Random221B's page

12 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I noticed that there are mentions of Thassilonian writing or inscriptions in various places. For instance, in area D15 (Research Room) in Thistletop, it says "A large wooden worktable sits i n the middle of this room, its surface cluttered with scrolls, books, stone tablets covered with dense, spiky runes, and fragments of carvings that appear to have been chipped off of statues or bas-reliefs." That sounds like Thassilonian writing, but gives no indication of what any of it might say, even in vague, general terms. Given that one of the RotRL campaign traits--Scholar of the Ancients--gives the player the ability to read Thassilonian (and one of my players has that trait) one could assume there would be players asking what those kinds of things say, and I have no idea what to tell them. What kind of thing would make sense?

On a related note, if anybody has used this journal for Lyrie, that was posted in the Community Created Stuff thread, any idea what the Thassilonian writing on page 6 is supposed to say? I found a chart that maps a Thassilonian font someone made to the corresponding keyboard keys, but trying a straight translation of the runes to the corresponding Latin Alphabet letters didn't yield anything that made sense to me. Any thoughts?


Hey all, this is going back a ways in the thread, but I was just reading through Haladir's chase obstacles/cards for the chase after Tsuto through the smugglers' tunnels. I have not run a chase before, but have read the chase rules. My understanding of the chase rules is that every participant (PCs and their opponent[s]) have to overcome the obstacle on each card to proceed. However, in this chase, it would not make sense for Tsuto to have to make some of the rolls: the Trip Wires, the Intersection, the Trapped Tunnel, and the Dead End. He knows which way to go at the Intersection and where the Dead End secret door is, as he has used these tunnels previously. Due to this, I also assume that the Trip Wires and the Trapped Tunnel are his doing, so he doesn't need to perceive the Trip Wires to avoid them, and I would presume the planks at the bottom of the Trapped Tunnel pit were across the pit when he crosses it, and then he pushes them into the pit to make it a trap.

So, how does that work? For Trip Wires and Trapped Tunnel, I presume he would still spend a standard action to bypass the obstacles--carefully stepping over the trip wires, and pausing to shove the planks into the pit--so would you count it as it still take the normal Move Action to move onto the card, and Standard action to bypass the obstacle, but he automatically succeeds on the Standard Action? I suppose the Dead End could be treated the same way--he has to spend a Standard Action to open the secret door and then close it again once he's passed through it, but doesn't have to make a roll for it, since he knows where it is. But what about the Tunnel Intersection? He shouldn't have to do anything there, just move through. He should be able to just move without spending a Standard Action. I know he could use his Standard Action on that card to do something else, but what if there is nothing else he needs to do? Does he just get to move through that card to the next one, and spend his Standard Action there, passing through two cards in one turn?

Or would you run it that he uses the "Full round action to move three cards" rule, passing through Intersection and Trapped Tunnel for free, and then having to succeed on all three rolls on the "Bats!" card?

Just wondering how others would run it, or if Haladir is around, how he originally ran it.

Thanks!


Hello all,

Joey, I don't know how much you're checking in here these days, but if you see this, I wanted to tell you how fantastic this is. I have recently started running SD, and was thrilled to discover all of this. So thank you very much for all your hard work. =)

I had a question--doesn't necessarily have to be for Joey, specifically. Anyone else who noticed this and can confirm for me, would be great. I notice that on Boss Croat's Half-Orc thugs from the raid on the Gold Goblin in SitS, that you've got them armed with falchions, and equipped with bucklers. Unless I am mistaken, you lose the buckler's shield bonus to AC whenever you use that hand to wield a weapon (including it being the second hand in wielding a two-handed weapon.) But a falchion is a two-handed weapon, so you have to use two hands to wield it. So it seems that they could either attack (requiring the use of both hands, and losing the buckler AC bonus) *or* get the buckler's AC bonus and not be able to attack that round. Am I missing something?

If I am not missing anything, then what would folks recommend? Ditch the buckler altogether, or keep the buckler and switch them to a one-handed weapon that they could choose to use two-handed if they wanted to, giving them the option of attacking one-handed and getting the AC bonus, or two-handed and losing it (and taking a -1 to their attack)?

Anyway, just wondering what people think.

Thank for your time.

