Elephant's page

Samnell wrote:

Paizo lured me here with honeyed words, quality, 3.5 loyalism, and a willingness to make product in the PG-13 and up range.

Yeah, I'll definitely echo this point. While I'm not looking for outright porn (which tends to distract from the game, and well... anything else), I've developed a certain distaste for what I term a 'puritanical mindset' with regard to sexual themes or topics. I find it silly to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist, or influence things - if not outright hypocritical.

Thus, seeing PG-13/PG-17/and up rated stuff definitely strikes me as far superior towards a more 'puritanical' mindset. Paizo has done a good job, in my mind, towards this end.

By contrast, I'm not all that comfortable with having sexual themes prominently featured in my RPG materials. Sexuality is by nature an intensely personal thing, and I'd rather not delve into it amongst a group of casual friends/acquaintances.

Elephant wrote:

Sounds like one of the tactical feats from Complete Warrior. Shock Trooper, maybe?

Just looked, and Shock trooper is the opposite of what I'd be going for . . . giving up Attack Bonus to increase AC.

Wait, are you looking to give up attack bonus to get a higher AC (Combat Expertise), or give up AC to get an attack bonus (charging or Reckless Offense, perhaps)?

Hate to do this, but I'm trying to find a feat in one of my multitude of books, and I can't remember the name of it, only a vague recollection of what it does.

Basic concept is similar to Power Attack, but instead of being a ToHit/Damage exchange it is a AC/ToHit exchange . . . meaning that I can voluntarily reduce my AC in order to raise my attack bonus. Essentially, opening yourself up to be hit for the benefit of making the hit.

Anyone know what feat I'm talking about or where it's hiding form me?

Sounds like one of the tactical feats from Complete Warrior. Shock Trooper, maybe?

I was somewhat skeptical of 4e (mostly annoyed about a few common complaints related to it and unimpressed by some of the decisions they've made, especially on class names and terminology - several things sound really stupid to me), but after reading the "news" PDF, I find myself shaking my head going "That sounds really really stupid" even more so than ever before.

If someone were running an amazingly fun campaign using 4e, I wouldn't turn down the offer to play, but I won't start a 4e game, push for a 4e game, or buy 4e books.

(WHY did they package "news" in a PDF and then distribute it inside a ZIPPED FILE? Seriously, WTF?)

James Jacobs wrote:

And in the end, if you think that the puzzle's too difficult or nonsensical for your group and its inclusion will only cause problems... by all means simplify it.

Your reasonable and informed responses aren't welcome around here. I called out one of your top writers* and demand a more defensive reply.

* I don't have it in front of me. This is the same guy what did Mad God's Key, right?

ROFL!

Okay, let me see if I can provide a suitably defensive reply on behalf of the writer and the magazine:

"No, you can't omit the puzzle or change it! It's an integral part of the adventure at that stage. You will force your players to sweat blood trying to solve it, and you'll like it!"

How's that? :)

We had the trial last night. It might have gone more in-depth if I'd thought of it sooner, then the party would have had more time to think about defenses.

A few items in the defense's portfolio surprised me, like bringing up some facts from the battle aboard the Nixie: One of the thugs took an arrow in the crow's nest, so he fell to his death. Vark's story that the PCs were trying to repel an inspection party doesn't make that type of death plausible.

An investigation into the criminal history of Vark and his thugs was also suggested.

Strangely enough, the party didn't mention magic even once. A good Zone of Truth or Divination would really have shaken things up. Even the Detect Evil/Good spells would have been enlightening ("you can clearly see, Lord High Justice, that the defendants are Good in the eyes of the gods. Surely their word is trustworthy?")

My game is about a third of the way through There Is No Honor; we ended the session right after the combat on the Blue Nixie, with Vark swimming away (sans weapons) to make his escape, one other thug captured, and the rest slain (well, dying, but the PCs made no moves to stabilize them).

Now, I'm running a rather unusual group in that the PCs are all drow. Yes, that's right, an entire group of drow. There's a backstory reason why they're tolerated in Sassarine, but they're not liked by any stretch of the imagination.

The logical thing, then, is that Vark will run to the Watch, claiming that the PCs were smuggling contraband on the Blue Nixie and that he and some companions had been watching the Nixie for just such skullduggery. Unfortunately for Vark, the PCs overpowered his impromptu posse, slaying most of them. Vark was lucky to escape with his life!

Then, the Watch will arrest the PCs, locking them away in the dungeon and throwing away the key - but the PCs will have a chance to talk their way into a "fair" trial...that, or a certain friendly noble will pull some strings :)

In the actual trial, the case against the PCs has several points:
* Vark's testimony as a harbor official
* Testimony from Vark's surviving henchman, captured and "robbed" by the PCs
* Two witnesses who claim that Vark intercepted the PCs as they were setting sail.
* Forged papers putting the Blue Nixie under suspicion of smuggling, with Vark empowered to investigate/stop the activity.
* Testimony of the Watch that, indeed, the corpses on the Nixie have wounds matching the PCs' weapons, along with blood and gore all over the PCs and their gear at time of apprehension.

