I use a Samsung Galaxy S2.
Search Posts
I'm about to start a new arc for a game I've been running and I've written up some ideas for the first few encounters, but I'm a little stuck for ideas on how to bring the whole introduction to the arc to a head. Basically it's about pirates. So far, the party will be attacked on their ship by various flying things. Following this, there will be some ship combat (trying out the rules in the Gamemastery guide). Then, once they (hopefully) fight their way to port, I've put together a sort of running encounter with lots of sporadic low level mooks in a burning city, with environment hazards. I'm going to try and gently lead them up to the fortified centre of town, it being the only place of safety, and should they follow the cues I'd like some kind of dramatic encounter to take place there. The whole thing is a bit more set-piece than I'm used to, as I tend to have a more open GMing style,( with encounters written for events and locations rather than in succession like this) but it's meant to be an introduction to the new arc so they can follow my plot rails, dammit. :) Anyway, I was hoping that some fresh minds could approach the subject. I've already used siege weapons (on the boat), hordes of easy kills, flying things, some quite badass individuals, and fire. Can anyone suggest something that might give the last encounter something unique, something that'll provide a good cap to the events that have already transpired?
Agreed. This is the best scene.
Just stumbled across this and wanted to say thanks, as I'm definitely going to use some of these in a planned Hyborian 4E campaign. Keep up the good work. :)Thanks! If you've got a campaign journal or website let me know I'd love to see how you run things. Would that I had the time, I'm afraid. I'll try and remember to let you know how things go on this thread from time to time, though.
Thanks guys, good suggestions. :) Will look in to picking some up.
That must be it, then. Plus, your name is wrong. Shouldn't it be Munchkineticist? Or whoever you call someone engaging in in munchkineatography.You're right, but why does my tension increase when I read your words?One of these things used sarcasm to make a point.Ah, sarcasm on the internet. It works so well. I'm surprised it was taken out of context here, actually, I've never seen that happen before. Bizarre, really. In most cases it is well delivered, and well received, often disfusing otherwise tense situations. Never have I seen it misused, poorly applied, or used as a justification retroactively for a statement that may have been unreasonable but furiously typed in the heat of the moment. I am sadden by its unique and unprecedent situation here. There's a subtle difference between a munchkineater and a munchkineticist. Like a optician and an optometrist. The latter studies the complex science of munchkineatography, the former eats munchkins. It's subtle, but it's there.
I thought that this is kind of what 4E Essentials was. I may be wrong.
If you are going to spend the money to take a self-defense course, don't ignore any of it, that's just wasting money, plus the more moves you know the better martial artist/combatant you will be. It's really not that hard to learn multiple styles. Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I mean more that in order to practice bartitsu you should utilise traditional English boxing rather than the strikes taught by jujitsu. Which, in my opinion, is rubbish. :P I wouldn't necessarily agree that learning multiple different striking styles will necessarily make you a better martial artist. I've done four different martial arts in my time, and the best martial artists I've known have almost always studied just the one style. Horses for courses in all regards, I suppose.
Can anybody recommend me some good board games based on the Classical and Ancient world? To be specific, set in the ancient Mediterranean countries, Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persia, etc. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. :)
I'm relieved to discover they make use of the hook at least somewhat. Out of curiosity, do you have any suggestions for someone wanting to get into bartitsu? I know there's a book out there about it, but haven't been able to get ahold of a copy...and I live in the arm pit of the rectum of the United States...so there is no chance of a school anywhere near here (I've looked...though on the off chance you know of one not on the net, wyoming would be said arm pit). I live in the UK, so I'm not familiar with the bartitsu scene in the US, if there is one. This link will take you to the list of online manuals used by the school at which I train. It's not complete, as some are old physical copies owned by the schools master, but there's enough there to get started. Best to start off by with Defense dans la Rue or Barton-Wright's own texts. If you looking at self teaching, here's my advice: 1) Try to get some friends to train with. You'll be able to watch each other and point out where you are going wrong, which you might not catch by yourself. But for the love of god, don't spar without the proper protective gear! That's fencing mask and jacket for cane, and light boxing gloves and mask for boxing. Shinpads are also advisable for kicks. Oh, and never at full strength! 2) Try and find a local jujitsu class. This will both give you physical training and teach you the correct throwing techniques for bartitsu. Ignore all the punching a kicking they may teach, though, as it's less than ideal for a bartitsu practitioner.
You're right, but why does my tension increase when I read your words?One of these things used sarcasm to make a point.Ah, sarcasm on the internet. It works so well. I'm surprised it was taken out of context here, actually, I've never seen that happen before. Bizarre, really. In most cases it is well delivered, and well received, often disfusing otherwise tense situations. Never have I seen it misused, poorly applied, or used as a justification retroactively for a statement that may have been unreasonable but furiously typed in the heat of the moment. I am sadden by its unique and unprecedent situation here. A mystery indeed. Hmm. Hmmmm. Probably because I'm a jerk.
