Miranda's page

Also: two comments about the RedCap example stat block:

Save Will DC 17 F: frightened 4 and fleeing for 1 round; S: frightened 2; CS: unaffected.

I would actually like to have it broken out this way for most abilities that depend on saves to inflict a variety of conditions.

This is much clearer at a glance. Since CF and CS are going to be (relatively)rare, can they be set a default and then just overridden by exception e.g. CS = unaffected, CF = 2x failure or whatever. Again a timesaver using a common rule.

For something that takes 2 actions are we going to see a description like:

[[A]][[A]] Skewering Death The dire stirge makes a single strike that targets all targets within a 15 ft. line dealing proboscis damage and causing each target to bleed for 1d8 damage. The dire stirge gains hit points equal to any bleed damage inflicted this way.

Too many brackets! Please simplify the block design to [AA] or something similar {AA} ?

In the archetype it says:

Expanded Phrenic Pool* feat as a discovery even though she doesn't meet that feat's prerequisites, and she can select an extra phrenic amplification once as a discovery

Does this mean that the detective can take these as talents?

Broken link on the page:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/spells/index.html

for

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/spells/investigativeM ind.html

For people crashing on XP, here's a test build you should try to see if it solves the problem:
Download Here

Yes, that fixes it - thanks!

zoltar zoltar wrote:

First THANKS KYLE!

I've the same problem with win xp 1.5.5 is working, 1.5.6 and 1.5.7 crash immediately

is possible to repair this bug?

THANKS!!!

z

Can you take all the files in C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Application Data\CombatManager\ and mail them to combatman@kyleolson.com? (<user> is your user name)

I'll take a look at the files and see if I can reproduce the bug.

Exact same problem here. Reverted back to 1.5.5.

Composite Longbow - strength ratings, too much extra damage for a minimal cost

Damage to unattended magic items - subsystem takes far too long to resolve checking item hardness and hit points then rolling damage, make it a simple single save

I can easily envision a game in which there's a single task resolution system for everything (combat, diplomacy, swimming, whatever) that's quick and easy, and that depends on a very limited number of variables -- and it would probably be a fun game. It would certainly be easier to master.

It's called FATE

Couldn't resist....

You might want to look at the Mongoose Strongholds book for construction costs:

PDF from Drivethru

Failed perception check ;-)

Conversion thread

Greatest Modules

Also WotC did some nice maps of the G series.

White Plume Mountain Revised over at the D&D website....FREE!!!!!

Ran this in PF with my players as a side quest and they had fun (and discovered what a 10 ft pole is useful for). Worth getting the very cheap pdf of tiles for the whole dungeon (search drivethru). There are slight differences between the revised version and the original where the original is better/clearer, in most cases the revised is better.

While I do not out right ban it from my games, there are a number of things that make my players aware of before they take it. Followers are only gained if the party has a permanent base of operations: and they don't leave. They take care of the castle, or the fort, or the tower; they grow food, tend the fields, watch over the herds, maybe work a small mine. They do this for the PC they follow, and they will defend his keep to the best of their extent. They do not go dungeon delving or take the offensive. Ever.

Cohorts must be found and recruited; on occassion one may seek out the party to inquire about employment. I design the cohorts; I build them. They have NPC gear appropriate for their level (not the PCs, the cohort's level). Cohorts do not get a share of treasure, and receive XP equal to their PC. If the PC wants the cohort to have better gear, he has to either find it or buy it and then give it to them.

Master Arminas

This

The group I DM has one cohort, they recruited from the local temple, that takes the role of the healing cleric and emergency figher. It allows the players to run the characers they want whilst still having a viable party (currently Sorceror, Witch, Fighter, Ninja). Treasure and XP handled as quoted.

Don't change the basic mechanics, they've been play tested more than your homebrew additions. Get to know the core rules really well before changing them. Avoid changing rules that get used a lot during play. Consider adding further options to rules especially if it allows the players to make more use of their abilities. You'll know you've overdone it if the players use the change all the time.

You can still change a lot to match your gameworld even with these restrictions. PF works by exception, so if your plot requires the NPC to break a rule, provide a means to allow that exception. That way, the PC's get a suprise when they rely on "how the world works" and find it doesn't always hold true.

