William Werminster's page

IMO lots of people are "touchy" about this issue not because you're saving yourself the pain of going to your local art webpage to browse for hours and download any picture for private non profitable leisure but for other reasons stated above.

I think sir Ravingdork negative experiences derive for the main problem that has been a hot toppic for months now, in this case might be sympathizers of original art creators.

Some folks, specially art creators of any kind, now live in true fear because of programs made by other people with no ill intention at all. But as you all know, responsibility lies not on the tool but the hand that holds it.

It's not the first time that we've seen bad people hurting others with tools made by good folks.

If I may join, I think sir Deriven is being a tad misunderstood. He is talking about how you need sound and solid rules for combat mainly because combat is a life threatening situation first, and about player/character contribution second.

One can fail forward a social encounter for the sake of the plot or be more lenient with the outcome. But you can't do it with combat when the bad result ends in being mauled by your local monster.

LOVE the change. The celestial big baddie behind everything is a theme I put in one of my homebrewed campaigns and I was going to do it anyway, BUT now I can do it without the fear of my dear everloving friends releasing the crows of judgement upon me.

With the passing of the years I've came to appreciate the richness of the roleplay oportunities the vast lands of grey morality has to offer.

In regards to Verdyn's question, the reason is mainly a bit of realism: Most of the typically-advanced weapons from other cultures have a tendency to be false friends. They have enough similarity to weapons you're familiar with to make you think you know what you're doing, but are just different enough to throw you off when using them. The differences in sword weighting and balance would have a noticeable effect on your swing, for example, if you were to go from an arming sword to a wakizashi (or vice versa), and you'd be liable to forget that the wakizashi isn't double-edged like the arming sword.

So, for example, if a Spaniard was trained with the espada ropera, but then decided to try a katana because it's just a sword, it'll just birth a situation that leaves him embarazada. And nobody wants that, so advanced/exotic classifications exist to cover false friends like that (along with weapons that actually are unusually difficult to use well).

Spaniard here, the word you were probably looking for was "embarazoso" (embarrassed), which is a word used as an adjective for a determined situation the subject is in. When I was taught english I was told that when translating from one language to another context usually matters a lot when choosing certain words over anothers, specially the ones that are opened to ambigüity.

If that was an intentional pun then sorry for barging in and ignore my post entirely my good sir.

Greetings! Might be a late response but here goes anyway.

You got it all correct, just remember a few things.

RAW. The Will DC 15 for avoiding effects applies for both injuries and full moon nights.

Once the PC becomes aware, the transformation is a willing action BUT, the Werewolf entry here says:

When a PC becomes a lycanthrope, you as the GM have a choice to make. In most cases, you should take control of the PC’s actions whenever he is in hybrid or animal form—lycanthropy shouldn’t be a method to increase a PC’s power, after all, and what an afflicted lycanthrope does while in animal or hybrid form is often at odds with what the character would actually want.

Also remember that an aware PC also remembers what did last time she transformed, so Alignment must be in consideration.

Wolfsbane is a poison so the Fort 15 save is for both cure the curse and survive the ingestion.

Initially I found the idea compelling, but on a second thought I'd prefer the INT stat to remain untouched as it is. Mainly because I'd love to see future archetypes/prestige classes that can benefit from it, like the 'old' Duelist from PF1.

I am more concerned about how Wulfgar the barbarian survived going NUDE and barehanded underwater in a frozen lake and punched to death a white dragon.

Then again, novels and game rules never combined very well.

Elminster the Mary Sue ended up fist fighting against a GOD because both ran out of spells.

A risen hand in favor of those greenskins!

The traditional definition of a creature since D&D 3.0 has been anything that has wisdom and charisma scores. I would be very surprised if that definition changes in PF2.

I think Unicore refers to more complicated scenarios, like what happens to a creature's body when it dies. I remember a thread in the rules forum a couple months ago, nobody agreed if a dead body was still a creature, an object, or a creature with the dead condition.

Catharsis wrote:

No more Nature? Is it conflated with Survival? Are oozes covered by Occultism now...?

S%#~. No, there's totally Nature. I left it out by mistake here (it's on the full list if you follow the link).

I have no idea what Oozes might fall under, though.

On unaware adventurers?

Alright alright I know where the door is...

If the paladin is really going to be the armored focused class I think they will first release a blog about weapons and armor.

Nice presentation OP, I really liked it. Consider me signed. Like Tulius Caesar once said:

"Veni, Vidi, Favoritti"

For some unknown reason, I had a flashback of good old times in Warcraft 2, when I upgraded my first knight into a paladin.

The 90% of the entire blog post is a 'hell yeah', the other 7% is a 'let us be cautious', and the final 5% it's me screwing the math up like always.