But if one player is playing Joe Everyman, and another is playing Superman, you cant adjust your challenges for that. Generally a good point but this bit is not entirely true. It's certainly more difficult, but if you strike it just right you can work it out. For example: in my group I have one particularly guy to whom optimising is second nature. He's not a munchkin (I would have eaten him if he were), being probably one of the most keen and confident roleplayers in the group but when he makes a character he enjoys making it as best as he can. Not so much the rest of the group, who will sacrifice more optimal builds for character fluff reasons. If I'm not careful, he tends to dominate combats, making all the other guys feel a bit left out. If I build encounters with the total party's strengths and weaknesses in mind, then this doesn't happen and everyone gets to feel awesome. I don't always get it right, but it can be done either way around.
See above.
I'm curious if people let barbarians with a Int of 3 use anything beyond a simple club. I'd never let anyone play with such a low stat. I would consider a Int. 3 character to be so subnormal as to be unable to function in anything other than a very basic manner unless led constantly by others. If they were to pick up a sword, they would use it like a club, possibly having difficulties with the "sharp bit goes in the other man" concept, so really it would be an improvised weapon.
"Is that a monkey?" "He's got a gun!" Ah, I love Hellboy. Anyway, if you were playing in one of my games I would disallow simian weapon use beyond a simple club unless they were awakened. This is, of course, just my opinion, but I feel that anything more sophisticated would require at least Int. 5 to wield. And even then with no degree of finesse.
It might be worth your while trying to create a little more social interaction by stepping away from the obvious solution in your games and exploring the wider world of Westcrown. The difficulty there is making your voice heard if the party is all for killing their way to success, but stepping outside the realms of pure combat and attempting to forge aliances with NPCs might be a good way to give everyone a taste of the more social side of things. Just a thought, easier said than done.
Sounds like you need to have a chat with your GM. If you're not really enjoying the way the game is playing, then you should raise the point with them. Perhaps he could throw a little more social interaction in, or you could switch in a new character who is more combat focussed. I think most people like to optimise a little just because it's no fun to play as a character who keeps missing, or is constantly failing to do anything. Unless that's what you're going for, of course.
Antihero: A PC can elect not to use the hero point system, instead relying more on his skills and abilities. Such characters do not receive hero points, regardless of the source, and can never benefit from their use. In exchange, such characters receive a bonus feat at 1st level. The option to allow such antiheroes in the game is subject to GM discretion. Well, that answers that then. I still reckon that jerktacular behaviour to the detriment of enjoying of the game by all (including the oft forgotten GM) should be cracked down on, but, technically speaking, interpreting an antihero as a metaphorical excretion port is an acceptable approximation. But perhaps not in the spirit of the game.
Quotes Dictionary.com That's a fair point. However, I cannot remember, but does the rules section in the PFCRB give a basic summation of what they mean by anti-hero? It was a while back I last read it but I thought they were going for more 'heroic, yet morally questionable.' That's the definition I think should be player if so, even though this may, in fact, be a total misuse of the term. To the OED! EDIT: OED sez: A protagonist that does not displays traditional heroic attributes. Well, that's clear cut. Sheesh.
One of these things used sarcasm to make a point. Ah, sarcasm on the internet. It works so well. I'm surprised it was taken out of context here, actually, I've never seen that happen before. Bizarre, really. In most cases it is well delivered, and well received, often disfusing otherwise tense situations. Never have I seen it misused, poorly applied, or used as a justification retroactively for a statement that may have been unreasonable but furiously typed in the heat of the moment. I am sadden by its unique and unprecedent situation here.
Best example would be how during a combat session, our wizard decided there wasn't much he could do so he just sat down and started reading his spellbook during combat. Oo, I'd love it if a player in one of my games did this. They'd be making a new character before the days was out. I'm reminded of one of my earliest roleplaying experiences. We had a good GM who wanted to run a Vampire the Masquerade game. Unfortunately for him, we had no idea about the theme and atmosphere of the game and were thinking more along the lines of Dracula or the Count from Sesame Street. Ve may haf tokked like zis for a bit. Bluh! So, in order to help us understand what we were playing, the first session we did no roleplaying and the GM showed us Interview with a Vampire. It worked, we came up with some brilliant characters, and the campaign was awesome. Have you considered doing something similar? Pick out some films or books with proper anti-heroes in and show them to the players. It might help.
