Ghoul

Nathan Hembree's page

250 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.



9 people marked this as a favorite.

GM says: Did you get Cheetos?
GM means: You should have known to bring me Cheetos. Now you're getting poisoned.

GM says: Bard, you've spent 20 minutes talking to every NPC passing you on the road and it's yielded no useful information.
GM means: Shut up...

GM says: Make a wisdom check.
GM means: ...thicker than mud... I'll have to hit him with the clue bat.


20 people marked this as a favorite.

GM says: You see darkness down the hallway.
GM means: I want someone to say "I cast Magic Missile at the darkness".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Captain Wacky wrote:
I use XP. I find using milestones puts too much control into the GM's hands.
It's the exact same amount of control. The GM determines XP awards, so there's no reason to use it.

It's not. there are predetermined XP rewards in the book. Kill/Defeat a monster/encounter/trap/etc., get that XP. Milestones are more abstract and can be placed anytime a GM just "feels" like it (unless I'm missing something).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Back to the topic at hand.

I read something by Gail Simone: author of Batgirl, Birds of Prey and recently Red Sonja.

Her argument was, that lots of women enjoyed Red Sonja as a guilty pleasure. Simone is trying to change that to an open pleasure. The reason for the guilt was the overt sexualisation of the character. But if that isn't the ONLY way the character is depicted then it's less of a problem, because Red Sonja is sexy, but also kicks ass and is clever and is fearless and it all fits her character. Her sexynwss under Simone's authorship is aspirational.

Seoni is in a similar boat, she's depicted as sexy, but also smart, magically buttkicking, no-nonsense etc, she wears that outfit because she feels good in it, has Mage Armour to protect herself and honestly knows the effect she has on men and doesn't care.

I suspect Seoni wouldn't get many butt pinches by men who have seen her blast a dragon to pieces with a chain lightning spell.

Some men like the danger.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Randarak wrote:
Well, there go some of my self-destructive fantasies....

Aww, cheer up! RAW you can still get lots of diseases from them. Summon, Bang!, then there you have it, you have just contracted ganaherpysiphilAIDS!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
I don't know if it's an improvement, but it is as easy as keeping track of British coinage pre-decmilization and doesn't require a .333333ml measuring spoon.

I'd let you borrow my one-third-of-a-nanoliter measuring spoon, but I lost it the other day when I sneezed.

Wait, how did we get onto this? Weren't we talking about rates of exchange or something? How many francs to a peso?

1 Swiss Franc to 48.93 Philippine Peso.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
*Old man voice*: In myyy daaay one gold piece gotcha TWO +1 swords. With inflation n seech now I gotta carry a bag a gold just fer a CLW potion! Things were better and simpler then I tell ya!
Somehow I read that In Ol' Granny Smith's voice....

I was reading it as Deckard Cain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:
Captain Wacky wrote:
PC Fighter says, "It's a trap!" Draws sword
As s/he's drawing their sword, the Lead Elf interrupts, "No, no, this is an ambush, Admiral Ackbar, not a trap."

I was so close to using that instead.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The PCs round the bend of the forgotten forest. All of a sudden a dozen wood elves spring from the bushes, bows drawn.

Lead Elf "We have you surrounded, we outnumber you two to one".

PC Fighter "It's a trap!" Draws his sword.

PC Rogue "Trap!" Rolls Disable Devise. SUCCESS!!

The ambushing wood elves bows and weapons drop to the ground, having been disarmed.

PC Fighter "I didn't know you could do that"

PC Rogue "Disable Devise allows me to to disarm ANY trap"

Lead Elf "You can't do that! That's now how the skill was intended"

PC Rogue "I doesn't matter" Pulls out the book "You are skilled at disarming traps and opening locks. In addition, this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults, wagon wheels, and doors." Clears his throat. "It doesn't say anything about it having to be a mechanical trap or a magic trap..."

Lead Elf "well... crap..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Saw a figure that said a knights kit(Horse, armor, weaponry) would be the equivalent of £550-800k.

That's completely dependant on the era.

Is this figure a modern equivalent due to inflation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SRS wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
While useful as an evaluative scale, perhaps, I think this has more potential to confuse the discussion with a debate over semantics rather than anything else. While the word "acceptance" might have a specific (somewhat technical) meaning to you, as someone familiar with the Riddle Scale, that doesn't mean that it carries a negative connotation when used by others (nor does it put a ceiling on one's attitude towards non-heterosexuality

This isn't logical. Familiarity with the Riddle Scale doesn't transform the word into something else. It clarifies what it actually is.

People buy into a lot of euphemisms like "ethnic cleansing", but that doesn't mean those things aren't highly problematic. People may think they're being positive when they use the word acceptance but that doesn't mean they truly are.

I've heard many people try to argue that "that's so gay" isn't an anti-gay expression, for instance. Their argument is that the word gay now means bad so it's not anti-gay, even though the entire reason the word is now taken to mean bad is due to anti-gay animus.

And, another example of problematic terminology that influences people without being pressured the way it should be is the word gay itself. For one thing, it embeds a false heterosexist dichotomy of good vs. bad (straight arrow vs. bent arrow). Just because terminology is popular and used without much thought doesn't mean it doesn't carry negative consequences. If people subconsciously associate gayness with brokenness due to the term (and the gay vs. "straight" dichotomy), then that's not good.

I've heard those arguments as well. They do not, however, change the fact that the riddle scale is using these words inappropriatly. Personal perspective does not influence terminology. This scale is colored by the personal perspective of Dr. Riddle and her personal definitions. These are not the definitions used by the general public nor do they carry the same connotations as Dr. Riddle seems to think they do.

SRS wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Scott has it right here. Unless everyone accepts Dr. Riddle's definitions, is familiar with her scale and uses the terms as she has defined them it's pretty much a waste. And while I appreciate what she was trying to do, her use of English... *sigh* When people begin redefining common English usage terms and turning them into a jargon that other's are not familiar with you have problems in just communicating.

There is no redefining happening. Instead there is an uncomfortable clarification that threatens expressions of heterosexual chauvinism. People may enjoy saying they accept people because it makes them feel like they're being benevolent, but it's a condescending thing to do at best.

Again, as the scale points out, people accept things they can't control, like someone accepts the fact that their friend is dying of cancer.

There is simply no need to say you accept someone for being gay unless you're also saying that you would have them not be. Otherwise, you would use one of the positive words Riddle presents to show your positive feelings.

Tolerance

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Acceptance
favorable reception; approval; favor.

These are most people define these words, it's also how the dictionary defines them. Looks like Dr. Riddle redefined them to me. Perhaps she should have picked up a dictionary or thesaurus first. She could have just as easily color coded her scale. The Riddle scale is not the end-all-be-all. It is a tool, like any other used in any science.

It does nothing to clarify. It's confusing definition and common useage with a personal perspective and jargon.

It looks to me like she was confusing these two words with ignorance and denial, respectively. Turning the words tolerance and acceptance (that are either neutral, non-isse and posative, in most peoples eyes) is antagonistic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Firstly, it's inferred that when you cast a spell associated with an alignment, that you are syphoning power from whatever source is required to create that spell. Casting an "evil", "good", "lawful" or "chaotic" spell is using those powers and you are bringing those enegies into the world. Thus, when you cast an aligned spell it is a minor act of that alignment because you bringing in those energies. Which is why cleric types are barred from casting opposed alignment spells, they are using their deities power and if the deity has no evil, good, whatever, in them... there is nothing the feul the spell. What you do with that power once the spell is formed is another matter.

Bringing those energies into the world has an effect on your being, even if it is slight. You are, afterall, channeling said forces through your body to produce an effect. Can you make undead to protect a town? yes. But you are still inviting evil into your being when you do so. It's kinda like calling on the dark side of the force to defeat a Sith. Your intent was pure, but your method leaves you open to corruption.

Secondly, the alignment system isn't robust enough to handle the dilemas posed by many of these types of threads. It's meant as a guidline, not as a railroad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

Chaotic and selfish He's wealthy, but chooses to steal from others instead of giving of himself.

Chaotic and Evil Justifiing the torture and murder of people because they are "Rich and greedy". Giving to the poor does not "counteract" torture and murder.

He's evil and chaotic at that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stone or Raven from Deadlands
Elminster if you want to go classic
any Leyline Walker or Mind Melter from Rifts... or anything from Rifts now that I think about it.
Set from VtM
Donte or Porthos from MtA

Those are all super high powerful people right there. I don't know what kind of power scale you're looking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

Its odd that in all the years I've been gaming (which is 30+ ) I've only ever seen two characters with mega stats as we've always insisted that they are rolled in front of the DM .

Strange that

Indeed. I saw games where kids (teenagers) were allowed to roll stats at home and wound up with 3 18s on their sheets each. In this case we didn't care too much, they played stupid and got themselves killed anyways. It was almost expected.

In our normal groups we (almost) always insist we roll stats in front of the group. If you get unlucky and roll really low, it will probably be deemed unplayable and you're allowed a re-roll. But you have to re-roll the whole block.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Wacky,

Remember the WBL is a guideline to 'help the DM'. It's there to determine both how powerful enemies are by loot, and how much stuff characters have to actually be 'balanced' characters of their level.

Characters with more or less WBL are more or less powerful then the baseline, and need to be treated accordingly.

It didn't matter as much in 1E, because melee characters were much more powerful there, and magic was much more biased to them. It was far easier to fit out a fighter with magic sword, shield and armor then it was for a wizard to get a Wand, for instance.

In PF, item creation rules say 'I create for me first, then you', which means spellcasters have just as much gear as martials, which is another huge power shift.

Since martials are LESS powerful, relatively, in PF, going sparse with gear HURTS them. Conversely, more WBL helps casters who can craft easily more then martials.

If you underequip martials, casters aren't affected as much. Their spells are much less reliant on gear, and they can even spend spells to replace what they don't have from gear.

Non-casters don't have the option, and suffer accordingly.

The 3.5 cleric was built upon this premise. Greater Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Vestment, Shield of Faith are all hour/level buffs that effectively give them magic gear for no cost. Add in Persistent Spell cheese and they needed remarkably little magic...and what magic they got was leveraged to be even stronger, as they didn't need to spend money on Enhancement bonuses or Rings of Protection.

==Aelryinth

And that is my point. Not everything in AD&D was fair and balanced. There was nothing that leveled the playing field. What you described is PF as it is now and its view on everyone being equals. What they're asking for is to bring back the feel of AD&D. To do that everyone playing will have to aknowledge and be comforable with that fact that they may not be on even footing.

