HappyDaze's page

Hmmm...

I dislike gnomes. I hate summoners. I have a player in my game that runs a gnome summoner. Why do I get the feeling that I'm not alone?

Well here's one for the upper end: The Elysian Titan is a CR 21 tough guy. Reading further down in the entry we find that one in every twelve has the spellcasting ability of a 20th level Cleric and is CR 22. Twenty levels of Cleric for only +1 to the CR. Nice.

The out-of-character-fair way to do it is to consider how much you could have earned with a Profession skill during the crafting time and charging them this amount over and above the materials cost. Oddly enough, you can't make money with crafting directly due to the design of the rules.

It's that unknown element for people who can't spellcraft that makes me think that common people would be a bit more perturbed by spellcasting in public, even in Absalom. If I'm a regular guy on the street, how do I know if that guy spouting incomprehensible words just used prestidigitation to clean his shoes, or cast magic weapon on his dagger? Or maybe, as you said, he's just waving his hands around and saying nonsense...

IRL, when I see someone with an unfamiliar handheld electronic, I don't immediately assume it's a bomb/detonator/phone hacking tool/laser designator or any of the other things that may be harmful (to one degree or another). Instead I assume it's something safe and likely legal because the guy IS using it in public.

Magic used in public is probably much the same. Assume that it's safe unless it is obviously not.

We all know that players love to min-max, and we all know that many GMs have a bit of that in them too. Normally, we think that GMs should hold back, or we hear the tired crap that a GM can always outgun the players so it's a pointless game. I call bullshit on that.

The CR system is set up with ways to make monsters for an appropriate challenge. Some say it's not well-balanced enough to use, but I say it's as well-balanced as the various PC classes are when compared to one another.

So, with that in mind, what are some of the nasty combos that can be made using the CR system. Use the various methods of advancing monsters as seen in the Bestiary appendix, and come up with something nasty.

Execution, or rather a merciful death, is not an evil act in my eyes, but ask your DM.

Dabbler wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I said "customer base", not each and every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes around.

...and you tell the difference between somebody who bought their books on Amazon and a "non-customer" how, exactly? How exactly do you determine who Paizo 'should' listen to? I guarantee whatever your answer, if it isn't 'every Tom, Dick, and Harry' then it will be divisive and potentially exclude those that have something to say. Still it's not me you have to sell on the idea, it's the Paizo staff.

Okay, so you don't what what 'customer base' means. It means that you don't have to tell the difference between someone who bought their stuff on Amazon vs. Someone who is not a customer. It means that when you stir up a hornets' nest in your message boards, you listen.

Those that participate on message boards are a (Very vocal) minority. I play in a group of eight, and only two of us come to these boards with any regularity. The rest of the group doesn't care about these boards at all, yet they are still a part of the customer base.

It's already sounding interesting.

Savage humanoids will increase in numbers without humans around to put them down, but by how much before they start preying on one another? Orcs don't seem able to accomplish much, and this is with external enemies to focus upon. Take that away and orc-on-orc (O3) violence is going to increase.

What if humans suddenly became extinct on the face of Golarion? Magical curse, plague, something wipes out everything with the human subtype (screw you too, half-elves and half-orcs). Now most of Avistan will be heavily depopulated, so what would happen?

If I were the paladin, I'd slay the fiend. What? When did slaying evil become such a crime? If the imp were doing nothing else, it is still collecting information for its infernal masters. It's a war for souls, and everyone is fighting it. Kill the spy.

Antipaladin levels are likewise 2:1 up to base HD, and for high Charisma undead (like ghasts) it's really nasty.

There are always other towns in need of heroes.

HappyDaze wrote:

From what I've read, the guys that would actually prosecute this are either inquisitors of Asmodeus (who really don't care) and hellknights which are often based on diabolist teachings. So who really enforces the ban on devil worship?

Doesn't that sound perfectly Chelaxian, 'though?

