I was thinking about this thread this weekend as I was selecting my background music for a murder investigation session. I used:
Zombie Zombie - A land for renegades
My copy is 33 RPM vinyl. But I do believe that they released this album as a CD as well and I am sure you could get it in MP3 format. The video for this band is pretty cool it is a still animation done with G.I. Joe's that is a fairly decent homage to the 1982 John Carpenter "The Thing"
I also used last weekend another record that is an old one but a good one.
The soundtrack to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which actually has a really creepy vibe to a lot of it mixed in with some decent classical. My record of this album is very barely an EX so it has a lot of grain in it, which really adds to the creep factor.
Nox Arcana - any album except the Christmas one should do you nice.
(Danzig)Black Aria I&II
Aphex Twin - Selected Ambient Works Vol 2. and some of Drukqs.
Eyvind Kang - Athlantis
If you want to try something that is a little different,but not traditionally scary you could try John Zorn. I used Six Litanies to Heliogabalus for Background music for a WOD session that had the players exploring an old haunted hospital and it worked out VERY well.
As a side note to Steve Jobs killing someones dog. A good friend of mine has a wife who is an Apple MILITANT (I got beaned in the face with a dinner roll for suggesting that a certain Apple product was not as good as it was being made out to be, one evening while at dinner with them). Several of years ago we had to tote here new ginormous extra big i-makewebpages Apple monitor into her new home office (which 4-5 years ago was remarkably hard to find locally. things sure have changed.) A couple of days after it was installed she moved it back to the back left corner of her desk and I am not sure if the desk tipped (it was one of those glass topped desks mounted to the rest of the desk with suction cups) or if she hooked one of the feet of the thing over the edge, but about an hour later the monitor took a swan dive off of the side of the desk and did in fact kill her cat (the cathode ray tube imploded on impact with the cat and the floor). The funny part was I think she was more upset about loosing the monitor than she was about the cat. But I still laugh when I hear arguments about Steve Jobs or Bill Gates killing someones dog. I guess cat death does not incite quite the same reaction.
I would prefer if character sheet apps were released in formats that are not vendor specific. I don't personally prefer Apple products, however I think the device upgrade treadmill that their marketing team has made is ingenious.
That being said I don't begrudge anyone else for the choices of tech they are into. I just wish that if folks are going to design some cool gaming tools they keep them open. If you choose a single platform you will alienate part of your audience. WOTC did it with their Character Builder. I would hate to see a repeat of that with official or 3rd party Pathfinder application offerings.
If there is a good PF app made, I would love to see it released in multiple formats or in a format compatible with multiple software/hardware environs. Then folks that are into the Apple innovation bling can get it on the newest hottest piece of tech, and other gamers that are not into that can get it on our ugly, poorly marketed devices as well.
Yes my post is a little snarky, but please just deal with it. I am not anti-Apple. In fact I perform network infrastructure, security, and design to feed my family, pay for my house, and pay for my Pathfinder bling. I support and design networks that have both Apple and Microsoft products in them.I have found that the money I get for supporting clients into Apple spends just the same as the dollars from my Microsoft networks. I am well versed in the mantras of the hardcore followers of both companies, and frankly I am tired of them both. So if my post has a little bite to it, please excuse me. It is aimed at the argument itself rather than the proponents of either side of issue. The whole Apple vs.Microsoft heat just feels like I am reliving the Nintendo vs. Sega heat of my childhood.
I still hold that nonlethal damage does not count as it is tallied separately and never actually deals HP damage. It is kept as a separate tally and does not actually "Wound" the character. But if its all the same to you, and unless they are going to offer real clarification I am going to bow out of the debate (not that it hasn't been a pleasure debating with you, because it has been) as it seems we are not really making any headway towards coming to a resolution. I would love to here what the designers think on the issue or get some input from them however.
Sorry for the double post but I don't believe nonlethal would be split with shield other. Please check the SRD entry for nonlethal damage:
"Dealing Nonlethal Damage: Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious."
As non lethal damage does not count as real damage and is in fact not deducted from the warded creatures actual HP I do not believe there is anything to "split". But that of course is just my own interpretation of the rules, YMMV.
Aye I have seen folks who prefer it both ways. Its an interesting topic for sure. As I previously stated I have in the past used house rules to swing the damage type to the cleric along with the damage, but in those cases I still give any of the damage the cleric resists back to the fighter. The whole mystic transference of wounds thing ties me up. In my mind if the warded creature is trying to transfer a wound to the cleric and the cleric resists some of the transfer that the wound would remain on the warded creature. But that is wholly in the realms of house rules.
Here is the spell:
"School abjuration; Level cleric 2, paladin 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
This spell wards the subject and creates a mystic connection between you and the subject so that some of its wounds are transferred to you. The subject gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and a +1 resistance bonus on saves. Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. Forms of harm that do not involve hit points, such as charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects, are not affected. If the subject suffers a reduction of hit points from a lowered Constitution score, the reduction is not split with you because it is not hit point damage. When the spell ends, subsequent damage is no longer divided between the subject and you, but damage already split is not reassigned to the subject.
If you and the subject of the spell move out of range of each other, the spell ends.."