Your gameworld can be entirely different to Golarion and assumptions made in that setting need not be true in yours. Don't like Drow? In your world maybe they don't exist and are just rumours spread by the occasional interdimensional traveller. Create your own pantheon of gods. Add strange new magic items from an earlier age. For NPC's balance is not as important, so you can consider using 3e classes (suitably modified) if they give a better fit to the character idea.

I've used all the above in my current game.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Luckily nobody have noted the silly DR/magic is.

It's weak against PCs, sure. But it sure isn't silly when facing normals. It's very useful then.

I still like more the old DR/+1, DR/+2...

Agreed. Presumably taken out during 3.0 -> 3.5 becaue it meant the GM had to remember all the weapons each party member wielded.

Depends on your experience as a DM and preferred style.
For a full-on storytelling style, let the players decide the answers to the mysteries. If that's too purist for you, one suggestion was to pick the second theory the players come up with as the real answer. If the players get wise to this, then you might want to have a general idea about the answers but modify them if the players come up with any interesting ideas themselves.
Focus your efforts on things the players will interact with. You can dangle some plot threads and see what interests them, them expand on those. If you have a "big picture" view and the details start going in another direction, you can always modify it to fit the new facts. The players don't know that anything is changing. Any inconsistencies are just another mystery.
Do the Paizo writers know all the answers? - Unlikely, but they may have some ideas which generated the hook in the first place.
Creation myths? Do the gods even know what happened, or are they just spinning the facts?

Storytelling style see: Storytelling (wikipedia)

I'm looking at addressing size by shifting the complexity by 1 for each size difference -1. Thus a human can make a small longword just like a medium one, but a tiny longsword is more difficult. Likewise if the item is very big or small the shift is size difference -2. This covers issues like big ships in a more systematic way. Building something big for big folks gets both shifts.
The complexity chart then extends by x2 time, +2 DC for each additional complexity level.
I'm considering masterwork and special materials should also be shifts for consistency.
One missing modifier is the use of a workshop to assist in crafting i.e. beyond using masterwork tools. I'm considering ln(workshop cost) -3 bonus. (Yes that's a natural log function) or you could just approximate with a table.

You have a number of choices here. Rogues in town can be handled depending on how you and the players want the campaign to go.

You can run some individual pickpocket attempts based on the rules, one issue is that there is no guidance on what you get, as in most cases what the rogue steals is a pouch or other holding item rather than a particular item. I used a table based on the level of the target, with the assumption that higher level = richer. You should also include mundane items. You can also use this as a method of introducing new plots e.g. a small black statue of a bird.

Here's my house rule for this:

Pickpocket Results will be determined as follows:
Commoner Level
Amount Carried
1 1d4 cp
2 1d6 cp
3 1d8 cp
4 1d10 cp
5 1d12 cp
6 2d4 cp,1d4 sp
7 2d6 cp, 1d6 sp
8 2d8cp, 1d8 sp
9 2d10cp, 1d10sp
10 2d12cp, 1d12 sp
11 3d4cp, 2d4sp

Higher levels follow the same pattern.
Experts will carry twice the dice of commoners of the same level.
Aristocrats carry silver and gold instead.
The DM may substitute items of equivalent value for coins.
Attempts to steal particular items will incur negative skill modifiers.

If the Rogue just wants to use their skill to earn a wage, I allow all skills to be used like craft or profession. You earn a lot less but it's more risk free.

In small towns the locals are likely to be low level, so not much gold there. Anyone with a shop selling valuable items will be employing security measures, at the very least keeping them locked up and employing guards, also employing some basic magic like alarm or arcane lock.

As others have suggested, regular pickpocketing is likely to attract the notice of the local thieves guild or other groups in town. Lots of plot potential here if you want to have town based adventures. If the plot is to acquire item X, then having the party plan to steal it seems like a good opportunity for role-playing.

I ran an encounter using Hill Giants as the base creature for a party of 10th level characters. I didn't use DR10/silver as the EE version doesn't have it, however most party members should have a +3 weapon by this level. The fast healing was set at 10. I used the increasing DC for saves which made them DC19 (using CHA=base creature CON). The speed was +10 ft but I didn't give them run as they were variant zombies.

They attacked in waves of 4 and the party decided to fight at range (since the Sons can't sneak effectively in broad daylight). They thus soaked up fireballs and lots of arrows. Once the party realised the "zombies" were closing fast, they used ice storm to slow them up. The fast healing kept the Sons going. The DC19 proved effective on the fighter failng several times to the Fear Aura. The Witch used Dimension Door to keep range along with the Bard. The Cleric ended up in melee with most of the Sons, using positive channelling to area effect them. Create Spawn and Wormburst were quite effective. Grapple attacks by the Sons seemed a good tactic. I decided that Wormburst has the same 1 round delay as Create Spawn. This meant that the archer Bard ended up trying to pick off the worms. In this situation I gave the worms improved cover plus their fine size (Base AC10 +8 fine, +8 cover) which became a race between the archer to pick off the worms before they burrowed next round.
I ruled the worms to be extraplanar and not undead, so the channels didn't affect them. In all only one worm got to burrow.
The party fought off 16 Favoured Son Hill Giants in four waves but they had to use most of their area effects and channels. The Die Harder, kept the monsters going for a couple of extra rounds until the party could do enough damage to bring them to -CHA.

If I use these again, I'd track the worms that missed a bit more, give them a 20ft move, and have them move in on the characters (taking attacks of opportunity), which should make things more difficult. The DC adjustment seemed fine, the will save was difficult, the reflex save easier. The speed kept the encounter interesting. I'd modify the template a bit to INT-2, WIS-2 as having your brain munched can't be good but boost the CHA = base creature CON (min 10) and drop Toughness, that way you can normally just retain the original hp.
I'd also make burrowing more unpleasant e.g. -1 CON instead of -1 hp and give a Sickened condition (the players certainly seemed to be affected that way). Makes it more like the Mummy film scarab beetles.
With a party that's more melee oriented, this could be a nasty encounter. Definitely a CR+3 template, maybe +4?
The consensus afterward was the best way to deal with the worms was to nuke them from orbit.

Miranda wrote:

I'd add Diehard as a bonus feat if >10HD which can get interesting combined with fast healing.

They would require special ability - as Undead they are destoyed at 0 hp anyway, so Diehard would be useless to them.

You're right, so call it Die Harder Allows undead to use a similar feat to Die Hard. Instead of being destroyed at 0 hp, they continue to function until -CHA (since they have no CON). Below 0 hp, they are staggered, or they may pretend to "die" as normal (if they have some degree of intelligence).

The feat allows them to continue to fight at a reduced capacity, run away, or pretend to be dead. This offers the opportunity for the undead to flank a party by going down and then suddenly reviving.

Question: should the fear aura and Kyuss's Gift be changed to fully scale with the creature's HD?

Yes.

I favour removing the size restriction on becoming a Son a Kyuss. Also give a 5% chance to become a favoured son instead of standard.

I'll be trying this out very soon.

Coming to this thread late however....

I'm considering the PC's as being drafted in as more trustworthy crew by the PFS. This gives them something to do and to get idea of what it's like to work for the first mate (why the ship is short of crew). Also it gives a reason why they might be out in the storm, they've already performed the necessary jobs and it would not be unreasonable for the first mate to send them there. Likewise for ship's watches.

Re: "knivesies", is this it?

http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/curse-of-the-crimson/wikis/knivsies

I think the point here is to have CM roll the dice because it already has all the needed info (dice type and bonus values) and you wouldn't need to open another window (switching windows is rather time intensive too, especially on small screens where you can't open both windows next to each other) and type in/select all the info by hand. It would just be like 'Rightclick / roll dice / attacks' and you would get all the results.

True, it would save bit of typing. However you can have a dice roller right now that does save you time over actual dice. The one I tried remembers your last dice and rolls it again when you press "enter". So a 3 attack creature under witch's unluck gets resolved in 6 presses of "enter" after typing 1d20+13. Alternatively, it has standard dice on a mouse click. You can do character perception checks silently too.

Lava Child wrote:

A dice roller. Imagine: You click on the attack box, and it rolls and displays the results in another small pop-up box. I suppose a script could translate 1d4+8 and do the randomization. I check each update, hoping in my heart of hearts for this feature. . .

This is exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post. Add this type of functionality to an already great program would make it even better. Don't get me wrong I enjoy rolling the bones at the gaming table, but from the DM's perspective rolling all those dice slows down game play and I think can detract from the story telling aspect, IMHO.

+1 for this feature!

Also if you haven't thrown Kyle a few coins for this app give the man his due. :)

See further up the thread for a program that does this.

