Pneumonica's page

I would like to cancel the referenced order. This is to say, I would like to cancel the part that hasn't already arrived - obviously, the part I've gotten already and had for better than half a year I'm keeping. ;-)

Got it, thanks. It means there's no little hidden glitches in the e-mail distribution. Sorry for being a bother.

Okay, here's one for entertainment value. The address has been changed, but I haven't received a confirmation e-mail. It's not that the confirmation e-mail is a vital part of this procedure, but I just thought you might want it brought to your attention. lol

I need to change the address on these preorders, and I can't find a way to do that. I don't have any subscriptions, so can't change the subscription address. Can I e-mail you with the change?

Brief thoughts: (Nobility) feels weird for clerics, as does (Geography) for druids. Paladins should have (History). Monks have more use for (Religion) than for (History).

Broken down by item, in order.

Historically, priests were generally nobles (at least petty nobles), and clerics have a long standing D&D tradition of being one of the more likely PC classes to, even at low levels, deal directy with the nobility.

Nature-worshippers I would think would make an avid study of geography, to know the layouts and environments, and to understand the earth in all its shapes and forms.

I sit the fence on giving paladins History. Yes, I can see reason for it, but I can also see reasons for Sorcerers to have Knowledge (Architecture), too. It makes more sense as a cross-class skill, or whatever they're calling non-class skills these days.

Monks are presented as agnostic, humanist, militant philosophers. While they might individually worship a god, as a group they don't follow a faith so much as a tradition.

Negative energy is only mostly associated with evil gods. Undead, being more susceptible to control and command than the living by way of negative energy, make useful pawns against the living, and so the evil gods utilize that fact.

I have never been of the perspective that all undead are evil, and the fact that it is impossible to approach necromancy in Pathfinder with a reverence for life and a respect for the dead does bother me greatly. Mediums are literal necromancers, I would note ("necromancy", as a term, technically means communication with the dead and/or divination by way of the dead). Ghosts are undead. Neither are painted as evil. Indeed, many revenants in mythology and in D&D are righteous persons who happen to be dead.

And in core D&D, it's entirely possible to play a good cleric and rebuke undead (channel negative). Wasn't it Wee Jas who was a Lawful Neutral god who granted his worshippers Rebuke, regardless of their alignment? There's definite case history to prove the good/positive evil/negative dichotomy is not absolute.

If you have a Sprint skill, it needs to be merged with the Jump skill, then. There's a reason Carl Lewis (an insanely fast sprinter) is one of the best Olympic long jumpers of all time.

Or re-introduce the Speed bonus to jumping.

Several diseases can be detected by smell/taste. Diabetes is the first to come to mind. That's how my gastroenterologist initially diagnosed me, actually, because when I gave the nurse a urine sample both she and the doctor detected a sharply sweet smell to it. They didn't taste it (thank God), but I'm pretty sure that if they had it would've tasted sweet too (which, BTW, is the way mideval doctors diagnosed diabetes). The ancient Greeks just used ants - if ants swarmed the urine, the patient was diabetic.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Actually, there's no way to be sure of that from the RAW. There is no specific language to say that Know (local) applies to every locality, nor is there language to say that it must be limited to a specific locality. Given the ambiguity, DMs have been free to do as they will.

Using the same logic you could argue that Knowledge (arcana) makes no sense, but that it should be Knowledge (evocation), Knowledge (conjuration), Knowledge (necromancy), and so on, and that probably the designers meant it that way.

There is no ambiguity in the PHB rules.

Your logic is baffling - Bill says "the language is ambiguous", and your reply is "so all the Knowledge skills need to be broken down"?

And I would like to repeat this statement.

There is no ambiguity in the PHB rules.

Becuase if this is the case I'm pretty sure we're reading different rules sets. It states clearly that the listed exemplars are "typical fields of study", so the list is not in itself exhaustive. Plus, in multiple supplements, including both the 3.0 and 3.5 Forgotten Realms books, it clearly identifies Knowledge (local) as applying to a specific locality (and in 3.5, the Regional Feats no longer required Knowledge (local) to take, since you could only take one and then only at character creation).

Simply put, all evidence points against the notion of Knowledge (local) applying universally to all localities.

That being said, however, I feel the best way to handle favored class is allow races with favored classes slightly improved racial versions of a few class abilities.

That's an excellent theory but in practice it becomes monstrous. Or not monstrous. The monster races that take PC classes (even if not intended as PCs) would get the same, which adds reams of material to the rules.

By and large it seems to me that they've taken 3.5, removed everything that was anything but in the most vague and/or indirect way D&D-like about it, wrote new band-aid material to fill the large gaps left, then repackaged it as D&D. It's like playing Warmammer FRP with fewer rules, no setting, and less interesting character types (and fewer of them).

Repairman Jack wrote:

A small caster with a strength of 8 changes into an ogre, two sizes up, and gains a +6 to strength making it an ogre with a strength of 14 (two thirds of what it should be).

Or a stone giant wizard with a strength of 27 turns into a human, one size DOWN, and gains a +2 to strength making him a human with a strength of 29 (almost three times what it should be). THIS way lies madness.

There's a new rule for this in Alpha 3: "If a polymorph spell is cast by a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes before applying the bonuses

granted by the polymorph spell."

So problem solved. (?)

Behold the powers of overlook. I totally missed that. While I still have issues with an Elf applying his racial Dexterity modifier in Ogre form, I also understand that total racial characteristic replacement is a headache and a hassle and not worth the time it takes to adjudicate. So, this seems to fix things as good as they get fixed.

Knowledge (Planar) is no more specialized than any given Knowledge (local), possibly less so. I'm all for keeping it as-is.

However, Spellcraft and Psicraft, as skills, are nettles in my shorts, and every game that I have run has houseruled them to oblivion. Viva la Knowledge! (And Concentration!)

Pneumonica wrote:

I'd actually be happier if you let GMW punch through material but didn't allow the magical weapon enhancement bonus to do the same.

That sends a clear message that a single 3rd level spell is, by the nature of the rules, supposed to be worth more than 50,000 gp worth of gear. Don't get me wrong; I actually might prefer playing a game founded on that assumption, but it would be something more like Iron Heroes and a lot less like 3.5, unfortunately.

I didn't say I'd like that system, I said I'd prefer it over the current. It would make more sense to me. First, I don't see any temporary boost that can be removed by a single dispel magic as being "more valuable". Quite the opposite - a single Kobold minion with a scroll will put the lie to that theory.

However, giving it to the weapon and not the spell means there's no need for the spell to begin with, and it also means that no form of damage reduction matters anymore in high-level play, making one of the major distinguishing features of high-level monsters (high damage reduction) valueless to the game.

That said there is nothing preventing any networked play group from coming up with thier own point system or other method of premediated stats.

LazarX, I find you guilty of three counts of premeditated statistics.

:-D

Sorry but these old school roles bye race really don't deserve enforcement any more. Yeah cultural fluff is always nice, but this really shouldn't have effect on the players choices any more. You might grant a small bonus for this like a skill point, or an additional skill as a class skill, but not something as vital as hit points. It ends up like being survival of the fittest, where all those who don't fit the status quo are less likely to survive a hit.

First: "Cultural fluff" would be a major part of the environment in which the game takes place. The in-game setting should be the first and by far most important reason for the inclusion of a mechanic.

Second: Is one hit point per level major or insignificant. People on the boards seem to alternate between the two opinions depending on which argument they're countering.

Third: As has been stated before, some choices are suboptimal. That's something you have to live with - if you make certain choices, you won't be capitalizing on all the advantages. One of those advantages is favored class.

Assuming that GMW got fixed up a bit so that the spell does not allow you to punch through DR, what does this mean for the DR rules as they currently stand.

That wouldn't fix anything at all. I'd actually be happier if you let GMW punch through material but didn't allow the magical weapon enhancement bonus to do the same. Encouraging people not to use the flavorful effects seems backwards.

You can't have two CRs, one for flowery thespians and one for die hard munchkins....

But what if they're butch thespians? Oh, wait... ;-D

(Sorry, joke was mandatory, and not intended to offend.)

Since we're on the topic of familiar's and bonded objects, is there anything that prevents a wizard who selected a bonded object from taking the non-OGL "Obtain Familiar" feat from the Complete Arcane?

Technically no. Since it isn't OGL, the rules can't directly talk about it. However, traditionally whenever there was an obvious arcane spellcaster who didn't look like a trubador who had an animal with him/her, I've always as DM had enemies try to kill the animal (if they noticed it - Spot checks involved). It made sense to - if you succeeded, you've just nailed the spellcaster pretty hard. If you failed, you've threatened the spellcaster in a way that he or she would probably want to withdraw from the battle. Thus, my take is if you actually invest a feat into being able to do such a thing, I'd say you're asking for it.

The problem with (some) of these ideas, is that it promotes the 1 level dip.

cleric 1/figher 19? very nice using the half/level idea.

You wind up getting cleric 19/fighter 19

or wizard1/sorc 19, or .. well, or anything.
Any primary spell caster 1/anything becomes a fairly nice deal.

Perhaps you can't gain more "additional levels" in spell casting, than you have as base?

(for instance- if you are wizard level 3/fighter 9, you can only get up to +3 to wizard, since you are only wizard level 3), to prevent this?

I disagree. Cleric 1/Fighter 19 gives you caster level 10 for one first level spell and a couple orisons. If you want the spells, you still have to take Cleric.

Pneumonica wrote:

But the Feat grants the bonus per instance of rage. Thus, a fourth level 3.5 Barbie would get 2 rounds of rage (one per rage per day), an 8th level Barbie would get 3 rounds, etc.

I'd go with Yoss' suggestion of boosting the CON modifier for it.

Except that would stack it up too fast.

By 3.5 rules at 4th you would have 2 extra rounds of raging but 4 extra rounds using Alpha.

Maybe a compromise... 2 rage points for every four levels of Barbarian. That would keep it the same.

1 rage point per two levels comes out to less than one round of rage per day, given the additional applications of rage points that are spent on top of the one rage/round. The stack seems appropriate to me for simulating being able to pull out one more round of being angry - the math comes out pretty close.

And changing fly to a skill?

All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!

And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have Godwin's Law.

And I don't care what you are. Statements like the above have no place in discussion, comrade. (Note, the subtle weaving of irony into... wait, did I say subtle? ;-p )

One round of raging ='s one or two rage points. Personally I would be generous and allow the feat to give the PC two bonus rage points.

But the Feat grants the bonus per instance of rage. Thus, a fourth level 3.5 Barbie would get 2 rounds of rage (one per rage per day), an 8th level Barbie would get 3 rounds, etc.

I'd go with Yoss' suggestion of boosting the CON modifier for it.

I take I. Initiative on casters a lot too. I don't see the impetus for a Monk to take it, honestly.

The one time I played a Monk, I took it so as to be able to use combat maneuvers to gimp the foes before they get their actions. Trip, stun, disarm, etc., are all best used before the foe gets to act.

To address the OP, yes, I have seen flight skills used in fantasy OGL stuff. I've also impemented it myself in my own campaigns, though it was a damn sight worse than the Paizo implementation. Frankly, even in mid-quarters fly is a really damn nice spell. Good maneuverability means hovering, turning in place, tight doughnuts, controlled rapid descent, vertical zigzags, 180-degree partial-forward-velocity vertical-axis spins, etc. Red baron nothing, you're a superhero with that kind of flight ability. Provided you have enough room to move meaninfully in combat in three dimensions, fly as a spell has value. With the Fly skill, at least you have to actually do something to become non-mechanized air-mobile infantry.

Pneumonica wrote:

He's saying Improved Initiative shouldn't require a Dexterity of 13+, because it's redundant that way.

I agree with that, just not with changing it to Wis. I'd require BAB +1 instead, to be honest.

Dunno - that makes it impossible for 1st level Monks or Rogues to take it, and they represent a strong contingent of the "Improved Initiative" crowd at present. I don't think they should be hit so hard with the gimpstick.

Again, I'm not sure about this one. I don't know what flavor it leaves in my mouth. Personally, I'd really just go with the SRD and have it have no prerequisite at all.

As a psi-lover, I applaud the desire to integrate psionics into the Pathfinder core book. However, this just doesn't feel right to me. Using names for the bloodline's abilities that are verbatim actual psionic powers means that when those powers do get used by an honest to goodness psion, they'll have to be reworked to comply with the sorcerer (since he came "first," and therefore sets precedent) and they aren't exactly an accurate description of the powers as it stands.

Also, I agree that the idea of a sorcerer getting a psion's schtick via a bloodline, but muddling it up via making it arcane, just doesn't really sit right wth me.

It's well written, and perhaps it'd be a good "enchanter" bloodline or something, but I don't like it as an attempt to bring Psionics into the main book. I'd much rather actually see the psion and psychic warrior put in.

On reflection, I have to agree with Sakura. (God, that makes me feel like I'm in an anime. ;-p ) It might make an interesting "hag-blooded" bloodline or somesuch, but I have to jump on the "no, just give us Psionics" bandwagon. But I'm not sleeping with the hag. Sorry.

(We also gave monks a 2:3 progression, which makes monk/clerics and monk/sorcerers surprisingly reasonable).

Odd ruling, although Monk multiclassing is now more possible with 3.Pai. I would also give 2:3 to Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. Although you might want to call Bard a major spellcaster, I wouldn't.

Interesting phenomenon is that a Cleric 3/Sorcerer 3 becomes pretty formidable, with caster level 6 in arcane and divine spells and the diversity of both spell lists up to spell level 2. Not bad for a 6th level character. They don't have the full power output, but they don't suck totally either. They still suffer when it comes to save DCs, but to me that's the price of multiclassing.

Re-read the OP, please. He's not saying to change initiative to a Wisdom base. He's saying Improved Initiative shouldn't require a Dexterity of 13+, because it's redundant that way. Initiative itself is Dex-based as always, but the Feat should require Wisdom rather than Dexterity.

I'm not 100% on it, but I don't think it's mess up Rogues or Monks any (who are the primary partakers of this Feat). Both use their Wisdom a good deal (Monks more than Rogues).

Matthew Morris wrote:

Another approach would be the scalable spell, like jump.

3rd level +10 8th level +20 13th level +30

And like the OP said, remove the size of the door thing.

Besides, if you really want to annoy the Rogue, time hop the door out of the way :P

I donno, I've disintegrated doors out of the way before... Then again, I was in a hurry to throw a fireball at those who ran behind said door.

IMarv

Why bother, when shrink item is a third level spell?

"Here, thief, put this in your pocket, you can open it later."

But no character would ever buy one, ever. Any one they found, they would immediately try to sell for vastly more than we both agree it's actually worth. Would you allow them to find a buyer that gullible every time? I wouldn't. To assume that everyone other than the PCs is a low-grade moron, and will happily pay 50,000 gp for something that's worth maybe 2,000, really ruins my game experience.

Given how much "teamwork" occurs in a standard D&D team (the likes of which make a cleric feel like casting all his buff spells on himself so that he can fight somewhat better than a fighter rather than casting them on the fighter to make him monstrously better than anybody), I'd want a permanent +3 bonus to attacks. The damage bonus is kinda "meh", I admit, but the attack bonus is golden.

I'm not sure how overpowering this would be in most settings. If it's an issue, it can be house ruled. I know that create water was one of the ones gimped first by Dark Sun (pretty heavily), but that was to sustain the whole "planetary desert" notion. Frankly, if the PCs are spending their time filling ravines one gallon of water at a time then they get no XP for the next three years while they finish that job.

The guidance thing isn't a problem to me isn't a problem at all - that's how the spell's supposed to be used. You can get a single +1 bonus in combat, once per combat. I'm sorry, but I fail to be impressed. At level 1, that's kind of a nice advantage, which means it's powered about right for a cantrip/orison.

In a world with spells like Raise Dead, assassination might just be a warning.

The Adept's Handbook for True20 actually had an interesting take on the power of true names - if you wipe somebody's name away, you make it impossible to scry on them or to use their name to focus on them using any power that requires naming, but you also make it impossible to ressurect should they die.

I'm not sure that voting will actually matter, but I am in favor of not allowing magical bonuses to penetrate weapon materials or damage types for Damage Resistance. A +5 mithril longsword doesn't suddenly become a cold iron mace.

I'm withholding my opinion on this for one reason. I don't know what is happening to (ex) combat feats.

Are they removed as in the feats are deleted never to be seen again? Are they made into general feats? Something else?

What is Jason planning? Whats the plan?

Based on current trends, I don't think the new Feats are going to vaporize. I see a definite trend in the Combat Feats as they exist now to limit them in a more straightforward fashion by requiring actions for them. For instance, if a Combat Feat isn't intended to be used with any other advanced Combat Feat, then it might be a full-round action to perform. Mobility might be a movement action that allows moving up to your Speed. And so on.

Anyone of their right mind knows that unless you are specifically allowed to sidestep a rule, you have to obey it.

Aaaand on the other side. Please stop throwing pathos at the enemy - I happen to agree with your primary point without the ad hominem lemma attached to it.

If it's a bonus rank, it shouldn't count towards the max ranks. I would allow the bard to spend his normal ranks.

How I wish we went back to the skill points and skill ranks distinction!

What about the bonus ranks makes you think it should transcend the max ranks? You can houserule the "uberskill" for bardic lore, but there's no text that indicates that this is the standard rule, and there is text to indicate that it isn't (namely, the default rule of max ranks).

Don't you mean more likely to be exaggerated, because fewer people have met someone who's actually defeated one (and stories grow in the telling). That would seem to imply a lot more false information and therefore harder to get the real story.

I partially agree with Meep on this. Does it make sense to know more about the infant form of a dragon than its adult form? Theoretically, few people would know about its child stages, but it's easier to know about those type than about the full-grown adults that would be more commonly (on the relative scale) encountered.

Anyone who argues against this should have his or her opinions completely disregarded because he or she is a hindrance to the game playtesting stage.

Or we should disregard you and resume playtesting. Statements such as this are obnoxious and provide no value to discussion other than to end it.

And that's fine. I think it's fine for other classes to have trapfinding, I just dont think they should get it for free at the same power rogues have without giving the rogue something to compensate having one of their class exclusive abilities now shared with another class(es). Or make the other class(es) spend resources (feats, skills, exchange other class abilites, whatever) to do the same thing.

I would posit that it makes the Rogue too powerful to have the unique ability to detect and disarm traps. Every other party member will be victimized by traps, but the rogue is able to find and remove them. Thus, the rogue is unduly advantaged by this rules quirk. If the power was made more accessible, it would be better-balanced.

Actually, instead of those, perhaps getting free metamagic abilities like Silent Spell, Still Spell, Eschew Materials, etc.

And then like a half-elf or half-orc they become their own race which breeds true. Since the mul (half-dwarf) is the only halfblood that is explicitly stated to be sterile, one can only infer that the others are able to breed amongst each other. In fact WotC has stated that if a half-elf breeds with an elf the offspring is treated as an elf in terms of game statistics and as human if a human was the other partner. Not to mention the half-giant/ogre mage hybrid race in Eberron.

