Garygax's page

This little section from the GameMastery Guide is what I would pay lots of dough for. It contains a few interesting ideas on how a unique monster would buff up its allies. I wish that we could see a chapter or expanded section from the designers offering new, dangerous and creative ways to use some of the more iconic monsters along with their minions and allies. In a sense, it's what the Adventure Paths do when it provides the combat tactics. But man would it be cool to see one of the smaller, softcover supplements provide a whole set of tactical ideas for monsters.

Him.

Oh that guy?

We're getting rather off-topic here, can we use this thread for discussing the NPC guide and direct the Asian/epic/psionic debate to one of the other dozen threads about that?

Thank you Sean. In fact, I would suggest that we end this thread. Epic will not get attention for a few years and we have to deal with the reality of it. On another note Sean, how much can I pay you to create some high-level unbelievably powerful NPCs that vex my characters? J/K. Thanks James for your input on my post.

I hear this abbreviation thrown around a lot - anybody have any idea?

0gre wrote:

Gish is an invented term which there are other terms which are MORE USEFUL without the baggage that gish brings along with it.

Terms such as?

Haha...I love Man in Black - he's such a Gish.

Garygax wrote:

I guess my point James is that my group and I are still using the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook, combined with the changes that occurred in the Complete books and the 3.5 DM's guide, thus, we are really behind on Epic level rules and this is totally different than an Asian supplement - it's part of the regular progression! I think it's imperative to approach the subject before 2012, or at the very least put out a shorter guide to it, like one of the Chronicles books. Regardless, an Epic Guide is absolutely necessary. Lots of players don't just want to reset their characters after 16th level.

Honestly, I more or less share your viewpoint. Not everyone at Paizo does, though. I'm working on convincing them though.

Although it's not quite as cut and dried as "just part of progression." Because Golarion itself isn't built for epic level play, really. When we do Epic, we need to also figure out where epic level characters can find regular challenges. The obvious answer is "the outer planes" but it could just as easily be "another planet" or even "another continent."

Adding an Asian area to Golarion is a LOT easier, and a lot more organic, even, in that regard.

I appreciate that. and I know that all of this is just blowing smoke because sales rules editorial (I am an exec editor myself and know it). But don't get fixated on "Golarion" despite the editorial requirements, what I mean by that is that it's really up to the DM to provide those challenges (so "rules-needs" takes initiative over "what-the-world-can-sustain" IMHO). Maybe you can convince the CEO by putting a higher premium on a shorter-page count product. I would gladly pay $39.95 for a 26 - 36 page booklet (with real specifics, good meaty stuff including powerful NPC builds) for high level play - basically with core rules, the complete book feats revised, experience progression that makes sense, and so on and so on (you know what I am talking about). Or, another idea is to cull those inventive authors who created some of the best high-level builds over the years and make an "Epic Anthology". I don't know, all this is pie in the sky but it really feels like we need it.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Yesterday, my dad had a heart attack. He is 'okay', thanks to the swift provision of an Angioplasty at basildon hospital. He gets his echo today, and we find out how bad the damage is. He'll then recieve on going treatment, for as long as he needs it.

My dad is not a very happy or well man. His mother was an alcholic as is he. While he does work, his illness limits his income and influences his priorities.

Simply put, through no fault of his own, my father would not be able to maintain health insurance payment, and even if he could it is not certain that he would be covered.

Yet, here he is, receiving care at a specialist cardiovascular unit, and on going care, free at point of use. His care is the priority, not profit an insurance company.

He has over the years, more than payed for his treatment, thanks to taxation.

All this got me thinking. For all that i have argued for Heath Care reforms, i still don't really understand the other sides view point.

So i guess i would like to understand more.

Have any of you supporters seen what MassCare did to Massachusetts? Seriously? It's bankrupting the system, and that same system is now going to be applied federally. Do you really think our federal government is going to do a better job?

I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.

I don't want it dude because it's bankrupting the economy - the Masachusetts test has failed - it's reality, that's why. Not because I am a fan of the current system. Guess what? A bankrupt economy is bad for all of us whether you are left wing, right wing, or spicy wings - whatever wing, we can't afford to let the government take all of us into the poor house. Talk to people that live in socialized healthcare systems and they hate it. Trust me I work with a Ukrainian woman and another guy from Albania or something, I forget which. But the truth is this - you will regret it if everything doesn't get unwound before 2014.

Yesterday, my dad had a heart attack. He is 'okay', thanks to the swift provision of an Angioplasty at basildon hospital. He gets his echo today, and we find out how bad the damage is. He'll then recieve on going treatment, for as long as he needs it.

My dad is not a very happy or well man. His mother was an alcholic as is he. While he does work, his illness limits his income and influences his priorities.

Simply put, through no fault of his own, my father would not be able to maintain health insurance payment, and even if he could it is not certain that he would be covered.

