Instead of d100 tables, I do d144 tables (that's D100 in base-12 notation). I prefer the number 144 for generating random stuff like treasure, and it's easier to split into matching fractions.
To get a d144: roll a d12. If the result is 12, ignore this die. Otherwise multiply the result by 12. Call that number A. Roll a second d12; this number is B. Add A and B.
It's the same principle as the d100, but decimal notation makes it more complicated than it has to be. I actually have a pair of custom d12s labeled in duodecimal notation, making it a breeze to calculate, and much more elegant than the d100, what with dodecahedrons being platonic solids and all.
That said, I do not share the hate that apparently some purists have for the prismatic d10 (ie. not an icosahedron labeled 0-9 twice). I think the prismatic d10 is an interesting construction, it rolls fairly, and it has its own place within the universe of dice.
I don't post any personal work on websites like this that I care about. You should read the user agreement and make sure they don't own anything you post on this site.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's cool to talk about here. Even if they claimed to own all content, they wouldn't be able to enforce it. They could claim rights to the conversations, and the words we choose to use, but they couldn't (and wouldn't) claim to own names, characters, settings, and other things that we mention in conversation.
From reading these forums I've come to the conclusion that most GMs are Richards.
As a DM, that wouldn't bother me. I'd actually be proud to be called a Dick DM. I'm not at the table to hold the players' hands.
Quote:
*Any race is allowed, as long as it provides the character with absolutely no benefits.
How about we just start with balanced races, or what we 3.5 players used to call LA +0 races.
Quote:
*Classes are right out. I mean, they all allow the characters to do stuff. SO everyone can only be a commoner.
As a DM, my favorite kind of class is the one I've read and understand. I hate being surprised by abilities.
Quote:
*Stats are another sticky problem. All stats have to start at 8. and you only have a point buy of 5. I mean a 15 point buy is so overpowered. Also no stats above a 12 are allowed. Characters are not supposed to be able to shine after all. they would have a chance of being able to do things on a roll below a 20.
If you can't play an effective character with sub-optimal stats, the problem is with you, not the DM.
Quote:
* Equipment: The only equipment the characters are allowed are a broken pointy stick, and rags for clothes. If they actual weapons they might be able to hurt things. Even KILL the precious GMS monsters.
Maybe you're right about the DMs around this site. But if this is true, there's always an easy solution to overpowered PCs: Even more overpowered monsters. DR, SR, immunities, flat-out DM fiat.
Quote:
* Alignment: No evil allowed. But ANYTHING a character does except feed orphans and pet puppies is pure evil, and will be tracked. BUt good acts aren't no matter how big they are. And heaven forbid you attack the monsters attacking you. That's pure 9th level Hell evil!
I think DMs have good reason to be suspicious of alignment. PCs often try to justify horrible acts.
Quote:
From reading threads on these boards. Combining many of the gripes, b$$#~es, and whining. This is (with a lot of Hyperbole), the game many want.
I think you've overdone it on the hyperbole. Your point is lost in the torrent of hyperbole. If you were to strip away the hyperbole, you end up with "Some DMs would prefer PCs to be a little less powerful." To me, that's utterly unobjectionable.
Quote:
If this hits a little to close to home, don't flame me, examine your play style, and MAYBE Pathfinder is not the game for you if this is truly the game you want to play.
If Pathfinder is not the game to play, surely that is more of an indictment of Pathfinder than the DMs who have an opinion of it.
If you ask me, I play Pathfinder as a player because that's what my friends are running, but I prefer D&D 3.5 when I am the DM. So I guess Pathfinder isn't for me.
Heroes gain levels. As they do so, they gain better defenses and offenses, and the magical characters learn new spells. In a title, this translates to something like "Epic", "Tales", "Adventures", "Journeys" (a la Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey"), "Sagas", "Mythical".
There are magical characters. Who "cast" spells that damage targets. Casting spells is almost always a question of a few seconds of chanting. It takes about as long to cast a spell as it does for a fighter to score a blow with a sword, or for an archer to draw and fire an arrow. In a title, this would be "Fantasy", "Magic", "Arcana", "Spellcasting", "Casting", "Wizards", "Sorcery", "Trickery", "Wondrous".
There are four roles: the fighter/tank, the rogue back-stabber and skills guy, the magical ranged wizard, and the healer who also fights pretty good. Titles: "Cooperative", "Team", "Party", "Group", "Comrades", "Motley Crew", "Adventurers", "The Misfits", "The Odd Quartet", "Eccentric Adventurers".
