Michael Gentry's page

280 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The first 9 had no volume or mass either until the tenth one went in.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm starting a new campaign with 7(!) PCs, and I'm a little worried about designing properly tuned encounters for them.

The rules tell me to start with APL, and add +1 if there are more than 4 PCs. They're all starting at 1st level, so APL = 1 + 1 = 2. Then let's say I want it to be a "challenging" encounter, so I add another +1 to that, for a total encounter CR of 3. This gives me a total XP budget of 800 -- or two CR 1 creatures.

I cannot help but worry that 7 level 1 PCs are going to absolutely demolish two CR 1 creatures.

Am I wrong about that? I mean we're talking about a mechanic, a soldier, an operative, an envoy, a solarian, a nanocyte, and a witchwarper against... a pair of trained squox. The squox will be lucky if they last 2 rounds.

Any advice? Should I bump up the APL by one more? Or should I just relax and trust the math?

* My players are not really min-maxers, and neither am I (none of us has the head or the patience for it).

** Please don't say "split the party up". I could offer each player $100 in real money to split up and they still wouldn't do it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
xris wrote:

Or are you suggesting you can't patch a Malfunctioning system twice in a row? If so, I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying a single Engineer can't spread Patching a Malfunctioning system over two rounds (because that's the only way I can see how a single Engineer can do this). Or are you saying something else is stopping an Engineer spending consecutive rounds Patching the same system.

I'm suggesting that the patch action can only ever improve a given system one level higher than its "actual" status.

For example, you have malfunctioning engines, giving the Pilot -4 on all rolls. You patch them (using as many actions over as many rounds as that takes), so now they are treated as glitching for the purposes of determining action penalties. Pilot action penalties are now -2, but the engines are still malfunctioning. This means, if you patch them again, they would just be treated as though they are glitching, and since they are already being treated as glitching, there would be no effect.

In other words, you can't use patch make a malfunctioning engine go away entirely, the best you can do is improve it to glitching for the duration of the battle.

Also to clarify, this is how I think I would rule if it came up in my game (it hasn't ever, yet), but I think there are a number of valid ways to interpret it, depending on how tough you want to be on your players. (I don't do society play, so I have no thoughts on how they do it over there. )

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That all seems to make sense except for maybe a slight quibble with point (vi)? I would rule that you can't patch a Malfunctioning system twice in a row to remove the penalties entirely. Per point (i), after you patch the Malfunctioning system the first time, it's treated as though it were Glitching, but it's still actually a Malfunctioning system. Therefore the second patch is not being applied to a Glitching system but to a Malfunctioning one.

That said, it kind of hinges on how you choose to parse the phrase "treated as". Although I'd personally rule it as I described, your interpretation is probably equally legit.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A 5-mile-diameter dome contains around 4.8 trillion cubic feet, not 172,000.

If there are 2 million people in Absalom station, then each of them would have roughly 2.5 million cubic feet to stretch out in. I think they're fine.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of the complaints about the Barricade feat are coming from people who have not read the rules closely enough.

Starfinder Core Rules wrote:
As a move action, you can stack and reinforce objects that are too small or too fragile to provide cover into a single square of adjacent cover.

Anyone can spend a standard action to kick over a wooden table with 5 hardness and 15 hp and take cover behind it. You don't even need a skill roll. The presence of the Barricade feat does not prevent you from doing this.

Someone who has the Barricade feat can spend a move action to create cover that is just as sturdy out of a roll of aluminum foil, or a pile of foam beer cozies, or a couple of discarded plastic cafeteria trays, or literally any old crap that happens to be lying around.

I don't understand why people keep claiming that the latter is "something anyone could do before they made a rule defining it."

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a couple of things:

* There is no such thing as a "good" Hellknight order. Taking a queue from the words of Kurt Vonnegut: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be," my version of the setting posits that you cannot accomplish good by emulating Hell, nor can you establish justice or peace through tools of terror and oppression. There are individual hellknights who might believe that they are upholding good principles by dressing up like devils and enforcing laws without regard for nuance or mercy, but they are deluding themselves.

