ZugZug's page

Quite frankly, if the Wizard does this going forward, all the GM has to do is throw in a creature with the Combat Reflexes Feat that doesn't normally have it. These could be "Slightly more evolved Goblins" or just "Elite" versions.

To me, if the Player is going "I know the Stat Block of the Goblin, and I know he doesn't have Combat Reflexes", THAT is MetaGaming.

The Player is saying "I'm willing to take a hit for a good chance that it doesn't have Combat Reflexes" is taking a Gamble, not MetaGaming.

Throwing in my suggestion at the top, throws off both his ability to MetaGame & shows that Gambles have Risks sometimes. He might use it more sparingly, or when it truly needs to do it.

ZugZug wrote:

What if we just eat cows & pigs (aka the ugly animals), but not horses & dogs (the cute & lovable animals)? Does that make it better now? It somehow seems to. Unless you live in an area where your main choice is dog.

Horse meat is rather tasty but expensive and hard to get where I live. The reason I have not and will not try dog is that I think they are ugly animals, eating feces and all. I've already eaten lots of different animals.

But the thought of eating a human? That freaks me out so much I don't even enter katholic churches anymore because of all this "christs blood and body consuming" stuff. Which for me is cannibalism.

And in other parts of the world, the thought of Horsemeat in their food is causing a panic (see World News on Europe).

And we're not talking about a Human eating a Human. That's Cannibalism, and not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a Mammal eating a different kind of Mammal. And where exactly that line is drawn.

A Human eating a Goblin, is probably not the norm, but how different would eating a Minotaur be over a Cow? An Orc has frequently looked like a Pig at times, so would they make Tasty Baby Back Ribs? People eat lizards, so would Kobolds be much different? Especially with enough BBQ sauce?

The Thread isn't about eating members of your own race. Its about eating the other races ;-)

And if you do like Horsemeat, would Centaurs be ok to eat? Or would the Human half freak you out too much to do it?

So, in the priest/dragon example, if the ranger had favored enemy (human) would he get the bonus until someone told him it was really a dragon? Could the party wizard use illusions to give the ranger his FE bonus against everything?

Or just play a Don Quixote type, and think every foe you face is a member of the FE, even if it is just a Windmill/Gazebo. I can see the following conversation happening. ;-)

Player - "That guy looks like an Orc"
DM - "He's not an Orc"
Player - "It's Orcish Trickery, it is an Orc"
DM - <sigh> Make a Knowledge Check
Player - <rolls a 2 and has a +2 modifier> "I failed, It's an Orc"

Vincent Takeda wrote:

While it certainly can be taken too far I have to say i love it when a table actually bothers to pursue the camping/carrying/eating part of the campaign. It makes the characters feel like real people and if the issue never comes up then I feel kind foolish wasting good gold and spell slots on secure shelter and ring of sustenance.

Exactly this is one of my favorite parts. Especially in Sandbox Campaigns. One of the things I hate about not tracking it is that it starts to feel like a Video Game.

& Am I the only one that finds it funny that to build a true "Dervish" to match the Real Life Fluff and Fighting Style one would need to either Multiclass or Gestalt a Cleric & Monk Build and Max out Perform(Dance)... Though their Spells would probably work best as Buffs.

Actually, I feel the opposite way about it. Baldur's Gate & Everquest were some of the places I felt most needing to make sure my Weight Limit was watched the most.

OOps, I picked up armor, do I have room in one of my 100% weight reduction bags, or do I need to transfer something into my 80% weight reduction bags.......Hey, I'm moving slowly, lets dump 3,000cp so I can move more normal again and keep farming GP/PP instead of taking the time to go to a bank to convert that around.

Nothing makes you pay more attention to your weight limit than a video game because you will notice it when you hit it if you weren't paying attention to it. When its pen/paper, you're likely not to pay attention to it, and go "oh, I'm over and have been over for awhile now....oh well".

Having said that, I did make sure my Cavalier made his weight limit (to keep a 30' move), and I made sure his horse did too (was soooooo happy when the horse added strength and I could carry extra stuff again).

What then about Lizardmen casually hunting and eating other sentient beings, while still being depicted as neutral ?

Way I would do it in my game is "what would the owner of the dead body think ?". If he would agree with you eating his body, then neutral. If he would disagree, then evil.