Exactly correct. Half-Giants actually can't breed with Humans or Giants. Even if there wasn't the biometric inconvenience of a Large-sized creature (they weren't Medium-sized in 2nd ed) mating with a Medium or Huge creature, their genetics were distorted by the psionic process that made them and by generations of interbreeding amongst themselves (not to mention by the mildly mutagenic environment of Dark Sun).

As someone already pointed out take the Skill Focus Half Elf racial bonus feat and apply it to Diplomacy, done deal. It's sort of like having the Racial Bonus to Diplo... only better. I don't understand how can you complain about getting a +3 bonus instead of +2 and having the option of using it elsewhere.

Because the +2 bonus applied on top Skill Focus etc. It was a racial bonus. Thus, a Half-Elf with a two-to-two plus Skill Focus would have a +7 bonus plus Cha plus ranks. Plus it didn't cost a bonus Feat to do it - you got the bonus Feat on top of it.

...worshippers of the God of Wickedness, Alkayda?

Sorry, it had to be said.

I suggest The Blood-Drenched Quest of Ultimate Sadism!

...

What?

I was going to reccomend that White Wolf had an interesting generic D&D supplement that would be right up the alley for the little tykes... oh, never mind.

Regarding the OP, I once played in a group with two little kids. This one was unusual in that there were two little kids, a few teens (I was one of them at the time), and a couple adults. One of the older teens was running the game. The group was decidedly a mixed bag (and large, to boot).

The kids, I noticed, actually adapted rather well (around 9, IIRC). The kids understood a lot of "grown up" concepts (racial prejudice and bigotry, government oppression, etc.). They were, however, rather precocious children. One of their characters actually had a wife (unusual in that she was playing a woman), but while looking at her character sheet after just filling it out looked up at the DM said, "But can we keep the marriage thing to pleasant conversation... I don't wanna roleplay dating with you." The DM was more than happy to oblige.

This might be an unusual circumstance, but I've noticed that kids do adapt to mixed groups rather well (so long as there's a bridge between they, the youngest at the table, and whomever is the oldest - don't put two 10-year-olds in a group of four other 30-year-olds).

Pneumonica wrote:

Isn't Devastating Blow a Combat Feat? I don't have my stuff in front of me now, so I can't say for sure, but if it is then the Combat Feat mechanics already limit it. You can't, for instance, use Devastating Blow with Mobility.

The problem is that it's a standard action that you can use every single round to do more damage than if you used a full round action (such as Backswing), not that it can be combined with another feat. So, no, being a combat feat does not put a meaningful limit on its use.

Yes it does if you can't use any of your other combat abilities in the round. Although I dislike the mechanic, it limits exactly how much bonus you can get in a single round. For a Fighter especially, it's a very meaningful limitation. Also, while you do more damage per hit, you do no damage if you miss. With an attack sequence, you have a higher probability of doing at least some damage.

Forum may have ate a post.

My understanding is that Turn Elemental is exclusive of Channel Undead Woogie. If you Channel Elemental Woogie (that should be the new name of the Feat... totally), you aren't affecting the living or the undead. Similar for Outsiders.

As for concept, if you've got an elemental deity then you're channeling elemental force. Since alignment is a tangible force in D&D, that's what you're channeling when you Turn Outsiders.

I think the main issue is not the familiar part per se, but the Bonded Item. (As mentioned, there are already Feats which give you another Familar.)

If a Wizard/Sorceror had TWO Bonded Items, each allowing them to spontaneously cast ANY of their class spells, along with the other benefits of Bonded Items, I think that'd be a bit overpowering.

I don't see how having both a Bonded Item and a Familiar would be Overpowered.

Bonded items and familiars are the same class feature, but there are two sets of rules depending on which way you go. It's like ranger combat styles.

"Creative combinations" are often suboptimal. Let's say I want to play a Goblin Bard. It's a really neat concept (I imagine the Orcs from the Hobbit singing taunts at Gandalf and the Dwarves while they're up a tree). It's also framed with problems, especially in the Charisma department (which is extremely important on a Bard).

