mcbobbo's page

I'll join the minority in supporting the GM - and the other players. Let's look back a second:

the LG members of the party refuse to enter a locked building on the basis `we would be breaking the law'. (all brilliantly roleplayed by the way - these arnt Lawful Stupid players).

So I'll step on the soap box just a moment to tell my peers in this thread - stop judging the way others play. They seem to like it, and your 'go find another GM' advice just might ruin their fun. ::endsoapbox

OP, I agree with the suggestion they appeal to an outside authority, for two reasons:

1) If the GM permits it, he can, through the voice of the Paladin's church outrightly say so. "In this instance, your goddess demands you investigate!"

2) If the GM wants to deny it, he can use the voice of that same NPC to provide another avenue.

In short, pick a method that lets the GM speak in character, and he can guide you in game to the path he thinks will work and/or fit the story.

Just because no one has explicitly advised it yet - you could ask him not to use out of game knowledge to run his NPCs.

It's exactly what he would say to you if the roles were reversed.

3rd edition gamers trying to min-max a ruleset? Surely this is revolutionary! :D

I worry about complexity and balance, as above.

So here's the elephant in the room: If out of combat healing is relegated to cheap, ubiquitous wands, is it not a design flaw to require it?

You only wind up punishing those who refuse to meta game.

And what if the character who could use the wand refuses to do so? Aren't you still "telling them what to do" by handing them your wand and saying "heal me"?

Forest for the trees, folks.

As a preface, let me say that this is not a call to action. No action is required or even requested. This is just an analysis with an eye towards problems that I see in getting the modules to ‘fit’ together and tell a single, cohesive story. Burnt Offerings takes a bit of a beating here, and that’s really unfortunate because it is one of the best modules I have ever had the pleasure of running. Also I’d point out that my approach will lead to a more conceited, less ‘realistic’ approach to telling this story. I see an opportunity to re-use and reinforce themes from the very beginning of the story, which should require less work overall and should certainly confuse the players less. Remember this thing takes the better part of a year to run, so anything to be done to tighten it up without making it boring is probably a good thing to try and do.

The goal of RotRL, as I see it, is roughly as follows:
“Introduce the concept of ancient Thassilon first as a vague threat, and then as a very real risk to all of Varisia.”

The situation, in a nutshell is:
“One of the Runelords foresaw the end of Thassilon and prepared for the fall. He is now awakening and if allowed to restore his full power, will conquer Varisia.”

My first proposal is that all the major elements support one of these two concepts. Not the tangents, mind you, those are fine and add depth, but the major elements.

Let’s examine some problem points, and touch briefly on fixing them.

Good point about their needs, but I suppose there's a chance that they subsist on Wrath as long as they're within X of the runewell.

And actually, no, there's a limit. See the info about neutralizing the well for more detail, but I think the max is five more (inside the module).

I've read every post. Quoting the OP for context:

The group continuously asked me why I would use this combination and made comments on how useless I was. I made a few key skill checks that the other specialized flubbed and felt proud but a condemnation of their fellow players dice was what they spoke of rather than "hey thx for the save there". as a combatant I was nowhere near as good as the paladin but I got a few licks in for moderate damage (certainly more than the oracle who did no damage).

IS this a bad group to be with or is this a sign of pathfinder on the whole? Even on these forums I notice that most do not favor multiclassing or anything that takes away from their chosen specialty. Skill...

Seven pages, three hundred and thirty six posts, and no one has addressed the elephant in the room. I'm a bit stunned.

Renegadeshepherd, let me illuminate a dirty little secret about the third edition rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game - it's called 'rules mastery'. In short someone somewhere in the design chain decided it would be good for the game, as a whole, to reward players who took the time to analyze the rules (and buy all the books). So where it might seem that you could take any 'X' levels, point buy, etc, and craft a workable character, that's not perfectly true. Others can take that exact same input and make a much, much more 'effective' character. This is by design. They had made a lot of money with this system in Magic the Gathering, so one can hardly blame them.