The creature is banished and can't return to your home plane by any means for 1 week.

I know this. It's a critical fail when you argue with your GM.

To me, Arcane Bond wizard's feature holds the key. In lots of fantasy themes wizards have an iconic item that helps them manifest magic.

Wands, Harry Potter.

The Magic Hat, Presto the Magician (D&D cartoon).

The Staff, Gandalf (not really, but kind of).

Give 'vancian casters' a unique item, something worth to sunder/steal in combat, keep material components for powerful spells only. Of course if this item is lost the caster can still cast spells with V/S components, and can be replaced.

Personally, I also agree that an overhaul in the spell system would feel refreshing.

At 14th level, a fighter can use their shield to protect themself from dragon's breath and fireballs, gaining their shield's bonus to Reflex saves.

Is it me or this sounds like a bit weak sauce for a 14th lvl feature?

Best I can do is two minutes.

This post might be biased due to my 'balearic blood', but I think the sling deserve an improvement. It is argued that slings were better than some bows for combat. I don't mind the 1d4 dmg for slings, but I find undeserving the move action for reloading.

I've seen enough battle scenes in so many different movies (I can only remember Pirates of the Caribbean right now) to let this happen every time now that this wonderful new action economy lets you do more simple yet epic stuff.

I like the sound of how shields works now, and I woulnd't mind a little rework on Armours too. You know... if I want to wear a Scale Mail because I think my character looks cool on it and don't feel like a 'non optimal criminal' for not buying the Breastplate.

Sharing my own experiences, a few facts involving AL issues, the biggest ones.

Two brothers stopped the game because they started arguing over an hour or so.

Almost had to change one of my characters AL from TN to NE because I supposedly did something 'clearly evil'. I was even told off for about TWO hours after the game ended. Of course I still think I did nothing wrong.

When I am the GM more times that I'd want to I have to draw the "I am the GM here", because I want to give the players a wider gray area involving their actions. I will never make a Paladin wall if he slays the evil guy that killed his daughter begging for mercy on his knees, because I consider that action 'Retribution'.

All of the rol games I've played so far have been with in real life friends.

Almost 18 years playing rol games, D&D was my first love, I was amazed by the AL system the first time I read about it. Nowadays I still like it, but it pains me to confess that the game will be better with AL being only guidelines, IMO.

More than a complete removal, I'd want them to stay only as guidelines. That's it, no more mechanical implications, no more in/out table debates and arguments of 'That is not what a [insert AL and/or associated class] would do'.

Even if they remain unchanged, I would love to see a well defined variant rule to just to taste something different for a change without the need to rely on another game.

As an example, in D&D 5th Ed the Paladin no longer detects 'evil' auras, he just get flavorful yet obvious hints: the stench of death if it is a vampire, an overwhelming sense of graciousness if you are in front of an angel, the screams of tortured souls if it is a demonic being even in disguise.

You no longer have a Detect Good/Evil/Law/Chaos spell, just a simple Detect Good and Evil that detects instead otherwordly creatures (elementals, feys, demons, angels, undeads and aberrations).

I am well aware that I can houserule the game as much as I like, but sometimes I prefer to spend '20 bucks' and let another one do the job.

The hype is so strong that last night I found my wallet flapping around.

Some rpg games like the Final Fantasy saga mix very well technology and magic.

While I like the special flavor it gives, I don't like it in D&D/Pathfinder games.

So, my imperfect memory doesn’t recall: have we discussed black tentacles, yet?

#andsuddenlyanime

Ah, I see you are a man of culture as well

Not my table, but I remember being told by a friend that in a 3.5 play the party threw the Frenzied Berserker over the castle walls with a catapult.

Turns out he even slaughtered the npc they were about to rescue.

Talk about plot twist.

3rd Edition. This isn't mine.

GM: you finally reach the end of the dungeon, a huge hole stands in front of you with no visible end.

Barbarian: I do the angels jump!!!

20d6 of falling damage and a beholder before the barbarian was no more.

2nd Edition, this time it happened to me. Ended the big boss battle and my wizard had a in-game discussion with another character, after the argument I decided to teleport out of there alone to the town. That very same day the local tavern was renamed "The wizard's mishap", where you can still see the damaged wall

That 5 on STR really triggered my inner alarm. I've never been lower than 8 and I tremble in fear every time a Shadow appears.

A single ray of enfeeblement could be devastating, since it's at least (1d6+1)/2 penalty to STR on a successful save. With a STR of 3 or less he's going to be heavily encumbered, losing many benefits. Sure, maybe they'll need a nat 20 to hit with that ray, but if you keep throwing in a few low-level cultists on each combat encounter, sooner or later it's gonna hurt.
.

