Rictras Shard's page

I saw a joke post on Facebook a couple of weeks about somebody wanting to play a piece of bread that carries itself using mage hand. I found it amusing, but later, I got to thinking about how to make such a thing as a player character. Behold my work, for glory or shame!

Garto was a skilled baker and a brilliant wizard, but he was also rather mad. One day he had made a loaf of bread, but then a whim struck him. He was lonely, as nobody would associate with him due to his oddities. Therefore, instead of eating the bread, he would enchant it with sentience. He sliced it first, of course, as 24 friends would be better than one. And so, the Breadine came to be.

As stated there are exactly 24 members of the Breadine race. Individually, they are referred to as a slice. Half of the slices think of themselves as male, the other half as female. They have a tendency toward shyness and insecurity. They have no known method of reproduction, and do not know how long their life span will be. Most of them have the following characteristics.

Alignment: Neutral.

Size: Tiny.

Mage hand: This is permanent. As long as the slice is conscious, this ability is active. A slice's strength score represents the carrying capacity of the hand, and its dexterity score represents their prowess of control with it.

Telepathy: A slice can communicate through thought. They cannot read minds, and can only hear thoughts a person sends back to them. Their range is 100 feet.

Senses: Through unknown means, a slice can perceive anything that a normal human could. This also means that anything that could fool human senses, such as invisibility or stealth, can also fool theirs.

Suggestion: All Breadine can use this ability at will, at fifth level of ability, but for only one specific means. They can use it to try to convince people or creatures not to eat them (they're unappetizing, might be moldy, etc.).

Consumption resistance: If something of at least small size does successfully decide to eat a Breadine, as a standard action they can make a melee touch attack using their dexterity modifier. If successful, then there is a contested strength check (the slice will be resisting furiously with their mage hand). If the would be consumer wins the challenge, it pops the slice into its mouth and starts chewing. The slice will take 1d4 damage per round for each two strength of the attacker (round fractions down). Each round of consuming will take a standard action for the attacker, as Breadine are quite chewie.

Breadine have 1 HD, a movement of 30', AC: 10, and cannot make physical attacks.

Twenty-two of the slices possess these attributes. The two end pieces, which are also know as crusts, are the only two that have character classes. Their selection is quite limited, only having access to cleric, oracle, sorcerer, and witch. They get +1 to two separate statistics.

Alignment: any other than neutral, but the two crusts are of opposite alignment.

Cloning: Once per day per level, a crust can make 10 non-sentient slices. It takes ten minutes of uninterrupted concentration. Afterward, it must take a short rest before it can take any standard actions. Using this ability also makes them feel unsettled and somewhat remorseful.

Resting: they do not need to sleep, but must have eight hours of rest in order to regain hit points and spells. They do this by being in a sealed bag or box, during which time they have no awareness. They instantly regain full awareness when the container is unsealed.

Note: Many things about their existence are unknown by the Breadine. Unfortunately they are unable to ask Garto about it, as soon after he created them there was an incident involving a fireball and a gas elemental.
There are rumours, however, that the Breadine were not Garto's first foray into living bread. Some say there was an earlier attempt, but Garto unwisely animated his creation before he started slicing and killed it during the process. Supposedly, he then tried resurrecting it but instead accidentally made it into an undead abomination known as the Loafing Dead. This cannot be confirmed at this time, though.

It was a few days ago I came up with this, so I might have forgotten some details. If so, I will add them later.

What are some of things said during a game that were memorable, or caused a game stoppage due to everyone laughing so hard? Yep, this be a quote thread. I did a search to see if there were others, but the most recent one I found was from 2007. If I missed a more recent one, feel free to curse my d20 to always roll ones, not that I would notice any difference.

Here are some from the last session I played in.

"Keep the city clean. Crap on a drow."
"Don't mind me, I'm just sucking out the poison."
"It's tall, green, and grew back its arms and legs. Trust me though, it's a wolf."
"This is how we got snuck up on by a giant snail."
"Can you take my watch? The cleric is scaring me."

No... I understand the joke component of this. Not to completely sidetrack this thread, it's worth noting that even jokes communicate normative standards. Bergmann catalogs a number of ways that sexist beliefs are used in the generation of humor (this is discussed near the end of the article). Two such ways are from 1) Apparent sense or plausibility generated by sexist beliefs and 2) Hidden morals generated by sexist beliefs. Something simply being a joke doesn't discount sexist content (even if such content may have been unintended).

On the topic of this thread, my point wasn't to argue against the humor found in the joke (though my response was very "humorless feminist"). I just don't think these paradoxes are nearly as apparent as people think. If there is an incongruity present, that is often a sign that there is...