The premise that everyone needs to be "fully equipped" in order to be useful; and that "my fighter is HURT" because he doesn't have that one piece of gear and isn't living up to his fullest potential, needs to go. In AD&D the front line fighter might have a +1 longsword the ranger might have a +3 long bow and +1 leather armor. Everyone was alright with that because that's how the dice landed. They both still contribute to the adventure. Was it "fair" by today's standards? no. Nor did anyone care (well, some did, but they played and had fun anyways).

The spirit of AD&D was much less... sterile and precise... less refined. Things were more dangerous for characters and character death wasn't something people were unfamiliar with. Sometimes you lost (god forbid!) and knowing when to use the "better part of valor" was something people did. It's the differance between the wild west (AD&D) and Manhattan (PF). If you want the feel back, you're going to have to get dirty, so to speak.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that I think about it. A good way of recapturing the esssnce of ADnD? Stop "optimizing" your characters. Roll 4d6 take the top 3 for your stats and put the numbers were you want them. Not everyone will come out as equals, and that's fine. Game balance is nice and all, but it's not king.

Do away with the WBL. Fight for your gold and magic items. GP doesn't "magically" appear just because you spent it and everyone should always have the same amount of money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Franke wrote:

I love the options of 3e and pathfinder. I like complexity. But one easy way to make pathfinder feel like AD&D is to drop the map. Just this one change speeds up the game incredibly.

But what about flanking and sneak attack and all of the movement based parts of the game. For the most part you just say "I flank" or "I sneak attack". It works just fine. Now you have the complexity of Pathfinder with a game that plays a little more old school.

Similarly, roleplay your skills a little bit. Say where you search and how before you role, etc. As a GM give bonuses for well thought out strategies. You will soon have players using flower to look for air currents and spilling water to look for hidden pit traps! Just like the old days.

You are still playing Pathfinder but it feels different.

I've tred dropping the map before. Without it you have to define everything Very well. Otherwise you get:

players: "we open the door"
gm: "you see a Balor"
thief: "I sneak attack"
gm: "how? it can see you and there's no one flanking"
fighter: "I was flanking"
gm: "you haven't moved into the room yet"
fighter: "I always move into the room"
gm: "but you didn't tell me that's what you were doing"
wizard: "I cast disinagrate"
gm: "you were in the back of the party"
wizard: "I'm squeezing up front"
gm: "you have a rogue and a cleric and a fighter in front of you blocking most of your view"
cleric: "where's the cheetos?"
gm: "they're up in the cabinet where they always are"
wizard: "I hold and will let loose my spell when I have a better view"
cleric: "thanks"
gm: "where were we?"
fighter: "I was moving into the room"
rogue: "I was moving in to flank"
cleric: "crap, I left my mountain dew in the car"
gm: "dude, your turn is comming up"
cleric: "I'll be right back"
rogue: "I sneak attack"
wizard: "can I see it yet, the cleric is... umm, running off to get his flask"
gm: "I wish I had some sort of surface, with some sort of, measured counters to track movement and distance. It would make it easier to keep track of where everyone is, just in case someone was in the line of fire for an AoE or something."
fighter: "yah, but what'cha ganna do?"
cleric: "found it, is it my turn yet?"

On a more serious side. I've had a lot of fun playing without a map. I'd have to agree it does have a differant feel to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Captain Wacky wrote:
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Sometimes mercy requires killing. Some creatures or people are too dangerous to allow to live. You have to determine what your god demands. Deserving mercy is always called for false mercy for those who have not repented their ways or only regretted being caught is never called for.
I had a long rambling post on this and it was turning into my problem with paladins vs. templars; which would be inappropriate for this thread. But it was comming off as dickish as well, and I caught it before I sent it. So I'll leave it as "agree to disagree about what is and is not acceptable behavior for paladins".
Good choice about restraint and very 'paladin like' behavior I might say. Good on you. Seriously, If more folks were like you, (me included) we'd be able to say and do more because courtesy is never out of place.

I try, not always successfully. It's not my intent to be rude just because of a differance of opinion. But I occationally am, because of strong opinions on certain topics and I have a nasty habbit of not explaining myself fully.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Sometimes mercy requires killing. Some creatures or people are too dangerous to allow to live. You have to determine what your god demands. Deserving mercy is always called for false mercy for those who have not repented their ways or only regretted being caught is never called for.

I had a long rambling post on this and it was turning into my problem with paladins vs. templars; which would be inappropriate for this thread. But it was comming off as dickish as well, and I caught it before I sent it. So I'll leave it as "agree to disagree about what is and is not acceptable behavior for paladins".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Why should I pretend to talk to that guy? I rolled a 20 on Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive?

Indeed, that seems to be an attitude more and more people are going to. Needed interaction with NPCs has been cut drastically in favor of getting to the meat of the story, rather than savoring the flavor. Most role playing can be reduced to a die roll. Which is fine, I suppose, for those who are socially inept.

I do something similar to Dr. Deth, though I'm not as nice about it. You don't get to use the skills at all unless you actually try RPing to at least some degree. For example... Saying "I use diplomacy on the guard" nets you an auto fail. Saying "I walk up to the guard and strike up a conversation with him" nets you a negative. Saying something like "Guardsman! I need to speak with the count. It is a matter of the ut most urgency, there is an Ogre menace that requires his attention" will net you a regular roll and having proof on hand or a good standing with the court will give a bonus.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Chun Li "It was 20 years ago, you hadn't promoted yourself to general yet. You were just a petty drug lord. You and your gang of murders gathered your small ounce of courage to raid across the border. For food, weapons... slave labor. My father was the villiage magistraite, a simple man with a simple code, justice. He gathered the few people that he could to stand against you. You and your bullies were driven back by farmers with pitchforks. My father saved his villiage at the cost of his own life. You had him shot as you ran away, a hero, at a thousand paces."

M. Bison "I'm sorry... I don't remember any of it".

Chin Li "You don't remember?"

M. Bison "For you, the day that Bison graced your villiage, was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday".

Also, this. Arrogance has a tendancy to make PCs mad too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It depends on how liberal your GM is with how far skills take you. I can see some professions as pretty useless, but some of the more complex ones might require the skill.

barrister -> knowledge local, knowledge nobility, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy
Prof. Barrister: Gives knowledge of the law, loopholes and punishments.
clerk ->knowledge local, knowledge nobility, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy
Prof. Clerk: Gives knowledge of how affairs are to be administered, general orginizational and clerical skills.
courtesan ->knowledge local, diplomacy, bluff, perform
Prof. Courtesan: Gives strict guilines of behavior (diplomacy can only do so much with this particular profession). What is expected of your services in regards to your position and what lord you are with (it gets more complicated then you think).
engineer -> knowledge engineering
There should be more on engineering... but the skill covers ALL of engineering, when it shouldn't.
farmer -> knowledge nature, handle animal
Prof. Farmer: Gives knowledge of crop rotation, aration techniques, husbandry, proper harvesting.
fisherman -> knowledge nature, survival
Prof. Fisherman: Gives knowledge of how to use fishing nets, seasons and locations for types of fish (so that you don't over fish an area).
gambler -> Sleigt of hand, bluff, diplomacy
Prof. Gambler: Gives you knowledge of the games and how they're played. You'd use the above skills if you're cheating... or get caught.
herbalist -> knowlege nature
Prof. Herbalist Gives you knowledge of how plants blend together for what effect you want. Knowledge nature will tell you where they grow and if they're usable or not.
librarian -> knowledge local, knowledge in general
Prof. Librarian: Gives knowledge of the orginazational system, book maintenance (considering how expensive books were... very important).
merchant ->knowledge local, knowledge nobility, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy
Prof. Merchant Gives knowledge of major and minor imports and export for cities and countries. Knowledge of taxes, tolls, levies, fines. Estimate what ann area will need in the future based on current events.
midwife -> heal, knowledge nature
Prof. Midwife: Proper care of newborns.
miner -> knowledge nature, knowledge geography
Prof. Miner: Gives knowledge of the minerals you are extracting, mining techniques, bracing, gas detection.
knowledge nature isn't going to help you in this line of work. Enineering might though.
sailor -> Acrobatics, Climb, knowledge geography
Prof. Sailor: Proper rope use, navigation when land isn't in sight, ship maintenance, How to steer the ship and docking.
soldier -> be a fighter?
Prof. Soldier: Knowledge of unit tactics, formations, Group morale
woodcutter -> knowledge nature, engineering, craft
Prof. Woodcutter: This one... would be pretty useless. Requires less than you put down. Knowledge nature, so you know What to cut... other than that.. you won't need engineering or craft, you're chopping wood, not really making anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bob_the_monster wrote:
The PRD seems ambivalent about this. If you join an "evil party" but you're a low INT Barbarian defending your friends, and you slaughter 10 town guards that are pursuing your comrades, instead of "negotiating" with them as the "DM expected you would" is this really evil?

Well definately chaotic. Possably evil depending on the GM. The Barb did kill people who were trying to unhold the law. They were technically the innocent ones in this instance.

Quote:

TBH I want to call this guy out as a rotten DM. Why would a Barbarian rager negotiate with the town guard? They are hunting us over a stolen sword from the next town over, planning to arrest and kill for that? Screw them. I don't care if they have an "important Paladin" with them.

Why would a CN Barbarian care what these people wanted. They point swords at me = They are dead.

Yes they will try to arrest and kill you for that... well definatly arrest. Of course now that almost a dozen guards were killed, they'll definately be out for blood. A sword might not be anything to you guys, but it's the weaponsmiths bread and butter. Fighting men generally like keeping the people who make and repair their stuff happy.

You ever see "Braveheart" The Scotts were considered barbarians and Wallace was perfectly capable of diplomacy so was De Bruce. So was Conan for that matter. I suppose it depends on the type of game that you're playing, but historically, most barbarians weren't suicidal. Diplomacy is an option, even for barbarians.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A "do over" might be the right thing to do if you guys were drinking. But talk to them first and see what they want to do. If you decide on a "do over" then no harm no foul. If you guys decide on rolling with it... then consider this.

1. They busted out the rogue after he/she broke the law (which was his/her fault to begin with), instead of bailing him/her out.
2. They killed an ally
3. They murdered civilians, painfully I might add.
4. They murdered helpless guards.

Here's what would happen in my world.