The guys who have been charged to make sure that you aren't a Diabolist are, themselves, riddled with Diabolists...

Not really. It sounds like a poor attempt to rationalize the line from the Cheliax Player Companion. Other than that one source, is there anything in print that indicates that worship of another devil is punishable by death in Cheliax? I'm not aware of any, and there seems to be much suggestion to the contrary, especially since Diabolism (which often, but not always, involves veneration of the Archdukes of Hell) is common in Cheliax.

I think it's best to assume that the line declaring devil worship (other than Asmodeus) is illegal is probably about as reliable as the lines about Asmodean paladins. In fact, perhaps that's who has been tasked to take out the Diabolists...

The way religion works in Cheliax is complicated, but yeah, what it boils down to is that the government is NOT the same as the Church of Asmodeus there. AKA the government doesn't allow the worship of other devils, but the church doesn't mind it since they know those prayers all eventually more or less end up serving the same goal.

From what I've read, the guys that would actually prosecute this are either inquisitors of Asmodeus (who really don't care) and hellknights which are often based on diabolist teachings. So who really enforces the ban on devil worship?

Unless DavidVs can prove that players control NPC's instead of PC's they are arguing a lost cause. Some people just can't admit when they are wrong.

This brings me to my favorite houserule: There are no rules seperations between PCs and NPCs. Remove all references to player character(s) and nonplayer character(s) and simply replace them with "character(s)"

I'm going to go the other way and tell you the error of YOUR ways: group > one player (you)

If you go in with intent to exploit the system expressly to show them that they are 'doing it wrong" then you're being a dick. Don't be a dick.

Any creature that takes it's full HD worth of non-key classes and only ups it's CR by 1/2 the levels added. For that matter, any group of creatures that has a channeling healer with selective channeling to keep them going and going and going.

The Immortality Arcane Discovery and the Eternal Youth Grand Discovery have inappropriate names because they are nothing more than anti-age penalties, not truly Immortality or Eternal Youth and there is an ioun stone that costs 4,000 gp that does the same thing as both of those 20th level abilities. Kind of worthless in my opinion.

They are named appropriately. Your assumption that you still have a maximum age is incorrect. I was rudely informed of this on these boards when I asked a similar question about whether or not these allowed one to ignore maximum age.

Really there isn't much reason why Sun Orchid Elixir couldn't be considered a Grand Discovery, and thus possibly replicated by any other Alchemist 20 (not that there are likely very many of them). It's strictly less powerful than the Philosopher's Stone option, especially considering that making the SOE requires rare components and an unclear amount of time while the PS requires no materials and only one day of work.*

* I suggest that the Alchemist's body is so suffused with raw alchemical power that it no longer passes stool except for once a month when the Alchemist strains for an entire day to pass what others call a Philosopher's Stone.

Clerics don't need more skill points. They have their faith and their magic. When they were hungry, they did not learn to fish, they learned to pray for fish.

Fighters don't need more skill points. They have their martial prowess. When they were hungry, they did not learn to fish, they learned to smack the crap out of the fishermen until they hand over their catch.

Commoners don't need more skill points. They learn to fish.

I don't think that most undead spontaneously arise from dying while butthurt. I think that most of them come about from magic. Whether it's Animate Dead, Create Undead, Create Greater Undead, or more specific and exotic magics, I still say it's from magic. There are certainly undead that propagate themselves, but I would still contend that the lines were initially spawned by magic. To assume otherwise is to believe that undeath is natural to some degree since living creatures are going to die and some of them are going to die in bad ways.

Elf: Katana/Bows - I see no need to mess with the classics here.

Wait. When the hell did the katana become a 'classic' elf weapon?

Ashiel wrote:

It's for this reason that it confuses me as to why James Jacobs, who has posted in this thread and others lately, who has noted that he believes the rules exist to tell a story, would then turn and support rules that actually hinder good stories. I had actually hoped that since Paizo wasn't gobbled up by Hasbro (when I noticed the changes to the logic involving the D&D game) that they wouldn't be afraid to make things in the game that were scary, creepy, or ugly, that weren't innately evil and shallower than a spoon of water.

