Search Posts
Off topic here, but did you know there is a gene women have that allows them to see color shifts and susceptible variations of color better then men on average? So ya know when you GF/Wife, female friend says it's some odd blue color and to you it just looks blue, she most likely can indeed see the difference. I heard about that. Often used it as an excuse with my old girlfriend for not really caring about what shade of beige she wanted to paint the wall...
Well if he takes Hunter's Bond (companions) I think that could certainly lend credence to him being in a leadership type role.
What are you talking about, how is that a debate, my shirt is clearly more blue. My shirt has a naked lady on it, CLEARLY making it more blue than yours!
Core book, page 201. Each additional leg adds two to the CMD. And I'll have to 2nd (3rd?4th?) what those above have said: flying really puts a damper on trip. I made a fighter who specialized in tripping foes and was always a bit disappointed when NPCs and monsters started showing up floating in the air. Luckily the GM didn't have one in every encounter, so I never felt like I was being singled out. So take that to heart in your GMing: taking away someone's special ability is okay every once and a while, but do it too often and it really sucks for the player.
I personally enjoy the debate. It lets me reflect upon my feelings and opinions as a roleplayer and have them challenged. No one who has taken my opinions to task has done so in a rude or completely confrontational manner, so I feel enriched by the experience. What more can you ask?
Then how is he Chaotic Evil? He got off on killing orcs. Ok, that's creepy but is it necessarily Evil? Not unless he slaughters the Unconventionally-Lawful Good enclave of Orcs outside Nowhere City. You have to frame this in D&D. People go around killing stuff all the time. All. The. Time. LG, CE, CG, LE, it doesn't matter because you will be killing something. You are more than likely to be killing your fellow adventurers or the priests of Pelor/whatever than Orcs if you are Evil. I feel I am still framing this in terms of D&D. I believe, as stated before, the alignment system is subjective enough that it can accommodate this interpretation. Granted it sets a different tone for my games than some people are comfortable playing in, but if I was gaming with those people I would never play someone like Brom.
I'll ask this again...is a freedom fighter (living in a LE kingdom) who actively tries to bring down the legitimate government (chaotic) and who will kill governmental figures/members (evil) in order to further his cause a Chaotic Evil individual. The meet the prequisites for both axis (or whatever the plural of axis is) of the CE alignment, but their chaos and evil are focused on the government in question. I say that yes, the person described here is CE...which goes to show you that there are different, nuanced examples of even the most extreme alignments. It's quite possible. The Chaos is certainly there, for sure. As far as the evil goes that's a little trickier. If the people he's killing are evil themselves than that might hedge him a bit away from the Evil. However what are his motivations for wanting to bring down the government? If it's for some kind of anarchic destructive bent than that might strengthen the case for evil. If it's for simply personal, selfish reasons (i.e. he wishes he didn't have to live in a place with such strict laws or taxes) that could be also argued for evil or perhaps neutrality. If he's doing it for altruistic reason (i.e. freeing oppressed citizens from the bootheel of the government) that might hedge him more towards good. Like I've been saying: I view alignment as the sum of motivations and actions.
Depends on who's writing (playing) him. When Miller writes Batman he's a g*~!@@n f#&%ing psycho.
I don't dispute that there are good/evil/law/chaos actions in the game. In fact I believe in most D&D games these forces are not merely abstractions but actual forces that govern reality. And they are pervasive enough that characters will register in those respective fields not only through their actual actions but their thoughts and motivations as well. Again this returns to the motivations/actions aspect of alignment issue we discussed previously. In my interpretation lets say we have an individual who lives a perfectly mundane life without actively doing harm to anyone. Yet in private wishes nothing but the worst for everyone, delights when anyone suffers, and fantasizes about the terrible things he would do to people: in a world were evil is a tangible force and not merely a concept I would consider this person to have an evil alignment. Now let's look at Brom (Christ, for a character I haven't played in 2 years he's certainly getting a lot of thought from me today): the satisfaction that I conceived he received from killing things went beyond simple bloodlust, bordering on the pseudo-sexual kick serial killers often describe. Now it wasn't something he engaged in all the time (such as being in town): letting the urge simmer and fester to the boiling point made the final release all the sweeter to Brom. But he didn't have complete control over it. Letting it go too long without indulging himself caused Brom a great deal of duress (like a junkie). But by adventuring he was able to satisfy his desires. This to me is Chaotic Evil, albeit not taken to absolute extreme of the class that many people think is the standard.
