Neil Spicer wrote:
Not only that, but I got dinged last year for copying and pasting most of my own villain background text in the stat-block round. Why? Because Round 3 tests your ability to "improve" just as much as does on mechanical execution of a stat-block.
I hardly see this as being most. I compared the description of the original Chaitrakhan with the flavor text at the bottom of the new one. Here's everything that's new:
… intermingles with …
I hardly see that as copy and paste either. The contest is for freelancers as well and, from what I gather, a good freelancer doesn't waste time rewriting what already works.
Here are my votes:
Alexander MacLeod's Chymick Swarm, A Thousand Alchemists
Benjamin's Bruck's Churjiir
Jason Schimmel's Chaitrakhan, icy pack-hunter
Jesse Benner's The Lahamu ("The Soul Drinker")
Jim Groves' Ardorwesp
Matthew Morris's Caltrop Golem
Some comments on those I didn't vote on:
David Posener's Astrumal
Dennis Baker's Churjiir
Matthew McGee's Astrumal
Richard A. Hunt's Slithering Horror
Tom Phillips's Ossuary
While I would love to see the skintaker statblock, what we ought to be speculating on are the ones that may be more difficult to pull off, but if done successful it'll be a hit out of the ballpark. One creature has psionics. Another has magnetism. One's accused of being a template. Those are a few examples that would be the ones to watch for if someone wants to pull off a coup.
A magnetic world-eater as a CR6 or lower? That'd be a serious challenge.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Do you suppose the golem could reform around a foe? That would certainly be interesting, if, admittedly, a little swarm-like.
Trevor Gulliver wrote:
I like this a lot. I'm a bit put off on an 'ossuary' not having bones in it but no one else seems to mind.
I'm right there with you.
I'm wondering if being trapped inside the golem would have some sort of weakening effect on the undead. I mean, is there anyway they can free themselves (especially if their CR is much higher than that of the golem itself)? Plus, it could make the surprise fight at the end a mite easier, if that needs to happen.
Also, I'm wondering if there is any way to defeat this thing without killing it. I'm guessing the intelligent PC figures out there might be a reason not to destroy it completely.
Joshua Kitchens wrote:
Okay, I'm not very knowledgeable about the game systems, so I don't know if this stuff has been dealt with prior, but I do have a few issues with the magnetic thing.
- Waves of magnetism? A creature may have a magnetic field, but I highly doubt it emits magnetic waves. The only waves that contain a magnetic field component are electromagnetic waves, and electromagnetic waves would not cause an attraction between the emitting object and other objects (the magnetic field is inherently oscillating).
Joe Wells wrote:
So, if it bludgeons you with the limbs it used to put itself together, is the damage based on the size of the limbs? What happens if the limb has claws or other natural weapons of some sort? Can you grapple an individual limb from inside the "vortex" and rip it out?
I kinda like this guy. I think I'll call him "Jacks".
I love it! I'm definitely for this one. It's hard to find a lot of creative monsters at low level; this may be a little silly, but it keeps the game interesting. Plus, I'm sure a crazy evil villain would love to create one of these things to mess with people.
Guy Ladouceur wrote:
I am looking to switch over to Pathfinder by using my credit and as I went to check out it read that shipping was going to cost me $5 dollars. I was wondering why for it states that it's free shipping at the transition board.
The subscription itself comes to $13.99 plus shipping and handling. If you divide the total amount listed on the transition page that you would pay as a subscriber by the number of issues it states you are entitled to, it should come to around $17.99, which is $13.99 plus $4 shipping and handling. Looks like yours is an extra dollar, though, but maybe that's just the option you chose (I agree that's a little tricky, though, since the transition page does state that it's free).
If you go to the transition page that explains what options we have available to us, the very bottom of the page lists your customized options (provided you are logged in). It will give you each option and how much you have available to you (months of Pathfinder, back-issues, amount of credit or refund). I think that's the only place it's listed.
I just got a response to a spellcraft query I sent in June 6th. They passed on it, but I am pleased as punch with the response time.
I sent in a class acts query on May 20th (or somewhere around there) and haven't yet gotten a response about it. I was definitely planning on giving it more time before sending a poke over to paizo, but I wasn't sure if this meant that they were well beyond where they should have come across my query since they're up to June 6 apparently. Or are spellcraft queries just sorted through faster?
Fake Healer wrote:
Not a very covert conspiracy, that's for sure. It doesn't make sense to me that it's the government's job to use our tax money to protect our oil reserves in other countries so that the oil companies can get that oil and still charge us more for gas. Of course the government is researching eco friendly options, but they're not putting in enough funding for this research for it to be very effective.
