Well a feudal system is in no way inherently evil, so I think that it would require some really convoluted thinking to try and square rebellion with Law under those circumstances.
A good advice for a character playing a cavalier is to have the device “I will not go anywhere my mount cannot go”. There is hardly ever necessary to head into underground stronghold on a regular basis, and the sooner one get around that gaming troupe the better.
Pendragon, there is something like five versions of it; the latest one is just 5-6 years old. It is a really good game, and by far my favourite among the BRP-type of games.If you want primarily an Arthurian game, I would recommend it to you over PF.
There is often an advantage in a games that focus on doing one thing really well (playing knight in Pendragon) as long as one stay within the focus.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
That is just as likely as a tree falling over killing all the horses or a wandering tribe of giants going past and stealing the horses. From the perspective of a player it amounts to the same thing; what sort of justification the GM choose is rather irrelevant.
As the GM makes the world, it can always make up justifications for precisely anything, so that is not really the issue.
Zed Corvin wrote:
Pretty much purely a”now I will mess with the players because that is fun for me” –move.
A warhorse is a temperamental beast, and bounded mounts even more so; it would not simply follow along with a stranger that pops up. Not would any horse just happily stand around and let its throat be slit, so if someone wants to kill it, that one needs to fight it. Looking at it from a gaming perspective an animal companies is though enough that it is highly unlikely to be killed without at least the opportunity to run away first.
Horses are not cars, they can be very particular about who they allow themselves to be handle by.
From a more general perspective I would advice against any such line of action, especially when it seems you make routine out of it.
If you start to steal and/or destroy the players possession as soon as they let it out if their sight (despite the fact that they have made sure it is guarded) you will end up with players that never even go to the toilet without all their possession with them, and when you get that sort of feeling around the table it is not fun for anyone.
Cavalier with the Emissary archetype sounds pretty much spot on.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
The clan system is to be rewritten to be less clunky and feel more like a clan bades system, and rural areas are not to be ignored. Thanks to magitech some circumstances are different, but I am trying to be logical.
About the clan system I am still asking the question. What effect do you seek when introducing it?
In Albhonna's case, the navy is mostly quick moving sloops and brigs, designed to be fast enough to chase a pirate or privateer down or respond to a trouble area quickly. It doesn't possess many men-o-war aside from a few lighter frigates, as large warships don't fit their mission. It numbers in the line of, about 50 sloops, brigs, and frigates and around 20 armed merchant ships (these are designed as bait ships, hiding their military nature and waiting for pirates to snap at what looks like a nice prize, then overwhelming them with a large marine complement).
I think you are underestimating the level of combat power a normal merchant vessel could have. Several East Indiamans in this period were armed to the level of frigates, and some were refitted as ships of the line. Assigning ships as bait as routine sounds highly cost-inefficient.
If you have a clan system, you could perhaps use that in relationship to the fleet. Basically with a fairly small, but high-quality “royal” navy supported by armed merchantman “clan” fleets in times of duress. A bit like the 17th century Dutch navy perhaps?
Finally, this is a very high magic world, so not all the circumstances are as IRL.
Some first thoughts.
A general advice: Do not ignore the countryside. When you described geography I got a Scandinavian feel, with the sort of forestry, mining and fishing that was common in what are now Norway, Sweden and Finland. In the 19th century prior to the industrial revolution from 1860 more then 90% of all people lived outside towns and cities. So put plenty of work into describing a vibrant a living rural area; far too often areas outside of walled towns just end up as areas for monsters in many fantasy countries. As you seem to imagine an economy were most exports are in metal, timber or fish it makes sense that the export would be shipped to the closest port, rather then concentrated to a few big ones. It would also encourage farmers (bondi, peasant, and yeomanry, whatever they are called) to perhaps do their own trading (as was common historically).
About the navy; unless there is a major war there is a fairly small need for major warships to be around. Unless the pirates are actually privateers they should be really be capable to make do with fairly small ships, as speed and manoeuvrability counts more then the raw power (if it is a major event, one send more then one ship). As a comparison, the navy of Henry VIII of England in 1540 had 16 ships over 200 ton and a similar number below 200 ton, galleys and galleasses. England at that point had more then twice the population, but perhaps less focus on naval matter then Albhonna, so I think something like 10-15 smaller warships, and 5-10 major ones seems reasonable for Albhonna. The major ones would most likely spend their time in mothball, and they are very expensive to man fully (a to build and equip a renaissance war galley as about equal to 6-8 months pay for the crew to man her).
Piracy is however really not a naval problem, but a land one that spills over to the sea.
The first one is for making animal companions that normally (as in bestiary) is large, but only is medium after the animal companion advancement, such as the Bear. So it is only applied to mounts that have already had an advancement.For animal companions such as the dino that become large after advancement you use the template for the specific animal.
There are two reason (well three, see below) for not going beast rider: One is that the mount do not get armour proficiency meaning you need to spend more feats if the mount should fight in barding, the other is that the lack of heavy armour for yourself matter if away from the saddle.
You are getting the 7th-level advancement early? If not the fairly low strength of the mounts is going to be a major problem due to encumbrance.If you are getting the 7th-level advancement three levels early, I can only congratulate.
Personally, I would not bother with TWF, it require that you pump allot of points into DEX without getting much in return, better to raise your Str or con more (or perhaps Chr and Int, depending on what out of combat functions you want to have). While it can be nice in combination with a challenge, you have so few challenges per day that it is not really worth it.
Something I would recommend is to invest in a few ranged combat feats; deadly aim at least, as there are plenty of times were a charge is not an option. At those times it can be really nice to be able to skirmish, staying out of melee range and pelting the enemy with javelins (for when you want to hold on to the lance) and arrows.
As far as the mounts skills go im not sure
something like Power attack, agile maneuvers, improved overrun, charge through, ??
A drawback with the Emissary is that you also lose the banner ability.
Order of the sword is the one I would recommend; the ability that allows you to add your mounts strength to your charge damage can often be huge. The point of being small is that there are very few times you will not have your mount within reach, after all a big dog is rarely out of place in an inn or a castle. If small that ability can be expected to add at least 20+pts of damage on a charge at level 8.
For race, I would recommend Halfling, but not the outrider trait. Instead take the trait that allows for reloading slings as a free action. A mounted combatant want some ranged attack options for the cases when charging is not an option and the Halfling sling is superior to the longbow for a non-dedicated archer (as it allows for full strength bonus and can function as a melee weapon).
One thing missing so far is another important question; What is the alternative to enslavement?
Or if a band of violent outlaws are hunted down in the outback, and surrender to the PCs; should they be strung up? Or should they be given as slaves to the local community to work for their repentance (or sold off as a way to pay for the damage they have done)? And what if they are orcs that surrender?
Basically in any case were it might be motivated to kill someone, it is probably less evil to enslave them.
Unless you define ”profit” very widely, there are more reasons for using slaves then only pure economic profit. The most famous is the Janissaries, Mameluks and Ghilman in the west (or Middle East if you want), south and central Asian armies were those slave-soldiers often formed the core of the army due to their loyalty. However in a legal sense they were just as much slaves as sugar plantation slave in the Caribbean.
But again we are back to the fact that “slavery” has varied allot throughout history, there are occasions of people selling themselves into slavery for a fixed period of time, or people becoming a slave as punishment for a crime (were they were enslaved to their victims family) and there are plenty of cases of slaves having rights (in fact I would say that it was the norm in post-antiquity). At least in Islamic law (or rather: the law practiced by the largely Arab and Turkish states) it was stipulated that if an owner could not feed his slaves he had to sell them or set them free, as an example.
As for corporeal punishment, of course they were subject to it; why should they be the exception to everyone else in a pre-modern society?
