View Profile: ZenFox42 - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About ZenFox42

Basic Information

Age
60
About ZenFox42
Introduction:
Player, GM, GURPS, 3.5, Pathfinder, 2 home-brew magic systems
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
47
Posts Per Day
0.02
Last Post
Can anyone help me make a psion power to magic spell equivalent list? Monday, 3rd March, 2014 12:05 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
13
General Information
Last Activity
Sunday, 5th October, 2014 11:47 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 22nd May, 2013
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Monday, 13th January, 2014

  • 06:22 PM - gamerprinter mentioned ZenFox42 in post A death & dying system that can't skip Dying
    So, you're saying the system has no value to you. That doesn't mean it has no value. There's other groups, with different styles of gameplay, with different kinds of players who have different preferences and/or levels of game-playing skill, that might find this useful. ZenFox42 - well, of course, I cannot speak for anyone else, I only ever speak for me - anything I say, only applies to me or my point of view (in any forum post, or any words I type anywhere). I never claimed it has no value (for everybody). Where did I say this point of view of mine applied to everyone? The OP assumes there is a problem that the game doesn't provide a 'safe zone' between being alive and being dead, as if it should exist, so here are that person's subsystem for guaranteeing a 'safe zone'. For me, and my gaming group (only) we only need our eyes looking at our HP total, our experience in doing game combat, to decide whether a given PC should continue to expose himself to imminent death. We don't need rules or a subsystem to keep characters alive, common sense works just fine.

No results to display...

Saturday, 25th January, 2014

  • 04:57 PM - RUMBLETiGER quoted ZenFox42 in post 9 simple guidelines for determining when to disbelieve illusions, mostly derived from RAW (also for 3.5)
    So in the following, Iím going to abandon the ďretry at +4Ē option completely. If someone tells you that itís an illusion, that gives you a reason to study it carefully. But if the caster tells you itís an illusion, you automatically disbelieve. This is just what makes sense to me Ė if the vast majority of opinion prefers to keep those things the way they are, Iíll concede the point (especially if you can give me reasons why). One reason to still consider what you see as real, even after being told it's not, is because it's really scary. If there's a raging, armored Orc running at me, and somebody shouts, "Don't worry, it's not real!", my adrenaline is still pumping, my defensive reflexes are still kicked in, and I'm thinking "If he's wrong, this is really going to hurt in about 6 seconds...." So it might still be believed simply because disbelieving wrongly could be dangerous. If there's a pit in front of me, and I'm told it's just an illusion, I'm still likely to be wary about stepping...

Monday, 13th January, 2014

  • 06:17 PM - gamerprinter quoted ZenFox42 in post A death & dying system that can't skip Dying
    So, you're saying the system has no value to you. That doesn't mean it has no value. There's other groups, with different styles of gameplay, with different kinds of players who have different preferences and/or levels of game-playing skill, that might find this useful. ZenFox42 - well, of course, I cannot speak for anyone else, I only ever speak for me - anything I say, only applies to me or my point of view (in any forum post, or any words I type anywhere). I never claimed it has no value (for everybody). Where did I say this point of view of mine applied to everyone? The OP assumes there is a problem that the game doesn't provide a 'safe zone' between being alive and being dead, as if it should exist, so here are that person's subsystem for guaranteeing a 'safe zone'. For me, and my gaming group (only) we only need our eyes looking at our HP total, our experience in doing game combat, to decide whether a given PC should continue to expose himself to imminent death. We don't need rules or a subsystem to keep characters alive, common sense works just fine.

Sunday, 3rd November, 2013

  • 02:26 PM - Starfox quoted ZenFox42 in post A practical guide to Stealth
    You could be moving on the other side of a wall. I think the +20 is actually a penalty for using a secondary sense (when sight doesn't work, observers must rely on sound, scent, etc) I think the +40 is because you are immobile, you make less sound. Because if you're stationary and behind Total C/C, the others get no roll at all to see you. I can't see that saying you have a +40 to your Stealth behind Total C/C gives any benefit. As I don't know where the underlined text comes from, I cannot answer this. Did it come from my theories earlier in this thread?
  • 05:32 AM - Stormonu quoted ZenFox42 in post A practical guide to Stealth
    Total Cover is better than "regular" Cover because if your opponents can't see you, they get no check at all. If Perception were spot-only, that would make sense, but even you stated that it covers the five senses. Behind the barrel example you give, someone could conceivably hear you, or if you'd been travelling through the typical dungeon sewers - smell you.

Thursday, 31st October, 2013

  • 01:49 AM - Starfox quoted ZenFox42 in post A practical guide to Stealth
    Stealth is quite a weak sneak attack option for a rogue, compared to simple flanking, I feel too much so. How you interpret the rules pretty much makes or breaks the stealth sneak attack as a tactical option. Ihad a stealth rogue in my 4E game, with its much more liberal Stealth rules. That got to be a bit too much at higher levels, but I still feel it was a nice option and ought to be possible to do. A lot of this is not unambiguous RAW, but possible interpretations of RAW. It would be interesting if you could cite sources. Overall, your interpretation makes Stealth almost impossible to maintain (roll every round, cannot hide without c/c AND distraction), but that might be RAI. No way to know without checking your sources. You do not handle sniping and/or hiding after attacking. Rule #1 : Stealth is not invisibility! Everyone with line-of-sight to you has a chance to notice you any time you're not in Total C/C. All such observers get a Stealth/Perception check ("S/P check") to notic...

Tuesday, 24th September, 2013

  • 04:19 AM - frankthedm quoted ZenFox42 in post "Hide in Plain Sight" and "Camouflage" - WHO SAYS???
    (In all cases I'm referring to the online 3.5 SRD. I don't know what, if anything, PF has done to these abilities.)Well, it can be kinda important since the SRD & WOTC FAQ does not apply to Pathfinder and changes made by Paizo in Pathfinder don't apply to d20. Paizo has their own PRD. There is also a fan maintained version that sometimes get linked to. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/ranger.html#_ranger http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/stealth.html#_stealth As a long-term RPG'er but new to 3.5/Pathfinder, I am trying to understand Stealth and I received these statements on a different thread : If you are new to this ruleset, just understand the logic this system uses is that of a computer programming language. Try turning it around : "If you are being observed, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without C/C (to my way of thinking).A common error for those new to this ruleset, computer code rarely works when turned around. So my ques...

Monday, 23rd September, 2013

  • 09:54 AM - pemerton quoted ZenFox42 in post "Hide in Plain Sight" and "Camouflage" - WHO SAYS???
    That's the best argument I've heard so far, thanks! It still would be nice to know that that's how the writers intended it, tho...No worries. As to designer intent on those abilities, I've seen all sorts of arguments and have no idea how they're meant to be played. (I don't play 3E myself.) I've cut and pasted the text for reference: Hide in Plain Sight (SRD Assassin, Shadowdancer): can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. Cannot, however, hide in his own shadow. Camouflage (SRD Ranger): can use the Hide skill in any sort of natural terrain, even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment. Hide in Plain Sight (SRD Ranger): can use the Hide skill even while being observed. It seems to me that Camouflage permits a hide check without cover or concealment but otherwise as normal. I would have thought that being observed still ma...
  • 02:43 AM - pemerton quoted ZenFox42 in post "Hide in Plain Sight" and "Camouflage" - WHO SAYS???
    My argument is : HIPS says you "can use the Stealth skill even while observed" - it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether you have C/C, so my interpretation is that C/C is irrelevant. Try turning it around : "If you are being observed, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without C/C (to my way of thinking). Likewise, Camouflage says you "can use the Stealth skill without C/C" - it says NOTHING about being observed, so I would say that observation does not matter. Try turning it around : "If you have C/C, you can use the Stealth skill" - period. So that must mean with or without being observed.I don't have any strong view on HiPS or Camouflage, and I know they cause interpretive controversies on a pretty regular basis, but your reasoning is flawed. Here is an example to show why: Suppose a venue has a rule that you can't enter without wearing a jacket and a tie. If I am given permission to enter "even without a jacket" it doesn't follow that I can also di...

Saturday, 21st September, 2013

  • 06:09 PM - Aluvial quoted ZenFox42 in post An analysis of the Pathfinder SRD/Kingmaker/Ultimate Campaign mass combat system
    Aluvial - (Sorry, I was out-of-town for a while) The probability of rolling ANY number on a d20 is 5%, even across the board. The probability of rolling a number on 2d10 is (in %) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (You'll have to add spaces to make things line up) Note that you CAN'T roll a 1, and a 20 is 1/5 as likely to happen. The most likely numbers you're going to roll are 9-13. Totally different distribution. If the target's "AC" (number you need to hit them) is 15 or above, the chances that you'd *ever* hit them become much smaller. What that would do is make the results highly sensitive to the target number (AC, DC, or whatever) - change it by just a few points and hitting them goes from very easy to very hard. Wouldn't recommend it.Thanks, I think the problem I have is that I've introduced the concept of armies in book 2. They have been building for two years, and I used an excellent change Dudemeister's Harg...
  • 01:33 PM - Nagol quoted ZenFox42 in post An analysis of the Pathfinder SRD/Kingmaker/Ultimate Campaign mass combat system
    FIXING THE SPELLCASTERS Using the RAW (for any version of the system), adding anything higher than 4th level spellcasters to an otherwise even fight means the side with the spellcasters always wins! <snip> These seem about right, any comments? I used the army rules towards the end of my last D&D campaign -- luckily, Kingmaker had come out. I noticed a few of the problems. Among the changes I implemented, I adjusted spell casting. One of my main goals was to represent each PC as an army on the battlefield -- each PC was 17th-19th level and significant force unto himself. Spellcasting: If an armyís units can use arcane magic it gains a bonus to its Defence Value and Offence Modifier equal to the level of the highest level spell its individual units can cast. If an armyís unit can use divine magic, it gains a bonus to its Defence Value equal to the level of the highest level spell its individual units can cast and half that amount on Offence Modifier. The highest spell level ...

Wednesday, 18th September, 2013

  • 11:12 PM - Aluvial quoted ZenFox42 in post An analysis of the Pathfinder SRD/Kingmaker/Ultimate Campaign mass combat system
    I like that! Maybe it could also be set up as a Tactic or something that allows the leader to shift from offense to defense as needed, allowing more flexibility during battle.Zen, I was wondering what you would think would happen if you switched the d20 roll to 2D10? I've not run a combat yet, but am curious if this tones down any "quick" kills due to lucky rolls.

Saturday, 13th July, 2013

  • 08:17 AM - Kasbark quoted ZenFox42 in post What spells do you consider to be "breakers"???
    Dimension Door (4) – story breaker Discern Lies (4) – mystery breaker Divination (4) – mystery breaker Geas, Lesser (4) – can “dominate” for a week Scrying (4|5) – mystery breaker Commune (5) – mystery breaker Dominate Person (5) – total control Planar Travel (5) – story breaker Polymorph (5,7) – only if you get the special abilities of the creature Raise Dead (5) – death breaker Teleport (5,7) – story breaker Forcecage (7) – counterspell breaker Resurrection (7,9) – death breaker These are the spells i agree with (though death breakers are there for a good reason, and already cost time and money to apply). The rest of the spells i do not consider overpowered, and some of them (like stoneskin) are there to allow mages to live through a combat where they don't have meatshields, such as if you wanted to use a mage as an enemy in an encounter. I would also add Hold Person to the list of battlebreakers. E...

Friday, 12th July, 2013

  • 04:51 PM - (Psi)SeveredHead quoted ZenFox42 in post What spells do you consider to be "breakers"???
    As a long-time DM relatively new to D&D/Pathfinder, I've recently become aware of spells that many consider to be "breakers" (my term) : Battle breaker - significantly turns the tide in battle, with little that can be done about it Mystery breaker - short-circuits looking for clues, figuring things out, using skill rolls, etc. Death breaker - allows PC's to not worry about death or negative levels Story breaker - most of the time, short-circuits the need for traveling from point A to point B (which takes time, provides opportunities for encounters and side-adventures, etc.) Counterspell breaker - there's only maybe 1-3 spells that can effectively counter or get around the spell I'm most interested in spells of 4th level and higher. Below is a partial list I've cobbled together from various forums. Please feel free to add your own pet peeves, or argue against any of the spells in this list. It's not "my" list, I don't care. :) Please do not feel obligated to fit your spell into one of m...

ZenFox42's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites