M1k31's page

Organized Play Member. 613 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 613 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

sounds good


It seems to me that the best ways to fix Resonance(assuming no other rules change it enough to fix the issues) with regard to single use items would be to either:

1. Take potions off the list.

2. Potions used after resonance is 0 affect the user based on a "minimum effect" system(like saves affect certain spells when they can't reduce the effect entirely), so for things like poison you are never unaffected, while healing does a straight stabilize + 1 hp.

3. Potions use a different resonance style system based on the imbibers Con + level unaffected by regular resonance.


Can't wait to see how this pans out, it sounds pretty good(with a few concerns that sound like they address themselves as X might become a problem because of Y, but Y already appears to be getting altered or changed into Z)


It would depend on what they deem "additional". Would you consider a re-print under that term? probably not provided they already intended on making it.


Frosty Ace wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Maybe it is Selective Memory, or maybe it's my background from the PF Reddit, but every time I can think of that the Tier List has ever come up it's pretty much always used to deride martial players....

I'm not sure it's you being selective. I think it's that the only reason someone would have to bring up a tier list in a discussion about a Cooperative, table-top role-playing game is to prove another wrong about a class' strengths or weaknesses.

C/MD is the actual "tool" to use to not screw over a game for others or yourself, because, ya know, it's cooperative, and I personally consider a responsibility upon everyone to ensure fun is had. But that's just me thinking an extremely social game that exists for purposes of cooperative entertainment should be... fun for everyone, which is why there are options for all types, but I guess that makes too much sense.

Facetiousness aside, tiers themselves almost feel moot at this point. Anything that was weak or awful has been changed , buffed or can be Archetyped to be at least considered for tiers 3 or 4, which is generally considered to be the sweet spot of power for both players and GMs anyway.

Edit: As for the OP. Yes. Yes they are.

I agree that Shinigami likely see's it that way for that reason, but it can still be useful for discussions about the campaign by the DM with other DM's for general assistance with encounter design/plot, just not something that should enter most player/dm discussions or into conversations with specifics.


Dilettante seems like something you get pretty limited returns out of at later levels, I'd swap it out past low levels regardless, especially if your party is beyond rank 5 in all the knowledges.


tbh, I think I'd be OK with a barb losing rage if it gained another 10 ft of run speed or could use it with armor, its other abilities are awesome, but without rage they just don't make the #'s a PC martial should have.


what is their speed? because tbh it seems kinda like a weaker, harder to resist fireball/ray combination.


Talonhawke wrote:
Here is the Pf version of the Ghillie suit the Camo blanket Grants concealment to let you make the check and a bonus to stealth when prone that works when sniping.

Is there more to that? it seems odd there are no actual conditions(deployment time, removal time, loss of stealth due to movement, etc.)... I mean it's 12 gold and 2 lbs, and you could potentially take that text to indicate you can just walk around with it over your head all the time for concealment without consequence for just 12 gold.


Gaurwaith wrote:

...

In other words, a fight with goblins is way more lethal than the sort of thing a militia is cut out for....

They aren't as good in an out and out murderfest as the group of thirty militia, but they're better at dispatching the threat efficiently and with no loss of life.

Not to mention if someone in that group of 30 dies, that's a local community member lost... if it's some adventurer, that's a cautionary tale.

tonyz wrote:

I'd guess that there are many cases where the local town does mass up and go after the threat-of-the-month.

It's up to the GM to provide some reasons why the local authorities want to hire the PCs. "Risking someone else's lives instead of our own" is a good reason in many places. So is "it's a good distance away and we don't want to leave the town unguarded", "we want you to find out how bad the threat is before we call up the militia for half their 40-day/year service", and "none of us are experts in weird monsters"

Alternatively you could use "the militia is out dealing with x" as a reason they aren't there to stop "y" with "y" being your lowest level adventures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

no, it's a Pooh


There is some kind of undead spider husk that is really a hive of mini-spiders... I can't recall the name atm though.


Palidian wrote:

I had a homebrew game where death wasn't permanent and players got rewards if I unfairly killed them (e.g. rocks fall everyone dies). So everyone jumped at the chance to trigger ridiculous traps or overpowered monsters.

Flash forward to the temple of the god of madness. Player is wandering around a library of forbidden knowledge and spots a book entitled "Everyone who reads this book dies." Immediately picks it up and opens it. Inside is a silvery paper mirror (like from a kids book) and above it are the words "Except You!" in colorful letters.

was the player immortal afterwards?


