Júlíus Árnason's page

Halló!

I'm heading home (Reykjavík) for the summer from Copenhagen, and I want to see if there's any interest for Pathfinder Society Play in the Reykjavík area. Either home games or perhaps, if Nexus is interested, at their store in Hverfisgata.

I'll most likely GM, and I can handle all book-keeping that's involved with reporting/creating an event. It would be easiest to start with the "First Steps" series that introduces players to the Society but I know of a few cool scenarios that we could play as well.

Anyone interested?

I'm making an Ulfan character for a friend's campaign this summer and I want to make a Loki-like trickster but I can't really decide on a class or even a proper theme.

I'm considering a bard, but really any trick-related controlling magic user is fine.

We start at 1st lvl and the my stats are (in no particular order btw): 12, 16, 15, 9, 16, 7.

Tamago wrote:

Cool article!

I'm curious about what language you use at the table. I have no idea if the Pathfinder books have been translated into Danish, but I have a strong suspicion that the PFS scenarios are not. When you run games in Denmark, are the players all English speaking, or do you translate things on the fly?

If you do game in English, does the language barrier hinder your attempts to find players at all? If not, what challenges do you face trying to translate things yourself?

We game in Danish, with the occasional piece of description or flavor text being read aloud in English. No Pathfinder materials, books or otherwise, have been translated into Danish, but virtually all Danes understand English at a very high level, and most GM's can translate on the fly.

In my experience, the biggest barrier to getting more players is not the language, but the lack of prior experience with the concept of Organized Play that Diego touches upon in the end of his article. But we are doing all we can to change that.

I just got back from Fastaval, one of the events mentioned above. We managed 15 sessions and handed out a bunch of new Pathfinder Society numbers. Hopefully, within a year or two, PFS is going to be a natural part of most Danish cons.

/Jacob - VL, Denmark-Jutland.

I'll add my few cents to the mix here.

I recently moved to Denmark from Iceland. And despite a heavy Danish tradition back home (after all we used to be a part of the Commonwealth) my Danish is rusty as hell. I wasn't sure if I would be able to play much at all here in my new home in Copenhagen because of this language barrier.

I knew of the local game store, Fantask (which is incredible btw), and knew that I could at least get some information about groups there. The pointed me to the Society and Diego, and truth be told, with some reservation (because of the language barrier at the table) I contacted him.

To his credit he accommodated me and I've had the privilege of attending a game at Fantask and the Spilefesteval where he oversaw "Blood Under Absalom". I count myself incredibly fortunate of having been able to join the Society here: the people are cool, fun to play with and generous with their time and translations ;).

Really though I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you Diego and highlight the awesome work you and the rest of the people in the Society are doing. Thanks!

An interesting look at Wizard's view on the 5th edition.

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for a fantastic time yesterday! Especially the organizers, our trusted Venture Captain and my table's GM Johnny.

And to the Horde of I(J)orion I'll say this: For the horde!

Best Shadow Lodge faction mission ever. :)

Huh, I have to say that I had real difficulty getting that one right today. But then again it might just be because I was playing a Society Scenario for the first time :P

But the ending was pretty kick ass though.

Hey,

I'm looking for a bi-weekly, or something to that effect, game in Copenhagen. Any system welcome. I can DM as well.

Really, no one in Copenhagen?

Hey,

I'm looking for a bi-weekly, or something to that effect, game in Copenhagen. Any system welcome. I can DM as well.

I'd add to the list:

Beowulf by Alan Silvestri
Battlestar Galactica (any season really, though I prefer nr. 3)by Bear McCreary
Hellboy I and II, the second one is by Danny Elfman. I forget who wrote the first.
Uncharted 1 and 2 by Greg Edmonson
Firefly by Greg Edmonson
Sherlock Holmes, Gladiator, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight by Hans Zimmer.
Master and Commander by Iva Davies
Aliens by James Horner
King Kong by James Newton Howard
Icewind Dale by Jeremy Soule
Jade Empire by (I think Jeremy Soule)
Star Trek by Michael Giacchino
Band of Brothers by Michael Kamen
Mýrin by Mugison (this is an Icelandic movie that was released in the US as JarCity I think), there are some really creepy tracks here.
Watchmen by Tyler Bates

"I'll bring them back by morning...I swear."