This is a good topic for discussion, but I think there are better forums to discuss it in than one designed for a game.

Not wearing heavy armor in the desert is a technique the crusaders learned the hard way.

Not charging across muddy fields wearing heavy armor and armored horses while English shoot at you with peasant militia armed with longbows is something French learned the hard way.

Not sending your entire army into a narrow passage guarded by a heavily armed and well trained army that has the defensive ground that renders numbers useless, is something the Persians learned the hard way.

Not standing in open formation, in the middle of the fields, marching in nice bright uniforms while Americans shoot at you from trees, is something the British learned the hard way. Everyone re-learned this during World War I.

Not marching an army into unknown territory, facing unknown threats and fighting after a plague ravaged your army, is something Alexander the Great learned the hard way.

Don't invade Russia during the winter is something both Hitler and Napoleon learned the hard way.

There are many techniques that don't work across continents.

I don't know what this has to do with what Hitomi and I were discussing.

Rictras Shard wrote:

thejeff wrote:

2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

Okay, let's presume the party checks for traps sixty times during the session. That takes three minutes of the game.

It takes 3 minutes, if it's all completely routine and takes no player interaction.

Of course, if it takes no interaction, what's the point in it?

No, it takes three minutes if on each of those occasions the player makes a skill check and tells the DM the results.

2-3 seconds per door. And time for each section of room or hallway. And that's if it's routine and they don't sometimes have other people check or want to vary the procedure at all.

Plus the glee of blowing them up the one time they forget to mention "I check the door before we go through it!", unlike the last 30 doors. Careless players deserve to lose characters.

Okay, let's presume the party checks for traps sixty times during the session. That takes three minutes of the game.

ciretose wrote:

Depending on who is describing "carelessly"

I think if a player opens a door without checking for traps in a place where traps are likely, the GM wasn't the one who carelessly killed anyone.

This illustrates a consequence of trap-heavy play: it slows down the pace of the game. PCs have to check for traps on every door. This means you have to take the time for someone (or multiple characters) to announce they are checking for traps, to roll a perception check, communicate the check to the DM, the DM to announce the results, and, if there really was a trap, to redo the entire process with disable device instead of perception. Multiply this by however many doors the party has to go through, and it becomes a significant chunk of real-world time to resolve all the trap checking.

This takes about two to three seconds. Add perhaps ten seconds in the few times there is a trap. If it is an unusual trap that is difficult to disable, then you have something interesting to play through.

Oh, and wizards wouldnt need to keep magic secret anymore then nobles needed to keep fighting techniques secret.

I'm not aware of any fighting techniques that you could use against someone in another continent.

Old thread, but: anyone seen REC 3? Is it worth the watch?

It doesn't compare to the first one, but I would still rate it above average.

Paladin tells a bedtime story to his kids.

Falls.

If you are a good DM, players will want to join your game whether or not you are using core only. Also, if a player comes to you demanding that you let him play something, you are likely better off without that player.

I'm sorry but this is silly.

** spoiler omitted **

That player will be grateful (maybe), and the rest of the players will feel that their decisions mean nothing.

I like how the game text reveals that Jack scarified himself.

Generic Dungeon Master wrote:

I kind of wish people would learn to use restraint when throwing around their "years of experience as a Dungeon Master" as part of an argument.

I have 37 years of experience as a DM, and I am a s~$+ty DM.

I have to admit half the time I see people do that (and I'm not targeting anyone in this thread here), I then look at the comment being made and my first thought is "huh, with that many years behind you how come you still don't know any better?"

My first thought is usually that the person likely hasn't been alive for the length of time they claim to have been DMing.

I dont like the spellcasting system either but I think in world where magic can be learned, only the stupidist people would not know some form of magic, even commoners would eventually learn a couple of cantrips, farmers would have a couple spelks that get passed down the family, I mean seriously, just look at technology today, even third world countries have significant knowledge of tech, why wouldnt a fantasy world have widespread magic.

And well that is my pet peeve.

The average person knows how to use a microwave, but does not know how to build one.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Drivers who don't use their turn signals.

Drivers who refuse to treat driving as the most (and only) important thing needing their constant attention.

And +1 people who toss lit cigarettes out their windows, especially during the dry season.

So.. New Jersey?

The Panhandle as well.

Also PEI, Canada.

No shard, PF is set to loose all its customers if the bloat continues, resetting the system and reorganizing the company is how to loose less.

What are this week's winning lottery numbers?

And the people who say that would move to whatever trendy game is "the mostest bestest game evar!" being played ATM anyway.

So if Paizo did as you requested, it would lose customers. Not an ideal situation for the company.