Beyond simple character motivation, I played down some of the more extreme elements of Chaotic Evil in order to simply facilitate a more enjoyable playing experience. Sure, I could have had the character sink his axe into a random milkmaid, but what would be the point? It would piss off the rest of the party and would serve to otherwise derail the story the GM was attempting to tell (a story she spent FAR more time working on than I did my own character). Players, in my opinion, should be willing to make these kinds of sacrifices in the name of party cohesion. You can have a concept like Brom the Chaotic Evil fighter, but you have to tailor it to fit in with the rest of the group. As soon as you take the stance of "Damn the rest, I'm going to do MY thing" you really have no business being in a cooperative game environment and would be better served doing something solo. I'd be willing to concede in your terminology of "fluff" in regards to the alignment decision of my character. But in truth, couldn't all alignments be considered "fluff" anyway? There are no strict rules on how each alignment is to be played. In order for them to not be "fluff" they would have to be "crunch": a detailed list of bullet points that MUST be adhered to in order to be that alignment. In all the discussions of alignment I've been privy to over the years there has been one (mostly) unifying conceit: it is a largely subjective system, and is probably the most open to interpretation out of all of D&D. Some choose to define alignment as the byproduct of actions. I accept that, but I also choose to define alignment as a byproduct of motivations. Is it to everyone's taste? Obviously not. But it's as solid as any other interpretation provided the group you're gaming with is on the same page.
As it ran in the game, we didn't have a whole lot of down time between adventures: the campaign ran at a pretty fast clip, so the character had plenty of opportunities to get his "fix" of murderous rampaging in a way that is deemed "acceptable" for adventurers. At the core, I conceived Brom to act as a subversion of the classic adventurer: the sheer joy he took in the killing was enough to register as evil (at least as far as detect spells went) but his actions were not terribly far removed from a standard adventurer. It was designed to promote reflection on just what it meant to be a hero, and it allowed the more traditionally aligned heroes in the party a chance to shine a bit more brightly in comparison (a deliberate byproduct of why I wanted to play Brom in the first place). Brom killed because he enjoyed it, the others killed in order to bring about something better in the world. Beyond simple character motivation, I played down some of the more extreme elements of Chaotic Evil in order to simply facilitate a more enjoyable playing experience. Sure, I could have had the character sink his axe into a random milkmaid, but what would be the point? It would piss off the rest of the party and would serve to otherwise derail the story the GM was attempting to tell (a story she spent FAR more time working on than I did my own character). Players, in my opinion, should be willing to make these kinds of sacrifices in the name of party cohesion. You can have a concept like Brom the Chaotic Evil fighter, but you have to tailor it to fit in with the rest of the group. As soon as you take the stance of "Damn the rest, I'm going to do MY thing" you really have no business being in a cooperative game environment and would be better served doing something solo. Now a good GM will attempt to throw you the proverbial character-bone every once and a while in order to let your concept shine. For example, in one of the rare extended periods of downtime we had in civilization the GM knew that Brom would be getting the itch to kill soon enough. So she set up an encounter where he was accosted by a group of thugs while he was off on his own. Brom got the satisfaction of getting his killing in, the party got to go through some interesting roleplaying encounters with the subsequent trial (in fact the Paladin actually served as Brom's "attorney" and was successfully able to argue his actions were entirely in self defense), and the GM was able to tie it all in to the over-arching narrative she was constructing. Everyone won.
...Point is: just because you're willing to engage in wholesale slaughter with 99% of the world's population, that doesn't mean you can't have a few folks you love to be around and would actively protect... Sure. he's unpredictable, thus (as I've stated before) the very essence of Chaos.
...broadcasting a "panic alarm" through their in-place telepathic communication system. ... See I read that and all I think is "SHARK ALARM! SHARK ALARM" Anyway, I do like your point about CE people wanting to have some kind of relationship, thus serving as an impetus to stay with a group of people. I'm reminded of the character interaction between Korgan (the CE Dwarf) and Mazzy (the LG Halfling) in Baldur's Gate II. There did seem to be some legitimate affection at points between them. 'Course I'm not sure I got all the interactions possible between the two, and it was several years ago. Point is: just because you're willing to engage in wholesale slaughter with 99% of the world's population, that doesn't mean you can't have a few folks you love to be around and would actively protect. One could even claim this kind of inconsistency of character is embodying the unpredictable nature of chaos.
Why do people think Chaotic means 'has uncontrollable urges'? Do all Chaotic creatures have ADD? Or 'unpredictable'? Are they all mental patients? I think that's one way of looking at it. But then my interpretation of Alignment includes the conceit that Good, Evil, Neutrality, Law, and Chaos are not merely abstractions: they are tangible forces affecting the world. So someone who pings high on the Chaos will indulge in actions that set him diametrically opposed to someone who pings high in Law. Returning to the example of my character Brom: he enjoys killing people. He doesn't kill for any sort of agenda or to acquire anything: he just kills because he enjoys it. This, in my mind, puts him solidly in the chaotic category. He may be predictable, but his "predictable" actions still run counter to the paradigm of Law.
...That's the approach I took to the one Chaotic Evil character I ever decided to play... The only reason I would skew towards the chaotic interpretation is in motivation. In my mind, the NE character kills to gain something else. The CE kills to revel in the act itself.
In regards to killing, I've always viewed the evil alignments in the following manner: Neutral and Lawful alignments will kill for some kind of advancement, whether personal or societal. A Chaotic Evil character will kill because he enjoys it. Now that's not to say that every CE character will blithely go around slaughtering everyone in the vicinity (though I'm sure they're out there), but he will want to scratch that murderous itch from time to time. That's the approach I took to the one Chaotic Evil character I ever decided to play. The party already consisted of predominantly good characters, including the ever-watchful Paladin, so I knew in order to play this character I would have to skew him towards an interpretation of Chaotic Evil that would be cohesive with the rest of the party. *TANGENT*
So this Chaotic Evil character I rolled up named Brom was designed to be a bit bent. He was a fighter, very effective at his work, who loved the simple pleasures in life - killing others being at the top of the list. So Brom signed on with an adventuring party so as to have a socially acceptable outlet for his homicidal tendencies. In short, when the party killed a band of orcs, it was a borderline orgasmic experience for him. And once the combat was over and Brom had his fill of bloodshed, he could relax a bit before the murderous impulses came up again. But hey, he's in an adventuring group: there's lots of opportunities to kill! Now how Brom was able to work with the group was simple: he LIKED the people he was with. Just because you are Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't have friends, though it can make having long-term friends interesting. Most of the group accepted him since he was handy in a fight, told ribald and hilarious jokes, and kept his murdering to those with "E" in their alignments. The Paladin did have a few issues seeing as whenever her Detect Evil was activated Brom stood out like mad. However, she didn't feel this was enough to smite him down (chalk this up to the way the DM ran Paladins in his game. When I run a game Paladins are WAY more intolerant of evil.) So I had a character that still worked in the dynamics of the party (with a little bending), and presented some interesting drama. A lot of people in the group started to question their own motivations: after all, they were committing the same actions as a Chaotic Evil character (i.e. mass killing): the only distinction, and it was a slim one in some cases, was they didn't get the same amount of joy in the act that he did. 'Cause seriously folks: Brom REALLY got off on the kill. And that's my long-winded story of how you can play a Chaotic Evil person in a party. Remember that while Good and Evil are not abstractions in most fantasy roleplaying settings, there are degrees and shades of evil that can be brought to the game. I approached Chaotic Evil as a psychological base for the motivations of my character, motivations that still allowed him to act as a semi-regular adventurer would. Says something, doesn't it?
I made two more feats to accompany my Ki Blast feat: Improved Ki Blast
Greater Ki Blast
The first was designed to allow greater compatibility with the Monk's Ki pool, letting the ki blast scale with the ki strike ability. The second was an attempt to capture the flavor of Ryu's Shinkuu-Hadouken. Performing the maneuver requires sacrificing mobility and an additional ki point, but I think double damage and an increased critical modifier makes up for it.