I would think the owner of the Dead Body might feel whoever just killed him was EVIL as well. I don't think that's the best PoV to use in the discussion though.

Eating Animals is viewed as EVIL by (some) people in this world. Does that make it evil? What if we just eat cows & pigs (aka the ugly animals), but not horses & dogs (the cute & lovable animals)? Does that make it better now? It somehow seems to. Unless you live in an area where your main choice is dog.

Since we can't agree on non-sentient animals in this world, I'm not surprised we can't do it on sentient "Humanoids" in a completely fantasy environment either.

Like some of the others have said, I'd probably lean on it being evil-lite and keep it as that (specific things like Cook People Hex are stated as EVIL, so they are exceptions - ie specific rules), but without a form of statement about it, I'm not strongly for it being evil.

After all, is it more evil to kill something for Sport (like an Orc), or kill something for a reason, and then use the entirety of the something for food, clothes, weaponry, household goods......

Hiya.

The biggest hang-up I have with the "no xp" thing is that it feels like it takes all control out of the players hands with regards to their PC's. It makes an, in my humble opinion, almost arrogant assumption that what the DM has "plotted" is superior to what the players want to do with their characters. Without XP, the DM is basically saying "If you do this, you get XP. If you don't do that, you get no XP", without actually dealing with numbers. In other words...the DM determines what a PC's actions 'value' is according to his/her whim or pre-determined milestones.

The main difference in "No XP" vs "XP" is whether or not you tie yourself to the exact number. In a "No XP" Campaign, the DM can have one level go at the "Slow XP Track" and have another go at the "Fast XP Track" and a third go at the "Normal XP Track".

Let me ask you something. Does a Character Level in Mid-Combat because he got the proper XP to level? Or do you "Punish" him by making him wait until the combat is over? Or if they are in a Cave with 3 "rooms" of encounters, do you make them clear the whole cave out before you give it to them? Do you only hand out XP at the end of a session? These are all arbitrary time periods. In the "No XP" system, you "give out XP" all at once when you level.

For those Edition Haters, my groups started doing it in 3rd, prior to 4th coming out. We had a Chip system that rewarded players for clever ideas, good roleplay and those could be used for "spending xp" on things like magical item creation (or could be used for rerolls or other things).

And with Pathfinder joining the thought that XP Penalties in game should be gotten rid of, its become even easier to get rid of the exact number. Magical Items no longer cost XP to create. Spells no longer have a XP cost for Casting. Most of the reasons to know your exact number no longer exist.

Eventually the game dropped the GP for XP rule. (I'm fuzzy on the history here, it was either during AD&D 2nd Edition, or D&D 3rd Edition). Unfortunately, the designers at the time didn't adjust the amount of XP required for each level to compensate for this change. As such, XP values have been arbitrarily large for many years now.

Personally, I think experience points are important to a game. But I...

Casting Spells used to give you XP

They don't anymore.

What's the RAW XP for 2nd Level?

The Answer is, It Depends. 1,300 for Fast, 2,000 for Medium, 3,000 for Slow.

In a Campaign "Without XP", some levels might go fast, some Medium, some Slow. Its not that big of a deal. You still accumulate "XP" and "Gain Levels". You just don't gain XP per Encounter (that's too MMO-ish for me....always has been). You gain "XP" when you gain the Level.

If you don't give out per encounter, and just do it at intervals, you're kinda doing the "No XP" thing anyway. Instead of once a level, it might be once a session. So you'll know you hit the 1/4 of a level point. Oh boy.

Back in 1st & 2nd Ed we had running jokes of the guy 2 XP Shy of leveling looking for a Cat or something to kill to level.

Not using the RAW numbers of XP, helps smooth things out. The groups I play in, don't want to play Accountants & Auditors (ok, I do....but I get looked at funny when I want to make sure we're making a profit as a group....), and couldn't be bothered to keep track of XP on their own.

I will say, it seems to be an age issue, because the groups I was in in college (and before) worried about Individual Rewards more than Post College (guy in the group staying level with us is More Beneficial to the group). That's just my experience though.

Have I seen people ask, Do we level? Of course. We have a player who has asked that at the end of a session when we leveled in the middle of it. But for the most part, we don't have a problem with the rate we level without "XP".

Publication history of D&D

Ignoring the D&D basic line, which was published in parallel to the advanced line and is comparable to Pathfinder's Basic Box, this is the publication history of D&D:
1974 (original)
1977 (AD&D)
1989 (AD&D 2nd Edition)
2000 (D&D 3rd edition)
2003 (D&D v3.5)
2008 (D&D 4th edition)
2013? (D&D Next)

Looking at the lifespan of each version:
D&D original - 3 years
AD&D 1st - 4
AD&D 2nd - 11
D&D 3rd - 3
D&D 3.5 - 5
D&D 4th - 5?

As Kthulu said, your 1st should have gone 12 years, not 4.

Of course with that said, there was essentially a 1.5 (not marketed like 3.5 was), which included a different reprint of the PHB, and included Unearthed Arcana which made a number of new rules changes, it screws up the timeline.

2nd Ed also had a "Revision" phase (in 95) which also shortens that lifespan.

It happens.

Dungeons & Dragons (not AD&D) btw, had 5 editions, spanning from 74 till 2000), with the last going 9 years......I think it was more "given up on" than just existing. When 3rd Ed came out, it was "officially dead".

If I've heard right, TECHNICALLY, Pathfinder has included Errata with each reprinting of the rules. Which means it's already had a 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and a 1.4 set if you want to look at it that way.

PDF sales should help keep editions around longer (since they lower costs drastically) in theory, but when the Core Rulebooks do slow down in sales (which they will), a more major "Revision" will occur.

And like the people who still play 1st &/or 2nd Ed AD&D, some will stay with Pathfinder 1st, others/most will move on to 2ndish. The only thing constant is Change.

I do similar things all the time. On a 25% chance, if a d4 is in front of me, I'll just pick up the d4. On a 50% chance I might even flip a coin.

It's all the same from a probability perspective.

I usually roll my D30 for 50% and do Even/Odd on it

Mainly because I don't use it much otherwise (Random Day Generator)

You could wear a big red cone hat and a big fake white beard and stand still in grass watching people as you try to be incognito.

If you're not the 'strong' silent type, you could give the group Travel Advice :-)

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

He's Kind and Benevolent. He believes in Goodness and Right. He hates it when people try to Intimidate others and tell them what to do. Combines a Good heart....

What part of Taking a Hostage, Showing him to his Daddy and Slitting his throat is covered by any of this? Pretty much none of it.

A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

Character does what his hatred and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is Vicious, Arbitrarily Violent and Unpredictable. He is Ruthless and Brutal.

What part of Taking a Hostage, Showing him to his Daddy and Slitting his throat is covered by any of this? Pretty much all of it.

An Evil Act done to an Evil Soul is STILL an Evil Act.
Does 1 Evil Act make an Alignment Change? No
But if he continues to go down that road, he will.

Clearing out Evil Goblins is a Good act because you're protecting innocents (from your own point of view). Doing it in a Torturous/Brutal Manner, is killing for pleasure. And that is also as Evil as the Goblins that they were sent to kill.

The RAW says if the square contains _____ I can't charge. It does not say if I can overcome _____ that I may charge anyway. It does not say I may attempt a charge.

Does the square contain ______?
Yes
No charging.
I do admit that is a very literal reading of it if that is not what they meant it could have been written so as to afford more leeway.

Until you also (looking at RAW) and see that Obstacles can (not must or always) hamper movement.

Especially when you compare the text of Difficult Terrain to Obstacles.

Difficult Terrain, Such as (several examples), Hampers Movement.
By RAW, DT and O's are treated differently in this regard. Otherwise, it would say "Obstacles Hamper movement". Not Can. Can implies that not all Obstacles Hamper movement.

To further the point.....
Difficult Terrain states "You can't Run or Charge across Difficult Terrain". Why doesn't the section on Obstacles contain the same wording?

There's way too many inconsistencies here to let it go.

So a character isn't worth playing if they won't be leveling up again? Nobody will come around and confiscate your 20th level characters.

Do you only play level 1 characters? Why do you play the game past that point?

I play the game for fun. But its always nice to know something else is out there around the next corner. Some nice ability, feat, power, etc.

If I didn't, I wouldn't ever level past level 1. Or I'd play a "level-less game. But since I do play a game with levels, I like to advance in them. Stopping/topping out isn't appealing to me.