"The Wondrous Adventures of the Adventuring Adventurers"!
They go into dungeons. It's not called Forests & Dragons, or Towns & Dragons. Outdoor and urban encounters are basically grafted onto the core D&D environment, which is dungeons. D&D was specifically designed to model dungeons. Titles: "Underground", "The Underworld", "To Hell (and possibly back)", "Hades", "Depths", "Delving", "Diving", "Tunnels", "Descent into XYZ". I'm thinking of Joseph Campbell again with the Hero's Journey to the Underworld.
I kind of like "Hero's Journey: The Role-Playing Game"
They fight monsters. Why do D&D characters draw first and ask questions later? Why is it okay to slaughter wave after wave of goblins and orcs? That's just how the game is played. Negotiation skills, alignment, and personality are things that got grafted on later. And it shows. Title words "Demons", "Fairies", "Spirits", "Dark XYZ", "Creepers", "Creeps", "Critters", "Creepy Crawlers", "Fiends", "Killer XYZ".
Right now, my system is just a generic set of rules tied to the fantasy genre so it's hard to differentiate from what amounts to another generic set of rules tied to the fantasy genre.
Well, it has been done to some extent, but there's nothing wrong with using "Generic" in the title. You could call it
"Generic Fantasy Ruleset" or "GFR"
or there are plenty of words with "Gen" in the title that could also work, evoking both fantasy and universality:
"Genesis"
"Genre"
"The Genre" (actually sounds like a good name for a magazine about all things sci-fi/fantasy/horror)
How about I just try and get away with this: "oh, those stats aren't exactly what I had in mind. I was hoping for all 18s, and infinite gold, and make me level 20, and while we're at it, let's just say I won the game and go play Call of Duty."
What does that even mean? Was that a 'playing the man not the ball argument?' or was it more of a 'straw man' argument? Listen, all I'm saying is that, at my table, dice rolling stats denies the custom made character. I want players with awesome stats, and their idea in their head to be placed into a fantasy world that I created. All 18s sure are boring, and the players know that. It is all about having fun. So, we sit down, and have fun. And Call of Duty is boring to me and mine, so we play PnP RPGs, where the object is to have fun, not win. Tell you what, you have fun your way, I'll have fun my way, and everyone will, ya know, have fun! :)
And all I was saying (I admit, with unnecessary snark) is that it's not true that dice rolling denies the custom made character.
I have now played one game in which traits were utilized. My experience with traits specifically was positive. Looking at traits actually helped me when I was stuck trying to think of backstory details. I doubt if I will ever use the mechanical benefits; so one could argue that I should have just looked through the Hero Builder's Guidebook (or similar) and picked backstory details there. But the mechanical bonus was enough of an incentive to get me to at least look at the traits. Not to mention the fact that the rest of the group puts pressure on me to optimize, so they're shoving the traits section under my nose. Not that I begrudge their helpfulness, but... okay, I begrudge their helpfulness. Sue me.
The new schoolers, looking at their stats and saying "That wasn't really what I had in mind for my character," couldn't believe that anyone would ever roll for stats. As they (and I) have pointed out: "Who cares if in real life you have to play the cards you are dealt? I don't want to play some random guy; I want to play my own awesome hero!" The old schoolers got nothing but 9-12 on their rolls, and opted to point buy after all.
There's something wrong with the balance of the game if a few bad rolls force certain character choices. In my opinion, especially since 3E, you can play any character class with any stats.
But maybe you were talking about rolling stats in order, and then keeping them. That, I agree, is too restrictive. But when you say "that wasn't really what I had in mind for my character", you're just whining about rolling badly at that point.
How about I just try and get away with this: "oh, those stats aren't exactly what I had in mind. I was hoping for all 18s, and infinite gold, and make me level 20, and while we're at it, let's just say I won the game and go play Call of Duty."
It's kind of a myth that the SI is more precise than the Imperial. They're both numbers. If anything, the Imperial is actually superior for measuring real-world items. It's easy to split a long plank into three or four parts; you might not even need a measuring device. To get successively smaller parts, just split again into 3s or 4s. But if you're faced with splitting something into 10 or 100, at some point you have to estimate what a 5th looks like. And you have to do this several times if you want to get down to millimeters.