That said; it is far from uncommon from people to be sentenced to prison/hard labour/slavery largely for economic reason, one have the Gulag archipelago, modern USA prison industry or Chinese labour camps. In all those cases there are people who get economic gains from incarceration.
In prison the name is often changed to a number, and at least in the US it can happen that inmates are “traded” between institutions. As for buying and selling yourself as a private citizen, it was pretty common (at least in Italy) that slaves were property of the State and not for sale on the open market. If you want to marry while incarcerated you will need institutional consent in practice (or else the practical details can be made impossible), and at least in Islamic slavery the owner had no right to nullify an existing marriage, nor should slaver be inheritable there.
The problem with the definition you mention is that to a large degree excludes an awful lot of the historic cases of slavery. Slaves have often have had rights and privileges and usually far greater legal protection then a cow.
There is no “gulf” between slavery and imprisonment. Modern imprisonment is simply a subset of slavery, as slavery can cover everything from Ottoman janissaries (who often held the highest positions in the realm) and other elite slave soldiers to Caribbean plantationslaves (both white and black). Most slaves throughout history probably had a great deal more freedom then most inmates in closed prisons have today.The similarities between imprisonment and enslavement if usually larger then the differences, at least in countries were the prisons are running for-profit industry.
First, slavery is not recent; it has always existed and quite likely will always exist. Slavery was even common in most of Europe for most of the middle ages; but it was not restricted to any particular ethnic groups (tough slave from the Balkans were the most common around the Mediterranean.).
Secondly: Much depends on what one defines as slavery; if by it you mean someone that is unfree, no right to vote or other political representation, stripped of most rights, forced to work, and subject to punishment if failing to do so while receiving no real wage as well as not being allowed to meet members of their family unless the master gives permission. By that definition there is about 2.3 million slaves in the USA today.
So I think the question is really easy; is putting people in prison always an evil act? If so, so is slavery.
However, the rules on mounted combat in the rules section clearly states that if your mount move more then five feet you can only make a single melee attack, so full attacking is out.
Thematically they were always a classic staple weapon used by at least 1 party member back in the day,
Back in the day everyone was a dirty, optimizing powergamer. As the longsword was the by far best weapon, it was the weapon everyone used (unless they went for inferior themed weapon) when optimizing.
Thing about the ”longsword” is that it back in ADD was much superior to all other weapons, so it was seriously over-used, PF simply move it closer to were it IMO should be; a good auxiliary weapon.
It is still used widely, but rarely as the main weapon for dedicated fighters; First two-handers are more useful as primary weapons use to better damage. Secondly from level 4-6 somewhere the pluses (and hence the crit chance) become more important.
So, a wizard relying on being able to cast spells is also a one-trick pony.
What reason would he have had to deny a wizard his component pouch on a ship? Doing so just because the cavalier had to leave her horse behind is showing favoritism to the cavalier, by punishing the wizard without reason.
In both cases you are removing class features for thematic reasons. A component pouch could easily be lost/destroyed in a shipwreck, and unlike a horse it cannot swim ashore on it own.
As I said it is all about expectations, if one know that one can expect to “stripped of possessions”-start it works fine, if it just dropped in often seriously backfires.
You should be very careful with things like that, or the first game with the group will be the last.It is all about expectations, if I play a cavalier I expect to have my mount around, if I know that it will not be an option for the adventure, I would perhaps play something else.
Even worse is if the new GM seems to show favouritism for some classes, such as taking away the fighters armour but allowing the wizard and sorcerer to have their spell component pouch intact.
If one is going to strip players of class resources then strip away everything for everyone or noone.
However, the Boar got ferocity, allot more hitpoints, and is a superior ”compromise” in that it is faster and offensively much stronger then the ankyl, du to its much higher strength much more likely to hit then the glyptodon or the elephant while having as good or better AC (and HP).Basically the Board I better due to not being a one-trick-pony (and we all know that the pony is weak! ;))
Keep in mind the mounts suggested are also gained through Leadership.