From what I've seen bartitsu uses the straighter canes more often, and when they do use the hooked canes they don't make use of the hook (again, just from what I've seen...still pretty new to bartitsu). There are techniques to use the hook, but they're not often used. Tripping and grappling techniques generally use it two hand, catching the opponent behind the knee or ankle and pulling their leg from under them by leverage. Trying to do it one handed would most likely end up pulling the cane from your hands.
Have you considered attempting to be swallowed whole and alive by the dragon and then cutting it all up on the inside all the way down? I know this kind of sounds like madness,* but hey, your characters are dying anyway, right? I'd kinda just like to see if it works. *Fools! I'll show them all!! Ahahahaha!!!
While this system is tempting, I quite like the random HP method. Also, giving them the choice means that there's an element of a gamble to levelling up. Possibly I'm just a spiteful GM who enjoys watching his players squirm. :D
Thanks guys, that's really encouraging to hear. :) @Sphynx: I can't say as I wasn't tempted. However, some of my players can be a little delicate at times and I'd rather make a small concession than have them sulking about low HP dice rolls.
I'm soon to be introducing some experienced 4E players to Pathfinder and I could use some advice. The main thing that I've notice people worried about is HP, specifically the random nature of it when going up levels. I'm considering giving them a choice: they can roll for it or they can take half the maximum roll, but they have to choose before the roll. Does anyone anticipate any problems with this? I'd rather not just tell them to suck it up as I'm already enforcing this system change, baby steps, and all that. Still, I don't want to mess up the balance. It should be noted that I'm new to Pathfinder myself, so if I'm totally miscontruing the rules here please call me out on it.
Right, but Watts is just an army guy, he carries a sword cane, and does just fine when it's sheathed. Watson. Fair point, actually, if you can use a fencing sword such as a rapier then you should have no problem using a cane as a striking implement. However, the tripping and disarming and so forth would be so much mystery to you. I would suggest making a weapon specific feat that allows you to trip, grapple and disarm with a cane.
Well, canonically, Holmes was a practitioner of bartitsu, so he would have trained with the weapon. It's very different in style to a club. The weapons he uses earlier in the film are truncheons, not canes, and would certainly function effectively as a club.
Im reminded of a French maritial art of fighting with canes. It is very fast, almost like fencing. Speaking as a practitioner of said art (yes, yes, I'm sorry, I'm going to be that guy now) I would make the following suggestions. Non-lethal only. It's damned difficult to kill someone with such a light weapon. The purpose of the cane is to cause someone significant pain until they either turn and run or leave themselves open to a boxing blow or kick. Anything heavy enough to cause major injury is a club, and would be much thicker than a cane. I don't approve of the Ezren thing. :P Disarm makes sense to me. A common blow we practice is to the knuckles or fingers of the weapon holding hand. The nice and fragile bones in the hand break easily enough to be able to force an opponent to relinquish his weapon. It would be useful in a grapple. There are several techniques that allow you to off-balance and trip your opponent. All in all, it's a control weapon, not a damage dealing weapon. It should tie in nicely with grappling and unarmed strikes to create Pathfinder bartitsu. Lovely.
Well, technically, there can be no thing as "insulting" if it's all a matter of opinion. It's possible that no matter what you say, some people will find it insulting, while others won't. Insulting. Insulting is a verb.Insulting is a doing word. I agree whole heartedly, in other words. Use of insulting as an adjective always calls to mind middle-aged upper-lower-middle-class women, twitching their net curtains to spy on the wickedness and shame of their neighbours who are in turn indistinguishable from them. They'll say things are 'insulting', 'disgraceful', and 'shouldn't be allowed.' Tread not that path. Down that route lies a hell of pot pourri and milky tea with cat hairs in. Beware!
And Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution generally. Most would like to believe it is because they put all their points in Intelligence. Hmm.
I've lived and worked in every region of the US, and 12 countries East to West: I have never personally seen any country's citizenry come close to the patriotic fervor of Americans in general (though both the UK and Sweden rank a very close 2nd). I wouldn't say patriotism, with regards to the UK (disregarding the individual nationalism thing) as most people are fairly critical of the country itself. No, I would say my countrymen prefer to go with xenophobia as a national pass-time. I'm not a fan of pride, personally. Loving the cultural traditions of your country is not a bad thing. Holding them up to be a wondrous achievement over others is. At least, that's my opinion on the matter, I'm not trying to present this as uncontrovertable fact. Before you further mistake racial and cultural tension in America for internal strife, don't forget that the US has the highest percentage of multinational spread of any other country on the planet, bar-none. Including Canada? Mosaic vs. Melting Pot may be worth considering here as well. Of all the nations in the world, what other one has a general citizenry that will so readily, unflinchingly, and uncoerced by its governing bodies--what other nation's people will fight for an idea? Not a parcel of land or a particular personality or a muddled religiosity, but an intangible, ephemeral idea. Religion is an idea. I don't mean this as a anti-religious statement, merely that it is, by its very nature, just as ephemeral as the ideas a United States citizen might fight for. I don't think it's too far abstracted from fighting for an idea of freedom, or democracy.