You could try something outside the field of fantasy and science fiction. One of my favorites is To Kill A Mockingbird.

So, the real evil in the system is the need for the company to make money by selling rule books... I agree.

Though I see other options for fixing the problem, a complete rewrite, then restructure the company to need to make much less money (fire 3/4 of the staff or transfer them to other product lines) then rather than producing splat books or additional rule books, produce only APs and setting books free of rule changes. Problem solved.

Then people would complain that the game is stagnant.

But, y'know, maybe I'm just weird.

Do you wear a cat on your head?

You mean I can't play my human fighter who wields a longsword and shield?

Dunn- five groups over two years at an open game night, and about 20-30 groups at a local yearly con I went to...

How many groups do I have to go through before I will find one that plays core only, and how many will it take before you will admit playing with core only IS weird?

Wearing a cat on your head is weird. Playing Core only is an uncommon, but legitimate, play style.

"Okay, everyone, now roll for penis and/or breast size."

It might be worse if you took out the /or.

But, to a good person like her, the correct course of action was so obvious that there was no dilemma, and his efforts to create one just made the game seem like it encouraged or required infanticide.

The best approach, of course, would have been to put all the orc babies in the Thunderdome!

Happiness is mandatory. The computer is my friend. I always trust friend Computer...

Now you're making me feel paranoid...

In my very first real game of AD&D, the DM gave me a character formerly used by a player who was no longer in the game. As it turns out, the character was named in honour of a certain body part he no longer had.

So, I'm told the situation. The character is by himself, in the middle of a corridor. At one end is a minotaur. At the other is a succubus. I knew what a minotaur was, but at that time I had no idea what the other was, so I started walking toward her.

Before I had a chance to reach her, a green slime fell on my head. I quickly found out what that meant. Cue much laughter and mocking from the other players. Their amusement quickly faded, though, when I told the DM I was going to hunt down and slime all their characters... and he allowed it.

The session lasted perhaps half an hour. I never gamed with any of them again.

So again, back to my question, I'm not letting a stranger be in charge of 4 plus hours of my time in any context without a ton of references or personal experience.

You may well be missing some great experiences. Sure, I've had some atrocious games by playing with strangers in charge, but I've also played with some great DMs and met good friends this way.

A suggestion was given. Suggestions are not rules that must be followed.

An example was made. Examples are not legally-binding contracts.

Karlgamer wrote:

If you can fire 4 arrows a round you can draw 4 arrows a round.

The FAQ wasn't meant to stop Archers from doing what archers do.

This thread isn't necessary.

That's the point though. The FAQ states that Reasonable DM's would limit attack actions based on the number of free actions the correspond to those attacks.

No,it states that it is reasonable for a DM to make limits, not that a reasonable DM would do so.

Rictras Shard wrote:

The argument I seem to keep seeing here is that a DM might decide to use this suggestion as an ironclad rule in order to screw over the players. Even if this FAQ entry had never happened, such a DM would find other ways to achieve his or her goals.

Not really, I haven't seen anyone make that argument. What I have seen (and agree with) is concern that a new DM might see this FAQ and run their game that way not knowing any better.

Among other issues...

A new DM who sees the FAQ will see the three free actions suggestion is clearly listed as a suggestion. Such a DM who goes to the FAQ will also come to the forums, and will see it is certainly not a binding rule.

The argument I seem to keep seeing here is that a DM might decide to use this suggestion as an ironclad rule in order to screw over the players. Even if this FAQ entry had never happened, such a DM would find other ways to achieve his or her goals.

My prep plan involves lots of running, screaming, and flailing of arms.

The one who most closely resembles Alyssa Milano is the fairest of them all, of course.

Magically combine quicklings with displacer beasts. Revel in the outrage of your former friends.

I like John Cena.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

You think awakened CAMELs are the problem with druids?

It's the walking, talking, spell-casting TREES that drive me crazy.

Camels are a lot more ornery than most trees.

Yeah, despite having a bigger bark than camels, a tree's reaction is much more wooden.

Every day they eat bold BBQ chips, and wash it down with coke. They laugh at acid attacks.

Rictras Shard wrote:

Ah,...

The very fact that the party left him with the bandits shows they weren't going to just leave them there. And being as the first post established they were in the bandits base of operations, it would be unlikely any creatures were go to wander by and eat them.

What fastidious bandits we have, if there are no rats, mice, roaches, or other critters and vermin that will eat free meat.

If the various creatures are that voracious, I wonder how the bandits survived their nightly sleep?

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

Wow. I'm assuming that the people here arguing that killing them is evil, always save their opponents lives if they are knocked unconscious. After all failing to save them, is the same a killing them.