Tried it as a dice replacement and it works great, especially with witch hexes that require two die rolls take the worst, speeds up combat, and you can have one browser tab for attacks and another for damage to save typing.
You might want to roll an actual dice at critical points though, as some of my players felt that they were being attacked by a (impersonal) computer.

Have you ever thought of adding a skill roller or an attack roller to the program? Something that would allow DMs to roll the monster attacks/skills and then get the output of those rolls. This would allow a much faster combat progression on the DMs part. Just a thought.

There's plenty of choice out there, for a simple browser based solution that's open source I'd suggest this one:

Javascript dice roller

I'll be giving it a go at my next GM session.

There's a whole thread around being able to make potions of any kind by taking a DC+5 penalty for not knowing the spell because they're use activated.
I think this was a design oversight, but it is a perfectly valid interpretation of RAW.
Unfortunately this leads to spell list shopping - what's the most powerful spell you can find on a spell list of level 1-3?

PF core has two mechanisms, one for professions (craft is the same for general crafting), one for perform. Both have some merit, the former scales nicely with skill, the latter considers the settlement size. I'm looking for one simple mechanism to allow PC's to earn some cash during downtime via skills without going into lots of detail.
My suggestion is to use the profession rule for all skills but modified by settlement attributes i.e.

You get 1/2 your skill roll in gp each week, skill modified by:

settlement stat (+economy +society -crime) x2

for illegal professions the crime adds rather than subtracts.

If you get less that zero, you don't earn anything and something bad may happen.

Of course the GM can add a modifier for inappropriate skill use (fishing in a desert).

Any major flaws in this?

Just to note that a lot of the PF rules on item creation are a direct copy of the 3.5 SRD.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm

The major change was the paragraph waiving the prerequisite for DC+5.

Thus for 3.5 you have to be able to cast the spell to make the potion, no get-out clause.

My view is that the DC+5 rule was intended for the permanent use activated items and potions were not clearly included or excluded in RAW.

Interestingly, the 3x caster level is a simple pre-requisite meaning that a lvl 1 Wizard has the same DC+5 for a +1 or a +5 weapon in RAW. This seems unbalanced.

Quote:

I see this as a misreading of the rules for item creation. The DC change is a general rule about creating any kind of item. The various item descriptions list any requirements. The specific rules for potions do not include requirements, it specifically states you have to have the spell prepared. Potions do not have any requirements listed in the item descriptions (unlike say wondrous items).

Do you intend to follow the same line of reasoning that anyone with scribe scroll can write any spell with a DC+5 penalty?

If you're reading the rules in this way, it sounds like this should be covered in the FAQ to clarify.

It's one of the differences between Spell Completion items (scrolls), Spell Trigger items (wands), and Use Activated items (potions)...

'... In addition you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites...' (Core book page 549, emphasis mine).

I take your point in reference to non usage trigger items being specifically excluded in the text you quote.

The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

For all other use activated items the prerequisites are clearly mentioned. Not so for potions. Had it stated that the prepared spell was a prerequisite, then I'd agree with your interpretation.

As a meta-rule point, I find it hard to believe that the intention was to allow spell list shopping for spells to get the lowest level for a given spell by class. This sounds like the old polymorph issue that was only limited by the monsters in the bestiary.

Given that this can be interpreted more than one way, it's FAQ material.

Sayer_of_Nay wrote:

I've read in a number of threads the hotly debated loophole about potion crafting, that since they aren't spell trigger or completion items, the crafter can technically make a potion from any list by upping the DC by 5. Is that accurate? If so, then that's a neat way for a witch to deal with its woeful lack of defensive magic; brew a few potions of resist energy, for instance.

I have to believe that is not a loophole at all, but rather a very much intentional design decision, since it is the only thing that really makes the Brew Potion feat remotely interesting or worthwhile. And even as written it's still not even close to a must have.

I see this as a misreading of the rules for item creation. The DC change is a general rule about creating any kind of item. The various item descriptions list any requirements. The specific rules for potions do not include requirements, it specifically states you have to have the spell prepared. Potions do not have any requirements listed in the item descriptions (unlike say wondrous items).

Do you intend to follow the same line of reasoning that anyone with scribe scroll can write any spell with a DC+5 penalty?

If you're reading the rules in this way, it sounds like this should be covered in the FAQ to clarify.