It's also silly to say that the metric has more cohesive units. The metric only has one unit for each dimension. They just invented new words for thousands, millions, billion, etc. "Kilometer" = "Thousand meters". I guess it's a better word for a thousand, because it's shorter, but then why do we still use "thousand"? If you really hate (and can't remember) the fact that a mile is 1760 yards, then why not try to use "thousands of yards" as a unit? Or even "kiloyards".
Temperature in Canada
As for certain temperatures in Canada being measured in Fahrenheit, I think part of the reason for this is that our heating and air conditioning systems are manufactured in the USA, and thus they have Fahrenheit on their little dials. When you talk about "turn the temperature up to 69, please" you're literally pushing a dial to that number. But few people turn their air conditioning way down to the negatives, so when we talk and think about the temperature outside in the winter, our reference is the CBC, which uses Celcius.
Duodecimal System
As for me personally, I've been wanting to switch all my campaign worlds over to a duodecimal system of everything. That's base-12. If you're curious about it, there's actually a really good mathematical reason to use base-12 instead of base-10 in the real world. You can Google Duodecimal or Base-12 and find a decent article on Wikipedia. Anyways, I've been hesitant to even bring it up to my players, because I frankly expect a lot of resistance.
5-Foot Squares
And about the 5-foot square, I really started to like it as a measurement around the time when 3.5 came out. I think it was then that they started measuring as many tactical distances as possible in "squares". I like that because it's not feet, and it's not meters. It's a unit of measurement unique to D&D (and other role-playing games). I could care less if pounds were converted to kilograms, but I really hope that the game keeps the 5-foot square, even if it means losing the "5-foot" part and just referring to everything as "squares".
I am always puzzled by the people who state that someone with a lot of high scores dominates their game, while low scores means they sit back and do nothing. I suppose if both of them were playing a sword and board fighter, that could be partially true. But if the high score is a fighter, and the low score is a wizard or thief, they have entirely different roles to fill. I have seen a low score fighter dominate battles, because two of the PCs were a cleric and sorcerer who concentrated on buffs, so the fighter kicked... There is so much more to a PC than his stats, as some have pointed out. You can build so that they are effective, even if they have all 10s with one 12. In Kingmaker, the King actually was a paladin with those stats. He had no trouble turning into an effective paladin, although it did take a few levels.
I think I used the word "dominate" so I should clarify. I don't think it's necessarily true that a PC with all high scores will dominate the game. I was merely using the example as what the perception is when rolling up new characters.
Justified or not, players whine about low scores, and DMs wince when they see high scores. To some extent, I think that's a normal and healthy part of the game. You want people to celebrate when they get something good, and to mourn when something bad happens to their characters. Maybe I shouldn't call it whining then.
But your point is taken about ability scores not actually having as much of an impact. However, if you add good ability scores on top of a smart tactical player, it is something to watch out for.
It's not a trap if you can just roll up another character. What gamer has played D&D and not lost a character? It's a rite of passage.
Low-level adventures probably shouldn't be all that lethal. Sure, there's a chance you could lose a character, but for new players, it should be up to the DM to throw easy encounters at them until they master some better tactics. That's not the system's fault; it's the DM's responsibility.
No character is an island. Someone pointed out that you can't survive without a four-man party protecting you. No shit, Sherlock. D&D is supposed to be about cooperation. The game is done right if it punishes noobies for trying to be lone wolves. They need to learn to rely on their group.
Yes, the group could use one guy who can take a 2d6 hit. It also needs another guy who can shoot magic missiles 100 feet. That leaves two other characters who can make optional/supportive/non-traditional/sub-optimal choices.
You, Prof, and people like you who try to berate others into keeping their opinions of 4e a dirty little secret are the people who keep the edition war in full swing.
No one is being asked to keep their opinion secret. They're being asked to refrain from crapping 4E hate in every thread, no matter how tenuously related.
-500 (not actually directed at you, bugleyman, but just to offset the ppl giving it pluses)
This thread was 4E hate flamebait from the very start. "Do you even consider 4E to be D&D?"
Yes. And if I'm in a "good" mood ("good" meaning a different thing to me and the players), I make them roll for skill points too, and anything else I can think of.
Quote:
Is your answer the deefault of your gaming group?
No. It depends who's running the game. We have a lot of DMs. Many of us don't even roll hit points. I hate that, but I can't do anything about it when I'm not in the DM chair. In my opinion, rolling dice is the best part of D&D. The more you roll, the better.
