noretoc's page

This is no longer working for me with version 1.2.2. Only the first card flip. clicking on the other doesn't do anything.
On Foundry 13.

Thank you to the hard working folks that have been doing the work on the PF2E system in foundry, I know there are a ton of people that rely on you guys.
Not to take anything away from the group, but I also want to shout out to the folks that are doing the work for PF1E too. There are still a lot of us playing PF1E and the folks who build that system and update it are doing so without any Paizo support and keeping the system alive in foundry. I just want to recognize them too.

If not too late, please combine order 4460685 and 4482739

My opinions any why below.

So these two feats provide a few odd interactions with different abilities.

The feats read as follows
** spoiler omitted **
So the important two lines between them are "you can make melee attacks with the chosen weapon as if it were a heavy mace" and "you can apply any feats and class abilities you possess that modify your ranged attack rolls and damage rolls with the chosen weapon to melee attack rolls and damage rolls made with that weapon."

Question 1: Can you use both Deadly Aim and Power Attack on melee attacks with your 'chosen weapon'? - Yes, as deadly aim is a feat that modifies attack rolls.

Question 2: Can you use feats like rapid shot to melee attacks with this line? - No, while there is a component in feats like this that may modify the attack rolls, the main part of the feat is an extra attack. The style calls out attack roll and damage roll modifiers.

Question 3: If you have weapon training with both Heavy Mace and Bows then do you get to apply both to melee attacks? No - You can use both, but the bonuses would not stack. Its effectively the same source.

Question 4/5: Can you take both Weapon Focus Longbow and Weapon Focus Heavy Mace and apply them both to melee attack rolls? Would the same apply to the rest of the Weapon Specialization and Weapon Focus line? - no As above with stacking.

David knott 242 wrote:

I rather favor the Narnian definition of cannibalism -- you don't eat anything that you could have held a conversation with.

Tends to be my personal opinion for when it matters.

As far as this case, though... I'd look at how the same characters treated non-enemy human/humanoid corpses. If they'd respectfully cremate an elf they found murdered, or similar, generally showing respect for humanoid dead, and they know unicorns are sentient and usually Good, then I wouldn't change their alignments, but I would let them know it wasn't very nice of them and point out any relevant deities who might disapprove. (I imagine Desna rather likes unicorns, for example.) As far as the using it for dragon bait, I'd consider it somewhat justified as long as it was in the spirit of "for the greater good" and not just for the lulz, and they actually thought it was their best idea, but still a gray area unless it's their general opinion on how to treat bodies.

(Also, would the dragon even want its meat pre-cooked? I'd think they'd generally be a little weirded out by that, unless they were expecting it as a tribute.)

This. A unicorn is a sentient creature, just like any other. More good then most. If the players had come across a group of orcs, trussing up a bunch of elves, would the party think it is a good idea to cook one up to lure a dragon? Then while discussing it, think about eating said elf.

Experienced group in Fall River,MA with a steady DM looking for additional players. Our main game is a Pathfinder home brew, very character and story driven. Most adventures are based on PC backstories or goals. Game is on Sat Night, 4-around 10 or 11. looking to fill some spots. Message me if interested. Looking for people who can make a majority of the games, not casual attendees.
From time to time we take a break and play some one shots of other systems to break things up or to fill a session where we have no shows.

Um Noretoc, that is a nice sentiment, but this is the Rules forum, not the Advice forum.

It a rule he is asking about. I am telling him a way to rule on it. Seem appropriate to me. Oh heads up, don't wast time on this digression, I won't reply to any other comments about it.

