Makarnak's page

Note that Makarnek referenced:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief):

That section is clearly explaining illusions that do allow for saving throws. Such illusions are normally patterns, and are mind affecting while glamers(which is what illusions are) are not.

Magic Chapter wrote:

Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

Illusions are under the glamer subschool which has a very real effect on an object by changing the qualities of the subject making it seem to be different.

Quote:

Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Compare this to patterns which create the perception of unreal things that don't exist at all, and are thus mind affecting. That is also why undead which are immune to mind affects are immune to phantasms and patterns, but not glamers.

Undead traits wrote:

Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).

You've already noted the glamer/illusion switch in the wording above, no sweat.

Basically, Invisibility is an Illusion, and as such falls under the blanket disbelief rules, just because most people don't get a saving throw because they don't spend enough time to, doesn't mean it isn't possible. All illusions can be disbelieved, given opportunity, but phantasms and patterns show a translucent effect afterwards. Why would it say illusions (all) and then single out the translucency for those two subtypes? You can't read by implied rules and not see that.

As for undead being affected by glamers, that's REALLY news to me. Wow, you're right, and it makes almost no sense, well, maybe a little. I guess the glamers would usually be cast on them, and on others they're being indirectly affected. Otherwise you couldn't cast invisibility on a bunch of zombies and send them roaming freely throughout the... oh, wait, I'll stop before I have my players find out.

I'd certainly offer a saving throw for a change self, if that's still a glamer, if there was reason, say a gnome using it and passing as a human and then walking thoughtlessly into a three-foot tall passage, as an example. If anybody was watching carefully, that is.

Seriously though, people, run it how you want to, just don't be a jerk needlessly. It makes perfect sense to say that the spell allows the recipient to see themselves (if only as a transparent image, only visible from the recipient's eyes), that way everybody can do what they need to when they need to. It is magic, after all. I just offered a reason that it could be so, using the rules in the current book, and off of older rulings (which quite possibly was surrounded by another article about how hard it is to act when you can't see yourself).

Or, don't. I'd throw my rock in the pile for don't penalize. There's already enough modifiers out there...

I take heart to note that no one disagreed with the "Can of Worms" statement...

having played all editions of this wonderful game of ours (started in 1975) - I can honestly say that in the groups I have played in we have always played that you could NOT see yourself when under the effects of an invisibility spell... which does not really apply in this case - as we are discussing the rules in PF. (and in earlier editions of D&D the rules were much more open to interpretation - "house rules" were very common).

Most rules were house rules back then ;).

I can't recall exactly where I saw the disbelieve invisibility ruling, and it very likely could be Dragon Magazine, but I do remember it. I like the idea because it makes sense, after all, a wizard shouldn't be fooled by his own illusion (unless he was REALLY good, or had a low wisdom). It explains why a wizard could see himself, and why others couldn't. Pathfinder takes it a step further and keeps people from disbelieving from afar...

Lol the defence for seeing yourself nerds the spell hard. A save every time you attack...

And not being able to see yourself doesn't?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of POSSIBLE effects that a strike or series of strikes could be: invisible force effects, physical invisibity (such as invisibile stalkers) or incorporeal monsters and other magic mean that unless someone can CAREFULLY examine the invisible creature and interact with it in ways that may or may not involve out of combat time, then it remains invisible. Basically, it translates into the gut feeling that most people have of invisibility, that it doesn't really affect the recipient negatively (unless they try crossing a highway), and it can't be broken by someone saying, "Hey, he's invisible, I disbelieve!"

(Actually, that's the part that ticked folks off when the ruling was made. The 'carefully examine' clause does away with it, because you're probably just 'carefully examining' air if you're doing it at a distance.)

What it does is make some other invisible things easier or harder to deal with. Say, an invisible bridge, or an invisible podium. Those are special cases anyway, usually.

As I asked earlier whats the penalty and please provide rules support.

Nowhere does it state that this or any other penalty can or will occur which leaves us with one of two options by RAW.

1. You can see yourself and your gear.

2. You take no penalties for not being able to see your self and your gear.

For what I see, and how it's stood in previous editions as well, see my posts above (with rules support). In which case, there are no penalties unless the invisibility comes from some other (non-illusory) source.

Otherwise, it would impact nearly every activity to greater and lesser degrees, and unless you want to limit invisibility use in general you should be considered to see yourself well enough to function.

For those that talk about being able know exactly where their body parts are when they can't see them, that's called kinesthetics. But even with normal kinesthetics, vision helps in very important ways. Sure, you could kick someone under the table, but could you kick an exact spot (sneak attack, most combat attempts, etc.)?

I suppose you could also examine yourself carefully, so if the spell is cast on you (instead of being the caster) you could easily 'disbelieve' so that you could still see yourself. This would prevent Invisibility being used as an offensive spell (keeping a mage from finding their spell components, throwing off aim and generally tripping over everything are effects of higher poweted spells...)

As for other companions, they would be invisible to you (they could be invisible for another reason, after all, however unlikely) until you could 'Examine them carefully,' et al. Like a sidewalk artist painting a hole in the sidewalk might check the next day to make sure someone didn't put a real hole there...

This is a can of worms from way back. In an earlier edition (first or second), it stated something that is obvious, but can make life difficult for GMs and players alike.

Invisibility is an Illusion spell. It creates a false perception.

Illusion spells can be disbelieved. As the caster, you automatically know that the spell is an illusion and false, therefore you disbelieve it automatically and fundamentally. It doesn't mean that anyone else does.

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. In fact, by this, the caster's friends if they have time to be convinced could make their saves and allow the caster to remain visible to them, but invisible to enemies.

Because completely invisible (non-illusory) spells and effect exist, and unless the perceiver has a chance to 'study it carefully or interact in some fashion' which is not common in combat, invisibility should work just fine in other respects.

I'm glad to see the PRD backs up this old ruling, but without the 'someone's invisible? I'll disbelieve!' game breaker in the old days.

Hope that helps.

I know I'm in the distinct minority here, I (and usually my players) find NPC party members useful. I've had a ton of experience with them, though. The key is to add and remove them organically, don't allow them to be treated like computer game characters (if the PCs treat them badly, they'll leave and/or react accordingly), and finally, don't let them steal the show (except in specific circumstances).

Why I like them?

1) we have a small group and we tend to need a little extra help. They're an easy way of altering the challenge while maintaining the risk. They can be targeted to kill off a 'party member' for story or drama, or to take the heat off the PCs temporarily. They can also add firepower if the party needs it.

2) The traditional story hint method. To add even more fun have them give bad or misleading advice too. They are only mortal.

3) If a temporary player shows up or a PC is knocked out, they can be used to keep the player in the game without disrupting the story too much.

4) If the party gathers enough of them as either permanent members or contacts and allies, you can have fun by having the party captured or trapped or serious injured and then using the NPCs as a secondary party (given to the players) to rescue the main characters as a one or two night diversion. Think of the Knights of the Old Republic video games where the major party is captured (the main character and major secondaries) and the plucky droid or sneaky street thief has to save the Jedi.

5) Ask any player, it's fun to have a character and watch him grow...

Now, the one thing I've learned that works best is to not let them steal the show. The easiest way to do this is to use a little GM fiat and not let them get the last kill in, unless the encounter is just dragging out, and then no one will care. This is most important in 'boss' fights. I believe that good NPC party members should be like R2 and C3PO, they facilitate and observe the story, for the most part, lending aid when required, but they don't do the fun stuff.

Just my thoughts. I tend to go on too long.

If they are sufficiently ranged and damage dealing, they may do OK, if you let them play smart. If not, the bard has some healing (my CoT party uses a bard and a paladin as healers, primarily, and they seem to do well, though certain encounters can pinch). I also tend to be harder on the dirt-cheap wand of cure light wounds...

Whatever you choose, enjoy.

Something to keep in mind, (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Combat Expertise can be stacked with fighting defensively. It's not either or. Which means that you can get the combat expertise bonus plus the defensive bonus. This gives an additional penalty, but a larger AC.

There is no similar mechanic for Power Attack.

Also, it is possible to achieve truly frustrating ACs even without your feat modification. There's a paladin in my group that is nearly invulnerable, all through standard methods. Perhaps at higher levels, your modification might be useful (where max available ACs top out), but it's ripe for overuse.

They're no longer in my downloads. A shame if that wasn't part of the plan, because I think it's a great idea. As a VTT user, that occasionally games in person, it actually made me consider keeping my map subscription (since I could use them in both forums). Otherwise, they might just not be as useful as I'd like them to be.

Makarnak wrote:

Also, the addition of the PDFs to the maps and map subscription is incredibly useful.

This has happened? I thought map PDFs were a separate trial run right now, and NOT added to the subs.

Mine were available under the downloads. I haven't double checked since then...

I sent this to customer.service, but I felt the need to express it in a more public forum as well. I hope that's appropriate, and that this is the appropriate place:

Dear Paizo:

I just wanted to thank you for some recent exceptional actions, and express my positive support for them.

First, the packing of Ultimate Magic was a welcome change. The secure and protected corners kept it from a fate that seems to strike some of the hard backs that I received (notably the Bestiary 2). The addition of this packing was a wonderful example of Paizo as a company responding to its customers. Thank you.

Also, the addition of the PDFs to the maps and map subscription is incredibly useful. While I like playing with my group in person, I usually must do it from across the state. PDFs make setting up random encounters and off-the cuff situations easy to do on VTT programs. Thank you.

Please keep up the good work, and thank you for the good work already kept up!

--M

QUOTE: Stuff about not threatening.

All the above being said, there's absolutely nothing stopping Guy A from readying an action to grapple/unarmed strike the caster if he starts casting. Or just grappling him. Especially if he's a fighter vs. a wizard type.

They're tough, but not invincible. They still require a move action to turn invisible. And they still become visible on a strike (since they become invisible per the spell, not improved invisibility).

I have a party that usually shreds things, and the Will-o-wisp was tough, but they took it down with a little planning. Glitterdust helps.

Making them advanced with character levels will really mess with a party. Heh.

We have a party with a Paladin that makes hiding evil folks particularly difficult, so I've gone over this a LOT.

But, first of all, decide on what the creatures CURRENT alignment is. You seem locked neatly into Lawful Neutral. Great. That's what he is now. Critters can vary.

His past misdeeds did not seem heinous enough (in a world-shaking, artifact-creating way) to have a lingering aura of evil. So he's Lawful Neutral.

But, despite comments to the contrary, INTENTION is important when the creature is not evil.

From the PRD:

"Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."

It really doesn't change anything else. The spell describes what is detected, what it reads as and any effects it might require. If your Lawful Neutral is currently engaged in an attempt to murder an innocent, then he will detect as evil, with no mitigating circumstances (not 'evil, sorta).

That said, if he's not, then he's not. He won't come across as 'neutral' because the spell isn't know alignment, nor will he read as lawful or washed-out.

Also, keep in mind, that you are the DM. You can have him read however you want him to read. Strictly by RAW, he would not be evil (unless he had actively evil intent).

What actively evil intent is, well, that's for another day.

I would, but I also dropped an alien invasion into a Greyhawk campaign about 12 years ago. I started with nuking Greyhawk city and the super-wizards (Bigby, Mordenkainen, etc.). Then ended up with hovertanks and concentration camps. It was quite a bit of fun.

It drastically alters the tone of the game, and it's not something everybody wants. Personally, I put it in front of my players as a choice:

"I have an idea for a game, but it drastically and forever-after changes the campaign. We can do it with new characters, or we can do it with the current characters in the current campaign. Which would you prefer?"

That way, you don't screw concepts and ideas, unless they don't mind.

Truthfully, I find myself drawn to the Goblinomicon.

It would be a ton of work, but absolutely hilarious to read a copy of the Core Rulebook completely rewritten from a Pro-Goblin point of view. With Dwarf, Elf, Half-Elf, Half-Orc and Human replaced by Goblin, Goblin, Goblin, Relly Big Rat, and Goblin. The gear section would be short, though.

Trade Guds: Pickles, Shiny Things, Sharp Things
Weapons: Pickles, Shiny Things, Sharp Things, Heavy Things, Burny Things.
Miscellaneous Gear: Stuff to put Shiny Things, Sharp Things, Heavy Things and Burny Things In.

Followed by a section: How to put Burny Things out before putting them in something you want to keep. Which trails off into an incoherent howling noise.

But perhaps I digress too far.

BTW, I am looking forward to this thread. I'm putting together a crossbow rogue for a game. Probably a different direction, but I'm looking forward to picking up hints.

That is not true, if you are able to locate a creatures square they are attacking from you are able to defend yourself appropriately against them. Of course they are going to have to make a perception check to notice where the attack came from but it does NOT deny them the ability to do so. Additionally, using stealth to hide from an enemy requires a move action to trigger, be it for the purpose of hiding, or just being part of the move they STILL have to make the stealth check if they expect the enemy to be unaware of the position of PC. Thus the reason for why invisibility simply grants a bonus to stealth. For this case the player would be sniping in the case of a single attack at a -20 penalty regardless of invisibility. There are plenty of creatures with scent, tremorsense, or high enough perception to notice such a thing, even IF the player did roll stealth in such a case. For instance an invisible character full attacks they do not have the action economy to use the stealth skill and assume cannot be assumed to be actively hiding which would grant them only the inherent bonuses to this check equal to the environment, cover, and his size. Meaning a medium size creature without cover who is invisible that does not move (Full attack sequence) would have a perception DC to notice the square they are located in, of 20 (+1 per 5 feet away from the target).

Characters that are invisible cannot be assumed to be impossible to locate through perception. Feats like blindfight also make it a non issue.

Actually, if the attacker remains invisible, they still count as invisible (meaning they deny Dex Bonus to AC, qualifying for a sneak attack). Nowhere in the description of the effects of invisibility does it say that characters regain their dex bonus if they know where the attacker is.

That said, if it's a ranged attack from more than 5' away or a reach attack from more than 5' away, they CANNOT pinpoint the location of the attacker, just the general area. It says so in the special abilities chapter explicitly, even if they succeed in a perception check.

Now remaining hidden without invisibility requires a move action and sniper check. With invisibility, they can laugh at you, and you can even be 'pinpointed' and still attack and deny them their Dex to AC. A 5'x5'x5' square is a big area to defend yourself from.

Also, the attacker can take a 5' step in-between attacks during a full attack and suddenly they're not where the defender thinks they are.

Now, scent, blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight and blindfighting all mess with this. But at a basic state, invisibility=denied dex to AC unless the character can see the attacker somehow. Stealth only matters in location, not defense. Picture it this way: with no training, in a completely dark room, someone with night vision goggles attacks you, firing arrows at you. You know he's there, you know the general direction, you might even be able to hear the sound of the weapon, but you don't know where the blow is coming from, and dodging may just put you in-line with the attack rather than out.

BUT, if you can figure out where he's coming from, you have a chance to swing or shoot back. Not a great chance, and he could be dodging, but a chance.

It may even be a better idea for an invisible sniping rogue to simply fire and move.

Now, I'm not sure if using Stealth: sniper would be useful in this case. The character is already 'hidden' in terms for sneak attack, and so wouldn't necessarily need to hide again, if general area location (the only thing possible with a ranged attack) isn't a problem.

If they do, then firing and moving in stealth would be a better solution.

Ok I have been trying to pull the maps from D0: Hallows Last Hope

but every way I try I am getting the image with the text - I am going to have to say that the maps are not layered. Even using somePDF Image extractor still pulls them with the Letters / Numbers and other text on them.

I am very new to trying to do these things - but I would really like to use them for d20pro. I am running out of Ideas short of finding simmalar maps and using those (I really can not afford another program (like a map maker) at this time).

Arbarth
Old School Gamer

I just looked at D0 (which was a ton of fun for a 1st lvl adventure,btw). Unfortunately, it looks very much like the numbers are part of the image, and not vector/fonts.

So, you're not doing anything wrong with how you're pulling the images out.

There is a clash of terminology here that may be confusing some people. Layers, technically are designated layers that can be hidden or revealed easily.

A single layer may have fonts, vector art and pixel art all together. What you want to do is to pull out the pixel art for the images, which you seem to be doing ok, using Simple PDF.

Now, alas, it seems if you need it, you need to find a way to hide the important tidbits (like secret doors). First, you could use an image editor (like GIMP or Photoshop) to copy/paste or clone brush away the relevant bits. You don't really need to do the numbers, because it's not like the players are going to be surprised that there are numbers...but you can if you want. They're going to be the easiest to do anyways.

The other option is to use visibility to hide the relevant bits from the players. Cover the markers up with something. The players may see it, but you can tell them to pretend it isn't there, or explain that there was no way to get it perfect. Or, use visibility options in the VTT (maptools has a vision blocking layer, I'm not sure about your program). Different ways to achieve the same effect.

Anyways, you seem to be doing it right, and later on, they figure out that it's easier to edit text on top of maps so your job gets easier.

Huh. SomePDF worked like a charm. Thanks for that gem. I used it on two different companies' PDFs and the only annoying thing it did is not put the images in the directory that they should go into. Which would tick me off if it weren't free.

Are you, OP, not getting the images at all, or are they coming out with text on them?

If they're coming out of SomePDF with text, then the text is embedded into the image, which, I'm afraid, is not something that can be helped. Let me know, I'll see if I can work with you.

OK, I have been reading on different boards that a lot of rpg publishers are storing their maps in PDF's as layers so that their is an actual image layer and then a text layer. They do this so us gamers can lift the image layer to use for VTT sessions.

I have been trying to do this and not sure what to do I have tried using "somePDF image extractor" but no success - I am not sure if I am doing it correctly or not, using the right software or not...you get the idea....HELP!!!

If I am able to do this it would save me a LOT of time in the future.

Thanks in advance,

Arbarth
Old School GM

I have a lot of tools at my disposal, and it depends greatly on the way the PDFs are encoded/secured. Also most maps these days are built on an image base (JPG or TIF, or even PNG) with vectored or font text and art on top of it (for room numbers, even doors).

If you have Acrobat (not acrobat reader) or another full-blown editing program, you can cut/paste, etc.

But I suspect that you are trying to use a free PDF reader. In that case I would strongly suggest PDF XChange viewer (you can find it through cnet or download.com--I also recommend it because while it may look a little less advanced, it has a ton of advantages over acrobat reader, like tabbed PDF reading--really handy for us RPG types. Foxit reader is good as well, just not quite as useful). I just tried XChange with a layered PDF for eclipse phase, and it worked like a charm.

You simply get the page to look the way you want by hiding/showing layers, and then, on top of the page sidebar or under File:Export, you choose export to image. Set your prefs and your pages and go. You can even have it do multiple pages at a time.

On files that don't have layers, you might not have it so easy. Acrobat has worked for me to cut/paste into a new photoshop file (for VTT use). This pulls the underlying image out, without the vector/font based art on top of it.

For tokens/minis, rptools has a great Java program that allows you to work off of screen shots (which is fantastic when you need a mini on the fly).

One more secret from a graphic artist: only the parts that are seen need to be pretty. :) If the players never see a part of the image, it can be as messed up as you can stand.

Regardless, I strongly suggest you double check the maps for visible secret doors and other DM hints.

The term logistics usually refers to supplying units... not really applicable when discussing a battle between four-eight heroes and X many monsters, unless I'm misunderstanding you. If you're talking about issues of individual heroes moving around the board to flank baddies, that's a maneuver issue, not a logisitcal issue. Again, I could just be misunderstanding you.

Usually. It also refers to mathematical calculations, or as an implied means of discussing the events and logic leading to an outcome (usually a business or the means of supplying an army, etc. or, in the sense of planning to achieve that outcome and dealing with the problem). I could direct to dictionaries, but I don't think that's necessary, unless you're nitpicking to nitpick, in which case, please feel free to look up the definition yourself.

In the location that it came up in the quote, it could be construed as meaning the planning for the battle by the DM. Mostly, I meant that if the encounter relies on the tactics of multiple combatants, it can make a difference, logically by the nature of the rules, and logistically in that it affects the planning and preparation for the session, and any player of PF or 3.5 could agree, it counts as a large and complex organization.

1: RAI, flanking is a bonus given by forcing an opponent to defend to sides of his body at the same time. In squares say its defending 0 degrees and 180 degrees. Whats to say that defending 0 and 135 isn't just as hard to do?

2a: I've always allowed critters that are small size to occupy the same square if the idea is for a swarm. Little two/three foot tall creatures could be 2 per space or maybe 5 per 2 connected spaces, and smaller creatures can just pile it on

2b: and yes your PCs might b+*#% because its not RAW that creatures like that can share the same space really, but honestly, in real life, two creatures no bigger than a 4 year old aren't going to stay five feet apart from each other if they're trying to tackle you (think children zombie swarm)

1) Actually RAW says that only creatures directly across do this. One on a facing and one on a vertex of the opposite side of a square do not, technically, flank (large critters get a little hazy with this). This is from the Core book. I personally disagree (and say so in a house rule), but that's the rule in the book, for better or worse. On a hex, there are fewer opportunities to do this, RAW. Granted a hex map is completely Rule 0 territory, but it was simply something I noticed when I tried it.

2) I meant small in the sense of high-quantity, low CR critters. It doesn't have to be small-sized or tiny critters. It could be infantry. If Mr. Tough guy is fighting a human or orcish army, he can be surrounded by more people or orcs on a grid map than a hex map. With aid-another actions, this might make the difference between gnat and threat. Again, something I noticed. It's a tactical consideration where the game intrudes on logistics and sheer logic.

2b) PCs b+*#% for any reason they can. :) I had to stamp on a ten minute complain-o-fest because, in the middle of a purge-invisibility spell, a creature vanished (teleported, not invisibility). There was complaint about how he disappeared, why and where, and if he knew a purge invisibility was in effect. Ugh.

Like I said, I enjoy hex maps but these facts CAN become logistical effects. For instance, if the PCs are leading the army, and they want to get as many people around the bad guy as they can. The grid map allows them to do that, but the hex doesn't. And vice versa.

I like hex maps for all (or most) of the above reasons, but when I started to try to use them in 3.x/PF I noticed some telling issues (since the ruleset was built around squares).

1) Flanking (rule-based): The non-modified flanking rules state that only someone directly across from another is flanking. Granted, I use a slightly more liberal interpretation, even on square grids, but how do you define flanking for hex grids?

2) Flanking (tactics-based): Quite simply, you cannot get the same number of people around a target on a hex grid. The number drops from eight to six for a medium opponent. This is usually not a problem, but can be in encounters designed to overwhelm the PCs with small critters that might die easily (the critters, not the PCs). Conversely, it shrinks the number of targets available for whirlwind attack, reach, spells, and other distance-based effects. Also for threatened areas for attacks of opportunity.

I primarily use maptools for my group, and I'm flirting with the idea of grid-less movement (since you can calculate exact distances and paths easily). Can't quite figure out how to make it work, though.

Indeed. There are a couple of reasons, the aforementioned ink reason (which is strange, because the printing party could simply choose to print it in B&W), or perhaps the fact that they want to give something extra to folks who buy the hardback. The covers are usually built as a spread with a bleed, which means that it is a far different size than the interior pages (also usually built with a bleed: where the ink is printed off of the final cut area so the art goes to the edge of the page). However, as Paizo and many others prove, it's not that hard to make it work.

Now, a real, honest-to-gosh important reason may be a legal one. They simply may not have paid the artist for the right to have their work redistributed in electronic format at a certain resolution. The legal rights to artwork can be tricky, but usually not a big deal. It can make a difference, however. The same could be said of why the art is B&W. Perhaps the artists and designers limited the rights so that only B&W could be used.

The other concern is file size. With cheap terabyte hard drives, it's not a huge concern, but downloading the Core Rulebook from Paizo on dial-up would be...unpleasant. Perhaps they made a conscious decision to keep the file size down. After all, an RGB product has three times the color information included vs. a B&W one.

Have you contacted the publisher? They might not realize it, or may be able to give you access to a color version, especially if you express concern. Heck, they might not even realize it for some strange reason. It's worth a shot.

A relevant aside: as gorgeous as Paizo's PDFs are, I wish they would take a page (or rather e-page) from Eclipse Phase's awesome PDFs. The layers function allows you to get rid of (and separately choose, mind you) different parts of the layout. Don't want to print design fluff (like the 'parchment' background)? Hide that layer. Don't want to blow ink on the art? Hide that layer. Don't want sidebars? Or maps? Or maybe you might want an ink-friendly map that would otherwise be dark? Or on the map folio/AP PDFs you could put DM-only info on a layer and then print out the rest without needing to hide the secret doors and traps.

Ideal world and all.

The majority of the humanoid population will set the Initimdate DC at 10 (10 + 0 hit die +0 Wisdom) or even 11 if you want to give them a level of an NPC class. Looking over the various Intimidate checks, I don't think this is all that far off. I would even consider giving a +2 circumstance bonus if the creature is guarding it's young or territory.

Most of the time though, animals just don't go around trying to demoralize opponents. Yes, they do sometimes, but it isn't all that common. They will usually just attack and call it good enough. Most animals also don't attack with the intent to kill unless they plan on eating or feel very threatened. Usually, they just want to show how dangerous they are. One swipe with a claw is often enough to tell the poor victim that they should leave while they can.

On the subject of animals vs. low level NPCs:

Order of the Stick: The Battle Everyone's Been Waiting For SMALL WARNING: Stick figure-related graphic wound (pretty tame, visually)

One swipe should be enough...

Back in the day, there was a creature in the Shadowrun books, and it was a gigantic (house-sized and aggressive) armadillo, basically. One of its powers was causing fear (like a PF dragon).

In the comment posts underneath on the page (it was set up like a message board) was the amusing comment that I think is appropriate to the current topic:

"Does this thing actually CAUSE fear, or is it simply the only logical reaction?"

Monsters can cause fear without needing combat statistics or intimidate, though in some cases, the effect is there to simulate what characters SHOULD be feeling (dragons, Tarrasque, etc.). Animals can do the same thing. If the players aren't afraid, they either think they're too tough to be threatened by it, or they're not thinking at all.

Animals do put on threat displays, but honestly, as a supposedly logical person, are the threat displays what frightens you, or the fact that the rattlesnake is reared back and ready to strike (and the logic of its presence and the imminent danger it represents)?

In game, those can be different things.

I'm actually suffering from this particular system shock as well. I have a Paladin and an Archer in my party, and at first, it was a nightmare. They were and still are dealing hordes of damage. In fact, during the last combat, the archer narrowly made a save that kept him from dropping a party member a round due to a dominate. He did far more damage than the paladin with a smite. With a bard in the party, it tends to get crazy, and the bard just got haste.

Still, that said, it's not all bad. It's harder to get away from a melee fighter, since he can usually just go around a corner to get away from an archer. In tight quarters, the archer is penalized due to AoO (both giving and receiving, though feats and archetypes impact that). His bow is more vulnerable to sunder, as well.

By all means, take into account cover at least. I'm not sure if it's completely RAI, but I count both soft and hard cover, meaning that the archer needs to line his shots up more carefully (though it usually doesn't impact the fight that much, five foot steps usually take care of at least one of the mods). Arrow counts are important as well, now that you mention it. (Though the archer is FAR more versatile when it comes to DR penetration, since he can easily and cheaply change arrow types).

Some other caveats to keep in mind:

Illumination: If the target is in dim lighting, then there is a 20% miss chance. Flat. One in five of those really dangerous arrows are going to miss.

Concealment: Trees, bushes, smoke. Use 'em all.

While those all count for melee attacks, the archer has a lot more space between him and his target for them to use dirty tricks.

Not to mention spells and effects that help to block ranged attacks (wind wall, entropic shield, etc.)

Also, when all else fails, dropping prone gives a big bonus vs. ranged attacks.

I've noticed that Pathfinder tends to even things out really well. Surprisingly well.

I believe that he's upset because he wants to use Instant Enemy on creatures that are already his Favored Enemies, using a min/max approach.

Basically, if he chooses Humans as his first favored enemy, and continues maxing points in it, choosing dragons and undead for the next two, he couldn't use Instant Enemy to get the full +6 against dragons and undead, because they're already favored enemies, but only +2.

Now, the option he proposes, as I see it, is to keep all of the bonuses vs. different enemies equal in order to not specialize (for better or worse).

I can see where it might get confusing, because obviously, the ranger really likes beating on the dragons and undead, more than, say, aberrations, but if he uses the spell, he can never quite whack dragons and undead as hard as aberrations.

Personally, this is kind of an interesting limitation, even though it might not make sense. It's a great utility spell, but I'm not super-fond of the concept. It's limited to one single creature, though (not one creature type), so it's not like you could say "I'm changing to fight Orcs." Rather, it's "I'm fighting that Orc like he's a Human."

Really, it's a bit of sleight of hand to try to max out one and then use it on everything. No, it's not super-powerful, comparatively (rangers have precious few spell slots, and it might be better, statistics wise, to spread out the FE bonuses a bit more evenly (+4,+4,+4 d of +6, +2, +2). That way, the spell becomes handy when you don't meet those creatures, for BBEG and the like, and when you do, then you have the same bonuses.

By the way, the 3.5 rangers functioned identically, but received no bonuses to hit and to knowledge checks. In 3.0, maybe, I think they had the +1, I think I remember it was just that all of the other ones went up by one, but they weren't equal. 3.0 rangers kind of sucked.

Ok, I'll clarify. I've been reading posts about verisimilitude, posts about intrusion into theme and posts about anachronisms with flintlocks and Western-style abilities.

I'll say this, looking at the rules as they stand for the firearm, I'm surprisingly pleased by the result. I could take exception to a few things, but really in the end, it's a way to simulate fantasy firearms fairly well.

I had some experience designing musket rules for a fantasy Napoleonic 3.5E game I dreamed up. I wanted to make them impressive enough that they would be a useable weapon, realistic enough that you could nod towards realism but still jump towards heroic adventure stories, and playable enough that players wouldn't complain about them in the context of the game. It was a gold-plated pain in the a** to do it right, and I had to do it with a ton of optional rules from Unearthed Arcana and Star Wars. In the end, I achieved a semi-functional result that satisfied my desire for realism balanced with some playability. People fired and then switched to bayonets when things got too close.

What people didn't enjoy was spending five rounds reloading their guns when the guns were their primary weapons. And they were trained to reload faster with feats and class abilities.

So, onto what I do like in the gun rules. I like the fact that they're expensive to purchase/own. This makes them rare and pursued by only the folks that want to play that type of character. There is a very real fear that firearms would change the landscape of combat for D&D characters. That fear is real because firearms DID change the landscape of combat very dramatically. But by keeping the cost excessive, that fear becomes less important.

I would also think that they would be hard to sell for any price. After all, they require expensive ammunition, they're a new technology, an unknown quantity. If someone came up and offered you a bazooka, but you only had to pay half the asking price for it, aside from the novelty, would it be worth it to purchase, especially at that price? A bazooka is just a tube without a rocket. Especially since there are easier to use weapons that do just about the same thing readily available... (ok, so the bazooka isn't the best analogy, but still...) Will some characters use it anyways, with the price tag, sure! A pistol tucked into a belt is a classic element. Will it replace the longbow? Probably not. Which is as it should be. Otherwise

That aside, the rules give them something exceptional. Yes, you can hit a touch attack every round. Yes, the Tarrasque will be shot every round, with its touch AC of 5. Magic missile hits every time. You don't even need a roll! At first level!

And if you spend a few feats, you can perform full attacks with a musket. IRL, with a musket, three rounds a minute was impressive. A skilled gunslinger can reload six times or more! (Rapid Reload, Lightning Reload Deed, Signature Deed (Lightning Reload) and enough iterative attacks to make it worth their while). Even with revolvers, this ability doesn't get THAT out of hand. Especially since a revolver takes a heckuva lot longer to reload than a single barrel. Though the Lightning reload might need to be reworded or limited in that case, but not really. It's an 11th level minimum ability.

The archer in my game deals out heavy damage with deadly aim, and the same could apply to Gunslingers, so I see nothing that isn't comparable except for a bump in the price. Come to think of it, a masterwork composite strength bow probably cashes in around 1,000 gp, so the cost isn't that prohibitive, especially added to masterwork arrows. A +1 arrow is roughly 40gp. Is a +1 bonus worth touch attacks at close range? It's apparently worth around 1/4 of that.

Yes, lead balls should be cheaper, but again, maybe it's a limitation of the fantasy firearms. It works both ways. If you want to reload quicker, then you need to have better ammunition. Or, think about this one, if you want, you can buy the ammo cheap, but then spend ten rounds reloading.

As for the targeted shots, trick shots and extra fun things, those give a bit of fun abilities that cancels out the cost and action penalties that a gunslinger suffers from with the firearms.

The more I look, the more I see that the gunslinger is more than just a damage dealer. The limited amount of grit (since it's based on WIS, but not level), balances out some of the exceptional things they can do.

If anyone in my group is reading this, skip the next part:

I do think that folks need to be reminded of the caveat that if you don't want it in your game, you don't have to have it in your game. Same goes for Ninjas, Monks, Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Dragons, Longswords, Gold Pieces or that annoying guy that always eats anything that isn't behind a lock.

In the end, PF and D&D are cinematic games. We don't roll for infections, organ damage, broken bow strings or stubbed toes. Firearms misfire because it's cinematic for them to do so. They pierce armor because they function differently to give them a different feel. In the end, hit points represent luck, and not actual wounds, and firearms are just as abstract. Long may it be so. If I want wounds, I'll play a different game. If I want long reloading times, I'd probably play a different game.

Just my 2cp. Thanks.

A while ago, we started a game where the players mostly played the playtest classes in a small group. We play it occasionally (mostly when I go back to my hometown, as a treat), and I use an Alchemist as a GMPC. Basically, she functions as an area-effect rogue, and complements nicely, though without trapfinding.

It took me a bit to get the hang of the character, since I didn't know what role she took on. Was she a power caster? Was she a buffer? Was she a scrapper? Was she artillery?

She tends to use her bombs to focus on groups, which works well, but tends to hold back because she wants to save her heavy hitters.

But, as for the buffing. This is the part that grates on me a bit, having played buffing-type characters in two games (one as a pure player). By the time the buffing's done, the fight is too. I'm not sure how folks play this out, but usually, I only have time to use one or two buffs before I have to start fighting, and combining some higher-level ones ends up putting me out of the fight. I think that's a bit of a rant with the game, and a price to pay for a casting physical fighter.

Anyways, she is surprisingly fun to play, and really would like to play an alchemist as a full-on player at some point.

I think the design choices were interesting, and not exactly what I had in mind when I thought of it, but they seem to fit better as I went along and learned more.

Historical alchemists weren't scientists, not really. They didn't deal in science. They stumbled onto it, effectively, leading to the advent of science. In a way, they were akin to clerics, in that Alchemy was a spiritual pursuit (lead into gold was a metaphor for the soul).

I have come to enjoy the idea of the alchemist as a continuation of that metaphor. They stumble onto actual science/fantascience in terms of durable alchemical items (which is why any class can make those items with hard recipes and finite effects). But what they're really refining is their spirit/magical self, which is how they create infusions and bombs with bits of themselves. It touches on the bits that alchemical items represent, but in the end is about the person rather than the portions.

In a way, it's a subtle way to allude to the alchemists of old but leaving the styles open for different types and including other archetypes (like J&H).

As for more powerful alchemical items, it wouldn't be a stretch to have them available, but expensive. The alchemist class, in particular, would be ideally suited for the task of creating them, since with their class bonuses, they can create items far more easily and with more complexity than non-specialists.

Well, I just read through the "Gandalf was Fifth Level" article, and it's a fair enough assumption, but I think, in keeping with the feel of those stories, it's important to remember that Gandalf was a mostly well-played GMNPC.

He is the adventure hook. He knows everything (or most everything) that's going on, and he's kindly helping the dwarves and Bilbo along, but disappears whenever it would be needed to create drama. "Oh, uh, you guys go here, but I'm going to go, um, read something, uh, a few towns over..."

And that applies to the 5th level post. Sure, he 'only' cast 3rd level spells, but that's because it was just enough to help the hapless PCs along, without winning every fight for them... Also, the idea that magic was vulnerable, that using it drew the eye of powerful beings also explains why the big stuff was held back. It also fits very well with the concept of him being a supernatural being, and the idea that the gods help those that help themselves.

Now, as for the Hobbit-style/Middle Earth campaign, folks talk about it being a low-magic setting, but nearly every character had a magic weapon by the end of LotR (or maybe lost them along the way). There was magic armor, cloaks, rope, healing, food and even pseudo magical armor. The gear was there. Not to mention (it's been a while since I've read the books) some supernaturally awesome fighting and skill use.

Namely, the black arrow and Smaug, and Aragon's tracking skills and stamina.

However, the point of the stories, and the theme is that the gear isn't the point. Each of the undefeatable monsters/enemies they fought had a weakness that wasn't just hit points. The biggest weakness was the resolution and determination of the folks that stood against them, if they were united.

Think in terms of artifacts and overwhelming enemies, remind the PCs that not every fight can be won directly, and give them help and faith when they're in trouble. Also remember that the most terrible enemy in Middle Earth was not just a ring, but the temptation to use the ring.

As a bit of a nit-picking and an aside, you would still technically need medium armor proficiency to wear the mithral armored coat without suffering the non-proficiency penalty... It's treated as light for everything EXCEPT the proficiency. (This tidbit at the top of page 155 in my core book, just FYI.)

There are some exceptions, but those are special armors. It's caught my group a few times, and I've had to remind them.

Oh, and I apologize if you already knew and accounted for this, it's a little bit of a thread jump.

While it is slightly ambiguous, it does seem to me that it deals damage as well as smoke.

"Smoke bomb*: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it create a cloud of thick smoke when it detonates. The cloud functions as fog cloud, filling an area equal to twice the bomb’s splash radius for 1 round per level."

I think the operatives are that a) it doesn't say instead of dealing damage, and b) it says "when it detonates" which means it explodes. Which usually mean it deals damage.

The other inference is that all of the other powers deal damage with a bonus (or directly and explicitly alter how damage is done).

I'm curious as how you handle game maps that are BIG? (see my Scarwall map thread for an example.)

Do you keep washing and erasing a battlemap? Print it out? What?
I'd like to know how this is handled by y'all.

At this point, I'd be using an online map tool, but that's because I'm 300 miles away from my group...

Actually, those work REALLY well for big maps. We played a Star Wars game where the weapon fire actually made it out of point-blank range! Imagine that! Longbows that actually have range-increment penalties!

Before Maptools, I took advantage of the fact that I live alone and built some rather elaborate and interesting maps using various tools and toys. Since the party saw the map by web-cam, I was able to actually create a fun 3D world, hide miniatures behind obstacles, etc. One of my favorites was a battle in a reactor chamber where I built bridges and drop-offs and then used a working fluorescent light tube as the horizontal reactor core. It created a really vivid scene on the webcam.

(As an aside, the webcam could be used to create vfx as well, I would play with the saturation and hue to create a night scene, etc.)

Ahem. As for D&D/PF there are some interesting options that folks can try, the first is to alter the scale. i.e. make a 5'square count as a 10' square, or even a 20' square.

But for a traditional dungeon, unless there is a large number of combatants or a need to have a running battle through various rooms, I would draw it piece by piece. If I thought the group was going to need to backtrack (and do so with accuracy), I might draw it on several map sheets, but usually a draw/erase approach worked fine, if annoying at times.

As for a large battle planned out ahead of time, I find a special treat is to create the entire map for the party. I've used this for skirmish/mass combat scenes or desperate final battles. One of my favorite was when the bad-guys tracked the PCs back to the stronghold they were using (the moat-house in ToEE) and did a last-ditch effort to wipe out the village of Hommlet and its defenders. I built the entire moathouse in two 3D set-ups, and let the party position the militia and other defenders. Then invaded. It was a blast, though I dominated my poor Mom's living room for two days setting up. She got a kick out of it, though, I think.

If, however, the party will need to go through several rooms several times (there's an old AD&D adventure, The Lost Island of Castanamir, or some such, which uses portals and rooms with odd connections), I would draw or print out the maps to save time in the drawing.

Truthfully, though, I'm sort of hooked on MapTools at this point. The light and visibility tools are far too priceless (even if it took my group a while to get used to them). The fact that I'm a graphic artist and can tweak pre-made maps to make some great environments helps as well. Heck, I've even built small panoramas and taken photos of them to use, or screen captured a scene on Google Maps satellite (for a beach image). It's really a fantastic resource. I've even considered going grid-less, since you can track distance very easily.

Thats a reasonable approach if everybody can live with the inherent relativism. Knowledge and Law might work for an inquisitor.
Also, kudos for fantachristianity.

Stefan

Thanks. Maybe I should have capitalized it? :)

The basic idea is that since there is only one god, everyone is simply accessing different aspects of the one god.

Another idea might be giving the clerics the ability to change domains, not on a whim, but at given points in their careers (such as a sorceror can relearn spells at a certain level; or alternately if a major event or shift in the campaign happens, etc.), or by performing rituals or prayers. I.e. the wandering friar ends up becoming a defender of a small village vs. nasty evil thing, so maybe he changes travel to protection by spending a week in fasting and prayer.

Just some game ideas.

It's hard to resist this thread.

I'd have to say that X-COM, Master Blaster, and Master of Magic (maybe even Master of Orion, though the last incarnation was WAY too complex) are all high on the list, there is one game/series that absolutely, positively needs to be remade for modern technology:

X-Wing/TIE Fighter/Alliance

Those would be fantastic games to play, especially over the net with buddies. Heck, you could even do Clone Wars and other EU ships, as long as you kept the Rebellion Era fights.

And NOT Battlegrounds or arcade-style. I WANT a 'simulator,' and they did that well without being overwhelming in the controls. Enough so that when I read the X-Wing novels, I knew how they were controlling their snubfighters.

Seriously, I might offer my leg (not my hands, I'll need those to play) for well-made versions of those.

Arguments aside, the last few posts bring up a good point. The Christian/Abrahamic god is the god of EVERYTHING. Everything (good and bad) comes from him, effectively. While the idea is that he is generally not a bad fellow, he does have to have bad things happening from time to time. That includes corrupt priests (though it doesn't mean that morally they SHOULD be corrupt).

In my games, when I did fantachristianity, I generally let the players pick any domains that made sense for their characters. So, you could have the scheming, not-so-nice bishop that wants to rule the world with evil and charm domains with a dagger, or the freewheeling wandering friar with chaos and travel and quarterstaff. All of them purportedly worshiping the same god (the same goes for the Arabic characters they might meet, etc.)

It allows players to build and justify their choices with play style and flavor. In a historical, relativistic concept, the people that were in the church had wide and varied morals and goals, and this concept reflects that. While the church may aim towards LG, and fall somewhere around LN, it played host to a wide range of men and women, most good, some not.

It also dodges the heated question of just what alignment the Abrahamic god really is nicely, focusing on the more fallible mortals.

Some concepts just don't make sense, though, like greatsword wielding healing and plant clerics, and as a GM, I'd rule them out without a great concept.

That said, another valuable concept is the idea of the non-fighting cleric. The D&D cleric was designed around types of fighting knights, and doesn't always fit with the brown-robed monk or village priest idea. The old Unearthed Arcana book (reprinted here: Cloistered Cleric from the SRD) fits this concept nicely. It would require a bit of tweaking for PF, but it works surprisingly well and fits the concept).

If I pathfinderized it, I would say remove favored weapon entirely or make it a staff or club (staff works well, given above comments), make hit dice d6 and BAB per wizard, etc.) Tweak the skills and voila.

It's a little past the season, but this is one of my all-time favorite laughs during a D&D game. It may take a while to tell, but I usually find it's worth it.

When my group plays on or around a holiday (especially on), I try to do a 'holiday special' for them, which can lead to a ton of flavorful fun, like a Halloween party in a Shadowrun game, etc. I don't remember if it was on or near Christmas, but I decided to do a Christmas-themed game and whipped up a one-night encounter.

The party, having successfully defeated the Temple of Elemental Evil, was traveling to Greyhawk to discover more information on some of their magical items and to ask for help with a larger discovered threat. On their way, they passed through the now deserted village of Nulb, since the Temple was defeated and armies disbanded.

Well, a few of the temple's soldiers had decided to 'go legit' and found the deserted village as a perfect place to start an inn. The only problem was, they included a bugbear, and a troll.

I should explain that in this game, alignment for everything save dragons and outsiders was up for grabs, though they did tend in certain directions... A former player always quipped about "Olvar, the Lawful Bugbear" so I stole the idea and had a LN bugbear try to be an innkeeper.

Anyways, the party is passing through Nulb, it's getting late on Yule-eve (the Greyhawkish equivalent of Christmas eve). And they see a light on in the inn. "Hot dang," the party agrees. So they go into the inn and find the bugbear inside, dressed in ill-fitting clothes with a towel over his arm. "Welcome to the Inn of the Welcome Bugbear!" Olvar says.

After much threatening and sword drawing, the party finally calms down enough to see that the Bugbear is running a legitimate business. However, the innkeeper really doesn't know the going rates, so when he claims 1gp a night for boarding, there's a bit more drawing of weapons from the party's dwarven battlerager.

Since they were rolling in cash (seriously, have you ever had a party make it through the ToEE. They are RICH.), it wasn't a problem. And they ask to have their horses boarded. So Olvar calls his stable-boy and servant, Timmy, and tells him (where the party can't see Timmy) to take care of the horses.

Much whinny-ing and chaos later, the party crashes into the stable to see what the matter was, and they find a skinny, short troll cowering in fear from the frenzied horses (since the troll didn't have the least idea how to take care of horses). Much weapon drawing and convincing on the part of Olvar calmed the party before the troll was slain and the barn burned down. (The dwarven battlerager, it should be noted, had tatoos on his feet, one of a troll on one side and another of a troll squashed on the other).

The party tends their own mounts after Olvar agrees to refund a gp.

Dinner is served after an hour or two, with the party wondering what the heck is going on. An unappetizing split-pea soup smell mixed with garlic rolls out of the kitchen.

When the group sits down around the table, Olvar brings out the main dish, Troll souffle. Timmy stands in the corner, regenerating a large strip of flesh that was cut off of him.

The souffle continues to rise...

Most of the party begs (because Olvar has been nothing but exceedingly polite and earnest) that they're not really that hungry. The dwarf chows down and asks for more...even though Troll is the reverse of Chinese food (you eat it and an hour later you're full again).

They find out that Timmy was a cowardly, non-evilish troll in the Temple's armies, and that as such, he was made a cook, meaning, he would strip off bits of flesh, boil them and serve them to the humanoid armies.

The dwarf then asks for seconds.

Olvar asks if it has too much garlic.

Dinner aside, the party retires to their room (they refused to be split up, and even though the inn was empty, they shared a large common room). They set up some watches and go to sleep.

In the night, they hear a clatter down below and harsh voices calling out. They arm themselves and rush downstairs to find Olvar being threatened and abused by a group of human bandits, who are threatening him and breaking what little furniture he had. Meanwhile, Timmy, frightened runs off into the dark of the night, in the middle of a bad blizzard.

After some moral debate, the party decides to defend Olvar and make short work of the nasty bandits. It's too late to find Timmy, so they hunt for him in the morning, with Olvar wringing his hands in dismay, because Timmy is his only friend. He pleads with the party to bring him home safely.

With a shrug, the party's ranger sets out tracking him despite the deep snow. They find him in a frozen pond, one leg stuck deep in the ice and with a good-sized boar jammed through the frozen limb with its tusks. They kill the boar (which one of the party explains that they can cook, because they took the cooking proficiency), and then cut off Timmy's leg (at Timmy's insistence, because it would grow back).

Timmy, it should be noted, talked in a muffled, squeaky voice that I've only used ever for him. A masterpiece of pathetic.

Anyways, rigging up a crutch, they haul the boar back using the leg as a stick to hang it from, and the party contributes supplies to make a large Yule dinner to share with their new friends. Heartwarming as apple pie and puppy kisses.

And, as they all gather around the table and Olvar gets ready to carve the Yule boar, Timmy, standing on his crutch says to one and all:

"Gods bless us, every one."

Beautiful. Especially since the party followed my aim without me telling them what to do. And they didn't see it coming for all the world. It was all set up for that joke. I'm so proud.

Puns are infamous for me, or rather I'm infamous for them, but here are two of my favorites:

A campaign where I was playing an honorable gnoll, cast out from his tribe.

DM: You're standing on a grassy knoll.

Me: Does he mind?

This became a stand-by joke. So much so, that the DM stopped using the term knoll.

And, perhaps my favorite. We were in an evil campaign with a barbarian named Krommerse. We connive our way into a dwarven stronghold and through treachery and violence manage to kill the inhabitants. The barbarian takes over the banquet hall as his personal room.

Me: So that's your hall, right? Yours alone?

Me: So, what you're saying is that it's the Chamber of Krommerse.

Groans. Ah, they're like sweet wine to a true pun-isher.

Ah, the Dwarf throwing story reminds us of some of our dungeon stand-bys:

TGIF and TTIF

TGIF: Thief Goes in First

and, if that doesn't succeed,

TTIF: Throw the Thief in First!

That's been the case ever since my first party, and we had an annoying GMNPC thief that kept stealing everything (we were 11 years old). It still holds true today. Plus, it's a quick way of finding traps.

One party had a cleric that joked once that before he went into battle, he had to crack open a six-pack of whup-ass. He even went so far as to record the said six-pack on his character sheet, and when the character died, the six-pack was passed around from character to character. It had no real function, but occasionally shows up in my games.

When South Park first came out, the party in our ToEE game was short a heavy-hitter fighter. So they went to town and hired a big, strong tough guy to serve as a human shield. As a joke, because I expected him to die, I named him 'Kenny' because I figured when he went, everyone else in the party could cry out "Oh my God, they killed Kenny..." et al. What made this exceptionally funny was that the party was one of only one or two TPKs that I handed out as a DM, on the very session that Kenny joined the party, and that he was the last character to die.

Forests filled to overflowing with owlbears are a strong in-joke for our group, thanks to one player's disastrous attempts at DMing involving three hours of character building and fifteen minutes of exploring a wooded clearing and five minutes of watching a party of six or seven 1st level characters get slaughtered by an Owlbear. In game time it took far less than five minutes. But, you know, he had to roll. Later, we found out, he was trying to steer us towards a path, but I'm not sure why he didn't give us a chance to run away...

(As a side note, the Kingmaker Owlbear art was hilarious to our group).

My personal peeve is that, given identical ability scores, it is just as easy to hit a level 10 fighter as it is a level 1 commoner. I know there are some rules in Unearthed Arcane that cover this some, but they, in the long run, make armor almost obsolete at higher levels.

Some players have expressed that armor doesn't make it any harder to hit someone, but harder to cause damage, and they wouldn't mind seeing this somehow. (also don't 100% agree with like rules from UA)

It sounds like you've already looked through the Unearthed Arcana rules, but if you need them, here's a link (no sense doing something that someone else has already done)

http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantAdventuring.htm

Now, that said, the 10th level fighter is MUCH harder to hit than the 1st level commoner, at least in a tangible sense.

The hit point system is designed to represent this fact. That's why the 10th level fighter has 19 to 100 hit points before constitution bonuses, and the commoner has one to four (if they still have 1d4 for hit dice). The commoner is far more likely to be injured, slain or knocked unconscious than the fighter, given equal situations and ability scores.

What Hit Points Represent

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

Hence, the fighter might get jabbed, but using his learned knowledge, he manages to roll with the blow, or turn it into a glancing shot where the commoner would be knocked out and bleeding or slain.

With a lethality reduction, or even with armor damage reduction, the effect that it has will rapidly evaporate at higher levels, when creatures deal more damage (if your fancy plate mail +5 absorbs 9 points of damage (5 for the magic and 4 for the plate), and the creature hits for 30 to 60 points of damage, esp. on a critical hit.

It could also be helpful to look at example cases at different levels.

1st level chain mail, no dodge AC bonus, Armor bonus to AC +3, and the character still takes full damage from every strike (two points of which become nonethal). AC is two points worse than normal.

15th level, full plate +5, +7 dodge bonus to AC, the rest as above.
Finally, the stats equal out.

Now, this system will favor lighter armors, since Dex will be more important (especially at lower levels), and the damage conversion difference is really not that great (two for chain, three for breastplate, four for plate).

As for the other problem that I can see, since you are giving a dodge bonus, it will make rogues a bit meaner (since they can hit flat footed fighters much more easily, since they lose dodge bonuses when flat-footed), and make touch spells and attacks a bit less effective (since touch ACs include dodge bonuses).

All in all, characters, except for non-armor wearing characters, will have generally worse ACs, especially heavily armored types, and lighter armored or non-armored characters (monks, wizards, rogues) will all have better ACs. All of them will still be taking nearly full damage on a hit as well, it's just that part of it is non-lethal.

It's hard to know where to get where you're going. Personally, as I stated at the start, the fact is that higher levels are harder to hit (in a tangible, effective, do serious-injury sense) because of their hit points, so it's already factored in, but semantically unsatisfying.

My suggestions, looking through the Unearthed Arcana variants, would be perhaps to use the defense tables for AC (purely) and then apply the damage reduction or conversion for the armor, without giving armor an AC bonus at all. This means that the character's level (skill) is what determines if they get hit, and the armor reduces the effective injury. The table is balanced fairly well (but comes with drawbacks, again, the fact that touch attacks have a harder time hitting, and flat footed means more). It also factors in the various classes' martial abilities better. On the other side, it heavily favors 'dipping' to get the fighter AC bonus, and gives lightly armored fighters the same chance to be HIT (not counting DR) as heavily armored characters, leaning towards the heavy ACs (and making DEX more effective).

Anyways, whatever you decide on, I wish you luck.

Thanks for pointing out the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana info! I'm actually interesting in look at that info for a player in my game but could not remember where I saw it.

My mistake, the individualized summoning lists are in UA, but the summoning individual monster variant is in the 3.5 DMG, page 37.

Hope that helps.

The summoned PC game sounds like fun, heh.

Personally, unless your character was summoning a PARTICULAR eagle, I don't think it would matter. You would just summon different eagles.

Now, that being said, there was something in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana or somewhere else about summoning individual creatures (i.e. when you summoned an eagle, you summoned a particular eagle, or a particular group of eagles). This was a trade off. You were limited by the above, but the eagle itself could be equipped, be exceptional and/or even advance a bit.

The other case is where the spell or ability is limited to a specific creature. For instance, the Antipaladin's summon fiend ability (edit: although, like the Paladin's mount, it has its own rules for dying). As another example, perhaps you have summoned a particular intelligent critter, and have grown fond of it (as well as the fact it understands you and your motivations, or it has knowledge that you need, for ex. you used it to scout, but it died before reporting back).

But if you're just pulling eagles willy-nilly from the ether, you should be fine (heck, you could call a single eagle again right after the first one died, if you're not too attached to the first :) ).

The first time I started playing D&D regularly (I played once with my cousins, but I was a bit young), it was with a female DM. She ran for a while until I started running (which was a natural fit, but that's a long and detailed other post).

She stayed in the group for many years, and we had female players come and go (and male players come and go) throughout high school.

In college, we had nearly always had two or three female players in a group of six, seven or eight. Some were there for the social aspects, since we were a group of intelligent, polite guys (for the most part), and some were there for the fantasy (one particularly quiet girl truly blossomed socially after playing with us for a few years, since we were a social outlet that allowed her a comfort zone, and she truly enjoyed the game and the characters). Some were wallflowers, some were emphatically not, but just happened to enjoy the storytelling and even the chance to kick the crap out of things, figuratively speaking.

In later college, I had a female GM run an absolutely fabulous VtM game (though we did temporarily drive her into a nervous breakdown--hey, she was the one that suggested a Sabbat campaign). She came back in style though with a helluvan ending. Sheer fun. She played with us until she moved away in D&D, Star Wars, WoD (Vampire, Mage and Werewolf).

Others joined because, once again, we were a social outlet and a group of polite, intelligent people. Some dug the D&D, some WoD, some just liked hanging out but ended up crunching numbers with the best of us.

Actually, it wasn't until just recently that I didn't have any female players at all. Heck, my last female player was the one that kept people's minds on the game instead of wandering into imagined hypochondriac health crises.

I think that there are all kinds out there, and it's primarily cultural stereotypes that pin people into different 'gender' roles. There are female gamers, female wargamers (do a search for Warhammer 40K and Hello Kitty if you don't believe me), and even female roleplayers. Different games appeal to different people regardless of gender. I know quite a few people that aren't interested in D&D, but would jump at a chance to play a hardcore scifi game. Of both genders.

If there is a 'boys club' mentality (which is fair, since there is a large gender disparity), it's the boys' job to make sure the girls know that they're welcome, that they're respected on even footing, and that they don't have to play in a hostile environment. ANYONE new can bring something great to the game.

As for the 'girls think combat is icky' concept, my friend and I used to play "Lunch Money" (a card game that simulates a knock-down drag-out schoolyard fist fight) quite a bit when we got together, but never brought it out when the ladyfolk were around, because we thought that they'd hate it.

Turns out, they bug us to play it all the time. One of them even bought the game. Preconceptions can often be misleading.

I had a conversation with a game designer a long time ago in which I was arguing a point (which I don't recall now I'm afraid). Anyways, my point hinged on the idea that there was a difference between rounds and turns. At first, I only managed to confuse him. He later realized what I was getting at and then acknowledged that he had written the rules while using the terms interchangeably. Round = turn, apparently it's been that way since the start of 3rd edition. So for better or for worse, a round =/= a turn, is false.

(Which I think is stupid I might add, the terms could clear up so much stuff if used properly.)

Heh. As an old-school gamer, it's hard for me to remember that a turn does not equal ten rounds (i.e. ten minutes)!

In regards to the full-round/one round question, there are full-round actions that end at the end of the character's current turn (meaning their current action sequence before the next character acts). Most normal full-round actions fit into this category: full attack, withdraw, run, charge, casting a spontaneous spell with metamagic, etc.

Then certain actions carry over until the next turn right before your initiative: spell casting a one-round casting time spell, performing a task that lasts one round or more than one round (certain types of lockpicking, for ex.) These carry over and can be disrupted by characters that act in the intervening 'time'.

I think that there is a discrepancy in terminology between full-round and one round. I seem to recall in 3.0 or 3.5 that there were spells that were full-round actions to cast, and others were one-round. In checking out the d20PRD, it seems that there was a little confusion in terminology even there (a few spells listed a full-round action, others were one-round, some were listed as 'three full rounds') and in the casting time description, it explained that a one-round casting time carried over much as it does in PF. The discrepancy may be a holdover from 3.0 that finally was 'repaired' in PF, as well.

This seems to be another point of confusion, and maybe differentiating these actions should be something to look towards in a revision, etc. (Like full-turn action vs. full-round, etc.)

Sorry, no.

The terms are tricky, but the intent is clear. For instance, a cast that is "a full round" action, ends at the end of the present round, you are not continuing to cast all the way into the next round on your turn.

Isshia

Actually, casting a one-round casting time spell is the full-round action (and the only one that I can see) that explicitly does last until your next turn.

Cast a Spell

A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.

When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.

You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you.

This action is otherwise identical to the cast a spell action described under Standard Actions.

Most other full-round actions last only during the current turn (charge, full-attack, withdraw, etc.). These also can't be split by taking two standard actions in two turns, for ex. all of a full attack is performed on the initiative where the character acts, not split up or only becoming effective before they act in the next round.

There's another exception, too that calls into contrast the difference between a full-round action and a one-round action (i.e. a spell with a one-round casting time). And that's in the section that's about casting a spontaneous spell with metamagic:

Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell's normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard (except for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which take 1 swift action to cast). Note that this isn't the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn.

The controversy here is that the only place where it defines when a spell (or an effect) ends states that it ends on the initiative count before it began after the appropriate number of rounds. This renders many one-round effects technically unusable by their initiators if they require a standard action.

I think most folks agree that the effect should last until the end of the wielder's next turn. It makes sense, makes it effective and can't be gamed for more actions (i.e. casting it on someone else that's delaying to be able to strike twice, etc.). It also doesn't make it overwhelming or dangerous compared to similar powers (claws that can be grown as a free action, etc.). It would be nice to have a double check, and I think folks have been confused enough by it to have it answered in a FAQ (I've found at least four recent threads about similar topics).

Remember, you can vote for FAQs by clicking on the FAQ button on the original question!