After thinking a bit, this bit (leadership) is something I think should be toned down.In effect, you are really talking about fun things that can be done with leadership, and most of what you have written as just as relevant for a sorcerer or a fighter as for a cavalier.
Given the pretty hefty debates about that feat, as well as its non-existence in PFS and that what one can do with it is very much up to the individual GM, I do think it should be allot less focus on it, and more thoughts about the “regular” options (atm it feels a bit like all that is said is “they suck”).
I would not say pretty useless but I would say not good either. And in fact I did talk about that. Plus I have not talked about much that is level specific. If it feels like I'm talking about high levels a lot that's because the class doesn't really start until later levels. Most full Bab classes come into their own by 6th. Cavaliers feel like they don't hit the sweet spot until 8th.
I get the feeling that it mainly a focus on leadership-based high-level flying mounts, with almost not a word about mounts and their design before the 7th level.
Some of the terrain problem flight will take away, but flight will not allow you to ignore all of them, and it puts it own restrictions on movement (especially if one has a GM that note the wingspan on large flying creatures). As you noted, the horseshoes of zephyr gets rid of allot of the problems on the ground, and the odd scroll of airwalk can probably take care of the rest. Flying is useful, not game-changing.
Will split this in several posts, easier to read and quote that way.
But as the beast rider in effect notes, unless they are large, they cannot be selected, so in effect, only at the 7th level can the medium cavalier take them as mounts (I think we all agree that the beast rider archetype need an errata).
While the small one can select from all those beast, due to them getting no stat increase at 4th they are in pretty much all ways inferior to the Boar that gets a 4th level boost.
Except the point where you're using a consumable to make up for a weakness. Said consumable being easy to dispel, expensive, and impossible to use unless you invest heavily into UMD, are high level Order of The Tome, or have someone else cast it.
I would not put it like that, as the same thing could be said for all characters. Flying is useful sometimes, but I simply do not see it as big drawback.As for casting, it is a spell with long duration, so should mainly be cast out of combat (by someone else).
Well, well, were to start?
Lack of permanently flying mounts is no big drawback, by the time that it matter having some scrolls of airwalking should be standard. Also, it is rare for there to be any need to be able to fly other then for fairly specific occasions, so in practice the limited (but still long) duration of spells is not limitation. Several of you suggestions for flying mounts are also totally useless in any kind of non-open areas. So why the very strong focus on flying?
As for riding other players characters; I do not really see that as a good option, as that basically means they have no control over what their PC does (if they had control they would not be mounts).
On top of all that, some mounted abilities only work when riding you own mount, such as lack of armour check penalties or the order of the sword mount str on charges.
In a way I feel that you are putting a very strong focus on what is good at vey high levels (15+) while not saying anything about how things work below level 10 (for example tactician, which is pretty useless for the first 5-10 levles).
Which also makes it almost impossible for the slinger to see were his shot goes…
As for more power, like I said, they can have more then, it depends on the bow, different bow for different ways to fight.In general however, sling historically seems to mainly have been skirmishing weapons, not long-range “artillery” weapons.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Not necessarily, it is all about expectations.If players expect every other adventure to start with them waking up hung over in a jail cell after partying away their last possessions it is not really a problem.
So if a GM at a beginning of a campaign informs the players that “nude in jail” is going to occur every now and then in the campaign the players will accept it.
But that only works if there is an expectation that it is not really that hard to replace (more or less) what is lost. So there really need to be a common level in a campaign, either equipment should the hard to get and not lost, or easy to get, but also easy to loose.
My feeling is “easy to get, easy to loose”.After all loosing all equipment is about the same thing as receiving a level drain, allot depend on how hard it is to replace things.
If one has toiled long and hard to get something, of course one is going to be annoyed if the GM takes it away.
On the other hand in a campaign were loosing a fight is likely to end up stripped of equipment and ransomed for about WBL, it is perfectly fine.
In the later case player will complain, until they (6th level characters) find out that taking the BBG alive allow them to ransom him for 80 000 GP…
At that point one gets players that will never kill anything they can conceivably capture instead.
There could also be a bunch of evil people around. Make like 5 evil NPCs that have nothing to do with anything.
Such an old lady that seems so nice and kind, but who quite intentionally mixes in huge amounts of garlic and old eggs in the chocolate cookies she gives the adventures, and then have fun seeing them trying to not throw up.
Put them up against a pair of halfling bandits on dog or pony (of Goblins on some mount), it can be very frustrating for the players to fight enemies that never comes closer then 60ft.
What abysmal AC? Even without magic a animal companion can have an AC in the mid-30s by level 9-10, and AC 40 is in the realm of possibility at that level. Allot of the time the mount companion is the thing in the party with the best AC.
You forgot order of the Sword, it adds mount Str to damage, so at least 10 more in base (most likely 12-15 before charge bouns) so more like 160-180 in charge damage.
But the argument is really about what is the GMs characters NOT doing while they unload everything they got against the mount?
I did write longer reply in the other thread about this, so we should take the debate there.
There is targeting and targeting.In the other thread there was as I read it an undercurrent implying that a GM should make mounts a priority, no matter what (such as in the example of ten spells attacking a single horse). When enemy spell casters (and archer s for that matter, but less significant) routinely start going after mounts when the mount and rider are not in a position to be an immediate threat (read: in a position to charge next round) instead of potentially immediate threats or simply more dangerous opponents, then the GM is just out to grief.
This is really no different then a GM going to of his way to coup-de-grace cohorts (and PCs) in the middle of the fight just to get rid of them.
Basically a GM who creates the feeling in the players that the enemies she control is more interested in draining the PCs resources (for the next fight) then try to win the fight they are in, is a bad GM.
When discussing targeting priorities, I am ignoring melee, as there one simply fights the ones that are fighting you. Also, it is pretty common that the mount have the best AC in the entire party so often the PCs are quite happy to see attack directed towards the mount.
master arminas wrote:
Being under fire has a tendency to impose stasis on a unit, basically freezing it in place. This is why short-range fire fights were something officers feared. During the thirty years war there are plenty of examples of units stranding at very close range and more or less shooting each other to smithereens. Under those conditions soldiers in the lines are unlikely to be aware of anything more then a meter or two away (due to smoke and noise), so have no real idea if they take heavy losses or not. Basically a way to get allot of people killed without achieving much, it is not losses in themselves that makes a unit break.
As for the effect of artillery fire on closely paced orcs: it can be assumed to be about the same as on closely packed humans; that it cutting them don in neat rows (round shot) or big heaps (canister).
What sort of guns is to be used, 3-pdrs, 12-pdrs 24 pdrs (or something else)?
There is a fairly big difference between being outside in extreme weather for a few days and spending months in it while suffering from starvation and malnutrition as Scott did…
I dislike the term “freeze to death” as that implies that it has to be very cold. In fact it is perfectly possible to die from hypothermia even in +15C if you are wet or lacking clothing.
All extreme weather can be dangerous if one do not know how to act, and here in Scandinavia long periods of heat kills allot more people then long periods of cold weather.
Personally, when I did my conscription up north (pretty much on the artic circle) it happened that one took a walk from the gym to the barracks (about 1km, so about five minutes) in temperatures as low as -30 in just short and t-shirt, without any harm whatsoever. Cold is not a quick killer unless you do something damn right suicidal.
Right, were to begin?No, slings were not a superior weapons to ”bows”, their accuracy was worse, they were not practical to use in formation and they do not have the same power a bow can have (as much depends on the bow).
Also, there is no need to swing them around to build momentum, take a look at the heaps of videos one can find on youtube.
As for bows vs. crossbows, that is a debate that can fill an thread (if not forum) of its own, sufficient to say that if one wants comparisons then a bow (of whish there are loads of types for different fighting styles) can be compared to Pistols and SMGs, while crossbows would be mausers and .50 rifles.
