Low Templar

juanpsantiagoXIV's page

Organized Play Member. 327 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Whatever you think is an appropriate gp award for the party's current level.

That much ivory in bulk is probably worth at least 100 gp, the artistic/historical worth may put it much higher than that, but you can say that it's damaged, reducing the value.

I was thinking 150 due to the historical value, so 100 base sounds about right. Thanks!


Alright, so, I'm writing a campaign where the players can possibly find a 200-year old idol of Aroden. It's a two-foot tall ivory monstrance with the winged eye symbol in the top in good condition. Nonmagical. Any ideas on what I should set the price at?


Ringtail wrote:

What is your favorite pre-built adventure? Why?

Palace of the Silver Princess. It's a fabulous little meat-grinder of an adventure. Shoot, there's a decent chance on the first floor that the first thing the players will encounter is a mama bear and her two cubs. I like to convert it to each new edition as one of my many yardsticks for measuring the changes.


Quote:
Why do so many gamers like non-sequitors, puns, and dry humor?

Because they are punny.


DunjnHakkr wrote:


The random orc, who can crit you do death with his rusty greataxe, is just part of the fun, for ME.

Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.


Marc Radle wrote:

I'm re posting this from an industry mailing list I belong to because I think it's important ...

Jim Roslof, one of the early artists and art directors for TSR, is dying from cancer and does not have many days left.

That sucks. I'll get a card in the mail for him.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I find the best way to show the players that it was the dice that killed them is to roll all dice in the open, no screen. Then they can see that no fudging is going on. Works for Kirth's game.

Indeed. We've been doing this for quite some time.


Scott Betts wrote:


What I'm taking away from all of this is that you want to make completing video games some kind of elite club where only the very skilled get to fully enjoy the game they purchased. That's pretty clear elitism. Rather than being inclusive, and accommodating both easy and challenging playstyles, you want to be exclusive.

I mean, is that not what you're saying? In an effort to "dewussify" America, you want to make gaming into a "You must be at least this awesome to fully enjoy," club?

Because, frankly, that's kind of disgusting.

I happily and proudly fly my gaming elitist flag. I've never claimed anything else. If you aren't awesome, don't bother coming to my table. I don't pull punches, I don't go out of my way to ensure players' survivals, and I don't care who that bothers.


Scott Betts wrote:
If a player's investment to the campaign is at all tied to their character's involvement in the campaign, then removing that character from the campaign (via death or otherwise) necessarily lessens that player's involvement.

Involvement does not equal investment. You should still be just as interested and excited abou the campaign, whether you die a thousand times or not at all.

Quote:


If it's the former, that's fine; you care about having a challenging game experience for yourself. If it's the latter, you should seriously examine why you want to make a change to the game that doesn't affect you personally and doesn't...
Quote:
Save-or-die effects didn't have a lot of fans to begin with. Every major player in the industry is moving away from them, Pathfinder included. This is a good thing.

Irony, thy name is difficulty arguments.

Yes, I want the whole of gaming to move towards more difficult territory. I want all of society to stop being so wussified.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/blogs/birds-nest/_It_s_Part_of_the_Wussifica tion_of_America__Philadelphia-112524384.html


Scott Betts wrote:
They just want a game where they aren't going to have to start over from scratch due to poor luck on their part, because having to start over from scratch destroys the character's investment in the story and seriously damages the player's.

But it shouldn't. Going through a couple of characters during a campaign should not lessen your personal investment in the campaign. Poor luck can be a killer. That's simply a part of the gameplay that people like myself enjoy - otherwise, we'd houserule away save or die effects.

Now, I know that gaming, in general, is moving away from concepts that I tend to prefer. I just had almost this exact same conversaation not a week ago. I want games to be harder. Tabletop, video game, etc. - all of it. For video games, the difficulty of Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls, and pretty much anything from the coin-op era ought to be standard for the "easy" settings, IMO.


Aberzombie wrote:

From Wikipedia:

With Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym and Rose McGowan as the witch Marique. Could be good. I'm hoping that it at least makes enough money to interest the studio in a sequal, and that they then work on converting some actual REH Conan stories to the big screen.

Indeed. I would LOVE to see A Witch Is Born, Tower of the Elephant, or Queen of the Black Coast done as a movie.


Scott Betts wrote:


The issue is that you perceive this as younger players "needing to win" or "needing things to be easy". While that may all too often be the solution offered to those younger players, the issues that they have with old school gaming are not "I can't win," or "Things are too hard."

The complaints I hear most often leveled at old-school gaming are:

1. Combat is too "swingy".
2a. Death is too common at low levels...
2b. ...And therefore, younger players tend to not want to "make an investment" in their character.

If you have to adjust to increase character survival to get younger players to make an investment, you are making it easier.

And yes, sometimes, rocks do fall, and you die.


I am sort of in the same situation. Group fell apart recently, trying to get them back together. Younger players tend to want to win too much for my taste. I wonder if things will continue this way, and if in 30 years, the players just getting into the game will sneer at how easy the youth of that day and age want everything to be.


Also, you can add Requiem for A Dream to my above statement.


No list of bad movies will ever be complete without...

EXTERMINATORS OF THE YEAR 3000.


Mok wrote:

After reading so many threads, even creating ones, that involve something to do with point buy, I've realized the array spread that I want for my characters.

18, 16, 14, 14, 13, 12

It comes out to a 42 point buy.

In my mind, that is a right and proper spread. You're a true hero, above average at everything, and being excellent at many things. My characters wouldn't be inhuman, but they would be the "total package" that they ought to be, right from level 1. I quite often dump several stats because I want my characters to excel at what they are meant to do, but it's annoying that you have to then have this radical swing with this "gotcha" weakness.

If I had my way, I'd play with that spread from here on out. I'd happily take +1 CR challenges to compensate for the underlying math of the system. Being able to go into any situation with confidence, being able to pull off anything well or at least with competency is the kind of character I want to play.

I'm hoping this is some kind of very clever satire. I really am.


Ice_Deep wrote:
I can also cite people in podcasts who work for Paizo (IIRC) who stated you don't need to give everyone the "big 6" to compete in Pathfinder.

And they're absolutely right.

IRT OP:

I, personally, have never had a problem with magic marts. Sometimes they show up, sometimes they don't. It makes little difference.


Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:


True. I have been trying to make myself get iced tea but I dislike the artificial sweeteners
I make tea (I live in Georgia, so saying that feels redundant) with a minimum of sugar - one level cup per gallon. It isn't syrupy like most restaurants make, but it also doesn't have that acrid edge that unsweetened tea has.
I supersaturate my tea, 1 1/4 cup per quart. yum yum sugar rush!

Tell your liver, kindneys and pancreas that I feel their pain.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Words fail me at times and this is one of them. Some seem to think that faith lacks any reason or forethought. I am just the opposite, while I lost my trust in religious institutions for a while, I cannot ignore the truth that I have witnessed. Expressing it is much harder than I am used to, being fairly quiet on many subjects in person. This being quite personal on many levels.

Indeed.

Faith is its own reason.


Xyll wrote:


Side Note:

I have seen some of the most outspoken RAW Lawyers on these boards make similar comments about the XP system as written in the book. Seems kind of Hypocritical.

Just my opinion

As an outspoken RAW DM, I totally understand this. Experience advancement is usually the first thing people alter, including myself. I only play with a couple of houserules, and my experience rules are one of those. We use the slow chart, and I halve the experience gained from each encounter, including rp and skill encounters. When players level less often, they are far more likely (IME) to concentrate on making memorable rp choices than to worry about gaining that next feat.


Dragonsong wrote:


True. I have been trying to make myself get iced tea but I dislike the artificial sweeteners

I make tea (I live in Georgia, so saying that feels redundant) with a minimum of sugar - one level cup per gallon. It isn't syrupy like most restaurants make, but it also doesn't have that acrid edge that unsweetened tea has.


Sebastian wrote:


This thread is for the many posters on the board who are faithful (and willing to share their faith) to describe how they found their faith, the difference it has made in their lives, or any similar stories about how they, individually, have been bettered by such faith.

Awesome thread.

I was raised in my faith (Christianity, of the Protestant flavor) but was never satisfied with a church until I was introduced (by my then girlfriend, now wife) to The Plymouth Brethren tradition.

In my humble opinion, the denomination which I am now part of is a set of true seekers after the will of God.


Tarren Dei wrote:
Please don't pull my geek card but ... I'm watching my first episode of Doctor Who as I type.

I just recently started watching the new series. I loved the old ones, and the new ones seem pretty good so far.


Boy, this topic died kinda quick.

I forgot to list an artist whose art i only recently was introduced to - Kerem Beyit:

Red Dragon


MooNinja wrote:


I stated a timeline of every 5 years or so. I think everyone could agree that 5 rules sets in a decade would be pretty ridiculous.

Five years is way too short. Try each decade, bare minimum.


Kthulhu wrote:
I'd say keep iterative attacks, but ONLY for fighters. But eliminate Attacks of Opportunity. They're a decent idea, but they're eat up far more time than they're worth, in my less-than-humble opinion.

Eh, they were never a problem for us.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

4) An end to iterative attacks, as someone stated above. They're so much more trouble than they're worth. (See the Gunslinger playtest for an excellent example of this.)