Quote:
How long have you been gaming?
Since 2001. If my math is correct, that's about a decade.
Quote:
What system did you first game in?
3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons.
Quote:
Thank you.
No problem.
And, since I'm a wordy gamer, my thoughts: I love rolling up characters, but I totally get why some people don't like it. Many of my experiences have been a battle of whining between the DM and the player in question.
Player: "Those stats suck! Can I roll them again?" *pouty face*
or
DM: "Holy crap, those stats are way too good! You're going to dominate the party with your character. Forget it. Roll 'em again, and this time don't roll so good."
That's why you have to be strict with the rules on rolling ability scores. And if there's going to be any re-rolling rules, they have to be laid out beforehand.
Also, if you're rolling ability scores randomly, don't go easy on characters. Be a lethal DM. That way, Darwinism kicks in, and the players will gradually all get characters with killer stats. Just be careful and monitor whether players are enjoying their characters. Sometimes players make throw-away characters that they expect to die off quickly, accidentally roll killer stats, and then realize that they don't like the character, but it's unkillable. Let that be a lesson to DMs everywhere: no character is unkillable.
Ok, obviously it's 50 feet. I know that, so please don't hit me. Not too hard anyway.
I'm trying to describe how my character is carrying her 50 ft of silk rope. And I have real trouble imagining just how much 50 ft is.
Obviously I could go the boring way and say "well it's somewhere in my pack", but I'd prefer not to.
Would it work to sling/wrap the rope over a shoulder, wearing it sort of like a sash, without getting in the way? It's silk rope, so I guess it's thinner than normal rope.
Or would wrapping it around the waist, akin to a belt work? Here I have my doubts though.
Does that even make sense, or is 50 ft actually alot less volume than I think and just folding it up is the best idea for easy storage and quick access?
I like that you're thinking "belt" but I don't think it would be practical to unwrap it when you need it. Instead, I'd say coil it into pretty small coils, then tie a small silk ribbon around the whole deal, and use another silk ribbon to fasten the coil to your belt. That way it hangs down to about mid-thigh, or down to your knees, depending on how tall you are.
Edit: Also this was the first thing that came up on a video search. He says it's 200 feet of rope, so imagine dividing it by 4.
"So on Thursday, are we going to play So-and-so's game?"
"No, What's-his-face is running his campaign."
"Okay, well I hope You-know-who gets his DMing mojo back soon. I really miss the You-know-who Campaign."
We mainly do this because each of our DMs has his own preferences and houserules, and if you were to add them all up, they probably account for even more of a difference than between 3.5 and Pathfinder.
We've had a few rare creative DMs who named their own campaign, so it's not even "we're going to play D&D this weekend" but rather "We're going to play Five Kingdoms."
I have .rtf files of summon nature's ally and augmented summon nature's ally, from 3.5. I don't know what has changed in Pathfinder, so maybe they won't work for you. I also can't promise that the files are typo-free. PM me if you don't get any more updated offers.
Also, talking up the personality of a pet monkey with low intelligence seems rather suspect.
Now I am suspect AND wasting their time. I must be out to get the players with my conspiracy of a comical monkey. Oh how they will scream in agony...
I've been there before. I once decided to throw in a talking raven NPC "just for fun" and to see where it goes. Well, as soon as the players heard me describe this: "WIZARD'S FAMILIAR!!!1"
I had no plan to use the raven as anything more than its own creature, but this did help me to realize that even random elements will be interpreted as meaning something by the players. The players are absolutely scouring the game for hidden patterns. It made me think that maybe I should have some of these interesting bits planned out, rather than just randomly throwing them in and having them mean nothing.
I realize that sometimes a red herring is good, but I don't want my campaign to be red herring soup. I'm not even particularly fond of herring. Wait, can a herring be an animal companion?
It just so happens that the monkey right now, would not want to hurt anyone. (for whatever reason). Could he learn to, I guess so. Does he automatically change due to becoming an animal companion to put his loyalty to his master above his own wants? Even after he get smart enough to know the difference? That is what I am asking opinions on.
As I said, I think I am going to go with him being headstrong and saying no way to the bow, but it is still nice to hear what other people think.