Ohh you'll feel the wrath of us Vikings. Give them back or I'll set more volcanos off.

I really need some help. According to ABC news the population of my country (Iceland) just droppped from around 300 thousand to a mere 2655. I don't know what happened to the rest of us but they're gone, just gone!

This is all the evidence that I have for what happened. It happens around 58 seconds into the video.

I'd really appreciate all the help I can get. I have to find the rest, the Viking language can't die!

houstonderek wrote:

Ah, the "ignorant American who gets his info form Fox News" gambit. No, actually my opinion comes from reading the European rags and following events in the Netherlands (free speech is dead there, apparently), Great Britain (hmmm, Sharia courts? British common law isn't good enough?), Switzerland, France and Italy (apparently not wanting the countryside to look like Damascus isn't PC), Sweden (wow, those murder and rape rates sure are rising), etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Yep, and an ignorant American is exactly what you sound like in this particular quote. And Kevin points out your ignorance of your own history.

(By the way, can you read French, Dutch, Italian and Swedish?)

Just that particular quote? Try the whole comment.

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

jocundthejolly wrote:

Tidbit for those who may not know: the name is pronounced Rafe Vaughan Williams.

Fair enough, it's still spelled Ralph though.

Much like Ralph Fiennes.

Indeed ;)

Tidbit for those who may not know: the name is pronounced Rafe Vaughan Williams.

Fair enough, it's still spelled Ralph though.

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

I've always found an immense sense of calm listening to Ralph Vaughan Williams' "Fantasia on a Theme". It's like sitting on the deck of a ship somewhere in the middle of the ocean with nothing but the horizon in all directions.

The "Five Variants on Dives et Lazarus" is my favorite of his work. There's definitely a sense of expansiveness and almost non-linearity in Vaughn Williams' music.

The Lark Ascending is also good. But I think I'm particular to that one because I listened to it a lot when I was in the Irish countryside, seeing larks fly all over the place.

I've always found an immense sense of calm listening to Ralph Vaughan Williams' "Fantasia on a Theme". It's like sitting on the deck of a ship somewhere in the middle of the ocean with nothing but the horizon in all directions.

So I make one single check vs the enemy's CMD and if it succeeds, I arrive at x withotu provoking an AoO, correct?

Yes.

I'm sure thats been discussed somewhere already but I couldn't find it.

Lets assume the following situation:
.
.
.
.
1 2 x
m E 6
a 8 9

Ok, so m is me, E is the enemy, a is one of my allies.
I now want to move to x, so I get the flanking bonus from a.

30 ft speed/2 = 15 = 3 squares. 1,2,x - so I can make it

However, do I have to make an Acrobatics check for each square, one to move to 1, another to move to 2 and a last one to move to x?
Or just one check?

I'm pretty sure I can't directly move to 2 (or at least not with the +5 for moving through an enemies square), correct?

edit: extra lines so the sketch shows properly

No no, you just make an acrobatics check to tumble at half your speed, and the DC is vs the enemy's CMD if you move past him, but his CMD +5 if you move through his square.

Mine was The Light of the Living (page 2 of the thread). Thank you for doing this Vic!

We won't get into where I hear 'sir/ma'am' I don't want to scare folks ;-)

It's always been a case with me to use it as a default sign. But I'm old fashioned. I joke about having 'young miss...' stuck in my head, but it's not much of a leap from, 'miss' which I do use.

I do know of one company who actually brands 'sir/ma'am' as racist and doesn't allow it for their reps *rolls eyes* Drives my roommate crazy since she's Southern through and through.

Personally I don't like first names with Customer Service. You don't know me, don't call me 'Matthew' or worse 'Matt' unless I say so (I'm usually quick to say so). When my work relaxed the policy, it too forever to get used to hearing this:

"May I have your name?"
"Robert Smith."
"And how can I help you today, Bob?"

It's like nails on a chalk board to me.

But then I also hold the door for a lady, and try to pull out the chair so a lady can sit. I'm an old fashioned sexist pig. *shrug*
** spoiler omitted **

I've always found it incredibly difficult to address people by their last name. Coming from a culture where it's impossible to address someone by their last name, the default becomes ones first name. So I wouldn't address someone as Mr. Gunnarsson or Mrs. Jónsdóttir. It would be Herra (Mr. or sir) Sigurður og Fröken (miss) Helga, and even that's stretching things because honorifics haven't been used in Iceland in over 50 years. The formal way to address someone here is to simply use their first name.

Why is Kirk climbing that mountain?

These are truly awesome advice. Just remember though that what happens in your game, and how your group plays (so long as you're all having fun of course) is the right way.

So yesterday we started gaming around 430pm and ended when one player noticed his watch said 210am and his phone said 310am.

So were we gaming for a little over 9 1/2 hours or 10 1/2 hours?

Gotta love the artificial construct that time is. ;)

I can't answer that, but I can tell you that I'm very relived not to have to deal with daylights savings time.

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Yes... your group needs an attitude adjustment. Nothing you do with the Paladin or a Paladin PrC class will help with out that. If they can't reconcile the idea of a Paladin with intelligence, bring up Bruce Wayne or Hal Jordan, or the Shadow.

The Batman Alignment chart should help then ;)

But in all seriousness, what the OP is describing sounds like the Paladin is a robot, only capable of a set number of actions dictated by a narrow definition of the Paladin's code.
As for the Gray Guard, I've always seen him as a Jack Bauer type, willing to do whatever necessary in order to complete the job. A decidedly un-Paladin thing to do... hence the need for a prestige class.

There's a fine line.. even the Gray Guard has to have a line where he doesn't cross. Which I think is why Batman is the perfect example of one. Batman uses fear and terror, but stops short of killing or torture. Jack Bauer may be "good" but I think he steps over that line. Which is okay. not everyone who stands the banner of law and good need be a Paladin.

BTW that chart is a laugh riot. But to tell the truth given that most Paladins, especially those in Eberron and Golarion operate in a pretty grey setting anyway and face the same kind of complex challenges, I feel that the Grey Guard is at best redundant. In a Pathfinder adventure, most regular Paladins pretty much have to go the grey guard route anyway, so I really don't see the point of the PrC save perhaps for opening some skill choices.

Which really is redundant because Pathfinder does away with the worst sting of taking skills that aren't on you're class skill list.

However, regarding the Gray Guard, the atonement discount (if you will) is set up to allow the Paladin a certain "the end justifies the means" approach. Maybe not wholesale mind you, and perhaps my Jack Bauer example is a little extreme but you get my point.
I also think you are right regarding Golarion and Eberron, though having played most of my games in Faerun I tend to view the Gray Guard as more of a cool feature to help players play Paladins that sometimes have to make questionable decisions.

Yes... your group needs an attitude adjustment. Nothing you do with the Paladin or a Paladin PrC class will help with out that. If they can't reconcile the idea of a Paladin with intelligence, bring up Bruce Wayne or Hal Jordan, or the Shadow.

The Batman Alignment chart should help then ;)

But in all seriousness, what the OP is describing sounds like the Paladin is a robot, only capable of a set number of actions dictated by a narrow definition of the Paladin's code.
As for the Gray Guard, I've always seen him as a Jack Bauer type, willing to do whatever necessary in order to complete the job. A decidedly un-Paladin thing to do... hence the need for a prestige class.

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

2. The first sentance in spell description states: "You conjure a Large, quasi-real, horselike creature". (emphasis mine). So I'm afraid that only medium sized creatures could use this spell. But I'm not really sure that it would be such a game balance issue if a large pc (Goliath for example) would use this and gain a huge horse. I'd stay away from making it bigger though or changing the type of animal. Seeing as the spell is meant for transportation and really nothing else.

Goliath's are not large, they're simply on the very tall side of Medium and have the powerful build feature that lets them use large weapons. So the standard phantom steed is fine for thier use.

Now note that the phantom steed is conjured specifically for it's rider and can't be used by anyone else. So I imagine a steed conjured for a large (or small) creature would be appropriately sized.

You're right, I always have it in my head that Goliaths are large... I've even played Goliaths....

1) Can Phantom Steed be used for a mounted charge?

The spell description states it doesn't participate in combat but I don't really see how this can interfere with charge actions. And then there is a lance... In "real" charges the mount's mass adds quite a bit of the momentum to the punch, which is not the case with etherial phantom sted. This leaves me in some doubt.

2) Can it be used by Large or even larger casters? My answer is going to be "yes" since nowhere in the spell description it's stated otherwise ("it can carry you and a little bit more", that is), but I'm not 100% sure.

Thanks in advance.

1. Not if the text is clear that it doesn't participate in combat. If you use a horse to charge then you are using it in combat, which the rules specifically state that you can't do.

2. The first sentance in spell description states: "You conjure a Large, quasi-real, horselike creature". (emphasis mine). So I'm afraid that only medium sized creatures could use this spell. But I'm not really sure that it would be such a game balance issue if a large pc (Goliath for example) would use this and gain a huge horse. I'd stay away from making it bigger though or changing the type of animal. Seeing as the spell is meant for transportation and really nothing else.

Thanks everyone this clears it all up.

I appreciate everyones help ahve a great day.

You're not the only one to have this problem. My group and I played for 8 years allowing only one sneak attack per full attack even if the full attack qualified for a sneak attack. None of us are sure why we did this, the consesus seems to be that we mistakingly thought that it was only allowed once for all attacks, but we can't point to a single source and say "this told me that it wasn't allowed".

The funny thing is that all this time I played a character, a rogue/knifefighter who relied heavily on sneak attack, and even with this limitation he was still one of the most effective party members. Also, now that he can get sneak attack on every attack if he qualifies for it then he's just too good to be true :P (of course though he had to die a few sessions after we realized this).

sempai33 wrote:

I wish to know if you can cast a spell (with a casting time less than 1 round) PLUS a quickened spell ? Or you have to cast a quickened spell first and after it a spell with a duration less than 1 round ?

For example Can a wizard cast a "cloud kill" and just in the same round a "quickened dimension door" ?

Caveat. In your example spells you have to cast the quickened dimension door after the cloudkill to cast these 2 spells in 1 round. Why, you ask? Because once you cast dimension door (in any form), you cannot take ANY actions until your next turn.

Then there's that as well. Good catch!

Zurai wrote:

james maissen wrote:

So, again, what's causing this miss chance?

Magic.

YaY Magic! It can do anything!

Can magic make this thread disappear?

Yes I believe you could, seeing as quicked specifically allows you to cast a spell as a swift action. Though you'd need to make Dimension Door an 8th lvl spell for your example to work.

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

warren Burgess wrote:

Ok on the Scorcing Ray issue Please Read P337 of the Pathfinder Core under the Scorching Ray Spell it states "Each Ray requires a ranged attack to hit and deals 4d6 of fire damage" based on this each ray counts as a sperate attack not a single source for the whole spell.

as to the Abjration Issue use the DC of the Spell if it is a visable source if not it would take a detect magic spell to notice the effect at all until it effects you. HERE I can not provide a source info sorry

I have no other answers for you this is what I do know off the top of my head

While it has never been clarified by the original poster, I always assumed he was referring to the special rule that multiple abjuration spells in close proximity become visible. Reading now in the PFRPG, it says it lowers the Perception DC to find such spells by 4. However, I too am at a loss for what the DC normally is to "find such spells".

The closest thing I've found is in the Knowledge(arcane) skill which has a DC for identifying spells already in effect... it would make sense that the DC for this would be lower on abjuration spells that have been in affect in the same area for over 24 hours since the "energy lines" lets you know what school you are dealing with specifically thereby narrowing the possible spells it could be for you considerably...

However they don't spell out that this is exactly what the check is either.

I understand the OP's question that he's referring to the perception check to notice either an active abjuration spell somewhere or an abjuration spell centered on a character that's using stealth.

For the former it's the basic perception DC which is detailed on p.102 with the -4 if another abjuration effect is active within 10 feet. This is on p. 209. So if a character were to try and spot whether the villain has two abjuration effects on him, and he would be in plain sight, the the DC would be -4.

Alternatively if someone were to try and notice a character who is using stealth and has two active abjuration effects on him then the DC to notice him would be the Stealth check -4 per the multiple abjuration rule.

nexusphere wrote:

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

Well then you're DM is quite simply wrong. The spell clearly states that each ray is "a ranged touch attack". You have to make an attack roll for each touch attack yes? Well then each ray is one attack roll, therefore the damage is applied seperately.