1. Local authorities charge the highway patrol (mostly rangers) to track them.
2. The local nobility will charge the any spell casters in their employ to track them with divination.
3. The people who died in the fire had families... mobs have a tendancy to form to help hunt them down.
4. Rolling randomly determine if anyone wealthy enough, who had family die because of this, had ties to the assassins guild.

I had something along those lines happen back in the day. I told this story some monthes ago, but here it is again as an example.

Copy/Paste
I had a group once that were going to a well known dungeon area. They were riding on a barge they hired from the local Gypsies. One of them started playing with the water and one of the gypsies asked them to stop cause there's water trolls in the area and while the blessing on the boat caused most things to ignore them, they might attack if you attract their attention.

The player ignored him and continued messing with the water. I rolled for encounter and guess what came up... trolls. They attacked the boat and were just looking for a meal. They dragged off several gypsies who were never seen again. The Gypsies informed the PCs that they were heading home and will have to answer for what they did.

Two of the PCs shot one of them full of arrows, but the other got away. The PCs didn't give chase feeling that the boy would fear for his life and keep his mouth shut. So they continued on their adventure.

The Gypsy boy told his family... his family being the gypsy camp. The elders promply got in contact with the local assassins guild and put a hit out on the two who shot the other full of arrows. The guild was paid handsomely and sent out the "Prime Knife".

The Guild was waiting for them outside the dungeon. They incapacitated the PCs but left them alive and awake to witness. "The water-folk take their revenge" then the executioners swords came down for a Coup de Gace. The assassins left the other PCs who had to change their underware.

Anyways, that's how that particular situation got handled.

Keep in mind the authorities ->CAN'T<- let this go unpunished.

In regards to the paladin... if he didn't kill anyone... he also did nothing to stop it, which is what he was supposed to do, even if you fall from grace, you are still under oath. At the very least, he'll need an atonement after his geas.

If he killed people... His order is going to want their own justice, they're not going to sit back and let him smear their reputation. A smear on one is a smear on all. IF they can capture him alive he would be publically executed. The paladin's order is going to want to make a good show for the people and show that this behavior is not tolerated. He'd be stripped of his title first and the families who were wronged get to debate on execution method. Honestly... I don't see a simple atonement or geas working to restore his place in the fold... Paladins are held to a higher standard of morality and the consiquences for breaking that morality should be more severe.

The others would be publically executed IF they bothered to capture them alive.

So, if they're low level, the powers that be shouldn't have too much trouble finding them. They have rescources at their dispoal that the party simply can't compete with.

If the party is mid-level, they can hide and fight for a while, but if they want to live for any length of time, they have to leave the country. Or better yet, move to the back water areas.

High level... this would lead to armies marching... eventually. Other high level groups being brought to bare. Afterall, you can't let people who are That powerful run amuk. They've suddenly become a threat to the powers that be and they can't go unchecked. It's how the powers that be Stay the powers that be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
@Captain Wacky, blahpers was making a joke about the player dying instead of the player's character dying

Oh... a joke... right... "characters" dying instead of the players... huh. Is THAT how you're supposed to play? No wonder new players are hard to find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Beholders, if there's a good conversion for them. That anti-magic cone is pretty nasty.

A well organized group of mercs. Spread out to minimize losses from AoE and ranged weapons to take care of flight. A party wizard that can dispel. PCs have a tendancy to make enemies.

As atated before Golems. If you drape a golem in chains and have a couple Kytons handy, it gets pretty nasty.

Assassin Vines arn't bad.

Chokers prevent verbal spells as they, well.. choke you.

A group of hosted Intellect Devourers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it there are 2 options.
Option 1. remove from the SIM anthing that isn't It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).
The spell doesn't mention it retaining anything else, so no flight, darkvision, tremorsense, SLAs... nothing but what's mentioned in the text.

I was working on this post earlier and actually had an example of a solar under these rules... but my browser timed out and lost the whole thing.

Option 2. If you look at the spells that allow you to duplicate other spells, they only allow duplication of lower level spells (unless I'm missing something). Wish, allows you to dup 8th level and lower, not other 9th level spells. You could rule that Simulacrum only allows for SLAs of 6th level and below.

It is a hole that should get officially plugged. However, common sense (a thing I'm finding is less and less common) should be the first step in this "wish factory" nonsense.

Just my 2 cp


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a bit of an old fogey when it comes to this. Aside from low-level scrolls and certain potions esp. healing potions from churches, if a character wants a certain item, they must 1) get lucky enough to find it in-game. 2) Barter with another adventurer who has it and is willing to part with it. 3) Have it commitioned. 4) Make it him/herself.

I don't have magic item shops in my games. It's not common enough for that. But that's how I play and run.

I have played in games where it was however. Generally they tend to be in larger cities and are usually attached to a mages guild.

If magic is Really common in your game, they can be bought and sold in general stores. If this is the case, I've seen this formula before.

General store - 1D6 Minor items randomly determined.

Pawn shop/Tax collector/specialty shop - 3D6 Minor items randomly determined and 1D6 Med Items.

Shop attached to guild or college - 1D4 Major, 3D8 Med and 5D10 Minor

Healing potions are the most common and a stock of 1, 2 and 3D6 (general store, pawn shop/tax collector and attached shop, respectivly).
This replenishes once a week.

Specific items not found can be commissioned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Drinking it willingly should forgo the saves IMO. He's going out of his way to put an unknown substance in his body. He's essentially accepting that whatever happens, happens. Dumb adventurers are dead adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

177 - 195
Inn Nomine Patris An inn run by a former adventuring paladin.
Inn Discretion Inn and Brothel, run by a married couple with an "open" marriage.
The Pig and Whistle A classic for those who have read the Dragon Lance books.
The Raging Bull Run by a retired adventurer. Renamed after a group of minotaurs tried to ransack it. The heads are mounted on the wall.
Easy 8 Brothel run by a wizard who has 8 bound succubi.
Days Inn Normal looking, but is secretly the HQ of group of vampire hunters.
The Double Tree An inn run by a druid with 2 Ent guardians in back.
Inn and Sweets A modest inn with an attached pastery shop.
The Hilton A rather large and nice kept inn. But the daughter of the inn keeper is an embarassment to the family as she works downtown at the brothel.
Inn Decisive Run by a retired military tactician.
The Horney Toad A brothel run by a Grippli.
The Busty Naga I just like the name
Boars Head Inn
The Sleeping Dragon
Roc's Nest A large inn built on the site of a fallen Roc.
The Gilded Dragon
Fairy Tail A brothel run by Nymph sorceress. She can shrink you so you can make it wth a pixie.
Treasured Chests A brothel run by a retired Pirate.
The Crow's Perch Named for the nearby tree that attracts a murder of crows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I would go with the rule that Breath of Life (including any other effects that call into question whether the deceased was ever actually dead) and Raise Dead are the only legal ways to bring somebody back from the dead without them losing their previous property and titles. If somebody is brought back by Reincarnate, Resurrection, or other magic, they are treated as a new person in service to their heirs, whoever they may be.

So, for example, if the king is killed by violence in a world where the highest level caster is 20th level, his body is held for a possible Raise Dead spell. If nobody is willing or able to raise him in that time, he is declared legally dead after 3 weeks, at which time his successor formally takes over. Note that it is not good for the heir's reputation to actively interfere with any attempts to cast Raise Dead on his predecessor.

Now let's say that the king is reincarnated (and thus possibly no longer of his original race) or resurrected years later. These forms of revival would render the king unable to rule (and in the latter case he would have been legally dead for some time anyway). In that case, the revived king would legally be a vassal and advisor to the current king, and it would be up to the current king to decide whether to give him a place in the order of succession.

Actually this brings up a really cool solution to the Broken Line problem.

The King and all his heirs are dead. The Noble Houses are in a huge cluster rage over who becomes the next King. The Old High Priest who had been friends with the King before this one knew him to be a good and just man and resurrections him to take back over for awhile till they can sort out the heir business.

If they cooperate with that. The noble houses may see it as a move by the church to put someone in power who now owe's them a great debt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:
The black raven wrote:
Mortag1981 wrote:

"All right Pathfinders, our old Ally, Lord Wimsey, has recently passed. He left strict instructions with the temple of Sarenrae to resurect him, but for some reason they are being denied access to the body. We need you to investigate the estate, find the body, and recover it for our allies in the temple. The Wimsey family itself is quite well connected, and we want to maintain our ties with the former lord."

A great use of the "recover body" prestige reward

;)

Which is likely why the new Lord Wimsey had his father's body cremated as early as possible.

Actually, cremation should have a far wider use in Golarion and other similar settings where it prevents both Raise Dead and rising as an undead (at least the most frequent ones).

Or conversely, many societies may frown on cremation, because they consider it the same as saying "Good, I am glad you are dead, and I don't want to you come back."

Some, but most core races and religeons are a bit more practical. It's better to cremate and make sure they don't come back unless there's a need for them to, than to run the risk of them comming back... and not as the beloved "uncle teddy"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
Mortag1981 wrote:

"All right Pathfinders, our old Ally, Lord Wimsey, has recently passed. He left strict instructions with the temple of Sarenrae to resurect him, but for some reason they are being denied access to the body. We need you to investigate the estate, find the body, and recover it for our allies in the temple. The Wimsey family itself is quite well connected, and we want to maintain our ties with the former lord."

A great use of the "recover body" prestige reward

;)

Which is likely why the new Lord Wimsey had his father's body cremated as early as possible.

Actually, cremation should have a far wider use in Golarion and other similar settings where it prevents both Raise Dead and rising as an undead (at least the most frequent ones).

That's exactly the reason most of my religeons use cermation. Unless there's some other reason to keep your body around (like you were a hero and they want to call you up for a time of need or something). Don't want thoughs pesky necromancers raising undead hordes on your back door.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Captain Wacky wrote:

There may also be "law of the land" rules to succession as well. Even if dad gets ressurrected he may come back into an advisory role and his son or daughter is the new ruler.

Power struggles can be very inticrate as well. Even if he is the new duke, doesn't mean the church doesn't have the clout to bully their way in and get what they want anyways. The new duke may also not have the clout to do what he wants, sure he's got the title, but that takes you only so far.

Historically, the grand dukes of france were every bit as powerful as the king.

This actually comes up as a political issue in Girl Genius.

Huh. Nobles being forbidden from being reserrected is a cool idea. It would certinly make things easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There may also be "law of the land" rules to succession as well. Even if dad gets ressurrected he may come back into an advisory role and his son or daughter is the new ruler.

Power struggles can be very inticrate as well. Even if he is the new duke, doesn't mean the church doesn't have the clout to bully their way in and get what they want anyways. The new duke may also not have the clout to do what he wants, sure he's got the title, but that takes you only so far.

Historically, the grand dukes of france were every bit as powerful as the king.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

396.Harry the Potter: about a boy who grows up with his aunt and uncle who are powerful sorcerers and treat him well. Harry one day finds out he's Very good at making pottery and runs away from his life as a sorcerer to become the best potter ever.

397.Gillium's guide to Goblin Fart Scrolls: This book is filled with drawings from all over the world of goblin "fart art". Depicts goblins farts on eachother's food. Winning wars by farting on their enemies and blowing them over cliffs. Farting hard enough to propel themselves over a wall. ect ect... Warning this book smells...

398.Charlotte's Web: A book about a phase spider and her magical friendship with a dire boar. She eventually eats him...

399.The Giving Tree: About a boy and an Ent who gives the boy many thing, but then the boy ends up taking too much and the Ent stomps on him for defiling nature.

400.The Hitchhiker's Guide to Golorion:

401.Where the Wild Things Are: A practial guide to monster locations through out the land.

402.Winnie-the-Pooh: A horror story about a werebear, weretiger, and wereboar terrorizing a defenceless rabbit, owl and kangeroo mother and son.

403.Life of Pie: A fantasic baking guide.

404.Daybreak: About a vampire who has a sudden rush of humanity and falls in love with a non-descript, drab, human girl... for some reason. At the end of the book he's hunted down and steaked by a vampire hunter and the girl is burned at the steak for consorting with the dark powers.

405.Frankenstein: A how to manual for necromancers. Filled with helpful do and dont's.

406.Atlas Shrugged: A historial book about devistation caused by Atlas Shrugging.

Sorry if I'm recycling some of these idea's, I didn't have time to read the whole thread. I just wanted to get some idea's out before I forgot them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cao Phen wrote:
Let us say you are searching for your compatriot that went missing after a fight with some orcs. You tracked the orcs' lair and slew the warriors guarding the area. You walk into the alcove and in your horror, your compatriot's body is being eaten by orcish children. They were raised up to eat the food given. They look at you and see that you want to take thier food away and ready to attack. You do not have enough resources to subdue the orc children, so what to do? It is a heinous crime for consuming you friend, but they are still only children.

LG-Retreat (they're only kids)

LN-Kill, intimidate, subdue (whatever you have to do to get them to stop)
LE-Kill them (they're ganna frow up to be killers and rapists anyways)
NG-as LG
N- *however you wanna rationalize what you're going to do*
NE-Kill them (it'll be good practice)
CG-Intimidate, subdue (whatever you have to do to get them to stop other than kill)
CN-*flips a coin*
CE-"HAHAHA Listen to them SCREAM!!!"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cao Phen wrote:

Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

^ That is not only Murder, but delusional if you think killing the babies of a sentient race is an act of "good". You are Murdering Babies! you are Chaotic Evil. Will they grow up to be evil! 99.9% yes... as a "good" person it is your duty to show compassion and mercy, that's what makes you morally superior to your enemies. That's what makes you "good"!

Again... if you want to take the "greater good" route... be neutral or evil. You can THINK your "good" and justify the murder of the helpless all you want in your head. But an act of evil is an act of evil.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the kicker. Most Orcs are vile, evil monsters. Killing one so it can't continue its life of evil deeds is a good thing. Although evil in nature it's still a sentient being. It can still, technically be reasoned with. Killing in the heat of battle is one thing. Killing a bound and helpless prisoner, even if it is an Orc is Murder. Evil for the sake of "the greater good" is still evil. That makes you an anti-hero, not a hero. It's the differance between Punisher and Superman.

It was the right call in general, but the wrong call for his alignment. You have to look at your alignment as a whole not one part or the other. Chaotic prizes freedom, and good will kill in the heat of battle, but shouldn't murder prisoners. given his alignment, if he doesn't want a penalty, he shoulda let the orc go.

That doesn't mean you can't occationally step out of alignmment, but he should have to atone now.

If you wanna kill the helpless even if they are evil, be neutral or evil yourself. Or leave it to a neutral or evil member of the party. The good aligned can walk away and have no part in it although they know it has to be done. The neutral and evil will do what they need to do.

Also, good rule of thumb.
If you have to ask if a particular act is "evil"... 99% it probably is.
If you have to ask if a particular act is "good"... 99% it probably isn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
It says you must be able to speak strongly. It doesn't say you have to do so.

...Are you being serious? That's like saying my fighter just needs to be able to wear armor but doesn't actually have to in order to get the benefits... By the same logic, the dragon only has to be able to be slain, or the quest only has to be able to be completed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Clearly, a strong voice is not a whisper.

I have, am, and always will refute this statement.

It is certainly possible to whisper strongly.

I put forth the idea that said passage simply means you cannot stutter, be tongue-tied, or otherwise unsure in your speech (such as when gagged, coughing, or otherwise impeded in one's speech).

I would have to disagree "whispering strongly" and "speaking in a stong voice" are not the same thing. You are using gestures and incatations to channel your will into an outward force. It doesn't sound like something that can be whispered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He is AN "ultimate cosmic horror" not THE "ultimate cosmic horror". That's reserved for Azathoth.

Cthulhu took a cross continental ocean liner to the head and just whent back to sleep because "the stars weren't right". Which is the only reason the Alert got away.

His physical form is merely a shadow cast on our world from another dimention where he truly resides.

There were storms and nightmares across the entire world just because he was half awake for a few moments.

Also, "The Great Old Ones" and the "Outer Gods" are... cousins, so to speak. Not servants to one or the other. Cthulhu is "High Preist" as best we understand him.

In my book that qualifies him as an "ultimate cosmic horror". Lovecraft and company were a bit vague on a lot of points, so interperate the stories for what makes sense to you. But that is my opinion based on what is written.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not planning on using him.
1. Somehow putting stats on an "ultimate cosmic horror" seems to defeat the purpose of having an "ultimate cosmic horror".
and
2. Cthulhu seems out of place in a game designed so that the players are supposed to be able to win against anything (level appropriate). You're not supposed to win against Cthulhu, at best you can stave off ultimate destrution.
and
3. There's no sanity stat... the Great Old Ones are supposed to be so alien and incomrehencable (spelling?) that we break inside just being confronted by them.

Don't mind me I suppose I'm just bitter that Cthulhu has been reduced to "just another monster". And I'll be hearing stories about "my paladin poked out Cthulhu's eye with his +10 sword v Mythos". Somehow seems wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Captain Wacky wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Well, if they are playing foolish AND evil murderhobos, then yes, your style seems effective. My players would listen to the Gypsies. Or if somehow they messed up, they would make it good or atone, not try to kill the witnesses. (Really?!?)

Since my players wouldn’t act like that, I don’t have to assassinate their PC’s ‘for a lesson”. They don't need lessons.

It wasn't a lesson per se'. It was a natural reasction of a tight nit community. And it was a reaction I rolled, they could've just as eaily call in the Highway Patrol (yes I have a Highway Patrol, how else do you keep a civilized area civil.) or gathered a mob to lynching. It was a consiquence to their actions. If they had killed the last one and covered their tracks, they may have gotten away with it. They've been playing with me for years and should've known better. But I don't limit them in play styles, if they want to be evil bastards they are welcome to do so. However, like anything else, there is cause and effect.

I quote " My players knew I was brutal and took away a valuable lesson ..."

But anyway, if you encourage your guys to play stupid AND evil murderhobos then you get the kind of players you deserve and the kind of players you have to give lessons to.

Unless of course, you're playing with 14yo, in which case you have other problems.

But most of us game with mature players.

Role playing is always a learning experiance. So yes, it was a lesson, but not a lesson I was looking to push or punish my PCs with. Do your players learn from their mistakes? or do they keep doing the same thing over and over again? Because it sounds to me like there are consiquences to their actions.

I don't encourage them to play anything, they play what they feel like playing. I let them choose where They want to go and not railroad them into playing "the Hero" all the time, which is not only a dick move, but takes away any freedom you might otherwise have as a role-player.
If the hero bit is the direction they choose, they persue it, but it's up to them.

Just because you don't like my play style you've become antagonistic. Perhaps you should experiment more as a GM before criticizing anothers style. And perhaps you should look at your own maturity level before commenting on anothers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just ignore it. it's a 5th level spell, which is still potent stuff. That end tid bit about not being useable or sellable looks... arbitrary.

You also have to think of who is going to need that much iron at once. You are going to have to seperate it out into usable ingots (fabricate may work on that). And your average black smith isn't going to have the money on hand to purchase that amount of iron anyways.

So you would end up running around the country side selling iron bits to every black smith in the county. Meanwhile your adventuring group is killing monsters and looting their bodies.

If you're doing it as a RP thing out of the kindness of your heart to help the iron poor people of *where ever*, than I don't see a problem with just making it normal iron. If you're trying to turn a profit... you're better off killing and looting. Besides, did the magic user struggle to control the magic whitin him/her self, only to turn around and become a glorified iron monger?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drachasor wrote:
If memory serves, European steel's better quality meant it didn't need to be folded nearly as much compared to Japanese steel.

True, but it was also a matter of economics. Europe didn't have the restrictions on who could buy weapons that japan had (depending on the region). They could make swords in higher quantity and taking 8 monthes to a year to make a sword didn't make sense... unless it was for some noble who dropped extra coin on it.

Also, not all katanas were made equal, there were some pretty crappy ones out there given to samuri in low standing. So not all of them were folded and re-folded to the same degree.

I think we're starting to get off subject.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't use Magic Marts. Magic in my games isn't common enough for that. When you use Magic Marts you turn magic into technology and remove mystique and wonder of magic and make it mundane. My limit to this is churches will grant healing potions and wizard schools wil sell low level scrolls. You can have an item made, but it has to be commissoned.

Buying and selling magic items can be done through other NPC adventuring groups if they have something they can't use or don't want. This is usually done through word of mouth as every class but wizards and clerics are illiterate.

I also don't use the WBL, you get what you get in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mojorat wrote:
So the folding process used in japan existed because the native iron is poor. Europeans had no use for the process.

Europeans folded their swords as well. The average long sword was folded and the blade core was tempered at a lower temperature just like a katana was.