Just stumbled across this and wanted to say thanks, as I'm definitely going to use some of these in a planned Hyborian 4E campaign. Keep up the good work. :)
I do miss the beholder though.Nobody stops you from including them in your home game. Just sayin´. I know it is not quite the same as having them in the official rules, but other than that, it is no problem. Yes, thank you! It's not like Paizo are shy about Pathfinder being compatible with 'the world's most popular role-playing game.' It's not even that hard to find second hand copies of most of the books. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the D&D name disappear. Heresy, maybe, but I don't think we'd lose much from the game. Besides, it was always a silly name. Oh, I'm gonna get stoned for this...
I couldn't agree more. Nothing kills a players enjoyment of the game like feeling cheated. I've actually used good-aligned undead in past games but they've always been sentient. Being a massive undead fanboy I'm always looking for new things to do with them. I've been toying with the idea of running a campaign with good-aligned undead PCs in an undead world at war with the living world. One day...
It may not be the kind of thing you're thinking of, but having you considered it being an island that was previously unmapped? It could have been a recent discovery and relatively close to a canon settled island with a major city on it. It could have even risen from the sea, reverse Atlantis style. Just a thought.
I think subscibing alignment to non intelligent things(be it a item...construct...or mindless undead) make no sense to do in general. Really I think they(unless specficaly says something else) should just have a NA for Alignment. Risking derailing the thread here, so this will be my last comment on the subject. You say you run games, just out of interest do you house rule skeletons and the like as non-aligned? If so, how do you find it affects the game and the reaction of the players? Merely curious on that one.
I'm not sure that real life comparisons are really apt. D&D was built to resemble heroic fiction, not real life combat, in all versions. Pathfinder is no exception.
Oo, +1 to what Kierato said. Excellent suggestion, puzzles really add to the game.
It's my experience that pure or almost pure combat games are very difficult to keep interesting. If you put a lot of effort into varied and diverse combats, though, there's plenty of fun to be had there. Although, when I have run these types of games I've found that people start to naturally empathise with their characters and the world around them and the level of roleplaying increases very organically. It all very much depends on the group. One thing I found that kept the combat fresh was going heavy on description, both of environment and events.
I'm not sure about the animals killing for fun thing. Not the real life evidence for it, I don't know enough about the evidence to comment, but the in game situation. My first thought was that if they are beasts, they can't be considered evil, but are there are fantasy beasts in the setting that are considered evil? Maybe it could be considered the case that some of these animals are evil aligned, some good, but the vast majority are neutral. In response to your comment in another thread which would seem innappropriate to add now as it has lengthened a lot while I've been away: I was thinking of them as animals used as tools, not strictly tools in the sense of a knife. It's a good point though. However, is a knife neutral? Surely it has no alignment at all? In that a creature, sentient or not, must have an alignment I would still lean towards giving controlled animates the alignment of the controller.
Speaking in a purely game sense here. Case 1: In that a creature that is evil aligned is merely following its nature, I would have to rule this as a yes. The impulses are considered evil by the alignment system, as are the acts. Motive plus act both stemming from the evil alignment sells it as evil to me. Case 2: I find this really interesting and may have to work it into a campaign one day, if it doesn't come across as exploitative. Personally, I would effectively have them be multiple characters, some evil, some not. Consequently, the evil characters would detect as evil and suffer the damage when they are dominant. If a good character were then to become dominant, they would cease to do so, but the damage would remain. Those are my thoughts on it.
So, if mindless undead are a tool they have no morality. The only morality involved is the use to which they are put. By and large, in the game world, they are created by evil creatures and tasked on evil endeavours. Rather than being evil in and of themselves, they are merely parts of an evil whole. This would justify the evil alignment, I feel, but having a blanket evil judgement on any necromancy or living dead does somewhat imply a universal morality there. It's fair to say that there is potential for good aligned undead, I suppose. Furthermore, there seems to be an standard in the game that the extermination of life without due cause, such as self defence, is an evil act. If an undead creature is motivated to do such an acts as its basic nature, then its basic nature could be said to be evil. Bruunwald is right, though. The game is a swashbuckling, swords and sorcery game at heart, and to be so it needs to carry those absolutes. Whether or not you play by them in a group is a personal choice.
There's a lot of dependancy on the definition of Evil you are understanding. I'm of the opinion that true setting neutrality cannot exist with an alignment system, as it implies an inherent judgement. If one is to look at whether a creature, concept or act is inherently evil, first they must define what the term entails. Otherwise it's just applying your own morality to the answer. |