* On a related note, it is official canon that the Hellknights were originally founded by a man emotionally devastated by his son's suicide. He became obsessed with the idea that his son had been consigned to Hell for his sins, and spent the rest of his life searching for a way to set his son's soul free -- which is to say, for a way to cheat Hell. And at the end of his life, the founder of the Hellknights set fire to his library and rode out into the night, never to be seen again. To my knowledge, Paizo has not published an official explanation for this mystery. In my Golarion, the explanation is simple: the founder of the Hellknights went mad when it was revealed to him that his son had never been in Hell, but that he had readily sold his own soul by creating the perfect tool for corrupting authoritarian-minded dupes, and Asmodeus was eternally grateful.

* As a member of the Red Mantis gains more and more levels in the Red Mantis prestige class, he removes his mantis-helmet less and less often. By the time the assassin reaches level 10, he never takes it off. By that time, it might not actually be a helmet any more.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:

So let's talk about the moon!

Earth's moon is 238,900 miles away from where you are now. That's 1,261,392,000 feet! It seems reasonably safe to assume that Golarion's moon is about the same distance away. (NOTE: Istoria, my setting, has two moons, so this might get screwed up, but only slightly.)

But wait! How do Kyra, Merisiel, Seoni, and Valeros actually manage to see the moon from Sandpoint?! According to the Perception rules, the difficulty to see Golarion's moon increases by +1 for every 10' distance. So the party would have a current modifier of 1d20-126,139,200.

Don't worry, though. The moon would get a size penalty to Stealth due to its size. Again, using Earth's moon and its diameter of 2158.644 miles (DAMN YOU KILOMETER CONVERSION!!!), that works out to 7,082,165.3543 feet; or if you're on a battle mat, 1,416,433 squares. (Don't actually try to map this out to scale, this works out to 22 miles in real space.)

Now, the size chart for Pathfinder only ("only!") goes up to Colossal size, which is a 6x6 square block. All is not lost, though! I extrapolated some additional size modifiers from the 3e Big Eyes Small Mouth book right here and... well, the largest BESM size modifier is still only -128. (And works out to a two-foot mini.)

If you actually extrapolated the Stealth penalty for the moon's actual size instead of arbitrarily capping it at -128, it easily overcomes the -126,139,200 penalty to Perception. Like, 50 times over.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I should think that what people imagine when they use a coffee pot is .... (wait for it) a coffee pot.

To be fair, the coffee pot description does sound rather arcane if you don't already know what a percolator is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once you realize that Paizo is coyly describing a coffee percolator, you can google "antique coffee percolator" to find pictures that look old and beat-up enough to have come out of some adventurer's handy haversack:

* percolator
* percolator with the insides displayed
* slightly fancier percolator that you might see in a decent inn, like I bet the Rusty Dragon in Sandpoint has one
* REALLY fancy percolator, the kind of thing some slightly unhinged Ustalavic nobleman might serve you before insisting that you remain overnight as his guest in his creepy mountain castle

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only reason Caromac survived as long as he did is because Waxwood was sneaking him water and tiny bits of food through the mouthhole. The WW actually expected him to die a lot sooner.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My entire library of Pathfinder material is PDFs. I extract the images, and import the maps into a virtual tabletop; drop pics of major NPCs and monsters into a folder so I can put them up on the big screen TV during the session; use the decorative page borders and fonts to create handouts; print out pages, chop them up, put them in a 3-ring-binder interleaved with my own notes and any relevant chapters from setting books.

When I want to read them, I load them onto a tablet.

Pretty much the best GMing setup I've had in 30 years of gaming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Navigating awkward and delicate social situations, where a direct answer would not be politically expedient but outright duplicity is not an option, is pretty much the dictionary definition of Diplomacy.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Although I understand and appreciate that it comes straight from real-world Egyptian mythology, and that it is a perfectly serviceable CR 7 encounter...

There is no way on God's gray earth that my players would be able to keep a straight face if I told them they were attacked by a "serpopard".

No, showing them the picture will not help.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The monster in question is a Barrow Hound, a one-off monster introduced specifically for that module. Here's the relevant text of its special abilities:


Dimensional Bark (Su) Up to three times per day, a barrow hound can emit a bark of dimensional energy that sends foes spiraling through time and space. All creatures in a 30-foot cone must succeed at a DC 17 Will save or immediately be teleported 2d6 × 5 feet in a random direction (roll 1d8 to determine the direction, with 1 indicating north and other numbers indicating compass directions going clockwise). The direction is randomly determined for each affected creature. A teleported creature arrives in the closest open space to the determined destination, but must appear on a solid surface capable of supporting its weight. If there is no appropriate destination in that direction, the creature does not teleport at all. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Howl (Su) A barrow hound can let out an ear-splitting howl that terrifies creatures in the vicinity. All creatures of 4 or fewer Hit Dice within 120 feet must succeed at a DC 17 Will save or become panicked for 2d4 rounds. Whether or not the save is successful, an affected creature is immune to the same barrow hound’s howl for 24 hours. This is a sonic, mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.

The howl is explicitly described as a sonic effect, so a silence spell would certainly shut that down.

The dimensional bark is less clear. It is not described as sonic or language-dependent, and nothing in the text suggests that the targets have to be able to hear it to be affected. A strict reading suggests that the dimensional bark is not a sound at all -- the dog is literally "barking" out a cone of pure dimensional energy. Almost more like a breath weapon, really. I would probably rule that silence does not affect it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

Sure, I'll try to explain. The easiest way to understand my problem with it would be for you to try to imitate the pose (I tried it myself and couldn't really manage it). Just try standing like that. Look at the way her hip is twisted sideways and to the back, while the lag on the other side is forward.

I'm not sure you understood the gist of my post. If you physically cannot manage to stand like that, then I can only imagine you must have some kind of serious injury or skeletal condition. The woman is facing forward. Her shoulders are in line with her hips. Her right hip is not "twisted" sideways and back; it is cocked slightly upwards, as is natural, because she is taking a step forwards with her left leg.

The second thing I'd do to understand is to try and imagine her standing like that in a room with other people, and ask myself "what situation is this?" Will someone stand like that while talking to friends? perhaps while in combat? or while casting a spell? I think you'll find the answer to all of these potential questions to be "no" - this is simply no way for a human to stand.

Again, I have to disagree. Respectfully, but unequivocally, I disagree. It's the pose of a woman walking. It's perfectly normal. I linked to a picture of a normal woman in a nearly identical pose (minus the staff) in my previous post, for illustrative purposes. Here's the link again, in case you missed it.

There are obviously sexual elements to the art, and she is clearly intended to be a sexually attractive woman. But that is not a sex toy pose.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Could someone explain what's so contorted about the woman's pose? Because I sincerely, respectfully, do not see it. She is not twisting at the waist in that ubiquitous "butt + boobs" pose; her shoulders are pretty much inline with her hips; one hip is cocked up at, what, about 15 degrees? Which is normal, because she is clearly in the act of taking a step forward.

It's not a combat pose, but it's not a stripper pose or even anything like typical comic book cheesecake. It's hardly contorted at all. It's almost the exact same pose (minus the staff) as this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was going to say on a thumb drive, but BigNorseWolf beat me to it.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like your style, Mythic Evil Lincoln.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

More giants. I kind of feel like giants are all done. We have a giant for every major biome. Now we're starting to make giants for specific professions. I don't particularly need to see Flood Plain Giant, Temperate Grassland Giant, Suburban Strip Mall Giant, and Laundromat Giant in the next Bestiary.

More gremlins. We have nearly a dozen varieties of gremlins now. We're all good on gremlins.

I'm kind of on the fence about drakes. I don't need any more drakes, but I could probably handle, like, a couple more. Just take it easy with the drakes, is what I'm saying. Proceed cautiously.

Same with oozes, I think.

On the other hand, golems are still great. By all means, bring on more golems.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

- Discussion of its history, its nature, how to get there, how to get back out.
- Unique monsters including a handful of additional Tane.
- Some more write-ups of the Eldest. Maybe mythic-level statblocks for them as well.
- A gazetteer of interesting regions and locales. However, NO DEFINITIVE MAP, as that strikes me as going against the fundamental theme of the First World being in constant flux.
- Cryptic, ambiguous hints about the origin of the gnomes, but no definitive answer.
- Maybe some news feats, spells, or archetypes.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAntiElite wrote:
and that people who complain about the presence of heteronormative periphery sexuality (that is, the obvious parents, the tavern-owning couple, and non-sexually explicit expressions of same-sex attraction/existence) are getting mad about it because they don't see as much same-sex periphery sexuality

No. You are misunderstanding.

No one is "getting mad" that heteronomative peripheral sexuality, such as that implied by the mere mention of heterosexual couples, exists in Paizo's gaming products. We are drawing a parallel, in order to illuminate the hypocrisy of people who get mad at the existence of LGBT couples and then justify it by claiming that discussions or endorsements of sexuality have "no place in a fantasy game".

The obvious response to this is twofold:

1) Discussions and endorsements of heteronormative sexuality are already in the fantasy game, in that they are implied every time a heteronormative couple is depicted;

2) Depictions of LGBT couples imply no more discussion or endorsement of sexuality than the heteronormative depictions do; thus, why is one acceptable and the other not?

It's a means of exposing a double standard employed by several people who have objected to depictions of LBGT relationships in the gaming material. If you're interpreting it as "complaining" that there is too much heteronormative sex in the books, then you are missing the intent.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Countdown to this being deleted....

I'm kind of hoping it doesn't get deleted, actually. It is a very instructive post, and I think it would be beneficial for everyone to be able to easily attribute it to its source.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:

So let me explicitly declare what I was implying - Pathfinder is not the place to make real-world declarations, especially ones with the potential to be divisive, as clearly this one is.

You cannot escape making real-world declarations when you play Pathfinder. Whenever you mention a character who happens to be married or have children or have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, you are declaring "Hetero relationships are normal." The fact that you don't consider that a declaration just means that you have internalized it to such a degree that it never occurs to you to question it, or think of it as something that is even appropriate to question. That is precisely what people mean when they talk about "privilege", incidentally.

You might respond, "Well, yes, but hetero relationships are normal," and you would be right. But LGBT relationships are normal, too. And so it begs the question of why it is okay to make real-world declarations about one (which you are, all the time, whether you realize it or not), but not the other.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

This has been said a couple of times already, but:

I would like to see the whole Core Rulebook reorganized and typographically redesigned, according to the layout and design principles used in the Basic Box and most of Paizo's hardbacks published since then. The CR as it stands is a dense, poorly organized, and not particularly attractive book.

I would like to see no substantive rules changes at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yet another crazy-ass bug that should get a giant adventurer-eating version in Pathfinder:

The Hawaiian Carnivorous Caterpillar

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rather not see an entire hardcover based on a single region. I love Ustalav but I don't need 320 pages of it; ditto Cheliax or pretty much any other specific area within the Inner Sea region. I feel like that kind of heavy treatment works best with large, broad topics: an entire continent, or all the gods, to pick two convenient examples.

The one exception is Absalom: I think there's room for one (but probably only one) ultra-detailed mega-city treatment in the setting, and Absalom is the obvious candidate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
If there were more representative black people shown on the map, I'd agree. If there wasn't a racist history of depicting black people as apes/monkeys or other sub-humans, I'd also agree. As is, I think it's reasonable.

And if those were actually the only contextual cues available to the OP, I would be more sympathetic to her and your concerns. But they aren't. There is also the context that Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG, that the setting contains various kinds of monsters that are meant to be antagonists, and that those monsters might be located in thematically appropriate places in the setting. The apes, I'll grant you, are something that should probably be presented more care and context, but one of these monsters is gnolls, which do not exist in folklore or in any literature outside of D&D. You're going to have to dig up some actual sources comparing Africans to hyena-men before I'll believe anyone would legitimately mistake gnolls for some kind of racial dog whistle.

But finally, there is also the context that literally comparing black people to monkeys is not just racist but really quite horrifyingly racist, and we generally ascribe the most profoundly ignorant and hateful motives to the people who do it. That sort of thing does not just fly under the radar. It would be truly extraordinary for a major publisher of one of one of the top two RPGs in the business to go on for five years doing that without anyone ever raising a fuss, and I think that a reasonable person would not immediately jump to that conclusion, even if they did have problems with the poster.

"Why are the northern nations illustrated with what seem to be representative citizens of those nations, while the southern nations are mainly illustrated with monsters and bad guys?" is a reasonable question and one that I think someone in Paizo's marketing department maybe should have asked themselves before okaying that map. "Guys, I'm worried that maybe Paizo thinks black people are all basically monkeys, is that really true?" is just concern-trolling.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

To quote the OP and elaborate a little:

it seems particularly problematic that the people of central Africa (and therefore Black People in general) are depicted as either Pirates, Talking Apes, or Gnolls.
Garund is pretty obviously an analogue of Africa, but on this map, especially in Central Africa, that's all you get. I suppose you could assume that black people don't actually inhabit the Africa analogue, other than possibly as coastal Pirates and that the Apes and Gnolls aren't intended to represent them, but given the long history of blacks being represented as sub-human that's a bit of stretch. At least it is using no more information than is on the map.

No, I have to disagree with this. The map is problematic but it does not exist in a complete contextual vacuum. Even with the understanding that the southern continent is an Africa analogue, there is a big difference between inferring "This region contains demonic apes and gnolls" and "The demonic apes and gnolls in this setting are meant to represent black people." It is really difficult to see the latter as anything but an attempt to make the least charitable assumption possible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

No. Don't do this.

Remember he's only going off the poster, which is limiting, but reasonable, since Paizo is using it to advertise the setting. It does make a first impression.
And it's pretty easy (and generally correct) to infer from the map that Garund is, as he put it, not-Africa. An Africa analogue.
Given that, and given the number of white faces in the other section of the poster, having only one not-Egyptian black human appear in your not-Africa is problematic.

Well, okay: taking the OP purely at his/her word, and bearing in mind that her only exposure to the setting is a poster, then the answer to the original, question is, "No." The Pathfinder setting is not ethically problematic.

The poster may be problematic in that it does not accurately reflect the majority ethnicities of many of the spots it chooses to highlight. Geb, to take just one example, is certainly not full of white liches; the woman Paizo chose to show on the map may well be the only white person in that region, and she's not a native. It's also worth noting that most of the conclusions the OP drew about the northern continent are also either simplistic or dead wrong, and that may well be also the fault of the map. I gather, however, that the OP is not as concerned about that.

But I think if we take the OP at his/her word that her main criteria for "ethically problematic" is that the southern continent appears to consist solely of pirates, apes, and gnolls, then we can certainly all agree that the actual setting does not meet that criteria. Katapesh (which is at least partially inspired by Afghanistan) is not overrun by gnolls; Geb is not full of white liches; the "nasty-looking" nation in north Garund is populated primarily by perfectly civilized black people, not by fiendish divs; and the ape lord's kingdom comprises only a small part of the Mwangi expanse, and his subjects are primarily other evil apes, not people. There are at least 7 human dark-skinned ethnicities described in the setting as living on the southern continent, more than the number of light-skinned ethnicities on the northern continent (unless you want to count the Shoanti as "light-skinned", which I definitely think would be ethically problematic). A few of these ethnicities are heirs to one of the most advanced ancient civilizations in the setting (and I am not talking about the Osirians), and the sub-not-Saharan jungle region boasts the most prestigious magical academy in the setting's current day.

No, the setting is not ethically problematic. You got the wrong impression from a poorly designed map.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the southern continent, there appears to be a pretty enormous amount of setting detail of which the OP is completely ignorant. Shame.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

then again, having multiple monster books kinda defeats the purpose of the first monster book, that should technicly provide the GM all that he needs to run an adventure.

I'm not aware that this was ever stated as the purpose of the first Bestiary.

"Everything you need to play the game" is not equivalent to "Everything you need to run every adventure that we publish."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gluttony wrote:

But how many people do you think read the pre-adventure information? Every other GM I know in person admits to skipping it all (They even skip the word from the writers at the beginning of each book, which I consider to be pretty interesting and worth the read most of the time). And only one knew of the SRD before I told them about it.

It's in literally every single Pathfinder book published by Paizo. You only have to notice it once. I guess I feel like Paizo has met a standard of disclosure sufficient for most reasonable people.

The number of customers who:

1) puchase and run APs, but
2) don't have and dont' want to get the later Bestiaries,
3) aren't aware of the multiple online sources where all of the information is available for free,
4) never go to the paizo website to find out what to do, and
5) have no friends who can tell them

must be vanishingly small if not nonexistent, and I'm not sure I'd consider the act of including Bestiary 2 and 3 monsters in their products a "failure" to serve this notional audience on the part of Paizo.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

Some people may not even be awere of the SRD, and therefore might think that they don't have all the books they need for the product they bought and feel cheated.

Right on the title page of the AP, it says:

"This product makes use of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3, Pathfinder RPG GameMastery Guide, and Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat. These rules can be found online for free as part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document at" (Emphasis mine.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We know that Samsarans give birth to humans, and those humans can sometimes be reincarnated as Samsarans. But who gives birth to the reincarnated Samsarans? Humans?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This discussion cannot be considered comprehensive without taking into account Penny Arcade's viewpoint: