The Black Horde's page

I am pretty sure nearly every PC I have made carried a dagger and a club.

In case you were not following along he is trying to use intimidate to do what diplomacy does.
You make nice with diplomacy.
You take what you want, and leave them upset about it with intimidate.

He was trying to be nice.--->diplomacy

I am sure your feelings about RD color your responses, but what does that have to do with my post? I was following along just fine, my post was in response to many of the "behind the scenes" comments. A player has no clue what is written in the AP, so can't say I should use diplomacy because the AP says so. As a player and a DM, my comment concerned how he could have approached this.

Do you disagree with what I suggested? I understand to some the Internets are a great place to troll and snipe at people while not offering any sort of constructive or useful advice, but sometimes people offer suggestions. That was what I did.

Internet boards are a group discussion on a topic, but that topic can change a little. So to clarify for you, the original post was to some, him trying to use a skill improperly. MY post was more aimed towards those who were commenting on why his intimidate failed, and the problem with AP's not following the standard rules of the game.

From a players standpoint, diplomacy would have almost no chance of success. Assuming the lady is unfriendly, since your an outsider and all, the check would be like 35+. Good luck with that. Intimidate was the right call, with a diplomacy check on the back side to calm her down. Don't listen to all the "should have used diplomacy" people, you had no chance of success based on the rules of the game. So unless you just bribed the heck out of her, you did what was most reasonable for success.

I agree on the skill check thing being different than it should be as an annoyance. It is really no different than a long sword doing 3d6 damage, and the reason being that you don't know what is really going on behind the scenes.

It's a good thing you didn't attack her, she is obviously a high level druid with a 20 wisdom.

I recall telling someone they can't make a heal check on another player for their 2nd save vs. pois. for they where a cleric, and sure they have the heal skill, but how do you know that snakes are poisonous with no ranks in knowledge nature?

He said back "It's a snake that bit him, why wouldnt I have a hunch he's poisoned?"
I then said, "that's player knowledge, sure it may almost seem silly to us as players but if you are a character who's from a arctic waste land, where there are no snakes, where do you draw the lines at? This is why they have knowledge checks about creatures to affirm such things as poisons and such."

This for me is a great example of bad meta-gaming. How does someone trained to treat snake bites with the heal skill NOT know what a snake bite is? Are you saying that he could NEVER use his heal skill to treat any type of poisonous creatures bites?? Why not weapons he has never seen before? Would you tell him that he can't stabilize someone who goes down from a gnomish hook hammer because there are no gnomes in the northern tundras? (damn bloodthirsty gnomes)

As MOK said earlier, the level of immersion in game makes a big difference I think. I lean towards the tactical simulation side, but can RP my butt off when it suits me. BTW, until you show up to a new group's game and find out they are total immersionists with costumes, you haven't really lived.

We discuss rules, but don't let it bog down the game. We speak in character when we are interacting with NPC's but not really in party. That is the level we seem to function best at. Moving the plot along and killing things is our niche I guess.

Barring a 2 or 3 year stretch, we have never not had a few new players at the table. This is a good and bad thing when it comes to the Meta. The new people don't know about the monsters, but they also don't know about their powers as well. If you were to believe what some people post on the boards, a new player asking about a power or ability at the table would get them booted.

I have been in a few games like that; it's funny to hear two PCs crack their skulls together, as they race for the same doorway, or grab the same item...

We have played that way a few times as well, can be fun but wow can it lead to some really bad outcomes! Think "rogue sneaks behind evil wizard, as good wizard castes color spray."

I really was shocked at what some people (not on this thread!) thought was bad form and would get you kicked out of a group. Since all but one or two players I game with also DM, we are pretty good about limiting our OOC knowledge use, but will let some of it slide to help out new players. We even use the time machine sometimes! (oh wait, I DO have a silver weapon!)

I'd go with the simplest definition, using any knowledge that your character shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't/doesn't have to affect (effect? I always get those mixed up) in game actions.

This can include rules, statblocks, story knowledge gleaned from other sources etc.

I am right there with you. I have only really had it be a problem with newer players, and the skill checks have really helped with this IMHO. Our groups are pretty easy on this, and it rarely is an issue. It mostly comes up in the form of, "Hey cleric, your channel energy will heal the bad guy too!" being shouted from the 8 int barbarian.

On a side note, this nearly lead to a player getting killed twice in one night by the same snake. The couple of people who knew what was happening never let on, until the snake rose up and smacked the newly rolled cleric. Fun times.

Using OOC knowledge to benefit your character/party IC.

The entire game is played at the Meta level, using OOC knowledge.When does it become a problem for you is what I am getting at really.

A cleric asking how hurt someone is ok or not ok? Should the DM keep track of all hit points to prevent the character from knowing how close to death they are? A round is 6 seconds, but most tables will spend a few minutes per round doing things. Should we just write down what we are doing at the same time and flip them over then go into initiative order to resolve everything?

So after reading a few threads, it seems like everyone has a different view of this. What does every one think "meta-gaming" is? Where is the line between playing the game and Meta-gaming?

"Improved Empathic Link (Su): The pack lord gains an
empathic link with all of her animal companions. This
functions like an empathic link with a familiar. In addition,
as a swift action the pack lord can shift her perception to
one of her companions, allowing her to experience what it
sees, hears, and so on. She can maintain this connection
as long as she likes (as long as the companion is within 1
mile) and end it as a free action. The druid can only use
this ability on one companion at a time, and cannot see,
hear, or smell with her own body while maintaining this
connection. This ability replaces the 6th-level additional
use of wild shape." -UM

With out the "at 6th level" that almost every other features have, does this mean you get it at first? If not that seems really silly, since the ranger (beastmaster?) ability would kick in at the same level as the druid. Any official ruling on this? As far as I am concerned, with no level marker given, it should be a first level feature.

No it says CAUSE. Clear as day.

Once again, being responsible for someones life (passenger in your car) does not mean you CAUSED their death (When a drunk driver crashed into you both as you were travelling together).

So if he is murdered outside of combat that doesn't count, BUT ANY IN COMBAT OR IN ADVENTURE DEATH DOES. If a babysitter takes kids to the pool and a few drowned, your saying that the babysitter is not at fault. Just keep giving them kids to watch, no loss of reputation as a babysitter. Because, really, the kids went under on there own just because the sitter put them their, failed to keep them safe and death resulted you can't say the sitter CAUSED the deaths right? It was the water and the lack of oxygen not poor LEADERSHIP that led to this right?

And "should" means they have there own stuff.

Meh, seems really nit picky to me. I put this in the "realism" camp.

I guess the only solution to me is to make simple do 1d6, martial 1d8 and exotic 1d10. Give 2 handed only a bump and special attacks a negative. Call your longsword a superstabber or a cutlass or whatever, it's still just a martial weapon. Would that make everyone happy?

Then how come the damage is a flat 1d8+str and not:

1d4 for a dagger, 1d6 for a shortsword, no damage for a feather etc... You are not stabbing yourself with the blade, you are basically clubbing yourself with the item or just punching yourself.

Really? Your argument against mine is that the confused person is not purposely hurting themselves and your proof is they do MORE damage than most could ever do with a club or fist? My take is your trying to hurt yourself and don't defend yourself AT ALL, thus the average of 1d8+str.

What dex penalty do they suffer that makes them so clumsy they accidentally punch themselves at full force and do the extra damage? Can I club someone with my dagger for 1d8 then? The only way it can work in my mind is it's precision damage and the designers chose a flat amount of damage to represent what the befuddled person is capable of dealing to themselves each round. If I, in my confused state, punch you do you take 1d8+str? If not, why? Why does an accidental punch do SO MUCH more damage?

I read it as area of affect spells will not set off the confused person. The babble incoherently thing means they are truly confused and can't clearly think things through. The touch attack needed to cast a touch spell is what sets off the attacks against a caster, not the tingle of a spell.

As far as the person "ACCIDENTALLY" hurting themselves with whatever is in their hand being an "oh I forgot it was there" thing, no way. You add strength damage as well, that means stabbing your dagger as hard as you can into your stomach, not pricking your finger with it.That to me means that you are totally impaired, no rational thoughts allowed. So sure you feel the tingle of a spell or the effects of a spell but no way are you putting two and two together.

We support and agree with Jason on this. We also have no problem with new alt classes or whatever you want to call them.

One thing I noticed a lot is a total focus on combat from some, and then RAGE when the bard/wizard/whoever role plays a situation away from combat.

I am an old school min/maxer or munchkin or optimizer, (take your pick) but have never really looked at DPS. I like to squeeze everything I can out of a build, but not build based on numbers first.

+1 to OP.

If the group and the player are happy, play on and ignore these mooks.

I am quite shocked at the venom spewed towards the OP, and it really makes me wonder what planet (or who's basement) some of you live on. So he and his group like a more cinematic style of play, more power to them.

My point is, don't over think it.

What actual issue is there with the two-handed weapons?

You don't get any extra attacks unless you take more feats, so all we are talking about is how much strength damage to apply. 1.5 primary and either .5 or .75 (half of 1.5) off hand. DM's call.

Power attack doesn't change your strength mod, just the damage added by power attack changes.

Remember, if you attack with 4 claws you get a total strength mod x 4 of damage, compared with 2 or 2.25 using the two weapons.

Don't think animal, think weapon. An airplane is very effective against most things, but a few weapons can hit it easier. The most effective of those is the airplane on the opposing side.

Or think armor, I am protected against everything except the thing that specifically is "designed" to kill me.

Logical fallacy -- slippery slope.

HAHAHAHAHA! I KNEW you would bring logic up!! And my response to THAT would be this is a MESSAGEboard for MESSAGES, not a logic board!

P.S. Cartigan, +1. Don't over think it.

The fact is that most of the posters here have no clue about archery I am guessing. When you hunt you don't aim at the whole deer or bear or whatever. You hit a target the size of a pie plate or smaller. I was an average archer at the local club here, and at less than 30 feet hardly ever missed by more than 3-5 inches if I missed at all. We hunted rabbit and birds as well as fish. All of these were moving targets and could easily be taken by amateurs. The penalties seem realistic to me, and I have no problem hitting a soft cover target when I roll a 1, but not on just any miss. You pick your shot, and a miss in melee means you hit armor or flew wide, high, low, or something else harmless.

Not all rules can be realistic, no matter what the game. Sometimes arrows break the sound barrier.

Ok, is there any official info on the aklys besides what is in the Derro section of the Bestiary?

On PCGen it comes up as piercing, slashing and bludgeoning, the picture in the book has a hook on the end and it's a simple weapon. Can you make ranged trip attacks with this? what is the medium sized damage? it's 1d6 for Derro, so should it be 1d8 for medium?

according to the bestiary the aklys is a hooked throwing club attached to a 20-foot long cord.

So using Occam's Razor, a trident would get DR applied three times right?

If the staff take the time to clarify something, why not put it into an errata area immediately and post it in a locked thread? Or something like that. I have every right to expect a developer or designer to answer my questions about a product here, simply because they have done so in the past and actively encouraged this on these boards. Also, if i disagree on a ruling I can argue with them, because they have shifted positions in the past.

I don't agree that the questions in the OP were the best to point out the flaw of not constantly and consistently clarifying issues AND putting them in an accessible form, but I do agree that Paizo needs to think about the issue, so in a way I support the OP'er.

That said, Flame on fanboys!

So you could shield bash, 5 foot step and throw, right? Shield bash is always off hand, so the throw would be at the higher attack bonus, if I read it right.

Can a character make a melee attack and then throw a dagger with an off hand attack with two weapon fighting?

Or vis versa, (throw then melee)?

Is there a RAW on this?

Does disarm work like trip then?

Do you have to have a weapon with disarm to use a weapon to disarm someone like trip is?

I am good with the ruling, and hope all the negative energy doesn't drain JJ's good will too much! It is essentially unchanged from 3.5, the only question to me is do magic adds and feats/abilities that add to the to hit add to the CMB with a trip weapon? I am really just too lazy to look this up, but I have a fighter in my group who is a tripper now and I want to make sure all is well.

Again, Thanks James!

And to all who think this wasn't an issue, ask a new to D&D and PD&D player what the rule is and you might find some confusion. We have 2 in our group, and both absolutely thought any weapon could be used. Guess they were just stupid. (Or lacked the 3.5 knowledge we older players sometimes assume everyone has. Hmm...)

The problem with "we're busy releasing new stuff now, don't ask us questions" is when won't they be? I love pathfinder, but if there is no mechanism to clarify rules officially, this will cost them players. Ignoring a thread because they don't like the tone, or their busy or whatever makes it seem like $$$ trumps service. Our group has a list of things that a single word or two was dropped from the 3.5 rules, and it is very unclear now. If new players need 3.5 and the Pathfinder core rules to play, will they stick with it? One or two hours a week officially clarifying issues would be easy, and a huge "we care about you" from the staff. Knock out one or two issues a week, make it errata, and we are golden. Sage advice was random, and some hated it, but it was at least official and helpful at times.

That's how I read it, I only wish they had not used "spawn" for two different things. Does everyone agree that both types are under the Master's control? Seems pretty clear cut, but we had some issues in our session.

I am a little confused (or dense!), A vampire drains a cleric of say 6th level, and the cleric will become a vampire or a spawn right?

If it becomes a vampire, is it a full fledged 6th cleric plus template vampire, and is it still under the creating master's control?

If it is made into a spawn, does it lose all it's cleric levels and just use the stats from the "Vampire spawn" section?

The book seems to use spawn for two different things, full-fledged vampires under the master's control, and a specific wight like lesser vampire. Is this how it is or am I missing something? Here are the passages from the prd:

Create Spawn (Su): A vampire can create spawn out of those it slays with blood drain or energy drain, provided that the slain creature is of the same creature type as the vampire's base creature type. The victim rises from death as a vampire in 1d4 days. This vampire is under the command of the vampire that created it, and remains enslaved until its master's destruction. A vampire may have enslaved spawn totaling no more than twice its own Hit Dice; any spawn it creates that would exceed this limit become free-willed undead. A vampire may free an enslaved spawn in order to enslave a new spawn, but once freed, a vampire or vampire spawn cannot be enslaved again.

&

Vampire Spawn
A vampire can elect to create a vampire spawn instead of a full-fledged vampire when she uses her create spawn ability on a humanoid creature only. This decision must be made as a free action whenever a vampire slays an appropriate creature by using blood drain or energy drain. A vampire spawn's statistics are identical to those of a wight, save for the following changes.

I am sure this has come up before, what process happens here where 5 POUNDS of silver become one pint of Holy water???? Does each pint now weigh 5 pounds??

It costs 25 gp of silver to make something you can buy for 25 gp??

Do you get a flask for free with the silver or something? Is there a government rebate at work here? I am a free trader, I really don't like subsidies. What is next, paying the clerics to just pour there stuff on the ground?

Never have I been more tempted to flood the boards with new posts on a single topic than I am now.

But I won't. (yet) :)

Those are ranged touch, not ranged normal attacks that don't deal HP damage.

I found the part about touch attacks, there are two types of touch attacks, ranged and melee. So no Deadly aim, but you can do crits and I assume sneak damage?!? Not sure what the difference is.

EDIT: Yes a crit vamp touch or Shocking grasp is a possibility, so why not power attack as well? Can't you still use a metal weapon to hit with shocking grasp as a normal attack?

Does this work together?

The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Are ranged touch the same as touch? Why not say ranged touch if that is what is meant. Has there been an official ruling on this? I searched but found nothing. What ranged effect requires you to make a normal attack and does no damage?

Sorry, no RAW reason for it. It must be removed from all books, so please purchase a new Marks-A-Lot brand marker in Black and completely darken or redact all text pertaining to the spell. This is the only way to handle spells like these, or younger &/or Noob gamers will get confused and not be able to play.

BTW, I think a choose at time of casting dual use would be good, one as written and one granting fast heal. I miss the days were a fighter could get all trolly and pop right back up after getting a beat down and start swinging again.

Your right on 3.5. I just found that so I would say that it is unchanged.

Is that in the book someplace? I can't find it. In 3.5 weren't you allowed to keep a few skill points unspent, but not feats?

Can you hold skill points or do you have to spend them each time you gain a level? Do you lose them if you don't spend them?

We need sage advice, or something like it. Even a few rules clarifications a month would help. A top five questions answered or so would clear up most issues in no time. I really don't think the "all lines are busy now, please hold until after Gencon for the first available staffer" thing works. Why have a rules question area at all if they are to busy to answer rules questions?

I don't REALLY kick cats, just wanted to point out scratching a hand grabbing one and scratching a much faster kick is not the same. Different AC? Yes.

The fact is D&D, as a system, uses a simplified combat model. If you can't accept this and move on, how do you handle magic? If I ready an action why can't I "sunder" a spear? If I can sunder a spear why not a thrown spear? And why not an arrow? And so on.

I have reach on a cat and if I try to grab it, it might scratch me. But I have never been scratched any of the dozens of times I have punted them down my alley. But since I had surprise and the cats are flat footed, not sure this helps. I assume I had surprise, because they should run like hell if they see me headed their way. And that is "in real life."

If you can't adjust easily to his absences just make him leave a copy of his character at the end of every session, and play it with out him when he is gone. He should not get any xp's for adventures he isn't there for, and no loot. Most players don't like having their character adventure without them at the helm, so maybe he will be more considerate of the group.

BTW, how old is he roughly?

Me please! flaming.horse.cart.of.death@gmail.com

Maybe we could start a pool for the number of posts before an answer is posted?

It is silly, but I feel like they are hiding out for no real reason here. Even a we are looking in to it would be nice.

I am a cheese grit guy. Butter and cheddar are the way to go. I make mine with a bullion cube added to the boiling water, then the grits and finally the butter and a ton of cheese! Add a couple splashes of Tabasco and throw a couple of over easy eggs on top and your good.

Sadly I ran out yesterday, or I would have to be in cooking some right now. :(

What about a post on the society boards? Seems that Mr. Frost is the fastest to reply to questions like this. If there is no reply there, then my guess is that they have no answer.

Any PFS subscriber willing to post for us?

James Jacobs, Jason Bulmahn, Paizo's usual deli sandwich delivery boy, window washer, or ANYONE with a connection to the general area where the office is, could we get an official rules clarification here?

Or just bump, either way! :)

I absolutely agree Tarren. We need a safety net, but there must be limits. I love workfare myself, it provides incentive to improve and prevents a lot of system abuse. Free labor to local governments is a definite benefit to society as a whole and if you are not willing to do the bare minum, then you should get cut off. This in no way should apply to those who can't work, just those who choose not to.

And I too enjoy a little silent Paris!

Wow, comparing the lazy rich person to the poor lazy person is one of the worst way to make a point ever. Unless the rich guy just keeps his billions in a mattress and doesn't invest or spend it, he is still paying taxes and or paying others. The truly lazy and unwilling to contribute poor person should get NOTHING from me. And I have met people exactly like that.

My favorite example was from a person who was moved from welfare, to workfare. She was living in public housing, her entire life was paid by the government and when they said she would have to sweep the hallways and stairwells of the place she was living in for free, she was incredulous. She didn't think it was right that she was required to DO ANYTHING AT ALL to get her checks and free house, not even cleaning up after herself.

Texas Vs. White decided that Texas didn't leave, and then Pres. Grant ALLOWED TEXAS BACK IN TO THE UNION, in his own words.

Whether or not to include language similar to the Art. of Confed. about the "Perpetual Union" were debated at the constitutional convention and the issue was dropped. As I posted earlier, Thomas Jefferson and others thought it to be understood if the Union became a hardship for a State, it should be allowed to leave. And more importantly, the Federal Gov. HAD NO POWER to use troops or force to enforce any power given to the Fed Gov. against a State.They argued that at that point the Union was effectively dissolved between the State and the Fed. Gov. and all agreements were null and void.

Following the logic of Texas vs. White brings up the question of the Fed Gov. power to put down the "insurrection" of the south. Troops fighting each other is fine, but the blockade and Sherman's march were perpetrated against citizens of the US, making it a crime. Remember, not all people voted for or sided with the secession, so they were "in good standing".

One more point about secession, how did West Virginian secede from Virginia? It was unconstitutional and illegal, yet was allowed. If Virgina "never left the Union" how did west Virgina become a state without the approval of the Virgina legislature? The answer is that the Union used the Constitution only when it benefited them.

BTW, I am glad that Lincoln preserved the Union, glad the North won, BUT have no doubt in my mind that the Union attacked and conquered a hostile neighboring country, not put down an "Insurrection".