Its specific effect is that half of all hit point damage dealt to the warded creature is transferred to the caster via a mystical connection. Please note that the target of shield other is not the caster but the warded subject.
My question to you in an effort to understand your position more accurately what text specifically in the spells texts leads you to the assumption that the original source of the damage would carry over as opposed to shield other being the source of the damage?
Because what I am seeing is: "The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you"
To me this implies a strict numeric transference of damage via the spell shield other. I think for your stance to be accurate it would need to be worded as something more like this: "The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. The source of this damage does not change"
I think the real hinge on the debate is whether shield other is the source of the damage or the originating effect. If shield other is the source then the damage would be untyped and pretty much unavoidable by the cleric, if the damage carried the original typing of the source that damaged the warded creature then shield other could possibly be one the best defensive spells in the game especially at high level. Not that it isn't badass even if the source of the damage the cleric takes is untyped.
I am not saying your wrong. IN fact I have had players that felt as you do in the past hence the mentioning of houserules I had used for those groups in 3.5 in the past. I just don't interpret the damage sources the same as you. I view shield other as the source for the damage the cleric is taking as opposed to the fireball as the cleric would not be taking the damage if shield other was not in place.
But I do feel I understand your view and perhaps some clarification on the subject should be in order.
Same with S.R., sort of. If the Fighter has S.R., and negates a spell, the Cleric does not take 1/2 of what the Fighter would have taken. At the same time, if the fireball hit only the Fighter, the Cleric would not get S.R. to resist the damage, because the fireball is the source of the damage, but it is not directly affacting him. The damage is being transferred via another spell that does not allow S.R. on his end."
I think you are incorrect. There are two spell effects damaging the cleric in the fireball example:
Fireball does fire based damage. Shield other is untyped magic damage. The fireball does not hit the cleric twice. It "hits" once and shield other "hits" once.
In the event of fireball: Both the cleric and and the fighter would get their SR, DR, and resistances applied to the initial casting of fireball.
In the event of Shield Other: If the fighter has SR, they will have to lower it or the cleric will have to beat a caster level check to cast the spell on the fighter. The clerics SR is moot as she is not the target of the spell. Shield other targets a single creature (the warded creature), the caster automatically takes half of all HP damage.
So lets look at the example again with both SR 10 and resist fire 10 on both the fighter and the cleric.
Its still a 60 point fireball So lets look at the damage resolution step by step.
Fireball damage resolution:
1. Enemy caster successfully casts a 60 point fireball in an area containing both the cleric and the fighter.
2. Enemy caster makes 2 caster level checks against SR 10 (as the fireball is an AOE it goes off in the area even if the caster fails his check against SR protected targets in the area). We will assume the enemy caster passes these checks to continue the resolution.
3. Both the cleric and the fighter make reflex saving throws against the DC of the spell (as well as unattended items). We will assume they both fail for this example.
4. The fireball sends 60 points of fire typed magical damage to both the fighter and the cleric and this damage is checked against any resistances, or DR that they may possess. In this case they both have resistance against fire of 10 which lowers the total damage dealt to each target by 10 before it is applied to their HP (as per the spell "resistance"). The fighter also has a ward on it that reduces all damage that is dealt that does HP damage on it by 50%, lowering the amount the fighter takes from the fireball to 25. This also sends 25 points of untyped magic damage to the cleric. (which we will address after we deal damage from the fireball).
5. The fireball deals 50 damage to the cleric (60-10 from resistance) and 25 damage to the fighter (60-10 from resistance /2 from shield other) as the end result. The damage is applied to the characters in this step. Now on to the shield other damage starting back at step 1.
Shield other damage resolution:
1. Casting is not an issue as the spell was cast prior.
2. The cleric gets no SR as she is not the target of shield other.
3. Shield other does not provide the cleric with a saving throw as the cleric is not the target of the spell.
4. Shield other sends 25 points of untyped magic damage to the cleric and this damage is checked against any DR or resistances the cleric might possess. In this case we will assume the cleric does not have resistance to non-typed magical damage. (but you could even rule it that the cleric is offered no DR or resistances because she is not the target of the spell but the net result will probably be the same.)
5. Shield other deals 25 points of damage to the cleric and this damage is applied.
Fighter: takes 25 points of fire damage
This is just how we handle it in our games. I feel it is an accurate and fair interpretation of the rules. Basically the cleric is offering to take half of the fighters wounds. The fighter has already had a chance to resist, save against and otherwise reduce the wounds. In my home games we sometimes allow the wounds to come to the cleric as the same type of damage as the original sort as a house rule (at least we did in some of our 3.x games, we have not really houseruled PFRPG all that much yet), thus allowing the cleric to receive its resistances against the original source of the damage (twice in the case of the example). But we would also ruled that and damage the cleric resisted in this way would be reapplied to the warded target. This would allow the cleric more control over the spell but not allow for a double dip of damage resistance in the pool of damage being dealt to the party as a whole.
But as always YMMV. Just sharing how I think the rules work and the houserules my groups have used in the past dealing with this particular mechanic.
I would not let the player have free a free bastard sword prof. I do feel that the bastard sword is probably the best match stat wise for a katana.
I offer you a couple of solutions in the realms of house rules for your bard to get use of a bastard sword as a a katana:
solution 1 (rule mechanic): I would let a player take an exotic weapon feat at 1st level without meeting the +1 BaB condition with the following stipulations in effect. when they use the exotic weapon as a first level toon they get a -2 to all attack rolls with it. When they use the weapon as a level 2 toon they get a -1 penalty to all rolls made with it. When they reach level 3 (the point when they would normally be able to take the feat) I would let them use the weapon without penalty.
solution 2:(story route) Reflavor a long sword to be a Wakizashi. Use it for a few levels and roleplay the character using that time to find a master to teach the the art Bushido. The Katana was manily the weapon of the samurai, and was often reserved for the elite noble military class anyways. It does not make a whole lot of sense for a level 1 character to be rocking one. It is the mark of master and a noble. With this option you don't get immediate mechanical gratification. But you set yourself up for it, and you get to have a story that is true to your theme and within the rules. Besides it will give you time to save up for the weapon as a katana in all rights should be a masterwork weapon.
Hope you figure it out.
What a long thread! I would like to offer my own opinions on some of the subjects being discussed.
On the topic of the OP: I feel that killing the tieflings was probably an evil act. If you have never encountered an opponent before and that opponent has done nothing specifically to harm the character or those the character cares for, then I see no reason why surrender would not be acceptable. Being in a thieves hideout, likely makes the tieflings not so much good folks, but their presence there does not mean that killing them is justifiable as good or even neutral act. The characters did not seem to have any information about them other than they were likely involved somehow. That seems like not enough information on them to make a morally high value judgment on their lives after they had already surrendered.
Now if the characters had encountered the tieflings before and knew that accepting their surrender would not put a stop to their badwrong, or they had done something specific to the party that demanded recompense I might be steered to believe that it would be considered a neutral act. It seems more like they were killed because it was convenient. Why leave potential threats behind in an adventure site? Sure its the most effective way to play, but it is very gamist. But in the end its really up to the group whether or not it is truly evil. At a glance it seems evil, but perhaps there is more story-wise with the cleric and tieflings that would put it solidly in the neutral arena.
On the topic of execution never being a good act. I disagree. I think it can be a good act in the right circumstances. If the person who is being executed is a threat to innocent life (usually determined by them killing innocents previously) then they need to be stopped. Now depending on how "good" the group is, execution likely may not be the first course of action. Perhaps they would try to subdue, or redeem, or banish the threat depending on their moral views. But killing the source the loss of innocent life should not be irrevocably non-good.
It should not be an act taken lightly for good characters (or sometimes even neutral ones), but I do feel that with the taking of life that it can be a good thing. But a lot of that depends on the intent of the lifetaker, and the views of the society they live in.
For example killing an evil wizard who has killed hundreds of innocents, enslaved others and sold them to denizens of the lower planes, escaped from capture several times, and is planning another assault on a peaceful community of gnomes, should not be an evil act if the reason for killing him was to save the gnomes and bring justice to the fallen. Doing so would appease the Lawful spectrum of alignment as it offers some justice to those who have been slain by this villain and it appeases good as it protects the innocent gnome village and any other potential targets the villain may target in the future.
You could have another group trying to kill the same evil wizard for an entirely different reason and it not be a LG act. Say a rival wizard wanted to kill the evil villain because he wanted access to his library. That would certainly be an evil act, despite the fact that it would have side effects that helped the greater good.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the alignment system in D&D does not work well on a plane. It has a lot to do with the intent of the characters. Good characters can do things that would sometimes be considered neutral or evil and still serve the greater good, and some villains are hopelessly evil but have soft spots and do good occasionally. This does not mean that they are no longer bad guys.
I try and keep it from being black and white in my games. I use the rules as guidelines in the arena of alignment and not as absolutes. If a character of a particular alignment in one of my games crosses the guideposts set in the PFRPG book then we talk about it and figure out why the act was done, if it was not done for a reason that strongly supports the story and moral values established for the character then I note it and move on. Even if it strongly supports the morals of the character I will begin to note it if infractions are constantly offered with the same excuse. Depending on the character this will have different effects. I am a little more strict with divine characters. But ultimately I move towards shifting alignments towards what the characters are actually playing if the infractions are habitual. But this a process I involve the players with and alignment change has long been a theme in our games and it is one our group enjoys.
But YMMV, as intent, moral happenings, and even the very concepts of good and evil will vary between groups and individuals. But alignment is not a terrible mechanic as long as it is used in a way that is applicable to the story and players. Acting out of alignment makes for diversity and often very dramatic conflicts that can add a great deal of depth to a story. Many great works of fiction have strongly defined characters troubled with acting out of their nature and coping with doing those things to further their ideals. Sometimes the very story itself is about a characters path of changing values. In fact, one the reasons I like Paizo's work so much is that a lot of the villains and NPCs use their personal motivations as a focal point and the alignment while present, does not seem to be the main concept of a lot of the NPCs. This makes them more interesting to read about and certainly more fun for me to run.
Thanks for reading my longwinded post.
I like the choices presented in the modules. It makes things more interesting for my group. In fact I wish they would take it forward another step and make an AP designed for EVIL players with neat plot hooks based on the opposite. Roleplaying redemption or the total falling to chaos is some quality stuff.
Then that and the multitasking are probably a deal breaker for me. Not trying to say its going to be a bad product, but I want something (for my game table) where I can have a map program running tab between it and other tools I use for my game (like PDFs) and such, and that I can play Nanaca Crash on while my players take forever to level up their toons.
I think those little solid state laptops can give all of that for about 200-250. I'll miss out on the touch screen, but If it is vital to have touch, I do have a tablet notebook (despite the trashing of these already existing devices in this thread and others I have always been quite pleased with my tablet). Its not as small or sexy looking as an apple product, but it works if I need it to.
But none the less I will keep watching the product. Thanks for the reply.
I went to the other gaming shop in town this weekend. (well its not really a gaming shop, but rather a hole in the wall that sells a smattering of different things aimed at the science fiction/fantasy crowd). I have not visited he store in over a decade. It never has anyone in it and I often wondered if it was just some money laundering front because it did not ever seem to do any business. They had a miserable selection of RPGs. only about 20-25 books in total. But I did notice that 4 of them were Pathfinder.
The other cool thing that they had was a mint copy of the Paladium TMNT, and a sealed box of Return to Undermountain both reduced to 5 bucks ea. I did not get a chance to talk to the shopkeeper about PF. She seemed to be more interested in whatever was on her Tv in her office. She did not even see me come in and I probably could have walked out with the books and she would not have noticed. But I eventually got her up to the counter so I could releive the store of its Undermountain box and its pristine copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (my own copy has been through its paces and the cover has actually started to divide with the thin lair of protective coating separating from the paper cover.)
Best 10 bucks I have spent this year. I am glad the other thread started. it peaked my interest and I ended up dropping into this store as a result.
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Close But I think the clerics (if it was my cleric :) ) in game response would be something closer to"The one true faith teaches that crating abominations against life is a terrible crime and is thusly forbidden, so be warned that that you proceed with this act that you will become an enemy of the church and I will be forced to act as an agent of God's will and put an end to it, and perhaps you if you become lost to the causes of darkness."
Another interesting thing to think about is that cleric spells with the evil descriptor require an Unholy symbol to cast. which takes them squarely out of the realms of good deities and there ilk.
While animate dead itself does not require a focus, it should be on the clerics list as well as the wizards. I would not think a cleric who knows that this spell is unholy in nature would suddenly think its cool and somehow not unholy if the wizard did it instead.
(not to try and take the conversation away from the malconvoker, I just can't add anything to that debate until I see the PRC text)
I would have to look at the full prestige class. What I was able to pull on the interwebs was a detailed summary. I would lean towards the malconvoker either being intended as a prime example of exception based design or the class just being poorly conceived and designed. (which IMO happened a lot towards the end of 3.5 in official splats)
But I will bow out of the conversation about the malconvoker as I don't own complete scoundrel and can't really offer anything else on it aside what I drew from what I read.
But you are correct by the rules, if they are summoning evil creatures then yes they would become evil over time and each summoning would be considered an evil act by the core rules. This is of course unless the prestige class has some type of exception listed in its texts that states that those summonings are not in fact evil acts (the exception).
Maybe if someone could post the ability from the class that specifies that they summon evil creatures we could have a closer look at the text. Otherwise I would just be guessing.
just looked up malconvoker. I would not call it evil unless the summons were used for evil purposes. The summon monster spell does not have the evil descriptor. your evil summons can't be taken from by a more buku malconvoker, your evil summons aren't created from the bodies of the good folks in town. If you die your evil summon goes back to where it came from. In short you aren't really CREATING evil IMO as a malconvoker, but rather forcing it to do your bidding.
While I would personally probably keep a good eye on it in a game I was running and I could see a good cleric taking issue with it, it does not appear to by RAW an evil act.
But just as you could houserule skeletons to not be evil I could easily see malconvokers being labeled evil, being exposed often to the presence of evil beings.
edit: BTW omega the class is in complete scoundrel.
By RAW creating undead is an evil act. you could always make houserules in your game to make it not so. there are some fabulous examples of this being done in settings like Eberron where the elves in that setting make undead types called "deathless" that are decidedly not evil.
In most cases yes the good aligned cleric should have an issue with the undead. If you want to play it differently in your game, go for it!
Do what feels right if you don't like the rules as written. Its not going to break the game if you want to make the creation of undead an act that is not evil.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
How do I, as a player, help my local store become the store I want it to be? I've tried to engage them in conversation about product. I've offered suggestions. I've made them aware of promotions or events that they seemed unaware of (PF RPG launch, Demonweb launch, etc.) but they ignore it.
Have you had a frank conversation with the store manager? Let them know what they need to do to get your sales? I love my FLGs but there was a time when they weren't very accommodating to me in the past. At first I avoided the store then finally I went in and sought out the owner and asked him if he wanted to make 600-1400 bucks a month from my gaming group or 0 bucks. He of course responded that he would love to have our patronage.
We had a 20-30 minute talk about the products and services that my players and I wanted to buy from them. They did not immediately turn around and buy 1000 dollars worth of the product I asked for nor did they even start stocking it regularly. But they got some of it and they called me to let me know when it arrived. True to my word, my players and I bought all of the stock that we had requested. Over the years since then if I ask for something they get it on the next shipment. Its not as fast as I could get it on the internet, and I am regularly waiting 2-4 weeks past release date for Paizo product to arrive. But they get enough for me and the PF system has been gathering popularity in the store due to them getting my orders and several more copies to put on their shelves.
I guess the point I am trying to make is approach the person who owns the store and see if they want your money. I have had good and bad luck with small business retail in the past. But if a store caters to a hobby or interest I like but they don't carry my specific favorite genre, I will approach the management and inform them of my wish to shop there. With the exception of the record shops in my town (which seem to believe that they know more about my musical tastes than me and refuse to order LPs for me even though they are carried by their main supplier) I have never really had an experience where a retailer refused to get a product for me. Hell, even the local grocery store stocks a couple of items for me that they did not carry simply because I went into the managers office and asked them too. They were surprised at the request (I am not guessing a lot of folks make such requests) but the next week when I came in the food items I requested were there and have been there since.
As far as free RPG day and special events. Go in an ask about the event. Display your interest. If they don't respond ask them why.
I tend to always shop at FLGS. Its not just that I want to support my local game store, but rather that I want to support my local economy. If those shops stay open then their owners and employees get paid, and can hopefully spend some of that money in other local establishments and the process can repeat. I know it does not work that way all the time in practice, as there will always be bargain hunters seeking these items on the internet for the lowest common denominator. Thats fair. I buy LPs on the internet even though there are two local stores that sell them because they won't order me the LPs I want to buy. I tried to give them my money and they refused. I am on draw for all the products I like at my FLGS (meaning they put a 1 copy of every thing on my list in a box with my name on it and I come in couple times a month and buy the contents of the box). If they miss something I mention it once, and if its not in the box the next time I come in I buy it on the interwebs. I also give them a crack at back issues and legacy material I am looking for, but they usually don't get it. When they do come across it I get it from them, if they don't I use the web.
I like having local businesses to shop at. This is why I frequent them and spend some of my money at them. Its nice to be able to go get something the day it is released, play games in public, or just browse. This is a luxury, and luxuries cost money. I have polled some of the gamers in my area, some of them feel the same, some don't.
But I know I am not the norm. I am pretty conscious of where my money goes. I don't shop at Wal-mart of Sam's because almost all of their products are imported and they use bulk buying to put out of business the other folks in my community. I look at labels in stores to find out where things were made and tend to favor products made in my own country or those countries that have close to equivalent trade with my country (meaning they are buying our exports as well as selling us theirs). Sometimes I feel like a walking anachronism for these behaviors.
But I feel a sense of validation about these habits when I walk into my favorite local haunts and see that OPEN sign lit instead of going out business banner sales or all the lights being off and a for sale sign on the building.
My community is very lucky in the fact that many of our locally owned businesses are still in operation. I have seen communities that have all but been shut down due all of the money generated from the community being spent at venues that take the wealth out of the community entirely. No one has jobs, and there are no shops and businesses for people to work at. The only lights on are the bright halogens from the Wal Mart parking lot.
Sorry for rant. This is a topic I have very strong feelings about. If I offended, rest assured it was not my intent, and please accept my preemptive apology.
James are the rules in the AP's open content? For example is the bloodline in the #29 AP open? If it is then there is really no reason for complaint as it can be added to SRDs everywhere.
If its not then there may be a small amount of reason to com plain for some. I don't particularly care as I buy all of the APs/chronicles/companions anyway. And I am not really into the "gotta catch em' all" philosophy of character options. If an option I need is not present, I make it myself.
I like the idea of a list, but I really wish you would not take the unique rules out of the APs and chronicles. Its kind of cool to use abilities on the group and them not have nay idea what they are and then use that as a starting point to introduce and try out the rules in your game.
In short don't change anything. Some clarification would always be cool but I like it the way it is personally.
I spend a good amount of time at my FLGS (and more money than I should).And the big product for gaming at my FLGS is not D&D or Pathfinder. Its Warhammer (Not roleplay but 40k and fantasy war games). They have a tournament almost every weekend and fill up all of the tables in the game room with wargamers. But they do keep a solid stock of tabletop RPGs, along with comics, boardgames, action figures, pulp fiction, novels, and movies. Yes my local game store is f++$ing fantastic. I hope it stays around for a long time.
What I have noticed is that 4e was very hot when it came out. My group and several other groups in town were buying each release as it came out and there was a lot of play going on in the game room of 4e. I dropped off of the 4e scene before the PFRPG came out and was attempting to get my store to back order some of the older AP for me. It did not go well (but this is due to the buying restrictions put in place by the owner, and their distributor not having the older copies in stock, so I was told). I did eventually get them to put me on draw (order 1e of each new product in Paizo's catalog as it comes out) for most of Paizo's stuff. After a month or two of filling my orders and with the exceptional sales of the hardback Paizo books they now buy 6-8 ea of Paizo's stuff and sell most of it fairly fast (there are still a few copies of various AP on their shelves).
I am not sure how this compares to the 4e sales. 4e has a little more shelf space than Paizo in my FLGS, but I think that has to do with those 4e titles sitting 4-6 deep on the shelf, The Paizo stuff almost always sells out or down to one copy. They restock the Paizo hardbacks when this happens, but I talked to the manager and they are afraid to stock APs chronicles and modules that are not the current edition as the look at them almost like magazines or comics, and they have not seen enough interest in older stuff to make them feel comfortable buying APs from for instance last year.
But all in all in my discussions with the folks behind the counter, they have been fairly impressed with Pathfinder and will continue to stock it.
After sleeping on it I realized I did not give my build an ability score increase at 4th level. I would probably put it into WIS. It would change the amount of times per day the cleric could use its domain powers, ad a +1 to hit with spiritual weapon, and raise the reflex save by one.
(edit: Nor did I add in the +1 bonus to all saves from the +1 cloak of resistance. Should not work on toons late at night)
I like Santa Seoni.
MY opinion about this piece of art,as with any piece of art is this:
If you don't like it, don't look at it. But don't presume that because you don't want to look at it, that I don't either. I am perfectly OK with making my own choices about what is offensive, I don't need some womens rights dude on the internet to make those choices for me.
BTW my wife LOVED the picture.
Strength- (Taken for most excellent domain spells)
Fire- (taken for ranged attack and excellent DPS Domain Spells)
Channel Negative Energy: 8/day All creatures within 30 ft take 2d6 damage will save DC: 15 (10+1/2 cleric level+CHA) for half.(Note selective channeling allows the cleric to choose up to 3 targets that are not effected). Increase damage by 1d6 at every odd numbered cleric level.
Spontaneous Casting: Convert spells to inflict spells of the appropriate level if evil, and your choose of cure or inflict spells (chosen once at character creation) if neutral.
2nd- (Save DC 14)
Regular greatsword: +9 to hit, 2d6 +5 damage 19-20/x2
With one round of prep: (Divine favor)
With 2 rounds of prep (enlarge+divine favor)
It is also of note that you will want to favor Channel Negative Energy as a first priority in fights where you can catch more than 2 in the blast. The average DPR of hitting three plus targets should be better than hitting 1-2 with your weapon (unless you are hulked out).
The basic idea of the build is to work groups with channel negative energy getting great DPS until you only have one or two targets, then hulk out and go wail on it with your greatsword. Alternatively if you have time to prepare it may be best to hulk out first and wail on targets with melee, and that is definitely the best course of action if there are less that 3 bads on the board (or within 30 ft of one another)
Lord Gadigan wrote:
Ah I don't own either of those yet. My bad. I would still like to see them in a bestiary none the less.
I agree with a lot of whats been said about cohorts here. I allow players to have cohorts, and I will let them run them in battle if they try and prepare for it and not take too long. If they are dragging behind in battle because of a cohort I just take the reigns and control the cohort for the rest of the fight if they are taking too long. I am nice about this taking control, and as a general rule the players tend to try and run the cohorts effectively because they don't want me to run them.
As for experience and treasure. I don't give the cohort any of either. There is a formula in the book in the description of the feat that I use to calculate exp that the cohort gets while adventuring with the group.
((Cohorts level/PC that owns cohorts level)*(exp that Cohort owner gained while cohort was present))
It averages out to the cohort leveling about the same time the player does for the adventures in which it participates.
I do not however give the cohort a share of the treasure. It starts with wealth equal to its level as determined on the NPC chart, and then from that point relies largely on his/her master to pay and outfit him/her. In some groups where the players have a good deal of RP interaction with the cohort they may "Pay" the cohort every so often a share, and often the entire group will donate magic items and hand me downs to the cohort, the cohort is not entitled to a share.
We divvy up magic items with a lotting system, and if the player who is controlling the cohort wants to cast their lot on an item for the cohort, thats perfectly acceptable in our games. But if there is any question of interest in an item that is not being lotted on then: (Player > Cohort).
The cohort will end up with enough treasure to merit sticking around and the player controlling it can shore up some weakness with their own share of the loot. The players are already paying in time for the cohort, they should not have to give up loot/exp as well. I don't give druids animal companions EXP or a share of the treasure, so I don't do it for cohorts either. All treasure and loot is divided per the DM between the players regardless of how many entities they are controlling. If those players then want to give a portion of their loot to a cohort that has been helping them out, then that is their business.
But that is just how I run it in my own games. It was not always like that but after a few heated discussions about one player controlling 2/5 of the groups wealth its just the way we have always done it. The end result is usually still one player controlling about 2/5 of our groups wealth. But in my experience, players have less of an issue with that if they got to choose how their fair share of the wealth was distributed. They may still give it to the cohort, but at that point its their choice, and not a mandatory tax.
I would like to see the following:
1.Displacer Beast/Coeurl (with the serial numbers filed off. Goodbye protected IP tentacle cat, hello phase-panther, mirage feline, or whatever you want to call it. It does not really matter, all of the abilities that describe the monster can be easily described in rules which are open content, just loose the name and call it something else. And while we are at it lets do mind flayers as well)
2.I would personally like to see some variant aboleths and some greater versions of them and their minions. They have always been some of my favorite bads, and I would like to see some higher level aboleth threats.
3. Clockwork Horrors (if they are not someones IP)
I would also like the following to be considered for new monsters:
2. Mothman (Or maybe a Batsquatch)
Remco Sommeling wrote:
I agree that the claws of the velociraptor should be secondary (they are listed as foreclaws in the bestiary entry and are treated as secondary weapons receiving the -5 penalty). But even then, that still leaves several companions that gain no benefit from the class feature.
The only creature in the list that has secondary attacks noted is the horse (the hooves attacks are noted as secondary). Unless I missed something, then this is an artifact that really does not have relevance to most of the animals on the list.
I will probably rule in my game that the animal can elect to take a bonus monster feat (from the bestiary) if they get no benefit from multiattack. A good portion of the animals on the list would get nothing, both possessing more than three attacks, and no secondary attacks.
(This is the breakdown of how multiattack would effect the animal companions in the core books:
Gets nothing due to possessing 3+ attacks: Ape, Badger, Bear, Cat (big), Cat (small),Dinosaur (velociraptor)
Gains a second attack with on of its natural weapons with a -5 penalty for not meeting prereqs for multiattack, per the multiattack entry in the druid animal companion section: Boar, Camel, Crocodile, Dog, Pony, Shark, Snake (constrictor), snake (viper), wolf
Gains actual use of the multiattack feat: Horse)
The obvious idea of multiattack is to up the damage output of the critter, so it seems easily replaced with something like weapon focus, or improved natural attack. But it may in fact be the intent of the designers to use the feat to give a boost to some of the companions while leaving out others.
But my players like to get cool stuff when they level up, and the druid has already taken a pretty good drop in power from previous editions, so I would not have issue with working out some sort of alt feature for players with companions that do not gain benefit from multiattack.
I like this a lot. I would probably remove the Cha 17+, and the extra channel requirements (unless these are carry overs from the quickened turning feat that is being discussed). But I think it is an excellent way to handle it: Let the cleric get a reduced power channel for a swift action.
A big binder full of fluff is another scenario. The original post was about a binder of house rules. But in either case despite whatever first impression I might arrive at (if it is a DM I have never gamed with) I go in open minded and try and check out the changes and get into the story and have a good time. Other than an excuse to eat tater chips (which I don't let myself have at any other point in my week), having fun pretty high up on my list things I want to happen in a gaming session.
If a DM can rock out some fun with a big ol binder of house rules and another full of campaign setting (or alternatively one big binder with both) I say go for it. I guess What I was really trying to say in the previous post is when I see a lot of house rules I still try it out and see what comes of it. It may be a flavor of ice cream that I had been needing to try and just never had.
I do not really have a problem with a DM killing toons. If I had really tight time constraints it might be more of an issue for me, but as it stands my group usually games for about 5-6 hours a week. I would have a severe issue with a DM killing my character off the screen (just saying I was dead and not letting the action or dice play out to prove it).
But PC death in and of itself is kind of part of the game for our groups. Sure it sucks when it happens. But some of my most memorable encounters in this game my character did not (or some of the other characters did not) in fact live through.
Thats the stuff heroism is made of: Taking a big risk for a big reason. Most of the time it works out, but sometimes someone has to pay the piper. My players are pretty serious about me not pulling punches. In fact some of the only real criticisms I receive from my group come if they realize I put on the kid gloves on a monster when things went badly. They like to win and win big, but they don't like to feel like there was no chance of failure.
So I don't usually pull punches. I tend to build up a list of actions for key encounters and try and roleplay the monsters as their intelligence and alignment dictates. I may stray from it for a unique encounter, but I typically have that deviance preplanned.
I would like to have the whole scenario from the OP about how his character was killed.
I'm not a big fan of a GM with a binder full of "house rules"; I've noticed that GMs with more home brew stuff tend to screw players over more than people who just run the game as is. The reason seems to be that games that rely on too many house rules sometimes only make sense to the GM. I hate showing up at a game and discovering that everything is at the total mercy and whim of the GM, who is running something not even recognizable as the game you thought you were playing. As a GM myself I tend to stick with the rules as much as possible (though I don't slow down the game to look stuff up every 5 min); but to me the rules are there to protect the players and keep things as fair as possible for all parties concerned. But if a house rule is needed then it's best that the group as a whole should decide if it's needed or wanted.
I don't mind the big binder in principle. When I see one I am curious as to WHY it exists, and often doubt the need for it. But I am usually willing to give the DM a chance to sell me on it. In the end if the DM and his binder runs a fun game, then I deal with the binder. If not, then maybe we should have a talk.
I am cool with the post being broken up. As to your points. I still kind of disagree with you about introducing horror to a game in a surprise fashion. The one caveat I have about this type of introduction is that once you expose your players to the "it sucks to be you" part of the mechanic I feel you need to make the other part of the mechanic (the part that allows to party to recover against/defend against) available to the players. Finding out how to deal with the mechanic can be an interesting adventure in and of itself IMO. But I will concede that if I used such an introduction of a mechanic and it was poorly received by a group, then I would definitely take that into strong consideration before attempting to do it again. If my players and a real problem with it and they voiced it I would have no real problem with adding a line in the player handout at the beginning of the game that says:
"may use alternate rules to incorporate horror rules from "book x" at some point..be afraid,be very afraid"
Its really just a matter of the group dynamic. My group does not have particular problem with it. But part of developing a good group dynamic is figuring out what your group DOES have a problem with. In the case of the surprise introduction of horror rules;If I had a player that seemed upset. I have no problem of discussing it with them. The end object is for everyone to have a good time after all.
As to your second point about the hallway. I agree almost explicitly. A DM should not change the rules of a spell because they forgot a player had access to it or just didn't think of that solution. If I were in that DMs place I would probably change one of the traps to a pit or some other type of obstacle (if one was not so already) that would still present a decent challenge to group as they went through the hall and then let the dice fall where they may. I would let the wizard port over and set the traps off with a summon. The rest of the group will still have to make a check to get over the pit while bad guys are pelting them, that still seems like a cool encounter to me, it can still be challenging, and the player who had the spell still feels awesome.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
I am a little disappointed that in order to generate random items to populate my shops, I need to go back to tables in the SRD. I think the new mechanic is awesome, but it's sad they couldn't get all the necessary tables.
That is actually one of my major complaints about the core book. I really wish they had included charts for random treasure and random magic item generation. Sure its in a book that we all own, but so is a lot of the other stuff. I am hoping that this is one of the items addressed in the game mastery guide.
Dude, I have made two posts in this entire thread. I don't think Kolo made a ton either. I would also not qualify the exchange between he (or she as the case may be) and I as an argument. I didn't even quote his post, and I don't really care that my post was taken apart. My post was a little longwinded, and if Kolo wanted to break his responses into pieces and address specific portions of that post, I am OK with that.
If you will notice the very first line in my thread was:
I put that there because his previous post had themes in it it that I wished to discuss further. In a very real way I was specifically soliciting a response from that poster. I WANTED TO READ THE OPINIONS AND HEAR ABOUT PLAYSTYLE.
Never anywhere was the word fact mentioned, nor was I attempting to rally a specific response from anyone. I was just discussing the OPs topic in what I feel was a polite and productive way. Length of post has nothing to do with hostility. I found your very short post to be more hostile than most of the other posts in this thread. So if you don't want to engage in discussion, thats cool with me. But please don't presume that I am going to pay heed to you telling me I should not participate in the discussion IMO.
On another note:
I agree with most of you responses Kolo. I feel that the term fiat may have been misused in my post. The description of the word "discretion" in the post after better reflects what I try and accomplish at my table.
The only one of your points that I disagree with is the one about being taken into a room and being hit with a surprise horror check. I think that is perfectly acceptable as long as the DCs on the check are level appropriate. I often find or create new mechanics to offer dramatic resolution to groups I run for. As long as you take the frame work of the game and kind of fit it into the CR system so that the players have a real chance of succeeding, I find that a new type of challenge offered in a surprise fashion can be quite refreshing and fun. I think I would start to get frustrated if a lionshare of the encounters had new mechanics and I was unable to properly defend my character as a result. But I am not opposed to introducing a new type of challenge mechanic in a secretive way, or occasionally deviating to creating a new type of challenge. But it should be used sparingly, and it should not be dumped in in way where everyone is going to lose their character as a result.
I just use the core rules to decide what items are available. It pretty much spells out how many minor/medium/major items should be for sale in a city. If I have items I want to be there, I place them in some of the slots, and I just use a random table to roll up the rest.
Every time the group hits a decent milestone in the campaign (like completing a mission or some other group oriented goal) I go down the list and chuck a dice. For minor items I use evens it was bought an odd roll it remains, for medium items I give it a 60/40 split (60% chance the item remains, 40% its gone) and for major items I use either a 70/30 split or an 80/20 depending on the campaign. I replace the items that rolled up sold and the ones the players bought with new random entries.
In cases where I have a city big enough to support any and all minor items I don't make a table for those items. I usually just the players buy those items if they are in the core book. I may add a few days wait time onto some purchases or use some purchases as minor encounters (especially if the items is considered evil by the society or has a dubious reputation, or just perhaps to let socially oriented characters get a moment in the spotlight).
I don't feel its really important to make every item available in every game. Most often I find that when I am restocking the shops the players actually enjoy helping me (my players love to roll magic items, and for some reason rolling ones for shops is still pretty entertaining to them). I figure if a player is determined to get an item they may travel to other cities, consult a sage to perhaps to set up a quest for said item, or even take the feats and craft it themselves.
So in short, I let them get whatever items the book says the city should have. In most cases they will eventually find a large city to get the minor items they need, and traveling to and fro can be an adventure in and of itself, and the system also rewards the players for trying to build up smaller cities they may be lairing near to increase the magic economy.
This has worked for me in PF so far with very good results. The only time I would make an exception is if I ran some type of apocalyptic campaign where there was no economy or perhaps a low magic game or some other story feature that would make it make sense.