Best,

~~~~Random


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aspasia de Malagant wrote:
Quote:

Casting Defensively

If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed...

Abraham spalding wrote:
to succeed -- at casting the spell -- you automatically succeed at not provoking.

Read it again, this time without the second sentence and see if you still make that same leap.

Quote:
And checking the combat section reinforces this: /snip...

Read that section in under Cast A Spell for Attack of Opportunity.

Quote:

Attacks of Opportunity

Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + the spell's level) or lose the spell. Spells that require only a free action to cast don't provoke attacks of opportunity.

Clearly, there are contradictory concepts here that imply one thing at one point then say another thing in another area. Something just isn't adding up.

Ok, here's a simple point that may make it clearer. If the sentence were worded...

"If you want to avoid an attack of opportunity while casting a spell, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed..."

...that would strongly imply that the "to succeed" portion of the sentence referred to succeeding at avoiding the AoO, whereas the actual wording...

"If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed..."

...implies that the "to succeed" portion refers to succeeding at casting the spell.

Now, admittedly, both phrasings are a little imprecise, and technically, in either case "to succeed" could be referring to casting the spell, avoiding the AoO, or both. However, I think the wording does imply which interpretation is correct; i.e. "If you want to do X while doing (or without causing) Y, you must do Z to succeed," the most likely (if not only possible) interpretation is that Z causes you to succeed at X, not Y.

Just my $0.02

Best,

~~~~Random


Cartigan wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


And magic using class...a campaign that takes place in the mana waste(Golarion setting...not home brew)...no magic means no magic.
"Campaign actively trying to screw one or more of the classes out of existence"

Or, a campaign interested in exploring the technological achievements developed by the people of Alkenstar in order to "stand vigilant against the sand krakens, elementals, barghests, and worse in the eastern foothills of the Shattered Range." (Quoted from the Pathfinder Wiki.) Sounds like a potentially very interesting campaign, to me. And players would know going in (if the GM communicated clearly) not to make spellcasters, because magic doesn't work there.

It's quite possible to make a campaign set in a non-magic region for perfectly good reasons other than because you want to screw one or more class out of existence. Does such a campaign make spellcasters non-viable? Sure. Is the *only* reason a GM would run such a campaign because he maliciously wants to screw people who like playing spellcasters? of course not. No more than someone who runs a campaign set largely in dungeons is only doing it because he wants to "screw the Cavalier out of existence." And you know it.

Cartigan wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Ranger: Simple either a campaign that aviods his favored enemy...and make his choosen combat style ineffective.
A campaign that manages to avoid all, what - 5?, of your favored enemies is a campaign where the DM is actively trying to screw the Ranger.

Ok, this one I'll give you. Unless the Ranger player made *really* stupid decisions in choosing his favored enemies (e.g. choosing sea creatures in a land-locked campaign setting,) then yeah, the GM would need to go out of his way to screw him, to avoid *all* the Ranger's favored enemies. That's just a dick move.

Cartigan wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


Fighter: a social campaign...

False.

Wow, what a cogent, well-reasoned argument, Cartigan. =P

Not false. Or at least, not *necessarily* false. A campaign that is heavily focused on social interaction, politics, etc. and has a minimum of combat will in fact significantly reduce the viability of a character whose strengths nearly all lie in straight-up, face-to-face combat, as most Fighters are. Sure, it's possible to build a fighter who can be useful in social situations, I imagine, but a social-focused campaign will reduce the average Fighter's effectiveness just as a dungeon-focused one will reduce the average Cavalier's.

Cartigan wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


Paladin or any cleric: There is no gods...or find the missing gods etc...

"Campaign actively trying to screw one or more of the classes out of existence"

And once again, I will point you to my argument re: the no-magic campaign. To try to declare that any campaign that is not suited to certain character classes is the result of a GM actively and maliciously trying to screw over certain classes is the highest form of bull$#!+. Or, do you think that all dungeon-focused campaigns are because the GM is actively trying to screw over the Cavalier? It's the same thing.

There are plenty of reasons a GM--and/or a group of players--might decide to run any given type of campaign. And if not all campaigns are equally viable for all base classes at all times...that's *ok.* It's not some sinister plot to screw somebody over.

Based on all of my reading so far, I suspect you will not see any merit in any of my points, nor concede that you might have overstated thing rather strongly. But then again, you might surprise me. =)

Nonetheless, I stand by my points as being reasonable and well-presented. =)


Bobson wrote:
Razz wrote:
Also, the rule of drawing only when charging at normal speed or less is stupid. How does one lose the ability to draw a sword charging a distance of 60 feet but can pull it off if he's going 30 feet?
Wear a pair of jeans. Reach your dominant hand into your back pocket on the opposite side while walking. Now try doing it while running. Makes perfect sense to me.

Bingo.

That's why I was trying to break down the idea that how far you move, and how much time you have to cover that distance affects the speed you have to travel, which affects how easily you can do something that requires manual dexterity, at the same time.

Best,

~~~~Random


Ok, look at it this way...a round represents what you can accomplish in approximately 6 seconds of time. So, let's look at a "Move Action + Standard Action" as an amount of time, equal to 6 seconds. Then let's further abstract that down...let's say each action represents half of your allotted time...3 seconds for each. (I know that's not officially stated anywhere, but it's a reasonable way to abstract the time breakdown. I suppose if you think a Standard Action is more involving than a Move Action, you could break it down into 1/3 by 2/3...Move Action 2 seconds, Standard Action 4...but I'm going to stick with half and half just to keep it simple.)

So, under normal circumstances, you can move your speed (let's default to 30ft.) in 3 seconds, and then take 3 seconds to attack. You can also draw your weapon during your 3 second move, because you have enough extra "time" in that 3 second period to draw a weapon and move that distance. During a charge action, if you move your normal move distance, you still are effectively taking 3 seconds to move, and 3 seconds to attack, so you still have the time to draw your weapon. If you move double your move in distance during that time, well, we'll assume it still takes you 3 seconds to attack, which means you are now moving 60ft. in the same 3 seconds that you were previously moving only 30ft. That means you have to move twice as fast, and now no longer have the "time" (or fine control--because manual dexterity things are more difficult to do when you are moving quickly) to draw your weapon.

I'd be willing to consider that you are both moving *and* attacking faster, but if you did your attack too much faster you would likely loose accuracy, as we must assume that under normal circumstances, you are attacking as quickly as your skill allows, while remaining accurate. But just for argument's sake, let's say you are attacking a little faster. So, let's say 2 seconds to attack, 4 to move. That still requires you to move half again as fast in order to cover double your normal distance. No "time" to draw a weapon.

Now, let's look at a surprise round, when you are restricted to only a Move or Standard Action. You can only take a half action, so it's reasonable to assume that a surprise round takes less time...you have 3 seconds available, to do one thing. If you charge under these circumstances, you are now moving your normal distance--30ft.--*and* attacking, in 3 seconds. If we assume the "attacking faster" example above, then it takes you 2 seconds to make your attack, leaving you only 1 second to travel your normal distance of 30ft. That requires you to move *3 times* as fast as you do under normal circumstances, to cover the same distance, again leaving you no extra "time" to draw your weapon. Even if we assume you can increase your attack speed even more, allowing you to make an attack in half the time you normally do that is still equally as accurate, that becomes 1.5 seconds to attack, and 1.5 seconds to move 30ft., which is still twice as fast as you normally need to move to cover that same distance.

So it is in fact internally logically consistent, when you consider the amount of time you have available to you to accomplish certain actions. It boils down to this; if you have your normal amount of time (i.e. 3 seconds) to move your normal distance (30ft. for this example) you also have enough time and manual dexterity to simultaneously draw a weapon. If you have to cover a greater distance in the same amount of time, or have less time to cover the same amount of distance, you must move faster, and thus no longer have the time or manual dexterity to simultaneously draw a weapon.

Simple, and logical. =)

Best,

~~~~Random


James Jacobs wrote:
Random221B wrote:
I just have to throw in a quick point here...you do know it's not *supposed* to be realistic, right James?
It doesn't matter if it's supposed to be realistic or not. I still don't like it.