No, failing to save someone is not the same thing as killing them outright. Most of my good aligned characters do, in fact, stabilize and attempt to capture enemies when they can. My neutral characters, meh, maybe. My evil characters, almost never, unless they want something from the enemy.

No, if you are not saving someone's life when you have the means and ability, you are doing the same as killing them.

It is certainly a callous act, but it is not the same as killing them.

Vod Canockers wrote:

We do lack a bit of knowledge to make a truly accurate call here. The criminals, do we know exactly what kind of criminals they were? Why did the character kill them? (It could be mercy, the local lord draws and quarters or otherwise tortures criminals.)

We know the rogue who did the deeds lied about them because he was concerned that his party would object to his actions. That's hard to reconcile with "they were better off dead."

How do we know that the party would have objected? All we know is that he lied about how they died. You are making an assumption that the party would object. The rogue could enjoy telling lies, he could be setting the party up for some further lies. There could be many reasons for why he lied.

Based on the context, it is clear that he lied to avoid trouble with his group.

Vod Canockers wrote:

There are other reasons why killing them would not be an evil act. Unless they planned on guarding or transporting them to some place safe. Just leaving the unconscious bodies would allow what ever wandered by to kill/eat them alive, etc. That in my book is much more EVIL than killing them in a merciful way.

Your book is an unusual book. And nobody suggested leaving any unconscious characters anywhere to be randomly murdered by passing monsters. That's a total fabrication on your part to try to make your point.

The very fact that the party left him with the bandits shows they weren't going to just leave them there. And being as the first post established they were in the bandits base of operations, it would be unlikely any creatures were go to wander by and eat them.

I just hope that while the character is wearing the viper, it doesn't have any nightmares...

I'm curious as to at what point suggestions (whether or not they have examples) became ironclad rules.

The FAQ is addressing a symptom not the problem, and in doing so is bringing up legitimate questions about how closely GM's should follow this guideline. A completely reasonable GM in PFS could easily read that FAQ to mean that 3 reload actions is a good limit and then create a table variation where they limit a longbow user to 3 arrows, regardless of BAB, rapid shot, many shot, or haste. That is a completely reasonable way to read that FAQ, and I submit, that is not a good thing.

A completely reasonable GM will do what is best for his or her game, rather than feeling obligated to follow suggestions in FAQs or rulebooks.

You can have two-weapon fighting and still concentrate your feats on one weapon, rather than two. Also, it is less likely that other party members will want any magical versions of your weapon that show up in treasures.

Two to three months is nothing. I blink, and that time is gone.

I mentally mixed together several word parts. I came up with Darlaxus.

Rictras Shard wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Rictras Shard wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Why do you think that?

It is clear from reading the description of Shelyn that she does not like seeing things killed, and wants her worshippers only using lethal measures as a last resort. This means she views killing as a sad thing, not something to be enjoyed or celebrated.

Its non-existent as far as any dogma's are concerned. Her dogmas is beauty, art, and love. I think your injecting your own views into her actual dogma, and that's fine, but when you say someone deserves to lose their character over it, that's not so cool.

Then you either haven't actually read the descriptions of Shelyn and her dogma, or don't understand them.

I could say the same to you. Lets not back and forth. Claims like that don't do any good, and insults are definitely not needed.

I am not insulting you, and even a casual reading about Shelyn will show your interpretation is not correct.

Rictras Shard wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Why do you think that?

It is clear from reading the description of Shelyn that she does not like seeing things killed, and wants her worshippers only using lethal measures as a last resort. This means she views killing as a sad thing, not something to be enjoyed or celebrated.

Its non-existent as far as any dogma's are concerned. Her dogmas is beauty, art, and love. I think your injecting your own views into her actual dogma, and that's fine, but when you say someone deserves to lose their character over it, that's not so cool.

Then you either haven't actually read the descriptions of Shelyn and her dogma, or don't understand them.

Why do you think that?

It is clear from reading the description of Shelyn that she does not like seeing things killed, and wants her worshippers only using lethal measures as a last resort. This means she views killing as a sad thing, not something to be enjoyed or celebrated.

I have read up on Shelyn, I keep double checking it to make sure I'm not contradicting it. Maybe your just adding your own opinion to the Dogma?(happens all the time in dnd) Where does it say cutting down Aspis or demons from the world wound or servants of the runelords is a bad thing?(you could pretend those guys are innocent?) I mean, as long as your not going out of your way to murder artist, create conflict, break violins, and destroy relationships... Treating fighting as an art is entirely reasonable, and is actually part of worship for a LG deity.

Killing them is usually not a bad thing. Reveling in killing them is a bad thing that Shelyn would frown upon.