I'd like to say a word on iterative attacks,since several people now have mentioned them. Iterative attacks are not a bad thing, regardless of how much bookkeeping they lead to. Multiple attacks are something I really, really like about the system. What I don't like is the degenerating base attack bonus applied to them over several strokes - after all, 1st and 2nd edition din't make anyone take a penalty to extra attacks. It would work out far better if they all got the same bonus (So, for example, a 20th level fighter would get 4 at +20, while a 20th level rogue would get 3 at +15).


Dark_Mistress wrote:
Ok maybe not to that level of realism. Though i thought that was fine art. What I was thinking wasn't that real looking. I just meant people in the art look like people. No to big muscles, right height to width, and body looking like something you could see on a real person. Even if it is a idealized person, like a professional model or athlete.

Oh, I definitely agree. Retardulous muscles/proportions are an enjoyment killer for me.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
I like ... for lack of a better term realistic art. by that I mean art where the drawings look more or less like real people(sure many women are from the future in most art and got boob jobs :) ))
The term you're looking for, specifically, is photorealism.
Ok I'll buy that as the name, sounds right anyways.

Here's the wiki (not the greatest source, I know): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism


Dark_Mistress wrote:
I like ... for lack of a better term realistic art. by that I mean art where the drawings look more or less like real people(sure many women are from the future in most art and got boob jobs :) ))

The term you're looking for, specifically, is photorealism.


Pirate wrote:

Yar!

Please do not turn this into a thread about what is/is not appropriate for fantasy art. I do not want to see a flame war erupt because someone feels the need to continually post on how some piece of artwork offended them and the subsequent morality back-and-forth that will ensue because of it.

I DO want people to talk about art that they enjoy. I want people to share art that they enjoyed with others. And I want to discuss what it is about that piece of art makes you happy.

Good idea. I love art threads. I paint in my spare time when the mood strikes.

First, a list of artists I love:
Clyde Caldwell
Larry Elmore
Keith Parkinson (RIP)
Jason Engle
Michael Komarck
Ciruelo Cabral
Frank Frazetta (Also RIP. I started painting because of this man.)
Boris Vallejo
Julie Bell
Ben Wooten
Steve Argyle

And now, some pieces:

The Barbarian, Frank Frazetta - I have a print of this in my study]

King Arthur, Michael Komarck - this man's talent is unbelievable

Dragora's Dungeon - I've always loved this one

Basic D&D, Red Dragon - From the cover of the Mentzer set

Charlemange's Champion - This is how I picture my cavaliers


Thanks, Jeremy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wild Card wrote:
Is min-maxing the root of all evil?

No. Much like the verse you are referencing - money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is the root of all evil - it is not min-maxing, but the love of min-maxing that is the problem. There is a world of difference.

Bear with me.

If you take nothing but feats and skills and features designed to make you better in combat, it isn't a problem. It's only when that becomes the be-all and end-all of the game that it becomes a problem.

Spoiler:

The same applies to the verse - to most "rich" people, money is simply an economic necessity, and having more of it simply makes life easier. Most of them don't gloat over their wealth, nor do they tend to get it through greed, cheating people, and any of the other number of ridiculous acusations thrown at them by the MSM.


Justin Franklin wrote:
...to not come out for 6 to 8 years.

Try 10-12.

Hey, I can dream.

Also - to be completely backwards-compatible. The next "edition" should simply be a rules clarification update, though there aren't that many rules that need clarifying.


Slow, and I halve experience on top of that. I preferred the philosophy that levelling should not be a given, so I've stuck with it.


Let's see...

Daern (who is not a cleric, but a fighter) performs marriages, funerals, and mundane armor crafting for cash.

Gauthak runs an Adventurer's supply shop in skullport.

Haen makes the finest Serren wood bows you can find.

Shump runs a shipping company.

Mordis runs a bar.

Droog (an orc) runs a small dwarven citadel that he and a band of humans founded - go figure.

Brianna (a good drow) owns a set of franchises that manufacture magical armor and robes from spidersilk to order.

Viktor is the Count (and now only ruler of the area, so I guess he's King, by all rights) of a small group of lands and head of a group of knights who patrol on giant bats at dawn and dusk.

Crud has used his Endless Bag of Sausage to start a butcher's shop.

There's plenty of others, but those are the highlights.


Ashiel wrote:
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?

I personally shave xp in half, AND use the "slow" xp progression, on the basis that it simply seems too fast to me. Of course, most games seem that way to me, so there you are. And, on top of that, my group's good with it, and the other DMs in the group do this as well, so it isn't so much a mandate as a general understanding.

Quote:
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters.

Yeh, I've played with jerky DMs like that. We ejected them from the group.


This is the best advice out there, bar none. Take it to heart.

Passages:

God wrote:


1 Corinthians 13:3-7 (Note that most quotations of this pssage do not include verse 3, but it is essential to understanding that the passage is not simply discussing love).

And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This is not just about sex - it's about commitment of the highest order. Be of one mind and one spirit. Stand by each other always, unless the other makes a morally reprehensible choice.


Seabyrn wrote:
Paul McCarthy wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
If only he would write the rest of the series, but we all know there won't be any more. Martin's out of oomph; the series is dead in the water.
I think we will see A Dance with Dragons but that's it. I sure hope it's good after the wait and the mediocrity of A Feast For Crows.
I know I'm in the minority, but I really enjoyed A Feast For Crows (not as much as the first three, but it wasn't a huge drop off for me).

I love AFFC. Go figure.


Xyll wrote:


I look at my own adventures and see where I stole ideas from books and it bothers me.

There's nothing new under the sun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xyll wrote:
I once had a player throw his paladin character off a griffon that was 500' in the air because I told him that the griffon refused to be his special mount. I thing was i was going to give him a griffon mount but not that one. I let the dice rollout and their was a dead paladin. He rarely plays as he only likes 2nd edition which he is a great GM.

That doesn't seem bad, just funny. "You won't be my special mount! I'm going to end it all!" It's like a manic depressive samurai turned up to 11.


Xyll wrote:

I think the optimization is a 3.XX players perspective. I am from an earlier time and accept what my character recieves with little desire to shop out the best equipment.

I start with stats and build a character around them with it taking form the more I work with it.

My best characters are those with quirky backgrounds. One of my favorite was a random character that in 2nd edition went from a 35 year old male 12th level theif to a 15 year old female 9th level thief after some tragic runins with girdles, vampires and drinking strange potions.

Ah, the good old days of, "We don't have a magic user and we foud a potion. Paper-Rock-Scissors to see who drinks it!"

I had some great times like that.


Xabulba wrote:


I like the NCIS cheesecake but your right that it dosn't resemble reality in any way. But what do you expect from Donald Bellisario the same person who brought such thought draining shows as Magnum P.I. and Quantum Leap.

Both of which I love. Can't get into Abby. Ziva David, on the other hand...


Andrew Tuttle wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:

Right here on Paizo.com (and for just $2.00 no less)!

Eternal Rome

Thanks for the link, Digitalelf!

I tossed a 2.00 USD copy (!) into my cart and combined it (along with a couple of other things) with Sanctum of the Serpent God soon to ship.

I'm looking forward to giving this campaign setting a read. I've been a fan of Roman History for a while, and really enjoyed HBO's Rome. I've just watched one episode of the first season of Star's Spartacus, but it looks like it's a fun watch.

-- Andy

I enjoyed the first season, but they really drag the whiny introspective emotional parts out far too long.


Radavel wrote:
I have been watching Spartacus (TV Series) and I am inspired to run an all gladiator campaign. Has anyone else done this? What problems have you encountered? Any suggestions you can offer?

I've run several arena-based campaigns. The key is to emphasize to the PCs that while they may be teammates this week, they may be mortal enemies next week.


Count Buggula wrote:


Wow. You have a much stronger gut than I do.

What can I say? I love 80's cartoons and find them highly superior to cartoons today.


juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
King's Dragon, Crown of Stars book 1

Finished this one - fabulous book. Looking for the sequel. Rererereading The Arabian Nights in the meantime. Just finished the third calender's tale. Lined up next - Prince of Dogs, if I can find it, and if not, either Seeds of Betrayal or Shadow Gate.


Kthulhu wrote:

The other was the the Federation no longer used currency, which would be problematic even for internal workings, but it would make dealing with other cultures that DID use currency all but impossible. If he gets no paycheck, how can Chief O'Brian afford to spend time in Quark's holo-suites? Hell, how any ANY Starfleet personnel have any interaction with the Ferengi? And why the hell is Chief O'Brian the only enlisted person in the entirety of Starfleet?

Well, you see, that all derives from the "MONEY AND WEALTH ARE BAD MMKAY" mindset that the show's writers seem to have been duped into. You'll notice that on DS9 (different set of writers, who lifted plots and possibly the whole production bible from the first season of Bab 5) the Starfleet officers have become much more pragmatic - many of them do deals on the side in order to have real currency.


Velcro Zipper wrote:

Psst..hey juanpsantiagoXIV.

** spoiler omitted **

Now that I know that, I'm torn between being disappointed and relieved.

THANKS FOR MAKING THINGS MORE COMPLICATED


Count Buggula wrote:
You know what's worse than the two existing D&D movies? The Dragonlance movie (yes, I bought it when it first came out, and then raged for several days in fury at the abomination they created) and the old D&D animated series.

I love that series, even now.

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>