Yet, here he is, receiving care at a specialist cardiovascular unit, and on going care, free at point of use. His care is the priority, not profit an insurance company.

He has over the years, more than payed for his treatment, thanks to taxation.

All this got me thinking. For all that i have argued for Heath Care reforms, i still don't really understand the other sides view point.

So i guess i would like to understand more.

Have any of you supporters seen what MassCare did to Massachusetts? Seriously? It's bankrupting the system, and that same system is now going to be applied federally. Do you really think our federal government is going to do a better job?

I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable. I don't understand why you seem to think a system that protects that are vulnerable, is wrong? I just don't understand why you wouldn't want a national health service in the US. It just blows my mind. I don't get it.

Garygax wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Epic level gaming is NOT a small fraction of gaming. I'm quite aware of that. I would say it's probably neck and neck in popularity with psionics, in fact, and maybe even a bit MORE popular.

It's something that I really REALLY want us to tackle some day at Paizo, but that day won't be in 2010. It is unlikely to be in 2011 either.

It would be profitable if you tackled it sooner than later I would suggest.

Whether or not it would actually be profitable at all is a big part of why we haven't tried yet, to be honest. The fact that producing high/epic level content takes more time and more work yet, according to ALL of our market research and anecdotal feedback and overall customer feedback won't appeal to as many customers (more work for less reward) makes it a tricky topic to design for.

I guess my point James is that my group and I are still using the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook, combined with the changes that occurred in the Complete books and the 3.5 DM's guide, thus, we are really behind on Epic level rules and this is totally different than an Asian supplement - it's part of the regular progression! I think it's imperative to approach the subject before 2012, or at the very least put out a shorter guide to it, like one of the Chronicles books. Regardless, an Epic Guide is absolutely necessary. Lots of players don't just want to reset their characters after 16th level.

Sebastian wrote:

Still, from the description of gyronna, she doesn't sound like the type of diety to have dedicated religious orders, monk, nuns, or otherwise. Her faith seems to be mildly persecuted and her followers attempt to seed conflict in communities. It's hard to reconcile the description of her followers and portfolio with an organized religious institution.

It looks a lot like the adventure was written wih the idea of a monastery, and gynorra was the goddess chosen because she was the local flavor. I was curious if there was actually an explanation that is consistent with other material. I would expect gyronna to have a secret shrine with a handful of witches, not a fortified building on a (formerly) significant trade route.

Gyronna's cult plays a role in a couple of the coming adventures, so making the site an old Gyronnan temple helps to foreshadow that. Changing the backstory so that it's a monastery dedicated to Calistria or Hanspur or ANY other deity that makes more sense to an individual GM won't disrupt anything coming later on in the adventure path, though.

Both Hanspur and Gyronna were kind of tacked on, stealth-style almost, to the campaign setting. As a result, I readily admit that I've had a little bit of trouble in assimilating them into Golarion's pantheon—the majority of the other deities come from my home-brew or Sean Reynolds, with whom I've had PLENTY of talks about the gods. Kingmaker was really the first time I started doing stuff with these two strange "oh yeah" deities... hopefully the way Gyronna works in "Rivers Run Red" and "Blood For Blood" will do her better justice.

All that said, it DOES spur a thought. What if this "monastery" of Gyronna followers were basically heretics? They did their thing, and eventually it got to be too much and Gyronna stepped in to put them down. Hence the zombies and the ruins. A closer reading of the text makes me think this was my original concept from the start, and that it kind of got lost in the shuffle when I...

This is what I love about D&D (Pathfinder ;-)! Even when things aren't clear, we, as DMs, can make things work, and the game is so fluid. There's not a better game in the world.

Exiled Prince wrote:

This also included not only having to roll them all but calculating. The ranger (bless his heart) finally created a system where he color coded the dice damage and to hit. At that point we estimated it only took 8min for him to roll!

8 minutes? Seriously? I know a guy who played a high-level monk who loved to flurry everything to death, and it didn't take him nearly that long. And he only has one arm!

Was it your character? LOL.

Epic level gaming is NOT a small fraction of gaming. I'm quite aware of that. I would say it's probably neck and neck in popularity with psionics, in fact, and maybe even a bit MORE popular.

It's something that I really REALLY want us to tackle some day at Paizo, but that day won't be in 2010. It is unlikely to be in 2011 either.

It would be profitable if you tackled it sooner than later I would suggest.

Exiled Prince wrote:

That's sad to hear since the worst thing a dm has to do in 3.5/Pathfinder is make high level npcs. In my opinion what is the point of a book like this?