Oh, I know. I didn't mean you were *supposed* to like it. I'm just saying that the lack of realism isn't a flaw. It's an intended method of dramatic expression. Kind of like the way in David Lynch's films people behave unrealistically, as well. The unrealistic behavior is used to set a particular artistic tone, or communicate an idea through symbolism rather than realism. I get why people may not like it--it's all a matter of taste. You like what you like. I just often get a sense that people think that musicals are somehow "failing" by being unrealistic, but that's no more true than to suggest that Mel Brooks movies are "failing" by not being more serious and dramatic. Musicals--well-crafted ones--are exactly what they are trying to be. And some people are going to like them, and some people aren't. And that's perfectly cool. =)

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about operas? (I'm not a big fan of opera, myself...but for other reasons.)

And now, to get this slightly back on topic...speaking of opera, I don't suppose we're going to see a mysterious, gothic, phantom-haunted opera house in Carrion Crown, are we? =) I think that would absolutely fit what the tone of the AP seems to be.

Best,

~~~~Random


James Jacobs wrote:
Richard Pett wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


But if, for example, Paizo were to produce the AP equivilent of my most hated genre, the Musical, I would probably cancel my subscription for a half-year too. ;-)

OK, so just throw out my goblin AP ideas in public why don't you?

Rich brings up a good point.

I put a song into the very first Pathfinder. So does that make "Burnt Offerings" a musical?

I would say no. The goblins don't spontaneously break into song; they sing songs that they all already know.

I have nothing against songs or singing in movies. The ONLY thing that annoys me is when a group of people spontaneously burst into song and dance. It's just not realistic. It annoys me the same way something like how the bad guys never hit the good guys with bullets might annoy someone.

I just have to throw in a quick point here...you do know it's not *supposed* to be realistic, right James? The singing and dancing in musicals is meant to be representative and symbolic of the character's inner life...in a truly *good* musical, songs come at a point where the character's inner passion and emotional maelstrom has reached a point where simply speaking about their feelings doesn't do justice to the depth and intensity of what they are feeling. Songs in musicals are not meant to be literal, realistic representations of what the characters would actually do in a a real life situation like that. But there are certain types and depths of emotional expression that are simply communicated more clearly and succinctly in song.

Please don't think I'm trying to say you should like musicals. LOL I would never suggest someone should like something they don't. Musicals are definitely not to everyone's taste. I'm just saying that the unrealism of people bursting into song in a musicals is not a bug...it's a feature. =) That's by intent. If you don't like things that aren't realistic, that's cool, and sure, you're not going to like musicals. But it's pretty much along the same lines as saying, "I don't like 'The Sopranos' because they way they shoot people in the head just isn't funny."

Just my couple of coppers. I myself love gritty, dramatic, intense, realistic fiction and entertainment. I also enjoy musicals...good ones, that use the form to really say something. I'm not as big of a fan of the fluffy 1940s-1950s musicals, but that's just a stylistic thing.

Anyway, thanks for your time all.

Best,

~~~~Random


Pendagast wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

curious about the evil comment.

I spent a good deal of my adult life in the army.

I attacked and ambushed people who were part of "the local government"
Does that make me evil?

what are you supposed to do? wave and say hello and hope they don't shoot first?

They are a threat and armed to the teeth. what are they doing out there? attacking things and taking stuff off the dead, No different. Does that make them evil?

Do monkey men have to do something evil first for us to justify killing them and taking their stuff?

I dont think so.

Because the are 'regular' races that makes killing them wrong?

The are rivals.

would it make it different if they are all black skinned with white hair?
what if they are aren't evil drow?
how would you know?
would you ask them first?

Wow. I'm not really sure what to say to that. If you yourself don't even recognize that what your party did was problematic, to say the very very least...

So again, I have, on more than ONE case, in real life, attacked, ambushed and KILLED elements of the local government in places I have been. So what you are saying is I am evil, the United States Army is Evil. Taking down Taliban and terrorists is an evil act, Saddam Hussein and his sons being killed was an evil act, Liberating haiti that was evil too.

What else, oh and my uncle attacking and killing the rightfully ruling nazi's of europe, he was an evil guy too?

Were the Soldiers that were killed evil? Were the soldiers that did the killing evil?
Is it possible people fight and kill each other with Neither of the combatants being evil?

you know I can't think of a place ive ever been with a rifle where the 'bad guys' were NOT the local government/authorities.

Was the American Revolution an act of evil? The French Revolution at bastille, was that evil too? the both attacked and killed elements of the local government, was britan evil? the monarchs of france evil?
Who was evil in those conflicts....

