|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Chuck Wright wrote:
Which you did a great job on BTW. The two Mother books are something I always bring to the table, even if I'm not using them (as a backup to mine for emergency ideas). Landscape format - while a bit weird at first for a gaming book - made perfect sense for MoAET
So the work that went into that book is greatly appreciated.
The beauty about this one - from a gaming perspective that is that this guy is complaining about a special order of silver bullets and they were never picked up. Almost as if the person who made the order was an agent, investigator or envoy (thinking Chill or Call of Cthulhu rpgs) and needed the bullets to kill a werewolf, who in turn got him first.
It's a small thing - but the DM in me picked up that line and I let my imagination run with it.
"And if some unlucky accident should befall him ... if he should be shot in the head by a police officer ... or if should hang himself in his jail cell ... or if he's struck by a bolt of lightning ... then I'm going to blame some of the people in this room ... and that I do not forgive."
And if they did that I would buy their product, if not just for new material for my 1st/2nd ed game.
Yeah, my doc is old - so I need to be fair to the playtest. I have the most current doc on my home pc so I will check it out.
I wish that if they did included expertise die (as an example of a rule/system) they would allow the DM the option to dump it as an option and scale your game cleanly following A,B and C considerations(because the game is designed that way - to be modular). Something 3rd ed, 4th and PF all have failed to do.
But if they put out books that covered multiple systems I would buy.
I might be wrong, but I think catfolk count as Mammalian, I get what you're saying though.
It would be interesting to explore this from a outsider aspect - as in, outer planes.
Not so much the creatures that have a direct correlary with life on the prime -such as Angels or Demons, but creatures that have no direct connetion to the prime - they were never really born, nor do they have anything in common with life as we understand it - such as the Qlippoth. In PF they have been assigned human emotion/revenge style motives but I kinda of feel it sells them short and is a mistaken direction. Those things are chaos and insanity manifest, getting into the mindset and motivation which is so extreme it would be alien - even for those who understand evil, chaos and madness.
No - the Fighter gets the bonus as a constant (Scaling) to his BAB and with one weapon while the caster gets a scaling bonus to each of his casting tiers (spell levels).
The caster gets it as a constant (Scaling) to his DCs throughout each spell level tier. So a level 1 spell is DC base 11 + mod, level 2 spell is DC 12 + mod, level 3 is DC 13 + mod. At lower levels this isn't as much of a big deal since there less spells that are available to the caster and the binary effect isn't as powerful (it is actually, for some spells). At mid to higher level though, those tiers of power (effect) start to outpace the +X that the fighter gets to hit with every round. Having surplus X on his to-hit starts having less and less meaning as the Fighter starts getting these bonuses from everywhere so that +1 starts to have less and less meaning.
While the caster DC +1 due to Spell Focus is super critical due to the binary save system and the expanding power for each successive spell level and growing circle of spells.
This is a subjective argument – since it comes down to belief: Do you think that doing hit point damage (as hit point scale exponentially) vs casting binary spells (with target saves scale poorly) is better?
Ninja'd by PirateDevon on the point of one application (weapon) vs. many spells (whole school) argument.
Casting spells and hitting things are the primary attack forms of the two classes. Just because for casters the +1 adds to multiple spells doesnt make it more usefull its the same +1 regardless of spell cast its still +1, it cant be taken as +1 to every spell in the game as seperate things. The +1 weapon focus adds to more than just your attack bonus but you chose not to take that into account.
Having a hard time arguing with you on this since your position is a bit absurd. "Just because for casters the +1 adds to multiple spells doesn’t make it more useful its the same +1 regardless of spell cast its still +1, it can’t be taken as +1 to every spell in the game as separate things."
If you can't or choose not to see the power in applying a +1 to multiple resources vs. one resource I can't really carry on a discussion with you on the matter. You are saying that because one feat applies to dozens of spells throughout the casters various levels it doesn't make it better than a +1 to hit with one weapon? Seriously?
Realism isn't thrown out the window because of assigned abilities - realism is thrown out the window because of number scale. But there is no heroic exceptionalism in the system, - that's my point. A Living Wall or an Animated Giant Chocolate Bar or a Giant French Pug use the same hit point system as the players - there is no current structure or system in the game that says PCs can do this, while everything else can do that. It's just a numbers game. The super-hero comparison is false - once you are so high (hit point wise) you get to play in that game – everyone and everything else does also. Now how is that exceptional?To me it isn't.
I am not arguing against the hp system, what I am saying is that because the hp system is wonky, don't turn around and say "but Fighters have lots of hit points = superheroes". Wonky hp system =/= realism, but it also means wonky hp system =/= superheroes. All this does is illustrate a wonky hit point system or provide cover for the “but THEY ARE already SUPERHEROES argument” which is false.
Fair enough - let's build a model to reflect the difference. The final product will be a bit subjective but I will try to lay out (mechanically) why I think these two feats are miles apart.
Low Level Comparison Between the Feat Effects:
Low Level Fighter with Weapon Focus
Step 1 - Roll to hit +1 with One Weapon (if hit, check A, if miss check B)
A - Hit: roll for damage, possibly kill low-level target with one hit
B - Miss: nothing happens, action used up.
Low Level Caster with Spell Focus (works best with Arcane casters)
Ok, not so bad - the fighter in this example may not have as much flare as the caster - but he is very economical resource wise.
Add a few levels later -
Low/Mid Level Comparison Between the Feat Effects:
Low/Mid Level Fighter with Weapon Focus
Step 1 - Roll to hit +1 with One Weapon (if hit, check A, if miss check B)
A - Hit: roll for damage, possibly kill low/mid-level target with one hit, more than likely not though. To-hit bonuses start become less relevant as AC for most foes start to level out. Possibly get 2nd attack at negative.
B - Miss: nothing happens, action used up. Possibly get 2nd attack at negative if high enough level.
Low/Mid Level Caster with Spell Focus (works best with Arcane casters)
So in the above examples we see that the caster gets to:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I agree 100% Kirth, let me rephrase: I see any changes shuffled under Feats as bad - these things can be codified in the rules as freebies, this is how you do it, re-written skill, et al. So yeah, not against the codification (I am, but not for the sake of this argument) just the fact that they are making Feats the default "this is how you do it, and now you need a feat to do it better" approach - when in fact these could have just been written into the rules under generic stuff, combat actions, class abilities, instead of rule clarification/codification via Feat Law.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
The problem with feats is two-fold: Feat Taxes and what I am going to call and name Feat Laws.As many people have pointed out in this thread and others, the devs seems to have a problem with what I am naming Feat Law: this means that at one time either in this edition or an earlier one, you were able to just do something (start a rumor, recover weapon, etc) as an assumption, DM adjudicate check or just automatically. Other posters have addressed the concept, but I'm going to go ahead and name it. Feat Law is when the devs try to over-codify every action by turning them into a Feat. Some of these actions could just be managed between the players and their DM, but when they turn it into a Feat - that is "you need to have this feat to do this (X), other wise to do this (X) you do it slower, at a penalty, etc". These decrees basically change the universe of mundane action characters, since what was once an assumption, a DM ruling, or a freebie is now governed by a Feat. I think this is bad game writing and it's incredibly lazy. Instead of re-writing the core rules to cover new ground of what you can try to do in-game, they cover this new subject by assigning a Feat to it -and a penalty if you don't have that feat. Therefore you get a Feat Law. Feat laws are a cheap way to address something not covered in the core game, or it's the devs sticking their nose and trying to stamp every conceivable action into a Law governed by a Feat.
Feat Tax most people already know: This can be a series of abilities or one type of attack/effect that requires the Fighter to invest in a series of feats, many often not that good - just to get that cool effect.
Weapon Focus vs. Spell Focus.
Do you think these feats are fairly balanced against each other?
Also, if you were a 1st/2nd ed player trying to play a Fighter in 3rd, you need to spend several of your feats to shore up your character to meet those same levels of power. Increased Save feats to bring you saves from terrible to just bad, multiple feats so you can get extra attacks in combination - when you used to spend one proficiency and you got this for free (and better). Are some combat feats good - sure, power attack is pretty good. But tbh, a less effective version of power attack (and weapon finesse) should be available for any character swinging a weapon for free, it should be built into the game and the the power attack feat should just manage the task better (similar to all the combat maneuver feats).
TL;DR on Feats - Cool concept, poorly implemented, thought out and balanced since 2000.
HP I roll with, what else is there 1 shot kills, being hit by a random bus and killed? It works and has done since 2nd.
I only brought up the hit point argument earlier in the thread because people keep falling into the trap of "he has higher hit points = he's superhuman!!!!!1!!!!" when in fact an Elephant or a large animal (with more HD) also has more hit points and they are not "superbeasts". Same goes for all the no-name 5th level NPCs - more hit points =/= superhuman, it just means they have more hit points.
I wasn't attacking the concept of hit points, just the people who throw it up as cover to say the game characters a super-heroes at level 7. No, they are not. Everyone at level 7 gets the same crap. The high hit points = superhuman argument actually hurts the mission to get boosts or desired buffs to martials. People think they are helping the narrative and are using it as an argument to maintain the illusion that these classes are equals (Caster vs martial) and this is a large undermining point. Wizards are weak (hp) but can cast spells, but fighters are tanks - have alot of hit points. Unfortunately, everything the fighter goes against also has more hit point, and if going by CR/threat - probably more hit points than him. Poor argument in defense of why the fighter has what he has and the caster has what he has.
