Gaekub's page

Really like the unlock nature of the proficiency levels for skills, but I'm hoping feats like Skill Focus still exist. A check range of 5 between legendary and untrained seems too small for me. I understand that the legendary character will be able to do things the untrained character couldn't, but they should have a larger advantage when attempting basic uses of the skills. Maybe a feat that gives bonuses to uses of the skill unlocked below your current proficiency rating?

My wizard with the Craft Construct feat once convinced the party to pool their gold to buy a merchant ship, and then animated it as a Colossal Animated Object with the Fly special ability (purchased with CP). Did the same thing with a carriage and treated it like a drop ship.

Worked pretty well, but again, once we got teleportation it became a little redundant. Managed to teleport the whole ship once or twice using Magic Jar shenanigans, but it didn't provide us with much benefit.

Gaekub wrote:

I've seen a couple say earlier in the thread that as long as only one race exhibits strong sexual dimorphism they don't see the issue, but I kind of feel the opposite way. As long as you only have one it's always going to be seen as a statement on human sexuality. If there were multiple races each with their own form of sexual dimorphism, I think people would feel a lot more comfortable with it (at least I would).

That's basically what I'd been suggesting earlier, yes. Have a race with "pretty" females and "rugged" males. Have a race with "rugged" females and "handsome" males, too. Have a three-gender race. Have a race that transitions gender whenever it wants. Have a race that simply doesn't have gender in the first place. Apparently we're going to have quite a few racial options, so why not support a bunch of different ideas and concepts?

Ah, sorry, I thought I'd read something like that but then couldn't find it when I scanned back through the thread. Apologies!

Unbelievable...a Satire magazine could not make that up. *Facepalm*

"Black Man lies down on ground, raises hands, shot by police" does sound like an Onion article.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but it doesn't bother me. Harassing a villain where he lives day after day seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's basically guerrilla warfare.

Assuming their goal was to survive the attack, that is correct.

Are people looking forward to XCOM 2? There's a gameplay series or two on youtube, but I've been avoiding them so I can experience the game for myself.

The fact that there are people here saying that cannibalizim isn't an evil act baffles and astounds me.

So make an argument for why it is.

...

@Orthos, Sci-fi is a whole other universe (pun intended), humans are NOT dominant in Starcraft OR W40K.

...

So... just like almost every other fictional universe that isn't grim-and-gritty-grimdark?

I would call Starcraft pretty grimdark, and 40k coined the term as far as I know.

Speaking of Star wars. Has anyone tried the rpg from FFG.

Yes, I love it. Probably my favorite core mechanic I've ever used.

Athaleon wrote:

...

To be fair Athaleon not everyone came across as out and out hating the rogue class but, it seemed to me that there was enough of 'anyone who plays a rogue is stupid' that those just making suggestions that, in their opinion, is better choice then the rogue were over shadowed.

But that could just be me.

I didn't get that feeling. Most people just seemed to be saying 'The rogue sucks, and that sucks'.

But that could just be me.

DrDeth wrote:

...
Terry Pratchett uses Vancian. Larry Niven does use mana, but in his work, you drain mama from the surroundings.

The Unseen University has discovered the Thaum, the basic unit of magic (enough to conjure *one* pigeon). I don't see much evidence for Vancian, certainly not in the D&D sense (though arguably it's more like Vance's magic that way).

The Wizards do use a form of Vancian magic, at least in the earlier books. At the end of Reaper Man, when the wizards are discussing blowing up the 'hive', they talk about what spells they have prepared.

However, later on, magic seems to be more of a "transfer of energy via wizardly grey matter" (there's a scene where a wizard causes a rock to fall a long distance in order to provide him with energy to lift himself up), so who knows where the balance lies.

EDIT: Shortened the quote pyramid.

Kthulhu wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

System mastery should give you a significant power boost - pouring over books etc should be a benefit.

I'm of the opinion that a supposedly fun hobby shouldn't have mandatory tedious homework.