I don't support alignment and always-evil undead because of the rules. As a matter of fact... I think that always-evil undead make for BETTTER stories.

Note that my maintaining that undead (with the exception of some ghosts) are always evil does NOT preclude us doing an adventure or story about a non-evil undead. In fact, I maintain my stance that undead are evil precisely BECAUSE we might want to do a story like that some day... and a story like that is much more impactful and interesting if the fact that undead are always evil is already established and well-documented.

Look at Driz'zt. Before "The Crystal Shard," the concept of a good-aligned drow was pretty alien, and even though some DID exist here and there, they were very obscure. The drow in print up until that time were demon worshiping sadists, through and through.

But then, Salvatore came along with Driz'zt and that character was INSANELY popular. Partially because of the fact that it was a new way to look at drow. And since then... look at how drow are regarded today. There's even good-aligned drow deities. And know what? I actually LIKE that—Eilistraee (the good drow deity in question) is my favorite Forgotten Realms deity, in fact. But at the same time... I also really like drow as bad guys. Which is partially why we tried "Second Darkness," as an attempt to "reset" the drow as bad guys. Turns out, that AP was one of our least popular ones, for several reasons... but one of those is...

You won't be able to make it "memorable" like you want to because so many others have already gone and beaten you to the punch. In fact, your holding so tightly to the idea of undead = evil is probably going to go down about as well as the attempt to "reset" the drow into an all-evil race. The popular culture of gaming accepts non-evil drow and non-evil undead and trying to wall off those options in your setting only so *you* can later reverse them when you feel it's going to be most "memorable" isn't what I'd consider good storytelling; it's just arrogance.

I like the idea ... these creatures may be 'inherently evil' but actually work for good. On the whole, LN sounds right. However, I would have them make Will saves whenever confronted with temptation in the form of dying men or dead bodies, or succumb to their base desire to feast.

Further, what happens to the poor souls they tend the wounds of who then contract ghoul fever? While by RAW ghoul fever comes from the claws and teeth of ghouls, it seems pretty plain to me that a ghoul treating the open, bleeding wounds of a human would give them the same exposure to the disease as actively attacking them would.

Hence I can see the tragedy of a band of ghouls 'selflessly' following armies, eating the flesh of the dead after battles, interring the bones in solemn rites according to their beliefs and religions, treating the sick and mourning the tragedy as their ranks swell, and the numbers of rogue ghouls increases in their wake ...

Ghoul fever is only passed on through the bite, not from the claws, so unless the ghoul is using its mouth to treat them it's not going to be an issue. As a nurse IRL, I can't recall ever using my mouth to dress wounds.

The human-centric influence is sometimes too strong. I recently got my hands on Pirates of the Inner Sea and I was disappointed not to see at least one group of monstrous pirates. A band of orc or goblinoid reavers, or gnoll slaving ships could have really made the fantasy stand out a bit more. Maybe some dissatisfied tiefling pirates that hunt Chelish ships and harass their navy would be nice too.

Become undead... ;)

One of my players said that Book of the Damned 1 lists light mace on the inside back cover.

No, I think that if it's mechanically powerful it should have unattractive fluff to balance it out. You wanna play a synthesist, you gotta look silly.

The Eye of Abendago is a giant gate to the non-plane where the aboleths attempted to bring the powers of the Dark Tapestry to Golarion. Aroden isn't dead BTW, but all of his power and awareness is being used to cork the hole.

The idea of visiting Geb for the sunshine almost made me crack up at work. The weirdest thing about Geb though, IMO, is that their primary export is food. Apparently they have these giant farms manned by mindless undead, and people across Golarion are willing to buy (and presumably eat) fruits and veggies that were grown and handled by zombies.

