful, or is it just taboo to make something that is "a wand of infinite magic missiles" in some peoples minds? I mean is it really more powerful than a property that adds +1d6 fire damage to every shot or every swing of the sword?

EDIT- I quickly run for my books to make sure it does not exist already.

1 to 50 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>