Why is it that, when oil production slows, gas prices in America skyrocket immediately, but then, when the production begins to dramatically increase, we're told that it takes a while for our market to see the effect of a change in production rate (that is, prices getting lower again)? Is this an American thing, or does this happen everywhere?
Well, I haven't been there for a few weeks, but when I left, it was about $3 a gallon. Of course, one of the reasons people here are willing to buy such gas guzzling cars is because the government is doing everything they can to keep gas prices as low as they are. If they would just use "true-cost" pricing, it should cost about $6 a gallon and then people would think twice before purchasing their new Hummer.
Fake Healer wrote:
I have drifted from my point but in the US hard work is rewarded but the concept of family importance seems to be suffering unless one can earn a great salary and afford to leave a parent at home.
I certainly can agree with that. My mother wanted to be stay home and raise my brother and myself. My father worked three jobs, almost killing himself, and they still went bankrupt because they couldn't bring in enough money.
The only thing I've got going for me as far as that's all concerned is that I want to be a teacher. So, essentially, if I plan things right, the child can be born right at the beginning of the summer, or slightly before (taking whatever maternity leave they give me) and I'll have three months to be able to stay home and care for the child myself. I do hate that the American system almost forces us to let someone else raise our children most of the time if we want to afford anything in life.
Of course, being a teacher is somewhat different than other jobs anyway. I mean, a full-year salary for only 9-10 months work, but typically working nights and weekends grading assignments and such during those months, so it evens out. The unfortunate part is that you can't actually take a vacation during the school year at all (no ski trips unless they're over the winter break). Pennsylvania (where I intend to teach) has one of the best pension plans for teachers in the whole of the United States, though, from what I hear, the government is trying to get rid of some of that. Well, I won't start in on all of the bad things that the government is doing to American schools...
Lucky you, PhysChic. What is your major? Mine will, in the distant future, be Biochemistry. However, I love math & physics! Have a great time!
My major is Physics. One of the professors that teaches a lot of my classes is in charge of the Biochemistry program at my college (no department, just interdisciplinary stuff), so I end up learning a bit about Biochemistry in the classes I take with him.
I'm actually doing an internship with my Physics professor at Allegheny College (near Erie, PA) working with Liquid Crystals. For the second half of the internship, we go to Budapest to work with a collegue in the field in his lab since he's got some different equipment than we do, which allows us to do a few things we couldn't at our lab at the College.
Thanks for the advice. I have had a bowl of Hungarian goulash, though that was because the word "goulash" (I know I didn't spell it right) was one of the few words on the menu that I understood, so it wasn't what I was expected. Very good though :).
A new member of my group just e-mailed the link a few days ago.
I think they're under "Dynamic Sheets"
Along those lines, in a few of my gaming groups, any horrible failure involved a muffin. For example, rolling bad on a spot check equals "I saw a muffin." A slightly better roll, while still failing may be, "I noticed the muffin was blueberry." Rolling a horrible attack roll might be "I was distracted by muffiny goodness." Stuff like that. Much more entertaining than saying "I didn't hit."
My experience is more with "Variant Rules" than "House Rules" but I suppose it still applies.
We use Vitality and Wound. The original published version (in Unearthed Arcana, I believe) was severely underdeveloped as it didn't deal with things like Regeneration and nonlethal damage. However, Magagumo and myself have managed to expand on the original rules for the system, also taking into account the difference in effects of some feats. It's quite a few pages long and is a bit complicated for anyone who joins the group, but we use it because it makes healing a lot faster and is good in low magic settings (or at least when there isn't a lot of healing magic in the group). It's a bit more stylistic, but we use it in every game he runs (I run the normal system because I'm still learning the game to begin with and learning how to turn my stuff to Vitality and Wound is a bit complicated at the moment).
I tried defense rolls once. As a concept, it's rather good. I mean, if you have to roll to see how well you hit someone, why not roll to see how well you defend against an attack? Unfortunately, it certainly bogged things down, making it impossible for players to just tell me how much damage they did. Instead, they had to tell me every attack roll they made and I had to make an opposing defense roll, which definitely slowed things down. Again, really neat concept, just didn't work so well in practice.
Also thinking about using facing in combat. I once got hit by a nasty gaze attack when I wasn't even looking in that direction, but, since, technically, there was no facing, I apparently was automatically looking in every direction (???). Anyways, anyone had a chance to try this out yet? Any thoughts on it at all?