EDIT for clarity: If what you and your group are going for is an official rule book answer then you're DM is wrong. Of course he can house rule this any which way he pleases.

I see the above. When that was pointed out, it was mentioned that the spell was a single source of the rays, and since it was the spell dealing damage, all the damage was coming from one source. - the spell was the attack, the fact that some might miss is just a reduction in the total damage applied. There isn't anywhere that defines (clearly) 'attack' versus 'attack action'.

The point is, that what you are saying is understood. Both totally separate and opposite arguments are equally valid and correct.

Doesn't this seem like these issues deserve a passing mention in the errata to anyone else? Why crucify me because I'm the one to ask for it?

Yeah.....goodnight.

I'll echo this, good night.

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

I don't think you're reading the same book as I am.

On page 337 in the Pathfinder book, under Scorching Ray it says: "You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond third (to a maximum of three rays at eleventh level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within thirty feet of each other and fired simultaneously."

Then on pages 562-3 in the same book, under Energy Resistance you get: "A Creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity."

So Scorching Ray provides you with one or more touch attacks, that is you can fire one or more rays as seperate touch attacks, that deal damage seperately. They deal damage seperately because they are seperate touch attacks. Then, per the Energy Resistance heading we learn that creatures who possess it "ignore some damage of a certain type per attack".

Thank you for this response. That was my argument. This was his.

brodiggan Gale wrote:

"per attack" is not necessarily the same as "per attack roll"

I'm aware it's not the majority opinion, but for my money all of the rays from Scorching Ray are a single source of damage, one "attack."

My best supporting evidence would be the spell itself, which notes that all the rays are fired simultaneously. If you're being hit by 8d6 or 12d6 fire damage all in the exact same moment, I have a hard time imagining why it should all be resisted separately, even if you had to make multiple touch attack rolls to deal the full damage.

And my point is that this interpretation is equally valid to yours. It stems from some of the confusion introduced into pathfinder with the attack/attack action/attack roll verbiage. A simple official sentence or two could clear it all up.

Since that's the case, I figured...

Well then you're DM is quite simply wrong. The spell clearly states that each ray is "a ranged touch attack". You have to make an attack roll for each touch attack yes? Well then each ray is one attack roll, therefore the damage is applied seperately.

EDIT for clarity: If what you and your group are going for is an official rule book answer then you're DM is wrong. Of course he can house rule this any which way he pleases.

Yeah, Mdt already referenced those exact things, and then spelled it out. That wasn't enough, so I doubt this will help.

Ohh but there were no page references... now it's official :P

mdt wrote:

No, you are not wanting official answers, the rules are plain as written. You are, with all due respect, unreasonably asking to have everything explained to you as if you had an IQ of 10. No developer in their right mind is going to do so. First of all, it would insult every other person who bought the book besides you.

Your extremely rude and childish response non-withstanding, I'm not saying that's not a valid interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying that I can't make an interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying I need a rules system covering every possible action within the game.

I *am* saying that within the actions that there are rules for, there are several things that are undefined. The issue I have with your 'responses' is that there are *completely different* and *equally valid* interpretations of these systems contained within the rules, under a thing that the rules are explicitly created to describe.

Just to be very clear, my DM says that since they are a single ray, and they are fired simultaneously that they count as a single source of damage and fire resistance is applied once.

This is a completely valid assumption based on the way the rules are written. There is no text that contradicts this statement. There are some things that might imply otherwise, but this is *undefined*.

Because I ask that this cleared up, you call me stupid and insult me in a long paragraph. I'm curious as to how you think that is helpful.

I don't think you're reading the same book as I am.

On page 337 in the Pathfinder book, under Scorching Ray it says: "You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond third (to a maximum of three rays at eleventh level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within thirty feet of each other and fired simultaneously."

Then on pages 562-3 in the same book, under Energy Resistance you get: "A Creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity."

So Scorching Ray provides you with one or more touch attacks, that is you can fire one or more rays as seperate touch attacks, that deal damage seperately. They deal damage seperately because they are seperate touch attacks. Then, per the Energy Resistance heading we learn that creatures who possess it "ignore some damage of a certain type per attack".

I hope this is clearer now.

Not PM, MP

Master of Puppets!

.
.
.

Sarandosil, I conceed the whole, "GM" argument, agree wholeheartedly -- but I guess since I played as "DM" for so many years before ever hearing the term "GM" in the mid 90's, "GM" just sounds wrong. I can't do it. I'm a DM, not a GM, even though dungeon crawls are rare and never the focus of an adventure or a campaign even though they do pop up in adventures and campaigns.

I agree, I'm a DM. GM just doesn't enter into my vocabulary. Besides everytime I hear GM I think General Motors :P

I am a Rogue fanboi, but frankly I think it's just a stretch too far to nerf the ability of any sentient creature to respond to the greater threat in a melee.

Personally I think the rules are a bit gammy, and a PC/NPC, when surrounded, is considered flanked - EVEN IF one of the flankers isn't even hitting on that person.

I think that a PC/NPC should declare the opponent they are fighting in principle, and OTHER opponents around them would THEN qualify as flankers.

A pair of Rogues get either side of you, and now you are apparently distracted enough that they BOTH get to sneak attack? Sounds a bit rough.

The common assumption is that if you flank you intend to help you're friend by provding flanking bonuses. Naturally that would mean some form of distraction that the monster would perceive as a threat.

Now why someone would want to, either stand next to a monster and not attack or threaten (therefore giving no flanking bonuses), and risk getting eaten/stabbed... is frankly beyond me. Same goes for the monster/npc who would willingly ignore an attacker.

Andrew Black wrote:

Okay here goes:

LAURELS OF THE WOODLANDS FAVORED
Aura moderate conjuration and divination; CL 9TH
Slot head; Price 37,000 gp; Weight ½ lbs.

Description
This living crown of woven laurel leaves and silver tinged flowers grants the wearer an intuitive bond with the flora and fauna of the woodlands. Its flowering vines bloom daily as if it was a planted bush.

While traveling through forest terrain the wearer receives a +5 competency bonus to Survival skill checks. Once per day a flower can be removed and tossed up to 20 feet away where it becomes a summoned silverback gorilla (CR 3 dire ape). This forest guardian communicates with and serves the wearer for 1 hour unless slain or dismissed, at which point it vanishes. It follows the commands described in the Handle Animal skill and possesses insightful knowledge of the surrounding terrain including: plants, minerals, bodies of water, people, the populations of woodland and unnatural creatures present, and the general state of the locale within a 6-mile radius.

The benefits of the crown weaken in non-forest terrains providing only a +2 competency bonus to Survival skill checks. Also, the wearer can only summon the silverback once each week and its nature knowledge is limited to a 3-mile radius. Once the wearer renters forest terrain the full benefits return.

Creation
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, commune with nature, summon nature’s ally IV, creator must have 6 ranks of the Knowledge (nature) skill; Cost 18,500 gp

A BIG thanks to Piazo, and all the judges for taking the time to do this every year. It has been an awsome way for me to explore the possibilites of actually working at the game I love. Making it as an Alt this year has proven to my "lack of confidence" that year one wasn't a fluke.

*headtilts*

Ok, I like this. It's well written, tight mechanics...

Hmm.... I don't know. Seems overpriced for +7 to survival. But then again I don't have the books with me so I'm not completely sure. But I really like the flavour!

Heh that NEI confused me for a second there Viletta. In Icelandic that means no.... :P

so my group was trying to justify that a NG cleric shouldn't cast necromancy skills and that it would be against my alignment. i think they are full of Cr*P. whats ur opinion?

Well that depends on your concept and choice of deity I'd say. If you were, say, a worshipper of Iomedae, I'd say you couldn't. Your choice of religion would prevent that.

However, if your concept includes white necromancy, such as the elves in Eberron, then I'd be ok.

Just my two cents (I'd say kronur but they aren't worth much these days ;)

A small preface. Me and my group, we're all Icelandic, and are used to the metric system. Not Imperial units.

This happened during my group's first campaign (ohh about 9 years ago). We were tasked with entering a temple - which was hidden deep inside a mountain - to recover a book for a certain lich. After trekking through the wilderness and braving the perils of the mountain we come to a chasm (which the DM made clear was bottomless), and on the other side we see our destination, the temple.

The DM gives us the lay of the land, as well as how far we'd have to jump to clear the chasm. My rogue took the initiative and leapt across with rope and secured it to a boulder. Then in an orderly fashion the rest of the party started to make their way across using the rope to help them along.

The last to cross was the Paladin. He failed his check, and fell into the bottomless chasm never to return. The DM had described the chasm as 5 feet wide, although in his head he was thinking something more... (and we, not used to Imperial units didn't object) so the brave Paladin fell down the bottomless chasm because he couldn't clear 5 feet.

Aaron Bitman wrote:

Set wrote:

And then some elven princesst who Aragorn had a crush on like eighty years ago, and sent him packing because he was a smelly human and 'it would never work out between us' discovers that her entire race is packing up and leaving to go live in the land of the gods, leaving her alone with no one to cook her meals or make her pretty dresses or comb her hair. If she goes to the land of the gods, she'll just be another elf, and no longer the priviledged daughter of the ruler of Rivendell, with servants and gowns and yet more gowns. Totally unacceptable!

Then she hears that the dirty human boy who used to make googly-eyes at her elven superiorness is about to become the King of the biggest human kingdom on the continent, and decides, 'Hmm. A life of being a peasant in the land of the gods, or of being the Immortal Witch-Queen of the Entire Darn Human World here in Middle-Earth, with all the servants and gowns I can stand... And all I have to do is put up with that silly boy-man for whatever few fleeting decades he has left.

Okay, here's something from my copy of Lord of the Rings, Appendix A Part V. Thirty-nine years before Aragorn and Arwen marry, she tells him "I will cleave to you." Rather than live forever, she chooses to be mortal to marry him. Elrond tells Aragorn "She shall not be the bride of any Man less than the King of both Gondor and Arnor." After they marry, Aragorn and Arwen then live another 120 years, and when Aragorn dies, Arwen follows suit that winter.

In short, I think you're being most unfair to Aragorn and Arwen, Set.

Thanks for finding that! This has been nagging at the back of my mind... One thing though, I don't interpret what Elrond tells Aragorn as a condition of marriage so much as a statement of fact or a prophecy. It may have been interpreted as a marriage condition for the movies to exaggerate the romantic drama, but I never got this sense from the books myself.

I agree. Although, one very important thing to remember, Aragorn and Arwen are for all intents and purposes an incarnation of Beren and Luthien... which Tolkien styled afted himself and his wife.

While we're waiting on Clark, I would welcome feedback on my Portable Lab (page 1).

It was an item I designed for a campaign about nine years ago and it was my wife's favorite magic item (she played a crafting wizard). She has been encouraging me to submit it for the last two years and this year I gave in.

I'll second this, mine is The Light of the Living (page 2). I'll check back in a while and comment on a few of the items that caught my fancy :)

Hi Clark and Sean. Thank's in advance for doing this, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this.

So don't hold back, criticism only helps after all :)
Any criticism from you lovely people on the boards is also welcome.

The Light of the Living
Aura faint divination and abjuration; CL 3rd
Slot --; Price 1400 gp; Weight 1/2 lb.
Description
When lit, this pale yellow taper produces a bright blue flame that reveals the aura of any undead within a 60-foot radius. To see the location of any undead the user must look into the flame as a standard action. This action provokes attacks of opportunity. Each aura is revealed to the user as a shimmering flame of corresponding color; faint auras are seen as black, moderate as red, strong as purple and overwhelming as dark blue. See the detect undead spell for details on undead HD and auras. This effect penetrates barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.
These tapers were created for graveyard keepers for protection against the undead that inhabit cemeteries. To that end, when the user is confronted with an undead creatures he may, as a swift action, blow out the candle producing a roiling carpet of smoke in a 30-foot radius, centered on the user. The smoke wards living creatures from any undead creature’s sight, hearing, smell and senses. Extraordinary and supernatural senses, such as blindsense, blindsight, scent and tremorsense cannot penetrate the smoke. Effectively every living creature within the radius becomes wholly invisible to undead creature’s senses (Will DC 14 negates).
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, detect undead, hide from undead; Cost 700 gp

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.

heres my opinion, if the fighter can smack it with his greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it with her daggers. if one can't find a method to justify, here's one, game balance. many newbies who play rogues only care about one thing, sneak attack. which isn't 100% guaranteed. i say it should apply to all creature types. we should remove critical hit/sneak attack immunity from the game. it'll make certain creatures a lot less bothersome to deal with. such as elementals, whom will probably murder the fighter before the fighter can finish it. assuming only 1 fighter. now if the fighter can crit the elemental and the rogue can sneak attack it, that saves a lot of time. and plenty of healing.

The rogue can smack an elemental with his weapons as well. Same goes for undead and oozes, he just doesn't do as much damage to them. Although a 1st lvl rogue with Power Attack and a high strength score does about the same in damage as a fighter with similar stuff.

You could also applies this argument to spellcasters and fighters. A cleric, for instance, can damage evil outsiders who possess DR/good 10 with channel energy and Alignment Channel feat and bypass the DR. A fighter doesn't bypass the DR so should he get to bypass it just because the cleric can?

you beat me. fighter's already have a way to bypass the DR. it's called a holy weapon. and since that is pretty quintessential, fighters are bypassing that DR already. but fighters don't need to bypass DR if they are built right; the fighter probably invested gold and some feats; the cleric probably invested feats and a limited per day ability. the rogue sneak attacking elementals, probably invested a lot of levels, and a lot of fights they couldn't contribute to. due to a designer having an associatiation of 10d6 = 60 damage (it really only equals 35 damage)

Yes that's true. A fighter can purchase a holy weapon and be done with it, but that's an 18,000 gp price for something a cleric can do with a single feat, and much earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for allowing rogues to sneak attack undead. But there has to be a limit somewhere. In my opinion a little restriction for every class goes a long way to create scenarios that challenge the players.

sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.

heres my opinion, if the fighter can smack it with his greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it with her daggers. if one can't find a method to justify, here's one, game balance. many newbies who play rogues only care about one thing, sneak attack. which isn't 100% guaranteed. i say it should apply to all creature types. we should remove critical hit/sneak attack immunity from the game. it'll make certain creatures a lot less bothersome to deal with. such as elementals, whom will probably murder the fighter before the fighter can finish it. assuming only 1 fighter. now if the fighter can crit the elemental and the rogue can sneak attack it, that saves a lot of time. and plenty of healing.

The rogue can smack an elemental with his weapons as well. Same goes for undead and oozes, he just doesn't do as much damage to them. Although a 1st lvl rogue with Power Attack and a high strength score does about the same in damage as a fighter with similar stuff.

You could also applies this argument to spellcasters and fighters. A cleric, for instance, can damage evil outsiders who possess DR/good 10 with channel energy and Alignment Channel feat and bypass the DR. A fighter doesn't bypass the DR so should he get to bypass it just because the cleric can?

The truth is, it's ridiculous to even imagine a rogue with a Two-handed weapon, I wouldn't allow a sneak attack to come from that, like in second edition, too distastefull.

Of course, if you are in a situation that using full attack is good, NOTHING for ANY class compares to the 2 weapon fighting style. But if u r a one hit guy, that's the way to go.

I've always liked this description of sneak attack with regard to one handed or two handed weapons: one handed means you're finding the specific dots on a monster to deal more damage, two handed means you're connecting the dots ;)

Júlíus Árnason wrote:

Flachion and increase the crit range? Along with a reasonable strength score and power attack it could be really good.

The flaw with this idea is the same as the greatsword. By not choosing to use two weapons, you're dealing HALF as much sneak attack as you otherwise would. The first 3 levels it doesn't matter so much, but beyond level 7 or so, the single-weapon option becomes vastly inferior with regards to damage.

If you can use 3.5 stuff there's Telling Blow from PBII that allows you to get sneak attack on critical hits. So with a falchin and keen/improved critical you're getting there. Of course if you're only talking about pathfinder stuff then I'm out of ideas for the moment. I'm off to work now so I'll try and get an idea tonight.

Falchion and increase the crit range? Along with a reasonable strength score and power attack it could be really good.