ghettowedge's page

1,494 posts (3,222 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>


Triple necro dotted

178. Pugwampis

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Where are video games?

Empire wrote:

Hi i could be posting this in the wrong area or not but any ways I've been playing Pathfinder/D&D for about a year now I've just started my first sorcerer there are a couple touch spell such as shocking grasp and chill touch now i currently have two daggers on my character now my question is. is it possible to apply these spells onto the dagger then say throw them or attack a monster with them adding the spell damage as well as the dagger damage during that attack. or would that be up to the DM


Nope. A spell-storing weapon does what you're looking for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goemon Sasuke wrote:
I ruled that, based soley on the fact he got a critical failure, his monkly grace could not save him at that time. The damage was negligable, but he insisted that he should benefit from it anyways.

If you're using a battlemap and his figure wound up adjacent to the wall and you say he can't slow fall based soley on a 1, that's a dick move.

FWIW, the changes in editions, including crit confirmations, are why so many of us play newer editions. I really hope all the martials in your games wield scythes.

Syd of Vallis

Thanks. You real for that.

I accidentally placed the order twice. Please cancel one of the orders for 6 sets of Second Darkness dice.

Thanks a bundle. The premise of this AP and low funds forced my hand.

Is it too late to cancel this order as well as my subscription? If not, I'd like to. If so, still cancel my subscription. Thanks.

Sharaya wrote:

This change has been made. You should get an updated order confirmation email soon!

If we can help with anything else, please let us know. Thanks!

Got the email. Thank you so much! Happy holidays!

Is it too late to swap the six copies of the the Inner Sea Primer I ordered for six copies of the Dragon Empire Primer? These are gifts for my game group, and there's a good chance I previously gave them the former.

I've updated my payment methods and should be good to go.

Jiggy wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:

Examples of valid Readying Actions:

"If he starts casting a spell, I charge"

Nope, charging is a full-round action, and you can only ready a standard (or smaller) action.

Correction, you can partial charge with a readied action.

PSRD wrote:
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.

Eh, he'll deal with it.

Hey, I want to buy my GM a PDF for GM's Day and it said I need your assistance. What the plan?

I don't trust myself as GM to go off RAW. I know I have players responsible enough to handle whatever, but I know I discriminate on a person to person basis, and following RAW relieves me of any discrepancy between powers levels among the PCs. It also voids the following argument:
PC: Rogues are weak.
Me: Probably, but it could be based on build.
PC: So, let me have uber power.
Me: Ok.
Next Campaign...
PC2: Man, my rogue would be amazeballs with something like this.
Me: Well, with your build and the campaign specifically you are already doing well.
Pc2: Yeah, well last campaign you gave bonus stuff to PC because you said rogues were weak..

You get the point. My players are veterans and know what they are getting into with RAW. If the characters aren't up to snuff they can only blame themselves.

I'm trying desperately to finish a play through of Castlevania Lords of Shadow before the sequel releases (it has taken me 3 years to get around to it), and last night after finishing Baba Yaga's stage that happened. Patrick Stewart is kindly narrating in between chapters and yeah, he says he went and offed Baba when I left.

I'm pretty sure that rogue isn't standing on that dragon, and a dramatic painting doesn't equal rules. You have your own idea of what's happening in that painting, but the rules don't support it. If it's working for your game, run with it. RAW says no.

Cristiano Marcelino DePaula
AKA: Came onto a rules forum looking for rules, then reverted to personal attacks when he got them.

I'm with Brf, if you're sharing a space, you are grappling. The dragon is flat-footed to your allies, but not you.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I thought I selected to ship ASAP, but after a couple weeks of "hey, where are those bases?", I checked it out and saw that they were waiting for the cards to be printed.

So, can I split the shipments and get those bases from order# 2925743?

Riding became a skill, and therefore a resource. And unless time is an issue, most characters won't spend resources on travel.

I'm aware of the challenges that lie ahead for my AC build fighter, I'm playing it in part to test the viability of it. At 2nd level though, my Strength of 16 shouldn't be a big factor in surviving an encounter.

I'm more concerned about our lack of gear, and whether or not that's how it's supposed to be. I just found out that the GM took pity on us and removed a swarm from the ghast/choker encounter. The only weapon we would have had against that would have been the gear we got from an NPC kicking it against the ghouls (Rosie, I believe).

I DM a lot more than I play, and I'm confused as to whether or not the devs expect it to be this tough. We role-played a lot on the ship, but a pile of tough roles kept us from getting much gear. We only fought the giant crabs because we had no food.

