Leper27's page

Organized Play Member. 33 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I think he's speaking to the double standard of sexual morality during the Victorian Era. It's prevalent throughout the literature of the time.
Assuming a woman is a whore or a stripper based on how she's dressed would fit keenly in that mindset.

In the Victorian era, you were immodest if you showed your ankles. If you've been paying any attention, that obviously isn't anywhere near what I'm suggesting.

This paint-me-as-an-extremist tactic is just a cheap ploy which I'm coming to expect of you guys.

You can disagree with me without being a dick, you know.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

What a remarkably Victorian mindset.

What a remarkably ignorant comment. Do you even know what Victorian means?

I'm not sure why I have to point this out, but there's a whole world of difference between Seoni's style and Victorian styles.

The Outlaw Josie Whales wrote:

Yes exactly. I am saying that there are so many messages coming from multiple sources that all basically say "in order to have value as a woman you must be sexy, dress sexy and seduce men" basically just about every reality show etc. So it's something I try to protect against. Its the same reason I strongly support her playing sports or doing academic activities etc. Because I want her sense of value to come from her character and accomplishements

Glad I'm not the only person who sees this. Good post and kudos to your judgment as a parent.

Leper27 wrote:
That said, I would say a woman "never" has to be scantily-clad in an RPG rulebook (I can see it in a bestiary...the image of the Dryad in the first bestiary, for example, I think is well-done and scantily-clad). In the rulebook context, it's almost always gratuitous.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You're dodging the question. I didn't ask if she had to be scantily clad. I asked, when is it "a good reason" [your words, not mine] for an RPG book to include a scantily-clad (armorless) spellcaster whose magic partly derives from how attractive he or she is? Never?

Okay. Allow me to rephrase: I would say there is never a good reason to include a scantily-clad woman in an RPG rulebook. (But if you can imagine a good reason to include a scantily-clad woman, I'd listen)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

And I'm not sure why it's hard to not classify a woman's profession by her appearance. Do you assume that all tan, blonde, curvy, voluptuous women are strippers?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Or do you just assume that when they dress revealingly?

Getting warmer.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
At the beach are you mentally cataloguing women as stripper, stripper, housewife, stripper, librarian, stripper?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
There are many women in America who look like Seoni, and they're not hookers, strippers, or porn stars.

If they look and dress like Seoni (i.e. fake boobs, tan and bleach blonde, and wearing scant clothing with no underwear), they look like strippers. Any woman who looks and dresses like that can't be far from one of those professions.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
All of Paizo's female iconics are attractive in different ways, so clearly it's not hard to draw them so they don't look like strippers (only 1/9 female iconics are "drawn like strippers," according to your definition). So I think you're overgeneralizing when you complain "I'm not sure why it's so hard" to draw them as non-strippers.

There's Alahazra too...not quite as egregious, but she falls into the category as well IMO.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Would you still say Seoni looks like a stripper if she were dressed like this? Does...

No, I wouldn't. Do you think she's less charismatic that way?

TwoWolves wrote:

Re: Sajan
Anyone who thinks you have to take steroids to look like that has never seen Bruce Lee (you know, the REAL "iconic monk") with his shirt off.
Leper27 wrote:

Um, Bruce Lee almost certainly took steroids and died when he was only 32 (supposedly due to bad reaction to medication)...In Lee's defense, it was legal back then.
graywulfe wrote:

Do you have some proof of this. That body was the result of a near religious workout regimen and your implications against a dead man are in poor taste (in my opinion).

Lol, I didn't even bring up Bruce Lee! So which is it - you want proof or do you want to respect the memory of a dead man?

Marc Radle wrote:

Leper27, I guess my question is ... does it REALLY bother you that much or is this more of a thought exercise on your part?

It bothers me a little.

I would agree that Paizo's art is among the best in the industry, but I would also conjecture that this problem is systemic to the whole fantasy-art industry. Of course, I admit I'm no connoisseur - you surely have more expertise than I. I'm just a guy callin' it as I see it, and the way I see it, I think Paizo's art would be much more respectable if the people weren't so fake looking.