The point is that the book supplies stats for the most COMMONLY encountered NPC types; characters that can show up in low and mid-level games. In Golarion, high level NPCs are somewhat rare; and those that exist are generally important famous NPCs. We decided that the "NPC Guide" was not the right place to stat up these characters. I've asked on other threads if people would be interested in a sort of sequel to the NPC Guide that focuses on high level NPCs such as the rulers and villains of Golarion, and the response to that has traditionally been quite underwhelming. People, as a general rule, seem to prefer their high level NPCs to appear in adventures.

The GameMastery Guide, though, will have lots more generic NPCs, with a focus toward TRULY generic characters (the NPC guide flavors everything with a heavy dose of Golarion). These NPCs in the GameMastery Guide will go up to around 15th level.

Thanks for the clarification. I am not suggesting it's not a good buy to any degree, just that low levels last only so long, the advancement to around 4th - 6th level in a weekly game happens quickly so it makes sense to cover a broader scope of level ranges to accomodate this difference. Especially since all of these arcs take characters to 16th level and then everyone starts over again. I've had some of my players say, oh man, another mod? Let's just keep playing the guys we have built so much time on and keep it rocking. That's why I think higher level PC's are good , but as a sequel I think it makes sense as a marketing decision.

I saw this in the store, and had already purchased it, but noticed that it is severely lacking high-level NPC's. Kinda blows. Each section should have had an example of a low level and a high level like a CR4 and a CR 15. Would have made it much more useful.

Thanks for the clarification.

DISPLACEMENT PREVENTS SNEAK ATTACK!

i am glad i could help.

Thank you - what is everybody's problem? If a DM has a problem, house rule it. that is what makes the game great. Just deal with it people!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a quick one... is somebody under a Displacement effect not sneak-able?

As a side note, does it prevent an AoO as well?

Relevant rules:

Sneak attack wrote:

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Combat wrote:

Total Concealment:
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Displacement wrote:

The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally.

Displacement prevents sneak attacks. Stop all your bantering. You need true seeing to get around it.

Adding multiple d6s to all of a character's attacks seems pretty powerful. Even the most powerful of magic items rarely gives damage bonuses higher that +5 or maybe +4 and +1d6. Sneak attack is more limited than a magic enhancement bonus, but those limitations have shrunk to almost nothing in Pathfinder, and really, how hard is it to stay flanking an enemy. Maybe sneak attack should be changed so it's only added to the first attack made during the character's turn? Or maybe it should be changed to a flat, cumulative +1 or +2 bonus (each d6 of the sneak attack becomes +1 or +2)? It just gets a little annoying seeing characters built for combat rolling a single die and getting piddly flat damage bonuses when the rogue is carving up opponents with his 3-4 dice of damage (which becomes even more ridiculous when the rogue starts getting iterative attacks and follows the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree). A rogue getting 4-5 attacks per turn with each attack rolling several dice of damage just seems absurd and way overpowered.

Played a 23rd level adventure last week, and the rogue was doing in the range of 250 - 300 points of damage (had darkstalker, all the buffs etc.), and it seemed a bit much, but when you really think about it, at epic levels it's a chess match, whoever gets the initiative can end up destroying the other so I am fine with it being excessive. It's what they do.

Garygax wrote:

SirUrza wrote:

Garygax wrote:

Where is warforged info for Pathfinder? Does it exist? Or should I just grab it from Eberron or wherever it came from...thanks!

Warforged aren't open content. There are wanna-be warforged out there by 3rd parties, but WOTC did not make the Eberron ones usable by 3rd parties.

Where were they located before? I just need the build details tonight. Thanks.

It is in Eberron and in MM2 also.

Danka.

Garygax wrote:

Where is warforged info for Pathfinder? Does it exist? Or should I just grab it from Eberron or wherever it came from...thanks!

Warforged aren't open content. There are wanna-be warforged out there by 3rd parties, but WOTC did not make the Eberron ones usable by 3rd parties.

Where were they located before? I just need the build details tonight. Thanks.

Where is warforged info for Pathfinder? Does it exist? Or should I just grab it from Eberron or wherever it came from...thanks!

if OP has a decent system buy NWN 1-2 and BG series, all of these are pretty amazing D&D games, and offer a wide variety of downloadable solo campaigns and if decent coder can even make own! i swear by these games, if wanting solo content its best route to go. Also Temple of elemental evil which revised for 3.5 alot dissed it but i found it pretty fun till my CD got roached.

Thanks guys. Yes, I loved NWN 1, played them all. Was looking for solo pen and paper adventuring like Tunnels and Trolls, but something else. Boardgames too. Shame that Warhammer Quest is like $300 - $600. Looks like Runebound Second Edition is available for solo play. Has anyone ever played one of those old-school text-based MUDD games?

You mean solo as one single player and a GM ?

Or solo as just by yourself, alone ?

Solo as in alone. I heard Tales of the Arabian Knights was interesting, but wanted to know if anyone knows any with D&D-flavor.

Years ago, there were a few mods created for solo play. Does anyone know of any D&D-type board game or roleplaying game that works well?