Finishing up my BS in Physics, then spending a year getting my Master's of Arts in Teaching Physics. It's almost like an MEd, but the cirriculum I go through is a tad different. Should be done with it all summer of 2008, then on to a career somewhere (hopefully, one of the places I've really wanted to teach).
The Finn wrote:
Found this laying around another thread:
Mike McArtor wrote:
Sounds like they just want it the first time, but you don't need to send it with any resubmissions. I think I also saw that specifically in another thread, but I can't find it now. Hope that helps.
Hmm, I still recommend talking to them first. I know that once when I was stressed by a few too many things, I let it affect my gaming in a rather negative way. The GM and I talked and I took a "leave of absence" from the game until I felt comfortable coming back.
However, if this type of solution just isn't in the cards, then, yea, chuck the players.
Searn--I have a bit of advice for you myself.
I just finished up my junior year at college and will be graduating after the fall semester next year. My school costs over $30k per year and I almost had to transfer to a cheaper school last year because I didn't think I could continue going here. It doesn't help that, when I graduate from here, I enter into a one-year Master's program that'll cost me $23k.
When I came to college, the Physics program (which is what I'm majoring in) didn't start until second semester and that was even only one class. It also took me until second semester sophomore year to figure out a minor, so I had a lot of catch-up to do. Anyway, at the end of this school year, I had all the credits I needed to graduate (actually, I was one credit short, but that would have been easy to take care of... yay for yoga or ballroom dance or something crazy). The only thing that kept me here was the fact that I still hadn't finished the requirements of my minor or major.
So, without further adeiu (which I can't spell), here's the advice: If it doesn't stress you out to take a course overload every semester (which, by the sounds of the college courses you've already taken, I don't think it would), you should graduate a year early. Firstly, this saves you lots and lots of money. Secondly, I know I was feeling done with my undergraduate education by the end of this year and was ready to move on, so I can assume you might feel the same way at that point. And hey, if you don't, it's not like you HAVE to graduate early even if you have your requirements done with. I definitely wish someone had given me this advice when I had started... I could have started my life a year early.
or does this summer movie season seem kind of kobold-weak?
I agree the season looks rather sad. I mean, some of the movies sounded like they would be good, but turned out to be a waste of time and money. As for Pirates of the Caribeean II, it does look like it could be good, but I worry they'll have ruined it in their attempt to rush a money-making sequal. *fingers crossed* here's hoping... of course, I'm a bit sad that I won't be able to see it until at least the end of July since I'll be away when it comes out (though, at least I'll know what everyone else thought about it by then).
I think the point is that sometimes a certain rule or something makes the game not fun. So, yea, sometimes, we can bend or break rules in our game if it means that things will be more fun.
For example, I played a Grippli ranger in a campaign recently. I had excellent climbing, but I still couldn't technically walk on walls or ceilings or whatever. However, being new to the game, I was unaware that I was not able to do so with my character. Since the climbing on walls thing was the whole reason I wanted to be a Grippli (well, at least it was one of the reasons), my GM let it slide and let me climb on walls without the climb checks. It didn't give me a particular advantage in the situations where it was usable, so it didn't destroy the game, but I had fun doing it, and after all... "The game is really about having fun." :P
Mini hasn't gone on sale yet, though you can get to it here:http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/w/wizardsOfTheCoast/byProductType/miniatur esGames/dnd/icons/v5748btpy7pol
It'll go on sale in approximately an hour (10pm pacific, 1pm eastern)
Yea, housing cost definitely depends on the industry and everything in the area. I live in a moderately "upscale" suburb of Philadelphia and a good 3 bedroom house is over $300k. I've also looked at housing in the Poconos (about 45 minute drive away from where I live) and a 4-6 bedroom house there was going for between $100k and $200k.
My dream, once my fiancee and I finish our educations and get some decently paying jobs, start to pay off our massive amount of educational loans, etc, is to find a nice plot of land and custom build (and yes, we plan to have a room someone in there set aside for DnD... I wonder if there's any special building design that we could put into the room to make it really cool for DnDing). Of course, I still haven't figured out if we can even afford the type of house we want and a piece of land (no idea how much those cost). At any rate, I hope the housing boom in my area starts to die down so real estate prices start to drop, because it's getting pretty ridiculous.
Yay for new homes!!!
In case you're wondering if the reason you didn't like the movie was because it was so much different from the comic, I can tell you that's probably not the only reason. I didn't read the comic and I loved the first two movies, but this one was a real let down. Other than the mutant wonder-drug there was really no coherent story-line that held the whole thing together. Instead, the movie consisted of several under-developed subplots, none of which got enough screen time.
1. If that's all they were going to do with Angel, then what was the point of including him at all?
All in all, they ruined yet another good set of movies. It's almost like it puts a negative stigma on the entire set. I can certainly say that, while I like owning a complete set of things, regardless of how I feel about them, I don't think I can bring myself to purchase this money-making scheme of a movie.
Ragnarock Raider wrote:
No, I completely understand, even though I don't particularly agree. It's incredibly difficult to balance when characters should definitely roll because that's "how DnD works" and make things set because "that's what's fair." And perhaps some of that balance depends on the players and the GM. The fact that we all have seemingly different systems just points to the fact that we all realize the inherent problems with the "traditional die-roll" systems and are seeking to make the game as fun, balanced, realistic, etc. as possible without overdoing any one of those aspects at the cost of the others. As long as the house rules that you create for all of these are something that everyone in your group can agree with, I can't see anything wrong with using a different system (I know my group prefers rolling to "equality," so I don't think it's something I'll end up using).
this is something I just don't get. D&D isn't real;
I understand that it's not real, but most of the things that went into the way the game works (aside from the fact that, yes, there are different races and magic does exist) is so that it feels as "real" as possible.
Of course, I guess the thing to keep in mind is that I don't really have to deal with a character with substandard stats based on the fact that I make sure each person has at least a 30 point buy. To be honest, I've also never had a character who has ridiculously high stats, either.
It seems that some of you have chosen to use point buy mainly to avoid the possibility that the player cheats as he/she rolls up her stats. I guess I'm just not used to that kind of dishonesty . When I've had a GM who has occassionally dealt with trust issues, he literally sat there and watched as we rolled our stats and then let us do everything else on our own.
Another thing I'm not quite sure I understand is why stats are so much different than hp. I mean, both originally required the player to roll to determine their value. With the point buy method, the GM can certainly ensure that all players start out on an equal playing field regarding their stats. By higher levels, though, you may end up having a "sub-par" character simply because the player rolled absolutely horribly each time he levelled. Should we employ a point buy method on hp as well?
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. On the contrary, I know I'm still very new to the game and am just trying to understand how everyone has developed this perspective against rolling stats because it's one of the things that I like about the game.
Every so often my group runs one where we don't even pick where stats go, just roll 4d6(or 3d6 if we are feeling particularly masochistic) straight down the line and make a character with what you've got. Your characters might not all end up being super heroic type of adventurers, but they do end up having character. This method also leads people to play alot of things they never would have thought of before.
Hmm, I really like this idea. I'm going to have to steal it now ;).
Also, I agree that the point buy may make more sense for the longer campaigns. To be honest, I guess the reason I've never considered that is that I've never really run a long campaign before. Being new to GMing, I usually run small adventures and typically allow my players to write new characters for each one if they so choose so they get a chance to try out a variety of things. I'll keep point buy in mind for when I run something much longer :).
I guess the reason that I like rolling stats better is because it's more like real life. After all, if a group of people decided to get together and start adventuring in real life (aside from the fact that this doesn't exactly happen in the real world), they certainly wouldn't all be on an equal playing field. One may have really good "stats" and the other would have really crappy. So, I guess it makes the game seem more real when the party is, to some extent, unbalanced as well.
So yea, a player will occassionally have the unluck of rolling some low stats and they'll hvae to live with that for the game (I've never had anyone complain considering I let them all have decently high stats to begin with.. 30 point buy and over, as it were). But, probability states that that player will also occassionally roll those really high stats (i once rolled four 18s, and I was totally thrilled). *shrug* I guess in the long run I like that rolling stats is completely random, even from the perspective of a player.
I forget what all of the numbers are, so I can't really help with that, but I don't typically use it in my campaigns.
Personally, I like the "random" element a bit more, though I do calculate the point buy of the PCs after they've rolled their dice to make sure it's in a good range (otherwise I tell them to reroll their dice). I usually say anything about 30, sometimes about 35, is good. I don't have a maximum because, if the dice roll well, I don't want to take that away from the player.
It's a win-win kinda thing because, if he sends you a rejection, then at least you know he really does care ;)
Mike McArtor wrote:
Hmm, I've just recently submitted something that I dubbed "an alternative class," but it could very easily be a "variant class feature" instead. Should I resubmit my query with this alteration made or is that taken into consideration when you look at it and, if you liked the idea, you'd tell me to change it to a variant class feature?