As a facet of this, some people (and you need look no further than this very thread for a few examples) feel the need to make other people feel bad about their choices. It's a simple psychological thing called 'rankism', and it happens a lot more between strangers than between friends. Which explains why a lot of players haven't ever seen it, or at least haven't recognized it as such. It also explains why you're more likely to see it on the forums and in PFS. It isn't unique to roleplaying, by any means, and you see it MtG all the time as well. "You played THAT card - you suck/are a worthless human being/etc"

TLDR, the designers blessed us with a metagame of one-upsmanship because they thought it would sell more books. Don't take it personally.

The thread title led me to many memories of episodes of Pawn Stars. 50% is pretty typical. I have seen up to 90% on something they're sure to resell, and I have seen them offer a pittance for something they're not certain about.

The thing there, though, is that a +2 longsword would price higher than a +4 Ogre hook. I can see Rick now, "Look, that's a really great piece you have there, but we don't get a lot of Ogres in here."

As above, abstraction has pros and cons.

It's been touched on, but I would add to the list "anything that keeps the game in genre". Stuff like finding work in a tavern, killing and looting everyone you come into conflict with, and parties containing both Paladins and Rogues. That's all good stuff.

It's odd - my experience has been the opposite. My players are getting a bit bored with the expository stuff and are craving more action. To the point that they believe that the background must somehow be significant to the plot. They think Chopper is behind the goblins, and he may be hiding in Foxglove manor...

Some things that I have found useful:

The festival. I embellished the activities to do a bit more foreshadowing. I also had the Hagfish owner bring some of Nora's water to his table. Stuff like that.

I made the festival mark 'end of the late unpleasantness', which has my group feeling that another shoe is about to drop.

Sheriff Hemlock doesn't trust them and doesn't really have time for them. So when 'do gooder' stuff happens, it's a double opportunity.

They have had dealings with a number of merchants in town, and I name drop as much as possible. So I use specific shop names and NPC names, even if I have to 'er um' a bit and flip to the back of the book.

Speaking of - is it possible you don't have the full location-based writeup that's in the appendix of the AE? Maybe you're using the classic version of Burnt Offerings or something? (Just guessing)

This is a surprisingly great thread. I don't have a whole lot to add, but...

1) Love the 'on these boards' comment. Yes sir, context is key. Try not to let it get you down, though. There are lots of boards, each with their own mono-culture. Knowing the truth about the 3.5 community shouldn't detract from some great conversation within it...

2) OP - I would use this as an in-game reason to shift your PC towards LN. "Seeing that idiot slaughter those prisioners has made me reailze the truth: my code is the only thing sane in this world." Then you can have Lawful-vs-Lawful passive aggressive play, which seems to be something you'd prefer.

3) OP - If you wanted to 'tattle' on the Paladin, which in and of itself isn't a terrible idea, you need to choose a better vehicle. For starters, does your campaign world even have a postal system? Beyond just the practical, and someone already touched on this, why would they believe you? No, the far better approach would be to go to a rival church and tell them the tale, with embellishments of course. Let that rival church use their clout to spread the heresy of Torag's Paladin around, and then you might see some results - maybe.

4) Ahh, that discussion of Torag and genocide is deep stuff. As others have said, though, there's no 'RAW' here. It's totally 'GM fiat' because Torag is an NPC. Period, end of story. I'd expect to see any further arguments about what Torag would do be prefaced with 'at my table' going forward, if not for #1 above. :)

5) I think leaving them in their cells would have been most appropriate for the character. As was said, Morlocks and Dwarves have a long history of being enemies. Plus, what is more merciful, killing them or letting the gods decide what happens next? Perhaps it was all part of Torag's wisdom that they wound up in that cell in the first place. His code says he can't be weak to them, and certainly this would include giving them aid, such as releasing them. Were it my Pally I think I'd say a prayer and wish them all the best, hoping we can meet in glorious battle some day.

That's another gap with everyone's concept of the 'paragon' Paladin - why do they have to free prisoners and slaves? That's not very Lawful... But I digress.

I'd caution against trying to define some kind of a red line for all players all of the time. Like most things in life, 'it depends'.

Violence shouldn't ever be tolerated, even if it is just intimidation. There's no place for that sort of behavior in a friendly setting, period. So those cases have nothing to do with 'mid-combat' or not, or gaming in general, so they're not good examples. And the appropriate reaction to those situations doesn't have any bearing on gaming situations, per se.

As for the "I don't care" subset of walkouts, that's totally your call. For me, I'd be concerned on how it reflects on me as a person. Should I be rude to the desk clerk at this hotel who has totally screwed me over, even though I know it isn't her fault? After all, I'll never see her again... Probably not. I'd prefer to think of myself as politely wrapping things up and making a mental note to never go there again.

When it comes to gaming, particularly with friends of friends, I do also worry that a walk-out is a lost opportunity for a constructive conversation. I see some of the stories here almost gloating that 'nobody plays in his games these days'. Personally, I'd feel guilty about whatever pain that person had inflicted/suffered due to any inaction on my part. For example if he's too deeply in the 'GM is god' camp, maybe I could have coached him on his playstyle. Or at least showed him the value of communicating that sort of thing up front. Maybe the GM needs to understand different perceptions on railroads, maybe the group needs to discuss the pros and cons of PvP, etc, etc, etc. But when you just quit, throw a fit, or even decide not to return, you're missing a chance to make a small part of the gaming world better. Or at least the chance to try.

For me, homebrew, it's all about assumptions. If I have a party that's doing it a lot, and I want them to feel more challenged, I'll bump up the encounters a tad to compensate. This will typically also increase the reward. On the other hand, when the party never does, I'll often remind them about it.

Remember, they're adventurers. If they're not expecting to get killed by something in the dungeon, they're stupid. They're 'at work' so to speak, so certain assumptions that seem meta-gamey probably actually aren't. Depends on the situation.

As for the sounds of buffing, I'd rather say this depends, but I'd have to look it up. Somatic components being game-rules things, it's definable for someone with the right books on hand. There's little doubt that an arcane caster needs to use a 'strong voice', unless I'm mixing up my editions. But what about divine? Can they cast buffs by praying quietly? If not by RAW, that's perhaps a good house rule, just because it's so thematically appropriate.

Heck, for the right player, I might even work up a 'deity decides' system. They pray for protection, as the religious often does, and one of their spell slots gets spent on whatever is appropriate based on what the diety might know. Maybe that's a feat idea, class feature, or a wonderous item. When's the next RPG superstar? :)

Yeah, Jiggy, you will need to work on your own toolset. Find what works for you. Just understand that some of your success is controlled by the message's recipient as well.

Frankly, I find small lies for good cause acceptable. Nobody is saying you have to, but consider your approach and you may be more successful.

Maybe work your way up to the direct approach once you have built a relationship and some trust.

A touch of advice for both the 'not prepared between turns' and the 'distracted by electronics' issues:

Ask for their actions. Wait a reasonable amount of time. Slowly count, outloud, to five. Ask one more time, and if still no answer, move to the next player.

Works like a champ.

I used three Plano boxes inside a Sterilite tote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isNgNsLwpeQ

How is that different than an assassin masquerading as peasant number 7 on a crowded street? They're aware it's there. They just don't know that its a danger. So they get a perception roll and if they fail they're surprised.

Yes, this is my position as well. 'Why' you are unaware isn't really relevant.

Though I do stipulate that this must have been considered a corner case by the rules. They simply don't seem to cover it very well at all.

Yeah, I'm not certain that the rules even begin to address this, so a RAW argument isn't going to carry a lot of weight with me, personally.

Determine which characters are aware of their opponents.

We can get pedantic on this if you wish. There are many possible ways to interpret this sentence.

For example, you're in a forest and you're AWARE that bandits exist. Are ambushes now impossible? Because you are, indeed, aware of your opponents. You don't know their exact location, nor that you'll encounter any on this particular day, but you do know they're out there and you are reasonably going to be on the look out for them. Right?

On the other hand, we could focus on the word 'opponent'. Are you aware that someone is an opponent until they attack you? They were a friend just a moment ago, so where (outside of precognition) did you gain this particular awareness?

Finally, I fail to see the mechanical difference between someone physically stealthed and socially stealthed. You don't make initiative checks when you go to hug your grandma. If she's holding a knife behind her back, she's going to get a surprise round.

Anything else strains one's sense of believably.

49. In a war-torn landscape you and your peers work for an infamous pirate. You steal from both sides, fight with honor, and drink to your glory. Over time you begin to see the impact of your behavior and understand that you'll eventually have to take sides...

Gorbacz wrote:

Don't let any 1E fan catch you on a notion of compatibility with 2E (or vice versa). One word: THAC0.

Thac0 was just a shortcut, taking one line out of the giant chart that used to be used. So it really is just a different way of expressing the exact same mechanic.

That's not the layman's point of view, though. When new enough to RPG's to believe that THAC0 was a game mechanic itself, rather than just a shortcut, you're going to look at a statblock that doesn't have it and say, 'not compatible'.

Gorbacz wrote:

Also, PF and 3.5 are much closer than BECMI and AD&D were. Class=race vs. class=!race is one big ravine, and there are several others.

Yes all the players needed to make PCs from the same book. On the other hand, it was really easy to run Basic modules for AD&D. Probably just as easy to do the reverse, but I can't say I have experience with that. I had the B1-9 module collection and the AD&D handbooks. I don't think I realized they were different games until many, many years later. Because 1 HD 4 hp damage 1d4+1 runs the same in both games.

I'm pretty sure that your bar for 'really easy' is higher than PFBB's target audience. It is, comparatively, 'really easy' to adapt an episode of your favorite TV show into being an adventure as well. Do a rip/replace of all characters in that story for ones you have stats for and run against that framework. But doing that takes more experience than we're talking about here. Same for running Basic/Advanced modules in the wrong sub-system.

I think this fear of "splitting the publishing" is really unfounded. There is nothing to split. After level 5 what choice do they have but to go to the core rules? People aren't just going to over and over play 1st to 5th level characters.

Further I think everyone forgets that Basic and Advanced weren't compatible. Beginner's and Core are. Beginner's has less, sure, but nothing presented in Core contradicts it in any way (as far as I'm aware).

Basic had things like Elves only being fighter-mages, different stats for the same creatures, things like that.

It's like comparing apples and steak tips.

EDIT: Actually, it just occurred to me. Beginner's does nothing more than turn Core into a supplement book. That's the extent of the damage. Just as how you'd ignore Gunslingers and Ninjas if you didn't like those, Beginner's ignores rules that complicate things. That's all.

It's a game. When I play Risk with my friends, I also mercilessly slaughter the troops they left in Australia. In Monopoly I'm going to clean them out if they land on my hotel on Park Place. Etc.

Monopoly and Risk are competitive games. I, for one, prefer it when RPGs are not.

I once cured my players of their roleplaying doldrums by swapping in an acting workshop instead of our regular play sessions. We did lots of improv swapped members of the group around, and really worked the creative parts of our minds.

When it was time to pick up the dice again, the fun we had from it carried over.

Wizards are excellent, and shouldn't be hated by anyone. However, you'll commonly see some board-hate along the following lines:

A) Some feel that they're too powerful at the end of the game, and too weak at the beginning. Though the latter is less true in the Paizo incarnations of the game.

B) Some feel that memorization-based casting sucks, and want it removed, and the Wizard class gets caught in the crossfire

C) Others feel that a weakness is as much a part of the character as their class abilities. Spellbooks fall into that category, because if they weren't intended to be replaced at some point, why do they have stats for them at all? This applies evenly to Paladins and alignment as well as druids and metal armor.

Evil druids are always cool.

Something to remember, though, is the module's content isn't immutable until it is described to the player. Imagine 'Situation 4'. Now consider how to modify it for each class. 'Situation 4a' is for Fighters, Barbarians, etc. Use 'Situation 4c' for arcane casters. So long as you can think of modified versions of the situations that make sense AND can present this in a workable format, there's really no reason why you couldn't cover all the classes in the books to date.

It's more work, and inflates the word count a lot, but also adds to the re-use possibilities, which a lot of customers would appreciate.

What a wonderful thread! So many thoughts!

A) I agree that it isn't an act that carries the (evil) descriptor. It's a neutral act, mostly. There's a logical line of reasoning that makes it an evil one, but if you follow things that stringently then you're going to make the alignment system break.

B) How many evil acts does it take to turn you? Well, to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "It can be hard to define, but I know it when I see it." Community (or in this case, game-table) standards apply here.

C) Ditto the advice on the professional help for that GM. Further, find another table, IMO. Either you have a bad case of not understanding alignment, heavy favoritism, or anti-social play. None of which ever turn out to be worth the effort in the long run, assuming (as seems to be the case) that your concerns aren't being addressed. I'd scold that GM for handling an NPC this way, let alone allowing a PC to conduct these acts as a function of my narrative. What are you guys playing, 'Rapists & Ruin'? In short, you're supposed to be having a good time, and if you have a 'friend' who considers this behavior to be that, I'd put some distance between you...

3.5 was all about the splat, and the payoff of finding a completely broken combination made all that effort worth while. AFAIK, the Paizo stuff has a bit more balance to it, so there's less of an edge for the powergamer.

It could also be that your group has 'been there, done that' in terms of cheese. For my own experience, that happened in homeschool with RIFTS. After taking broken gaming to staggering extremes, most of our playing group stopped even optimizing their characters.

Sometimes it can be fun to have a weakness or two.

My advice to such a GM is to stretch your legs with a different campaign style for a while. Grab 'We Be Goblins' and see what happens. Could be just the refresher that gets them oogling that Magus/Spellslinger combo again.

A handy rule of thumb for mods, particularly with spells, items, and the like is:

Core is King.

Basically whatever exists in the core rules is (should be) the best way to achieve that result, and if your way obsoletes the core then it is too powerful.

Now that's not to say you shouldn't customize. You absolutely should. Just make sure that you're using up the same slot, at the same costs, with the same limitations, etc.

Along that line of reasoning, would your non-rod allow use of a rod as well? E.g. non-rod of quicken and rod of maximize? If so, that could be a deal-breaker. Research it carefully.

Being a relative newcomer this is a bit of a problem. Several active members of the community give one-line contributions to a thread and little else. Posts of "Oh no, not another X" are quite common, and they usually don't elaborate. And I don't really care for the unsupported link posts either. "This was discussed <here>" isn't nearly as helpful as "This was discussed <here> and the consensus was..."

I've said my piece about civility, elitism, and system hate here as well, but those bear mentioning as often as possible. Something that might make you feel cool among a familiar circle of the like-minded could be enough to drive a new voice away. Trust me, I've considered it.

This community is a hard nut to crack. But, fortunately, worth it. And with the (hopefully) large inrush of new gamers from the Beginner Box, we could work on sprucing things up a bit.

Finally, if any of you catch my comments as coming off in the negative ways described, PLEASE CALL ME ON IT. Chances are I'll happily rephrase.

After your first attack, any time you declare that you're using Power Attack could be considered declaring Power Attack AFTER you have made an attack.

FWIW, I understand and agree with this assessment - for everything but AoO's or things like them that have special rules.

Yes, it seems reasonable that the empire would send someone to deal with the problem. However, a pack of soldiers might not be a match for such a creature, depending on who they send. For impact, I'd probably have the PCs meet said soldiers and find their remains later. :P

By the rules, I think the dragon flies at full speed unless impacted by a condition that says otherwise. No, it wouldn't seem reasonable for them to track her after she's out of line of site. Maybe, MAYBE by a blood trail or something, assuming the party can sense that, e.g. smell. She's almost certain to outrun them, at least to a point where she could hide.

Civilization every ten miles implies a pretty dense population. Remember that in pre-industrial societies access to water/resources and gainful employment determines where people live. It might be reasonable to find settlements frequently along a river, as the crow files, but even still I'd say one major settlement every fifty miles is probably plenty.

Of course, I'm an American, so I'm basing that assumption on our expansionist period and the resulting density. I think that European towns are more tightly-packed. That would probably make for something to research.

NOW, all that said, the 'correct' answer for 'is there an inn' would be - do you WANT there to be an inn? Because on the one hand a generous farmer's house works just as well, and on the other, yes there is an inn but there's no rooms available, they don't serve your kind, etc, etc, etc.

Ambrus wrote:

[irony]So, conversely, a BBEG could splurge on a handful of wands of protection from evil and then retire to the comfort of his dungeon's torture chamber to expend as many charges as is necessary to relieve any burden of guilt/evil weighing on his soul; thereby switching his alignment towards Good. It's RPG version of buying Indulgences.[/irony]

That is what the math seems to add up to.

On the other hand, assuming that we're using alignment to influence actual behavior and not merely as a game mechanic, it would actually turn such a BBEG good. I don't think he'd want that to happen. But it might make for a unique redemption path. Accidentally, by way of using good magic, when faced with no other option.

OOH! Imagine an evil villain rehabilitation program! Instead of making license plates, they use wands to heal the sick and pitiful. Some of the good rubs off on them, and it's a societal double-win.

:D

I'm adding my 'me too' to the never seen them used lot. Like some others here, my PCs don't have access to the magic shop. Magic items are found things, and are valuable beyond the amount of gp listed. I realize this isn't RAW, but it used to be, and I liked that theme better than I like the new one.

So this means that any end boss encounter will absolutely mean that the PCs are going in partially depleted. That, after all, is what I see as the ENTIRE POINT of having encounters beforehand. I whittle them down a bit at a time and make them try and predict what they'll need later, which modifies their choices. I find those kinds of games the most rewarding for all involved.

Now, that being said, I'm going to wind up pulling punches on them. I'm only going to hit them as hard as I think they can withstand. I usually aim for enough firepower to kill only one of them, knowing that they'll surprise me and prevent that single death. But it runs things at a razor's edge, and it works.

Should I have 37 CLW wands floating in my player's packs, I'd design encounters something like three or four times harder to compensate.

So that, in a nutshell, is why I think I've never seen any. We're telling a story together, rather than trying to 'win' some kind of rule-r-riffic contest.

Now there are those, many in fact, in these discussions who absolutely THRIVE on mechanical expertise. They'd simply never enjoy a game where their own play wasn't at the absolute limit for what the system can provide. I'm not one of them, and they wouldn't be happy at my table.

:)

Posted for your approval, Bob’s Guide to Making Alignment Work...

Preface
What follows represents my own understanding of the Gygaxian Alignment system. Your own could well vary, but reading this should at least provide a little insight into this wonderful tool we have inherited.

Twin Axes, centered on Neutral
The primary element driving the Alignment system is that of the Cartesian coordinate system. Many of us may remember these mathematical expressions derived from lines labeled ‘x’ and ‘y’ from our education. It is that design upon which everything related to Alignment rests. The first coordinate, usually ‘x’, is in our case ‘ethical’, also known as ‘law/chaos’. The second, ‘y’, represents ‘moral’ alignment, from ‘good’ to ‘evil’. At the ‘0’ position on both lines is ‘neutral’. With this structure in place it becomes possible to plot virtually any behavior on this grid conclusively. This is what gives the system its power, and what has allowed it to survive reasonably well throughout all these intervening years.

X) When the concept of using an internet resource to 'build' a character seems foreign to you.

...and it does. A lot.

GM: Some twit convinced Paizo that monsters that have been iconic since before Gygax was even born should be eliminated from the game.

It bears noticing that these creatures - goblins, kobolds, minotaurs, etc - are part of human history. Go look them up on wikipedia. It isn't as if Tolkien/Gygax/etc simply invented them out of whole cloth. Denying them their place in a fantasy game borders on absurd. You'd do just as well to remove elves.

Or, simply put, if you don't want to play in a 'fantasy' game, then please do enjoy your spin-off. Tell us all about it and we'll probably steal some of the best ideas. Just don't try and shoe-horn that back into the genre.

Thankfully, reality is not dependent upon your limited ability to understand or perceive it. Again, you'd have to accept the base assumption that your opinions are not universally held, which, I realize, is well outside what your ego can handle.

Off topic, but were you guys aware that this forum has a reputation for being inhospitable towards anyone with a less-than-frothing love for all things Paizo?

That comment, and some of the others nearby, are absolutely unnecessary and do not contribute in any way to a healthy discussion or a growing community. Things like this hurt not only your own image but that of the game itself - as in 'people that play Pathfinder are jerks'.

You may think it's cool to be snarky, and your buddies may all line up for high-fives, but if you want people to participate here you have to rein it in.

Could you imagine what might happen to the attitude of a Beginner Box customer when they see this sort of trash?

Not cool.

If they now believe me, they are no longer lying and thus no Bluff check is made.

You're missing the point of Bluff. The idea is to make someone else believe something they currently do not believe. The truth is exactly necessary. You could, for example, use Bluff to convince a madman to behave sanely: "The imaginary purple dragon wants you to put your clothes back on..."

If the Captain knows that the queen does not have a brother, than the bluff will not convince him otherwise(and the guard wouldn't be that likely to force the issue with the captain) without proof or something else to go on. Even then I would say he would investigate the matter.

Okay, first, this example is very bad for your point. How would it EVER be possible for the Captain to know that there aren't any unknown children in the family? No love children? No black sheep? Are you serious? This is medieval society we're talking about. TV wasn't invented, and neither was birth control... I'm just saying.

Second, isn't what you're describing just a feature of the DC? Convincing someone of something when they believe the opposite without proof has 'x' DC. Let the dice do the rest.

The way you put it makes it sound like convincing lie charms whoever you lie to in to feverishly trying to convince everyone else of the lie as well. This of course would require a different mechanic text.

'Advocate' doesn't mean 'feverishly charmed'. I assume someone has attempted to convince you of something in the past. Were they 'charmed'? You can disagree that I'm reading the intent of the mechanic correctly, but it might make more sense to explain your understanding of it as an alternative. Rather than simply trying to demonstrate that you'd have to be charmed to try and change someone else's mind.

I think the rogue becomes less underpowered the further you can get Pathfinder away from being a 'pen and paper computer game'. It is the GM's job to try and engage every character in turn, wherever possible. If you have a rogue at your table that doesn't feel useful, chances are you can fix it with a single adventure. The examples aren't hard to imagine, and many good ones have already been listed in this thread.

That being said, the rest of the argument starts getting pretty thin. It basically boils down to 'my character can be out munchkined' or 'my friends are playing a competitive (rather than cooperative) game'. I'd suggest that ANY character choice is susceptible to these types of issues.

4~6 dollars on a single plastic mini? Pass.

When I first read this I thought maybe it was a bit harsh. Then I learned about the random thing, and now I actually agree.

$1 isn't too much to use while gambling. $4 is too much.

Think about it this way, I might blow my Jimmy Johns budget on mini's instead. I could buy three boxes, open them, and get three of the same 'mining dwarf' or some such. Now in a collectible game, this might make sense. Maybe I'm stacking an army or something. In an RPG, however, this is awkward. Am I planning adventures involving three of the same dwarf? Probably not...

Maybe for $1, but not for $4.

Or to take one more crack at it, I look to my son's Pokemon cards. Those boosters are also $4. But they have more than just one card in them. Sometimes they're all junk, but there's a lot of variety in there, too.

I've recently put together a method to develop 1" and 2" mini-circle-token thingies for my face-to-face gaming needs, and I thought I'd share.

I got the idea from here, but was too cheap to buy those materials and tools. Plus, I'm impatient, so I didn't want to order anything online. Everything below is available at my local Wal-Mart and HobbyLobby. Hopefully your home town has similar. Anyway, here goes...

You will need:

A) A printer that can handle thick paper. Preferably a color ink jet.

B) Texture-backed card stock - Wal-Mart, ~$6/50 sheets

C) White construction paper - HobbyLobby, ~$2/50 sheets OR Wal-Mart, ~$2/8 sheets (in a multi-color pack, wherein you give the colors to your kid and keep just the white sheets, etc)

D) Paper-cutter and/or scissors. (Must trim 1/2" from construction paper so it goes through the ink jet. Also helps to slice rows of tokens into ribbons for easy punching.) - Wal-Mart, ~$11 for the sliding-razor blades model cutter.

E) Spray-on adhesive. I used Elmer's Craft Glue and it works great. - Wal-Mart, ~$6/can.

F) Used pizza box or similar disposable surface.

G) 1" inch and 2" inch scrap-booking 'Craft Lever' punches. Like so. - HobbyLobby, ~$9/$11

H) TokenTool. This will require Java as well, but you probably have that already.

J) OpenOffice or similar to lay-out the images for printing.

I) Stock images. Google images works well. Also wallpapers on this site, from the pfsrd site, or from within your pdfs. You decide...

Steps:

1) Locate the desired image. Save it in an 'images' folder.

2) Open TokenTool. Drag and drop the image from the images folder onto the software. Use the scroll to resize the image and drag whatever representation you wish into the circle on the left. The right-hand side will preview your token. Select whichever border-ring suits you best, and save the file in a 'tokens' folder.

3) Repeat until you've covered all the imaginable tokens you might wish. You can get a LOT of them on a single page, depending on their size, as you'll see in a moment.

4) Open OpenOffice Writer (or similar). Go into the Page preferences and set the size to 12" long. Also set the margins to the minimum your printer will support.

5) Drag a token from your 'tokens' folder onto the new document. Position it in the corner. Drag all subsequent tokens adjacent to the first one. OO handles this rather well. Where necessary, resize the image to be exactly either 1"x1" or 2"x2". You can also copy+paste image squares to easily make rows of the same creature.

6) Save this file. You never know.

7) Take a sheet of the construction paper and trim off one half inch from either side. Make sure you get a straight, even cut. If you slip up, trim it again. Better too small than it causing a jam.

8) Load that sheet, all by itself, into your printer.

9) Print the document from above. Go nudge the paper into the pickup rollers on the printer, if need-be.

10) Take the printed sheet and lay it face-down on your pizza box. Take your spray glue and give it a generous coating. Don't be afraid to over-spray. That's what the box is for...

11) Take a sheet of the card stock, hold the textured side TOWARDS YOURSELF, and lay it down against the now-sticky, face-down construction paper. Count to five and peel the two off the pizza box carefully.

12) Let the glue set. 30 minutes is plenty.

13) Trim the margins off of your sheet, so you can get your punch in close to the circles. Optionally, use your cutter to slice your rows of tokens into strips. If you do, expect some square edges on your circles. If you don't have a pair of scissors handy to get all the resulting triangles out of your way while cutting. I recommend the strips. Your call, though.

14) Remove the plastic shield/catch from the bottom of your punch. They're not intended to make circles. They're intended to make holes. Plus you'll need to see what you're doing.

15) Position the punch upside down and slide it over the circle you intend to cut. You should see the finished product in the bottom of the punch before you squeeze it. This is your last chance to make them look nice, so be careful.

16) Punch, punch, punch your way to glory. Set them aside and let them harden/dry fully.

NOTES:

i) Watch the thickness of your materials. That 1" punch won't take anything so thick as cardboard and punch it cleanly. Remember this when shopping for cardstock. Thin is fine. The textured back is key, as it will help keep them from slipping around on the game surface.

ii) DO NOT CLEAR COAT THEM. I tried a lot, a lot, a lot of different ways to seal them and wasn't happy with any of the results. Unless you're some kind of spray-sealer expert, just skip it. Besides, you can always print more, right?

Thanks guys, and I hope you enjoy your tokens as much as I'm grooving on mine.