There are lots of suboptimal combinations in D&D. Favored classes make certain that the iconic combinations remain so. And at this point, instead of a penalty for stepping away from it, you get a minor boost for going towards it. It isn't a penalty just because you don't get the bonus if you don't choose an optimized combination.

It's possible they may produce a 3.Pai version of UA. It'd be interesting dove-tailing the bloodlines rules with the sorcerer rules - I'd like to see how they do it.

As my busy season winds down and I have free time again, I find myself uninterested in playing Pathfinder Online, so I'm going to take a leave of absence. I'll keep my subscription running, and Deianira accruing xp, through the end of the year. That will give me access to the GoblinWorks forum, so between there and here I'll be able to monitor the game's, and community's, development.

If I'm not back by the end of the year, I'll let my subscription lapse.

The last survey crystallized some of the issues I and my group have had with the game so far. We responded to that survey in our various ways - I think a couple of the guys included comments in SHOUTY CAPS - and as I know how these things are received on forums, I won't enumerate those issues here. Suffice it to say, with the sole (infrequent) exception of yours truly, my group refuses to play, in game or on the forums, at all.

And while the Emerald Lodge community specifically, and the PFO community in general, are great people, I really got into the kickstarter, the forums, and finally the game itself in search of a game my group could enjoy both as a small, friends-and-family team and as part of a larger game community. That's how we started out, two decades ago, and we'd like to get back to it.

But sadly, Pathfinder Online has not proved to be the vehicle for doing both of those things.

I'll keep an eye on the forums, both here and at GoblinWorks, and hope to be back. Eventually.

Deianira Sunstorm
once (and future?) bard of the Emerald Lodge

This song has been stuck in my head for a while now, and as with many things, I woke up with the last bit suddenly there in my head. Hah!

Dire Straits' Money for Nothing, with thanks - and curses! - to Savage Grace for the title.

*****

I want my, I want my PvP...

Now look at them bandits, that's the way you do it.
You die in combat and you rez for free.
That ain't dying, that's the way you do it.
Silver for nothing and your gear for free.
Now that ain't dying, that's the way you do it.
Let me tell you them thieves ain't dumb,
Maybe get a sword cut on your cheek or belly.
Maybe lose a joint off of your thumb.

We got to get this essence and metal.
Crafted weapon deliveries.
We got to move these enchanted tokens.
We got to move this armor plus three.

See the little singer in the blue robes in the back, there?
Yeah buddy, with the tambourine.
That little lady's got her own smallholding.
That little lady, she's a bandit queen.

We got to get this essence and metal.
Crafted weapon deliveries.
We got to move these enchanted tokens.
We got to move this armor plus three.

I should've learned to shoot and stab things.
I should've learned to sneak and run.
Look at that merchant, he got the money and the jewels.
Man, we could have some fun.
That guy up there, what's that? Some kind of peace talks?
Sounding like a carebear means more stuff for me.
That ain't dying, that's the way you do it.
Get your silver for nothing and your gear for free.

We got to get this essence and metal.
Crafted weapon deliveries.
We got to move these enchanted tokens.
We got to move this armor plus three.

Now that ain't dying, that's the way you do it.
You die in combat and you rez for free.
That ain't dying, that's the way you do it.
Silver for nothing and your gear for free.

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the first publication of Dungeons and Dragons, to which we owe so much. Rather appropriate that this falls in the same year as Pathfinder Online's alpha and (fingers crossed!) Early Enrollment.

So, happy 40th to D&D - and many happy returns to both Pathfinder and Pathfinder Online!

With sincere thanks to Hobs, who posted these on the Pax Gaming forum some months ago! The following list is a fun way to develop your character, and introduce her to the PfO community.

Directions:

1. Answer the following as your character would answer. There is no "correct" answer - only the one that your character would genuinely give. The hope is that your answers will provide you, the player, with a better perspective on your character's actions and allow you to more naturally role-play your character. Saying why you are answering as you do would likewise be helpful.