As a side note, if I were going to point to the BEST fantasy art that I've seen, I would go looking through some Magic the Gathering cards. I can't speak about today's MtG, but MtG had amazing art back in the day.

Leper27 wrote:
First off, that's a photo, not art.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
So would painting a piece of art to look like that woman be demeaning and degrading? Or is it just when she's in an RPG book?

"Demeaning" and "degrading" were my wife's adjectives, not mine. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with usage of the adjectives, so I'm going to stick with my adjectives.

If you gratuitously plunked such an image (i.e. some bikini-clad woman) into a RPG rulebook, I would say it's tasteless and condescending. Wouldn't you agree?

Leper27 wrote:
Second, as I said before, context is an important consideration. In the context of bodybuilding, the photo is fine. Now, if you plunked that photo into one of your core rulebooks without any good reason for it, I don't think I would call it demeaning & degrading, but I would say it's cheesy and condescending.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Okay, so when is it "a good reason" for an RPG book to include a scantily-clad (armorless) spellcaster whose magic partly derives from how attractive he or she is? Never?

Without derailing, I object to the idea that a charismatic woman has to be a sex object. (And frankly, I don't even think Seoni is very attractive)

That said, I would say a woman "never" has to be scantily-clad in an RPG rulebook (I can see it in a bestiary...the image of the Dryad in the first bestiary, for example, I think is well-done and scantily-clad). In the rulebook context, it's almost always gratuitous.

Even ignoring context, I'm not sure why it's so hard to draw a beautiful woman who doesn't look like a stripper.

TwoWolves wrote:

Re: Sajan
Anyone who thinks you have to take steroids to look like that has never seen Bruce Lee (you know, the REAL "iconic monk") with his shirt off.

Um, Bruce Lee almost certainly took steroids and died when he was only 32 (supposedly due to bad reaction to medication)...In Lee's defense, it was legal back then.

TwoWolves wrote:

Re: Seoni

Anyone who thinks you need plastic surgery to look like Seoni needs to go to the beach sometime. Or hell, any university in the spring.

Cause there are no boob jobs at the beach or in universities?

TwoWolves wrote:

Re: Fantasy Art

The game is in part an attempt to recreate pulp-era fiction like Conan and Ffafhrd & Grey Mouser et. al. You can't turn over a rock without finding a lady that looks like cheesecake in these stories. If we were discussing a superhero game, would people still be complaining about spandex and capes (and cheesecake)? It's part of the genre, and if you are SO offended, pick a different genre to play.

If this is in reference to my posts, I'm not offended. I'm saying the art is in poor taste.

Kthulhu wrote:

You do realize that:
1) It's possible for a woman to have a very good body and actually like to show that off without being a stripper, and
2) It's possible for a man to be very muscular without doing steroids.

Of course I realize that, but that's not the imagery Paizo is projecting IMO.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

How about this woman? Is this photo demeaning and degrading?

First off, that's a photo, not art.

Second, as I said before, context is an important consideration. In the context of bodybuilding, the photo is fine. Now, if you plunked that photo into one of your core rulebooks without any good reason for it, I don't think I would call it demeaning & degrading, but I would say it's cheesy and condescending.

Leper27 wrote:
I might buy that if I thought strippers represented the pinnacle of human charisma.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sure, but you don't get to decide what is the pinnacle of human charisma for everyone.

When did I suggest otherwise? I don't recall ever using the word "us" or "we," much less "everyone."

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Some people like the stripper type. Some like the waifs. Some like chubby girls. Some like bodybuilders. But you have singled out one body type and said "I don't think this is appropriate for an RPG book, it's silly and condescending," as if your concept of what is attractive or not is what sets the standard for everyone.

That may be so, but that doesn't change the fact that stripper-like images are unrealistic (unless plastic surgery is a lot more common in Golarion than I thought) and probably alienating to many people.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
What if all the women in Paizo art were muscular armored types? We would have people complain that "women are more than just their physicality, why can't we get any smart women in illustrations?" And complain, "all the beefy chicks are ridiculous and condescending, when can we get some skinny girls?" And complain, "you'd have to work out three hours a day and use steroids to get a build like that, normal muscular women don't look like that, why can't your art show realistic strong females, like powerlifters, who actually have body fat?"

I'm not saying all men or women should look a certain way, and I won't deny that people will complain regardless. I'm just saying I think these plastic images are in poor taste and hurt the game's image, and I would even suggest that you are alienating people who don't want their RPG's to promote this sort of imagery.

I wish I could take a picture of Seoni and survey people's reaction to it, but all I can do is throw my two cents out there.

Feel free to ignore me if you want, but I just showed Seoni to my wife (without any prior discussion) and she had no kind words for that image (two of the adjectives were "demeaning" and "degrading") But hey, maybe you're right, and we're just another couple of people with isolated opinions.

So... you don't like the (two) voluptuous female iconic characters (and the "roided out" male characters). We get that. But most people disagree with you. Most people really like Paizo's (award-winning) art style. And most people don't think it's exploitive or condescending.

I see - I didn't realize since have your finger on the pulse of so many "people."

That's great that Paizo's won so many awards, and I also think Paizo has done a lot of good/great things, but that doesn't make Paizo a perfect entity.

James Sutter wrote:
Leper27 wrote:
I disagree with the implication that she's flat-chested (you see her curves through her robes!)

I wasn't saying she was flat-chested--I was saying that she might punch you in the face if you asked her to show some skin. Actually, though, she'd probably just give you an extremely stern look and then ignore you. She's got bigger fish to fry...

Fair enough. Sorry for reading too much between the lines...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Seoni has a 20+ Charisma at level 10. That means she is in the top .5% of humanity on the attractiveness scale...

I might buy that if I thought strippers represented the pinnacle of human charisma.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Hennet, the 3rd edition iconic sorcerer is bare-chested, well-muscled, and practically a leather-fetishist. Is he condescending, too? Or is it just the depiction of attractive women that's condescending?

I think I said before I'm not a fan of the roided-out males either. I would, however, opine that there is a little different standard between men and women. That is, I take the sexualization of women a little more seriously than the sexualization of men, and I suspect that's a pretty universal sentiment whether people want to admit it or not. Regardless, your art example is silly looking to me as well, albeit not as silly Seoni...

Let's just say that if I saw Hennet on the street, I probably would not be able to contain my sniggering. I.e. he's not an illustration that inspires me to play sorcerer in the slightest.

James Sutter wrote:

Just popping in to say:

2) Yes, there is cheesecake in Pathfinder. Seoni is cheesecake. So are Seltyiel and Sajan. If showing half-naked beautiful people is wrong, I don't want to be right. But I *do* think it's important that we offer a range of options, which is why we also have NON-cheesecake iconics, such as Kyra (who would punch you in the face if you offered her Mardis Gras beads) and Imrijka (who's a bruiser covered mostly in gear, for whom her sex appeal is the last weapon she'd think to use). And while we're at it, we've also attempted to steer away from the old-school fantasy standard of "all heroes are straight white folks," so that players can choose from iconic art for light- and dark-skinned characters, butch and fem characters of both genders, non-human characters, etc. And really, they're all pretty good-looking, depending on what type you're attracted to.

You're right about Kyra - she deserves mention as a character that was well-done. I disagree with the implication that she's flat-chested (you see her curves through her robes!), but regardless, I agree she's not "cheesecake." (in fact, she's just about the polar opposite since she's nearly wearing a burka). Nor is she over-equipped with silly qualities or quantities of weapons.

And I don't have nearly as much of a problem with half-naked beautiful people as I do with fake half-naked beautiful people.

Example of well-done half-naked beautiful:


That's 1E Dieties and Demigods. That image is well-done and in-context half-naked beautiful.

OTOH, Seoni is just condescending IMO.

Lvl 12 Procrastinator wrote:

I like Paizo's art better than the other stuff that's out there right now, but I miss some of the mystery and wonder of 1st edition art. Some of that may be pure nostalgia, but not all of it. As examples I point to the cover of the original PHB, with the thieves working on the gems of the idol, and page 108 of the same book, with the dwarves and halfling checking out a magic mouth on the wall, while a pair of eyes peer at them from the shadows down the corridor. Trampier's full-page pieces are all pretty good. They give a sense of something about to happen, whereas the art these days seems to be focused on the heroic pose or action in progress. Not that 1st edition didn't do this sometimes too, often with unintentionally comic effect stemming from the poorer overall talent.

In the bestiaries I would also like to see more of the monsters getting the better of some NPCs. Like the giant gar in the original MM, about to scarf down in one gulp a man desperately trying to swim away. That kind of thing made the monsters scary to me when I was a kid. I think there was one illustration with ants overrunning some poor chap in plate mail, but maybe that was in the D&D Holmes blue book. That kind of thing. Don't show me a portrait of an ant; I know what an ant looks like. Show me the horrible things ants can do to delvers.

Paizo got it right on the giant centipede page. More stuff like that, please.

Excellent post. I absolutely agree. Now, 1E had problems in terms of talent, but I find myself longing for their style.

Love the reference to the giant gar - I had kindof forgotten that image until you mentioned it. IMO, that piece of art outclasses most of Paizo's current art, despite being technically inferior. And we're talking about a giant gar here, an otherwise forgettable "monster."

I also remember an image of a green dragon breathing chlorine gas on a bunch of orcs trying to escape the blast (1e DMG I believe). Once again, the technical proficiency was lacking, but the image sticks with me.

drumlord wrote:
The art in Paizo products is usually fantastic. If I were a wealthy man, I'd be commissioning their top artists to do work for my campaign.

Maybe so. I'm not enough of a connoisseur to say there are better, available artists out there. I'm just calling it as I see it.

And I understand I'm just offering one opinion. It probably goes without saying, but I have no problem with people disagreeing.

Leper27 wrote:
It has the stink of Japanimation and steers away from realism.
drumlord wrote:
I hope James won't take this as a simple "personal argument" but I'll take the risk. In a discussion of art, this is not a great point to make for a number of reasons. Ignoring Japan's contributions to the world of art in many forms which is generally accepted by mainstream and scholars to be a Good Thing, you can't lock down anime or manga into a single style. I won't go over this point since it's been beaten to death elsewhere, but the fact remains that putting anime/manga into a single bucket is a narrow-minded view of an entire country's contributions to the world. I also wouldn't start the points you are trying to make with a statement like this since it can be taken as racism.

*shrug* If someone thinks that is racist or that I'm ignoring all Japanese contributions to the world of art simple because I don't like "Japanimation," then we're not going to get along anyways.

I could have been softer/considerate-of-special-sensitivities in my approach, sure, but I doubt it would have left an impression if I were.

Leper27 wrote:
steroid-style physiques
drumlord wrote:
Again, this would apply if we were talking about 80's anime, but the anime of today tends not to favor characters that look super muscly.

Agreed. The "steroid-style" remark had more to do with my criticism that the art appeared "unrealistic."

Leper27 wrote:
How bout a little realism in your artwork, Paizo?
drumlord wrote:
This seems to be the meat of your point. While I think many will respond with "it's fantasy, not real," I do think you have a right to this opinion. After all, not everybody wants the same things. I think the majority of Paizo's customers, myself included, prefer a fantastic look to their fantasy art. I think the irony to this opinion though is that if you look at fantasy art in history (disclaimer: I am not an art historian),...

That's fair. I just want to let Paizo know that there are people out there who are disappointed with their art. And I know it's a subjective topic, but I honestly think most of their art reflects poor taste (NOT poor talent, mind you).

Kryzbyn wrote:
Leper27 wrote:
That's tough for you to grasp I guess?
But if you don't realize how much that one sentence makes you look like a hipocrite feigning outrage, that's ok too.

I'm not "feigning outrage." I'm saying the art is in poor taste. Again, can't see the difference?

If you have to exaggerate my point to make yours, then you should realize you've got a problem...

Kryzbyn wrote:

Let's look at your post where you seem to have an issue with the foul objectifying drawn art of imaginary females in a friggin book, when you participate or condone other more blantant affronts concerning the objectification of real-life existing women.

It's either ironic that the same person thinks one is bad and the other is ok, or it's hipocrasy.
Now do you get it?

Again, you reveal your inability to recognize the difference in the context.

To put it briefly, I think "objectifying" the opposite sex is acceptable when you're getting off, but not in an RPG social setting. Get it? It's really not that complicated, or uncommon. And no, it's not hypocritical or ironic; it's an understanding that what's acceptable depends on the context.

I think that is just plain common sense.

Another example, I think it's okay to masturbate in your bedroom, but not in a McDonald's - again, that perspective is not hypocritical or ironic; it's just a recognition that acceptable imagery/behavior depends on the context.

Kryzbyn wrote:
Frankly, whatever habits you and the Mrs. have or engage in doesn't matter to me at all,

Okay...I would hope not.

Kryzbyn wrote:

nor do I dislike you as a person, I'm simply commenting on how this looks.

And I'm just pointing out that your "comments" are based on, for lack of better terms, a shortsighted and overly simplistic perspective. Frankly, I probably would have ignored your inane comment if I didn't see one of Paizo's developers giving you props.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Oh I can desitinguish between them.
It's either irony or hipocrasy that the guy who's worried about how his wife feels looking at drawn images of "perfect" breasted women in a fantasy gaming book also frequents strip clubs and watches porno, which apparently doesn't bother her?

A) I'm not just talking about my wife. I'm talking about women generally.

B) The fact that I've been to a strip club doesn't mean I "frequent" them.

C) No, it doesn't bother my wife. I assume it's cause she understands the difference between bachelor parties (e.g. strip clubs), material that is used for getting off (e.g. porn), and material that is used to have fun with your friends (e.g. RPGs).

That's tough for you to grasp I guess?

Kryzbyn wrote:
EDIT: To me, this is like the politician who runs on the platform of family values getting caught doing lines of blow off of an underage hooker's stomach.

Oh yes, watching porn is just like doing lines of blow off an underage hooker's stomach.

Ya know, just cause you watch porn doesn't mean you have no sense of decency.

It's a crazy concept, I know.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Hipocrasy or irony. Take your pick.

I fail to see either. If you can't distinguish between porn and an RPG, I feel sorry for you.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Leper27 wrote:
The only place I've seen breasts like that are in strip clubs and pornos.

But the art in an RPG is unacceptable.

Ha! Touché, and one point to you, sir. :)

*shrug* I don't get it. Is the suggestion that porn and strip clubs are unacceptable in themselves, and we can't distinguish between the purpose of porn/strip clubs and the purpose of an RPG?

If that's the suggestion, and Paizo's developers think that's a good point, then that might be part of the problem...

Gorbacz wrote:

New week, new "ZOMG, there's sexist art in RPGs" thread.

I'm pretty new to these boards, so I apologize if I've unwittingly touched on a reoccurring/worn-out theme.

But, if it does come up weekly from independent sources, then maybe there's a little validity to the point, no?

P.S. Just in case you have that impression, you're mistaken if you think I'm some sort of political-correctness-nut.

Gorbacz wrote:
Also, re: Bad Business. Wayne Reynolds sells well enough for everyone to try to get him to do cover art.

I'm not talking about Wayne Reynolds's business; I'm talking about Paizo's business. i.e. If the porn industry is any indication, I have no doubt "augmented" art sells well.

The problem, IMO, is that Paizo is alienating it's female players or up to one half of its market (granted, it would be a hell of a stretch to argue that women make up one half of the RPG market, but I would surmise that it's a market that has great potential for growth). In addition, Paizo would help out its appeal to male gamers if they didn't have to hide the artwork from their female companions.

For the record, I think Paizo really puts out some excellent products, but only based on their content, not so much on their artwork (and there are SOME good examples of well-done artwork, but they're the minority).

Bruunwald wrote:

This is coming from an old school lover of the old, original D&D art. I still love all that stuff, and I sometimes feel the modern take is too direct and lacking subtlety.

Bingo. "Lacking subtlety" is really my number one complaint.

Bruunwald wrote:
As to supposed "breast augmentation," I feel bad for you guys. Maybe because I was sort of a local rock star in my area, I have a wider range of experiences than many other gamers. But I can guarantee they can look like that and be quite real.

I'm married. No need to feel sorry for me - My wife is in great shape and has very nice breasts, but they have never looked like that and never will without invasive surgery.

Now, you could be Sammy Hagar for all I know, but in my experience, breasts do not look like that naturally. The only place I've seen breasts like that are in strip clubs and pornos.

IMO, "art" like that disengages women from Pathfinder. I have two adult women (one is my wife) who play in my game and I find myself trying to suppress these images because I think they completely misrepresent what the game is about. In short, it's embarrassing and somewhat sexist art.

Beyond that, it's bad business.

Jadeite wrote:

If you are interested in realism, fantasy games might not be the best place to look.
Third Edition was much worse when it came to perspective and proportions.

I know it's tough to conceive for some people but fantasy can be done in a believable, realistic way. In fact, it's far more effective that way IMO.

But I will agree that Paizo is an improvement over 3rd edition - not that that's much of an accomplishment.

Fnipernackle wrote:
Just wanted to say thanks to the Paizo staff for all of the excellent artwork that you put into your book. My best friend bought all of the past adventure paths and all of the artwork looks amazing. Keep up the good work.

I hate to say it, but I think the worst part of Paizo products is their art. It has the stink of Japanimation and steers away from realism.

Ignoring the style, the weapons incorporated in their artwork are so bulky and over-the-top that they are simply ridiculous caricatures of what real medieval weaponry would look like.

In addition, the races look absurd. Elves have ears the size of bunny rabbits, gnomes and halflings look like children rather than different races, and characters are fraught with steroid-style physiques. Perhaps the most insulting about the artwork is the fact that so many female drawings wear extremely revealing outfits together with Dolly Parton-sized fake boobs - I swear the artists need to stop looking at porn for models of their female characters. I would wager that fact almost single-handedly drives 90% of women from taking an in-depth look at the game.

It's not that the artists aren't skilled. They are. It's just that they have very, very poor taste.

How bout a little realism in your artwork, Paizo?

Example: About half of the drawings on the right side of this page demonstrate what I'm talking about:


Amiri, the Barbarian - WTF is that sword! The Rock couldn't even lift that effing thing.

Alahazra, the Oracle/Seoni, the Sorcerer - Here's your classic porn star NPCs. This makes me wonder when Paizo is going to release the Player's Guide to Flouting Your Breast Augmentation...

Lini, the Druid - Are you serious? I would laugh if that thing tried to attack me.

Lem, the Bard - Look, how did a five-year old make it as a bard? Oh wait, that's supposed to be a halfling, I think...

Sajan, the Monk - It's not steroids - he just got a vitamin B-12 shot.

Your good drawings? See Ezren, the Wizard and Harsk, the Ranger - they're still a little TOO decked out for my taste, but they at least look like they could be real.

Name of PC:Vern
Class/Level:Cleric 1 (worshiper of Sarenae)
Adventure:Burnt Offerings
Catalyst: Koruvus (sp?)

Vern (Constitution of 8) had discovered he was having a lucky night with his scimitar, scoring two critical hits earlier. Got one look at said 4-armed goblin holding 3 weapons, charged, and slashed him with a scimitar. Koruvus, unappreciative of Vern's scimitar work, focused all three of his weapons on Vern, hitting with all three. Rolling up 20+ points of damage, Vern died instantly, with a hatchet embedded in his skull. The rest of the party quickly made good on their revenge, but there was no hope for Vern...

In retrospect, appreciating the amount of damage Koruvus was capable of, I probably shouldn't have focused all 3 weapons on the cleric, but I was trying to act from Koruvus's perspective...Then again, maybe Vern shouldn't have been so rash as to charge a mutant goblin with such low constitution...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After finishing Thistletop and before The Skinsaw Murders begins, I think I'm going to use a short adventure called "The Beast of Barren Hill" from Dungeon Crawl Classics: The Adventure Begins.

It involves druid/bear combo that is terrorizing the countryside, including the local goblin population...Should be a pretty natural fit to the campaign

My group just completed the Catacombs of Wrath. They captured Tsuto alive and, after one session of intimidation-filled interrogation, I had him hang himself in the town jail.

This was kindof an average entry for me, but your Hound Master was a clear winner/standout from last round whereas there is no clear winner this round IMO. Based on your Hound Master, you got one of my six votes this time...

Got my vote. I like the idea of a Jack the Ripper-type who is actually a conjuration of a comatose trauma victim.

So you missed on some of the technical aspects - to me, creativity >>> technical execution. I'd like to see what you do in the future, so you got one of the six votes I cast.

Bah - you guys are wusses. Sometimes people have bad luck, it's part of the game.

I give my players the option of the average (alternating whether to round up or not), or a roll. It's their choice.

If you can't have fun because you rolled a one, that's a personal problem.

Reading this thread, I have an idea for how I think I'll handle our next generation of characters (Keeping in mind that my campaign has 5 PCs).

Roll nine sets of 4d6. Use GM discretion to remove the best set (to eliminate the natural superstar).

Then have the players draft (order should be determined before any dice are rolled). First draft must take the set as rolled. Second draft can swap two scores. Third draft can swap two scores and add 1 point to any score. Fourth, gets a swap and 2 points to distribute. Fifth, a swap plus 3 points to distribute.

Sounds like this would keep some of the fun of variability but still removes most of the possibility of game-harming outliers. Plus I think the drafting would be a fun process in itself.

Neil Spicer wrote:
Leper27 wrote:
Shroud of Undeath:

*...There's a lot of bad stuff in this one. Aside from the algebra involved in computing everything...and the references to "subject" vs. "sacrificer" all the time...the notion that failing either save causes the subject or sacrificer to immediately rise as an undead creature "with an equivalent encounter level" is just dumb. And that's not even citing that there are no ELs in Pathfinder. It's all just CR now.

*...Plus, once you shave off all this extraneous crap and get right down to it...it's just a resurrection SIAC. And not a very good one. Besides, a scroll of resurrection will run you just 2,275 gp rather 7,000 gp...and it carries no risk of any of this animate dead junk. Vote to Reject.

*...Plot device. Reject.

I can't help but point out that a scroll of resurrection would cost about 12K gp due to the 10K material component for the spell. Hope that didn't skew the evaluation too much...I intended the item to provide a risky way for low level characters to restore their dead party members, which is something that I think would be helpful to my campaigns (particularly since I hate stepping in as a GM to engage in party protection).

Regardless, I understand you had other grounds for disliking the item than the price, so thanks for the taking the time to respond.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to give feedback...

Shroud of Undeath:

Aura strong necromancy; CL 13th

Slot ---; Price 7,000 gp; Weight 1 lb

This sturdy white shroud may not be soiled by anything other than blood and glows softly when within 10 feet of undead or a corpse. But its primary magical property remains dormant until used in the proper ritual.

This ritual entails wrapping a naked dead creature ("the subject") in the shroud while a living creature ("the sacrificer") offers a blood sacrifice by bleeding itself onto the wrapped corpse. The sacrificer controls the amount of blood sacrificed, taking X points of constitution damage where X is a number chosen by the sacrificer. The sacrificer may not take any other action during the ritual,and no one else may intervene or else the shroud is destroyed without having any effect.

Upon completion of the ritual (about half an hour), the subject makes a Fortitude check (DC = 10 + dead creature's HD - X) based on his condition (including uncured ailments) prior to death. Success means he is immediately affected as if by a resurrection spell. The sacrificer makes a simultaneous Fortitude check (DC = 5 + sacrificer's HD + X). Success means he survives the ritual. Otherwise, he dies from blood loss. In addition, failing either save causes the subject/sacrificer to immediately rise as an undead creature with an equivalent encounter level.

This item will not function for a paladin or good-aligned cleric (as either the subject or sacrificer) and is destroyed after the completion of the ritual.


Requirements: Craft Wondrous Item, resurrection, animate dead; Cost 3,500 gp