Balkoth, if you are still reading, here is another opinion. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that the RAW says this... Don't listen to anyone who says use common sense. Lastly, Def don't listen to anyone who argues with either of these people.
Take a look at the feat. Determine what YOU (assuming your the DM)think the intent was. Think about if that is balanced and makes sense in the framework of the world. For this one, I think a -4 penalty might be high (even with it lowering) to account for just being able to use the same weapon on adjacent target, especially as this is what the archetype is going to be known for. So I would let the grip affect 5 and 10 feet but that is just my opinion. I think it is balanced, makes sense. I think it was intended not to work this way, but that ok, I would be ok with it. Getting opinions on whether a -4 penalty is too low for both reaches if you are unsure yourself, would be much better than listening to arguments over how it is used in real life, what the words actually say when dissected into separate sentence structures, what "this other feat" says etc.

Melkiador is right. You pick a first level ability, and regardless of the use allowance for the power, you can only use it a limited number of times a day. If the limit was part of the restriction on the powers you could choose, you would not be able to choose any, since there are no school powers that can be used "3 + the arcanist's Charisma modifier" per day.

The only real 'issue' I feel compelled to comment on is the tendency of some posters and mods to automatically assume the worst intentions behind certain posts - malice instead of ignorance. It's nothing unique to the Paizo forums but it bothers me when I see it, even more so from a mod because they represent Paizo as a company.

I understand that everyone has bad days and some have more garbage to deal with behind the scenes than others, I really do. But please, if you see a post that upsets you just step back for a moment and ask yourself what the odds are that the person who made it was deliberately being offensive/sarcastic vs. speaking out of ignorance. Barring obvious trolling language I'd bet it's most likely the latter instead of the former, especially when you consider that people from all over the world and of various cultures and walks of life read and post here. I say this because it sounds like just that sort of thing was the catalyst for this whole mess in the first place.

Why?? If the post upset a mod, why should they step back. There is a good chance it upsets other people too. Everyone has to realize this is a business, not just a social group, and everything found on their website is a reflection of them. If they leave up a post that can be taken the wrong way, then some one is going to take it the wrong way. That person may also think Paizo agrees with the post, since they didn't do anything to moderate it. That can lead to reputation damage. Why even put yourself in that situation if you are a company? Users of this forum should consider themselves very lucky that Paizo is not stronger in their moderation. As a company it would be safer for them, and they would be well within their right.

I'll add an opinion. What is the point of this discussion. Someone got banned. If that person has an issue, then they should discuss it with the mods. Why should I care, it has nothing to do with me. His rights weren't violated. He doesn't have a "right" to state his opinion on this forum in any way he wants. This isn't a street corner. His Ban doesn't affect me, and it doesn't really affect anyone else here that wasn't involved in the situation. If I have a post deleted, or I am banned and I have an issue with it I will contact the mods to find out why.
The whole purpose of this public display seems like it is an to rile some people up into making some bad decisions. My opinion, is to see to your own house. If you have an issue take it up with the mods. If they don't listen, find another playground, this is the internet, there are plenty our there. It is not like you are getting kicked out of your house. Stop trying to gather the peasants to grab pitchforks and go after you perceived adversaries. Be an adult, handle your business, let people handle theirs.

If it's not too late please.

I totally disagree with this philosophy, as a DM I'm trying to run a game my players enjoy if me handwaving their abilities away impedes that then thats my problem not theirs. They aren't roleplaying characters in my novel, if their character can do something then they can do something simple as that.

Also this logic "If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here." when applied to the scenario the player has described basically equates to. Do your best to enjoy being railroaded.

Quote:

Now if you are playing with a DM who is always making errors on the way things work, then it is time to step in and ask. But if it's a new DM, Start with that trust first. It's only a game after all, no one really gets hurt. If he squanders that trust, oh well, now you know better wjen playing with him later.

It's a DM's job to make a game fun, not a players job to try and enjoy whatever is thrown at them until they loose their temper.

Wow, talk about entitlement. So it's the DM's job to plan the game, run the game, handle all the NPCs, know every rule, rearrange the entire story, throwing away all the work he did, if a player feels that he is not having enough fun. Would you like the DM to pick you up, bring you home, provide a meal and pay you $35 a session for the pleasure of running a game for you. Also do you feel this way about just yourself or every player? What if you want to kill the king, and another player want to save him. Is it the GM's job to somehow appease you both, or are you ok with you getting what you want and the other player not having a good time.