Chess Pwn wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Senses: A black blade is aware of everything around it like a creature that can see and hear. It can be blinded and deafened as if it were a creature. It uses the saving throws of its magus, even if the magus is not currently wielding the black blade.

Yes, it can attempt all the skills that is can attempt which are all mental. It's Int, Wis, Cha are given to you to know what bonuses you have.
BTW, it's going to be really bad at skills since it only gets ranks in know(arcana) and it has bad stats.

You see it as having bad stats. I see it as getting a second roll.

Lets say your magus is lv 6 and putting full ranks into perception and has a +1 from a little wis bump putting them at +7. The sword is at -1 to perception. The sword's max is 19, and it needs to roll 9 higher to have been better than you at the roll.

This only gets worse if you somehow get perception as a class skill or have a racial bonus to perception making your perception at lv6 a 10 or 12. Now the sword needs to roll 12 or 14 higher on the die to be better and the magus only needs a 7 to reach the highest perception the sword can do. The odds of the sword being the highest roll on something seem very tiny.
so a second roll that is so much lower doesn't seem like a meaningful bonus to me.

Lol now I kind of want to see a BB magus played like Duddly do-right where he just does really dumb stuff like play hide and seek with it and is somewhat surprised he always wins.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Because sitting around all covered in hunny and smacking their lips contentedly would be particularly undignified for a paladin - even ones of little brain.

What about ones wearing a red shirt and no pants?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Yup. "Worst archetype" vs. "worst-edited archetype", basically. ^_^

one could argue the brute looks like both tbh... most of the drawbacks scream "well in order to counter all these size bonuses... we're gonna need this and this and this"... then someone went in and pretty much removed most of the size bonuses trying another approach to balance the same thing and then it looks like they just mashed it together thinking they worked as words in English... so they must be fine.


glittergore wrote:

There are all kinds of reasons for not going on an adventure:

a. bystander effect, the NPC don't do anything because they figure someone else will take care of it
b. doing something about a threat means putting yourself in peril, takes time, and effort and not everyone wants to deal with that hassle
c. denial, NPCs don't actually view the threat as a real danger
d. fatalism, they don't believe there is anything that can actually be done about the threat
e. it's not their responsibility, the NPC thinks it's the PCs job to fix it
f. other responsibilities, maybe the NPCs knows there's a threat, wants to do something about it but have other people, jobs, or things that require their immediate attention
g. advanced age, physical, or mental health limitations. Maybe the high level NPC is a wizard suffering from PTSD from her old adventuring days, or a great warrior but is very old. That isn't to say that people with disabilities can't go adventuring they CAN but they also have other considerations that an able bodied PC may not ever consider

h.(as pointed out earlier in thread) death beforehand

or
I. Alignment... what if the 9th level spellcaster NPC is a necromancer or believes they can co-opt the villains plans for their own ends(making them the true big bad if you want to extend the adventure)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Why not just slap the Throwing and Returning enhancements?

Because that allows you a single attack because a returning weapon doesn't come back to you until just before your next turn. This allows you to ricochet your rocket fist and hit as many opponents as you have attacks.

EDUT: I'm so doing this build, by the by.

I kinda want to see what kind of chaotic encounter this could be on a pack of Vindictive bastards... "our party was succeeding in it's goal of murderhoboing across the countryside until a pack of old ex-paladins fleeced us of everything we had..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure the latter technically works RAW outside an odd chicken/egg situation where you apply the feats in order then treat it as a shield and not a gauntlet as you attack, the former definitely works though... so you need:

1.Shield Gauntlet Style: allows you to treat your gauntlet as a buckler for feats
2.Upsetting Shield Style: then allows you to treat your "buckler" as a light shield for attacks/feats
which then allows 3.Shield Champion to allow you to throw and return the gauntlet "shield" as a returning weapon(using the Ex ability returning shield)

4.Shielded Gauntlet Attack (Combat)(pre-requisite for):

5.Shielded Gauntlet Master to make this trick work

Edit: 4. also let's you:"The style also allows you to take one attack of opportunity each round that does not count toward your maximum number of attacks of opportunity. This must be used to make an attack with your gauntlet (or spiked gauntlet), or a disarm or steal combat maneuver. You do not provoke an attack of opportunity for performing either combat maneuver, and you are able to attempt a steal combat maneuver with this attack of opportunity despite the maneuver normally requiring a standard action.", pretty sweet pre-requisite for those bonuses.


blahpers wrote:
Huh, interesting. Thanks for the synopsis. I could argue with Mark about that one all day. : D

But you'd fail for about an hour+ guaranteed.


Diminuendo wrote:

Relevant

Trying to come up with a Shield Gauntlet Holy Vindicator of Gorum and I realised this.

Yes, I know it's stupid, but I still want to do this.

Edit; links

Shield Champion
Shield Gauntlet Style
Upsetting Shield Style

I suppose you'll also need this;
Weapon Style Mastery

So to clarify:

Shield Gauntlet Style: allows you to treat your gauntlet as a buckler for feats

Upsetting Shield Style: then allows you to treat your "buckler" as a light shield for attacks/feats

which then allows Shield Champion to allow you to throw and return the gauntlet "shield" as a returning weapon(using the Ex ability returning shield)?

I don't think that technically works because of the following in Shield Gauntlet style:

"you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. You lose this shield bonus whenever you attack with your gauntlet" ... "While receiving this shield bonus to AC, your gauntlet or spiked gauntlet is treated as a buckler for the purpose of using other feats and abilities (though you are also considered to have a free hand)."

So the moment you attack, you lose your "buckler"/"Shield" so the gauntlet(which is now only a gauntlet) won't qualify to return... but I don't see a reason any GM would turn it down outside PFS.

edit: oddly enough I also realise that by the RAW you could also say that the second style making the guantlet a shield disqualifies it from being a buckler in the first place because you are then "holding" a "shield"...


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
M1k31 wrote:

I'm not sure exactly how you aren't catching this difference(as it appears pretty Obvious and intentional) But I don't think endless ammunition can work with the double crossbow:

"Each time an endless ammunition weapon is nocked, a single..."

You aren't nocking the double crossbow twice as it fires both shots simultaneously, so you at best would be firing a single bolt or reloading the second one each time.(at least if I'm not misunderstanding something)

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
Yeah, that seems like it’s a bit odd when applied to double crossbows. I would think that if you notched each crossbow it would produce ammunition for that crossbow, but I couldn’t really say since it is clearly wasn’t written with double crossbows (and apparently repeating crossbows) in mind.

"A shadowshooting weapon never needs to be reloaded; after a shot is fired, this smoke immediately coalesces into the ammunition required to fire the weapon again."

"Each time an endless ammunition weapon is nocked, a single non-magical arrow or bolt is spontaneously created by the magic, so the weapon’s wielder never needs to load the weapon with ammunition."

Either:
1) Both work, because you don't need to load the weapon, or
2) Neither works, because "loading" does not allow you to fire the crossbow without nocking it first. (Shadowshooting would create a bolt, but the crossbow string would still be limp.)

Again, I'm referring to the text, which in the case of endless ammunition requires that the weapon be "nocked" I take this to mean winched/cranked in the case of crossbows as the ammunition isn't there to actually put in the notch until AFTER this happens. in the case of a double crossbow I'm pretty sure you don't have 2 winching mechanisms if you are able to release both strings simultaneously, which means you only "nock" the weapon once.

The text immediately following the requirement to "nock" the weapon is quite clear... a single piece of ammunition is created when "nocking" occurs.

Shadowshooting does not have this limitation, instead requiring a "shot" be fired... you shoot 2 bolts so 2 bolts coalesce.

this means that RAW, Endless ammunition does not work with double crossbows(or any 2 shot weapon) correctly without further rules clarification that it can create a second bolt by RAI... as this was an "is this an OP rules interaction" thread I would not immediately presume RAI either way as to whether the Double crossbow can use endless ammunition, but Shadow shooting doesn't have a RAW issue... Endless Ammunition clearly does.


I still think the Geisha could make for an interesting leadership minion or an inter-party adventure(like lets say you have a party on an escort mission with players who can't consistently come and you have a 2-3 person Intrigue adventure every week people can't make it with vigilantes and a Geisha that helps the other party by throwing ceremonial tea ceremonies praying for their safety...)


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
Also, Endless Ammunition just generates the ammo, but you still need to go through the motions of reloading it, so it isn’t as exploitable as shadowshooting.

"A shadowshooting weapon never needs to be reloaded; after a shot is fired, this smoke immediately coalesces into the ammunition required to fire the weapon again."

"Each time an endless ammunition weapon is nocked, a single non-magical arrow or bolt is spontaneously created by the magic, so the weapon’s wielder never needs to load the weapon with ammunition."

I'm not seeing the difference. The "This ability does not reduce the amount of time required to load or fire the weapon." is irrelevant for this, since you do not need to load ("the weapon’s wielder never needs to load" - you can load it, if you want to use special ammunition, and then it takes the usual time, but you don't need to), and firing the crossbow is just aiming and pulling the trigger as often as BAB allows.

I'm not sure exactly how you aren't catching this difference(as it appears pretty Obvious and intentional) But I don't think endless ammunition can work with the double crossbow:

"Each time an endless ammunition weapon is nocked, a single..."

You aren't nocking the double crossbow twice as it fires both shots simultaneously, so you at best would be firing a single bolt or reloading the second one each time.(at least if I'm not misunderstanding something)


Palidian wrote:

Hey guys!

So I'm currently pondering some backstory for a new character...

So my question is, does anyone know of any mechanics already in game to accomplish such a thing? I've been browsing through cursed items and artifacts (thought for sure the harrow deck of many things would have something) and haven't turned up anything yet. Was just curious if anyone has spotted something I missed.

...

I had the thought that one of these days it might be funny to do an entire quest getting to a high level only to wake up and find yourself a wasting, near death victim of one of those giant space fungus(name escapes me atm) with seemless reality that a real hero just killed... possibly even repeated inception style.

Your character could live an entire false life and come back needing to re-learn reality or restore a heroic physique.


Xenocrat wrote:
The Absolution spell makes it clear which view the current development team supports. And they sympathetically provided a cheaper alternative to Atonement to help with such mandatory involuntary loss of powers.

How exactly does that work though... according to what you quoted Absolution doesn't even seem to do much of anything:

Xenocrat wrote:


That's because it's under atonement, as found in the Absolution spell in Ultimate Intrigue, or Atonement-light.

Absolution wrote:

You purge impure thoughts from the target’s mind and fill him with exultant relief at the forgiveness of his sins. Absolution ends all charm or compulsion effects affecting the target (including harmless compulsions, such as heroism) as per break enchantment. If the target was forced to perform any actions contrary to his alignment, monk vows, paladin oath, or similar code of conduct by that charm or compulsion effect, that action doesn’t cause him to lose access to class abilities, including divine spellcasting.

Unlike an atonement spell, absolution can’t reverse alignment change or the effects of willing transgressions, induce a creature to change its alignment, or restore class abilities lost because of misdeeds performed in the past. Absolution automatically works if the caster and the target share the same alignment or the same patron deity. If they don’t, but their alignments are within one step of each other, absolution has a 5% chance of success per caster level. If neither of these is true, the spell automatically fails.

If using the honor subsystem, casting absolution also eliminates the honor loss for events and actions committed by the target while he was affected by a charm or compulsion effect that the spell ended.

So if you're forced to violate your paladin oath, this spell will restore your powers, even if it won't do everything an Atonement will.

as you can see from the portion I bolded in the second paragraph, it does not appear to affect any choices or actions you have taken in the past... it does not appear to make any exception excepting any spell still active the absolution breaks, so should your charm or compulsion already have been broken or run its course(which should probably be anything excepting a permanent one)... it does nothing

It almost seems like it was made for some neutral cleric who wants the party paladin to do some dirty work without losing his powers.... because it definitely doesn't seem to be useable by going to a local church or magic mart.


Chuck Mount wrote:
So... In answer to your original question of, has anyone had a similar experience, the answer seems to be a resounding NO. ...

Oddly enough(as the person accused of being his brother), I'd say I have had a similar experience, not as the DM or brother, but as a player at a table with a similar GM/Brother dynamic where I advised similarly(though the GM had tried and was understanding of maintaining his relationship with his brother, but he did ban the brother from his table for the remainder of our time together at least).

Further I am leery of DMing because I fear I would get similarly attached to worlds if I was that involved with them.

Edit: to clarify, I am not either DM's brother, nor in a game recent enough for my DM to b+@~+ about anything I might have done in game this recently


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:

There is so much more going on here than just a game and I really hope that you value your brother more than this game.

Put aside what he's done to your homebrew for now. You can come back to it later, or not.

Please talk to your brother....

I mean like you slept with his wife type wronging. I don't expect an explanation, but I just have a feeling that there is something terribly broken in your relationship with your brother and I hope you love him enough to want to fix that before anything else.

To me it sounds more like the brother really hated the campaign, and given the OP's seeming obsession with his world... it sounds like the OP of the thread may have unintentionally railroaded him into a corner, and instead of talking it out his brother decided to passive aggressively fight his way out, seeking not just to harm his brother but harm the world that may have been suppressing his "badwrongfun"... but again, they need to open communication and actually talk out their issues


TriOmegaZero wrote:
People have and do use the folding boat for just such purposes. As for the size question, it does not say it can hold 15 people comfortably. As a military veteran, I can confirm that you can pack a lot of people into an 8 by 24 foot space.

"The boat can hold 4 people comfortably, while the ship carries 15 with ease"

I'm confused how one would address this on a grid though, as if we deal with the ship as a single row of 5 ft squares that's about 3 people per square, while if it's 2 rows that's still at least 1.5-2 people per square.


I don't get it.... why is this guy so adamant about holding more than one bag of holding's worth of arrows? surely his cantrip can take over after the first bag or so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
If skeletons and zombies have little use for tavenrs, evil clerics and necromancers do.

LoL, now I really want to see or make an adventure where when you get to the lich's Basement you find a tavern with undead wait-staff that treat you as just customers for no apparent reason at all...


there might be something thematic you could convert from the following for a rare prize:

"CLOAK OF WOODLAND CREATURES
PRICE 3,500 GP
SLOT shoulders CL 5th WEIGHT 1 lb.
AURA faint abjuration and conjuration
This forest-green wool cloak is thick and warm. Its hem and the edge of its hood are embroidered with small figures of forest creatures (rabbits, squirrels, and the like) in white thread.
When worn, this cloak bestows a +1 resistance bonus on all saving throws. The wearer can remove the cloak at any time and lay it on the ground outdoors. This ends the resistance bonus but summons a number of animals from the cloak. The animals serve the character who summoned them for 10 minutes (or until slain or returned to the cloak’s folds). A summoned creature can follow any of the commands described in the Handle Animal skill. Use the following tables to determine what animals can be called forth.
The cloak summons creatures only when laid down outdoors on naturally occurring ground (not, for example, on a wooden deck or stone pathway). The cloak can be used to summon animals up to three times per day.
d% Animal
01–30 1 owl
31–60 1d3 rats
61–75 1 weasel
76–90 1d6 squirrels
91–100 1d4 rabbits
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS COST 2,250 GP
Craft Wondrous Item, resistance, summon nature’s ally I"

just change the animals to more Halloween themed creatures like a bat, raccoon, spiders, black cat, etc.


Now I'm thinking it might be fun to make a split personality Anti-paladin where one has this excuse for killing people and generally attempts good, and the latter is all about sheltering evil-doers from good influences by killing them.


or just role a will save every time you attempt to steal an object, that if you fail means you stole worthless crap... like stealing your opponents belt buckle.


Lady-J wrote:
one of my gms was in a campaign were one of the party members rolled a 47 for diplomacy to get into a town that has closed its gates and don't normally let people in and the character just yelled "47 diplomacy" at the guards and they let them in

So when was it revealed that this fortified "town" was a mental institution?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does the party currently have the ability to face and defat the lich in combat?

If they did(and aren't playing PFS), I would probably BS an artifact/ritual(found in the town) that allows them to convert the lich's bound soul into a demi-plane they must then fight through and Purify before the Lich revives(as the demi-plane would run at a different speed from the real world).

Then, depending on how far they get, change the lich's disposition towards them/alignment, possibly even letting the PC's leave them there as a guardian for the city.


tbh, you're right... now I kinda want to figure out how to make a commoner->other NPC class->Level 1(maybe all the way to level 2) "sims" type mini-campaign to generate/cultivate characters in preparation for an AP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Graystone,

I do understand your point, but I can't really agree with it. The Dual Identity is the "Flaw" that is balanced out by all those socials that are based off of it. This is weakened because they chose not to spell out and emphasize the bad things that should happen when the identity is exposed to the bad guys.

There are some reasons for the light touch, one serious screw-up and your vigilante is potentially crippled forever.

How did he learn them? Point is that if he didn't learn them, he wouldn't be a vigilante. Vigilantes are those few that did learn to keep all those juggling balls up in the air. Those that failed are object lessons in why you don't mess with the bad guys.

That added tension, knowing that your failure will also harm your support network; your family, your info sources, your favorite crafters, et al, is an integral part of the class. I can see this being a bit much.

I see it as "The Dread Pirate Roberts" from the Princess bride when played through without really bothering with the second identity... are you using the second identity? sometimes. Are there consequences for being found out? a few, but the character isn't too worried, because worst-case he just needs his replacement to seriously step it up while he creates a new life with his loot.

In a sense Dual identity in such campaigns should be treated like a paladins code everyone agrees the DM shouldn't f+#* with


Lathiira wrote:

From a strict role-playing/versimilitude perspective, I'd have to ask how you mechanically have apprentices under this system.

You're a wizard. Over the course of time you form a bond with a young man who shows some interest in learning the arcane arts. We'll say for now he's an expert 1 (merchant family, learned the basics of the trade). How would you reflect over time his growth and development as a wizard? Since can only have NPC classes, he'll always be stuck without even the beginnings of magic.

This same idea could apply to any class: a cleric recruiting an acolyte, a knight training a squire, etc. Classes don't give abilities all that often that say "this NPC gains a level in a class of your choice". Nor do feats.

Just figured I'd ask, maybe I'm missing something here.

+1

I'd also be concerned if you use ABP in your campaign exactly how weak your cohorts would be, if they're too weak you may never want them in combat ever after a certain point... to the point ambushes while meeting with them becomes a dick move and leaving them to guard the horses becomes a suicide mission


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Klorox wrote:
Is that an official ruling or just some kind of house rule?
Unofficial. It makes sense in that an incorporeal creature shouldn't set off something that requires impact to detonate, but then you have to remember these things are magic and common sense doesn't really apply.

Agreed... I mean thinking it through logically the holy water rule quoted above makes no sense, as when you throw the flask of holy water through the incorporeal creature the water itself should impact it... because the glass cannot.... perhaps rendering the water inert upon impact with a the corporeal surface where it shatters(or shattering the glass upon impact with the solidified liquid inside), leaving it as only a direct damage attack with no splash.

That it doesn't implies either;

*The glass vial itself is magical or suppresses the waters magic
*the glass Shattering is required as a component of creating holy water(which we know is BS because simply pouring it works)
*Holy water is reactive with oxygen and requires it in order to burn "fuel" like demonkind/ghosts... though then you'd expect rules for no-oxygen environments it doesn't have...


roguerouge wrote:

I'd second adding herds that force chases and climbing to rooftops and defend the fort scenarios.

You're missing looters. And opportunities to take a risk to loot water and food.

That reminds me, when I was contemplating a Resident evil style campaign in an asylum there is a haunt that I was going to use to lockdown rooms(if you want to go that route, it doesn't sound like you do) and some rooms were just there for the PC's to resupply/scavenge briefly before the Zombie hoard trapped them there, you may want similar non-combat encounters on the table.


Meraki wrote:

Usually when I'm commissioning art, I give the artist the basics: gender, race, hair color, eye color, skin color, general build, class, a weapon if the character has a particular one they favor. If they have any other notable features (scars, tattoos, etc.), I toss that in too.

Also, describing the character's personality a little can help the artist get a feel for the character. (Someone who is a very shy scholar is probably going to pose differently than a brash people person, for example.) Doesn't have to be long, just a couple sentences to a paragraph, but it can help the artist know what kind of character this is (beyond just physical details).

I typically leave clothes and details like that up to the artist, though I'll describe the sort of world the character is in if it's not a universe they're familiar with. If you try to fill in too many details yourself, you run the risk of disappointing yourself if it's not exactly what you envisioned in your head...and you might miss out on some neat things the artist would come up with that you wouldn't have thought of.

I'd think it would be good to think about what your characters best achievements might be as well, in other words why would they commission a picture, just because it may help the artist come up with details or question you about details they think to add.


Cattleman wrote:


...
* Harassment encounters: Put archers on the other side of a pit; maybe in cover. Remember that garbage in dark souls? Now every time you walk through the area you have to be conscious of arrows flying, or you have to deal with an annoying encounter; maybe in view of this is a problem melee creature that will engage if they move on the archers. (say, the pit contains a Roper-like creature that will drag them in.)

I'd like to note that then making the archers "missing" at a later time could also be an invaluable tool for a horror campaign.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Soul Portrait.

that's so weird the way they did that... so somehow you can only destroy it if you are the owner by killing the artist then destroying the painting using the weapon that killed them/has their blood yet it doesn't seem to say how any other manner of damage is dealt with, nor how the second artist is supposed to usurp your picture if they too cannot damage it..... yet they have a paragraph describing how anyone taking ownership can do just that... it's so weird


Marius Castille wrote:
Commoner 20. Favored enemy: housecat

I thought that was the anti-wizard weapon specialization?


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

So I've seen basically all sides of this.

...

Every alignment issue I've ever seen boils down to one of two things: two people had different ideas of what that alignment means (look at literally any alignment thread) or someone wanted to do something that was locked behind some alignment they didn't want to be...

Isn't that 3 issues right there in your post?;

Bob Bob Bob wrote:


I have also seen a GM who tried to make the Paladin, Cleric, and Druid fall. He felt that unless their codes were tested constantly than they were just getting power for free...

^Is still an alignment issue, as terrible a conclusion as "test or it's free" is... it's a logical conclusion for someone to get to... however if you then think about it further it isn't a great one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Honestly I think people don't understand the alignments...

And that leads to another problem, "modern" as opposed to "medieval" morality... modern morality makes it increasingly less necessary to carry a weapon, there's no threats out there where you will need to kill something to defend yourself in most cases, fewer predators, more instances killing will get you in trouble rather than be considered "helpful", etc. But Pathfinder doesn't assume that morality, the world is dangerous and you'd at most want to check that weapon at the door rather than not own one at all... and you are expected to kill with it(at least 99% of the time) without worrying too much about your god taking your fancy powers away.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's because Paladins have the most restrictive code of conduct, so anybody looking to be the biggest stick in the mud possible (this may be subconscious) gravitates to that class and hence LG.

But I have never personally found LG to be problematic in practice. It's definitely a lot less of a problem than CN, NE, or CE.

It's a problem because players end up playing the alignment rather than the character... because of the tied in mechanics. This then makes the character generated less of a unique character and more of a LG stick in the mud the same as the last...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Even when the character is "taking insane risks"?
I rolled an elf cleric with a 6 Con.

Don't you know life is an insane risk with 6 con?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
M1k31 wrote:

I think it boils down to 2 factors:

1. The ability of players to affect the narrative

and

2. the ability of players to understand how they do affect the narrative.

I feel like though if I accidentally design a monster,encounter, or antagonist that is too much for the player characters when they encounter it, the best way to protect player agency is not "run it exactly like I originally wrote it down". If the goal of the encounter was "impress upon the PCs the seriousness of the faction they find themselves opposing" I can't really accomplish that if all the PCs are dead.

I find that the most of what players do to affect the narrative is mostly to do with what they choose to do when they're not fighting, and that fighting is largely the gate you need to pass in order to get to the next point where you can affect the narrative. Fighting is the thing you have to get through in order to get back to the fun talking bits.

1. Then change it beforehand or edit the monsters slightly as you go, but any interaction those dice can cause, from one to twenty, should be something you are prepared to live with when they hit the table(this goes both ways, player and GM)... if you think "well maybe this player should live..." you should consult the players, because maybe Jack the boxer accepts that punching bag to the face is what killed him rather than the Incredible Orc McSmashface in the next room you sent to kill him.

I was once in a group that attempted skull and Shackles... only to have an entire session wasted where our barbarian tried to kill his character upholding his morals/beliefs while the DM tried to softball and "save" him... it was our last session because in the end the player himself hated the ship and the rest of us were getting tired of plot stuff as well, so we started a new campaign... when we probably could have just passed that last boring part in a 3 man session while our 4th made a new character.

Fudging dice complicates things because whenever it is done it sets up the players for misunderstandings of what exactly their character is capable of, or alternatively creates results players don't want because YOU the GM think THEY would want them.

Communication can solve all of these issues, especially in Session zero, Even "I am the GM, and invest more time into this to make it work, so I cannot accept certain results and may need to change things, take it, leave it, or GM yourself." is fine, because at least then players know their choices.

2.But that is purely character driven thinking... if you are a player creating a character to have a schtick rather than creating something around fluff, any alteration to your mechanics effects on the world(AKA dice rolls), then that character has had it's narrative effect diminished.

1 to 50 of 613 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>