skrahen's page

I like an idea used by an old DM back in 2cnd Ed days... Similar to your ring but it was a place. Fountain of youth style waterfall(small) bodies left overnight under the stream would be raised. The area became a plot point on several occasions, in the end it turned out there was a gate to the positive material plane in the falls. Anyway it was fun.. Racing bbeg minions to the grotto when we found out they had discovered it's secret location... One time we had to fend off a seemingly endless stream of ghouls until sunrise while waiting on our fighter to finish his time under the stream.
I also heard but did not personally experience someone who used a similar method but it was a pet semetery style graveyard brought you back whether you liked it or not, although I do think everyone came back willingly, your character would be an undead(npc) if you weren't willing to return don't think he ever got to use the undead caveat but it was neat flavor.

And since he's a lich ... Might as well cover his hands in contact poison for even more fun.

1. Dog dentistry to replace teeth with cold iron teeth.

2. Set dog on fire, fire bypasses dr

Wizard > All

dont over react. a ninth level caster can only teleport themselves and three other people. and then not 100% reliably. scrying isnt usually a viable option as a teleport scouting tool and the percentages arent great.

gms that dont like casters dont like them either because they dont know how to gm them meaning they dont know what they are really capable of and how to help make it fun. or they are mad because alot of what the wizard can do is GM type stuff. playing god. manipulating reality, mind control, mental slavery bending matter to ones will etc.. many GMs feel the same twinge as a rogue does the first time a mage casts knock, spider climb or invisibility, they dont want someone else infringing on controlling their world. I think most of the time though its just the first one, the fact they dont know how to GM for Mages.

i think much of the older rule-sets appeal came from the layers of sometimes indistinguishable flavor/rules/details/errors.
layers upon layers. segments, turns. the sometimes supremely disgusting material components for spells that make you wonder how a lawful good caster could even cast clairvoyance(a pinch of powdered pineal gland from a human or humanoid creature). the complexities of the rule-set meant that everybody house-ruled something if not many things. rarely did everyone use all the rules all the time. but it was great fun. pathfinder is great fun too.. maybe some of the solutions to the problems some people see in the current system can be fixed by house-ruling in some elements from way back. there is a vocal group that thinks that spell-casters are overpowered, maybe the bookkeeping and material component hunting would solve their issues. i personally like keeping track of such things, i find it immersive , but role-playing minutia like that can be a strain and is not for everyone.

gbonehead wrote:

thingsies and stuffywuff

+1 I agree completely.

My players are not privy to any of my creature's stats, and I roll my dice in secret. I might be fudging or not, you'll never know. Anyone who has a problem with that is welcome not to play.

Unless you are making up the stats for all of your own creatures, the players can look them up like anyone else, whether they know you are fudging right then or later, as has been stated people that fudge die rolls and think they are great at lying about it aren't really fooling anyone . It's called suspension of disbelief and the players do it to keep from having a bad time. I don't think this is about absolutes, I think it's about the best answer and when the game is being run by a competent GM who is actually prepared fudging is almost never the best answer, but it is almost always the easy answer.

It seems like fudging is the norm. The Games I tend to enjoy the most have the least of it, the worst ones have the most. It's funny though it seems like the ones that do it the most have the most elaborate explanations for them when it is discussed in a friendly post game fashion, and they usually have some list of rules that they try to fool people Into thinking they follow, or even actually do follow, about when they think it's ok and when it's needed and when they won't do it. Usually the longer the list the more they fudge and deux ex machina, the more they tend to bring their own characters into the game, and the more evident that it's their world and the players only get to change anything ever is when they allow it.
Those that have played enough know that the best game worlds are synergies between players and GM. A cooperative. I just hope for the patience to tolerate those that don't, and the insight and inflence to show them the path.

I am pushing 40 and have been playing or running games since elementary school, I honestly can't remember a time I ever left a Table and thought to myself man I wish the DM/GM would have fudged more.
But I can recall many times thinking that game would have been a lot more fun with the training wheels off.
Or worse, the GMs that think they have a better intuitive idea as to how often a spell casters effects should be useful instead of going by honest save rolls because they are concerned about anticlimactic battles, so the monsters just make pretty much all saves automatically until the monster has had a chance to shine( by causing unmerited amounts of damage and distress.)
Or even worse still when they get caught in the trap of doing both, keep the monster alive and hitting more than it should, and then have to fudge things to mitigate the damage from said fudging.
GM:"now would be a good time for that feeblemind"
Party wizard:"cast that first round and second round and you didn't let it through...I mean you rolled a 20's on the saves, so their gone and I don't have anymore memorized."
GM:"what about that scroll of feeblemind ? "
party wizard:" wrote it into my spell book it's gone remember."
GM:"oh...uh no...it ..uh..had two castings on it."
Party wizard:"fine whatever I cast the other feeble mind from the scroll"
GM:"he definitely failed it this time...you can use healing potions to bring the cleric back from the dead because he just died last round... And then he can raise the rest of the party."
Party wizard: ".....grumble...."

my last post must have gotten stopped by something.

ok more ambiguity maybe.

there is a monster, in carrion crown part 6 pg 88 that has regen 5 with no weakness to the regen, and it also has immune:death effects listed in its defenses.
the question is why would the immunity be listed separately if it is assumed to be integral to regeneration?
it is not. this creature, unlike the troll or other creatures that simply have regeneration, is immune to death effects, which is why it is properly listed in the stat block under defenses, which is right where it would be if trolls had immunity to death effects, or any other regenerating creature for that matter.
i think this is proof again of the intent that immunity to death effects is separate from regeneration and not a part of it.

The black raven wrote:

I must be dense, as I cannot find the precise text saying so. If you could write down the precise quote, I would be very grateful.

p182:

Unarmed Attacks ... "Armed" Unarmed Attacks ... count as armed attacks ... spellcaster delivering a touch spell

p141:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

p185:
touch spell is considered to be an armed attack

T O wrote:

Honestly, it's obvious that Weapon Finesse should count even though there seems to be no clear textual proof. Just roll with it and move on. :]

Could be me, as to me, it is absolutely not in doubt that Touch spells are light weapons.

The will-o'-wisp description in the bestiary is proof of the developers intent of the rule. the creatures stats dont work out correctly without the weapon finesse mod applying to its melee touch attack.