I think how I would react to a situation like this depends on how much I trust my GM. I am the most rules knowledgeable in our group, so situations usually work like this:

Me: I cast acid arrow at the large metal man that I failed to identify!
GM: It slides off the creature as if it were nothing!
Me: You know that golems are only immune to spells that allow spell resistance, right?
GM: ummm... the creature, that is most certainly not a golem, is burned by the acid.

However, I have a lot of trust in that GM, so if he responded to my rules reminder with an "I know." Then I would try to figure out what was different about the situation, or just roll with it. We had a boss fight where the villain had multiple forms. When she transformed, she pushed everyone around her back with no save. My response was "that's pretty weird, there should be a save for things like that. Especially since one of us got pushed into the spiked walls in the room." He just said that this was part of the plan I dropped it, and the fight was really fun.

I've played with another GM where I had a character with scent and he took every opportunity to either deny its usefulness or to shaft me with terrible smells making me nauseated. Predictably I would rarely give him the benefit of the doubt when I thought he was wrong.

Long story short: if you are GMing you have to earn your players trust before you can throw curve-balls like this and not have players get upset.

There are lots of strategies for doing this. First of all, you should know the rules well. Second, don't depart from the rules too often; variety is the spice of life, but not the whole meal. Third, when players are confused about something you could clue them into information their characters know to demonstrate that you are on the ball. Consider the comprehend languages example:

Player: I cast Comprehend Languages.
GM: It fails.
Player: What?
GM: Wally the wizard knows that comprehend languages fails on codes and ciphers. It is not a perfect system, it is...

I agree with this except for one thing. If you are playing in someone's game he should not have to earn your trust first. He is the one going through the time to build the game and run it for you. You should give him the benefit of the doubt, that he knows what he is doing. If something doesn't work like you think it should, then try to fit it in to what your character knows. "Wow that was strange, that should have worked, something weird is going on here."

so to say that you get "no" result back and the spell does nothing is just lazy GM'ing. even if it was tied to a major plot point or story arc, if a player uses an ability as it's written, hand waving it away is insulting and cheap.

Lazy?!? Well we don't want any lazy DMs, so here is a spell that can be used for this situation.

Confuse Languages

School divination; Level alchemist 1, bard 1, cleric/oracle 1, inquisitor 1, shaman 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1; Domain knowledge 1; Subdomain language 1
CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (pinch of soot and salt)
EFFECT

Range touch
Target written text no more than 500 words/level
Duration Permanent

DESCRIPTION
When cast on a an item or area that contains text, the text becomes unreadable to anyone who does not have fluency in that language already. If the text is subject to a comprehend language spell, that spell is automatically countered, providing no result and ends with a "Fizzle" sound. This spell also instantly silences metaphysical voices that complain about their comprehend language spell not working. This spell effect also does not detect as magical under a detect magic spell.

I can't believe that this is an issue at all. Should the DM provide all the monster stats, and puzzles so the player can have a satisfactory explanation on why they beat the challenge is three turns instead of two. The DM doesn't owe anyone any explanation. If this question came up in my game my answer would have been "Hmm, yes it didn't work, strange huh?" You aren't entitled to any explanation. If it bothers your character, have him take a rubbing and try to find out why. Then the DM can make it part of the game. If it bothers you a a player, well, then be bothered.
I give the DM props for trying to give you an explanation that you had no right to, even if it was clumsy.

Now before I start getting replies of "well the spell says" or "You can't arbitrarily change the rule". Yes I can. In fact it is my duty to change things up and make things not work the way you expect. Otherwise you are playing a board game.

No. I think phantoms are colored based on their emotion if what I read is correct.

For example, greed phantoms are yellow, lust phantoms are rose-colored, fear phantoms are grey, etc.

It would be hard to convince people that your solid yellow, not-quite-human looking buddy was just a normal human.

Thank you.

The spiritualist's phantom is describes as "looks somewhat like it did in its past life while manifested, though the emotional turmoil of its existence usually warps its appearance in some way." Would you say a Phantom in ectoplasmic form can pass as a human?

Doh! That's right. Thank you all.

So here is a scenario. Channel energy. Don't have selective channeling. Enemies all have spell resistance. Allies don't. Can I choose to fail a spell penetration roll, to heal just my allies?
I know if the enemy is aware they can drop their resistance, but that would be dangerous with the rest of my party throwing magic.

Its a pretty terrible option in my opinion. You effectively lose the iconic ability of the magus. Sure you can buff, but with a low bab and no heavy armor prof, you are basically buffing just to bring yourself up to a fighter, and getting none of the extra feats, abilities, etc. Not worth it just to get a blade that is versatile. Better to play a normal magus, fighter, or see if your dm will house rule spells as non-psychic.

Out of no were the newest player begins chiming in interrupting that the wolf wouldn't have done that and if it was the last one it would simply run away.

There were a lot of thing that could have been done better, but I will give advice on this. My answer when someone comments on the actions of my monsters or npcs is "You would think that huh? hmm..." And they leave it at that. You don't need to explain. If their character thinks its strange or they should have acted differently, let them.

Hi Zurai,

please quote a Source in the Rulebook which undermines that Sentence.

All Sources i have point to what J.R. Farrington was quoting.

What you said could be an GM's interpretation of the Rules, but the only thing i can read is what is written in the Rules.

Regards, Calimar.

Calimar, can you please quote a source that cite the words "much as though casting a summon monster spell" means "function exactly like a summon monster spell"?

What you said could be an GM's interpretation of the Rules, but the only thing i can read is what is written in the Rules.

"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

You can absolutely scream when silenced. Your vocal chords still vibrate and become damaged, it is just that the sound is magically suppressed.

zainale wrote:

the area has been silenced. but it does not in anyway stop you from spending your move action to exert or express your pain by screaming

Umbral Reaver wrote:

In this instance, as loudly as possible is total silence.

Howling Agony wrote:

“Screaming,” for the purposes of this spell, includes any vocalization of pain or its telepathic equivalent.

Vocalization, by definition, requires sound. If you're not making sound, you're not vocalizing. If you're not vocalizing, you're not screaming.

Screaming is explicitly defined within the text of the spell to resolve exactly this sort of dispute, and I don't know why everyone keeps coming up with their own definition to replace it. If you're not making sound, you're not screaming. It's as simple as that.

Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

"or its telepathic equivalent" has nothing to do with actual sound

You do realize that "telepathic" doesn't just mean "mental," right? If you're not actually using telepathy, you have to vocalize. If you have to vocalize, you have to make sound.

zainale wrote:

if there where a mind reader in the room he would hear the howl of pain

But there isn't, is there?

Silence does not make you unable to scream. You are still vocalizing, it's just no one can hear it. If there was a spell that turned liquid to air immediate and you had to go number 1. You do your business but the snow doesn't turn yellow. You still did the deed, you are not sitting there with a still full bladder.

Those aren't the spell-casting rules, it's the Readied Action rules regarding spell-casting. And what you say about still completing your action after taking a hit from a Readied action or AoO is true, which might be why they specifically mentioned an occurrence where an action is flat out negated regardless of the target surviving the AoO or readied action. And like you said, you still make the attempt, even if it now becomes more difficult or even impossible to hit the target. If you go to swing at someone and their AoO or Readied action trips you, you fall prone and (assuming you survive) you continue the action. You don't get to say, "Nah, I don't swing, because now I have a -4 to attack." You're already taking the action that triggered the AoO or the Ready.

If I ready an action to run out of a fireball's area if I see the bead streaking towards me, you don't get to change the intersection you targeted because suddenly there's not a satisfactory target where there was before.