That's not too hard to imagine. We can ignore that our shoes and t-shirts are made by children in sweatshops half a world away. When it is brought to our attention, we object. Then the shop is closed down, moved a few blocks over and the kids get back to work.

I would like to see Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic rewritten into one book like the APG.

All the experimental rules would be removed (i.e. Words of Power, called shots), the broken stuff fixed, errata and clairification where needed, perhaps a little bit of nerfing, player traps removed (i.e. trap ranger), and paring down the spell lists as casters have enough already.

That is my wish.

So you want them to add a product that removes options currently available...

Elves of Golarion

I will say this, which I meant to add earlier. In some groups the players are the heroes. In other groups you are just given the chance to become the heroes. That is also a factor on whether or not a GM fudges.

Put me down for the second type of group. Being handed 'hero' status just doesn't seem right especially considering how far some players go to shirk it.

Quote:

Because they're not extinct or near-extinct-- they're just not as commonly worshiped as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions of "God". If you're going to say it's okay to use Gods/Heroes from one faith, it ought to be okay to draw them from all faiths-- yet, that's exactly what you're saying isn't okay.

Care to explain to me why it's okay to offend some people because they're a minority and maybe you can get away with it, but it's not okay to do anything that might offend a larger group?

First off, I don't think it's ever okay to purposefully-offend someone.

And I see your point about the unfairness of treating different religions differently, but you can't cater to every extreme-minority group that cries foul. At some point, you have to draw the line between groups that are large enough that they're worth catering to and groups that are not. I think that line is somewhere between offended Muslims/Christians/Buddhists and offended Zeus-worshipers.

For instance, would you remove animals from the game because some PETA people found the imaginary killing of animals offensive? Do you think it was right to remove devils and demons from the game because some fundamentalist Christians find them offensive? Where do you stop?

I don't know about you, but I think it's unreasonable to cater to such extremist groups just as I think it's unreasonable to think RPG players should cater to some obscure, hypothetical population of people who both worship Zeus and are extreme enough to get upset that an RPG references Zeus as deity.

To water down the game because you might offend some overly-sensitive extremists is the real sin, IMO.

Saying that you have to 'draw a line' to decide which groups it's acceptable to offend and calling minorities 'extremist' is itself offensive. I think it's much better to just treat everything the same regardless of which mythological beliefs someone holds.

Now I'm picturing halfling cavaliers riding on the back of their large wolves in howdahs.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

You don't have to.

I suppose not. And in this world of any opinion expressed being accused of imposing "badwrongfun" accusations, I suppose any concern I express about a player creating party problems by role playing such a character will only get me attacked as attempting to impose my own play style on a poor innocent fun seeker.

Whatever.

IRL, if I'm on the soccer field with someone that refuses to kick the ball and says he only uses his head, I'm probably going to remove that player from the field. This is pretty much the same thing.

I would really like it if the fighter's bonus feats were 'prepared' each day (from all available combat feats) so he could tailor himself to the presumed needs of the upcoming encounters.

I'm not fan of the creepy eyes thing, but I don't mind the tall elves. Harkens back to the days of Tolkien and the Sidhe which he based his elves off of. Less human, more mysterious and strange. I thought you wanted to play something that wasn't human???

-X

Being extra tall doesn't define being non-human, nor do special effect eyes. I can play an elf with the D&D3.5 appearance and I'm still playing something that's not human. If anything, Pathfinder's elves remind my group of an anime remake of elves, and most of my group don't look favorably at most anime.

After my players started talking about this issue earlier today, we decided to scrap the 'funny eyes' altogether along with the 'tall elves' that Pathfinder brought to us. It seems that the majority of us prefer our elves with regular eyes (possibly with somewhat-larger-than-human-norm irises) and averaging 5 feet in height. We also think that the white hair thing belongs to the drow and that regular elves should not have it.

So, to sum it up, we like D&D3.5's elves better and hold up Merisiel as the poster child for everything we don't want to see in our elves.

Seriously, no one likes the idea of being raped by an ogre.