One defeat, and we regroup. A second defeat, and it's more like what are we doing wrong. A third, and near TPK and it becomes why are we playing. And now fore-knowledge that another overwhelming fight awaits us means this campaign might well end.

As a player in this campaign, I'm trying to avoid seeing any spoilers, but my GM seems just as confounded about why are doing so poorly. My best guess is we were supposed to have more equipment, but we sucked past it or missed it otherwise.

Session one, we are press ganged. My AC focused fighter winds up as a cook and can't make a roll all night. No gear and constantly punished, I even lost the fist-fight. The session was fun and we all laughed, but I got no equipment back at all, although others got some.

Session two, I missed due to work, but they seem to have gotten access to some simple weapons and wound up gathering supplies on an island.

Session three, I'm back and gathering supplies. I have no gear except simple weapons (a spear and club). The wizard is using all his spells to mage armor, the Druid is using all his spells to heal us from the day before. Most days end after one encounter where the ranger and I almost die and the wizard uses invisibility to save us.

At this point we are 2nd and 3rd level. I think the ranger has a +1 short sword and the Druid has leather armor. I gain a masterwork dagger day 2.
Day one: we fight. 3 ghouls and get stomped. Wizard saves us from TPK.
Day two: We go back and kill the remaining 2 ghouls (yay!). We fight 3 medium crabs and get stomped, wizard and Druid save us from TPK. C'mon, CR 1s with AC:18 and 18 or so hit points.
Day three: we fight a ghast and two chokers and get stomped. This time the ranger and Druid die, and the wizard barely saves me. The ghast was even chained up to start.

Apparently the wizard and I are walking back to an ambush at the ship now (DM told us on ride home). Is this how it's supposed to be?

Except that the manufacturer is Reaper, and they are likely the only ones with spare wings.

I'm out of the plastic minis game, but I was burned twice by that web site back when I was chasing the plastic dragon. It may have changed, but in so far as I recall, there is no accountability.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
theroc wrote:
I always thought 3.5, and by extension as a carbon-copy game, Pathfinder, was a very broken rule system.

I have my issues with both 3.5 and Pathfinder as well, but neither one of them can reasonably be called "broken."

I'm with you on this. The system can be broken, but that's by systems built on top of systems (I'm looking at you spellcasting), and by combinations never considered by the devs. At its heart though, I don't think the system is broken.

Merlin_47 wrote:

I started with 1st edition. I only have one player that refuses to play anything before "3.5", because it's not "player friendly". My other players once asked him what he meant. He said that because "not enough treasure is given out in older editions," that "you never improve (i.e. - stats never improve, you don't get feats, skills, etc.)", and "you have to roll down the line".

He's also more of a power gamer than he wants to admit. To him, you're not "growing" if you're somehow not getting more powerful. In our current campaign, my players just hit level 5 and got +1 weapons. He's already talking about now getting +2 weapons.

Makes me really miss those old days.....

Well, to be fair, the wizard or cleric could have been using magic weapon since level one, so he's been waiting a while to complain.

Btw, what does a 1e character get?


Oh yeah, more hit points, unless you're a wizard or cleric, then you get tons of spells.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Not at all.

Both systems use basically the same hp system, thus this has no impact on which one is more realistic.

However in 4e, if a dabble in something and learn a power, then I am just as effective with that power as someone who has been using it all their lives. That is less realistic then the dabbler learning a new power at novice level and needing to train and sudy with it just as long as the master did in order to become a master at it.

It just so happens that one measures the effectiveness of snk atk by dmg of HP, but really it wasn't the dmg, it was the effectiveness that really stands out as a difference between the two systems. 4e my effectiveness in all powers depends on my overall level, while in 3.x my effectiveness in a power depends on my level in that catagory of powers. 4e is better balanced, 3.x is closer to realistic.

Really, I think it important to understand such differences when dicussing such topics.

You said it yourself, "4e my effectiveness in all powers depends on my overall level, while in 3.x my effectiveness in a power depends on my level in that catagory of powers." Neither is realistic, because realistically a dagger in the neck kills you. The difference is in how the system determines effectiveness. Neither comes closer to reality because neither combat system comes close to representing reality.

Doing more damage based on actual level, or based on how long you've had an abiltity are both an abstraction. Thus both can be hand waved in any way you choose. Either, my experienced rogue does more damage when he shatters your kneecap, or anybody trained to shatter kneecaps does the same damage.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
As for atks, ini, fluctuating dmg, and hp, these elements are unchanged between the two systems and thus have no bearing on whether one system is more or less realistic, and have no real life counterpart anyway. In real life the first connecting strike wins 90% of time, resulting in the loser being dead or otherwise in no condition to continue, this is true even more for swords then guns.

So, your saying that combat in D&D is completely unrealistic due to hit points, but one edition's multi-classing system is more realistic due to the hit point damage potential?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

In the post I made above with the wizard stealing my glory after I crept up on the beholder, we actually fought and killed 5 beholders in less than 5 rounds at level 11ish. Myself (ranger barbarian) the rogue/trickster, and the cleric were all 10th level and the two wizards in the party were 11th level.

We started off with creeping down a tunnel (wizards, and cleric under silence and invisibility sphere, I was scouting and rogue was in the rear). I managed to sneak up on the beholder and managed to get a full attack off. I did a lot of damage, then the wizard (one who didn't cast the sphere) cast tossed the silence rock behind him, then cast disintegrate. Turns out the creature would have died even if he made his save because I got my full attack off. This triggered the other beholders in the room to turn and come at us, and stat fighting. That same wizard who stole my glory fired another disintegrate, and killed his second beholder, then the other wizard fired off her disintegrate and got the third beholder. Now there was only two left, and I managed to tag-team it with the Rogue and we both got crits on the thing and dropped it. The rogue cackled with glee because he had a 5d6 sneak attack and a short sword that once per day could deal 10d6 shock as part of an attack. Ended up rolling 17d6 + 10 while I only had 3d8 + 39. So now it was the 5th Beholders turn and he hit the rogue with a flesh to stone, and missed everything else. The Cleric had cast Righteous Might on the surprise round, and jumped up with me on the 5th beholder and we tore it to shreds.

We looked at each other and were all thinking, "Beholders? Cake."

So, 5 beholders just kept their anti-magic eyes closed so you could kill them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

Imagine you buy a toaster. The people responsible for that toaster get some of the money you paid for it, and you now own the toaster. You can do (nearly) anything you want with it. You can legally sell it to someone else. And it is ethical to do so, because you are giving up the use of that toaster. You will no longer be able to make toast.

Now imagine you buy a video game. The people responsible for that game get some of the money you paid for it, but you don't own that game. It is a copy of a piece of intellectual property for which you own a license for its use. You could sell it to someone else (assuming you had a way to transfer it, such as handing them the game's DVD), but you don't have the legal right to do so. This is because it is not expected that you will get indefinite use out of a video game. Most games receive a certain amount of play (a full single-player playthrough, for instance) and are then largely ignored. Game publishers (and developers, and retailers, etc.) depend on people purchasing their game from them in order to generate revenue. If you have a friend who wants to play a video game you own, by giving him that game you are ensuring that the people responsible for that game do not receive any benefit from his having experienced it. Effectively, multiple people were able to enjoy the full extent of the product, while only paying for a single person's use.

So, I can't make my morning toast, and then let my neighbor borrow the toaster? Or if I do, she'll have to pay a toast fee? Or, since the XBox One is the toaster, can I make toast and then sell it? Thus giving up my rights to bread, the games?

Nobody is denying Microsoft's right to do so, but it is kind of a dick move. I assume it's a way to make a profit off the secondary games market, and gain profits back from Game Stop. Well, ok, start by fighting Game Stop. Dig into their pockets and not mine. Offer a competing trade in service, or whatever. Nobody trading in their used games is getting a good deal, why punish them further other than just to make a buck.

And if this is a software issue, why is it a hardware solution? Your further example goes onto a song from iTunes, but not a CD, which I could buy (used even), burn and add to iTunes, and then sell or give to a friend. Rinse and repeat. So, where is Microsoft following an established example again?

I used to be a good player, until I wanted to be a good DM. I inherited a group and in an effort to meet the requirements of GMing I read and prepared and researched. And then I became our circles' worst rules lawyer. I can't hold back and let the game flow anymore, because I know how it is supposed to work. In the years since it was pointed out to me I've taken steps to try to avoid it, but now I'm paranoid of rules lawyering, yet still want to help. I like to think I did well it another GM's short-lived Skull & Shackles game, where I ended up being punished for half the session, but then he quit after a session.

GM is where I am comfortable now, and I've been told it's where I shine. I miss being a player, and jump at the sparse chances I have to play. But the GM's chair is where I'm comfortable now, and I accept it.

Link (4 times at least)
James (from Silent Hill 2)
My elven rogue from Skyrim

Steve Geddes wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:
Had to say Pathfinder.
Simple? I mean its an awesome resource but not exactly quick to pick up for a one shot, IMO.

If I had said 4th edition it would have been considered flame bait.