Now there are things you can change in certain circumstances, for instance, you don't pick the targets for spells until you complete casting them, so if your intended target has readied to run out of range when you cast a charm spell (before you actually target someone), then they do so. Once their readied action is done, you continue yours, which is to complete the spell (or you could purposefully lose it) and then choose a different target, but that is expressly stated in how casting and choosing targets works... and that is a spell-casting rule.

Similarly, if you are moving and something happens while you are moving, like a monster readying to step out into a hallway up ahead when you're halfway down it, you may have moved 25-ft. of your 30-foot movement, but you can choose not to move that last 5...

I have to disagree completely. There is no rule in PF that says you have to decide what you are doing, declare it, then it happens. If you are moving and get close enough to attack, and the victim moves as part of a readied action, you can then continue to move as long as you have movement left. There is nothing that says you can't continue. If you had made your attack (which you didn't, as the victim moved before your attack) then you would be stuck.

Hi noretoc,

Thanks for letting us know about this! I'm sorry to hear that your order hasn't arrived yet. I'll go ahead and get a replacement set up in your sidecart to be sent out with your next round of subscriptions. If the original does show up, just let us know, but otherwise you should be all set!

Please don't hesitate to let me know if there are any further questions or concerns that you may have in the meantime, and I'll be more than happy to help.

Thanks, and have a good weekend!
Katina

Hi Katina, It showed up today. Real sorry for the trouble.

Order says it shipped the 9th, but I still have not received it. Thought I would check.

But they do not simulate the circumstance where a person can get addicted and manage the addiction by taking more of the drug regularly without killing themselves in a few days. It may be as Blymurkla says in that they are designed to basically tell players "you use you die". As for NPC, well they don't use those rules, but that is pretty inconsistent with how Paizo normally do things.

Looking at these rule, I can't see how there are any addicts. If you get addicted to a drug that is higher then minor addiction, the user can't heal the damage from the drug, will need to keep take doses to function and each dose does more ability damage. How can an average commoner get addicted to any medium or major drug without being dead in a few days.
Am I missing something?

One of my players is looking at creating a mercenary company using the downtime rules. He is currently in a lawful realm, and I figure that he will need permission to establish a group of armed men. So, he will need to buy a mercenary company charter, which will basically give him some legal protection and the locals won't think he is raising an army.
So my idea is there are levels of charters. Maybe up to 20 men, then up to 100, then up to 500. More than that would be dangerous. Any advice on how much to charge for there charters?

So we have a wizard that can see in the dark in an area of darkness, using spectral hand to deliver touch spells. The Wiz also has sneak attack. Can the Hand make a stealth check to remain unseen, deliver the spell and do Sneak attack damage? The Target is NOT in the darkness.

Opinions?

Aspiring Tiefling Alchemist wrote:

So if I have a goblin unchained rogue who is small and has a dex mod of +6 (And weapon focus)

I would get

First strike with both main/off hand +12/+12/
Second strike with both main/off hand+7/+7?

Which is two attacks with my main hand and two with my offhand in a full round action?

Sorry for asking so many questions.

Exactly right.

Not quite, It would depend on his level, and whether or not he has Weapon Finesse, (Focus gives you a +1, finesse allows you to use your dex). It also depends on if his off hand weapon is light.

Devil's advocating is probably one of the smartest ways to examine an issue. It pushes it into a slightly different perspective to force one's self, and others to look at it from a different perspective. <The Devil's Advocate was originally a position intended to force priests and such to think about their decision before taking their vows or making laws, essentially arguing the worst case scenario or what other issues something might lead to. In a lot of ways like an interactive psych exam.>

That is, to actually think about it and see if the original assumptions you had actually hold water, and also to understand why other sides may think the way they do.

Refusing to do so really just shows that you have made up your mind, and you are making a choice to not allow yourself to learn or change despite the possibility or existence of evidence.

Here is my issue. Why do I need to be open to other opinions. This isn't law where you are determining guilt or innocence. It is a game. If a poster asks about a rule, and I give them my interpretation, why do you (figuratively) need to give me other options? I am not asking for your input. I am answering the original post, whit what I feel is the best answer I can give. You should do the same, with out even involving me. Now if I get something that is obviously wrong about something else, I understand you wanting to correct me. If the original question was about best uses for power attack and I say with a light weapon as it double damage. I can see you coming in and saying "sorry, but light weapons don't provide double damage". That way undisputed errors are not passed around. But if I say its only good for two handed. Why do you feel the need to show all the options and engage me directly about it. If you have a different opinion that you think the OP might be interested in, just state it, and let them decide. Obviously I am ok in my opinion, I am having fun with it, and I think it is fine, otherwise I wouldn't be telling the OP about it. I don't need or want someone to come in and play devils advocate to get me to explore other options. I'm not the one who posted the original question. Let me tell my side, you tell yours, and we will both happily play our way, while the OP get a few different opinions to see which is best for him.

Awesome!!

Except that's not what happened. Devil said Look, Paladin looked. Here's how it could have gone, and no one would have known which way it would go until the Paladin looked:

Devil: Hey Paladin look.
Paladin: *Looks and sees an image of an orphanage being ransacked by demons
Devil: I can help you stop this if we can make a deal.

That's a deal. If a salesman says, "Hey look at this" and you look, you are not all of a sudden obligated to buy it. No deal has been made.

Maybe you should reread the OP. Especially this sentence.

During this plane hopping escapade I thought it would be fun to have the party approached by a deal-making demon. He asked if anyone interested in making a deal please enter his tent.

if Rynjin and I are on the same side of an argument, it's a pretty good sign that the argument made is flawed in some way.

Sorry, I can only see yours. But yes, it is flawed. if a DEVIL, says come in here if you want to make a deal, and then you go in there, unless you failed "temptation by fiends" class then you are on sketchy ground. The fiend has said straight our he wants to deal and "DEVIL" and "deal" should be a warning flag that Paladins should heed. Under no circumstances should he ever do what the DEVIL wants. No matter how innocent it seems. That is how DEVILS work. Any paladin worth his smite should know this.

Alternatively:

DEVIL: *Appears* "Hi Mister Paladin buddy friend."
Paladin: "Aaah! A Deranged Evil Vile Intercosmological Lawkeeper!" *Draws sword*
DEVIL: "Wait! As we evil outsiders see everything backwards from paladins, I will take any attacks against me as a confirmation that we are indeed good friends."
Paladin: "DIE!"
GM: *Cackles manically*

OR...

Not really my circus or my monkeys, but one positive side I can see for a Rules Questions Subforum is I'd know right where to go to get a question answered.

If you can get an answer... Half the time there are twenty page of one guy saying yes and another saying no, or, if you have a simple question everyone tells you anything but your answer. I'll paste my opinion of the latter from another thread.

OP: Hi all, I want to create a pet bird for my monk, Anyone know where I can find a stat block for a owl?

P1: If you want a pet go ranger
p2 A monkey would be better for a monk
p3: You could take one level in synthesist and become a bird
p4: Moneys can use quarterstaves
p5: Why would you want a pet for your monk, they don't add anything to flurry, and monks suck.
TOZ:monkey brains are good with ketchup
p6 ask you DM for a fiendish velocoraptor. If he doesn't give it it you create a synthisist/alchemist and create one yourself.
p7 if you think monks suck, it because you aren't using the right archetype...
p8 I like ketchup
p9 Mustard!!!
p10 About monks and flurry of blows being broken...
etc...etc...etc...

Somewhere on page 5 someone will link to a animal stat collection, but by that time the OP has stopped looking at the thread.

A deal usually has some sort of terms. This didn't. There's no deal because there's nothing being traded by way of agreement. The closest "deal" here is show and tell.