Does he automatically change? I think yes. Maybe not right away. But the mechanics of having an animal companion is that it does what its master wants, for the most part. The point of the class feature is that the ranger is exerting his influence over the monkey. The same way a teacher or a parent would exert influence over a developing child. Or a sergeant would exert influence over a new recruit.
well, if he had chosen just any old animal companion this wouldn't be an issue. I though that it was very clear from my posts that it is not a typical monkey. I'm sorry if you did not get that. The ranger was well aware of the personality of the monkey before choosing it as a companion. It has been with them a while. Also he is planning on increasing his intelligence, as I said, which will make it even less like a regular animal.
I'm just saying it may be more typical than you think. Animals, in general, are cowards. With the exception of highly territorial animals, and predators in very specific situations, most animals would have a similar outlook to your monkey. Fighting and killing human-style does not come naturally to animals. But, rangers can train them to do it.
Also, PCs can have changes in outlook. And so can NPCs. Why can't this particular monkey have a change? Becoming someone's animal companion is a perfectly justified reason for having a change in outlook, as far as I'm concerned.
The monkey had an established personality. it was against its nature to use violence.
I think you gave this monkey a different personality than normal animals. There is a rule that says that animals don't have alignment.
Quote:
It instead was motivated by making people laugh.
I'm not sure how realistic a motive this is. I've interacted with very few monkeys, but I suspect that the real motivation was the food.
But never mind the fact that I might think you're running animals wrong, because that's neither here nor there. The problem is where your players have an expectation that's different from what you're doing. If you tell them "it's just an animal", then they have every right for it to act like a normal animal, and that it can also be trained by a ranger who knows a thing or two about the behaviour and motivations of normal animals. If you're doing things differently, I suggest acknowledging that fact so the players can be on the same page as you.
Quote:
Now before I read the thread linked above, I was under the impression that once the animal's int was raised, it would not be trainable by handle animal. (could it be taught, yes, but not rained like an animal). Apparently according to the blog post that is incorrect. Handle animal can be used regardless of the animal's intelligence. I don't like that, and am ignoring it. Therefore we have the following situation.
Not a problem at all. In fact, there are rules for dealing with creatures with Int 3 and higher. It's called Diplomacy.
Quote:
The monkey is not a violent creature and doesn't like the idea of hurting people. That is a given, as it was already established. End of story there.
A typical monkey shouldn't be capable of this kind of reasoning. However, you are partly on the right track in that no animal, not even humans, are willing to fight for no reason. Human soldiers have to go through an incredible amount of training in order to be willing to kill, and even then, a percentage of them will refuse to shoot an enemy in the heat of the moment.
But that's what taking on an animal companion entails. It means that the ranger is investing the time to teach the animal to be able to endure some of these battlefield situations.
A very common mistake among rangers is thinking that they HATE their favoured enemy. But that doesn't have to be true. A ranger who hunts animals, for example, might have a lot of respect for animals of all kinds, but he just knows them really extremely well, and so when he inevitably has to take the life of an animal, he does it with skill and respect.
So your ranger player can choose to train his animal companion to know how to fight humans, when he must, but that doesn't mean that the monkey hates all humans.
If by free, you mean free as in free action, then yes.
PRD wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
I've always been very much for letting dice be a driving random element- but I think the 'report to the authorities' line may be a bit over-generalized.
Sure, a merchant might well report you to town guards if you threaten to burn down his shop if he doesn't give you a discount. But I think the phrase makes more sense that the target has a 50% chance of responding to or reporting to someone/something. This could well be the local authorities, or a merchant guild, or heck even pray to a god.
I can get behind that interpretation.
Quote:
Looking at the guy's example of the jerk parties that go into a crowded restaurant and intimidate for a table- yeah it'd be silly to call the cops on them, but I'd easily give it a 50% chance that the waitress informed the chefs and they did something to the food.
Yikes! I guess it depends on what country you're in, and how fancy the establishment. I would not expect that kind of thing in most restaurants in Canada, even some of the cheap ones.
I am, however, sticking by my basic opinion that intimidate is equivalent to assault, so the waiter would be within his rights to call security, or the owner, or just attempt to kick them out himself, after his minute of being scared is over.
Quote:
Oh and I lol'd at the diplomacy guard example with "I'm here to kill the king" line. If you can pass the check with all those penalties, clearly that guard has some grudge against the king and would like to see him dead.
I think the Epic Level Handbook had some interesting uses for impossible Diplomacy checks. Turning a creature from hostile to fanatic is a DC 150.
Quote:
This game uses dice, and getting your imagination to keep pace with the unexpected is a bigger part than any power-gamy nonsense. Put bluntly, this game is about rolling with it.
I didn't see any debate of that nature come up until you made this post. Is there supposed to be a link in there? Somebody mentioned Ravingdork's thread, which I intend to look over ...
I only meant that some have been asserting that intimidate requires the threat of physical force, while others have said you can intimidate with "just a look".
Also remember that blackmail goes both ways. There are times when the NPC you are talking to has done something wrong, even small (or imaginary) and you're threatening to do right(~) by the law and reveal it to the authorities. Not everything is "It would be a shame if this shop burned down in the night." No reason to go full-villain.
There is a bit of a debate in this thread about whether that kind of blackmail qualifies as Intimidate or Diplomacy. In my opinion, Intimidate has to be immediate, and it has to have a physical element.
That said, a good DM could apply circumstance bonuses to an Intimidate check for good use of blackmail, in addition to the requisite physical threats. And he probably will waive the d100 roll to check if the NPC tattles.
So basically, intimidate is utterly useless and avoid it like the plague unless you enjoy tempting the fates to kick your ass.
Maybe in some scenarios. But from what you've shared, there's a 50% chance that the offended party even goes to the authorities. Do the authorities act? If your DM is reasonable, probably not. Worst case scenario though, your DM gets the bright idea to flip a coin to decide whether they charge you with a crime.
Next, what do they do? Do they give you a fine? Put you in jail for a night? In jail for life? Do they execute you? Let's see, that's 4 possibilities, so I guess your DM is going to roll a d4.
But now the question is, can they catch you? Oh hell, we'll make that a die roll too. Give you a 75% chance of escaping, and a 25% chance of being caught.
In the end, with an extremely unreasonable DM, you have a 1.5% chance of being executed every time you attempt an intimidation roll. I can see why you're upset.
You have a point there. Intimidate needs to be treated a little bit differently than Diplomacy. It's still up to your DM, but Intimidate should be able to get faster and better results. For example, you can ask your intimidated subject to hand over all their valuables. You don't even have to offer anything in return.
But you're threatening with something. Not a physical threat, granted, but a mental one.
What else defines the intimidate check but a threat of somekind?
The rules are scarce on this point, but in my opinion, Intimidate does involve physical threats. You can't intimidate someone with "You are going to be sorry, mister." It has to be "I am going to make your very sore, sir." (I should also mention: body language should be taken into account too, but like the words, it has to be physically threatening.)
Quote:
How else does one 'force' the NPC to do what you want (using only the social skills)? Diplomacy is more...diplomatic XP
Its negotiating, its flattery, its generally a 'positive' way to get what you want. Its hardly a diplomatic approach to a negotiation if you threaten the other party to conform or reap the consequences.
While it's true that all the examples given in the core rules are positive, I think it's also completely reasonable to use negative consequences as a negotiating strategy. It's your choice whether to play those up or down, and part of the skill is in determining which approach will be effective with a particular NPC: honey or vinegar. But it's still Diplomacy.
However, all of them have a chance that the character doing the intimidation will be reported to authorities of some kind. How does one determine what that chance is?
A reasonable question for a DM to ask. For a player, the answer is "the DM decides." If he wants to flip a coin, that's his choice to make. There are a lot of times when NPC actions can't be covered by rules, and it's better that they aren't. There are too many mitigating factors.
Think about it this way: if you Intimidated a fellow player character, what would you expect their reaction to be? If you expect them to just take your intimidation lying down, you're delusional.
If I were your DM, I'd be nice and give you a chance to Bluff the NPC into being scared, while not being sure about your intentions, hence not going to the authorities.
"Next time your village is getting attacked by [insert horde of creatures here] I'll just refuse to help you."
or
"I'll report you to [insert made up authority here] for [insert offence here]"
All would be intimidate checks, in that you're threatening the individual with wares, with harm (through no fault of your own), and by taking justified action against the individual.
There used to be a skill called Innuendo that would accomplish the "intimidate with a look" action. I think it got rolled into Bluff.
I'd say a non-verbal Intimidate, threatening them with a look, would also require a Bluff check simultaneously. If you succeed on the Bluff check, then they will be too unsure of themselves to report you to the authorities.
That's just how I would do it.
I'd also treat Intimidate the same way our modern law treats "assault" (as opposed to battery). Battery involves unwanted physical contact. Assault requires no contact; it can be a threatening gesture, or an attempted battery, anything that makes your target think you probably intend them harm.
6) Ignore the folks who tell you that all fights should be over in one or two rounds.
hopefully no one on this forum has been saying that. There's a big difference between saying "all fights should be over quickly" and "most fights should be over quickly". If you have quick fights, you can still have long epic fights. That's the beauty of quick fights.
Quote:
They are playing a very distinct and popular style, but it's hardly the only way to play.
I think the long, "epic" combat is the style that is too popular. I don't actually know what the most popular style of gaming is, but in my view, the best style is a varied style. Which means yes, do the epic combats. But also run quick fights. And because they're quick, you can run more of them.
I am worried for a campaign run by a GM who thinks that a fight that ends in 1-2 rounds is a failure. Not every fight should end this way, but it's fine even if most do. Because you can always conjure more encounters when one ends too quickly.
Quote:
Plenty of tables out there are still having long, epic and very cinematic fights. If you're enjoying yourself, make no apologies for the way you play.
More power to you if you can make a long, epic fight also cinematic, but in my experience these are the least cinematic. They're pretty awesome in that first round, when you can impress your players with descriptions of all the combatants. But after that, they tend to become tedious.
How big is Giant-sized? I am not familiar with that size category. Is it an in-between category like Powerful Build? Perhaps between Huge and Gargantuan?
And on another note: tactically minded NPCs (and PCs to an extent, but that would be up to them) should be able to intuit which way a battle is going to go. 30 seconds (5 rounds) of adrenaline-filled fighting is plenty of time to assess the situation, and also enough to ensure that combatants are already feeling tired, even though there aren't any mechanical effects yet. If it looks like the PCs are outclassing the NPCs in damage, even if they know it's going to take a while before they go down, the NPCs should order a retreat/surrender.
YMMV, of course, with creatures that have less concern for their own lives and the lives of their comrades. But even with undead, there are tactical considerations to consider. If the necromancer is running out of minions, it's true he can always make new ones, but his current precious cushion is getting smaller, and he probably doesn't even want to give the PCs a chance to touch him at all. At the very least, the necromancer himself will bugger off, leaving the PCs to whittle away at the undead minions' hp.
It sounds like other people have extremely long battles as well. All the battles I run are challenging. I think its a waste of time to run easy encounters. No fear of death = No Fun..imo.
I partly disagree. But I will also point out that there are other ways to scare characters. For example, use ambushes by otherwise weak monsters. Scare the party in the first round with some huge sneak attack damage, or something similar; but end the encounter quickly. Also, use instant death effects; I know you probably hate them, but they're not so bad in a fight that lasts 1-2 rounds. And it totally makes sense for bad guys to try to learn big game-ending spells.
Meteor impact sites are not necessarily obvious to people on the ground. In the age of Fantasy Medieval times, they probably wouldn't even realize that a deposit had extraterrestrial origins. They'd just think they were extremely lucky. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Basin
Do you have to make a Bull Rush against them spending a Standard Action? Can you just stop and not make the move and still make a Full-attack action?
Official rule is this:
Pathfinder Reference Document wrote:
Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it's not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.
Which you can technically exploit to get an extra square of movement.
I'd make up an additional ruling: your ally can drop prone as an immediate action, allowing you to occupy the space. If the ally chooses not to drop, then refer to the rules on characters occupying the same square.
I consider Mithral a rw analogue of titanium and Adamantine a real world analogue of tungsten. Neither are common, both very hard to use.
But, heck, you could use Mithral as ALUMINUM. Until they figured out the method of using electricity in water to seperate it from bauxite ore, aluminum was incredibly rare and precious because it was so damn hard to get out of its useless oxide form.
==Aelryinth
I was going to say this about tungsten. There wouldn't be adamantine mines per se, but there would be tungsten mines, plus an adamantine manufacturing plant on the surface.
It's hard to say what a fantasy tungsten carbide production would look like, since IRL it requires some pretty sophisticated equipment, most importantly high-pressure ovens, which definitely brings us into the steam age. If you're okay with a little steampunk in your campaign world, then go for it. Otherwise, it's probably done with just a specific magic spell. Create adamantine or somesuch.
If I was playing the paladin, I'd leave the room because I couldn't be sure that I wouldn't succumb to the insanity and kill both the cleric and the summoner. I'm more good to them outside the smoke than inside it.
It would be metagaming to reason that he can succeed his save on a roll of a 4.
One more thing to add, and maybe it won't work for you, since you're already at level 11, but I'll say it anyways. Part of the reason that levels exist at all is to let the players and the DM get used to all the things they can do. This is also why a slow track of XP progression exists. Consider taking advantage of the slower rate of XP and level gain.
I don't complain about fungi being classified as plants, after all.
lol, I do. At least, I complain to my group and anyone who will listen, and I houserule fungus monsters.
Spoiler:
Creature type affects a few things: creatures of the same type have similar psychology, fighting style, habits, strengths, and weaknesses. This is why rangers can choose them as favored enemies.
Creatures of the same type have similar metaphysical and evolutionary origins. This is why magic spells will often affect different creature types differently. And in combination with the first point, it's how bane weapons are created.
Creatures of the same type have similar progression when it comes to advancement, and how they get larger and more powerful, and in what directions they progress. This is why things like HD, BAB, saves, and skill points are dependent on creature type.
On all three counts, fungus works. For rangers, fungus has distinct differences from plants. Because they're monsters, there's no guarantee that immobility is a factor, and that's basically the only thing they share with plants. As far as I'm concerned, fungus monsters might as well be animals. As far as HD and progression goes, making fungus a new type opens the door to variations that might be useful to see in planty-fungusy monsters.
I'd like to wonder why most peaople have to think that every race has to have a - stat.
but then I'd need a bottle of asprin or somethinng
My question is why more races don't have multiple minuses. IMO, you should build races out of furniture and plants and stuff, you know, evolutionarily. If a race has 10 Dexterity, there needs to be a justification for why they're as quick and agile as humans.
the reason that most level adjustments were deliberately made so absurdly high is so that nobody would be tempted to play these races that they wanted to make NPC exclusive.
Not true.
If I were the swearing type, I'd swear that I read a confession in an official D&D book. But I'm too lazy to read through all my D&D books.
I wouldn't take such a confession too seriously. There are a number of factors which do go into level adjustment, and it may have crossed some designers' minds to punish players because they dislike vampires, but what carries a lot more weight is simply the fact that vampire abilities are really good, and arguably worth +8 LA.
@Jawsh: Level Adjustment never was an exact science because monsters have almost never been designed to be used as player characters. Pathfinder's guidelines for monsters as characters are far different from the LA + racial hit dice + class levels = Effective character level formula, which did not make sense because monsters were not designed with this system in mind.
Can I just say: design shmesign. A lot of people have weighed in here about how aasimars were not designed to work as a PC race. That's fine, but during the course of 3rd edition, they clearly evolved into a player option. WotC even gave them a Player's Handbook style write-up in the Planar Handbook, with no mechanical changes.
Monsters were not designed to be used as player characters, but Level Adjustment was designed. Level Adjustment was invented to solve the difference between what was designed and what some players wanted to do (and some DMs wanted to allow their players to do).
Pathfinder's system is designed to solve exactly the same issue. If the problem is with the actual mechanical design of the race, then no system can perfectly solve it. If Level Adjustment didn't make sense, then neither does Pathfinder Adjustment.
I'm DM'ing a 11 level party. What can I and my players do to spead up combat? I really want encounters to go smoothly but we spend too much time getting bogged down in the mechanics of everything. Aside from obvious things like Roll to hit and Damage dice at once, what else is out there?
1. No backsies. Once you say "I attack", you attack, and you must follow through, unless you are prevented from doing so. Once you declare a movement, or move your miniature, that's where he goes, and you can't take it back. Unless the movement was in some way illegal. However, even with illegal moves and actions, sometimes you might just want to allow it anyways, if it's already done, and chalk it up to the intervention of the Goddess of Luck.
2. Limit advice/consultation to six-second bites, and only one other player can give advice.
3. Practice, and learn the rules.
4. Make a social contract that some rulings will be made without reference to the official rules, if such reference would take too much time. Serious disputes and issues, if they come up, can be put off until after the game session. If you end up screwing a player, you can probably fix it by granting them a small boon later.
5. Run easier and quicker in-game fights. Not every encounter should be seriously threatening to the PCs, and encounters don't have to last 10 rounds or more. Some epic battles can last that long, but the average can be around 3-4 rounds. Have you ever played road hockey? That's the closest I've ever been to fighting, and even just playing road hockey, a minute seems like forever.
