Thurgon's page

Steve was saying that it is more important to not offend someone than it is to be heard. I think that is ethically wrong and I was responding to that.

Being intentionally rude is well rude. But simply speaking your mind honestly is fine. But let’s be clear here being heard is fine and all but be reasonably respectful. That is to say if there is a way to say your piece and not offend do it, if not well sometimes offense can’t be avoided.

But I don’t believe anyone has the right to shut you down because they are offended. Heck if being offended was a reasonable argument I would win every time someone says Gish.....I am offended by that term and I am sure my reason would be offensive to some....

Sticks and stones my break my bones but names will never hurt me. If you allow words to hurt you, that’s a choice. My suggestion is make a better choice.

The real question is do modern gamers have enough self awareness to be thoughtful, kind and generous in their criticism?

** spoiler omitted **

So we have now blamed both sides for anger and issues that don’t even exist yet.

Maybe everyone should just check their baggage and we can start with positive outlooks instead.

That isn’t to say there is anything wrong with saying X,Y,and Z are not fun, they don’t work numerically as I think they should, or we tried them and its confusing. That kind of feedback is all fine. After all if there are parts that you find unfun, report it. If there is math that does things unexpected report it. If there are rules that are confusing report them. But remember as much passion as we all have for this game show as much respect as you can.

As for a universal system, there are better ones out there for that. I have found don’t try and be everything to everyone one, you end up doing nothing great. I would rather PF2 made a great RPG for D&D style gaming.

I love Paizo and had a lot of fun with Pathfinder... but D&D's audience is an order of magnitude larger.

I've commented before D&D isn't just the #1 RPG. It's the #1 and #2 and #3 RPGs all in one game system.

Your not wrong, its been D&D way ahead of everyone else ... well since before AD&D. But briefly oh so briefly 4E dropped the ball and PF passed them by until 5E came out to once again take over the lead. So if people dream PF2 might once again challenge the big dog well it happened once, why not again?

Historically, in D&D, the Cleric didn't select her spells - her Deity did. She could pray to be granted a particular set of spells each morning, but what she actually got was determined by the DM.

While this would undoubtedly beunpopular today, it did help compensate for the small number of spells per day as the DM could ensure that the character always had spells that would be useful on a given day.

Historically? What edition are you referring to, I’ve played all but 4e, still have them all and I don’t recall this in any of them.

In AD&D spells level 1 and 2 actually worked a lot like wizard spells in that you learned them and could cast them, even if you didn’t currently have a deity at the time. They were rituals. Spells level 3 through 5 required some divine agent to pass on to you the power to cast them. And technically spells of level 6 and 7 (cleric’s top spell level was 7 back then) required actual divine action to get them, so some interupted that to mean you needed to cast the commune spell to request spells of those levels. Remember clerics back then had far few spells and spell levels and their spells did not scale flame strike did 5d8 damage regardless of level where as fireball did d6 per level of the caster...no max number.

My DM back in the 80s actually came up with small spell lists per tradition within the churches he had defined. It tended to be about 8 spells for level 1-5 and 6 for levels 6 and 7, he did the same when 3.0 came out. I think this method works well.

In advanced D&D with the printing of Unearth Arcana the Paladin was a subclass of Cavalier....so there is historic support for such I suppose.

Orcs/goblins in Tolkien were inherently evil because of their creation and creator. He warped their minds and bodies on purpose to produce them so. He did the same with other races it was his way to corrupt. This left them forever inherently evil. He was effectively a god and I suppose that is enough to explain it.

Half orcs were made by well a less powerful being and frankly did not last long since he got them all killed quickly. Maybe a few escaped but in Tolkien magic was still used to make them so you can argue either way with them I suppose.

Half orcs in d&d were never made that same way per the phbs. In ad&d the playable half orcs were only the 10 % that looked human and could pass as so. (Also the orcs in ad&d were LE not CE, so more able to be negotiated with and even trusted). Those half orcs now had free will in that they were not directly created by a being of godlike power directly to be evil.

You can define the races how you want, and can certainly create a world were certainly races are inherently evil. Its been done before obviously. And in the tradition this game follows it certainly exists.

I personally think goblins do not belong in the core books, they should not be part of what defines the base game as it will make them too common and they will loose their flavor in the change. Putting them in a splat book later allows players determined to play them to do so while additionally keeping the races flavor and even making that pc more special for it.

Thurgon wrote:

Sara Marie wrote:

If you want to discuss how the shift from using "race" to "ancestry" is too politically correct or caving to identity politics you'll need to take it off of paizo.com. We will not be hosting discussion of that on our forums. Those conversations almost immediately stray into debating or arguing in a way that does not promote a welcoming environment on our forums.

...Or having read to the end of the thread....maybe just killing it so it can be started anew with less political talk and more game play talk.

As the OP, this feels pretty aggressive towards me. Paizo made this change on their own for many reasons, including that word "race" was not the correct word to describe everything that it covered in the existing Pathfinder rules, and that "Ancestry" seemed like a better way of grouping all of these things together from the beginning, as Vic Wertz himself has pointed out.

I don't have an obligation to apologize for feeling like this is a change that also makes me feel more welcome into pathfinder gaming, but I never made that the central point of this thread...

I admit it is agressive towards anyone trying to make this about politics which you did. Look it doesn’t need to be your central view, that you added it set the fire that became the blaze this thread became. It has no place here. Just as those calling it PC talk has no place. If you mute one side of the political spectrum and not the other...well you are indeed making it a political issue. I am suggesting the moderators strike both sides, take the politics out and make it all about the game which I think they are trying to do.

As for feeling more welcome, I am sorry to have been so aggressive, I don’t mean it at you personally just your talk of an side of this that I feel should be left off the boards. You, everyone should be welcome to come here talk about a game we all play and enjoy. I think anyone who wants to be welcomed into the pathfinder gaming community should be, we can only gain by being inclusive of all players. But enough, even that smacks of too much politics for me.

I think race or ancestry whichever they end up going with might be interesting and I look forward to seeing the playtest and seeing what effect it has on the game. Personally I tend toward non-human characters just because often picking against the flow on purpose.

If you want to discuss how the shift from using "race" to "ancestry" is too politically correct or caving to identity politics you'll need to take it off of paizo.com. We will not be hosting discussion of that on our forums. Those conversations almost immediately stray into debating or arguing in a way that does not promote a welcoming environment on our forums.

I do agree such topics don’t belong....but isn’t the threads very name in violation of such?

Maybe altering it to something having to do with what will the impact of ancestry on characters in PF 2 be, be a better title with less politics and all.

Or having read to the end of the thread....maybe just killing it so it can be started anew with less political talk and more game play talk.

Have a *little* bit of faith in the Paizo team.

When the Playtest is here, kick the tires hard. But kick them honestly - as fully implemented in the Playtest, we'll see how the Goblin works. Then, if Goblin still don't work, raise an uproar.

I respectfully disagree on the goblin question. Goblins are well define in D&D, Pathfinder, and even their own world lore. Yes they can rewrite such but that only goes to show you that what they are doing doesn’t fit with the goblins we all know. There is no need to play test the inclusion of a race that has no business being core to the game. Its not a matter of how it plays, or if its balanced. Its a matter of flavor and history.

You want to test changes in classes or combat or anything numbers and game play related that is what you need to wait for the play test for. But a change in flavor, or history....nope we know enough to make our minds up about that without a play test.

I do not have your faith in the dev team, sorry. But I will wait to discuss the combat system and class balance till after the play test and some number crunching, that is to me just being fair.

But they are not. Goblins are the evil race, not the by product of an evil race assaulting humans. Goblins can’t pass themselves off as humans easily as a half orc can. Heck in 1e half orc PCs were specificity stated to be the 10% that looked human enough to pass themselves off as humans. Goblins are the race defined as evil and this not at all like half orcs. Sorry I do not draw the same conclusions you are from these musings.

Bardic Dave wrote:

One of the most interesting design insights that came during D&D 5E's development was that a given concept or mechanic had to meet a 70% favourable public feedback threshold to make the cut. Just under 70% and they would rework the idea and release another version for playtesting. Significantly less than 70%, and the idea would either get completely scrapped or sent back to the drawing board for a total redesign.

This is perhaps a gross exaggeration, but one could make the claim that 5E was an RPG designed by committee/focus group. Whether or not you like 5E might inform whether or not you think this is a good approach to game design.

Good design is not a democracy.

Good design might be defined by its end product being successful. And 5e has been.

I'm confident that, like previous playtests, Paizo will listen to civil, well-connected feedback from players and GMs who have playtested the material. Threads/posts that back up their assertions with theorycraft will be weighted less that actual play information.

If you want to contribute and be taken seriously, do what Paizo has asksd you to do. If you don't do that, then your feedback might not matter nearly as much. Paizo is asking for help and they get to define the terms of what "help" means.

-Skeld

Your experince with previous play tests held by paizo differs from mine. I expect little from them and certainly don’t trust they will listen or even reveal everything in the playtest.

They certainly do get to define help, and if it follows previous definition I don’t see anything players posting making changes. Players get to define support...and if it does as 4e did, differing too much from what is wanted, well they may define support in ways other than buying the product. Yes they have the power to make any product they want and ignore all requests, ultimately the players though decide if the product is a success. I will watch, post what I think, and give them the chance to surprise me but I will not buy a product that is not what I want.

I think adding Goblins to core is a poor decision. Reminds me of Ewoks in Return of the Jedi. It sounds cute but in the end detracts from the overall product.

Making them core is my issue with it. And I see it as a strike against PF 2 a reason not to give it even a try. But one strike isn’t enough in my eyes to give up hope the game can be ok.

If Paizo aren't planning on taking comments from the community onboard, they are spending rather a lot of money just for the privilege of ignoring us.

More expensive print options (Canada rather than China so they can get the final copy to the printers two months later than normal); developer time on blogs and forum posts; delaying getting the new product out by a year......

One could argue its simply advertising and getting people to try the product.

Look I say try the play test stuff, give feedback but I have no expections even if the boards agreed that X needs change that we would see the change requested. I also think they might just sneak in the most contentious stuff after the play test to avoid negative feedback they simply don’t want to hear.

For all the flaws of the DnD Next play test they certainly did use the feedback to modify the game sometimes. Not as much as some would like, more then others, but certainly in ways you could identify. DoM and Martial Healing were too very hotly debated topics and on both they decided to scrap what 4e had done to get more buy in from the pre-4e crowd. Because frankly they needed it. They also used the playtest to beat the drum that it was more 2e like then anything else, and its early fans adopted that stance and statement even though anyone how played 2e can see how patently false it really is. It gave them a slogan to cry out that would bring players of older editions back and they was their primary goal. And it worked.

I don’t know what Paizo’s goal is with the play test, maybe they think the changes they made will be so well recieved once actually used it will bring in everyone, maybe they think it will help them settle some issue they can’t agree on. Who knows. Not I. But my theory is better to say your piece and be ignored then never speak up at all. Also to the poster who wants to put in their input but is nervous about starting a shouting match, don’t be afraid. One many people out there are decent and will let you say your peace and even if they disagree not fight you on it. And two these boards are it seems pretty well moderated. Please say what you think you need to, even if I disagree, I want to hear it and I want you to be safe to say it.

I switched to pathfinder 1e because it was more or less faithful to and an improvement on 3.5. 4e was not for me and this gave me a living edition of my favorite game to still play. It wasn’t perfect, but it was faithful and it was ok. What it got wrong could be fixed, mostly.

I have been looking at 5e and each time I think I might try it...there is a good reason why not to. It keeps giving me 4e flashbacks and I truely hated that game.

Another plus is the quality of the books and the APs.

Id expect some of the math to change, but most of the concept decisions have been made.

I agree, and see that as a best case too. I think in whole as with the playtest of PF 1, they have a goal will drive at it and unless some math goes terribly astray will not change paths. Sure if some math shows an issue they will likely invesitgate and move the math about. But barring that, no the play test is to gather support and for free advertisement of their new product. They may even hide the most contentious parts to reveal after the play test.

Play test, report your issues, concerns and math. Hey maybe they will surprise you.

I wouldn't mind them cleaning up the specific items by the OP by Sword is a generic term referring to an entire group of weapons to many and having a single type of item named that would be confusing... isn't a short sword also a sword or a great sword. I know Longsword is technically incorrect but not only is there tradition at this point, tradition that's been copied by many other games so as to cause confusion if it changes now but also pretty much any new player understands short, long, and great when describing a sword... even if the name IS historically incorrect. I'm not convinced most RPG players are big enough history buffs to even realize it's incorrect.

As for Plate Mail where did you get that from? That's already been fixed as Pathfinder's Equipment chart has no "Mail" in the name of plate armor. There is Breastplate, Half-Plate, and Full=Plate; no Plate Mail. Only Chainmail, Scale, Splint, and Banded have "Mail" in the name.

The longsword should be swapped with bastard sword, as it was actually primarily used two handed and it is suppose to be longer then a bastard sword. What is called a longsword in D&D is really an arming sword.

Plate Mail comes from Plate and Mail which was an armor once used. Basically chain mail with a breast plate (maybe) and plates covering the most vulnerable places. Also coat of plates over chain mail wasn’t uncommon.

Anyway cleaning up the names might be nice but also confusing for some.

I love the current PF skill system, so if you can keep it.

I want less feats but more meaningful ones. And some class specific ones that have some meat on them,

I would love a trip back to 2e style clerics with your warrior priest type, heavy armor and all but with a much more limited spell selection and your more specific type with more spells and maybe less access to armor/weapons.

Make alignement matter. It should its add flavor and defines things like Paladins.

Don’t

Make Paladin a generic class, open to all alignements.

Let worries about balance overwhelm you. The PCs aren’t fighting each other just try and make sure each has some way to stay relevant.

So the answer is to make one stat irrelevant? Sigh I give up. you guys have fun. I'm out.

I am not a fan either. Dex is about taking less damage not doing more. That’s the style of a dex based combatant. They duck and weave slash and poke, they do not thunder away like a strength based combatant. Yet it does seem dex to damage seeks to do both, take less damage and do more. I’d rather not see the stat already on the edge of OP be pushed fully into OP.

I think you missed the part where this healing only works when the heroes are resting. The winded hero fighting on through tremendous odds would actually be more noticeable with this rule.

Not at all. Why does a party need to be at full health for every fight? What is so heroic about entering a fight always at full health?

Entering that fight already low on health makes the fight heroic, entering at full does not.

Some of the most heroic stories have the hero winded, beaten, bloodied but unbent fighting on past all reason. This cannot happen if everyone has fast healing.

Heroic fights in D&D to me have always been when the group is low or out of healing resources and yet fight on. Let us leave heroics in this grand old game.

Sorry just noticed the statement about barbarians being non lawful and that has more to do with the class name not being really accurate. It should be called berserker and someone who goes berserk is clearly not lawful to me at least. But agin if you want sub classes this one would fit nicely under the fighter main class. An option for customization of a fighter I suppose.

So to prevent this from sliding back into another class-specific thread, in a class-general sort of concept, is it a bad thing to ask for a separation between alignment and character class requirements?

1. Classes that have ethics/morals have those internally, not bound to an alignment.
2. Alignment is a personal choice outside of class choice and neither directly impacts the other?
3. Ancestry likewise is not bound to an alignment.

Do these sound unlike unreasonable goals/requests?

I think they are unreasonable.

Ancestry is an interesting thing too. Are not all devils evil by nature? I think they are. Can their offspring be different, well maybe but I think it’s more iconic that the default is they are not. In this case player characters can choose to be different but they would be the exception not the rule.

The Paladin is different. Its something you decide to strive toward and something you dedicate yourself to. Its defined by that dedication to good and thus requires a certain moral code. Lawful Good is a requirement of being a Paladin. The powers of the class are restrained by this and it looses its way when opened to all alignments and looses its very meaning.

Now you want to argue it should not be a core class but a subclass of knight or fighter, fair enough. But in the end the Paladin is a person who lives up to an ideal and anything else just isn’t a Paladin. At least in my view.

I don’t play pathfinder but I do play 3.5 with some pathfinder rules thrown in. I did try pathfinder did use it for a while then went back.

Still the adventure paths I have used are awesome, some of the best pre-written adventures I have ever seen.

And if I had to pick one rule that just made me thrilled to see was the inclass skills get a base +3 when taken. It really fixed an issues I had with 3.5 and it has been part of every game I have played since that used that skill system.

I still support alignment and alignment restricted classes.

Alignment is like backstory, its what you characters starts the game with. Its a set of beliefs, morals and maybe even motivations.

Alignment is part of what makes a stat sheet a real character. A person with goals, motivations, and core beliefs. Without that you just have some numbers on a sheet of papaer.

Paladins are all LG....because only those with the dedication to that set of beliefs and morals will be granted the great powers of a paladin. The gods granting such powers simply wont trust someone else with such power.

To be a dedicated martial artist like a monk, it takes a high level of lawfulness.

These are ok and fit the genre. Does this restrict the players...well yes, it does and that is ok. But its no more restrictive then saying a wizard with a 7 intelligence wont work well. Look restrictions are not evil they are tone setting. I run a game with no high elves, they simply arent around anymore and that is part of the plot and the story of the world. Allowing a player to play one would wreck that and destroy the plot. Restrictions add flavor.

Anyway in ending I hope the new system keeps alignment and that classes keep restrictions based on alignment. I understand those locked into disliking wont be swayed and I support your right to make your arguements against it. I just wanted to make mine in support of it. Thanks and be well all.

Hi all, its been a while still reading but I wasn’t thrilled with pathfinder enough to play it for long. So I have no horse in this race other then I came looking to see if PF 2 will be more to my liking. So far, not sure. I need to see more.

However I would warn many of the supports from using their line of defense for making a new edition. 4e D&D supporters made many of the same arguements when that ... edition hit the shelves and those arguements didn’t win over converts instead they solidified the opposition to the product. I would suggest instead of saying simply its time for a change, we need to make changes to get new players or some other statement. Try arguing how such an such a mechanic is clunky and how PF 2 will make it work smoother. Or say how such and such a change will make the game play better or more intuitive. Argue over the facts not feelings I guess is my advice.

Personally I think we need to see the rules before we can evaluate if PF 2 is a worthy edition or not. Change just for the sake of change to me is a bad idea. Change to solve a problem or improve game play has value. Let’s see the product and then we can debate what we like and don’t about the changes. Also sometimes as much as we dislike it, change is needed. Be a bit open to it if you can.

So I've been away from D&D for a long time, Loved 3.0/3.5, hate 4th edition with a passion. Anyway, I just found out that this Pathfinder game I've been seeing is an updated and improved 3.5. I've been doing research and finding lots of good stuff. Now is the time to ask the question I'm almost certain I'm going to regret asking, but need to ask to get a complete picture of what I'm considering getting into.

What are the problems with Pathfinder? What do its detractors say they don't like about it? What did it lose in its conversion from 3.5 that takes away from the game?

Please don't make this into a flame war.

There are some issues with pathfinder.

I think the fighter is better, in that he does his job better then he did before. But he still has a pretty finite use and that means an issue with 3.5 has carried over to PF. One reason is that the writers of PF refused to concider upping skill points per level for classes, it doesn't seem like much but if a fighter had 4 skill points/level he could while not being a skill monkey help in that aspect of the game more and thus be valuable out of combat in a clear cut way. Spells for a wizard help him do damage and yet also help him get involved when damage isn't the issue but gathering information or scouting is needed, a fighter with few skill points has little options.

I do feel the cleric is now not right, not like he was in 3.5 with CoDzilla (something PF fixes by not allowing the cleric spell buffs to stack very well) but in that he isn't a D&D cleric anymore. Not to me anyway. He's a healbot, with or without you trying to build him that way unless you want to for some reason do poor AoE damage. The cleric gets little to no benfit out of any armor heavier then light, and thus also loses his standing as a front liner, he doesn't turn undead unless he burns a feat (which most clerics are still starved for), and his stat needs are actually worse then they were in 3.5.

The cleric did not need more ways to heal, of all his issues in 3.5 more healing wasn't a need. But that is exactly what PF gives him. Throw in poorly built domains that are about as far from balanced against one another as to be silly and you don't have an improved class at all but one much worse then the 3.5 version.

I don't think the cleric is really less powerful then he was in 3.5, which to some means he's still broken. I think channel energy is very powerful (really too powerful for a class already seen as one of the most powerful ones in the game) but worse it forces the cleric into a roll he has been fighting against since 1e. There is no denying it now, a good cleric is a healer, even if he never memorizes one heal spell.

All that aside the biggest downer is I have not found it all that compatible with 3.5 without serious work. Things are too different to just cut and paste and there are many subtle changes that need to be adjusted for. Races are by and large more powerful while classes are a mix of being more powerful and less(though few are really any less powerful but a few like the Paladin are vastly more powerful). Also the skills change while in large part a good thing means you need to redo any stat blocks for pregen NPCs, the feat changes mean the same, and the hit die changes mean it also. Spells now do different things so it is a lot of well how does it work, that's not what I expected, ok lets change the NPCs spell list to make sure he can still do his part in advancing the plot.

It's not a bad game, but it to me diverges too much from D&D in some important ways. It has some great ideas that you can port into 3.5 to make your 3.5 game better, or you can house rule the snot out of PF. Either way you have a better game then either. If you have the time I would house rule 3.5 with some of the good things from PF. It to me would be less work then the other way around.

Thurgon wrote:

But jumping to building churchs from allowing a display on public land is a huge jump, a setup of a strawman arguement. My first post about allowing the display did include the only expense to the town would be the temprary use of land others to counter it pointed out that they did not want to spend tax money on my religious beliefs. Sure they are giving up some public land for a short time and you can call that spending public money in a very board way so that is how I responded.

I had no issue with temporary land use -- assuming the extent and "temporary" status were clearly defined and there was some legal block other than your own will that you weren't seizing half the nation until 2096 (your claim you "just wouldn't" is vague enough to be suspect). I also had no issue with Christmas displays, provided there was some legal means other than your own personal judgment to keep them from becoming still greater expenditures. I explained the reasoning why, in a legal sense, these limitations were needed -- namely, because even if Thurgon keeps to a reasonable scale as he claims, if there are no concrete limitations, there's no reason Thurgon II can't shamelessly take advantage, if he so choses.

In reply, you refuse to concede any concrete limitations on land area, duration, or money, and instead claim "straw man." Reading between the lines, I can only assume that's because my concerns are completely correct.

I think limitation would have to be decided by the government and people. Not the courts who are there to make sure those limitations are properly applied but not there to make sure that limitations exist. What is reasonable shouldn't be decided by me or you or any small group but by the community in question. What is reasonable for my home town might not be so for the next town over. Perhaps we are a community that has a strange blueberry craze, and thus close the town down for a couple week ends celebrating our craze. We find that reasonable and fun, so we do that. The town next to us thinks we're nuts, I think my town is nuts, but the majority of the town loves it and they do it. While I wouldn't have my tax money go to hiring a band to play at the blueberry fesival I live with it without claiming "tryanny of the majority" just because on one issue I am not getting my way.

Allowing the courts to simply be make sole arbitors and more so given the power to write law and change written laws and the constitution at their whim is not a democracy, it is a tyranny in the very classic sense. Yes your arguements have been time after time a strawman, you either attack those who disagree with you persoanlly or persent an extreme give an inch take a mile possiblity. Since you can't keep it to the topic but have to make personal attacks I think that also goes far to show how weak your possition is.

To answer your reasonable question, my objection to Thurgon was that he claimed (a) he didn't care what the courts had ruled, and that (b) "majority rules" is fair and valid and in no way conducive to tyranny. I do care that the courts -- and the founding fathers, for that matter -- have ruled that the constitution doesn't allow public funds for church building. I'd like to keep that ruling intact, so as not to have to deal with the inch/mile scenario that Thurgon's law (as opposed to U.S. law) would allow.

I think allowing "majority rule" on small issues like the tempary use of public land does not lead to tyranny. I think allowing the courts to make law does lead to tyranny of the courts.

Thurgon wrote:

1. I know you think that if something has no secular use then it is of no value but others do not agree, if they are in the majority why should they be forced to accept your stance if you are in the minority?

2. I am not talking about a massive expense here, I stated clearly in an earlier post the only expected expense would be a tempary use of land, nothing more. Is that really too great a cost to expect the minority to endure that the word tyranny needs to be used as a club to attack the idea?

1. Yes. Just because a majority might think that building churches and converting the heathen might have a secular use, doesn't make it so. Again, flip it around and assume a Muslim majority, then answer your own questions.

A strawman, you think since one religious topic shouldn't be allowed none should. You found one issue that allows you to attack it and thus beat the whole topic. I think if you only allow for secular beliefs to influence your vote and require all others to do the same you are behaving no better then those who think everything should be based on their religious beliefs. I say this because it is requiring others to think your way or it reduces the value of their vote.

2. First you wanted my tax dollars to pay for it. Now you say you don't, or that it won't be a "massive expense." In a society governed by established law, how do we define a "massive expense" so that small expenses can't simply be stacked up to amount to massive ones? If you'd be willing to spend days crafting exact wording for your bill so that the $100 Christmas display you imagine can't also allow a $100 expenditure for this brick of the church you want, and then another $100 for the next one, etc. until the church is done, then have at it. It's easier and less prone to abuse to say "no tax dollars for religious purposes."

I know that you personally might indeed stop at the Christmas tree, but most people unfortunately have a "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" attitude.

But jumping to building churchs from allowing a display on public land is a huge jump, a setup of a strawman arguement. My first post about allowing the display did include the only expense to the town would be the temprary use of land others to counter it pointed out that they did not want to spend tax money on my religious beliefs. Sure they are giving up some public land for a short time and you can call that spending public money in a very board way so that is how I responded.

pres man wrote:

I imagine before groups like the ACLU were able to stop such heinous acts, these occurances ran rappant over the country. Christian communities using tax money to build churchs by the hundreds?

I prefer to rely on the Constitution, rather than the idiots in the ACLU -- and before that document existed, yes, public funds were indeed used to build churches.

Nothing in the federal constitution stops local communities from spending money on building churches. However most state ones do.

Thurgon wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"

Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)

Really so the majority winning on one and only one issue can prompt calls of "tyranny of the majority" but my counter that not allowing the majority to win on one issue doesn't say that the tyrannny is actually from the minority when it doesn't allow for the majority to decide one and only one issue?

Interesting. I smell strawman.

Dude, you're in way over your head. Cut your losses and own up to your mistake.

Wow you make a strong arguement, but not for your side, for mine. Thanks.

Thurgon wrote:

But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park.

The thing is, the Christmas tree is fine with me personally; I happen to agree with the Court you so despise that the tree has a secular purpose (decoration and marking the season). What MUST be prevented, to my mind, is for you to take the Christmas tree and then declare that, since "majority rules!" logic paid for the tree, it can therefore also be used to pay for building churches, or erecting giant stone Ten Commandments displays, or putting up obnoxious billboards saying things like "We Need to Talk --God," or whatever. The tree has a secular purpose. The remaining three do not. THAT is the difference between that specific issue and the others. There MUST be a clear law about how far this goes, because if you leave it up to the individual issue and a majority-rules attitude as you pretend will work, then the tree will be used as a legal precedent for the other three examples as well, unless the restrictions on those are explicitly stated up front, which is what I'm trying to do.

No matter how you care to argue it, "majority rules" should not allow you to spend my tax dollars for solely Christian-specific purposes, any more than it should for Muslim-specific ones.

I know you think that if something has no secular use then it is of no value but others do not agree, if they are in the majority why should they be forced to accept your stance if you are in the minority?

I am not talking about a massive expense here, I stated clearly in an earlier post the only expected expense would be a tempary use of land, nothing more. Is that really too great a cost to expect the minority to endure that the word tyranny needs to be used as a club to attack the idea?

Thurgon wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Thurgon wrote:

And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it.

Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"

But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park. He doesn't want to pay for it, I say if the town votes it will that's ok. It does not make it Tyrany because he lost on one issue. Your example is a classic strawman, you take to an extreme a loss of every vote and the majority always walking in lock step.

Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S Supreme Court has determined that a "Christmas Tree" is a secular icon and it does not violate any rules by a town having one in its park.

If that is what the discussion is about this thought has gone to trial and the tree is secular and allowed to be paid for by the city.

I find no value in the opinion of the U.S Supreme Court in a debate over legality. It has failed to uphold the law, has decided to ignore the law, and decided to create it's own too many times to be a trusted source for what is legal in the US to me. I know an extreme possition but it is what I believe and there is ample evidence to be pointed to.

But the arguement seems to have changed to be that the majority should not be able to determine whether to allow religious groups the ability to place religious items on public property. Because if they are allowed to it becomes a tyranny of the majority, I argue there is no tyranny of the majority since it is but one topic. But that not allowing the majority to control this decision on one topic to me makes a better case that the tyranny is from the minority then it does for the reverse.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"

Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)

Really so the majority winning on one and only one issue can prompt calls of "tyranny of the majority" but my counter that not allowing the majority to win on one issue doesn't say that the tyrannny is actually from the minority when it doesn't allow for the majority to decide one and only one issue?

Interesting. I smell strawman.

Thurgon wrote:

And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it.

Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"

But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park. He doesn't want to pay for it, I say if the town votes it will that's ok. It does not make it Tyrany because he lost on one issue. Your example is a classic strawman, you take to an extreme a loss of every vote and the majority always walking in lock step.

Thurgon wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Thurgon wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.

I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.

So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.

Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.

So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.

And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it. But a democracy isn't about me getting what I want always or you always getting your way. Sure maybe you hate that tax money goes to a tree but there are plenty of things the government spends money on I would perfer they don't. Like healthcare right no in the USA. The majority have it, so we will all pay more so the minority can as well. Sometimes you don't get your way but that doesn't make it tyrannny it actually makes it a democracy. Unless the majority always includes the same people, which it doesn't, there is no tyranny there is simply democracy.

(I'm not sure what tax money since the tree or whatever is provided by the group that wants it, the spot on the park/land is owned by the locality and it is a tempary use thing so you get it back later.).

Thurgon wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.

I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.

So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.

Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.

Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.

I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.

Thurgon wrote:

Interesting. I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.

Tyranny of the Majority

I know the term. Not were you seek to aim it.

Thurgon wrote:

So I have to ignore my religious beliefs when voting or I am supporting the creation of an American theocracy? Your asking for a lot. Religious beliefs in some are very much the foundation of their beliefs. I would however disagree, voting based on your belief structure is the very core idea of what a democracy is. Being told that religious beliefs do not qualify as a valid belief structure seems to be to be well a religious belief in and of itself.

Every law should serve secular ends. If it also fits your religious beliefs, by all means vote for it for that reason! But no law should be proposed which serves no secular purpose, but rather only a religious one -- and if one of those sneaks in, yes, I'd expect you to keep your fervor at bay and vote against it. If your religious beliefs prompt you to pass laws that serve only religious functions, then, yes, you're supporting theocracy.

Interesting. I think being allowed to vote based on whatever personal beliefs you have is the very fundation of democracy, being resricted as to where you can get those beliefs is actually to my mind damaging to democracy as a whole.

Thurgon wrote:

What I always wonder about is what would say Washington say if asked publically to describe himself would he call himself clearly a Christian or a something else?

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice.

I understand but the possible reasons for being coy are what I find most interesting. Was he coy because he wasn't a Christian, because he was but wanted to not overly influence others, was he coy because he thought to make such a claim would be prideful, or some other reason I have yet to envision.

Garydee wrote:

I don't think anybody here said that they want the separation and state to be abolished.

Matthew Morris wrote:

I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.

If we abandon or "supplement" the Constitution with someone's interpretation of Scripture, then abolishing the separation of church and state is exactly what we're doing. When Matthew's (or anyone else's) idea of what God wants becomes law, that's theocracy, not democracy.

So I have to ignore my religious beliefs when voting or I am supporting the creation of an American theocracy? Your asking for a lot. Religious beliefs in some are very much the foundation of their beliefs. I would however disagree, voting based on your belief structure is the very core idea of what a democracy is. Being told that religious beliefs do not qualify as a valid belief structure seems to be to be well a religious belief in and of itself.

What I always wonder about is what would say Washington say if asked publically to describe himself would he call himself clearly a Christian or a something else? What about the others? I think it's interesting that we look back and try and classify them, often by terms they would never have referred to themselves as.

The fact Martha didn't think of Washington as a Christian to me actually indicates he did think of himself as one, or at least would want to be thought of as one. And if it was something he sought to be but may have ended up not quiet making it, well that would define his beliefs well enough to say he placed great value in the Christian beliefs.

Now if we agree that others such as Jefferson at the least had great regard for the teachings of Christ, whether he personally believed in Christ's divinity or not those teachings still would have weighed in on his own values and thus his beliefs he used to help craft the nation.

jreyst wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

getting a little excited, posted some good points

I'd let it go at this point Zombie. I think we both know what we're dealing with here and it really doesn't make much sense to pursue a fleeing opponent. Let him go, let him have his opinions, you are not very likely at all to change them.

I also think it's sad that Zombieneighbours' points won't be addressed and that the, in my mind, immature invasion of the blue people has taken place. As has been said elsewhere, if you* don't care for the political threads, don't participate in them. Quite simple, actually.

*you = people who spam the threads with little blue men.

You have the option of flagging all the posts by the blue folk.

Does anyone else find it ironic that people are attacking a plea for peace and civility?

Technically that wasn't what he asked for. He asked for people to be passive aggressive towards posts they dislike. That is not a plea for peace and civility, it is a plea for people to act aggressively towards each other. And it would seem he got what he wants.

maybe it is not people hating clerics, but rather you love them a bit too much ;)

Maybe but there is a ton of cleric hate out here in Paizo world.

I do agree on some points though, channel energy doesnt serve a cleric very well, infact I tend to think it makes a cleric more boring than it ever was.

Well put, it sure does force all clerics into the same role.

One thing it does do is make the Paladin very very powerful as a healer while also leaving them as top end melee fighters too.

I like the domains in general, though these abilities seem to not come in play often, as the cleric in many encounters seem to be just channeling, since it is the best thing to do.

I would like to see channelling go away. It forces the cleric too much to one play style. The use of domains to support various play styles would in my veiw be a better option.

The heavy armor change is just a slight not a reasonable change for balance issues. Clearly balance has little to do with it, since they claimed to have countered that loss with the addition of allowing some priest to have a bonus feat to replace it (favored weapon). Of course doing that was unbalanced since it granted a bonus martial feat based not on domains but on favored weapons. So a warlike diety who favors a simple weapon get no bonus martial feat but a peaceful diety who favors a martial weapon does, not sure sense, logic or balance had anything to do with that change.

I would also point out that heavy armor isn't really a bonus so much as flavor. Heavy armor is nice for protective purposes, espically at low to medium levels. But it makes moving tough and forces you to have a decent str stat and lets face it everyone wants a decent dex stat since going first is a real issue at higher levels were Pathfinder (and 3.5) becomes more like rocket tag. Whoever goes first win because damage/ability to disable so vastly outshines surrvivability. Does anyone who argues in support of clerics loosing their heavy armor skill really think giving it to them breaks the game?

Honestly medium armor prof is nearly worthless since with light armor prof you can achieve nearly the same protection (actually the same protection unless you have an exceptional dex which most clerics wont have). So by loosing hvy armor they really have dropped not to medium but to having no significate advanatage over light armor. When you realize that clerics now have no real cause to wear more then light armor you can see why some started calling them white mages.

Uchawi wrote:

I think Pathfinder can learn a lesson from Wizards and DDI, and license a solid character generator. I am not sure how that hits the bottom line in regards to selling hardcopy rule books, but it is the last remaining piece for me to decide to play any roleplaying games.

The good folks at Lone Wolf Development have a Pathfinder enabled character generator that is pretty amazing called Hero Lab. We will be working closely with them to make it even better. We are also talking with d20 Pro and Fantasy Grounds about Pathfinderizing their various digital tabletops. Lots of cool stuff, if only I had a couple of clones to get it all done! :)

-Lisa

I've used Fantasy Ground for a CC game, works well.

I'm hoping to create a new PC to replace a first level PFS character I used here on the boards. Is it possible to create a new alias that would use that same PFS number? Is it possible to rename an existing alias with more than ten posts? Otherwise is there anyway to transfer the credit of Young Harrol (# 84608-1) to a new alias?

Cheers!

I have a hard enough time keeping one home game afloat, and my suggestions that maybe one of my group members could run a 5E game have fallen on deaf ears. I don't think my GMT +10 timezone and previous experience leave me very qualified for GMing a play by post game, so I'm going to go ahead and be that guy.

I know it's a big ask... but is some gallant GM somewhere interested in running one of the NEXT playtest modules here on the paizo boards? I'd love to take it for a spin.

Hello! I've just completed First Steps p2 here on the forums but unfortunately I made my alias from the "my account" page rather through the PFS thing...

Is there any way I can make Archibald one of my PFS characters without having to reconstruct the alias?

A thousand thank yous.

I'm about to start working on rewriting the weapon table for an upcoming home game. Ideally I want to simplify the weapon-list trimming several of the similar options (such as the morningstar and heavy mace, darts and shuriken etc.) and assigning most weapons with a mundane special ability (brace, disarm, etc.) that make them unique and exciting.

I want to make some of the unused weapons (axes, maces, etc.) a little more powerful, or at least to fill a specific niche. I'm also considering a general "nerf" of greatswords, greataxes and their ilk, treating them as large size weapons (-2 to hit but bigger damage dice to represent their unwieldiness and to encourage the use of vital strike for a slower more deliberate fighting style.)

So first, a general question... has anyone tweaked the weapons table like this? However small I'd be interested to see what people have come up with. I know Mr. Kirth Gersen has done some tweaking in his houserules which I intend to mine for ideas. With a few new players at the table I don't want to mess with their knowledge of the game too much (i.e., no drastic changes) so I'd rather keep it to static bonuses than something more complex, like the simple/martial/exotic proficiency bonuses.

Second... and here is where I want suggestions and feedback... I'll need to come up with a few more Weapon Qualities than appear in the APG. I intend to add a "Sundering" quality to Axes and a "Bullrushing" quality to shields. However I'll have to do more than grant bonuses to combat manuevers, and here I'm a little more stuck. Power-wise I'm looking for something that's equivalent to a feat, without making any one option grossly overpowered compared to the others.

That's probably enough for the original post. This is my first brush with houseruling and I want to make sure I don't do a clumsy job of it, as houserules tend to have notoriously short-lived runs at our table. I also don't want to stray too far from the core and confuse a few new players as they join other games (or confuse them with the dizzying amount of sub-par options on the paizo SRD). I'd be super keen for any feedback you can give me throughout the week, at the very least I want it done before game day!

Hello, paizonians! I'm working on a homebrew game to be set in and around Vigil after getting my mitts on the campaign setting book, and I'm finding myself fairly short of ideas, encounters and setpieces to weave into my sessions.

My lurking tells me a few GMs have ran games in Lastwall (Mikaze, ferinstance) and I'd love to gather up some ideas. I'm basing it loosely off of Red Hand of Doom. I plan on having the orcs of Belkzen ally with Zedoran the Ancient Green Dragon and his progeny, as well as his three hag lieutenants. The bridge and ambush encounters I want to rip wholesale (replacing the hobgoblins with orcs). I also want to have the PCs act as emissaries to nearby Dwarf and Elf kingdoms, ALA Red Hand. Beyond that though I'm still not sure where I want to go to it.

I want to include a variety of encounters and I'm scouring the books for ideas but I'm struggling with a few major hitches.

The first of which is... how to make orcs, well, interesting. Both from a statistical and story standpoint, I'm wondering how to make the orcs engaging.

I'm also trying to come up with a compelling villain (or rival) to place within the walls of Vigil.

The third is coming up with different encounters/setpieces to squeeze into the game. I already plan on a cavalry charge encounter against routed orcs to start it off (skewed in the PCs favour to let them feel powerful and knightly), a horse-race, a seige, a fight with morlocks underground (I've recently discovered them and just plain want to squeeze them in somewhere) and several run ins with the Ancient Green Dragon, despite him being well beyond their capability to fight (I plan on having the PCs hinder him by causing a cave-in and earn his ire at say, level 8 or 9, before an encounter with him closer to his actual CR, around level 12 or so (decked out in dragon-bane gear of course). Where else can I go with this?

Perhaps we could swap ideas and chat a while?

Though I'd love to keep the little tag up there next to my name, I'm going to have to suspend my subscription for the coming months. I've got 30 dollars to my name to pay for textbooks this semester and absolutely no work coming my way.

Hooray?

Perhaps this belongs in the General Discussion board, but...

How often do these abilities come up? I think it might be a lot more if people (myself included), actually knew how and when to use them. What constitutes a "magical attack" for distraction, and what are some of the major spells, monster abilities and SLA's that count as "magic effects based on sound"? Could someone list some of the common effects that these abilities can counter? And if they don't belong in the core rules perhaps there could be a home for them in the PFSRD? (though I'm sure the editors have their hands more than full with the ARG right now).

Both abilities are frustratingly vague, and any examples would go a long way. Thanks for your thoughts.

During the raid on Thistletop, there's a chance that Nualia might be giving a service...

By my count, that's three yeth hounds, Nualia, Bruthazmus, Lyrie, Ripnugget, One Warchanter, 5 commados and 13 warriors and nearly fills the chamber.

I have a question to the GMs out there. Has anyone been cruel enough to run this? In retrospect, I really wish I had. My party inquisitor was a massive glory hog, always taking the most dramatic entrance possible. Having him swoop in to rescue a sacrifice would've been right up his alley. However I would've had to take serious measures to make sure my PCs survived, and I'd definately be "wasting" Thistletop somewhat.

Let's talk about this encounter. How could the PCs possibly survive it?

I'd like to add a few weapon enhancements to my dwarven thrower for an upcoming 15th level game. I've no idea what price to use as a baseline when it comes to the Dwarven Thrower, though. Could somebody give their two cents on that? Help me deconstruct the magic item price?

Help would be much appreciated. I have an additional 11k to spend after purchasing it, and I'm not sure whether to treat it as a +2 weapon, a +3 weapon, or something else entirely...

I'm looking for a short game to play on the forums that I can see through to the end. I've honestly never FINISHED a game in any sense of the word, and I'm dying for a chance to do so.

Do many GMs run the Golarion-friendly modules here? I understand they're not as popular as the AP line, but I honestly don't think I've seen any in a while. What's more... is anyone interested in running one? I'd be pretty keen.

Much Obliged.

I need help, paizonians. I need help getting over my irrational hatred of this spell. There's just something incredibly grating about somebody growing to twice their size, just like that. I feel like this should be the realm of Shape-shifting magic alone, but I'm hesitant to house-rule it as such, because I don't want to gimp the melee characters at my table. This is fine as a player. I can just avoid it. As a GM however, especially when I was running RotR (with its ridiculously tiny corridors) it really makes me cringe.

My problem is purely one of flavor, or rather, aesthetics. I don't like that wizards can cast such a powerful, flashy and disney-esque spell along side all the much more (for lack of a better word) mundane, or tricky spells that populate the first level spell list, such as animate rope, grease, charm and sleep. The fighter grows to 10 feet tall, his javelins shrinking as he hurls them across the room and grazing his head on the dungeon ceiling. There's just something inherently ridiculous rather than fantastic, here, and it's a part of the game from level one, so there's absolutely no escaping it.

It's a bit of an odd request, but can anybody help me get past this gut reaction? A flavourful, text description of an Enlarge spell? A reflavouring? Even a nod of agreement? Its an important, staple spell and so presumably there's somebody out there who likes it enough.

I'd rather not bring this up with my home group, or disrupt my home game with something so inane. Hopefully there's someone on these boards as batty as I am that can lend me their two cents on the matter.

(And of course to save this thread from being utterly pointless, does anybody else have a spell that they think cheapens their experience? Not so much mechanically (oh god 3.5 polymorph), but flavour wise? What spells just vex you? I wouldn't hesitate to see this turn into a "least favourite spells" thread. Frankly I'd feel a little less embarrassed for starting it that way. :P)

I know it's late, but where does Tea come from in the Inner Sea? What brews are on the market and where do they come from? The Impossible Kingdoms? I'd be interested to hear what folks think.

Also a general thread about the avaliability of food would be interesting, and where real world analogues are appropriate or not. I'm a sucker for anything food history related. Ferinstance, Burnt Offerings has a few potato dishes served in one of the taverns, and Skinsaw Murders had a cornfield. What's more, tobacco is at least on the market. Curiously though, Golarion's American continent is as of yet uncolonized.

Chapter 1: Festival and Fire
Moonday 22nd of Rova 4707 (Autumn Equinox)
Sandpoint - Light of the Lost Coast

The sun rises, a warm autumn light washing over the white limestone cliffs of the Devil’s Platter, over the ordinarily sleepy town of Sandpoint and out into the glimmering blue waters of the Varisian Bay. The town is buzzing with activity. The sounds of hammers, music and frantic preparation are drowned in a collective murmur of “Mighty big crowd this year.” and “Fine day for it, by Gozreh.” The excitement in the air is almost tangible.

Sandpoint Map

The townsfolk gather in the Church Street square, along with merchants selling clothes, local crafts, souvenirs and all manner of food, filling the square with an array of pleasing aromas. Above is the majestic new cathedral, which will be sanctified today. The blue stained glass casts the square in a shimmering light as it catches the eastern sun.

What are you doing? The opening speeches will commence in the square, and then the festival will begin. There will be all manner of food (including free lunch provided by the local taverns), all manner of stalls, dancing, music, greyhound races, and dueling, archery and drinking contests. You can enjoy the festivities as much or as little as you like, and then we'll get on with the show.

Here's the discussion thread, as promised. Go nuts, guys. Hopefully we can be happy with our character choices by Friday. :)

i've been grooming a few friends to kick off a we be goblins/burnt offerings campaign over christmas. I've been planning on throwing together some pregens in the style of the beginner box ones, ones that explain every part of the character sheets...

I've got three requests of you fine folk.
1. I want to simplify the goblin race. I've no wish to introduce the size rules, so I thinking a flat ac bonus would sufficem instead. This leaves them with a fast land speed' +1 ac and +4 to stealth and ride...

Hey, I'm back again. I've just stumbled apon this here old Tome and Blood Web Enhancement during my hours of rampant procrasti-...er, during my day off.

It has a wonderful table for filling out a starting wizards spellbook and some prebuilt spell books as icing on the cake.

Quick question for you 3.0 vets. Would this spellbook table be up to date with Pathfinder? Have there been any sweeping changes in the scribing system or the class itself before I save this somewhere?

I've just begun playing a human guardsman in a CotCT game here on the boards.

Now, as a human fighter with +1 int, I can get 5 skill points a level, which is reasonably solid. However, my skill list is seriously lackluster. I'm aware of the Tactician archetype, but I'm unwilling to give up weapon training and I'd rather avoid any sweeping changes to my build. My character is here. I originally had more well rounded mental stats (because hey, 25 point buy!) but decided to keep shield fighting as an option for later levels.

My plans for the next few levels are weapon focus or cleave at 2nd, persuasive at 3rd and weapon spec after that. What are my other options for expanding that skill list? I'd rather avoid an urban ranger dip, because I'm adamant that by 4th or 5th level I should be competant in a good number of skills. However, despite my decent number of skill points I really need that class skill bonus.

If there's anything I've missed that I can run by my GM before we get into the thick of things, I'm all ears.

My group are avid 3.5 and Pathfinder players, and we keep crawling back to the system.

That said, a good friend of mine has some old D&D books, what I believe are the old 2E Players Handbook, a Monster Manual and FR setting, a module or two and possibly the GM guide.

Now, I've tried to thumb through the books and throw together a character and have just found them absolutely impenetrable. I'd love to run one of the classic modules such as ToEE, Against the Giants or Keep on the Borderlands, but have no idea how to get a grip on the system.

What would you reccomend for a whippersnapper like me trying to get abreast of the old system? How does it compare to Pathfinder? What about running a game with it? What are some of the pitfalls a brand new group should avoid? How compatible are the different editions? What's the simplest iteration of the rules I could run with? ... and lastly are their any online resources I could use?

I've plenty of questions, but we'll see where this thread takes me, as I'm not even certain I've posted this in the right place. :P

I remember this was being tossed around a bit in the players guide. Has anyone actually ran with this idea? How'd it work out?

Hello all, I'm venturing here for the first time with the hope of starting up a game to replace my current RotR campaign, which as my first venture into the wonderful world of DMing, might just be retired prematurely. I've had a little trouble tying the seperate adventures together, and my players have admitted to being tired of their characters, so I want to move on to something a little more ambitious. I've got my heart set on this AP.

Now, before I begin scouring the GM Reference threads, I'd wonder if anyone has any advice for running this AP, particularly the first adventure, some three years on. Are there any threads you'd direct me to? Community Content? I've just discovered Skyler's audiofiles this morning and am totally stoked to use them. Is there anything else?

As a side note, I'm hoping to make a few changes to the first adventure. My players are somewhat bitter about playing at low levels. I think Burnt Offerings may be the first game we've played below level 5 in our lives. My players might mutiny if I start them at level 1 again, so I'm hoping to bump that up a level or two...

Also, I'm considering removing and replacing the Pugwampi's from the adventure... Would this have any unforseen consequences? Would I be hurting the campaign at all? Would I be tarred and feathered and ran off from these boards? I'm fearing my players have had enough of small-gremlin-type enemies with the goblins, so I'm hoping to find a replacement. Any suggestions here?

Thanks, folks.

Okay, I plan on playing a halfling rogue pirate for an upcoming game, as a throwback to one of my first characters. I'd like to wield what seemed like a pipe-dream back in the day... a flintlocke pistol (preferably double barreled, I have a set I'd like to twirl around at the table) and a cutlass/rapier...

How would I go about building this guy?
6th level, 20 point buy... I suppose I'd look at something like

STR 13
DEX 18 (17+1)
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 12
CHA 14

Feats: Quick Draw, (EWP:Firearms), Deadly Aim, Far Shot/Weapon Finesse, Two Weapon Fighting(b)
Rogue Talents: Firearm Training, Snap Shot, Combat Trick
_________________

A few questions:

First: Be honest. Am I better off as a straight gunslinger or as a fighter?
Second: What archetypes could I use, here?
Third: Were I to take the grit talent, what deeds should I be looking at? Any alternative talents? I think finesse rogue should be in there...

A 09 Grau Final avatar

One of my fellow players is constantly swearing in-character in our home game. Now, normally, being an Aussie and the son of a tradie, I wouldn't bat an eye. However, it really detracts from the experience for me. Something about the f-bomb and "s#!!" are just... so boring and mundane. In a game of Don't Rest Your Head or Shadowrun, I'd dig it... But in Pathfinder, somewhere in Acheron, surrounded by tortured souls and horrific devils? A bit of atmosphere would be nice.

These also seem to be the character's response to every bad situation. (And lets face it, we're PCs. The s~#+ hits the fan on a regular basis). I've called him out on it, and he's convinced he'd be out of character if he did any different, and that they're -good words-, and that sometime the extra impact is needed. (We play over IM, so I'm certain ellipses or all-caps could do just as well.)

Now, fairs fair, it is his character, but I'd like to be able to suggest an alternative. How do your characters swear in-game? Your favourite fantasy books? Movies? I'll draw on anything, here.

How is this problem approached at your table? Am I over-thinking this? Share with me your wisdom!

(I've posted this on Gamer Talk also, so if this belongs there, just delete this thread.)

One of my fellow players is constantly swearing in-character in our home game. Now, normally, being an Aussie and the son of a tradie, I wouldn't bat an eye. However, it really detracts from the experience for me. Something about the f-bomb and "s#$#" are just... so boring and mundane. In a game of Don't Rest Your Head or Shadowrun, I'd dig it... But in Pathfinder, somewhere in Acheron, surrounded by tortured souls and horrific devils? A bit of atmosphere would be nice.

These also seem to be the character's response to every bad situation. (And lets face it, we're PCs. The s$~* hits the fan on a regular basis). I've called him out on it, and he's convinced he'd be out of character if he did any different, and that they're -good words-, and that sometime the extra impact is needed. (We play over IM, so I'm certain ellipses or all-caps could do just as well.)

Now, fairs fair, it is his character, but I'd like to be able to suggest an alternative. How do your characters swear in-game? Your favourite fantasy books? Movies? I'll draw on anything, here.

How is this problem approached at your table? Am I over-thinking this? Share with me your wisdom!

As I've slowly but surely amassed my hoard of pathfinder art, I've become increasingly fond of the iconics.

Much more so than their 3.5 predecessors, on account of one small thing: the iconics have rich backgrounds and personality.

Some seem a tad lacking compared to others, and I find myself wanting to know a hell of a lot more about a certain sorceress...
_______________

How do you fine folks envision Seoni? She's essentially Pathfinder's "leading lady", but I found her Backstory blog post told us little more than the fact that she is Varisian, and while a little mystery is good, I'm a little underwhelmed.

More importantly, how does she fit in with the other Varisians? Is she a dancer? Can she do a harrow reading? Does she dance with the shoanti under the red moonlight? Inquiring minds want to know.

Purely a brainstorming excersize so I can put my own spin on her, so let's see some input!

I'm starting a second RotR game for a new group of players. I've mentioned it a great many times on these forums and had utterly no luck in planning it. (One player left for Greece for a month, another to the States for three, and I'm off to Ireland for a few weeks... but I'm not one to give up!)

I think the new module would be a fantastic intro to roleplaying and the game rules...

It seems to be engineered for the new Jade Reagent adventure path... However, I think it could just as easily work as an intro for Burnt Offerings.

_____________

I think the shipwreck could easily be replaced with a fireworks shipment for the Swallowtail festival... however, I'd also like to give either Bruthazmus or Nualia a cameo in the adventure path (or at the very least, a mention!)

Where would you place them, and what would you change about the AP to tie it in best?

I'm planning a game full of newcomers and am set on this adventure path to drag them kicking and screaming into the world of roleplaying, seeing as it's so full of fantasy staples (and I know Burnt Offerings and the first half of Skinsaw quite well). I'm considering preparing a set of plot-relevant pregenerated characters for the group, though consider this an exercise in my own curiosity as well...

How would you go about building a group of characters that tied in well with the region and the campaign's overall plot? I'd be very happy if you kind paizonians minced ideas with me, as story after story have proved you're a bunch of clever buggers, and wonderfully creative too.

As it stands, Shoanti characters don't seem like great picks with little presence in the adventure path (although I know very little about their links to ancient Thassilon, feel free to prove me wrong here.)

A character with some link to the giant menace (a black arrow ranger would be a fantastic pick) makes a lot of sense too.

A female varisian would make a fantastic target of Aldern's affections (though I fear pidgeon-holing an unsuspecting someone into this role might well fall a little on the creepy side)

From here... I'm a little stumped. A local or somebody based in Magnimar would work nicely... a Sanos forest gnome would get a small homecoming trip.

At risk of falling into the trap of inane rambling (again) I'll ask you. How much were your PCs tied in with the setting? Do you have any thoughts on how to accomplish this? What plot threads should be milked? With your knowledge of the adventure path, who would you make the stars of the show?

I'm looking forward to my first time being a player since mid last-year, and am looking at improving my game in-combat, both in a descriptive/roleplaying sense, and a tactical one.

You see, my group has a bit of a history of horrific plans and spectacular failures in combat. At first this could be attributed to poorly built characters, a poor understanding of the rules (and the CR system) and a stingy DM (gear never exceeding the 2000 gold mark, as high as level 7). Over the past two years, however, this hasn't changed, and after my "brawler" (monk), Twigs, died spectacularly, I figure it's time for a change.

I'm curious how you fellows operate in combat. I'm not concerned with builds, so much as with your use of actions, particuarly into the early-mid level range. Both as a player and a GM, I'm curious how the experienced players of this board make use of the wealth of options avaliable in combat, in the interests of both survival and creating dynamic encounters

• How and when do delayed actions prove useful?
  
• When are combat manuevers useful compared to direct damage-dealing?
  
• How important is positioning, in this equation?
  
• How does one make proper use of cover?
  
• Stealth?
  
• How should an all-melee party operate? All-ranged?
  
• How/if do you make use of traps? Ambushes? Terrain? If you use the light rules, what effect do these have on your game?
  
• How much does party makeup change? How should an all-melee party play? All-ranged? All-mounted?
  

Hoping for some interesting discussion!
Edit: Listified for readability

I'm preparing a second RotR game for an entirely new group. Now, having seen players scared off by the sheer amount of rules before, I'll be using pregens.

I am, however, at a loss in figuring out what the simplest classes are, or rather, those most tailored to new players. I'll be building (or editing) a few to fit whatever'll be effective in the long run.

As a side note, one of my players is keen to be a Varisian dancer-type. I'm up in the air about class. Are bladed scarves effective for rogues/bards? Is reach too confusing for a new player? Also, any general advice for dealing with newbies is much appreciated.

I'm preparing for the intermission between the first two adventures, and was curious how my fellow DMs had dealt with Nualia and co?

I'm thinking of trying and sentancing them, and am struggling to come up with an adequate sentance for them. Three counts of consorting with goblins? I'm really at a loss. Also wondering if its worth having them maintain a presence or to leave them to be forgotten in the face of newer NPCs.

So, it's storytime comrades! Do share what happened in your games. How did you pad out your intermissions? What happened to Nualia and co.?

I'm interested in playing a soldier/war-veteran in an upcoming game. Would anybody have any advice to give on pulling off a character of this nature? I tend towards non-serious characters and would like to play a no-frills "bad ass" and have some fun with it rather than back to my old niche.

The setting is a "post-apocalyptic" version of our old fantasy setting with a WWI tech level. I'd be travelling in a truck convoy and we have plans to switch between different characters and run "adventure of the week" scenarios. Sadly I havent convinced my group into switching to Golarion for this reboot by starting a Burnt Offerings game. :P

But I'd also be interested in your takes on the roleplaying of certain character archetypes? The truly noble paladin, machevillian wizard, vagabond bard... perhaps elves or dwarves (and feel free not to exclusively talk about cliches either)... This board has away of getting my imagination rolling.

What are your takes on these "archetypical" characters? Have you seen them done well? Or perhaps cataclysmically awful?

Fairly greenhorn DM, have just wrapped up the glassworks and suffered my first session derailment...

One of my RP happy players (plays a glory hog "monster hunter") has just convinced Ameiko to stay in Magnimar for a few days and has staged her suicide... And just sprung this plan on me.

It's still a bit sketchy, as I don't have the info yet.
But in the simplest terms, I'll put it down to "Double Defection."
I'll do exactly what Balor told me not to.
And spread rumors about Ameiko escaping with her brother, and me covering for her.
Hopefully, I can use the healers at the beach to add something about our 'closeness' to that.
Titus Scarnetti is a useful name
Hopefully I'll be able to turn the people against me and word to reach Nualia/Tsuto's ears.
Then! When we do confront them, I'll betray my comrades and join the forces of darkness. Hopefully I can get Leyla (but not sabel) in on this to make some convincing illusions when the time comes.
After infiltrating, I'll go deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole before double-crossing them again at a critical moment.

I want to let him have his fun, but it strikes me as really convulted and it forced my other two players to sit back for well over an hour while he schemed... He hasn't given me any convincing motivation and I honestly don't know how to accomodate this. You've been helpful before, paizonians, help me now. :P

Just a quick question, guys. How would you work in a PC that is a former member of the black arrows? Ideally this would give the weaker Hook Mountain adventures a bit of story-weight and is a perfect fit for a prospective player, but I'm fairly stumped with how to play it out. I've already altered the AP to have Shalelu phased out and had Jakardos instead be an estranged father to one of my PCs (as much as I like her, we're a little overcrowded and the lads could use all the roleplay fuel they can get)

Why would a Black Arrow find himself in sandpoint? Would any alteration be necessary to the later adventures?

Ven Vinder: "Son, what're you doing naked in my basement?" (after Shayliss hides)
PC: "Waiting... for you?"

That encounter was brilliant. Funny without going too far. Do you lovely people have any stories to tell from your games?

My first post on this boards, too, and alas, my post was eaten, so I'll be brief.

Our gaming group is notoriously lazy, and we havent had a good game going in months. As I'm still in school (the other chumps have dropped out or graduated) I havent had the time, nor the creativity to throw anything together myself, but that ends today! I've taken pity on the poor chaps with nothing to look forward to this week, and have started browsing the wonderful community content on this site. Thanks, guys. :)

The characters have started rolling in and I've read the first adventure and skimmed through the next two. I'm looking to draw some parallels between backstory NPCs and NPCs from the adventure path, possibly replacing some of these characters or at the very least finding a place for them in the main storyline.

I ask you two questions:

1) Would my time be better spent tying these in as "side quests"

2) or should I follow through with this plan? My PCs are a shifty merchant "bard", a monster hunter "rogue", and a paladin of erastil. Mr. monster hunter has been the only one to write up some sufficient backstory... In this he has a father who abandoned him at birth, "handsome beyond measure and a master swordsman with one blue and one brown eye, and a pet husky" (in short). His childhood friend and ex partner is now a friendly rival in the monster hunting business. She's to meet him in sandpoint to boast about her successes in the region.

I have considered treating Jakardos as the father and replacing Shaelu with the rival, but I quite like the elf and have only skimmed over the first part of the Skinsaw Murders and Hook Mountain Massacre and dunno how much story weight they have.

What would the clever folks at this board reccomend? Can you think of any better fits?