Some of enjoy what you refer to as mandatory tedious homework.

If they enjoy it (as I do) why do they need a reward for it?

Can Pathfinder learn from D&D Next? Probably. Pretty much everything can learn from everything.

Except FATAL. Nobody should learn from FATAL.

Here's what it comes down to for me; I don't want the game to be easy, I want it to be fun. If it's not fun, I don't want to play. I don't want to be punished for something that happens in game.

I don't want to be punished. Punish my character, that's fine. That's fun (to me, at least). Torture my character, steal from him, cut off his hand and lobotomize him, as long as I can play and contribute, I'm having fun.

Making me start at level 1 for dying isn't punishing my character. It's punishing me.

Wizards can turn people into spoons

Eagles can turn people into horses

The only other person I've ever heard talk about "winning" an RPG is Pierce on Community.

To be fair, he won pretty hard. And it was advanced!

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Jim Cirillo wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Yeah, the hundred-book list of non-Core material allowed is pretty stifling. How's a guy supposed to produce an interesting character with so little content available?

Nice strawman dude. Minus points for snark of course.

"Straw man" and "sarcasm" are not the same thing. There is no argument being refuted here. Perhaps you could call it "reductio ad absurdum" but that would still ignore the fact that he isn't arguing with you. He's just making fun of you.

The word 'strawman' gets thrown around on this forum nearly as much as Princess Bride quotes.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

now i wonder what made kalenz go crazy...

I have it on good authority he got dropped a lot as a baby.

Cultists? I was under the impression worshiping Asmodeus was a recognized religion in Golarion? (Probably forbidden in certain nations, but recognized nonetheless, and thus not a 'cult' as typically used in modern English.)

Ugh, I know right? That's what I keep saying, but apparently we need to be a "cult" to keep our current tax benefits, so it's this huge bureaucracy thing.

I don't really understand it myself, but hey. The "Lawful" in "Lawful Evil" has to mean something, right?

NOOO, I DONT TRUST THAT VOICE, HERETIC! ASMODEUS SHALL PUNISH YOU FOR PASSING AS HIM!

No, Kalenz, buddy, I'm not passing as Asmodeus, I'm telling you what he said. You know, passing down his word, as is my entire job as the Voice of Asmodeus.

I'm sorry about Kalenz everyone, it's just... We're kind of desperate for cultists right now, so the screening's gotten a little lax. And he's so enthusiastic, it's hard to say no.

YOU BOTH SHALL PAY FOR THAT, ASMODEUS WILL PUNISH YOUR HERETIC BEHAVIOUR!

Hey, Kalenz, Asmodeus says you should knock it off.

Also use your inside voice. You're giving the whole cult a headache.

As a feat, when you hit a target with a critical hit, you can make a free bull-rush attempt against the target (using the weapon, so you get dex mod instead of str, enhancement bonus, etc).

Tito's argument is that if we are sending 2 people to Mars, there should be 1 man and 1 woman to properly represent the human race. And they should be in a relationship with one another, as you don't want to put two strangers or even two good friends in a sardine can for 16 months straight (I'd argue a lot of even incredibly well-suited couples would be strained by that).

This is a relevant thing.

<snip>

2) Paladin powers are by RAW granted by the forces of law and good, not their deity (and so serum is correct in saying that despite the mention of the deity in the class description, a paladin's adherence to their deities' specific teachings is lightly enforced at best - at least within the core rules, straying from your deity's teachings doesn't cause a fall)...

Ah ha! Thank you! The idea of a Paladin getting its powers from a god really bugs me, and I like this much better.

I'll probably regret saying anything about this, but I like the Lawful Good Paladin. I like that there's a class that not only fights for good, but can't bend. Isn't allowed to. It's not the kind of class I like to play (I prefer being more morally flexible), but I like that it exists. To me, being Lawful Good is an inherent part of what a Paladin is.

Now, here's the important part. To me, being Lawful Good is an inherent part of what a Paladin is. Clearly, a lot of you disagree. Whether you see the Paladin as just a set of mechanics, a paragon of law and good, or something in between, you don't have the same vision of the Paladin as I do. And as much as I like my view of the Paladin, I can't think of any logical reason to inflict that on anyone else.

I like the Paladin as presented in the CRB, but as someone said, it should be setting-neutral. And they're right, as much as it pains me to admit it. Alignment restrictions should be a setting-based thing, not a core-rules thing.

So if CG characters are capable of great self-sacrifice in service of a cause, why can't they be paladins? Why can't a divine entity of Chaos and Good give a knight a poke and tell them "go forth and be my champion"?

Blech. Isn't there a bit somewhere in the CRB about how Paladins can get their powers from the sheer powers of Good and Law and not from deities? I always liked that idea.

Although I guess it doesn't avoid this argument, since why can't the powers of Good and Chaos (or Evil and Chaos, or Evil and Law) do the same thing?

A DM should have ultimate power, and wield as little as possible.

Good point Gaekub. The problem is when you have a gamer who is so obsessed with the numbers game that they can't see anything else. Then it becomes an issue. If they can mesh the high numbers with appropriate role playing, then its good times. Otherwise, they fel they created an ineffective character or they sing the tune of "your numbers are not anywhere near as high as mine and therefore the character sucks."

And there's also a problem when someone becomes so obsessed with the roleplaying that they refuse to even try to learn the basic mechanics. If they can make a helpful character and focus on the roleplay, then it's good times. Otherwise, they call everyone else powergamers and sing the tune of "You guys don't have fifteen page backstories and an accent for your character, so you all suck at this game."

The knife cuts both ways. One problem may be more common than the other, but that doesn't mean the other isn't a problem.

Let's play DnD where some people get swords and some get winchesters or even better SAW m249 machine guns.

Some players' real life intelligence is bordering on 3 I swear.

edit: and Wisdom 3 also from lacking common sense.

I know right? So silly. Unlike normal DnD, where some people get swords and some get the ability to rearrange reality to suit them.

Some people try to hog the spotlight by making the most awesome character at the table, trivializing combat and looking down on everyone else.

Some people try to hog the spotlight by roleplaying constantly, to the exclusion of all others, and looking down on everyone else.

Both these people are jerks.

I think that it is obvious that there can't be a Paladin with demonic blood in his veins fighting demons, it's absurd. But I see you are that kind of GM that would allow parties like Halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Bard, Dwarf Wizard, Tiefling Paladin, Dark Elf Cleric of Sarenrae, and Minotaur Rogue that backstabs with a large greatsword etc.

I totally would. Would you not?

However, I would not allow a paladin that acted in the way you described. The paladin falls or the player fixes it.

Roberta Yang wrote:

But Weirdo have you not considered that if the player and the GM ever don't see eye to eye on what qualifies as honorable then it is in fact the player's fault for agreeing to play with that GM in the first place? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for not being part of a hive-mind with the GM? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for being a dishonorable dirty cheater?

The moment you sit down at a table with a GM, everything is your fault and nothing is the GM's fault because you sat down at the table. Once you take your seat, the GM is blameless and all problems rest squarely on your shoulders. However, the reverse is not true because

YES! YES! That's what I wanted to hear! For example, if you were a GM, and you have your own view about Paladin Code, and let's say I sit down and say that I want to play the Paladin. You start to explain to me how Paladin Code goes, whats ok to do, what not, what's honorable, what's dishonorable etc. Since, I hope you are an OK GM and of course you told me everything you had about Paladin Code, I as a player should agree on your terms, you are GM and you are the boss, you are GOD! Anyway it's in my interest and in the interest of GM that we both agree on how Paladin Code goes, but it must be how you the GM described it.

So I think it can't be harder than that, and that's why I CAN'T BELIEVE that someone wants to play a Paladin but to act like a Barbarian, beating people, be egotistical etc, I cannot simply let that happen, then the PALADIN loses its true meaning, its true self. You cannot act like a coldblooded freak and be chaotic, doing what's not Paladinly and call yourself a Paladin, that's unacceptable!

...You don't know Roberta very well, do you.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Rocketman1969 wrote:

It's like the game was designed to give you options of what to include in a world--and it automatically went to including every thing in it in the same world...i dunno--

D&D/Pathfinder is what we call 'kitchen sink fantasy'. It gives you everything and lets you decide what you want to throw out.

And excellent--but the standard read i'm getting on this is that the average is that everything is put into it as a base for the support material. Every world has gnomes or elves or dwarves. It is so key to this system that a game without "races" just doesn't seem to exist. The paladin argument in another thread points this out quite well. So I don't disagree with your point at all--its just--really really clunky in my opinion.

One of my GM's hates gnomes with a passion. There are no gnomes in his world. At all. They just never existed.

Until recently, I wouldn't have allowed a player to play a gunslinger in my world. The secret of gunpowder was lost (it was recovered recently by the PC's.

The inclusion of gnomes isn't an attack on my GM, the inclusion of Gunslingers isn't an attack on me, and the inclusion of magic shoppe rules isn't an attack on you or Shallowsoul. Those rules are there for those who want to use them, not for those who don't.

I like magic shoppes. I think they make a world feel more alive, and make a game more fun. So I use them. I'm glad the rules are there (even though I don't follow them as more than a guideline). I do not like Cavaliers, but I'm not upset that the rules are there. I just don't use them.

yeah seriously thank you Liz Courts because I was just harnessing my rogue rage like a steam locomotive if that steam locomotive were more like just a dude typing things while doing pushups on top of an actual steam locomotive

Lamontius, I... There... I...

Happy Valentines Day.

Ashiel wrote:

Rocketman1969 wrote:

He's the guy who takes down every last copper piece and records it and then gets angry when they can't pack 100 000 of them on a horse.

But...a heavy horse can carry 1,200 pounds of material without issue (just a heavy load so the horse moves at a speed of 40 ft. instead of 50 ft.). That only leaves 800 lbs. of coin left to distribute. If you have the horse drag it (such as by tying a chest or satchel to the horse's saddle and letting him pull it across the ground) the horse can drag up to 6000 lbs or roughly triple the amount you mentioned. That's just one horse. If everyone in a typical party has a horse (4 people) they could carry 240,000 copper pieces without having to drag a thing.

Amazing. If someone in my party went to trouble of figuring that out i'd have to kill their horses--just on principle.

Wait, why? For doing math?

And magic shoppe (or even weapon shoppe for that matter) often feel like a cop out where your implementing modern ideas like mass production and general stores out of lazyness, which feel out of place in a more unrefined era. Maybe that's being too much of a historical purist to some, but if you're going to include modern concepts to an area with antiquated technology you might as well include social democracy, secularism, civil rights etc.

Historical purist. In Pathfinder.

I'm sorry, that was mean. More seriously, it breaks MY suspension of disbelief when there's no magic shops without a damn good reason. Unless the king (or queen, or mayor, or president-elect or whatever) outlaws it, why exactly aren't people making magic items to sell?

This isn't to say my opinion is better than yours, but just that this is a matter of taste. And implying that everyone with magic shops in their world is just lazy and hasn't thought through the consequences is insulting.

That said, my current world contains a democracy, a significant secular population, and the general understanding that racism and sexism are bad things. So you might not care so much about my opinion.

EDIT: And hey, so does Golarion. I don't play it, but that's interesting.

<snip>

That's us! Thank you everyone (even Corey) for helping us to get married. I thank you. My wife thanks you. Our puppy thanks you. And our eventual child thanks you.

Remember to rub his nose in it.

The puppy I mean. It's the only way he'll learn.

I used a gelatinous cube on my players once.

They defeated it by walking away.

<snip>

That makes sense... "...a piece of iron from an iron golem, a hero's armor, or a war machine" and not "...a piece of iron from an iron golem, a hero's armor, or a war machine"

The thematic connection's still a little sketchy though. Iron Golem? Sure, turns you into one. Hero's armor? Yup, it's protective, I'll buy that. War Machine? Ehhhh... I guess it has a strength bonus?

Although it does conjure up a funny mental image where the fighter keeps giving the wizard part of his armor to see if he's "a hero" yet.

...Mnemonic Enhancer will cost you a 50gp Focus and you have to find some black dragon blood which may not be easy and may be expensive...

...I track spell components and I ask the spell casters where they got some of the more exotic components because if there is no way they could have gotten it then they won't be casting that spell until they actually find some...

Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell

component pouch is assumed to have all the material
components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except
for those components that have a specific cost, divine
focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t f it in a pouch.

Not asking where they got spell components with unlisted prices isn't called "handwaving" it's called "following the rules".

What you're doing is a houserule. A completely logical houserule that I kind of like, but a houserule.

I have to add my voice to the chorus saying "ask the group first". As a player, I'd be fine with this. Party member pilfers a little gold, someone catches him, nobody trusts him until he proves himself, all good fun.

But tell me first. Because if I know what you're doing, than you're lying to my character, and stealing from my character, and that's fine. But if you don't tell me, than you're lying to me and stealing from me, and that's not cool.

It's more my incomprehension of the bizarre mentality of "I am the GM, I get to decide what everyone plays".

The most restrictive I've ever been, or ever played under, is "you must play an official Paizo class - no 3rd party or 3.5 stuff". The idea of a GM saying "you must play X, or not play at all" is bizarre and foreign to me, and the idea of it just pisses me off.

I play the same way. And I think that a GM that restricts a player to that degree (especially when the other players weren't similarly restricted) is being an ass.

Buuuuut, if you're told you can only play a cleric, and then show up to play with a barbarian, you're being an ass too. And you're not going to get to play.

mcv, I think we pretty much agree. I enjoy low level play more than high level as well.

It's like seeing someone hammering in a nail with their shoe. It'll get the job done, and the final product will work fine. I'm not going to yell at them for it, but maybe I'll get them a hammer for their birthday. :)

This thread deserves a sticky.

A sticky what?

And as it occurs to me that I haven't actually made a reference to the original question, I'd let a succubus level drain when grappled for the reasons mentioned above. It fits both the flavor and the rules, so go for it.

The other empty hand should probably grab a gym sock or something.

Depends on the vow he took.

Seraphimpunk wrote:

would pillows be valid weapons for TWF ? i think a paladin of mercy could smite the succubus and join in with a pillow fight. unless its a devil's three way.

I think they're improvised weapons. Quick, someone work a Monk of the Empty Hand joke in here, my brain's blanking out on me and I can't come up with anything that works.

Something like "If he's watching a succubus grappling, I doubt his hand is empty"?

Wait, which one is dressed as a nurse?

All of them, if you want. That's the beauty of tabletop RPGs, how open ended they are.

Pendin Fust wrote:

^ Favorited this SO HARD!

Wow, even without the pictures?

As long as the flavor and mechanics are well-written, pictures aren't needed to imagine the described manuvers.

I think this is one case where I could accept some very restrictive fluff.

Delthyn wrote:

Over 150 posts detailing and debating the issue of a "succubus in a grapple."

This must be a highly contested subject that contains many unclearly worded rules and debatable clauses, not to mention being an issue that clearly needs much attention and serious discussion.

Why HAS no one FAQ'ed this yet? I need to hear from the designer his vision(s) of a bare flexible female druid grappling a succubus. And then I would like said designer to consign the artwork immediately.

FAQ nothing, I think this topic could use a whole source book. Ultimate Grappling. A splatbook, if you will.

Lamontius wrote:

This was a lot more fun before the grappler became a paladin.
Where the heck is AD and his flexible druid?

What if she is a hot female paladin?

Ugh, I dated a girl like that in High School. Trust me, it's not worth it.

The higher her charisma, the more it hurts when she smites you.