I'm thinking the case FOR the PCs will take care of itself - players are never passive! - but I have a few ideas in mind:

* Lavinia's testimony. Unfortunately, all she does is lend some respectability to a "my word vs. yours" scenario...where the PCs have racism working against them.
* Discredit the witnesses. Gather Information checks give enough info to make them look bad (DC 15), destroy their testimony (DC 20), or implicate Vark for a trial of his own (DC 25).
* Uncover the forgery. If the PCs realize it's a fake, they can point it out in court...if not, but they're suspicious (why wouldn't they be?), they can hire someone to scrutinize it.
* Spells like Zone of Truth, Speak with Animals, Commune, Detect [alignment], etc. would give strong evidence in favor of the PCs

This will play out tomorrow night, so I'll update after the session and let you all know how it works out!

1. D&D Miniatures—Dragon Magazine Promo: Sorceror on Black Dragon (Limited Edition)

Ugh. I hate seeing this error.

It's *sorcerer*.

How big of a dungeon do you want the thieves' guild to be?

Once they're through the trapped door, you have some options:

* They run into some of the rogues who were stealing from the boat. Combat ensues!
* They stumble across an old, half-blind rogue who doesn't realize they're outsiders. He barks at them for being lazy and tells them to follow him. If they comply, he puts them to work moving crates from their arrival room to a storeroom down the hall.
* The trapped door is really just part of a greater insidious trap for intruders. The real exit from the arrival room is a well-hidden secret door behind some crates (leave a 5-10' gap between the crates and the door; the rogues don't want to move crates every time they go through the room).

One round after the storeroom is empty (meaning all the PCs are in the trap-hallway), the door slams shut again, locking them in the hallway beyond. It looks like a 10' by 40' hallway with a plain wooden door at the end. The wooden door is locked with a lock appropriate to the PCs' level - it should be something that the rogue needs 15 or higher on his Open Locks roll to beat. It's really just a fake door covering a blank wall. When the door to their arrival room closes, have something nasty happen - panels from the ceiling open, dropping in a Gelatinous Cube, or maybe the chamber starts flooding, or maybe trapdoors in the floor drop them into a pit full of poisonous snakes.

Once they beat that trap, let them find the way out with a good Search check - someone has to reset the trap, make sure the snakes get fed, etc., and they can get to the next part of the thieves' guild from that access.

Good luck!

EDIT: I strongly encourage you to avoid railroading them into this thieves' guild. Give them a chance to stop the thieves before their food is gone. If they don't chase the thieves into the circle, even after the captain is kidnapped, have another ship notice them at sea before they starve to death.

Where are they headed, anyway?

Well, a character could take the first five levels in wizard, then multiclass into something else at level six. He would be sixth level, but would only have a caster level of 5.

Eh, good point. Still, these golems are written as being appropriate for *low-level* characters. Barring a golem manual, most of them aren't actually available for low level characters!

To be fair, the Flesh Golem requires a character of level 8 or higher and Limited Wish, learnable no sooner than level 13.

That (and my above rant) said, I agree with deClench about the coolness of the article. It's both interesting and evocative - it's very cool to have stats on golems that are appropriate for the lower levels.

I just have to ask: What was the author of this article smoking? Requirements of CL 5 and CL 7 for creating golems? Outrageous! Impossible!

All of the golems require Craft Construct, which can be taken no sooner than level 9 for most characters or level 6 for a wizard Craft Construct requires Craft Wondrous and Craft Arms & Armor. The earliest that Craft Wondrous can be taken is character level 3, and the earliest that Craft Arms & Armor can be taken is character level 6 (5 for a wizard).

With this in mind, levels 6 and 9 should be listed for the golems in the article - levels 5 and 7 (especially 5) are nonsensical.

Unfotunately, our offices are closed completely until next week,

Understandable. Actually, I'm gratified that you replied to my post here - I wasn't expecting a quick response over *this* weekend.

but I would not despair. If your email got lost in the shuffle, make sure you are sending it to the right place (customer.service@paizo.com) and try again. Our customer service folks are usually very on the ball about this sort of thing...

Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of Dragon

Yep, customer.service@paizo.com is where I sent it. I'll try again on Monday; hopefully this can be cleared up quickly.

Thanks again for your response :)

Arg. This issue was never delivered to me. I sent an email to customer support on the 18th, but no one has bothered to respond to me.

I had expected a more professional response from paizo. It's very disappointing - that issue looks particularly interesting :(