A usually, but this one didn't have written terms. The DEVIL offered information, the price was the paladin put his hand on the table and see a vision (and accept whatever else that does). Very straight forward.

I disagree with practically everyone on this thread. Now, I don't know if I would go so far as to make the paladin fall, but he should certainly be getting some type of spanking for this. Here are the facts.
They are on another plane, and a DEVIL says "Hey want to make a deal". - first this is not some Monty Haul game show host. This is a DEVIL. He is trying to corrupt you. How can you be sure? Like the Geico commercial, he is a DEVIL, it's what they do. Unless you are completely ignorant of the subtype, just going in and talking to this guy when he is "looking to make a deal" is inviting trouble. He didn't say let's have a conversation. He said let's make a deal, so you know you are going to have to pay something and that should stop you right there.
He says "I just want to show you something, put your hand on the table". OK, maybe if your are working with a 4 or 5 Wis, this might seem like a good idea, but when a DEVIL tells you to put your hand on the table so he can show you something, you know this is a BAD idea, and you know he is going to do something to corrupt you. How do you know that for sure? DEVIL. These guys don't do thing to help others out. They corrupt people, it's what they do. By accepting the terms and doing what the devil is asking of you (Even something as simple as putting your hands on something the devil has planted and opening yourself to a vision supplied by said DEVIL), you are giving him something he wants and will use against you. (Again, why, DEVIL, its what they do).

So the conclusion is that you willingly entered into a bargain with a DEVIL, no matter how innocent it appeared. You gave the DEVIL something he wanted in exchange for something you wanted. you should know better, no matter how small it seems, you are associating with a DEVIL and entering into a bargain. How can you be sure it a bargain, if it doesn't look like one? He said "Let's make a deal". Seriously. Anyone who thinks this is a simple conversation is a fool. No matter how much it appears to be a simple conversation. This is what DEVILS do. Maybe pride made you think you could get by what he had to offer, but the min he said do this and you did it, that's it.

If this was just some random guy or a devil in disguise, it would be different. But the Pal knew it was a devil, knew he was looking to make a "deal", accepted the deal. End of story. His god should be going "What the Heck, Bro?"

So, I am considering stsrting a Shadowrun campaign with a group of first time players, group has middling to high amounts of experience with other games, lots of DnD and older WoD, and I have played shadowrun a little, and run alot of different games for too many years.

The question is which edition of the game do I want to use? Mostly I am lokking at the core mechanics, how well are they explained and how smoothly do they flow?

Go with Cyberpunk 2020 edition. I may be biased though.

Monsters that are taken out in a single attack are cool and good. I've utilized them in a number of games and they really cut down on the tedium and grind of fighting big mobs of monsters.

A rule I used once a long time ago (and one that's appeared in a few games since) for those monsters you don't necessarily want to be taken out in a single attack but don't want to track hit points for is hit point thresholds: namely, the first time a monster is hit, if the attack deals damage over the monster's hit point threshold, they go down. If the attack is lower than their hit point threshold, they become bloodied and will drop at the next attack, regardless of actual hit points. This way you can have monsters that can potentially survive the first attack, but without the unnecessary book-keeping. (Do note that this one only really makes sense if your players' expected damage output is close to the monster's average hit points.)

Just want to throw out that a system almost exactly like this for pathfinder was created by Jason Bulmahn. Check out Minotaur Games Rule zero: Underlings.

They are exclusive. I was around when the term roll play first started being used, and a lot of people misuse it today. It is, as a poster said before. A person who plays to roll the dice only. Doesn't care about descriptions, character concepts, story, etc. People used this when when they took an option that is not great and someone says "Why did you take that, it sucks". The person replies because I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer, meaning "I don't always go with what is going to get me the best result on the die." It was not meant to characterize people who take optimal choices. It was meant to characterize people who only make decisions based on the rolls and do not care about other aspects of the game.

Somewhere along the line, people who like to optimize starting to take this as in insult. When they heard it, they felt like it was a slight on them, because they didn't make"non-optimal" choices, and just had to defend themselves against against this apparent insult, (even though it was never meant to characterize them) and thus the argument was born. So yes true rollplaying as it was coined when the word was first used is mutually exclusive with roleplaying, because that was the purpose of the word in the first place. To identify the type of player that did not role play at. Why folks who like to build characters as good as they can have taken this word on to describe themselves is a mystery to me, but it is hilarious to see them defending it. But then we see this in in history all the time where people take a word they they understand, think it means something different and fight over it.

In terms of quality, does the campaign at least approach the Neverwinter Nights original campaign? That's pretty much the bare minimum in terms of quality that will still leave me satisfied.

The Campaign is really forgettable. A lot of fetch quests that really don't make a lot of sense. A lot of enemies that really don't offer anything unique. This may be a 5th thing, but at 3rd I'm finding random vampire and vamp spawns and vamp spawn necromancers that are all very much the same thing and have nothing interesting about them, except one does slashing and one does psychic... I would expect my first vampire fight to be memorable, that he would be some NPC that had some story. Nope, they are just the next mob in line to be killed. My abilities are very bland. A does piercing, B does psychic (even though I'm a ranger... its a spirit wolf?!?) C does piercing in a small radius. I started with a quarterstaff cause I thought it would be cool (even if they all look like wizard staffs). and quickly had to change to a sword because the staff could not keep up with the damage it needed to do.

Six pages of arguing about the meaning of the word combatant is not for me, so read this if you like.

Two situations: getting the drop on someone (the term is just what I'm using). Getting to act before the person is really aware you are acting and not able to defend himself. This is being caught flatfooted when someone else in the round goes before you. You knew a fight was possible (They have fists) but they reacted faster.

Surprise: When you are completely at the mercy of the other person for a round because you were unaware they were there. That is why you don't get an action, and you are still flatfoot until your turn after the surprise round. You are caught completely with your hands in your pants.
This only happens when you are unaware of the opponent. Being caught off guard because the guy was quick or is attacking unexpectedly is just being caught flatfooted, and if you have a good enough reaction time, (high init) then you can even manage to move faster then that guy and get the jump on him.

For anyone looking for a game where you can build your own adventures, don't bother! The tools are very limited. You can't even add a dialog to a creature. You can give him a quest with a "Get quest" line a line that comes up when you talk to them if the quest is not completed. And one when the "quest" is completed. OK for simple quests but absolutely worthless for building any type of story. Until they add more options, it isn't worth it. Take a pass.

For anyone interested, I worked up the woodcrafter and this is the first attempt. I have a dead level, and am missing a capstone still.
Woodcrafter

My philosophy was to break up the classes into two martial heavy with no elemental companion. Those are wood and Metal. Going off book a bit, but trying to also keep classes balanced and have some consistency.
Then there will be two classes with full elemental companions and med spellcasting (6 levels) 3/4 BAB (Thinking Air and Earth). Last two heavy spell user with elemental companions at lvl -4 and 9 level casting 1/2 BAB (Fire and Water). I was thinking kineticist for Fire at first, but they are more than one trick ponies.. so I think I will stay will spellcasting and give each of the heavy caster a domain like ability. Maybe firebolt and healing touch..

If anyone has feedback I would be happy to hear.

No shipping notice yet. Can someone check on it please?

Cheap pre-baked pizza with chorizo sausage and corn.

CORN on pizza?!?!?! WTH?!? Are you an alien?

Well, for Fallout, as long as I have a 3rd person option, I'm good. I'm not one of those people who needs 1st person to "feel more immersed." I like playing in 3rd person.

But for other games, yes, adjusting FOV mitigates, though does not cpletely eliminate the effect. I was able to play some Borderlands with a friend for a little while because the FOV was more forgiving.

You are not alone DQ. I couldn't play any of the half life games.