Or Buggy the Clown from One Piece.
Do you happen to remember what issue that feat showed up in? Obviously you won't be able to post the mechanics of the feat here, but I might have the issue.
Nah, just multiple people trying to capture an iconic element of fantasy martial arts. You had an interesting approach as well by tying the attack into a PrC. With the feat approach the ki blast becomes a much more common element for monks in the campaign world, while going with the PrC route makes those monks a bit more rare and unique. Both are viable options depending on how prevalent you want this sort of attack to be.
I used the following system the last time my group was at 1st: double max hit die + constitution modifier. Thus a fighter with a con of 15 would start with 22 hit points. The system worked out well with the party able to muster on through more encounters before resting.
Monks using Ki Blasts has something I've wanted to implement for some time now. Being raised on Street Fighter will do that I suspect. Here's my particular attempt to make it work within Pathfinder as a feat: Ki Blast
Notes: Ultimately I tried to keep the mechanics of the blast simple while not letting it get too powerful. By keeping it to a standard action (i.e. only once per round) and tying it to the ki pool, I feel it gives the monk some some ranged options without overshadowing the primary "blaster-classes" of the party. Any thoughts?
Okay, got a question for the assembled wisdom of the Pathfinder Boards: can a character use Intimidate to demoralize an opponent that is immune mind-affecting effects? This came up last night when one of my players attempted to demoralize a crag linnorm and was able to beat the DC 29 check (even with the -4 penalty to the roll). The fact that I found the idea of a medium size human intimidating a gargantuan dragon a tad absurd, I ruled the linnorm's immunity to mind-affecting effects would prevent the shaken status. Any thoughts?
So in case of the Aboleth who only has 1 natural attack (4 tentacles), can the creature move 10ft (or swim 60ft) and still attack with all 4 tentacles?
Just got the book yesterday and I love it. Having each monster take up only page is a very welcome design choice. Oh, and I dug the Lovecraft reference in the Tarrasque entry. Nice little tidbit there that took me a little while to figure out.
The Tarrasque. This living embodiment of mindless destruction has been an evocative part of my D&D experience since I first came across him back in 2nd edition. To this day I still rank monsters according in terms of how they match up to him.
One of two things: A) Use the skill substitutions suggested by other memebers. This may be the most painless as it takes into account the skills established within Pathfinder. B) Bring back Use Rope similar to how it was used in 3.5. Shouldn't be too hard of an adjustment and if it makes your gfroup happy, go for it.
Right now I'm keeping my players to Pathfinder Core. So far it's worked out find: there are enough changes to the core classes to keep the players interested. And I think we all got a little burned out during our last game: the DM had us start at level 10 with free access to any 3.5 material. Needless to say there were some powerful builds from some of the players and things ended up pretty destabilized very swiftly. So as a change of pace, when I took over the DMing duties I started everyone at 1st and limited the available options to just the core book. And as I said before, it's been working out fine.
If a paladin in my game were to use smite evil against him for no more reason than detect evil pinged him, I'd rule that he just broke the code of conduct and it doesn't work until he atones. Just because someone is evil, doesn't mean they deserve to be killed, and killing someone who doesn't deserve it, unless in the last extreme of self defence, is most definitely an evil act. I rule slightly different in my games: if someone registers as evil with a detect evil spell they are free game for smiting. This stems from the deity which empowers Paladins, who is very stern and unsympathetic towards those whose deeds land them with an evil alignment. Good and evil are not ambiguous concepts open to interpretation in my worlds but very real forces at work in the world. Note that this approach may not jive well with all groups and there ARE balancing factors for a smite-happy paladin, notably representatives of OTHER faiths or legal systems who may not take kindly to the paladin's activities. Put simply, the god charges the paladin with combating evil wherever it is found and will not punish his faithful for executing his mandate. As I said before, this approach may not be to everyone’s liking. Thus the differentiation between alignment and allegiance is an elegant solution for your games. Where I to run a world more based in shades of gray on the metaphysical level I certainly would utilize it.
Im looking for stats for said weapons and an expanded list as well. Dunno if it's kosher to post up stats for weapons not in the SRD so I'd suggest tracking down a copy of Oriental Adventures (or a 3.5 equivalent if anyone knows what book they would be in). Sorry man. But hey you can always just work up the stats on your own. Just as a Katana is essentially a masterwork bastard sword, the tonfa is (essentially) a club and a sai is essentially a dagger that can only do piercing damage and assists in disarms.
Are you looking for a definitive list of weapons useable by monks or are you looking for stats of said weapons (i.e. damage, critical range, etc)? For weapon lists I've always taken the policy of "use whatever you want." There are many, many martial traditions that embrace a enormous variety of weapons: if the DM is willing the monk's weapon list can be expanded to reflect that. As far as stats for said weapons (tonfa and sai particularly) I believe I remember seeing them in Oriental Adventures. As far as their inclusion in 3.5 material, I'm drawing a blank.
I've had some negative experience with certain spell from the Compendium, particularly Ray of Entropy, multiple castings of which decimated my party in another DM's game. With this group I'm DMing I've instituted a "Core Only" ruling, so none of the spells in the book have come up in play. Yet. I have told my players they are free to develop new spells so if they wish to use the spells from the Compendium they must go through the R&D procedure. I feel this will allow me to adequately control the inclusion of non-core spells to the game, at least for arcane spells. I haven't decided how to deal with new divine spells as it hasn't yet become an issue.I've used the same ruling. And it the spell is too powerful in my opinion, the research fails. And you can apply to divine spells too, I think it was mentioned in the DMG that you can research new divine spells on your own. The only issue I have with independent research of divine spells is when a player wishes to gain access to a spell that may not be thematically appropriate to the deity granting it. Note this would not be an issue with clerics who do not worship a particular deity, but I normally do not allow such things (a DM quirk of mine I suppose). Granted this can be easily remedied by simply ruling the research a failure as you suggested. One thing I have toyed around with is the idea of when a divine spellcaster is "petitioning" for new (i.e. non-core) spells from his deity he must succeed in a diplomacy and Knowledge (religion) check with a divine representative. Not terribly different from requiring a Spellcraft/Knowledge (arcana) check from arcane casters, but it does establish a little bit of flavor.
I've had some negative experience with certain spell from the Compendium, particularly Ray of Entropy, multiple castings of which decimated my party in another DM's game. With this group I'm DMing I've instituted a "Core Only" ruling, so none of the spells in the book have come up in play. Yet. I have told my players they are free to develop new spells so if they wish to use the spells from the Compendium they must go through the R&D procedure. I feel this will allow me to adequately control the inclusion of non-core spells to the game, at least for arcane spells. I haven't decided how to deal with new divine spells as it hasn't yet become an issue.
Giving it that, though, you might have a ton of rogues dipping the class for the BAB and death attack, at least in some games. And now I know (cue reference to 80's cartoon here), thanks for that. We'll see how this NPC works out in play using just the PF Core rules. Like I said previously, most of the spells I had assumed he would have access to can be replicated with magical items. I suppose the issue of the viability of the class for my players will remain to be seen as none of them possess the pre-reqs (especially alignment) for entry. As far as beefing the class up by increasing the BAB and such, I find myself hesitant to do so. While generating this NPC I felt I had a pretty good handle on his strengths and limitations and I will design the encounter to take those into account. As a DM I often find that it is in identifying the weakness of antagonists and designing around those that memorable encounters are born. Of course one must be sure not stack the deck too much against the players: in my experience it’s never fun when the DM “wins.”
So I've been running Pathfinder with my group for a while now, and I'm slowly catching on to the changes made to 3.5 (between work and school I haven't had the time to read the Core Book cover to cover). I was statting up an Assassin NPC today and I noticed that Pathfinder has removed the spell-casting ability from the Prestige Class. I was curious how others felt about this change and why it was implemented. I can see its excisement as a balance against the other abilities granted to the class, and I'm not exactly complaining about the change: it just kinda jumped out at when I realized I'd have to give this NPC some magical gear to replicate some of the old 3.5 Assassin spells (spells I had designed combat strategies around). Anyway, any thoughts about the change would be welcomed. |