Do you honestly see no difference between soldiers in the service of their government fighting and killing soldiers in the service of another government which is at war with--or otherwise engaged in active hostilities against--your own, in order to defend the national interests of your homeland or at times even the world (in the case of global terrorism, or the Nazis) or the citizens of an oppressive, tyrannical regime rising up to overthrow their corrupt leaders in order to secure the rights and freedoms of the people, and what your characters did--which was essentially to enter a nation that was not engaged in active hostilities against your own, in the capacity of private citizens, and murder an archeological expedition formed and sanctioned by that nation's government, in order to keep them from getting the treasure that you wanted?

Seriously, if you claim there's no moral difference between those two, you either have a seriously skewed morality, or--I think more likely--you are using false equivalencies which you *know* are not the same situation at all, in order to try to defend actions by PCs which, while they may need no defense from a game perspective (i.e. if it's what your players wanted to do, and had fun, then who cares), are definitely indefensible from an in-game moral perspective. They didn't kill soldiers who were trying to kill them or conquer their country. They murdered an archaeological expedition because they wanted to keep all the loot for themselves. It's not the same thing at all. One act is evil, the other is not.

Hmmm, so I guess that actually answers the question you've asked repeatedly. No, your actions fighting on behalf of your country were not evil, nor were your uncle's actions in fighting the Nazis, nor were the actions of the people in the American Revolution, or countless other revolutions throughout history and the world. But the actions of your PCs *were* evil. And that's because they were not the same thing at all, so trying to compare them is like comparing apples and oranges...or war to greed and murder.

~~~~Random


Aberzombie wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
ElCrabofAnger wrote:
Whatever your feelings about taxes, or people paying them, be a decent human being and don't make libelous assumptions about what is likely to be the vast majority of humanity as off hand comments to defend your position. You want to make the world a better place? How about starting with that.
Amen.

Agreed. Stating that the poor are lazy, stupid, etc. is simply a libelous assumption.

So is saying....

ElCrabofAnger wrote:
Many wealthy people are only that way because they inherited their wealth, and their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it.

Actually, I have to disagree with your premise. It is not a libelous assumption to state that. It is a fact that many wealthy people are that way because they inherited their wealth. Or, at the very least, that they were born into wealthy or at least well-off circumstances, which afforded them many more benefits, opportunities, and head-starts towards becoming wealthy themselves. That is not a slight on them...people born with a leg-up *should* take advantage of that to make the most of themselves and their lives. It's not a criticism. But it is a factual situation.

And perhaps saying "...their wealth is only maintained because smarter people than they are paid to maintain it," sounds a little insulting or condescending. That's fair. Better to say, "their wealth is to a large extent maintained because people who are specifically more knowledgeable than they are in matters of maintaining wealth are paid to maintain it." Again, not an insult or a criticism...just a fact. If you can afford it, you're likely to hire a mechanic to maintain your car, or a landscaper to maintain your lawn, or a housekeeper to maintain your house...and if you have a lot of money, you most likely hire accountants and brokers and money managers to manage and maintain your wealth.

Not a libelous assumption...just facts. =)

Best,

~~~~Random


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Steven T. Helt wrote:
As an aside....maybe not being very tall is a good thing. Doesn't that make all girls leggier?

Actually, it makes monogamy pretty much a given, ethics aside, because no female I've ever met will so much as look at a guy who's not at least a couple inches taller than she is. One female friend of mine put it this bluntly: "I mean, honestly, do guys really think their personality matters that much? OK, maybe 'funny' counts a little bit, but mostly we're looking for taller, hotter, and richer."

(Shrugs) So be it. I was marginally taller and richer than my wife when we met, and I wouldn't trade her for anyone.

Huh, that's funny...half of all the girls I've been romantically/sexually involved with in my life have been taller than me. Guess charm and charisma does count for something, after all. ;-)

Seriously though, I know plenty of women who talk about having no interest in any guy who isn't taller than them, but I find that's often an abstract idea that doesn't always survive contact with actual people. I find that--except for the shallowest of people--any single physical preference is very often overridden by the complete package of individuals. Which I think speaks well of most people. =)

Just wanted to share a more positive thought than the one I made in haste and the heat of the moment, and upon reflection, removed. LOL

Best,

~~~~Random