Quickened True Strike + Ray of Enfeeblement = goodbye my moon men

Critical success/failure is a bad feature on d20 games, they fit better in d100 games.

A 5% of unavoidable failure on every attempt is too high. You could roll a second die against the same DC every time a 20 or 1 is rolled to confirm the 'critical'.

In our table we always interpreted that the monk just 'slide' down like a ninja the slow-falled distance and the distance left (if any) is the DC check on acrobatics.

Holly paladin's night sandals, 5 years and the grapple still goes on? I am starting to imagine the sound it will made when the grapple ends.

- Illegal targets/conditions makes the spell automatically fail.

Because everyone prefer to be reminded a pleasant "you can't do that, try another thing" instead of "MUAHAHAH that was ilegal YOU FAILEEEED"

I remembered one of my favourites in Pathfinder. Create Water every time anything needs to be washed while screaming like Palpatine "UNLIMITED SHOWEEERRRR!!!"

It has other funny shenanigans, like walking an entire corridor perfectly safe because 200 individual darts couldn't surpass the DR. Anyway OP, good luck with that idea, and I really mean it.

I tried once to give more variety on the defensive properties in every armor of the game and ended up frustrated.

I.E.:

Leather armor:

- Armor class//
+2 vs slashing +3 vs bludgeoning +1 vs piercing

- Special properties//
+1 against electric based saving throws or DR 2 against electric direct damage
-2 vs fire based saving throws (masterwork and magic armor loses this flaw)

As you can see, I was VERY bored that time.

Teleport against own will is another one.

Redefining the meaning of a 'quickie' are we?

The 24h 'cooldown' retry for Diplomacy.

For the sake of your own sanity don't try to compare in-real-life physics with game mechanics.

There is a basic idea that always works in our table to avoid long debates.

Not every npc in the world have to know that and/or believe what the priests say.

There is a will to live on in every sentient beeing. And by killing them you also cut all the ties that people had in the world (normally family and friends).

Having a better afterlife granted to good people is a mind "balm" that helps the dying person and the people left behind.

That's it. Not more "but what ifs" and heavy thoughts on the matter or look for rabbit holes.

I did. It was a dragon's breath.

I applied the same rules as an attended object with improved cover (+8 AC +4 Refl and Improved Evasion).

My victim was a child though. Maybe a baby can benefit from total cover. Your call of course.

The only thing broken about the class is the damn text scattered all over the book.

I wonder how many people that complain about at will powers have suffered old 3.x Glaivelocks (Warlocks) and Dragonfire adepts with unlimited Slow breath (2 rounds if failed, 1 round if success).

The joke about the internet made my day btw.

In case of doubt always make a call benefiting the players, then look up for answers and/or debate the issue when the session had ended. This always worked fine in our home table.

I don't mind my characters being weak as long as they're not boring.

Sorcerer, look at how many have 5 STR. More so than even wizard because more STR-penalty races have charisma bumps.

You are technically correct

Individual, always. For non random encounters when there are large groups of enemies involved I previously roll the dice before starting the session. Scrabble letters placed on enemy miniatures are pretty handy to rember who was who.

I once roleplayed a monk in a way like Po from Kung fu Panda a few years ago. It was a LG on paper character behaving more like a CG character. None of our table gave a damn about aligment 'strictness' and everyone had fun. No goblins were hurt in the process (seriously, we fought 0).

Never saw the light, but another of my uncommon ideas was to make a CG barbarian with a lawful behavior (more or less like 'the Hulk'). A peaceful man with simple ideas, but you shouldn't make him angry...

What I am trying to convey (awfully must confess), is that Alignment axis shouldn't be nine colours from LG to CE. More like a wide canvas of tones with 9 basic colours intermixed, creating harmonious tones of fun.

And with that load of... pixie dust said, I'm off to sleep.

@William Werminster

I don't agree with all of those points, or even most of them.

Oh, neither do I my good sir. I am fond of my memories with 2nd and 3.5 (yes even if they were "terrible") paladins. I also think that the power boost on the paladin in pathfinder was too much.

But, fortunately or not, the game is still a product, and devs want to please "the majority". If we follow the course of the game trough editions we can somewhat extract the tendency of softening the limitations and restrictions. People want options, even if they will never take them.

As a matter of fact, I even find funny how many DMs activate their Defcon alarm every time one of the players wants to play a paladin, because we've never had any big issue with paladins. From my experience, "d+&+*eadness" comes with the player, not the character.

A LG paladin and a CG rogue together, best of friends. One trying to show him that he can still improve as a person. The other following him because, since childhood, he knows that his friend is too kind for his own good. What a blasphemy, eh?

Hobgoblin is also not great because it makes them sound like nice goblins for some reason.

Ah yes, the "Hotgoblin" terrible jokes...

I (as the DM) have a rule about Leadership; "You may look for a specific type of cohort/followers, but I will create and control them." A player wants an awakened gorilla cohort, but wants to create and control them.

Awaken
Leadership
Gorilla

So my questions are;
1- What Effective Cohort Level would you suggest for a 5hd gorilla?
2- Is "You may look for a specific type of cohort/followers, but I will create and control them" clear?
3- Do you think I am unreasonable to enforce my "I will create and control them" rule?
4- Do you think that rule is arguably RAW?
5- Or does the player have a reasonable expectation that they will create and control a cohort from Leadership?

Any advice on a compromise?

1. My bet is 'lvl 4'. Two for the CR, another two for the awakened bonus. From here on, remember that Bongo the gorilla can pick any level from any class.

2. It is your right as a GM.

3. Not at all, specially when you don't know what that said player want to do with the cohort (like the crafting mule cohort). For what it matters, I let the player control the cohort in combat, and casually in non combat scenarios, but in the end I am the one who "upgrade" him.

4. RAW, the only clear terms are the level cap for the cohort and the followers. It never says that "the player can go to the cohort shop and pick whatever he wants".

5. The very moment players starts filling their character sheet they have expectations. Will the other players be annoyed? Will the feat disrupt in any way your campaign? Will it be an opened way for future quests?

alexpm100 wrote:

Kileanna wrote:

In Spanish Wraiths are translated as "incorpóreos" while Incorporeal creatures are "incorporales" which is almost the same word and exactly the same concept. So my players get confused about them and leads to me to have to explain each time an incorporaeal appears if it's a wraith or another kind of incorporeal.

I call wraiths wraiths, I don't translate them. In fact, I only translate monsters that can be translated with taste and style. If the translation is bad or confusing, I always go for the original.

I usually do the same, but I don't when I have players who are familiar with the game and want to use the translated names.

Tarrasque (english) - Tarasca (spanish)

- Final fight, the GM goes and says: La Tarasca te rasca la esparda.

Most idiotic laugh ever.

- GM: a Solar appears before you.

- Player: oh, is it barren? Can we build something on it?

- Rest of the table: you can't be serious

In 2nd Ed the Paladin had a limit of 5 magic items only and every time she gained wealth a fixed % was for the church/order.

In lots of game settings Paladins don't come 'out of nowhere', mostly of the time they have a dedicated order to some aspect of their god/goddess, and they were previously trained as squires before receiving "the call".

Ah yes, and it was a resctricted class for only humans. The variant of the unholy champion also existed, but not neutral paladins, never.

Some people forget that Neutral characters are 'cheaters', they can mingle good and evil without giving a damn. They can choose whatever power suits their needs, and they are inmune/resistant to some harmful spells.

As the old school player that I am, sometimes I miss the game restrictions that came with race alone, for it was a really strong role playing meaning behind race and class, being the LG aligment part of the paladin class. I can still remember true joy when my GM gave me my first Holy Avenger.

Nowadays you can have almost every variant for every class, and with UMD even the restrictions on magic items are gone, halfling sorcerors with a Holy Avenger... horray!

*in angry old fart voice* CG elves with paladin class... the nerve!

And now that I'm thinking about it...why does a Wizard need a spellbook? I think Wizards should be able to spotaneously cast arcane spells without need for a book.

That class already exists, her own body is the 'spellbook', but I do not dare to say the source where this class comes from. Not Paizo of course.

the David wrote:

It's a supernatural ability so it takes a standard action to activate. I'd rule she has full control over her supernatural abilities, unless the text states otherwise.

As a GM, I second this opinion. Special Attacks must be declared beforehand. Furthermore, I'd argue that, depending on the circumstances, Energy Drain is not necessarily an Evil act. There's no Evil descriptor in the Spell Definition. So, what's the difference between a Wizard using an Energy Drain spell to stop a genocidal madman, and a Succubus using the Special Attack to achieve the same end? I'd say that there is none, as long as the target isn't killed by it.

I like this reasoning, and I'll take from here and add a bit of my own. The Succubus have the option of giving the fatal kiss, if she can control her most predative, compulsive and basic instinct of hers... draining life.

I don't know if Paizo have rules for controling "hunger" on monsters like the Succubus or the Vampire, but other books have nice rules, usually Will saves are that keep alive the casual love companion for those creatures.

The noble gentleman turned into a vampire struggling to resist the urge to give the death bite to her beautiful, young and innocent fiance and finally giving up to his new nature (and a fully change of alignment).

Or in this case, the happy wife unable to control her natural urge goes and death kiss her husband, reacts like "whoopsie, I did it again", and moves on to the next target.