Roy wrote:The question when determining whether anyone should have any item is to ask why they have it. The most common reason of course is that it helps them. Cursed items are defined by their not being helpful. So who would keep them around? Answer: No one. You only encounter them anyways because HURR DURR WOULDN'T IT BE FUNNY IF SOMETHING LOOKED USEFUL BUT WAS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE AND THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
This could either be because of:
1) Insanity, or
2) The person believes it's a nice deterrent, or a trap hidden among the treasures.
Of course, this works better for items that function for their attuned user, but are cursed for other people. Too bad D&D items don't really do that. Now, MC should probably not use these too often because people are going to wonder why everyone they fight is either insane or stupid.
Fuchs wrote:With cursed items, the one question a GM should ask him/herself before implementing any is: Why is it cursed? Was it created that way, and if so, by whom and why? Or was it once a normal item, and later changed? If so, how and by what method?
In Pathfinder, the standard way to create a cursed item is to botch the Spellcraft roll needed to make a normal magic item. Of course, the DC for crafting is so low that a wizard would basically never fail it if he took 10.
Roy wrote:The question when determining whether anyone should have any item is to ask why they have it. The most common reason of course is that it helps them. Cursed items are defined by their not being helpful. So who would keep them around? Answer: No one. You only encounter them anyways because HURR DURR WOULDN'T IT BE FUNNY IF SOMETHING LOOKED USEFUL BUT WAS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE AND THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
This could either be because of:
1) Insanity, or
2) The person believes it's a nice deterrent, or a trap hidden among the treasures.
Of course, this works better for items that function for their attuned user, but are cursed for other people. Too bad D&D items don't really do that. Now, MC should probably not use these too often because people are going to wonder why everyone they fight is either insane or stupid.
Most cursed items camoflage themselves. Also, if there was such a thing as items that function for their intended user, but are cursed for everyone else, then every single mother fucking item crafter ever would do that for their own stuff. And that way lays much douchebaggery and fail. Kinda like a variant Sundertard, actually.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Roy wrote:
Most cursed items camoflage themselves. Also, if there was such a thing as items that function for their intended user, but are cursed for everyone else, then every single mother fucking item crafter ever would do that for their own stuff. And that way lays much douchebaggery and fail. Kinda like a variant Sundertard, actually.
Isn't this what they used to do in the old days?
'You can't use it, only pureblooded elves can.'
'The rapier turns to dust as you exit the cave into the sunlight.'
'You go to pick up the weapon, but are immediately skewered by needles that grow out of the hilt.'
'The enemy explodes in death throes as you strike him down. All his magic items are destroyed.'
Old days? Look at half the fucking 3E Monster Manual critters that have weapons. This is ignoring the 4E "Monsters don't actually carry the weapons their models are depicted as carrying, just the loot that drops", you'll find Death Throes to negate Vorpal Swords, Glaives that are magical in the hands of Bearded Devils, fancy weapons that dissolve when the critter that owns them is killed (or if it even leaves the bastard's hands) and so on.
Because "Fuck you, MC toy only".
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Koumei wrote:Old days? Look at half the fucking 3E Monster Manual critters that have weapons. This is ignoring the 4E "Monsters don't actually carry the weapons their models are depicted as carrying, just the loot that drops", you'll find Death Throes to negate Vorpal Swords, Glaives that are magical in the hands of Bearded Devils, fancy weapons that dissolve when the critter that owns them is killed (or if it even leaves the bastard's hands) and so on.
I don't want to sidetrack this thread with a discussion of Pathfinder, but a Pathfinder balor has the "vorpal for me, but not for you" ability (similar to bearded/horned devils) instead of auto-destroying his weapons.
There's a big difference between a single monster/monster type that has some bizarro ability like that and, well, every monster in the book.
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote:
And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
Or every enemy you come across. See the '2nd Edition is out favorite' thread about Finger of Death wands that try to kill the PCs if they want to use them.
Which is why it's a good thing there isn't a cursed for you, but not for me ability.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Well, you *could* make "cursed for you but not for me" by making it do something that wouldn't impeded the intended user, but would impede others, like scythes that radiate negative energy for undead.
Koumei wrote:Old days? Look at half the fucking 3E Monster Manual critters that have weapons. This is ignoring the 4E "Monsters don't actually carry the weapons their models are depicted as carrying, just the loot that drops", you'll find Death Throes to negate Vorpal Swords, Glaives that are magical in the hands of Bearded Devils, fancy weapons that dissolve when the critter that owns them is killed (or if it even leaves the bastard's hands) and so on.
Because "Fuck you, MC toy only".
I don't think that it's so much "Fuck you, MC toy only" as 'I don't want the amount of gear the PCs have to be as unmanageable as the sum of all the gear of all the enemies they have ever encountered and defeated'.
That said, there are less retarded ways to do this than the 'make sure you disarm him and then give him the evil artifact to use as a weapon before you kill him' balor.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
CatharzGodfoot wrote: That said, there are less retarded ways to do this than the 'make sure you disarm him and then give him the evil artifact to use as a weapon before you kill him' balor.
Presumably that's why they changed the balor in Pathfinder. They also changed the bralani; presumably too many bralanis were getting mugged for their +1 holy composite bows.
I'm reminded of my old days as a 1E DM when I threw Darleks at the high level party only to have to suffer the question "so, what level can dalekanium armor be enchanted to?" Remember that the max level of enchantment in 1E was based on the type of metal, with adamantine being the highest. I wound up making dalekanium one step higher.
I really miss those two rangers, "Death and Destruction." Fun times, even for the DM.
magnuskn wrote:So, is nobody going to comment on the revised Magus, now that it is out for playtesting?
Honestly, I have no interest in it.
By the way, Paizo has put all the OGC material from the Gamemastery Guide and the Advanced Player's Guide on their web site now (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html). That's one thing that's hard to complain about.
magnuskn wrote:So, is nobody going to comment on the revised Magus, now that it is out for playtesting?
Honestly, I have no interest in it.
By the way, Paizo has put all the OGC material from the Gamemastery Guide and the Advanced Player's Guide on their web site now (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html). That's one thing that's hard to complain about.
The Magus is exactly what we'd thought it would be, 3/4 BAB, 6th level spells and has a shtick to cast spells and fight in melee at the same time. It offers up nothing new that is of interest. I think if you are not a Paizo fanboi you'll never play one because a straight Eldritch Knight Gish is better in about every way, I think even most fanbois will find a reason to respec their Magi after a few sessions.
There's an Aussie guy living in Japan who posts on the Paizo boards from time to time. Here's his blog. He claims that Pathfinder is modestly popular in Japan (more popular than 4E, anyways) because the rules are easily available over the internet. Here's the Pathfinder Japanese rules wiki, for instance.
Last edited by hogarth on Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
magnuskn wrote:So, is nobody going to comment on the revised Magus, now that it is out for playtesting?
Honestly, I have no interest in it.
By the way, Paizo has put all the OGC material from the Gamemastery Guide and the Advanced Player's Guide on their web site now (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html). That's one thing that's hard to complain about.
The Magus is exactly what we'd thought it would be, 3/4 BAB, 6th level spells and has a shtick to cast spells and fight in melee at the same time. It offers up nothing new that is of interest. I think if you are not a Paizo fanboi you'll never play one because a straight Eldritch Knight Gish is better in about every way, I think even most fanbois will find a reason to respec their Magi after a few sessions.
Well, given the statements that Paizo changes very little during playtest and that the mechanics of the first version were exceptionally sucky, I thought someone might look up if the second version really was adhering to those statements.
I've read both versions of the Magus, sure there are some small changes but both are pretty similar. The Magus suffers from the approach of 'shiny' things every level, instead of actual class features. The real kick in the pants is that it has its own very limited spell list, why not just use the Wizards? You wouldn't need to do anything special to update the Magus, every splat with Wizard spells would update it, and players would have options beyond blasting. Oh, wait, answered my own question, Paizo can't let players have actual options unless their playing one of the 9th level casters.
Juton wrote:I've read both versions of the Magus, sure there are some small changes but both are pretty similar. The Magus suffers from the approach of 'shiny' things every level, instead of actual class features. The real kick in the pants is that it has its own very limited spell list, why not just use the Wizards? You wouldn't need to do anything special to update the Magus, every splat with Wizard spells would update it, and players would have options beyond blasting. Oh, wait, answered my own question, Paizo can't let players have actual options unless their playing one of the 9th level casters.
Unless I am reading my document wrong, the new Magus actually has a good number of spell options besides blasting, including the most important transportation, transmutation and illusion spells needed. And he has Prestidigitation, which already makes him a cut above most other classes, as so he has an easy way to get monster guts out of his clothing.
I dunno about you, but after watching that I totally want to run an old-school straightforward ftr/thief/mage/priest get-the-artefact-from-the-ruins-so-you-can-stop-the-evil-wizard-dungeoncrawl one shot D&D session. And I want to do it with a bunch of random jap-pop music in the background and require absolutely all of the in-character dialogue to be in Engrish.
But that won't happen, mainly because my players won't let me drink Sake at the game table ever again...
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
There's an Aussie guy living in Japan who posts on the Paizo boards from time to time. Here's his blog. He claims that Pathfinder is modestly popular in Japan (more popular than 4E, anyways) because the rules are easily available over the internet. Here's the Pathfinder Japanese rules wiki, for instance.