2. Too often, RP surveys for determining alignment and the like are provided in multiple choice format. However, these choices are often too limiting and may not even include the action your character would naturally take. This is why these questions are open-ended, so that you can decide your character's natural reaction. You can answer as explicitly as you like, or even conditionally (e.g. I would do this, but if I found this out, then I would do that, etc.).

RP Questions:

1. You are out hunting for a much needed meal. You enter a small clearing and spy a deer. The deer is a female and this is the season for birthing fawns, but you cannot tell from this distance if she is a nursing mother or not. What would your character do?

2. You are in a busy town intersection and stumble across a coin purse. Upon inspection, it has not only coins, but cut gems inside. What would your character do?

3. You spy one of your settlement associates (someone you know well but less than a good friend) speaking in the shadows of his shop to another person. As you watch, the second person quickly makes for the settlement wall, climbs it, and disappears into the neighboring forest. You recognize the man as someone who has been banned from your settlement. This associate is of good standing in the settlement and has a wife and two children. What would your character do?

4. Your settlement leader has approached you in secret with concerns about another settlement member who he believes may be a spy. The person in question turns out to be a close friend of yours. The settlement leader asks you to keep an eye on him, report anything suspicious, and not to mention any of this conversation to your friend. What would your character do?

5. On a recent escalation raid, you recovered a small crystal sphere. Thinking it to be harmless but attractive, you take it home and leave it on the small table beside your bed. As you begin to drift off to sleep, you hear a voice in your head. "You and yours were not as thorough as you think," it says. "I endure and I will reward you handsomely if you return that crystal to me." When you open your eyes, you see a fading light emanating from the crystal. What would your character do?

6. You and a fellow settlement member were out patrolling. A party of Orcs ambushed the two of you. You managed to kill several and flee into the woods, but your companion is badly wounded. The settlement is a decent distance away, your friend is at least your size, and the Orcs are closing in. What would your character do?

7. You have spent twenty minutes single handedly clearing the monsters out of an area with the intention of setting up a harvesting camp. After killing the last monster, you return to the spot where the harvesting camp can be erected, only to find someone else has planted their harvesting camp in the same spot. What would your character do?

8. You are searching the settlement market for a new item that you need. You see the item for sale by several merchants. One is a member of your settlement and one is a guest with permission to use the settlement market. The settlement member's price is double that of the guest. What would your character do?

9. You are on patrol and see a man being accosted by bandits. He is still alive, but it is clear he has been beaten into submission and is lying prone and helpless on the ground. The bandits are picking through his pack. You are certain you can handle the bandits, but as you look closer, you can tell that their victim is a member of a settlement that you are at war with currently. What would your character do?

10. It's time to begin training a new skill. Your settlement is short on < enter a skill you normally wouldn't think of training >, but you could also start the next tier of your favorite skill. What would your character do?

Three floors of rooms, warm hearths, and stout ales sum up the Talking Head Tavern, a massive mead hall in the town of Callambea. Lem and Ara Ruckleshank keep the place tidy, oversee the rooms, and feed the weary travelers that call the Talking Head home.

As a new adventurer approaches, he looks up to see the skull of a giant, still wearing its primitive battle helmet. As patrons enter the head laughs, its teeth chattering gibberish in welcome. The plaque by the door simply reads:

Welcome to the Talking Head. Don't mind the head, he's just Ol' Grolva.​
​
​
((OOC, and with apologies to Khas for liberties taken with the original description:

Nothing that happens in this tavern affects canon in any major sense. Instead it is designed to give people a place to interact in character before Pathfinder Online launches. It is not a place for guided story arcs, but a place for character introductions and conversational posts. No one is here to judge if the conversations get goofy, it is meant to be taken loosely. The most important part is to have fun.​
​
The Talking Head is an imaginary bar set in Pax Aeternum's planned settlement, Callambea. Just imagine your character in a warm, inviting tavern, and see where the conversations lead​.))