A stupid thing you've noticed


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
Also real life conversion rates for copper to silver and silver to gold are 80-90 to 1, making WoW more accurate in that area.

I'm not an economist, so I must ask: is real life conversion rate for metals standard, or does it fluctuate over time?

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
No one in Laketown could possibly have a high enough knowledge(arcana) to identify a great wyrm red dragon.

Oh, it gets better. Even if you do actually train Knowledge (Arcana), the difficulty to identify dragons increases as their age (and CR) go up. So if you don't keep up with your Arcana training as you level up, you won't be able to identify older dragons.

Edvard Eddard, Evoker Extraordinaire: ...What the hell is that red thing up there?
Barto the Bard: Oh, that? That's a red dragon wyrmling. You know, they breathe fire, can fly, takes about seven good solid blows to kill. I know that one, actually. That's Naakthaka, the daughter of the adult red dragon known as Hazhulkhen.
Edvard: Oh. And what's that bigger red thing up there next to Naakthaka?
Barto: .......You know, I've never seen one of those before. I have no idea.
Katelyn the Kineticist: Neither have I.
Hazhulkhen and Naakthaka: (both swoop in and incinerate Barto with fire breath)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
Buying a mule is the most cost-effective transport option in the equipment list but there are no stats for a mule. (Yeah, I know, one of the devs just said "just use pony with the advanced template" but it's still kinda odd).

A combat trained mule killed a dragon in self-defense in one of my games.

Those little dudes have a lot of moxy. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
No one in Laketown could possibly have a high enough knowledge(arcana) to identify a great wyrm red dragon.

Oh, it gets better. Even if you do actually train Knowledge (Arcana), the difficulty to identify dragons increases as their age (and CR) go up. So if you don't keep up with your Arcana training as you level up, you won't be able to identify older dragons.

Edvard Eddard, Evoker Extraordinaire: ...What the hell is that red thing up there?
Barto the Bard: Oh, that? That's a red dragon wyrmling. You know, they breathe fire, can fly, takes about seven good solid blows to kill. I know that one, actually. That's Naakthaka, the daughter of the adult red dragon known as Hazhulkhen.
Edvard: Oh. And what's that bigger red thing up there next to Naakthaka?
Barto: .......You know, I've never seen one of those before. I have no idea.
Katelyn the Kineticist: Neither have I.
Hazhulkhen and Naakthaka: (both swoop in and incinerate Barto with fire breath)

It's actually worse with humanoids with class levels. The DC to identify is based on the creatures CR + 10 ( or 5 for common or 15 for rare creatures). As a humanoid gains levels its CR increases, to be 1 less than it's class levels for PC classes. But that means the 20th level human fighter is at least a DC 24 to identify him as human.


Claxon wrote:
Snorb wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
No one in Laketown could possibly have a high enough knowledge(arcana) to identify a great wyrm red dragon.

Oh, it gets better. Even if you do actually train Knowledge (Arcana), the difficulty to identify dragons increases as their age (and CR) go up. So if you don't keep up with your Arcana training as you level up, you won't be able to identify older dragons.

Edvard Eddard, Evoker Extraordinaire: ...What the hell is that red thing up there?
Barto the Bard: Oh, that? That's a red dragon wyrmling. You know, they breathe fire, can fly, takes about seven good solid blows to kill. I know that one, actually. That's Naakthaka, the daughter of the adult red dragon known as Hazhulkhen.
Edvard: Oh. And what's that bigger red thing up there next to Naakthaka?
Barto: .......You know, I've never seen one of those before. I have no idea.
Katelyn the Kineticist: Neither have I.
Hazhulkhen and Naakthaka: (both swoop in and incinerate Barto with fire breath)

It's actually worse with humanoids with class levels. The DC to identify is based on the creatures CR + 10 ( or 5 for common or 15 for rare creatures). As a humanoid gains levels its CR increases, to be 1 less than it's class levels for PC classes. But that means the 20th level human fighter is at least a DC 24 to identify him as human.

Huh.

We hand-wave that sort of silliness.

I like the dragon example though, that's awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Knowledge skills, there aren't very good guidelines on what information hitting a certain DC should entitle you to. I've always thought it would be nice if the CR of the monster or NPC were part of the information you got for succeeding on a Knowledge check. CR is probably the single most important thing you could know when deciding whether or not to fight something.


Devilkiller wrote:
Regarding Knowledge skills, there aren't very good guidelines on what information hitting a certain DC should entitle you to. I've always thought it would be nice if the CR of the monster or NPC were part of the information you got for succeeding on a Knowledge check. CR is probably the single most important thing you could know when deciding whether or not to fight something.

Actually I agree, though the game does have this built in, in a meta way. Assuming you have the correct skill, if you fail to identify it you know it's substantially higher than you your skill level can manage to identify. Meaning it's probably above your CR by a fair margin.

In general, knowledge skills should have more clearly laid out what information is provided to PCs IMO.

For instances, for simply successfully identify I always include the base creature type information (as a reminder) as well as a single fact specific to that creature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

My favorite one to point out as a way to combat folks who get too wrapped up in applying the rules PRECISELY AS WRITTEN is this:

Being dead does not make you fall prone.

Fortunately the game is run by people who are capable of applying common sense and logic to things, and so when you die you do fall down, and so you CAN see the moon despite its distance.

I'm glad to see someone on Paizo's side reference "common sense." I run into those same people that get wrapped up in applying rules precisely as written. Saying "the game designers intended for you to apply common sense" doesn't seem to satisfy them.

I'm one of those who hates this approach. The reason is that I almost always see it applied by people whose "common sense" run exactly contrary to the rules and frequently contrary to what I'd call "common sense" anyway.


Claxon wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
Regarding Knowledge skills, there aren't very good guidelines on what information hitting a certain DC should entitle you to. I've always thought it would be nice if the CR of the monster or NPC were part of the information you got for succeeding on a Knowledge check. CR is probably the single most important thing you could know when deciding whether or not to fight something.

Actually I agree, though the game does have this built in, in a meta way. Assuming you have the correct skill, if you fail to identify it you know it's substantially higher than you your skill level can manage to identify. Meaning it's probably above your CR by a fair margin.

In general, knowledge skills should have more clearly laid out what information is provided to PCs IMO.

For instances, for simply successfully identify I always include the base creature type information (as a reminder) as well as a single fact specific to that creature.

A very records heavy house rule we have used (played with someone that had OCD/Aspergers-the GM) was giving a bonus of 1 to any roll to identify something for EVERY time we had done it before (it stacked).

Red Dragons, for example, were lumped together... so the more we fought them, the easier it got to identify them.

We also had detailed records of every single thing we had killed. Pretty impressive numbers by the end of that campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 3.5 SRD has a clause on making a knowledge checks untrained that is follows:

3.5 SRD OGL wrote:

Untrained

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

(by the way, this is open game content.)

Which does not exist in the Pathfinder PRD:

same clause in official Paizo PRD wrote:

You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.

(I think this has also been released as open game content by paizo)

Which it probably should, to bypass game-mechanical confusion involving people untrained in Knowledge (local) not knowing basic information about their own town.

There should probably also be clauses preventing a rogue resident exclusive to say, Absalom with a high Knowledge (local) being able to use that knowledge to know obscure tidbits about, for example, Falcon's Hollow, to which said rogue has no connection and has never been.

I know that common sense should be used when interpreting the game mechanics and the rules are supposed to be interpreted as if you are a reasonable person, but as a cynic I think it's reasonable to point out that most people are not reasonable people. (For the record I'm more of an epicurean hedonist, though anyone who lives in a wine jar and yells at Alexander the Great for standing in their sunlight is worthy of my respect.)

Also now that I've quoted Open Game Content I am bound by law to include this:

OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a:
OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.

Definitions:
"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content;
"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;
"Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;
"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.
"Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;
"Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor
"Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.
"You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Creature Collection Volume 1 Copyright 2000, Clark Peterson.

Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker,Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Wiker

Monster Manual II Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Swords of Our Fathers Copyright 2003, The Game Mechanics.

Mutants & Masterminds Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing.

Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

The Hypertext d20 SRD Copyright 2004, Jans W Carton.

Last but not least, most stuff I write on the internet is probably in Creative Commons or something. There's probably a clause here about how you are free to use my content, but with clear credit to me and no commercial use, clauses which are to be interpreted as if by a reasonable person, and by "reasonable person" I specifically mean me. Keep your nasty grubby capitalist paws off. copyleft 2015 Aniuś Taluwīs. Wait is my chosen name even legal for use in declaring a copyright? I don't even f~!!ing know anymore. My lawyer is a drinking horn that exclusively speaks Anglo-Saxon.

END OF LICENSE

(Thank you for indulging my sense of humor)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:


Also real life conversion rates for copper to silver and silver to gold are 80-90 to 1, making WoW more accurate in that area.

In the modern day - yes.

But actually - until the 20th century, there was much less of a difference in value between silver and gold, and somewhat less difference with copper.

Until the mid 19th century, the silver/gold ratio was approx 15.5/1. Before the 16th century it was even less of a difference, as the Spanish discovering silver mines in South America drove down the value of silver via supply/demand.

Also - nothing says that Golarian has the same proportion of metals in their world's crust anyway.


This:

3.5 SRD OGL wrote:

Untrained

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

is the same as this:

same clause in official Paizo PRD wrote:
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.


As I recall, the Chinese wanted lots of silver back in the day and that affected worldwide trade at least until the English found another trade good which created its own demand.

Perhaps the plan was to fashion all that silver into silverware for the Western world. I've always found it a little funny that most forks seem to be made in countries which use chopsticks instead.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
No one in Laketown could possibly have a high enough knowledge(arcana) to identify a great wyrm red dragon.

Oh, it gets better. Even if you do actually train Knowledge (Arcana), the difficulty to identify dragons increases as their age (and CR) go up. So if you don't keep up with your Arcana training as you level up, you won't be able to identify older dragons.

Edvard Eddard, Evoker Extraordinaire: ...What the hell is that red thing up there?
Barto the Bard: Oh, that? That's a red dragon wyrmling. You know, they breathe fire, can fly, takes about seven good solid blows to kill. I know that one, actually. That's Naakthaka, the daughter of the adult red dragon known as Hazhulkhen.
Edvard: Oh. And what's that bigger red thing up there next to Naakthaka?
Barto: .......You know, I've never seen one of those before. I have no idea.
Katelyn the Kineticist: Neither have I.
Hazhulkhen and Naakthaka: (both swoop in and incinerate Barto with fire breath)

IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.

Since dragons are color coded for your convenience, a smart dragon will take steps to mitigate that weakness or even turn it to their advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Sothal wrote:

This:

3.5 SRD OGL wrote:

Untrained

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

is the same as this:

same clause in official Paizo PRD wrote:
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

I see now. Apparently I have degenerated to 3.5 barbarian and can't read.

On a side note, I had an annoying argument with a player once who was more familiar with 3.5 and insistent that barbarians couldn't read, even though there's nothing in the Pathfinder rules as far as I can see about barbarians being illiterate and we were playing Pathfinder, not 3.5.


Devilkiller wrote:

As I recall, the Chinese wanted lots of silver back in the day and that affected worldwide trade at least until the English found another trade good which created its own demand.

Perhaps the plan was to fashion all that silver into silverware for the Western world. I've always found it a little funny that most forks seem to be made in countries which use chopsticks instead.

Let me guess, that "trade good which created its own demand" was opium.

Gotta love those Anglo-Normans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
DM Sothal wrote:

This:

3.5 SRD OGL wrote:

Untrained

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

is the same as this:

same clause in official Paizo PRD wrote:
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

I see now. Apparently I have degenerated to 3.5 barbarian and can't read.

On a side note, I had an annoying argument with a player once who was more familiar with 3.5 and insistent that barbarians couldn't read, even though there's nothing in the Pathfinder rules as far as I can see about barbarians being illiterate and we were playing Pathfinder, not 3.5.

I still play Barbarians as illiterate. When they are my characters.

THOG SMASH BOOK! BOOK TASTE BAD! DIE BOOK!


alexd1976 wrote:


I still play Barbarians as illiterate. When they are my characters.

THOG SMASH BOOK! BOOK TASTE BAD! DIE BOOK!

I love Thog <3

I like playing my barbarians as intelligent people who are very bitter about the 'stupid barbarian' stereotype. My characters tend to only be illiterate if they actually came from an oral society, which makes them no less intelligent and no less bitter.

Maybe one of these days I'll play a foppish (half-)orc barbarian with a taste in fine art, lavish silk garments and classic literature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


I still play Barbarians as illiterate. When they are my characters.

THOG SMASH BOOK! BOOK TASTE BAD! DIE BOOK!

I love Thog <3

I like playing my barbarians as intelligent people who are very bitter about the 'stupid barbarian' stereotype. My characters tend to only be illiterate if they actually came from an oral society, which makes them no less intelligent and no less bitter.

Whats even funnier is when Thog speaks 14 languages. Illiterate doesn't mean stupid, and playing up a stereotype of being a big dumb barbarian often leads to others underestimating him.

Being raised by Goblins is what led to illiteracy.

:D

I just realized my character Thog shares a name with a famous comic character. Whoops.


alexd1976 wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


I still play Barbarians as illiterate. When they are my characters.

THOG SMASH BOOK! BOOK TASTE BAD! DIE BOOK!

I love Thog <3

I like playing my barbarians as intelligent people who are very bitter about the 'stupid barbarian' stereotype. My characters tend to only be illiterate if they actually came from an oral society, which makes them no less intelligent and no less bitter.

Whats even funnier is when Thog speaks 14 languages. Illiterate doesn't mean stupid, and playing up a stereotype of being a big dumb barbarian often leads to others underestimating him.

Being raised by Goblins is what led to illiteracy.

:D

Well of course. Writing steals the words out of your head. You can't get them back.

(Incidentally I also had an idea for a goblin wizard who was apprenticed to the same wizard who rescued him as a child and raised him, and never learned the goblin fear of writing)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Devilkiller wrote:
As I recall, the Chinese wanted lots of silver back in the day and that affected worldwide trade

That's because China was on the silver standard - I believe that back in the day there were all sorts of gov controls on the trade in gold, so normal merchants would have been hampered trying to trade for it.

Plus - Eastern Asia is generally rather metal poor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.

That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

OOH, new stupid thing (maybe).

Wall of Iron ends with this sentence:

"Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold."

Cannot be sold.

Even to someone who WANTS to buy it.

NO! You may NOT purchase this! NO! BACK AWAY!


chaoseffect wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

Sometimes I think about the fact that the hit die for a wizard in 3.5 was 1d4

So that a lvl 1 wizard with average constitution has 4 hp.

It brings up fond memories of the great "Who would win: Level 1 Commoner or house cat" debates.

Spoiler: The house cat usually wins.

i actually made this a few days ago..


zza ni wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

Sometimes I think about the fact that the hit die for a wizard in 3.5 was 1d4

So that a lvl 1 wizard with average constitution has 4 hp.

It brings up fond memories of the great "Who would win: Level 1 Commoner or house cat" debates.

Spoiler: The house cat usually wins.

i actually made this a few days ago..

I encountered this very joke reading Order of the Stick not a few hours ago!

I'm so happy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

OOH, new stupid thing (maybe).

Wall of Iron ends with this sentence:

"Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold."

Cannot be sold.

Even to someone who WANTS to buy it.

NO! You may NOT purchase this! NO! BACK AWAY!

Lol I like that, although the actual reason it can't be sold is probably because the quality of that conjured iron is so poor nobody would want to buy it.

I like the idea of wizards using that spell to corner the metals market and make mines obsolete: "Damn farrin wizards conjurin' up metal takin' all ahr jawbs. DEY TOOK AHR JAWBS!!!"

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.
That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?

TBH, it's based off the old 1e cantrip color whose effects are somewhat subsumed into what is now prestidigitation(along with effects like flavor and clean). I'd say a higher level effect like disguise self could make the caster look like an entirely different kind of dragon, changing those things like horn shape, wings, that sort of thing. Changing only your skin color seems like a much weaker effect than even a 1st level spell, so prestidigitation seems appropriate. Basically IMO there's a difference between a blue dragon and a red dragon who is painted blue, but you need to be able to make the Knowledge check to know those differences.

Note that the effects of prestidigitation are obviously magical, so it's obvious that the dragon has hidden its color behind a falsehood. It's really only a strong effect against metagaming.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a lingering distaste for disguised or poorly described monsters after playing with a DM who often refused to describe most monsters beyond something like "He's a big guy" or "It is kind of hairy". It seemed like he was afraid that if he admitted the "big guy" had blue skin one of the players might guess it was a Frost Giant and try using a fire spell.

Whether or not it would be reasonable to try using fire against blue stuff and cold against red stuff is probably a matter of opinion. Fighting sparsely described monsters represented by plastic soldiers isn't great fuel for the imagination though. That's a shame since the DM's story and descriptions of roleplaying encounters were usually detailed and interesting.


Devilkiller wrote:

I have a lingering distaste for disguised or poorly described monsters after playing with a DM who often refused to describe most monsters beyond something like "He's a big guy" or "It is kind of hairy". It seemed like he was afraid that if he admitted the "big guy" had blue skin one of the players might guess it was a Frost Giant and try using a fire spell.

Whether or not it would be reasonable to try using fire against blue stuff and cold against red stuff is probably a matter of opinion. Fighting sparsely described monsters represented by plastic soldiers isn't great fuel for the imagination though. That's a shame since the DM's story and descriptions of roleplaying encounters were usually detailed and interesting.

Betcha he'd hate Elemental Assessor


Snorb wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
No one in Laketown could possibly have a high enough knowledge(arcana) to identify a great wyrm red dragon.

Oh, it gets better. Even if you do actually train Knowledge (Arcana), the difficulty to identify dragons increases as their age (and CR) go up. So if you don't keep up with your Arcana training as you level up, you won't be able to identify older dragons.

Edvard Eddard, Evoker Extraordinaire: ...What the hell is that red thing up there?
Barto the Bard: Oh, that? That's a red dragon wyrmling. You know, they breathe fire, can fly, takes about seven good solid blows to kill. I know that one, actually. That's Naakthaka, the daughter of the adult red dragon known as Hazhulkhen.
Edvard: Oh. And what's that bigger red thing up there next to Naakthaka?
Barto: .......You know, I've never seen one of those before. I have no idea.
Katelyn the Kineticist: Neither have I.
Hazhulkhen and Naakthaka: (both swoop in and incinerate Barto with fire breath)

Yup, despite their increasing swath of destruction, dragons gain anonymity rather than renown as they age. Maybe it is because they leave fewer survivors.

The way my group has tabled stuff like this: If you are facing an ancient red dragon, but your monster ID roll was only good enough to recognize a young adult, you will know it is a red dragon, and you will be able to rattle off a list of the special abilities of red dragons aged young adult or lower. You will know the dragon you see is more powerful than what you were able to recall about the species (the fact that you are terrified by its frightful presence tells you that) but you won't know all of its special abilities until you experience them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

OOH, new stupid thing (maybe).

Wall of Iron ends with this sentence:

"Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold."

Cannot be sold.

Even to someone who WANTS to buy it.

NO! You may NOT purchase this! NO! BACK AWAY!

Lol I like that, although the actual reason it can't be sold is probably because the quality of that conjured iron is so poor nobody would want to buy it.

I like the idea of wizards using that spell to corner the metals market and make mines obsolete: "Damn farrin wizards conjurin' up metal takin' all ahr jawbs. DEY TOOK AHR JAWBS!!!"

So can you use conjured Walls of Iron to feed your pet rust monster, or would it starve because the quality is too low? Or would it become obese because it is eating nothing but rust monster junk food?


Claxon wrote:
Snorb wrote:
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
No one in Laketown could possibly have a high enough knowledge(arcana) to identify a great wyrm red dragon.

Oh, it gets better. Even if you do actually train Knowledge (Arcana), the difficulty to identify dragons increases as their age (and CR) go up. So if you don't keep up with your Arcana training as you level up, you won't be able to identify older dragons.

Edvard Eddard, Evoker Extraordinaire: ...What the hell is that red thing up there?
Barto the Bard: Oh, that? That's a red dragon wyrmling. You know, they breathe fire, can fly, takes about seven good solid blows to kill. I know that one, actually. That's Naakthaka, the daughter of the adult red dragon known as Hazhulkhen.
Edvard: Oh. And what's that bigger red thing up there next to Naakthaka?
Barto: .......You know, I've never seen one of those before. I have no idea.
Katelyn the Kineticist: Neither have I.
Hazhulkhen and Naakthaka: (both swoop in and incinerate Barto with fire breath)

It's actually worse with humanoids with class levels. The DC to identify is based on the creatures CR + 10 ( or 5 for common or 15 for rare creatures). As a humanoid gains levels its CR increases, to be 1 less than it's class levels for PC classes. But that means the 20th level human fighter is at least a DC 24 to identify him as human.

This specific bit with the humanoids with class levels actually makes a certain amount of sense.

The more levels one obtains, the less 'human' they are. Obviously you know what a human looks like and would know it looks like one, but identifying what the hell that human-looking thing over there is and what it's capable of...


MeanMutton wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

My favorite one to point out as a way to combat folks who get too wrapped up in applying the rules PRECISELY AS WRITTEN is this:

Being dead does not make you fall prone.

Fortunately the game is run by people who are capable of applying common sense and logic to things, and so when you die you do fall down, and so you CAN see the moon despite its distance.

I'm glad to see someone on Paizo's side reference "common sense." I run into those same people that get wrapped up in applying rules precisely as written. Saying "the game designers intended for you to apply common sense" doesn't seem to satisfy them.
I'm one of those who hates this approach. The reason is that I almost always see it applied by people whose "common sense" run exactly contrary to the rules and frequently contrary to what I'd call "common sense" anyway.

Ever notice that the player who will argue for the rules as written, even providing three pages of cross-referenced material from the PRD to support their position, and the one who says "come on, just apply your common sense!" are the same person? It is just a matter of whether what they want to do is based in a technicality in the wording or if they need an exception from the rules.


AntiDjinn wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

My favorite one to point out as a way to combat folks who get too wrapped up in applying the rules PRECISELY AS WRITTEN is this:

Being dead does not make you fall prone.

Fortunately the game is run by people who are capable of applying common sense and logic to things, and so when you die you do fall down, and so you CAN see the moon despite its distance.

I'm glad to see someone on Paizo's side reference "common sense." I run into those same people that get wrapped up in applying rules precisely as written. Saying "the game designers intended for you to apply common sense" doesn't seem to satisfy them.
I'm one of those who hates this approach. The reason is that I almost always see it applied by people whose "common sense" run exactly contrary to the rules and frequently contrary to what I'd call "common sense" anyway.
Ever notice that the player who will argue for the rules as written, even providing three pages of cross-referenced material from the PRD to support their position, and the one who says "come on, just apply your common sense!" are the same person? It is just a matter of whether what they want to do is based in a technicality in the wording or if they need an exception from the rules.

Nope. I've never noticed that once.

I HAVE noticed something somewhat similar in the case of things that don't actually make sense as they are published [a feat or spell or magic item that was clearly intended to do something other than what the words actually say it does] but in my experience RAW players tend to stick to what's published rather than attempt to maneuver for what is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.
That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?

TBH, it's based off the old 1e cantrip color whose effects are somewhat subsumed into what is now prestidigitation(along with effects like flavor and clean). I'd say a higher level effect like disguise self could make the caster look like an entirely different kind of dragon, changing those things like horn shape, wings, that sort of thing. Changing only your skin color seems like a much weaker effect than even a 1st level spell, so prestidigitation seems appropriate. Basically IMO there's a difference between a blue dragon and a red dragon who is painted blue, but you need to be able to make the Knowledge check to know those differences.

Note that the effects of prestidigitation are obviously magical, so it's obvious that the dragon has hidden its color behind a falsehood. It's really only a strong effect against metagaming.

Do note htat prestidigitation only works in non-living material.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
ryric wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.
That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?

TBH, it's based off the old 1e cantrip color whose effects are somewhat subsumed into what is now prestidigitation(along with effects like flavor and clean). I'd say a higher level effect like disguise self could make the caster look like an entirely different kind of dragon, changing those things like horn shape, wings, that sort of thing. Changing only your skin color seems like a much weaker effect than even a 1st level spell, so prestidigitation seems appropriate. Basically IMO there's a difference between a blue dragon and a red dragon who is painted blue, but you need to be able to make the Knowledge check to know those differences.

Note that the effects of prestidigitation are obviously magical, so it's obvious that the dragon has hidden its color behind a falsehood. It's really only a strong effect against metagaming.

Do note htat prestidigitation only works in non-living material.

I see that it can only be used to chill or flavor nonliving material. Other effects do not have that restriction.


Last I checked scales are pretty much non-living after forming [like the part of your fingernail that extends beyond your finger.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
ryric wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.
That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?

TBH, it's based off the old 1e cantrip color whose effects are somewhat subsumed into what is now prestidigitation(along with effects like flavor and clean). I'd say a higher level effect like disguise self could make the caster look like an entirely different kind of dragon, changing those things like horn shape, wings, that sort of thing. Changing only your skin color seems like a much weaker effect than even a 1st level spell, so prestidigitation seems appropriate. Basically IMO there's a difference between a blue dragon and a red dragon who is painted blue, but you need to be able to make the Knowledge check to know those differences.

Note that the effects of prestidigitation are obviously magical, so it's obvious that the dragon has hidden its color behind a falsehood. It's really only a strong effect against metagaming.

Do note htat prestidigitation only works in non-living material.
I see that it can only be used to chill or flavor nonliving material. Other effects do not have that restriction.

Uhm, you are right,... on the other hand you can only color Items, not sure what that entails.


ryric wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.
That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?

TBH, it's based off the old 1e cantrip color whose effects are somewhat subsumed into what is now prestidigitation(along with effects like flavor and clean). I'd say a higher level effect like disguise self could make the caster look like an entirely different kind of dragon, changing those things like horn shape, wings, that sort of thing. Changing only your skin color seems like a much weaker effect than even a 1st level spell, so prestidigitation seems appropriate. Basically IMO there's a difference between a blue dragon and a red dragon who is painted blue, but you need to be able to make the Knowledge check to know those differences.

Note that the effects of prestidigitation are obviously magical, so it's obvious that the dragon has hidden its color behind a falsehood. It's really only a strong effect against metagaming.

Would you allow a Drow to disguise themselves by changing their skin colour with prestidigitation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a job for Chameleon Scales!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

OOH, new stupid thing (maybe).

Wall of Iron ends with this sentence:

"Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold."

Cannot be sold.

Even to someone who WANTS to buy it.

NO! You may NOT purchase this! NO! BACK AWAY!

It's Iron Cartel and their ninja lawyers.

My joke on this is that the wall is actually "Fool's Iron" aka Gold Pyrite.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

OOH, new stupid thing (maybe).

Wall of Iron ends with this sentence:

"Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold."

Cannot be sold.

Even to someone who WANTS to buy it.

NO! You may NOT purchase this! NO! BACK AWAY!

It's Iron Cartel and their ninja lawyers.

My joke on this is that the wall is actually "Fool's Iron" aka Gold Pyrite.

Gold Sulfide? o:


AntiDjinn wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

OOH, new stupid thing (maybe).

Wall of Iron ends with this sentence:

"Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold."

Cannot be sold.

Even to someone who WANTS to buy it.

NO! You may NOT purchase this! NO! BACK AWAY!

Lol I like that, although the actual reason it can't be sold is probably because the quality of that conjured iron is so poor nobody would want to buy it.

I like the idea of wizards using that spell to corner the metals market and make mines obsolete: "Damn farrin wizards conjurin' up metal takin' all ahr jawbs. DEY TOOK AHR JAWBS!!!"

So can you use conjured Walls of Iron to feed your pet rust monster, or would it starve because the quality is too low? Or would it become obese because it is eating nothing but rust monster junk food?

Or maybe conjured iron is low fat diet food for rust monsters lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
I like the idea of wizards using that spell to corner the metals market and make mines obsolete: "Damn farrin wizards conjurin' up metal takin' all ahr jawbs. DEY TOOK AHR JAWBS!!!"

Fun thing: Over on the Giant in the Playground D&D 3.5 forum, I've often heard spells like Wall of Iron and Wall of Salt invoked as ways for wizards to make infinite money. So it's a pretty obvious (and clumsy) effort to avoid that in PF.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Scythia wrote:


Would you allow a Drow to disguise themselves by changing their skin colour with prestidigitation?

Yes? It would still be an easy Knowledge(local) check to see through it. I don't see balance issues in allowing a cantrip to change skin color, eye color, or hair color - considering a first level spell can do all three, as well as height, build, and facial features(disguise self).

I think this is enough derail for me about prestidigitation. I'll be happy to continue discussing it in a new thread if people wish, but I don't want to keep clogging up this one.


The fact that average people are stupid and do not know their own village with about 10 other people in it as well as the brainiac wizard-king!

Seriously, Knowledge: Local NEEDS an exception FOR LOCALS!!!

Also, some of the customs in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, although that is just the proud Norse man in me saying NO, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS!


Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


I still play Barbarians as illiterate. When they are my characters.

THOG SMASH BOOK! BOOK TASTE BAD! DIE BOOK!

I love Thog <3

I like playing my barbarians as intelligent people who are very bitter about the 'stupid barbarian' stereotype. My characters tend to only be illiterate if they actually came from an oral society, which makes them no less intelligent and no less bitter.

Maybe one of these days I'll play a foppish (half-)orc barbarian with a taste in fine art, lavish silk garments and classic literature.

I once played a barbarian who carried around soap in his backpack, despised the »filthy city dwellers« and talked about his days in public school in far-away barbarian lands where he learned to read.

_____

I've always been confused by the outsider subtype native. An native outsider is not native to anything outside, it's instead native to the material plane yet still an outsider. Oh, well.


I think Knowledge (Local) is supposed to have circumstance bonuses for if you are actually from the region on which you are making a check, but I only ever see this mentioned in like, some modules. It doesn't seem to be handled consistently.

Also, as I found out the other day, untrained intelligence checks can still be made in knowledge on DC 10 information.

Don't spoil Lands of the Linnorm Kings for me yet though since my meticulously reading Pathfinder content in approximate order of publication is still a thing.


Blymurkla wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


I still play Barbarians as illiterate. When they are my characters.

THOG SMASH BOOK! BOOK TASTE BAD! DIE BOOK!

I love Thog <3

I like playing my barbarians as intelligent people who are very bitter about the 'stupid barbarian' stereotype. My characters tend to only be illiterate if they actually came from an oral society, which makes them no less intelligent and no less bitter.

Maybe one of these days I'll play a foppish (half-)orc barbarian with a taste in fine art, lavish silk garments and classic literature.

I once played a barbarian who carried around soap in his backpack, despised the »filthy city dwellers« and talked about his days in public school in far-away barbarian lands where he learned to read.

You're right! City dwellers are absolutely filthy. Yuch!! If you ever need a harsh lesson on why high population density should be avoided whenever possible, please see what happened to Athens during the Peloponnesian war. Pericles's plan was great, except for one inherent flaw. ONE TERRIBLE HORRIBLE UNSANITARY FLAW.

Also, guess who had and used soap when Tacitus was writing in the 1st century AD? The f!~+ing Celts and Germanics. Guess who did not have or use soap, the f~#@ing Romans.

And Romans had *shudder* cities, which of course the much more sparsely populated agrarian oral ethnic groups I mention did not.


Ejrik the Norseman wrote:

The fact that average people are stupid and do not know their own village with about 10 other people in it as well as the brainiac wizard-king!

Seriously, Knowledge: Local NEEDS an exception FOR LOCALS!!!

Also, some of the customs in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, although that is just the proud Norse man in me saying NO, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS!

Well There is a handsome countryman! Wes hæl!

(I study OE rather than ON)

(How many post can Aniuś Taluwīs is willing to go without making a mention to Germanic cultural history? The answer is none.)

251 to 300 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A stupid thing you've noticed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.