Like in most games, crossbows are not fairly represented in Pathfinder IMO.
I for one think this is a strength in Pathfinder, no single class has a monopoly on any function.Just like there are several classes to choose from if you want a melee fighter (Cavalier, Fighter Barbarian and Paladin) there are several classes that can fulfil most of a roughs classical functions.
This is a good thing, not a weakness.
Sometime we have done is flipping the exotic/martial requirements when mounted.
As to weapon speeds, arguments of the “it goes faster to swing a knife then a halberd” is a bit silly as the difference in how fast the hands can move is marginal, and the point in any case is to move the tip of the weapon. The longer the weapons the smaller moments are needed to move the parts that does damage, so they become faster.
Another way to do it is to not try and cover all bases but instead reinforce the things the team is already decent at. The group is strong in melee, make it stronger still! Go for say a cavalier; they have to social skills to be party face, and it would make the group awesome up close. Another advantage is that when mounted it is much easier to run away in case a fight turns sour.
Evidence? Physical evidence should be irrelevant, stop thinking like all fantasy worlds are modern society in other clothes.Prior to the 20th century physical evidence was a distant second to character and witness evaluation. This is one reason why foreigners and vagabonds (which I think adventures often are) are at a disadvantage, no family or colleagues that can stand up and speak on their behalf and try and convince the court that the act is not in the defendant’s nature.
A Paladin that would take a solemn oath to their god to tell the truth, and then lie under oath would be stripped of their powers; the Paladin knows this, and more importantly the court knows this as well. So a paladin is very powerful in the kind of situations were they speak in a court, as its is only possible to argue that the paladin is wrong and misinformed, never that they speak an untruth knowingly.
Koron of Burning Sigil wrote:
Do what any sensible adventurer do; divert a suitable river or stream to the dungeon opening to either drown its denizens or force them into the open.Or just collapse the opening, if it is something inside that wants out one can fight it then, and if it stays underground, what is the problem?
A very nice lecture about a whole lot of things that has been discussed in this thread.
Museum curators and conservators explore a fascinating topic—Misconceptions. Talks highlight the permanent collection and address misunderstandings commonly held by the public and, occasionally, even by specialists in the field."
The reason for such techniques is that generally speaking the steel in the armour and the blade is if roughly equal quality, so to pierce the ~2mm thick plate you would suffer equal deformation if the sword edge. And even if the blow would pierce the bland would be blunt and quite unlikely to pierce the padding beneath the steel, so any serious injury is highly unlikely.In effect, using the edge of a sword against someone in plate armour would most likely leave you with a damaged or broken sword without ding any harm to you opponent.
A very important advice for all campaigns is to set and plan problems for the players, but do not set the solutions or pre-plan an outcome as that will only lead to bad railroading.
The main difference between an evil or good campaign is in motivations for the PCs.
Humphey Boggard wrote:
That is a lot of frog croaking’s; It is a simple but fundamental difference in what a party is, or rather what some call “off-time”, but I would call “out of the field” (in the field most parties are red Khmers killing off anything that they find evil).In a group were the moment one returns to base is vacation time stuff like charging members from the old party money for services makes sense, lasts call this view “I want a bigger slice of cake”.
But in most groups that I have ever played in there is not really a difference between being home and being out; everyone is still invested in the common venture until the party finally splits, call in “lets make a bigger cake”.
If someone charge extra from something (to continue the analogies) is like the mechanic in a small construction company wanting a slice of the other staff wages for fixing and possibly upgrading the machine park between contracts.
If one takes it upon oneself to be the crafter, healer, tank or face of a party the party members have a right to expect you to fulfil that role to the best of you abilities, if you do not want that role, do not take on yourself and lest someone else do it. Taking up a role and then charging the other party members for it is just bad manners.
But the difference really seem to be: