Despite not getting any good, useful criticism that I can improve with out of a repetition of "reject", I may have teased a nugget of gold out of this anyways...
...I actually elicited a genuine 'WTF' from one of the judges!
If anything, I'll have that to brag about until next year :-)
*I designated this as a neck slot item because I felt that having it be unslotted would increase its cost unreasonably and it made more sense to me than using a head slot.
As with everyone else, thanks to all of the judges and Paizo staff or taking the time to coach up all of us who are trying to raise our standards to lead the hobby as a whole.
Description: The item is a dried humanoid tongue pierced by an iron hook. To activate it, the hook is pierced through the tongue of a living target victim, while the tongue is placed into the owner’s mouth, where it painfully grafts itself alongside their own tongue. The pain of placing the hook and the tongue inflict d6 hit points on both the victim and the owner, respectively.
Removing the tongue within four hours safely ends all spell effects; if this duration is exceeded, it will begin to inflict 1 hit point of cumulative bleed damage each minute until it is cut out, inflicting an additional d6 hit points of damage. The tongue’s abilities reset once the hook is removed from the victim and placed back into it for at least one round.
While the hook and the tongue are implanted, the tongue’s owner gains the ability to understand and speak the victim’s language, using their voice, while the victim is rendered mute. This grants the owner a +10 enhancement bonus to any disguise check that includes speaking, but a successful perception check against DC 20 + the owner’s Cha modifier will spot the second tongue. The tongue’s owner can activate its divination ability once during its duration, to learn a specific password or phrase from the victim, who must make a DC 20 Will save to resist the effect.
The effect requires the implanted owner and victim to remain within 1 mile of each other; should any condition be violated, the tongue’s effect ceases as if its duration has expired and the owner begins to take bleed damage as specified.
As someone who is both an experienced GM and a trained historical fencer (www.sca.org - which is *not* the same as sport fencing), I give Jim great kudos for developing an item that showcases in-game (or at least replicates to a degree) cloak using techniques from the real world, even if they are magically imparted through this item.
He gets my 'keep' for that, if no other reason than it's a fairly cool low-to-mid level item.
*...Wow. Messed up mechanics on this one...or, perhaps more appropriately, the description of them.
*...This thing would be a mess to adjudicate in an actual game. It makes the GM's job harder.
*...I'm not sure if it makes the GM's job harder, but it certainly makes someone's. Whoever is keeping track of it all, he'll have a heck of a time.
*...Even if the mechanics were better conceived, the concept of the item is pretty meh.
*...What's an "enchantment bonus"?
*...Rejected.
Again, much thanks for all of the effort posting the feedback, Neil.
Not being a writer, I've learned a lot this RPGSS cycle about the differences between solid rules-fu GMing, good writing, and combining both; I may have to take a writing class before trying again next year!
My gratitude to all the other entrants as well - our items might be flawed to various degrees between almost there to I'd never use this, but we've built a storehouse of neat ideas to incorporate into each others' games until RPGSS 2012!
I found no glaring flaws that would deter me from using this archetype; I like the overall balance of powers, except maybe for 'Quicker Than the Eye' that I would weaken in the same way that Kenneth recommended.
Had I made the Top 32, my archetype would've been very similar to this one, so it also has a bit of intangible going for it.
Love the concept, the mechanics are there, nothing seems broken enough to a common GM at first glance (a category of which I fit into perfectly) to deter its use.
For a small group of players (2-3) in an urban setting, this archetype could be a strong plot driver with the right kind of player behind it. Regardless, I see this archetype being popular in any party in an urban setting.
Below is a chart of all wondrous magical items submitted to the judges/developers for their comments. Before each name is the list of the judges/developers (by first name) and in that column "X" indicates they have posted comments. The "ALL" column means that all comments from the judges have been posted.
Please let me know if you see any omissions or errors and I will update it on the next submission.
Thank you,
Ken
WONDROUS ITEMS CHART
** spoiler omitted **...
...dude...I hope you find work soon, before you snap from the solitude. [/joke]
Seriously, thanks for doing all the organizing that us mortals wish we had the time for!
For your use. Following is a list of all items posted to date, and which Judge has responded. Please remember that Mark and Sean are posting for ALL judges comments from the judging booth.
Much thanks, Kenneth, for the summary. You've done all of us a service and saved the judges a lot of effort.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR INPUT! Every year I keep asking for feedback too late in the thread to get a judge's response, so I really appreciate the time you took to read my item and respond. I may re-work this for next year, but based on your responses, I'll probably try something completely different.
While we wait for our submissions to be critiqued...
My suggestion for this item for next year:
- Lose the cage; it's not relevant enough to the function of the canary, it also makes the canary more convenient to transport, ergo, to use.
- Make the mechanics more concise and clean; without the cage element, the only way to end the effect is to attack/destroy the canary, the user passes out...or is killed - simple! Let the expended/destroyed canary drop wherever, to be picked up and reused (ew).
Personally, I applaud your using a little-used rule for suffocation; narrow, yes, but also original.
This is an intriguing idea; I've never seen an effect like this before. It's certainly unusual. My first impression, though, is that this seems very awkward to use - a brass cage and a dead bird seem cumbersome to carry around; CPR for a dead canary is a very squicky activation trigger - and using it seems insanely dangerous for the user, for a very short-lived effect.
On the other hand, I do like the dangerous activation - it's very cool. The guy holds on as long as he can; his ability to withstand the suffocation effects determines the duration of the effect;...
I concur - great work, Jason!
I suspect that the Songbird of Suppression was denied the top 32 due to it resembling a plot device more than anything practical for an adventuring party, or perhaps due to a myriad of smallish game mechanics issues...but as a plot device, this spikes the "game flavor" meter for me!
I would have no problem incorporating this into an adventure as a trap mechanism or "test of endurance", but as a piece of adventuring gear, it's appeal is so narrow as to make it unpopular to general adventuring.
There's some weirdness with the item being a once per day item that lasts 24 hours. It'd be easier to say that the user chooses at dawn what effect he gets and leave it at that.
Then, it's an item for more bookkeeping. It isn't clear as to whether the item heals the damage the user took, or if it blocks upcoming damage of the last type the user took before dawn. That lack of clairity as to which type of extra bookkeeping is bad enough, but you';re also not clear what happens when the user then takes more damage. (side note - don't use asterixes to emphasize a word, that's what bold and italics are for) What if the user took 59 points of damage, then got hit for 10? Does it absorb all the damage? Does it only take one of the damage, and the rest bleeds through? Does it do nothing until the user gets hit for only one damage? And after that, what? Does the item break, or just go dormant for the day?
And then why does the user need to take more damage of the type in order to activate it that day? It seems a lot of overkill and overcomplicated to boot. Two points? So if I'm being mauled by a half dozen monsters dealing one damage a round, I'm stuck?
I think this item is too much bookeeping, and too much in need of a trim. It needs to do one thing well, not nine things okay. And I would never want this item myself because of the amount of work I can see it being to keep track of.
Wow - here I was thinking that the description was clear enough - that's my big lesson from this year's competition. I was under the impression that the term "absorb" was a PF core rules term used and understood clearly; I'll need to do more research.
As for bookkeeping: No more effort than tracking any other long-duration spell a player might use.
Thanks for the point about the syntax formatting - I missed the use of those asterixes in every proofread.
All of your probing questions have logical answers that a typical GM could cover, so I'm not going to address them individually. I'll just say that those contingencies were all considered and their resolution would be no different than that of any typical protection effect; refer to the spell descriptions for protection from energy and shield for more details.
Just so people know, we're not really reading responses and clarifications in this thread. With as many items as are listed here awaiting feedback, we don't have the time to workshop each item beyond the initial copy/paste of the comments from the hidden judges' forum. I appreciate that people want to defend their items, but it does contribute to the clutter here.
For the record, I'm keeping my "submission defense" in the "Submission Peer Review" thread next door. I recommend that, so all submissions here can be addressed as efficiently as possible by the hard-working folk who are giving you their time and effort.
Also submitted for judge's critique on their thread, I'm putting it here for general commentary.
Paranoid Charm
Here's my input:
1: You've created an item with an effect that can be activated once per day and lasts 24 hours... Do you see what's wrong with this? The effect would work much better as a constant effect.
2: This is a swiss-army-amulet; you've got the choice of an AC buff and two types of damage absorption. From what I've come to understand, this is grounds for immediate dismissal in the Superstar comp. In addition, the damage absorption isn't described very well and appears to work on damage that had been received prior to equipping the amulet, or in other words, a form of healing. Instead, it should only apply to incoming damage (see the Scarab of Protection for a great example). You also didn't designate a type of AC bonus; is it a Natural Armour bonus, an Enhancement bonus, a Dodge bonus, a Shield bonus...?
3: The cost is way too low. An Amulet of Natural Armour +4 has a cost of 32,000gp. Try comparing the cost of your items to existing ones and double check the magic item creation guidelines to ensure you get a genuine, approximate value.
I loved your initial description of the item though ("This amulet is crafted in gold, often in the form of a humanoid face bearing a pained expression..."). It is short, sweet and descriptive. Well done :)
Thanks for the feedback, disordah;
Allow me to clarify, knowing full well that, at this point, it's just academic:
1) Activate once/day and a 24-hour duration does not imply that it's always activated; it only means that it can be activated once every 24 hours at the earliest. There may be times that it may go days or weeks without being activated; the item description outlines that. It cannot be a constant effect because the effect may vary and is dependent on the condition of its activation, based on the item description.
2) No, you do not have a choice in the type of protection it activates, because the activation parameter is not set by you, but your attacker. If Neil calls it out as a SAK, I'll take it. Yes, it activates on prior damage - it does not heal anything; it offers protection only from future damage, starting after activation.
3) An Amulet of Natural Armour +4 is always on; the Paranoid Charm is only on for 24 hours. I suspect that the duration sank this item in the eyes of the judges.
I nerfed the protections by limiting its duration, the user's lack of choice in determining what type of protection, and the requirement that the user suffer damage prior to activation.
I concede the bonus vs. cost comparison compared to the Amulet of Natural Armor; I failed to research similar items enough and was basing the effect on comparative spells, not items.
Thanks for helping me polish this first ever entry; this might be back for 2012, depending on what Neil posts about it!
Description
Earth Bread appears as small rounded pebbles ranging in size from peas to marbles and is much prized by travelers. When the stones are placed in the mouth, and gently sucked like a piece of hard candy they will either provide the sustenance of an average meal of food and drink, or will provide the affects of an Endure Elements spell for 24 hours. The user chooses the effect when they place the Earth Bread in their mouth. The Earth Bread must be sucked on for one minute before the effect will be realized. The Earth Bread maybe be shared between individuals with no ‘wait time’ between uses, but each user must suck on the Earth Bread for one minute to activate the effect. After five total uses, sustenance or Endure Elements, the Earth Bread Grows sour and no longer provides sustenance or Endure Elements. Sucking on an Earth Bread for less than one minute will have no effect and does consume a use.
After an Earth Bread has grown sour it can be ground with a stone mortar and pestle and mixed with an equal portion of pristine rock salt to produce a powder with medicinal properties. One piece of Earth Bread, regardless of size, will produce a powder with the effect of a single ‘Cure Light Wounds’ potion CL 5 (1d8+5) when sprinkled on a wound. Using the powder obeys all the rules of potion use.
Earth Bread is believed to occur naturally in underground areas where the earth magic is strong or the first world lies near but they can also be created magically.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, create food and water, Endure elements, Cure Light Wounds; Cost 625 gp
Speaking only for myself...great job, Rick!
This was the first item I came across in the judge's feedback thread that jumped out at me.
Perhaps not Superstar (tm), but it's a subtle, real-world use kind of item that would be selling for good coin in towns on the fringes of civilization. I also like the naturally occurring variant - it's got flavor (pun intended).
I'll be using this in my game sooner or later; it might be faint praise, but if anything, you gained one fan.
Also submitted for judge's critique on their thread, I'm putting it here for general commentary.
Paranoid Charm Aura faint abjuration; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 4,000 gp; Weight .5 lbs.
Description
This amulet is crafted in gold, often in the form of a humanoid face bearing a pained expression. The amulet can be activated once per day, upon which for the entire 24 hour duration it will either confer a +4 enchantment bonus to the wearer's AC or absorb 60 points of damage of *only* the most recent physical (blunt, slash, pierce) or energy (acid, fire, cold, electricity, force) damage of two hit points or greater inflicted upon the wearer in the past day.
The amulet cannot be activated again or have its type of protection altered during its 24 hour duration and removing the charm from your neck ends any conferred bonus immediately. Whenever the amulet is donned, it cannot yet be activated until the wearer suffers at least two hit points of any of the applicable types of damage noted. Likewise, if the wearer does not suffer any of the applicable types of damage in over 24 hours, he must suffer enough damage of any of the applicable types before it will activate again; non-lethal damage does not satisfy the damage prerequisite for activation of this item.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, shield, protection from energy; Cost 2,000 gp
Thanks for the opportunity to submit and get feedback!
Paranoid Charm Aura faint abjuration; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 4,000 gp; Weight .5 lbs.
Description
This amulet is crafted in gold, often in the form of a humanoid face bearing a pained expression. The amulet can be activated once per day, upon which for the entire 24 hour duration it will either confer a +4 enchantment bonus to the wearer's AC or absorb 60 points of damage of *only* the most recent physical (blunt, slash, pierce) or energy (acid, fire, cold, electricity, force) damage of two hit points or greater inflicted upon the wearer in the past day.
The amulet cannot be activated again or have its type of protection altered during its 24 hour duration and removing the charm from your neck ends any conferred bonus immediately. Whenever the amulet is donned, it cannot yet be activated until the wearer suffers at least two hit points of any of the applicable types of damage noted. Likewise, if the wearer does not suffer any of the applicable types of damage in over 24 hours, he must suffer enough damage of any of the applicable types before it will activate again; non-lethal damage does not satisfy the damage prerequisite for activation of this item.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, shield, protection from energy; Cost 2,000 gp
This was an excellent crop of items this year; finally submitting something after three years of following along gave me a new perspective on what can make a Top 32 item and why these were all winners.
I've been rather calm about it.. Until today. Now I'm all antsy, and semi-working on my archetype that I finally decided upon. I promised my players should I get into the top 32, my item would certainly make itself known immediately in my games. Heh.
No need to under-play it, man;
Not only have I told my players they might see my entry and all my other ideas that I didn't enter, I've noted a slew of past years' entries for use in my home game (with the appropriate gratitude to their creators), whether or not if they were accepted as top-32 or if their creator advanced any further.
As long as you don't attempt to publish any nicked material commercially or profit from it in any way, I see it as a great idea-sharing resource to be among fellow GMs, being witness to other sources of "campaign flavor" and gaining new ideas through collaboration.
If anyone objects to other GMs using a wondrous item that someone else created in their own home game, please, do speak up.
Its been said elsewhere but I think it deserves being said again.
You hit the SUBMIT button.
You have already beaten the thousands who do not.
Congratulations - feel proud about that, I know I do and I've now hit that submit button 4 times!
Seriously - taking part is a big win so well done to you and to everyone else who clicked, pressed, thumped, hammered or otherwise manipulated that button with mouse, keyboard, touch screen etc.
Good thinking, Anthony.
Hitting the SUBMIT button may or may not get you closer to or make you an "Paizo RPG Superstar", but hitting the SUBMIT button definitely makes you an "RPG Badass" for putting up your GM chops and standing behind them for all to critique.
While this will be my first time entering RPGSS, I will have no such issues. I've created many homebrew magic items, as well as spells and enough freestanding adventures (called modules back in the day) to have been my own publisher over the past thirty-one years I've been an RPG gamer.
I have no doubt that many fellow entrants have a similar history to mine and will also feel little to no anxiety about not making the top 32. After all, our comfort with our RPG pedigree and our experience is pretty much set - while we all would like to see our creations measure up against the rest of the world, I think we all know that between all of our gamer friends around the table, we're already RPG superstars...
Just wondering; how do you guys know? I'm curious more because some people have some real weird names, and it would be a real shame if a DQ got tossed out for that. Is this more a situation of 'First: Not, Last: Telling'? I didn't notice a way for them to be kept blank, but...
They know because once the 32 entrants are selected, the Judges give the Wondrous Item winner's list to the tech team, who associates each of the items with their submitters and then posts the list online for all; this is the part where they found the two entrants who are not in compliance.
One of the links provided in the first post will take you to the PRD, which contains all the Archetypes from the APG.
To answer your question, an Archetype can replace as many class features as you like, though you have to consider how many changes you can make and retain the class identity (also: word count).
I read the PRD; it answered none of my questions - it was just a list of Archetypes. Useful for not creating one that's already been done, but otherwise vague on the actual definition of Archetype.
I've been gathering research and coming to an idea, so it will have to do by the time the Top 32 are announced.
No need to sweat it unless I get picked; who knows - it might be luck that makes me study up on this topic :-)
Damon, the short answer is: Yes, an incorporeal medium creature that takes up a 5' square cannot travel farther than 5' into a solid material, so moving through a 10' think wall would be no-go. However, if you follow the reasoning I present below and your creature knows the surroundings extremely well, you might allow for an occasional extension of that range...
Think about the reasoning here and you'll understand more:
If you were a ghost and were about to enter an area with no light - *you would be completely blind within that area* - would you want to travel more than a body's length into it, knowing that if you lost your orientation, it's possible that you could be lost *forever* within that area? How many incorporeal spirits would be forever wandering blind within the earth, flying around randomly in the hopes of emerging into the open by sheer luck? If I were one of them, I'd be terrified of passing through anything solid unless I knew it was thin, such as a wall or door... Fly through a mountain? Hell no!
IMHO, your GM needs to reread the spell description and think hard about it.
The mechanics don't specify that the Shield spell works only in one direction; that can be role-played as:
"The shield moves without the caster's concentration and will interpose itself against all attacks directed at the caster."
The spell description doesn't say it explicitly, but that's the intent.
If the caster were flanked, however, would be a matter more in a gray area and subject to the GMs ruling...but I would still personally use the idea that the shield can move fast enough around the caster to be a factor in all directions. A stricter ruling GM might match the spell to the limitations of a physical shield, saying that it can only attempt to block up to n attacks per round, after which is doesn't factor in for the rest of the round.
I believe that there's a fix for the Arcane vs. melee imbalance that already exists in the rules system; the major catch is that it requires high attention to detail by both the GM and the player.
Track the purchase, portage/storage, consumption and repair/restocking of all spell material components and focuses.
- Make the wizards expend standard actions getting out components the round prior to casting.
- Make them track the rate of consumption of components before they can be restocked; this can be critical when in the wilderness for weeks.
- Track the exposure of the caster to water, fire, smoke, acid, gravity or any other environmental effect that might damage or compromise the components they carry.
It adds a layer of administration for both the GM and the player, but it will certainly bring out the realities of how fragile a spellcaster is in the hard wilderness, especially if the GM is diligent in generating weather, random encounters and random threats in the field in general that are outside of the published material.
Many players have lost touch with the fact that outside of their library/lab, many wizards would be pretty miserable traipsing around rough terrain for days, if not weeks.
I've worn armor all day and camped in a tent for two weeks - I speak with the conviction of experience.
I'm with Black Moria; I'm firmly neutral with a generous side of I don't give a crap.
From one standpoint, supporting your favored rules set like your hometown sports team is all fine...
But on the other hand, spending your waking hours posting on multiple boards and waging flame wars about this screams "I need a life".
I used to post here almost daily about a year ago, but that was more to do with my game journal than debating rules; people seem to forget that the DM has final say whether or not to utilize any rule in any book or to house rule modify them in any way they like - which, in essence, makes the debate moot.
It's like saying that an '08 Mustang is better than a '68 Mustang - without having any clue what changes either owner has made under the hood.
The only toll that the "Edition War" has taken on me is that I'm less inclined to post about anything game related online any more; I just run my table and use the Web for rules and material research.
Being in the SCA (www.sca.org) and having BEEN in armored melee combat for many minutes at a time, I can tell you that a 24 second fight is well long enough to determine an outcome in a 5-on-5 or so fight.
As a DM, I give some color commentary and description during rounds, so you could house rule that there is perhaps a 3-second gap in between combat rounds (that has *no* impact on game mechanics) to reflect tactical positioning, parrys/feints/posturing of combatants, etc., perhaps the hurling of insults or battle cries...
When lives are on the line, seconds truly do seem like minutes - play up the description of combat, not the actual passage of the rounds themselves; if each round takes ten minutes to run, a single encounter might fill up half a session.
When I ran a table of 12 players, a single combat encounter could run up to 40 rounds and take *three full game sessions*...most days, I don't miss it!
The Thri-Kreen need only worry about encumbrance...
The Halfling would need concentration checks for all of his casting and he would lose all Dex bonuses to his AC - although he would gain a bonus for using his 'mount' as cover, I would treat to hit rolls that barely miss (i.e., by less than 4) as hitting the Thri-Kreen instead (if such a roll is high enough to beat the Thri-Kreen's flat-foot AC), since the attacks are all being directed to the same square.
- Alternate Rule: Assume that the Thri-Kreen is actively dodging blows meant for the Halfling... Apply the Thri-Kreen's Dex bonus to the Halfling's flat-foot AC; all other melee combat rules operate as if they were a single entity (Bull Rush, Overrun, etc.) with the Thri-Kreen's stats.
Missing the Halfling doesn't excuse the mount from being in the way; I would apply this rule the same way a rider using his mount as cover would jeopardize his mount.
Also...the Halfling would need to be strapped into his basket to avoid severe jostling from the likely unrehearsed coordination needed to cast or act from being mounted; perhaps taking a riding combat feat would negate any penalty. Any and all mounted combat/casting rules would apply to the Halfling.
My all-time cruelest player kill dates back to around 1998...
PC Name: *long forgotten
Class: fighter
Race: *long forgotten
Level: 1st or 2nd
Campaign World: Greyhawk
Circumstances: Random field encounter, marsh terraiin
It was the first session for a new player in a group of four relatively inexperienced players; I had them encounter a single Troll, to educate them that not all encounters should be fought by default - there are some that you should clearly run from if you can't parlay out of it.
Unfortunately, they didn't grasp the lesson...they attacked the troll. After round one, they got the idea.
Given a troll's propensity to attack single foes until dead, I randomly selected one party emmber to attack - it wound up being the new guy.
- Claw: hit
- Claw: hit, add additional rend damage (character HPs near 0)
- Bite: crit (damage drops HPs to well under -10)
DM description to the players:
" The roll grabs (character name here) by both shoulders - claws dig into his flesh as he screams...blood gushes from where its fingers puncture his shoulders as if it were squeezing a ripe fruit. His screams are cut short as it then bites down onto his head, ripping it off. His torso goes limp in its grasp as it chews.
Surviving Players:
"We run."
Dead Player:
*angry silence*
The new guy never came back. I feel guilty to this day for treating a new player so poorly; perhaps I should've fudged a few rolls for the sake of courtesy...
This journal covers almost the entire Shackled City AP; the party got near-TPK'ed two Adventures short of completing it. Of the three survivors, one fled and two surrendered into the service of the Temple of Wee Jas...
I think I recall a similar thread at least a year back where you were objecting to moral viewpoints in published material, perhaps back when the issue containing "The Porphyry House of Horror" feature adventure was published.
Sebastian wrote:
You recall wrong.
Than I am in error and apologise.
Marc Chin wrote:
Our points remain the same, and the same conclusion reached:
If any member of your gaming group objects to certain aspects of the material, the DM can edit or remove it. However, you have no right as a consumer to demand that Paizo cease to publish any of its content. In that, your only legal recourse is to simply not buy their product and suggest to others that they do the same.
Sebastian wrote:
Who are you talking to? It sure isn't me. I gave my opinion, I stated it as an opinion, and I made no demands or threats. But thanks for condescending, it really helped communicate your point (or, at least I assume it did, since you weren't actually responding to anything I said, I can only guess that the person to whom you were talking found what you were saying insightful and relevant.)
That was not directed to you nor anyone in singular; it was a statement of logical equilibrium, where all arguments will eventually average out and settle in a practical/legal sense, in the real world.
Marc Chin wrote:
If you find yourself in the minority, oh well; you've still said your peace and good day to you.
Sebastian wrote:
Got it. The preferences of the majority always are superior to the preferences of the minority. Thanks for the info.
I'm sorry that you got the wrong vibe, but I'm a pragmatist. I agree with you that the preferences of the majority are not always superior to the preferences of the minority, but in most cases, it is what *will* prevail, for better or worse.
The Paizo forums are not the place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles.
Sebastian wrote:
Agreed. And neither are Paizo products the appropriate place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles. And yet, that's what we are getting.
I think I recall a similar thread at least a year back where you were objecting to moral viewpoints in published material, perhaps back when the issue containing "The Porphyry House of Horror" feature adventure was published.
Our points remain the same, and the same conclusion reached:
If any member of your gaming group objects to certain aspects of the material, the DM can edit or remove it. However, you have no right as a consumer to demand that Paizo cease to publish any of its content. In that, your only legal recourse is to simply not buy their product and suggest to others that they do the same.
If you find yourself in the minority, oh well; you've still said your peace and good day to you.
And I highly doubt that this thread is representative of Paizo's audience given that the people who have differing political views regarding the subject have been shouted down. I considered not posting and staying silent, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
I don't think it's a matter of shouting anyone down; I think it's more of a matter that JJ made a point about earlier when he supressed someone's posting of inappropriate language and attitude - the Paizo forums are not the place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles.
I mean, really...an RPG forum isn't the place for it and the resolution, as far as gamers are concerned, is simple - The DM will remove or modify any material if they deem it offensive to players or themself, or they won't.
It's pretty simple for any DM to figure out that their game world will feature as much as his particular gaming group desires of "alternate sexual orientation"-based resource material; that may range from all to none, with the DM modifying the material as he sees fit.
No one poster's opinion will change that, nor should it.
Personally, it brings up a question for me to Paizo staff:
Over a year ago, I submitted an adventure proposal that featured a female NPC as a central character to its story arc; it was rejected on the opinion that its concept 'promoted female stereotypes' because her retention of power hinged on playing off her villainous partners against each other using her sexuality.
Well, it looks like my little secret is finally out. Monte and I have been chatting for quite a while on this project and had a meeting a couple of weeks ago to hash out some details. Monte has been absolutely great to work with, and his Malhavoc books have been a big inspiration for me (I am looking at you Book of Experimental Might and its sequel).
I am currently working with Monte on the inclusion of some of his rules into the Pathfinder RPG. More to come soon. If you want a preview, pick up BoEM and its sequel.
Woo Hoo. Good Times
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
If the world and it's gaming family were proportionaltely smaller, I'd be offering you and Monte brews at the local pub tonight.
As life can be, I'll be there in spirit whenever one of your local fans can take up that flag.
*hint to the locals*
I'm instituting a radical plot shift for my Greyhawk game in order to introduce horror rules and new abberations to my game:
The largest cult of Tharizdun, in a secret temple complex far beneath the city of Molag on the edge of the weakening Empire of Iuz, has successfully punched a small hole in their god's eternal prison by calling down a comet upon their very temple, culminating a complex ceremony that took decades to complete. They funnelled the energy of the impact, loss of life and destruction of an entire city onto a single point in Tharizdun's prison, opening up a pinprick of a hole - just enough for the dread God's insanity and chaos to become immediately obvious with every other diety in the multiverse.
How would you run this?
- How would local flora/fauna be affected? Abberations will appear and multiply due to the spreading corruption, etc.
- How would local populations be affected? Will former hostilities cease as races band together to survive and/or migrate to safety?
- How would local monsters be affected? Abberations and Dire variants will spread ahead of the actual taint of the Starfall - how quickly?
- How would politics be affected? What will Iuz do...the Horned Society has been blasted to ash and sand, surrounding nations have a new, common threat...
Let me know how you would run this and what pace you would take in how far and fast the madness spreads.
I try to allow the player to split up the treasure the best way they can think of on there own which isnt a problem, the problem comes when she gets upset cause she doesnt get everything she wants.
Therein lies the heart of the issue - you have a player that demands all found significant equipment and throws a fit if she doesn't get it.
Several angles:
1. Encumbrance: Track not just weight, but bulk, as mentioned in previous posts; this character will eventually be too burdened to be effective in tactical situations.
2. Division of wealth: Did this character give up her share of coins and gems just so she could have first dibs on adventuring gear, weapons, armor and such? Is the party protesting the uneven distribution, or is she intimidating them into complicity? If so, this stops becoming a character/player issue and the DM needs to say something out of gametime.
3. Player attitudes: No player should be able to intimidate or coerce other players, or worstly, the DM, into getting her way. That player doesn't stay at anyone's table very long. If your circumstances dictate that you cannot remove a player for whatever reasons, simply enforce the DM's will - which every D&D player knows is the last word on any dispute, and allocate the gear as you see proper.
If the player is going to be miserable simply for not getting their way, you will be maintaining peace at your table by eventually motivating the offending player to leave the game.
1) This is a cleric lich. Will it come back with all of its spells? Will they be the spells it had when it was "killed", or will it get a fresh shot at a new set of spells?
No; the lich would need to prepare its spells as would any character who would be resurrected. Of course, it could prep an entirely new spell list.
lyle hayhurst wrote:
2) Will it be able to cast them (given that it doesn't have its holy symbol?)
If the lich is smart, it would have more than one holy symbol available to it, perhaps several that are hidden (see below).
This begs the question, "where does it reappear?"
- Next to the phylactery?
- At the spot where it was destroyed originally?
- At a magically prepared location in its lair? (see below)
This question is left up to the DM and is open to interpretation; it also affects the question below.
lyle hayhurst wrote:
3) What happens during the reformation? Does it slowly appear, skeletal-like, until its whole body forms? Does it zing into existence fully formed? Does it just take over, say, a nearby animal skeleton?
That much is left up to the DM; in my world, it would reform gradually from mist over several minutes.
My lich would be prepared enough to ensure that he reformed in a safe, secure haven (such as a hidden chamber/lab/library in which to prepare spells before re-emerging for bloody vengeance) *hint*
lyle hayhurst wrote:
I read the goodman games complete lich book, and it seemed to say basically "this is all up to the DM."
Exactly!
Remember: Liches make good use of all that extra life span - they have had centuries to plot, prepare and plan for defending their sanctums and for their own longevity; my liches will have had ample time to prepare a safe haven within its lair that not only holds his phylactery (can't do anything about that now) but allows him to reform in safety and provides a secure area to prepare spells. A truly ingenious DM would stock the safe room with a secondary set of magic items, assuming that its original equipment may have been lost!
In my game, Liches rank at the top of the Undead world and are not far behind Dragons as the most feared encounter for an adventuring party in the realms. They have attained enough power and knowledge to challenge GODS and deny them its soul to their servitude in the higher planes. Run them that way!
1) Start making heavier use of cursed items, traps and wandering monsters that carry no loot.
They force the players to burn resources (items, magic, etc.) without compensation; my gut tells me that part of their arrogance is fueled by abundant magic items, thus, power.
2) Toughen the encounters and kill a character once in a while - permanently.
Have foes use powerful poisons or other devious tricks that set up "save or die" rolls. Set up ambushes if foes know that the party is coming; have ambushes be lethal to someone, if not several of them. Have an ambush target a single character - what villain wouldn't want to torment a party by having them watch each other die, one by one?
3) Make use of the Heroes & Horror sourcebook's table of "Resurrection Mishaps" if they try to resurrect fallen comrades.
The players feel invulnerable because they think they can beat any foe and even if they die, they still feel safe that their cohorts will simply resurrect them. Remove this safety net by making resurrections not 100% successful.
4) Give foes an escape plan.
Smart foes know when they are outgunned and will usually have some kind of backdoor escape plan; no one will willingly fight to the death in the face of a clearly superior opponent - annoy your group by having the bad guy keep getting away...frustrate them by having them hire assassins to exterminate party members one by one as revenge!
5) Give the party no safe place to relax.
See above. Plan assasination attempts and ambushes when the party is in a civilized area for down time; poison a meal...assassinate when they're asleep and out of their armor...ambush the one person who happens to be on watch...ambush when they are in a shop not expecting a fight...assassinate single people as they split off to do training/business/shopping. Make them fear what lurks around every corner, even in the largest city.
While you've since discovered that the Wall of Force is a flat, 2-D plane, you can house-rule whether or not the plane is required to be vertical, anchored to any other surface, or static in space (able to fall or be moved).
There can be interesting dynamics at work there if your players are aware of your interpretation of the spell.
Lilith, nice to see you again; hey, is it a fair guess that the Stat Block Bank will remain 3.5/Pathfinder, or will you open up a 4.0 bank in parallel? ;-)
I'll certainly look into these sources, everyone - thanks!