LOL, in my rageposting about 3rd/casters I forgot to mention ...................the Nerfing (sighing like Ray Stantz when he had the realization..."cross the streams").
At low level fighters went from:
- 3 attacks every 2 rounds (at no negative to hit) at level 1 with weapon specialization. And it just got better as they leveled up.
- Having really good hp in relation to everyone/everything else by getting a full Con bonus/good HD.
- Attack and move were not an issue (no such thing as "full attack").
- Decent to outrageous save progressions
- Now they don't get a second attack till 6th level or higher, and it's at a major negative to BAB (-5).
- Everyone and everything now gets the Fighter Con bonus, doesn't matter what class - just what your score is. Many monsters now have more than half their hit points in CON bonus.
- Attack in place like you are mashing buttons in Street Fighter 2, hoping you will get a critical that will take down your foe quicker than everyone else who is ignore the inflated hp while using your Feat investments.
- Terrible save progression with three save categories that have a high stat dependence/assumption* as modifier. Unfortunately none of them use your prime Stat value as modifier (Str).
BLEEEEAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHARRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (throws monitor into Wall of Force, breaking it.)
In fairness to the devs I think they are sort of still stuck in pre-3rd ed mode when it comes to martials. That or they really are just failing to see the huge changes from 2nd to 3rd and not changing martials to reflect those changes
Changes to Save paradigm: Saves are harder for everyone, and harder if you can create a boost for yourself. Save DC is external (a good concept) but mutable by the source (bad concept).
Hit point inflation: You can up the damage of martial’s (and they have to considerable degree), but you can't do much but attacking the hit point track. Overall this is an uphill battle for martials because even though their hit points have increased and their damage output has increased the overall hit point increase in their foes X number foes does not measure up to those changes. When all you can do is chop down a tree in a fight - and now each tree takes an extra chop - you really have relegated direct damage dealers to the back seat (this applies to blasters also, not just martial’s). They should be able to chop down trees as fast as they could in 1st/2nd or expectations for carry-over players are going to be sullied. And they should be able to do more than chop down those trees - if we are going to apply status changing rules across the board (knockdown, stunnned, bleed, etc) martials should have a slew of those options without a feat tax commitment to create those effects. They should just be combat options already in the arsenal of tricks for anyone who uses a weapon. Feats should just make them better/more reliable -which would make Fighters masters of those tricks and options.
Mutable/meta-system manipulation and game environment: Being able to change reality (walls of force, polymorph, etc) is one thing.
Poorly thought out or not thought out at all: Example - Why oh why would you change a spell like Black Tentacles from having hit points to not having hit points/being immune to damage? This is the kind of thinking that went into 3rd ed - minimal.
So maybe it’s just that the devs don't realize the changes they made to the core rules and the way spells as the relate to martials since 2000? Maybe they are still focusing on how a weapon cord requires a move action to recover a weapon (apsect of realism) instead of a Barbarian smashing down a Wall of Force, or a Fighter getting extra saves to shake off Charm or Domination as a class feature (aspect of the game environment)....I mean c’mon, the're still are writing rules for making castles where the castle/defense concept is still in the 1st/2nd ed level of magic and 3rd ed + magic doesn't care about that technology. It could be because wards that prevent magic entry would be boring spells to write or because they don’t see it as a problem – or both, IDK.
There are a few more things but thinking about this post is making my head hurt.
So maybe it comes down to the devs having too much focus on one aspect the game - magic and spellcasting, while forgetting about the impact on all the non-casting classes?
You don't need to be able to split fireballs, but using your shield to reflect an Enervation ray back at the caster is just as reasonable as the caster casting the Enervation ray in the first place.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
No, reality and history disagree with you - hard.
Spells took Longer to cast and you couldn't move or do anything while casting
Hyper-vulnerable while casting:
Saves were not mutable or changable by the caster, i.e. no DC
And on top of that there were:
Were casters powerful in older editions - yes, if played correctly.
And the jaw dropping Fighter saves were the same from 1st edtion to 2nd, so they were there in 1st ed Advanced - the version you stuck with.
Edit to Add (so KG may want to remove his +1 on this post): What casters and martials could do in earlier editions was different from each other - but in a good way (imo). Each had their role to fill and they did it well if the covered each other.
For the most part the caster/martial disparity is a 3rd ed invention. There was some stupid/power creep at the end of 2nd's lifecycle, but even with that the core rules governing magic, ease of saves, risks in casting were all the same since 1st ed. RE: casting was risky and hard at ALL LEVELS.
Man on his knees, begging: "Oh, please, don't kill us! Please, please don't kill us! You know I love you baby. I wouldn't leave ya. It wasn't my fault!"
Woman: "You miserable slug! You think you can talk your way out of this? You betrayed me."
Man on his knees, begging: "No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!"
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Funny thing is, I have several of Bogies movies but I still need to pick up: Casablanca, Maltese Falcon and Sahara (excellent movie).
Mi-go in Delta Green:
I think a DM can create an alien race/entity that thinks in very inhuman way. A good example are the Mi-Go as interpreted by the guys who wrote Delta Green. In their version of the race (and Mythos), the Mi-Go are incapable of jumping to a conclusion and in fact need to work out each step in a problem solving process: A-B-C-D. So they can't just see A, guess at B and then jump to D (as a human may).Hence their fascination with humanity and their ability to solve problems.
In the write up it had something to do with their racial progression/memory and their brains functioning like computers - where old/irrelevant information frequently was purged. As a DM, I could run this because I could take my time plotting out their actions and responses (with some very bizarre results and behavior) as NPCs to great effect.
In my long running Gamma World campaign (‘86 edition) we had some basic rules for robotic characters. In most cases the player’s robot character would in effect be a rogue/damaged robot with a sense of self-preservation and sense of individual identity with little or no history or social background. Problems started occurring when we had to figure out how the robot PC would learn new things, why would he learn new things (if he was designed for a specific function, a Combat Droid learning Gardening for example), why would he acquire gear or even go after gear and so on.
And we role-played it all out.
There were some strange rp scenarios and problems that came out of those characters to say the least, but they had a good time playing them as I did GMing them.
My point being this: whenever we ran alternate character races – be it rogue AI/Robots or a player who made a parasitic symbiote as character (just a half a foot long patch of gooey moss attached to a back of a host creature), they were tasked to play them like true alien intelligences. That means often forgoing loot, advancement, personal growth and gain and a whole gamut of things players take for granted as they play their characters.
We tried to stay away from the "human in rubber suit" convention as much as possible, but being human, those things leak in as influence. Running them as a GM is much more plausible than player playing the "other"; acting strange while still looking for treasure and xp (i.e. wearing a rubber suit) because to really play an alien intelligence means throwing out the concept of "my character wants to get this, buy this and learn this" - almost of of it goes out the window.
I think many people want to play the "other" only superficially and don't want to pay the price that comes with it. I don’t have an issue with people who dislike human centric games or campaign worlds, or those who what to play different default races because humans are boring. My issue is that if you claim that humans are boring, then don’t play them with purple skin, extra limbs or pointy ears.
Some people just want the "different" or project what they consider their personal unique persona or traits into a non-standard race.
The irony of course is that pretty much every fantasy race in all the games out there are just humans wearing a rubber monster suit, Go figure.
John Kretzer wrote:
The Thing (1982 ver)
"I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
"What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
1st Guy: It's worse than horrible because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.
2nd Guy: You mean like Democrats?
I'm going to guess (because I own this movie) and I remember that the main character/cop was nuts - "Night of the Creeps"?
Very under-rated horror movie.
Andrew Turner wrote:
The National Guardsman were a considerable threat to his ability to lord over Woodbury.
Think about it:
I think they represented a power structure that was from the old world but it would have appealed to most survivors. I wouldn't be surprised if a high level NCO or Officer wouldn't be able to just push aside the Governor just by merit of representing what once was. How many people automatically assume that someone in uniform is there to help, they know what they are doing, etc.
I've kind of suspected from the beginning that The Real Issue here is: "some moderators express views which I don't like (and even worse, by voicing these views they empower others), so let's build an elaborate argument against them taking part in discussion".
That's strange - I thought this thread was about selective/uneven (and potentially biased) moderation letting the phrase "suck my d&^%" stand where normal moderation would have had it removed in a heartbeat.
Go figure - it must be a witch hunt.
If this forum is going to allow discussion of real world topics like gender, religion, and politics, then NO ONE should be silenced on the subject. That includes the Paizo staff. And my sense is what you are asking for, between the lines, is certain people to be silenced, and I do not find that cool at all. And it is in fact antithetical and detrimental to the idea of "open discourse" that you and other posters were advocating for earlier in the thread.
Was the intention of these forums to provide information and support for paizo posters/buyers of product or was this place set up for paizo employees to engage in discourse with gamers on political and social issues? IDK - they know what they want out of this. I would assume it would be used as a vehicle to sell product and stay in touch and support their client base, but they may have a different overall objective.
And their is no "in between the lines", I don't think that paizo staff should get involved in off-topic debates unless paizo wants each employee to represent the views of their company to the general public. Or if the do want to post - if the compulsion is so great that they need to set one of their customers "right", then maybe they shouldn't be involved in that threads moderation.
As for moderators getting hotheaded and deleting something perhaps they shouldn't--my understanding is that that most of the time, staff consult with each other before deleting a post. Even though one person does it, usually it is the result of several staff conferring on the issue. There may be instances where someone's kneejerk deleted something when they shouldn't have but I sincerely doubt that is very much the exception to the rule. Should a staff member ask someone else to go through and do the deleting, even if multiple people agree on it? Possibly? But it might create more work for them that isn't really necessary.
More work? Don't they have enough to do with maintaining their product release dates and minimizing many of the technical and logistical issue they have been having come big book shipment? I know this isn't a large company so you will get a webstore staff member moderating posts or the project manager deleting offensive comments (or not) but do they really need to chime in a heated exchange on gender roles and prejudice (as an example)?
Do they need to be involved in those exchanges?
And as far as staff communally reviewing posts before they get deleted I just don't believe it. Some, somewhat subjective interpretation of what is "off topic" get whacked right away - within a minute. Either its the moderator/staff making the call (since they are in the exchange) or no one has work to at paizo but read the forums all day - and I seriously doubt the latter.
And otherwise--I strongly feel, either everyone gets an opinion--or no one does. I have been to forums where "real world" topics like politics and religion were banned (and posting about such things were a warnable offense). Often, honestly, for good reason, unfortunately. But if you're going to allow hot button topics to be discussed, then I think it's only fair that everyone gets a chance to participate if they want to, and especially the people who effectively own this sandbox.
If they want this to be their own arena - where they right perceived social wrongs while sending a mixed messages about what can or cannot pass their censors (based on world view) then have at it. Like I said in my OP - this is their site, but come out and say it.
"We have X view on this subject and if you don't like it then don't post here and don't buy our product".
You may dislike it, but it's entirely your choice to be here. You can accept your choice, understanding that means you may have to put up with staff you dislike and opinions you don't want to read, or make another.
If I thought I was wasting my time here I wouldn't bother posting. I know they have a different world view from mine - I get it, and good for them. They still put out some good product and I respect their gaming pedigree even if I disagree with their politics.
That doesn't mean I need to shut up and get in line...or does it?
I would rather the moderators stay out of the heated/controversial threads if they do not cover Paizo product or edition warring.
To me the core issue is when a moderator (who is human, and will take a stance on one side or another) is posting and moderating in non-paizo product thread and is either deleting posts that they dislike or is being zealous of maintaining "off topic" moderation when a post deviates from the subject matter is dear to their personal beliefs.
IMO (and this is just my opinion) - the safest and most consistent way to go would be if moderators stayed out of non-paizo product discussions and just moderate the forums - for language, post that break forum rules and to eliminate attacks/insults on other posters.
Example: Right now we have more than a few gender-roles/gender politics threads going on simultaneously and some of the regular posters in those threads are Paizo staff. I understand that this issue are near and dear to most if not all the staff here, but is it really necessary for the staff to both post in and moderate threads that are already volatile/hot-button issues? Is it necessary for Paizo staff to post in these at all?
At best this comes across as unprofessional and at worst it looks like some of the staff posters are using the threads here as a soapbox to convey their personal views and those that don't stay 100% on top of the moderators immediate discussion are quashed.
Not saying it IS SO, saying that's how it LOOKS to some of us.
You guys (staff) have all the power here.
2 Koufax is in big f#%!ing trouble! Big trouble, baby! All right. Tresh is the next batter. Tresh looks in. Koufax... Koufax gets a sign from Roseboro. He kicks once. He pumps. He fires. It's a strike! Koufax's curve ball is snapping off like a f@%$ing firecracker! All right, here he comes with the next pitch. Tresh swings. It's a long fly ball to deep left center!
One flew Over the Paizo Messageboards..er, Cuckoo's Nest
I wouldn't have a problem with a higher cap for male humans on strength and a bonus to female humans on con - since we are talking about averages a +1 to a 10 doesn't amount to much for either gender. I take issue with people who spasm/spittle rage for suggesting that males of certain species may be stronger or females of another being larger, etc - all on the premise that it would be offensive to quantify those differences.
Jessica Price wrote:
What if the players don't care?That is, what if we (my players and I) wanted a more realistic representation of biological limitation - based on height, sex, whatever. Should I let people who are not playing in my game determine the level of immersion the rules are trying to present due to political correctness or female privilege?
Should political correctness or influence from a group that isn't the target demogrophic for the product deterime the ruleset?
Why was this post allowed to stand, yet most all subsequent post that quoted part of this were removed?
Jessica Price (to name a specific moderator) seemingly has a gender-role axe to grind and frequently will let certain post stand that are in obvious and direct violation of forum rules/but in-line with her personal views on the matter, while she will delete posts that she disagrees with or moves off the (inevitable) subject of gender politics.
I know that for the most part that this is a hard left leaning company - which is your prerogative, but is this political view going to be extended out to how you guys moderate threads?
So now we can say things like "suck my dick" if it's illustrative of how one poster felt women were treated in the hobby in the past?
And what exactly are the "modern values" then, that don't have a place?
Any values that would not survive in the game environment naturally or artificially (i.e. enforced by Law).
I would follow a swords and wizardry style model (re: harsh survivalist) vs. a modified medieval one since even the most medieval D&D world - isn't. Fantasy =/= faux medieval.
But it all varies – how harsh is the world, how stable, what roles does magic or the divine play?
In post apocalyptic sci-fi games I run, women (or men) do not have any intrinsic right beyond what they can defend. The weak are used and preyed upon as a standard, anything less without some kind of justification would seem artificial and idiotic.
Modern values have zero to do with traditional roles and positions of power that have been held by men and women in the past. Not everything is Castles and Christians, so stop with the false equivalency of women who are not relegated to the job of nuns/housewives = modern values. This isn’t what we are discussing and you know it.
Cell phones can be a distraction, but I can't tell two my players who are fathers to young children to turn their phones off while they are away from their homes.
I do my best to keep my players involved, but the reality is that cell phones/internet use have been ingraned in our lives. So it makes sense that if a person is using their phone to check the internet while waiting for their food, or while they are in line for something or even their turn at the table - it just became a habit of sorts.
I use my laptop when I DM - I don't always run my games at my house so it works for me since it reduces the carry load of books by a considerable amount. Also I use the laptop to run any background music so it becomes an important tool for me as a DM (pdfs, my excell and word docs and music).
I actually have turned the phone thing around a little. Instead of secret notes on perception checks I send players a text which is for their eyes only as to what they detect or notice. Works in addition to sending notes or sending people out of the room. So the phone issue doesn't have to be a negative and in fact could work as a second track to communicate with players while in game. I can run a series of back and forth questions with a player faster in text than I could passing back a series of notes. As long as it doesn't detract from the core game I see it as another tool in the DMs arsenal get his game to work.
And gamers (players) have been distracted since the advent of gaming - from distractions such as TV to music to just horsing around when it wasn't their turn (from playing with guns/knives to wrestling and one player breaking anothers hand - yes, all this has happened while "waiting" or duing down time).
The only two things I have going to support my Michonne theory: The fact that there was mention (implied really) that Michonne lost a baby and you can see how much it damaged her when it's brought up (that's 1) the second is the fact that Michonne has configured significantly in importance into the lives of Rick and Carl...saving Judith and bringing her back to them would solidify the relationship between the three (that's my 2nd). I can't really mention Judith as a character per se in that triad, but more of a force or factor in the series. The second point is far more speculative, but from a character development pov, I see Michonne as being part of the Rick/Carl/Judith family group.
Also, in many ways Michonne on her own would be a little boring/back to do-anything-to-survive mode. Her trekking it out with a baby (and keeping that baby alive) would be nuts, with only her or Daryl really being the ones in the group with the chops and skill to pull that task off in the wilderness.
If you think about it, only Michonne or Daryl on zylphryx's list could pull off keeping her alive.
I would revise the list as such:
1) Rick and Carl
The daughter symmetry between the two leaders is a valid and solid point, from a story perspective though it only hits home if both of them were still alive after losing their kids. With the Governor gone, the symmetry loses some strength. I think the baby-Michonne connection is going to strengthened and develop Michonne’s character outside of her survivor role, and is going to cement her relationship with Rick and Carl when they meet back up.
Or...I could be wrong.
Best guess on the rats is that it's the little girl (Lizzy?) doing the feeding (as I said in my post on 10.15). Now I'm starting to think that she killed those two people in the prison, Carol found them dead and drug their bodies out and burned them to cover it up and took the blame to protect her. Hence her frustration in the one scene when she is taking it out on the water barrels - thinking on the fact that she may have put those murders in motion by all the harsh stuff she was teaching the kids about survival.
I thought it was a decent mid-season ender. There was plenty of implausible stuff in there, but Herschel’s smile before his end more than made up for it.
Any guesses on what happened to Judith? I don't think she died in the walker attack - I think Michonne was the one who found her and took her away (due to some foreshadowing events in previous episodes).
Anyway, those are my guesses.
I played 2nd ed well into 3rd ed. Picked up the 3rd ed books but never ran they game then I started running the game when 3.5 came out.
I was drawn in (from a DMs perspective) by all the modularity and changes that could be made to creatures. After running that game and then PF for the last 10 years I was very dissatisfied with the experience.
So over time I tried a series of small fixes, changes - you name it. Most were run through a playtest serving as a band aid at best.
I then re-examined the game and saw where the flaws were. And there are a ton, but imo it can be salvaged. Of course it goes beyond the scope of these forums and its a project I am near completing, but I felt there were some merits to d20 gaming over older editions if the issues could be worked out with some effort.
What I posted was a very rough outline to eliminating the big six, basically making PF run more like 2nd ed.
I have invested a TREMENDOUS amount of money into 3rd ed/PF, so the reason why I would pursue a fix is so that I could still use my more recent purchases (and those I get from Swan, FGG or LG) for my game revision. In many ways mid way through PF I felt took. As in hoodwinked. So yeah, I hate, despise and revile the design mentality which went into 3rd ed: CharOp/character building instead of adventure focus, magic mart, min/max and oversimplification of the rules/spells/items/skills/take 10/DC manipulation…too many to name.
See - an interesting thing occurred over the course of several years and it’s the reason why there are so many conflicts on these boards in the vein of old school vs. new school. Many of us old school gamers came along for the ride, and trusting in developer’s good faith we bought, and ran their creative content. And now we are dissatisfied. Some caught on early and never bought in, some bought in and bailed on the hobby or switched systems, while a few went along because while they may not like the system, they liked having a system that was alive, was receiving new content, etc. I'm part of the latter crowd, but the dissatisfaction has set in. And we now find ourselves on an island of discontent – basically stuck with a bunch of other posters and gamers who grew up on this and love the level of power and player entitlement that comes with it. So you get fights and disagreements.
What I did is I took the best parts of 2nd and 3rd (with a few things from 1st) and modified my game. The list I posted wasn't a challenge or insult - it is a practical outline for reducing numbers and the need for numbers in d20 gaming. Lower ACs mean you need less number boosts to hit, lower hp means you need less modifiers to damage and controlled DCs (by level threat ranges) means you don't really need Save boosters.
Again, wasn’t trying to insult anyone – just showing what it would take to run a low magic game under the current framework.
Here's a fix (which will be hated by most):
Eliminate the need for micro bonuses or special weapons.
1) Remove Con bonus to hp (everything, with the exception of high Con) , so most creatures hps will be reduced around 40%-60%.. Con of 15 gives you +1 hp level, 16 gives you +2, 17 gives you plus 3 for every Full BAB HD you have or gain otherwise +2, and 18 Con gives you +4 for every Full BAB HD you have or gain otherwise it gives you +2 when you gain a level. The latter rule does not apply to monsters.
2) Reduce natural ACs of creatures by 1/3 rounded up.
3) 1/2 all the racial stat bonus given at Char gen, max stat 18
4) Save DCs are still increased by casting stat, but stats are capped at 18 (+4) for most starting to middle level characters, so DCs for spells are controlled by level and are not taken out of range due to feats, temp or perm stat boosters or other spells.
5) Introduce an "Average Save" category, reserving bad saves for certain creature types and for Fort saves for casters. Most all PCs classes will sub the Average Save category out for their current "Bad Saves" (with the exception of casters).
6) Eliminate numerical booster feats with the exception of the most basic (weapon focus, weapon spec). Eliminate most feats. A feat that allows you change the enegry type of a prepared spell on the fly - sothing like that can stay. A feat that adds +4 to initiative - gone, +2 skill - gone, etc. Feats should be features of the character, not numerical bonus to X.
7) Eliminate feats that increase the DC of spells or SLAs. Eliminate metamagic feats that increase the damage of spells. Eliminate all metamagic items (metamagic rods). Eliminate magic items that increase saves or make them very rare and affect only one save category (level 12 character item, gives +1 to Fort saves)
8) Eliminate all spells that boost stats (and subsequently, all items). If you feel the need for stat boosters I would suggest only those that affect Str or Dex and they would have a fixed stat value - If under 16, raises it to 17 when worn, if score is already 17-19 gives +1, starting 20 or higher - nothing).
9) Eliminate increasing scores by increasing levels
10) Limit stackable buffs by reducing bonus category types.
11) Bring back potion miscibility table, potions and wands are not spells in items. They are a specific effect generated by said item, not a spell in a bottle or wand.
12) Eliminate crit damage, eliminate crit feats and eliminate TH bonus damage from Str.
13) Bunch of micro changes (too many to list here). Limited item creation, increased DC checks for casting while taking damage, no more Conjure spells getting around MR, etc, etc.
14) If you are PF player or DM and you head hasn’t exploded by this point I congratulate you! Proceed to posting disparaging comments about my lists of fixes and changes.
All that or just run 2nd ed, which seems to be a better system every day I run or read anything about 3rd ed./PF.
Since you said you were not going to help me and since I already sent an e-mail with my information but never received a response I assume sending another e-mail will make no difference. Just go ahead and keep my money. You can also keep the hardback. I doubt I would have received it anyway.
I sent an email to the support message option and didn't get a response either and then I saw people posting comments on RA4 and CD4 and was wondering what happened to me, but I didn’t panic/ragepost.
And then (just like Hollywood movie magic) I saw Skeeters updated contact post.
I promptly sent him an email last night listing my KS, pre-orders and additional orders I got through FGG games.
Keep in mind that they are a small company and to actually take their explanation of how they are doing things sincerely and that they are not running a shell game or a scam. Give it a try first without playing the victim game or posting melodrama.
I think if there was a new edition I would lobby to get rid of all six.
Item ability does not always need to equate bonuses to rolls.
A strength booster can boost strength by affecting DC checks to lift or break items as well as carrying ability, it doesn't need to add +X to hit and damage.
I would probably dump most of the +X anything and instead go for ability/usefullness to the character who is using the item or seeking it out instead of focusing on the math - that is how you bring an element of mystery back to the arcane. It becomes more about lore, ability - legend and myth than "this gives you +1 extra to hit and damage".
If I may make a suggestion - allowing the PDF/print versions of the Kingmaker or Jade Regent content (the $15/$25 option) up front vs. waiting to add them into the KS later on would be a direct boost to the money as most people would add in one or two of the options (I would do the kingmaker option, pdf and print).
I think holding these back as a "not available option" is hurting this KS. IMO of course.
I don't think these should be bonus goals but should be part of the main KS, since it plays to your strength (phenomenal content). Not asking for for fancy print hardcovers for these add-ons, just something in print. And the pdf bundles for each plug-in could be what's already sold on your site or Paizo (6 pdfs for each plug-in), just as a discounted bundle and optioned as one pdf.
The kingmaker PDFs total list at $43.94 USD, I would easily add 30-35 bucks to the KS just for some discounted pdfs (maybe indexed against each other). Plus it would be more of a draw (new pledges).
I would add even more for a print option, even a non-hardcover and incomplete (6 pdfs vs. what you have already put in for Carrion crown).
Just an idea.
Bill Webb wrote:
The Tunnels of Terror news is the best thing I have heard all day and today has been a very, very bad day.
I was on the edge about SoA (not due to quality or follow through, but my personal finances) but this bit of news has pushed me over.
Just offering my opinion on the issue - as a KS supporter/pre-orderer (?) for RA (+subs), Tsar and ToHC I would prefer to wait for a better thought-out product than something rushed through to meet a deadline.
Sometimes - and I think this applies to most creative endeavors - sometimes it's just better to wait.
Reminds me, I also need to throw some money at the Legendary Games Print book kickstarter.
TL;DR version- thanks for the update on ToT. I’m #205 in your KS for SoA.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Drejk is correct: Grendel is CR 19. His rank is listed just for the purpose of effects relating to rank or tier, but all of his abilities (mythic and otherwise) are already accounted for in his CR 19. Stripping away the abilities and modifiers he gets from his 7 mythic ranks would make his CR something less than 19.
Ah, ok - so that was the source of my confusion.
Ok - sounds good.
If all the mythic abilities are available online and this is calculated into its CR as a consideration then it isn't as much of an issue.
I don't think that there should be restrictions on any personal weapons (not explosives) that at one time or another were legal. Yes, that includes FA rifles & machine guns (which technically are not illegal, but regulated so heavily that they are almost impossible to own and only for the rich: around 20k a pop). Same goes for magazine restriction and weapon type restrictions - all of which are design to restrict weapon ownership, intimidate gun owners and serve as steps that infringe/impede our 2nd amendment rights.
- Not an NRA member
The primary function of the 2nd amendment isn't so that people can have weapons to hunt, or to defend their property. I believe that the function of the 2nd is so that a force can be raised to defend the country/state or to kill your own government. All other functions of the 2nd and gun ownership are secondary.
Comrade - it isn't hard or too expensive to build your own AR style weapon piecemeal. You can buy the upper and lower receiver as you can afford them and then put the thing together over time. It's actually a fun hobby, without even taking the weapon to the range.
Or if you want to go real cheap you can pick up a surplus Mosin-Nagant (8mm) for a couple of hundred. Good, cheap Russian/Commie weapon - not really for home defense (more for long range shooting) but they are plentiful and and is overall solid weapon.
IMO, anyone who cares about their rights (left or right on the poli spectrum) should be a gun owner. That also means not being an idiot, rager or revenge fueled moron. Owning a gun and securing it is like any other responsibility (raising a child,driving a car on public streets, etc), use with caution or if you are incapable of doing so then do not absorb the responsibility (i.e.- own a gun).
I don't think the US has a gun problem, I think the US has an infantile, revenge obsessed, macho BS problem. Also a problem on how we treat and commit people with mental problems.