Miranda wrote:

Hi,

Tried to track down one of the crashes in 1.2.5, this seems to always crash CM:

1. open CM with a monster already in the Monsters area
2. clear the monster area
3. select a new monster on the combat screen
4. add to monster list
5. save monster party
6. clear monster list
7. Crash report

I haven't been able to reproduce this crash yet. Can you mail the files from the crash report to combatman@kyleolson.com, as well as the files under either "C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Application Data\CombatManager" in XP or "C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\Combat Manager" in Vista/Win7?

Simplified test case:

Brand new CM 1.2.5 install with new .Net 4 install on XP.

1. select a new monster on the combat screen (Aasimar)
2. add to monster list
3. save monster party
4. clear monster list
5. Crash report

Hope that helps.

Hi,

Tried to track down one of the crashes in 1.2.5, this seems to always crash CM:

1. open CM with a monster already in the Monsters area
2. clear the monster area
3. select a new monster on the combat screen
4. add to monster list
5. save monster party
6. clear monster list
7. Crash report

I have the "are you sure" option on on clear
Hope that helps.

One variant, after step 4, I linked 4 monsters. On step 6 the monster list didn't actually clear but switching to a different tab and back did.

Minor usability issue, if I have a monster in the monster party, the monster details don't change until I click on "stats". It would be better if the details changed when I simply clicked on the monster to select it.

Combat Manager update to 1.2.2

Save custom conditions added by user
Allow bonuses on custom conditions

CombatManager.com

This allowed me to handle most of the Witch's hexes, thanks. Bad luck (two rolls take worst) is still an issue.

Doing the reverse, my PF campaign is based in the Wilderlands. There's plenty of room there to drop almost anything in, including some bits of Golarion if you want them. I've added some Mystara countries to add more political options. Lots of space for classic modules if you like that sort of thing - I've run the 3e Necromancer conversion of Caverns of Thracia.

Crimson Jester wrote:

Any chance someone has done an update to say The Wizards Amulet and/or Crucible of Freja? If so I would love to see it. If not I may have to do it myself, is there any interest if I were too?

What are you looking for? I am currently running 2 campaigns that started with those adventures.Really there is not a whole lot there that needs to be changed.

+1

and use the PF conversion document

Another bug:
Most of the afflictions are shown twice.

Additional Feature Needed:
No bard song or witch hex conditions can be applied, other than custom use.

Is there any way to apply one affliction/spell to multiple party or monster members?

I can see feat modifiers will take some time. Any chance of adding a special modifier to the weapons entry to cover this as a workaround? I have a character using a whip.

Tested quick bug in 1.2.1

If you select just core and APG in sources then stop and restart the program, the Core option is always unticked. You have to manually change this each time you start the program.

Running just fine in a VM (WinXP) on Linux.

chopswil wrote:

h0rnman wrote:

Moebius wrote:

I think this looks great, but I'm running Ubuntu 10.10/Linux. Anyone got this working with Linux yet?

Yeah, not working yet because Mono doesn't support the .Net 4.0 framework. You will need to wait until they release Mono 3.0 (Release TBD), or see if the developer would be kind enough to try compiling the app using just .Net 2.0 (3.5 might work, but 2.0 for sure) :)

He does it in WPF so 2.0 won't work

Then I guess that is a 'no' :)

Us poor Linux users will just have to wait for Mono to implement WPF, and with 1800+ methods to go, I don't expect it anytime soon.
Sad Panda...

Should work just fine in a QEMU virtual machine (running XP). Just about to try that.

Sadly Wine 1.3 has a bug which prevents the .Net 4.0 installer completing at present. Watch this space:

http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=17886

Session 22: (Back in the) White Plume Mountain
The cavern had boiling mud in the bottom 50ft below. Rather than risk the platforms, Angel tried flying across and got caught by an exploding mud spout that knocked her out of the air (failed Fly check), into the boling mud.
RAW are not clear about Resist Fire and boiling mud (or water). I considered boiling mud doing the same damage as water 10d6, with Resist Fire being applied, given it was heat damage. Falling is obviously onto a soft surface, and you could sink (or swim) in it, if you could take the heat damage.
Her ring of Resist Fire stopped most of the damage and she managed to fly out to the other side. After that the party checked the mud spout timings and avoided the mud spouts with the Bard hopping over the suspended platforms and the Druid using his earth elemental movement to walk through the walls. The Witch flew.
For this session we were missing the Monk and Fighter which meant a distinct lack of front-line meat shields
They went down acorridor to a room and found a dwarf in armour, he glared at Cal and told him to "Kill the Spellcasters" which Cal interpreted as casting Confusion on the party. Doing that earned him another save which he fortunately made. Even more fortunately the rest of the party saved. Even so, the dwarf with his hammer beat up the Druid's dinosaur with ease. Next up was Angel's Cleric cohort, who realised the Dwarf was undead and got off a channel energy before getting them hammer treatment too. The Witch's spells and hexes were again ineffectual against undead. Angel tried a web to slow down the Dwarf, then Cal hit it from behind with arrows, and Tara used a want of lightning to zap the Dwarf and burn the web. A final magic missile from Angel as the party retreated back to the mud cave took the Dwarf down saving the party from a choice between the Hammer and mud bath.
The dwarven vampire headed back to the room but the party quickly found the hiding place of the coffin and finished off the vampire, liberating the first of the three weapons they were looking for, the Hammer. The Cleric needed some curing, but the dinosaur was only saved with a couple of hero poiints.
I'd tried the PH2 Guardian Spirits rules, but they didn't quite work. After a little discussion, we decided as a group to use the hero points rules but excluded the spells and items options. That keeps the points low, constant, and for emergency use only.
The party rested at this point, being somewhat beaten up. Afterwards they headed back through the mud cave, this time they were ambushed by some Gargoyles as they headed across, this exercised the flying skill rolls and manoeuvring, including hovering on attack as the gargoyles attacked Cal whilst he held onto the swinging discs. Fortunately the Witch's sleep hex proved a great way to knock Gargoyles out of the sky.
The party then found a room with silvery spheres suspended from the ceiling.
The original module provides for "wandering monsters", whereas the conversion misses them out. I'd suggest including them as part of the logic of this puzzle dungeon, especially when they can use the environment.

Victoriana has well written sourcebooks, but I'm not keen on either ruleset. I prefer their FATE based line for rules. Working my way through the books at the moment after the PDF sale prices got my interest. Not so keen on obvious fantasy races, considering a more hidden bloodline background. Spirit of the Century requires little change as a ruleset unless you want more magic, in which case check out the Legends of Anglerre FATE rules for fantasy.
Also like the sound of Kerberos Club, but that's more Victorian superheros style.
You can adjust FATE to be more or less cinematic by changing the number of stress points, SotC has 5 by default, Dresden Files goes grittier by having only 2.
I love GURPS, but FATE looks like the fast play version (in a good way).
I've got the Savage Worlds Pulp Adventures but intend to run them using SotC rules as the conversion doc. is free and one adventure is dual statted.
Imperial Age is nice for background but d20 based. I want rules more story based so that's a negative point for me but may be a positive for you.
A lot of the above have sample PDF's (at RPGnow) or SRD's for free so you can try before you buy.

Miranda wrote:

One way out of defining one alignment for a god is to allow the worshippers to focus on particular aspects of the god to worship. Thus for a god like Odin, the berserkers and knowledge seekers can worship different aspects with different alignments of the one Odin. Everyone's happy - until they start arguing which is the "one true way". Scisms can be a great source of adventure ideas.

The true believers will claim the 'evil' acts of their diety were actually demons or a trickster god(poor Loki) posing as the diety.

That's what Dogma is for.

We berserkers worship the true Odin, those that call him the "God of Magic" are clearly heretical or deluded, nothing a few smacks round the head won't fix.

GeraintElberion wrote:

The "value" of the ability did not take into account cheese tactics like putting a miniaturised party into a bag of holding. Although I privately think it's a moot point, because 1. I'm not sure it can be done, and 2. A party that tries that too often at my tables... will not live to regret it.

fixed?

There are far worse fates than death....

If you're looking for some good books that use the Norse pantheon, then my two favorites are Sleipnir, by Linda Evans, which is best described as "Mack Bolan storms Valhalla in order to kill Odin" and Pyramid Power, by Eric Flint and David Freer, where an alien probe starts re-empowering the Norse gods in order to use them to help conquer the Earth.

Of the two, Pyramid Power is the better read. It takes a lighter, more "Hercules: the Legendary Journeys" tone to the characterization of the gods, while Sleipnir is darker in tone and plays them pretty straight.

..and no one has mentioned Gaiman's "American Gods" !!

One way out of defining one alignment for a god is to allow the worshippers to focus on particular aspects of the god to worship. Thus for a god like Odin, the berserkers and knowledge seekers can worship different aspects with different alignments of the one Odin. Everyone's happy - until they start arguing which is the "one true way". Scisms can be a great source of adventure ideas.

You may want to grab a free copy of the 3e -> PF conversion guide if you or your players need a quick ref. to the changes in PF. Also very useful in running or adding 3e material. May need more monsters as Bestiary is lacking a number of 3e MM1 creatures (only one were creature for example).
You should already have more than enough to start writing up your campaign if you're starting from scratch.
This is good for a quick PF NPC generator

I'd fogotten about Lich Lords, if no one else starts first I'll take a look over the holidays. I'm in no rush, my players are just working through the 3e S2 conversion and LL is likely level 15+. Considering running Dark Tower (3e conversion) before LL but that may be Lich overkill.

I'd give a bonus on perception if the character also had the right knowledge skill using aid another mechanic.

Aelryinth wrote:

Actually, I believe Sense Motive allows you to determine a character's rough TH, AC and dmg from its strongest attack, so those are not metagame skills.

I think in some 3.5 supplement there was a feat that let you use Sense Motive to determine an opponents power relative to you

Complete Adventurer - skills additional uses.

I don't think anyone is saying to make it vastly simple, but 3.X/PFRPG is exceedingly rules heavy, especially compared to Original/Basic/1E/2E. I personally would like to see Pathfinder 2E go more in a direction of the retro editions, and not be SO hard-coded. And personally I think the game is more for people with large imaginations than necessarily those with large intellects.

2E was much more rules heavy compared to Original (LBB) or OD&D, just ask the Old School players.

I'm happy for PF to continue to standardise sub-systems (trurning, detects), fix broken rules (grapple), and simplify play that way. Also they could remove some obvious duplications like the "+2 to two skills" feats. Re-editing to consolidate different parts of rules into one place would also help, particularly by borrowing the 4e presentation of standard rule followed by exception(s). I'm hoping the proposed introductory rules will go in this direction.
There are existing 3e rules lite (sic) variants that PF could emulate such as True20 but I think you lose the flavour of the game if you go too far in that direction.

Miranda

I will have a look what we can do next year. The 12-4 session sounds good - but there are some issues. I would like to ensure there actually happens some mixing of old/new players. On a different board I already ran into issues of being accused of favouring people who know 'the secret handshake' and of elitism.

It also means that organizers can use this tables only once. It's their cost - they pay for the space and the tables - but I'm mindful of it. It also means that you need more GM's. Not every GM wants to come for a single game and only GM. Most will either want to GM twice or GM once / play once.

This was really for anyone who wasn't going to play PF full-time and wanted to try other things at the Con. can't comment on the organisers, my observation was that there were quite a few empty tables in the small hall.

Something that I might want for next year is a fully occupied sign up table with a dedicated person - sending people to tables from 10:00-10:45 - then switching to seminar mode / encounter mode / help desk mode until 13:00 and then back to sign up mode again until 14:15.

The seminar mode / encounter mode / help desk mode could be helping with getting an individual character together / explaining the society / explaining the difference to D&D / allowing drop in people to just to a single encounter / skill challenge to get an idea of the system.

I think some clear signup instructions/notices would fix most issues, for beginners a scenario choice is a bit confusing, but a clear start time is essential.

I like the idea of a simple encounter to demonstrate the basic mechanics and use of the character sheet, has anyone tried that before?

Nevertheless, Dragonmeet 2010 was a great success thanks to your efforts.

I was impressed by Thod's organisation of a very successful event.

I did see two categories of player, the PFS regulars and the new players. Two sessions are fine for the regulars, new players really only need one session, as they'll want to at least check out the trade stands. My impression was that most new players didn't play both sessions. I'd suggest an overlapping 12-4 session for new players if there are sufficient GM's especially if the morning session was over-subscribed.

It may be worthwhile co-ordinating with one of the traders to have more Pathfinder material available, I wasn't able to get the initiative tracker as someone had already bought their only copy on hand! There didn't seem to be any Core rulebooks for sale either.

I will be wanting to definitely GM at ShadowCon assuming PFS is attending again (hopefully). I'll keep an eye out for announcements here.