(And a 4e adventure, just in case.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had to say Pathfinder.

pres man wrote:
[B)It can lead to favoritism issues. If for plot reasons the GM's best friend/significant other keeps getting "saved" by the GM, because they understand the GM better and are able to interact with the plot better. Yet the guy who the GM is least friendly with never seems to get "saved", his characters don't vibe with the plot as well, that can become an issue out of game. If there is no fudging and rolls are made in the open it is hard to have those issues come up as much.

This is it for me. How do you decide when it's ok to let a PC bite it? If you fudge for one character, but not another it is unfair. You can say it's for plot reasons, but if the player found out there's a good chance of hurt feelings. One might ask, if you know the results you want, why even roll dice at all?

I started using a players roll all the dice option after a boring game with a particularly obvious fudging DM. Besides, there are so many ways to circumvent death in D&D, why bother fudging? Not to mention the potential story elements introduced by character death. It makes fudging seem like lazy DMing.

Ansel Krulwich wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Why does Norgorber sound silly?

Mostly because someone (at my table) inevitably mispronounces his name as "Norburger".

No one takes the murder cult seriously anymore.

At my table it has become Nobgobler. Though it has dried up since one player said it and then made (failed?) a DI roll and became cursed by Norgorber.

Wii-U and PC only though?

Name of PCs: Gnfr; Mrxyf
Class/Level: Fighter 10; Ranger 10
Adventure: Fortress of the Stone Giants (3.5)
Catalyst: Jotun Blood Hill Giant
Story: Not much of one, other than just taking way too much damage.

Name of PCs: Ozvanna
Class/Level: Sor/Rog/Arcane Trickster
Adventure: Fortress of the Stone Giants (3.5)
Catalyst: Disintegrate
Story: Mokmurian filled the hall with fog...

and Ozvanna turned invisible and tried to fly over it, she wasn't anticipating the power-up suit including see invisibility. The disintegration ray reduced her to fine mist. The tension broke when Mokmurian next turned the ranger into a fluffy white bunny.

rewrite history

Name of PC: Gnfr Bison
Class/Level: Fighter 10
Adventure: Fortress of the Stone Giants (3.5)
Catalyst: Charm monster and dispel magic
Story: The sorcerer made some friends...

The party sorceress used charm monster to befriend a pair of stone giants while disguised as Lucrecia. She fed them some lines of a treacherous plot against Mokmurian and put the two brutes to good use against a few other stone giants as well as against the charmed dragons. The lamia priestesses were a different story, they were canny enough to cast dispel magic. Gnfr, already wounded by a full attack by one of the Lamias under the effect of her strength boost, was trapped between enemies. And the sorceress, the target of the freed stone giants' rage, went invisible. Gnfr smashed remains were raised the next morning.

GregH wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:
Draconomicon wrote:

4) On its turn, a pinned creature may try to escape. A character that makes a successful opposed grapple check (as a melee attack) or Escape Artist check (as a a standard action) is no longer pinned but is stil grappling with the dragon. If the character makes two successful checks against the dragon, the character has escaped the grapple entirely.

5) On the dragon's turn, it can choose to maintain the pin or to release pinned characters. If it tries to maintain the pin, it makes a single grapple check opposed by crappie checks made by all pinned opponents. Creatures who beat the dragon's grapple check take no damage, while other creatures take the dragon's full crush damage. If the dragon decides not to maintain the pin, it can act normally, without regard to the creatures that share its space (since they are necessarily at least three sizes smaller than it is).

I didn't think to check the Draconomicon. But it basically confirms my original suspicion, that the rules don't support the dragon crushing and then attacking with its tail or bite.


I just saw my typo, don't know if it was autocorrect or subconscious, but it made me laugh.

Draconomicon wrote:

4) On its turn, a pinned creature may try to escape. A character that makes a successful opposed grapple check (as a melee attack) or Escape Artist check (as a a standard action) is no longer pinned but is stil grappling with the dragon. If the character makes two successful checks against the dragon, the character has escaped the grapple entirely.

5) On the dragon's turn, it can choose to maintain the pin or to release pinned characters. If it tries to maintain the pin, it makes a single grapple check opposed by crappie checks made by all pinned opponents. Creatures who beat the dragon's grapple check take no damage, while other creatures take the dragon's full crush damage. If the dragon decides not to maintain the pin, it can act normally, without regard to the creatures that share its space (since they are necessarily at least three sizes smaller than it is).

Wishlists and Lists

Wishlists allow you to track products you'd like to buy, or—if you make a wishlist public—to have others buy for you.

Lists allow you to track products, product categories, blog entries, messageboard forums, threads, and posts, and even other lists! For example, see Lisa Stevens' items used in her Burnt Offerings game sessions.

For more details about wishlists and lists, see this thread.


Parry does not have a wishlist.


Parry does not have any lists.