Of course, they may not like the idea of rape so much that they don't want to deal with it in their game at all.

I think the point was that you could remove alignment from the paladin and the game will not suffer. All you have to do is modify the powers a bit and the code of conduct.

I'm not sure anything in the powers would have to altered save for removing axiomatic from the weapon options.

The #1 version would also make elven eyes somewhat like the eyes of many animals. In many animals, the sclera (the white of the eye) matches the color of the iris. This creates option #1.1

1.1) Elves have blue, green, violet, amber, or red irises and large black pupils. The sclera matches the color of the iris and leaves no visible whites to the eyes. (This is often pictured in Elves of Golarion and the CRB).

I think I'll go with version this and leave the monochromatic eyes to Outsiders and other inherently magical creatures.

I was under the impression that they are solid black for some reason. Merisiel's are solid black. I've seen at least one other image with solid black eyes.

Reference images with real life subjects:

Black sclera contacts.

Google 'em.

Ooh, this one looks elf-y.

In the "Rogue" class picture from the CRB, Merisiel is pictured with the #1 version - large blue irises surrounding large black pupils with no visible whites to her eyes.

Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.

I've always felt that NG best fits paladins. Line for line, the above would apply best for the shining beacon of goodness. Following a Code doesn't necessitate being Lawful (many other character types follow personal codes without being confined to Lawful alignments).

Pathfinder already recognizes why crossbows were so popular:

They're simple weapons. Anybody can use them.

I seem to remember crossbows being so widely-used once they were developed because you could recruit a bunch of peasants, give them crossbows, and have a pretty effective military unit. They don't have to be mechanically equal to a bow, because bows are martial weapons, which SHOULD be better than simple weapons for the sake of game balance.

If this is the argument then it's a failing one. If those peasants are just commoners (barely trained), then they have one simple weapon proficiency. It's far more likely that they'll have dagger or club, or possibly spear. OTOH, if they have enough training to have even one level of warrior, then they can use all martial weapons so the simple weapon argument is moot.

Crossbows really need a Strength bonus. Conceptually, the user's Strength should not matter directly and the weapon should be built with a preset Strength bonus. To keep Strength from being a dump stat, reloading time should be based on the difference between the user's Strength bonus and the crossbow's Strength bonus. This means that a strong guy can either rapidly reload a weaker crossbow or fire at a normal rate with a stronger crossbow.

<3 all

Zahariel, Mittean, and Berik, you should be getting an e-mail soon!

HappyDaze, if you can just let me know if you want a package as well or if you want someone else to have it, coolness either way. :)

I bow out. Please let someone else have it.

No feats for the "not scimitar" that are anywhere near as good as dervish dance.

This was my point given above. I would love to see options for non-scimitars (including the rapier and a number of exotic weapons) that make them equally viable.

It's important to note that a players strength, dexterity and constitution shouldn't have any noticeable influence on gameplay.

Why not?

If you want to be fair, require the die to be used for the strength check to be under something heavy. If the player can lift the object and then roll the die on the table in <15 seconds he can take what he rolls, otherwise he simply fails.

Likewise, for the dexterity check, toss the die at the player, if he catches it, he can roll the check, if not he fails.

For constitution, assume the character autofails everything whenever the player misses a game because of illness. Optionally, require rounds of shots (stronger the better) to be taken throughout the game (this will quickly start to hit all other tests too).

BM: OK (the 2nd part was better then the 1st part)

Sounds like a conversation from a retirement home...

With Improved Familiar I get some nifty choices at Level 7. However, many of these (Pseudodragon, Arbiter, Silvanshee, Lyrakien, Brownie, Cythnigot, Quasit, Imp, and probably others) have Intelligence scores that exceed what a Familiar has at level 7 (Int 9). The Lyrakien is the most stunted of all, and won't hit intellectual parity with the non-Familiar version until its master is Level 17! Please tell me that there is a rule somewhere that Familiars use their base Int until the value on the Familiar table exceeds it.