Auxmaulous's page

Auxmaulous wrote:

Well I'm not defending that, just the fact that the CA Constitution and the fact that Marriage is a States vs Fed issue. Also I would go with precedent - States decide and have decided historically that specific class or race (more recent) are not being discriminated against, just the same-sex unions.

If the feds took it as an issue and allowed any kind of civil union with full rights then none of this would be an issue and rights wouldn't be dependent on the State you were married in, got sick or died in. I'm sure as time goes by and this is brought/challenged as a legitimate civil rights issue States are going to either cave or continue lock down their definition of marriage (as we see it happening) until the Feds get in on the scene.

You do have a good point about it being a States vs Fed issue. However, I don't think your "precedent" argument holds up. Homosexuals are not a 'race', but they have been labeled and set aside as a class of people and are being discriminated against, based on who they are (their classification: homosexuals). States do have the precedent that they have been discriminating against homosexuals all along, but that doesn't make it right, or acceptable.

Not just that though I'm not sure that homosexuals are considered a "suspect class" that is required for "strict scrutiny" via the courts. Race, national origin, legal resident status and religion. I'm sure that there is extra scrutiny involved when it comes to discrimination cases but as it stands they are not in any of those categories. I think lumping them into the race aspect of suspect class is a reach at best and they should create another category altogether.

Doesn't "make it right or acceptable" is a view that varies depending on what side of the fence you are on. As it stands it is 100% legal from the purview of States Constitution, it falls in their area of control and by some definitions of suspect class it is not discriminatory. Considering the definition of suspect classes and the fact that gays can still get married, just not to each other (lame yes). So it comes down to two things:

A) Re-/defining suspect class to include sexual orientation (even if i doesn't hit all the markers/qualifiers for a suspect class)

B) Fed takes over marriage - can get messy for a bunch of reasons but this would clear the way for gay marriage in each state.

Anyway, I'm going to step out of this one. The crowd here is too close and invested to the issue for rational thought without launching attacks on anyone with a differing view. It's also unfortunate that this turned into a silly religious debate instead of serious discussion on rights, legality, views and possible solutions. You are either on their side, or you are shouted down as a bigoted homophobe - or other snide and immature slurs that are tossed around so easily with little moderation on the part of the board. What people want here is an echo chamber, so I'll comply.

I was nice having an exchange with you Finn K even if we don't agree on methodology or even the morality of the issue. Sorry I can't say that about everyone else here.

Good luck to all invested if this goes to the SCOTUS.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Ion Raven wrote:

People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?

Wrote stuff about marriage based on a heterosexual couple

And still no reason why there is a discrimination between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. What reasons are there to discriminate between the two in the first place?

The arguments being presented here may as well be justifying slavery before it was abolished. You know, economics, tradition, the fact that the law recognizes it.

You must have failed to read through:

Edit: As to the why - I have no idea. Because it was before and these laws are just a continuation/extension of what came before in the CA code?

Again, I have no idea. To the best of my knowledge religion is not cited in the CA Constitution, so maybe an unstated moral/family reason?

Keep in mind I'm just presenting, I didn't write the f&~+ing constitution or the law.

However, the position you're still not answering is the argument that prohibiting homosexual marriages is a direct violation of civil rights-- not because it was ever granted and then taken away, but because it's discriminatory to begin with.

Well I'm not defending that, just the fact that the CA Constitution and the fact that Marriage is a States vs Fed issue. Also I would go with precedent - States decide and have decided historically that specific class or race (more recent) are not being discriminated against, just the same-sex unions.

If the feds took it as an issue and allowed any kind of civil union with full rights then none of this would be an issue and rights wouldn't be dependent on the State you were married in, got sick or died in. I'm sure as time goes by and this is brought/challenged as a legitimate civil rights issue States are going to either cave or continue lock down their definition of marriage (as we see it happening) until the Feds get in on the scene.

People are derailing all over the place in this thread. So has anyone actually given a reason why there should be a discrimination between heterosexual couples and homosexuals not fueled by a religious agenda?

Yeah, it was not supported by the California Constitution*

-1977 language was amended to clarify that marriage in CA was between a man and a woman

-In 2000 prop 22 cleaned up the 77 change in the California code

-2004, Gavin Newsom illegally issued marriage licenses to gay couples, later those marriages were nullified

-Prop 22 was challenged and overturned in 2008 by CA SC. This challenge arose from the 2004 illegal issuing of marriage licenses on behalf of Gavin Newsom

-In 2008 prop 8 was voted in as a change the CA Constitution to solidify the language and put it in Constitution vs Cali code

-In 2012 prop 8 ruled unconstitutional because a Mayor in Ca illegally issued licensees (who did not have the authority) and thus the right to marry (with no source of legitimacy being derived from the CA Constitution) trumps the CA Constitution change.

TL;DR version - Gay couples were given a right to marry (by a mayor) by a guy who didn't have the power or authority to do so, they then have their marriages overturned - it goes to the CA SC who says "Hey, you can't take a right away once it's given - even if that right was illegally is given by the village idiot".

Next stop is a likely appeal as Prop 8 heads to the SCOTUS

As it stands opponents of prop 8 are looking to put another ballot initiative out to repeal prop 8 but will bypass the 2012 election because they know the overwhelming minority democratic vote that comes out for BO will probably get their ballot initiative defeated (smartest move yet IMO). So they will have to wait for an off-year cycle to get it out to be voted on.

That is the long and short of it, sans emotional outrage and board warrior e-peen.

*The idiotic stance on this is that they are not being discriminated against. In effect a gay man or woman can marry and have the same rights as straight people, they just can't marry people of the same sex and get those rights. This all implying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice vs. nature

Edit: As to the why - I have no idea. Because it was before and these laws are just a continuation/extension of what came before in the CA code?

Auxmalous wrote:

Wow, fact based rational arguments stripped of attacks to support your view.

I don't know what to say....er, "thank you"?

I try. :)

Sometimes my temper gets the better of me a bit, but I'm trying to stick to rational discussion and ensuring that the arguments I launch are legitimately against your arguments, not 'ad-hominem' attacks against you as a person. Same goes for my efforts arguing/discussing things with anyone on these boards-- just, I'm human too, so if occasionally I snap and get a bit personal, you have my apologies for that.

Well, the rational discourse is appreciated, and yes - this is a very charged an emotional issue (for both sides) so it's easy to get caught up in that sort of energy.

Just to make a point - you lumped me in with others (and it may have just been due to a flurry of responses you were putting out) motivated by religion who voted for this. My vote in this regard was misplaced due to frustration of an oncoming political tide and seeing a movement/power I didn't like (dems, not gays). I admitted that mistake and got dogpiled for it here - my fault for being honest - and I won't make that mistake again (the being honest part).

All that being said it's nice to see a rational exchange and to discuss possible hurdles/solutions to the issue on realistic legal grounds vs. those motivated by emotion.
I think if the "red meat" aspects are removed from the topic both sides might be able to find a workable solution - ultimately this is an individual rights issue that needs to be resolved.

@jeff - Well, numbers vs. percentages would be more accurate since California is not a 50/50 split (or even close to) of democrat/republican composition. And it isn’t "in my mind", nothing gets voted on or passed in California unless some Independents (generally left leaning here) or Democrats vote on it. You are blowing smoke to cover up a large embarrassment - Prop 8 would not have passed without Democrat voter support.

Also you forgot to include the Liberal/Moderate combined vote of (64%) who voted yes. That's 22% of of liberals (1 in 5 ) and 51% of California moderates (1/2 who voted) voting yes on Prop 8.

Here is a corrected link (yours was crapsky):
link

Also, BO didn't help defuse the issue by having Rick Warren (a proponent of prop 8) give the invocation (not evocation) at his inauguration. You are dancing around this trying to blame the right for voting on this when the right do not hold any kind of majority in CA. I'm not talking about the sponsorship of the bill but the people who actually came out and voted for it. The numbers do not lie - a majority of the votes came from Democrats.

An amendment would be required for this action, and that requires a 2/3 majority and legislative action.

How so, if the whole affair stands on a ballot initiative, then that cuts both ways.

The difference here is that once it's in place (as in actively giving out those rights to gay couples) then it can never be reversed. That is where the true enumerated power comes from - the Constitution. So once its in place and political winds change (as they often do) it can't be undone with another amendment/revision/et al if the new amendment actually provided a right at any point.

See, Gavin Newsom can't give it out - he isn't a source of that right, but if the Constitution is changed to provide that right then it becomes ironclad, no matter what happens thereafter.

stuff

Wow, fact based rational arguments stripped of attacks to support your view.

I don't know what to say....er, "thank you"?

Auxmaulous wrote:

Quote:

It doesn't MATTER if it's a federally protected right. You cannot discriminate with the handing out of privleges.

Actually it does matter, that is the whole point of this discussion. States rights vs. Federal rights.

So, if I am single I should get the same tax breaks as a married couple? Or as a gay couple? What if by being a single male, living in Cali - I feel like my rights are being squashed via unfair privilege allocation?

As a single, heterosexual male, you are afforded the opportunity to marry your significant other.

As a single, homosexual male, you are not afforded the opportunity to marry your significant other.

BS and you are missing the point. There are several groups and categories of people who are offered privileges and breaks that others do not get.

The tax structure as it currently stands affords breaks and bonuses based on marital status, poverty level and in gender (WIC). These are not protected or enumerated under any constitution yet they exist. Gay married couples are just another group who do not have access to these privileges - but there are several other groups/categories who do not. And again, none of this is empowered or detailed by the constitution.

Marriage should be part of religious ceremony and practice, while civil unions should be the law. If you want to get married in a church (that you are part of) then do so - you get no legal recognition. But I would also add that civil unions should not be afforded any extra breaks when it comes to taxes - that goes for everyone (straight or gay unions).

No, it isn't doable. A ballot measure can add a statement to the constitution, but it cannot change or remove a statement already in the constitution. It's not legal.

I've been looking through the California Constitution trying to find something to support this and I can't. If the language is good there is nothing to stop a ballot measure from amending the Constitution yet again.

It doesn't MATTER if it's a federally protected right. You cannot discriminate with the handing out of privleges.

Actually it does matter, that is the whole point of this discussion. States rights vs. Federal rights.

So, if I am single I should get the same tax breaks as a married couple? Or as a gay couple? What if by being a single male, living in Cali - I feel like my rights are being squashed via unfair privilege allocation?
I doesn't fly – the Constitution is not based on privileges, it’s based on rights – marriage is not a right (at least not under the Constitution). This has always been a State issue.

I want to stress something here Kelsey, when I pose an opposition view or state a fact I am not trying to attack you. You may see it that way, but I am just presenting an opposition view with reasons and facts as I know them.

That wasn't a workable method. Legally, a second ballot measure is NOT an option, because a ballot measure cannot remove the statement that was added to the constitution. It's far easier to add something than it is to change it or take it away altogether. A ballot measure can put something into the constitution, but it cannot change or remove it once it is there.

Disagree 100%. It is very workable, and doable. I think your fear (which you are not conveying) is that a movement to do such wouldn't have the votes.

The strong aspect for those against 8 isn't the "rights were already given so they cannot be rescinded" point. That is actually flimsy; the best point for invalidating 8 would be if the CA Constitution was properly amended via the 2008 vote, which I don't think it was. If it wasn't (which is how I think the Fed SC will rule) then the whole thing gets tossed out as if it didn't exist.

In any case there is always a fight, one of my points here is I rather have the people make it vs. some men/women in robes. You may not always get the judges you want, that is why I (personally) am against decree by court and would rather suffer under a vote.

@the jeff -No, BO did not come out against prop 8 when he was out here several times because he felt it would hurt his vote with the Latino community, that is why many people in the gay community here were very upset and felt betrayed by him after he won the election. So the president to-be doesn't come out against prop 8, and last time I checked Cali is a democrat stronghold controlled by democrats, stop making silly excuses for them. They sacrificed gay marriage at the altar of the BO bid for presidency - just to get their guy in office.

There are no ways around it, hell - even our Repub governor didn't go to court to defend 8, so no - this was let in by the Democrats in Cali and to say otherwise is dishonest.

Betts, you really need to cut out the rhetoric and violent jargon. That kind of garbage will do nothing but get you in trouble.
You also need to get off your partisan high horse, I think the air up there is affecting you ability to think rationally and preventing you from looking at things outside of an enemy/non-enemy paradigm.

If this was the push you needed to finally justify a set of beliefs you already held, then that's great. You're now off the line, and we can now see clearly where you want to stand. You are now the enemy - not because of what party you belong to, but because of what you have chosen to believe. You stand ready to strip rights from your fellow man. I hope you find solace in those who believe the same as you do.

I was always the enemy to you, because your ilk always needs enemies. That is the nature of the oppressor/tyrant - people like you always need a scapegoat.

I already said that I would not vote the same as I did, but that wasn't good enough - you and fools like you need someone to kick around to feel that they are right, even when they are wrong. Nothing you or any other posters here have said are based in reality/fact or supported by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how mad you get at me, marriage is NOT a federally protected right, and thus gay marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution. All I did was point this out and actually provide a CORRECT way to ENACT and PROTECT gay marriage. But keep raging; I'm sure all that self-righteousness acts as a stimulant of sort for you (and will make many allies so you can fight all your enemies).

And before you try recruiting people to the Democratic Party, keep in mind that it was your party that voted this into law. It is your party that has a president who does not support gay marriage, at least be partially honest if you are capable about these facts.

These attacks, slurs and other vitriolic trolling have convinced me to do rethink my views on prop 8.
It's obvious that when people don't get their way or when their 100% truth (even if not supported by the constitution) is not enacted they resort to nothing but insults (oh the irony Scott, the irony) and dismissive bilge.... it makes you think how far the human race has not come.

I should have followed my initial instinct that that there is NO reasonable discourse and honesty with people involved in this issue - and thanks again for reinforcing that, really. This thread has made me reassess my sympathies and sense of the human condition.

By all means please continue with emotional outrage and shaking your fist at the sky. I'm sure at one point it'll all make sense.

Rope Trick in +3e is just poorly thought out.
Should have never been changed from its 1st/2nd ed duration of 20 Min/level.

Here are a few fun tricks to kill the 15 minute workday

1) Random Encounters - great in the dungeon (while resting) and great in the wilderness (while resting)

2) If it's a living dungeon it will react.

• a) Creatures may move around/relocate; some may up and leave (and take their loot with them).
  
• b) Creatures will reset defenses, make new defenses. Or they may even send out a strike force to attack the invaders (who are resting from their Nova's =TPK/Deaths) and kill them as they rest or head back to town - or even hit the town.
  
• c) Creatures may call in reinforcements -patrols, war parties, other clans/humanoid tribes ("look, they hit us, it's only a matter of time till they hit you"....). They may even bring in bigger defenses in anticipation of a second attack.

3) It it's a "dead" dungeon (Crypts with undead, scattered ruins with a few unorganized monsters, etc)

• a) Creatures may not react - but other opportunist may. Local brigands, thieves and all around scummy con men may have heard that the
  "Black Tomb of Suchandsuch" was recently raided! Maybe there's still some loot they left behind? The riff-raff moves in, kills off a few of the remaining encounters (since the PCs already did alot of heavy lifting) and then party returns refreshed, rested to explore the now empty Tomb.
• b) As a, but this can also just be another adventuring group. They may even be leaving the dungeon with all their loot as the party is coming in (or the reverse), which can make for an interesting encounter.

3) Living world. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and as such that means PCs are doing what they are doing for a reason. If they are doing it for a reason beyond personal enrichment (dungeon crawl) then that means they have other driving factors which may be beyond their control – one may be time. If you are on a time limited mission the option to rest 24 hours (or even 6 hours) may not be viable.

Intelligently designed adventures and smart set-up by the DM will have the party exploring areas for multiple reasons - and as such beyond a personally motivated dungeon crawl there will be outside factors, play those up.

Doing that would bring the casters down, though. They would not remain at the same power level they had before. Changing a spell list is still changing the class, just like changing the way feats work would change the Fighter.

I'd be extremely impressed if you could do this, though. How could you even begin going about changing the following spells such that they are balanced against Martials as they currently stand:

These are just some fun suggestions to "fix" spells while preserving their power. Most just add some risk elements, while a few make the tasks/problem resolution a little bit harder (mostly with the fly/scry game win buttons).

Anyway, just a try...

mplindustries wrote:

2) Bring the casters down to the level of the martials. I don't think anyone wants this, nor has anyone I know of tried.

You don't need to bring the casters down. All you need to do is readdress the spells.

The Vancian system has this advantage: change the spell list and you have a thematically different caster. In this case, the thematic can remain untouched but the spells can be redesigned and/or rummaged around.

My preference would be an alternate book of spells; including all the same spells at the same levels (so that backward compatibility is preserved) but re-written so that they don't outstage martial characters.

It would be quite an endeavor, but it would be a perfectly remove-and-replace fix with few or no impact outside the magic system.

Pretty much this.

The only other things I would add would be to change the way spells are cast in combat/concentration and how the item creation system works in the game.

But if I had to change one catagory, it would be the spells since the spells are the biggest single factor in the game.

So what do you propose? Whittle casters down so that they can only do damage spells but no more powerful than what an optimized martial could do?

Doesn't need to be that binary or even an equivalent.

Martials have their own problems, casters should also have their own problems - at least they should have more than they currently do.

Some very basic/general ideas on the issue:

Less control over the Save paradigm (change the way the temp stat buff spells work).
Eliminate or reduce the amount of control casters have on the meta aspect of saving - unless the spell is designed to bring bad luck or directly affect saves. The raw numbers approach to save DC manipulation is both stupid, problematic and flavorless.

Spells with consequence - Spells can be good/powerful, but there should be some drawbacks/risk. Similar spells may be lower powered copies with less risks associated with casting them. Casters get choices in the risk they want to take.

Spell casting should be risky - Casting a spell should never be as routine as swinging a sword. Casting a spell in the middle of a fight shouldn't be routine, it should be risky - always.

--------------------------------------------------------------

You can preserve power (output) but it can be mitigated by risk. You don't need to turn everything into a 4e/equal powers game, but you should address the fact that if the caster can fly he should be able to fall, and if can summon demons they should occasionally try to eat him. That hasn't been the paradigm since 2nd edition. In 3e casters increased in power and had more safeguards built in and in PFRPG even more powerful/more hit points/spells.

Auxmaulous neglected:

John Wayne Was a Nazi

I was going to linky, but the sound quality for the various videos was questionable at best. I guess when it comes to punk I shouldn't be too concerned about sound quality (as in recording quality, not actual song).

-

Here are a few more to dance to -
Negative Approach - Can't Tell No One
Void - War Hero
Discharge - State Control, State Control
Youth Brigade - Violence

Warsaw - They Walked in Line
MDC - John Wayne Was a Nazi
Subhumans - Rats
D.R.I. - Don't Need Society
Corrosion of Conformity - Technocracy
Propagandhi - Technocracy (cover)
Luftwaffe - Killkorps
The Creatures - Pluto Drive

One minor thing to help out martial’s/fighters is to change the Weapon Focus feat to a group vs. a single weapon - using the Fighter Weapon Training ability as the basis for these groupings. This brings WF on par (not really) with Spell Focus.

Weapon Focus
Feat effect remains the same "+1 to hit with weapon". What changes is how many weapons or weapon group types this affects.
If a non-fighter takes this feat he gains one Weapon Group per feat slot used. For all weapons in that group he gains +1 to hit.

For fighters with WF, they gain an extra Weapon Focus group every time they gain the Weapon Training ability. If a fighter starts/has two Weapon Focus feats at the time he gets Weapon Training 1 (say Heavy Blades and Bows) he will get two additional Weapon Focus Slots/Groups. These are not bonus feats, but additional groups would be sub-listed under each of the original WF feat.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This +1 to hit is NOT on par with an open ended feat that makes all saves from one school a DC point higher (Spell Focus). Under the current SoD save system it just really can't compete with that level of power. But it does gives the Weapon Focus feat a scaling ability for fighters and pairs up with a Fighter ability well.
It also makes non-fighters seem a bit more competent with a weapon similar to the one they are already using (under this system a Rogue with WF (Light Blades) gets a +1 to hit with daggers, rapiers and short swords).

I would probaly limit the groups to only provide a bonus for weapons covered by class allowed proficiency, eg a Cleric with Weapon Focus (Hammers) would only get the grouping bonus for heavy mace, light hammer, light mace. The only way to get the full grouping would be if he took a Martial Weapon Proficieny in either Warhammer or Greatclub, at which point those two would be added to his grouping. Or allow the bonus of +1 to offset not having the Martial weapon proficiency neg of -4.

The flip side is this is good feature for me as the DM. Creatures who are given Weapon Focus (Natural) makes much more sense as a viable feat slot to be used on creatures vs. the weak (imo) ability to give one natural attack out of a set +1.

Weapon Finesse
Also Weapon finesse is a non-feat but standard feature for players/creatures using light weapons (using DX mod to hit) or low Str creatures who use their DX mod to hit - this is a default always in effect aspect of light/natural weapons.

Weapon Finesse as a feat will allow high DEX combatants to add their DEX mods instead of their STR if they choose (for appropriate attacks). This makes the light weapon/high DEX martial a more viable option.
So now a Rogue with this feat will be hitting and doing damage based on his DEX (with light weapons only) just as Fighter does with his STR to hit and damage.

Anyway, those are a few feat changes I'm looking at.

I think - and I am going out on a limb here - I think the new edition may also support 4th.

This is what I am thinking they are going with as a plan....

Base set - very stripped down game with the same classic stats and maybe DCs to conduct tasks.

- A Spells and skill book setup like 1st/2nd ed (this covers those versions), maybe even covering 3rd ed

- A powers/skill challenge book based on 4e

or they can pull the skills out into one book with variant rules in that book (NWP style skills - 2nd ed, Skill checks 3rd ed, Skill Challenges 4e) and you pick which version you are going to add to your base game model.

These products will produce a comparable level of player power but executed in different ways.

So in the end you will be able to play
- a very basic version of D&D (0E, Basic/Expert/etc) style of game
- Advanced D&D 1st/2nd ed
- 3rd Ed style game (this may also just mesh with the 1st/2nd ed style) (compatible with PFRPG)
- 4e non-spell but powers based add on with Skill challenges/Rituals

I actually do think it is doable, really. The biggest problem is creating multiple sort of mini lines and how you are going to support them with adventure product (unless you have multiple stat blocks???).

I am not a fan and on some levels I despise WoTC for what they did with the brand. I do not like 4e at all - I think it would have been a good system for a super hero game - not kidding, the powers system would be ideal for that style of play.

That being said, don't give up until we start to see the drafts. Hopefully they will show some previews of the "modular" content - the modular content effectively being the various editions.

So I don't think they plan on tossing out 4e anytime soon, maybe just a pause - keep the faith for your edition till the writing is on the wall...

......and then you can burn everything down.

Well one approach would be to give all non-casters a slew of new powers/abilities to stay on par with casters.

Or nerf casting (in general) and how some spells work with regard to risk/reward, reliability, and overall power (easiest approach).

Or something in between...

Or not

So we have a few options on the table.

Actually, change my post somewhat, give the fighter additional skills based on a concept, kind of like the Cavalier's orders.

I think this is a great idea.

So not exactly archetypes, but almost like the old kits (sort of) where depending on the sub-type of fighter (say, like a Weapons crafter/Blacksmith) he may get some extra points to use on specific crafting skills or whatnot. Something minor change when compared to archetypes - which are more of a class rewrite while staying within a framework.

Is that is what you were trying to put out there or something more drastic?

Edit: I like this thread, some great ideas in here. As long as we can keep any criticism constructive here I would love to see ideas keep coming in for a solution to the (presumed/proposed) problem.

Nobody likes my suggestion :(

Yet everyone who had that book loved the melees in it...

No offense directed at you but I hated that book.

The one good thing I can say is that it was an attempt to fix the disparity between casters and fighters, but the philosophy of giving one side more was a feeble & uneven attempt at best.

At that point in the game scaling back power would have been met with too much resistance, so I can understand the need to "give moar" as a splat vs. fixing issues in the game.

I didn't like the heavy anime/wuxia influenced themes in the book, and in the end it still didn't address the powers of casters. Just a bad attempt at catch-up for martials.

Spellcasting in 3.5 should have been nerfed/checked or better assessed in a risk-reward paradigm and we may have gotten a 4e that was different from what was put out.

If the book works for you (and it works for those who may want to preserve casters power) then by all means convert it to PF.

It would be very hard to close the gap without nerfing casters. Also if you up power the martial’s so they can have powers similar to level afforded by spells you essentially have a different game (at least from a design goal/historical perspective).

One thing I would do is give fighters, rogues, cavaliers and barbarians an extra "good" save from level 1.
Fighters get to chose at 1st level between Reflex or Will as an extra "good" save, while Rogues get to choose between Fortitude or Will as their "good" save. This choice is made at the 1st level for the class and stays that way forever.
Cavaliers now get a "Good" save on Will (no choice, just a class change) and Barbarians get a "Good" save on Reflex (as Cav, just a class change).

Also change the feats associated with Saves into "Bonus feats", Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, et al can now be chosen as a bonus by those who qualify to get them.

With that all said, here is the nerfing......

- Nerf casting time: All spells are full rounds unless the spell by nature needs to go off quickly (feather fall, true strike, etc). So no more move and cast.

- Return of the Consequence: Going back to 1st/2nd ed games almost all powerful spell had some limiters - chance of failure, death, damage or aging. I am bringing those back for my game. The spells still are tempting to cast, but in practice they are used in emergency situations only.

- Concentration gets much more difficult: Spike up the DC numbers so the spells are much less likely to be cast if the caster is damaged, hit, harassed, etc.

- Spell casting time/initiative: I use a declared action/timed resolution for my game (which is cumbersome, but my players like it since it means that they can affect the speed of things based upon their decisions vs. being locked in an initiative cycle).
For everyone else in Pathfinder land maybe a system which makes higher level spells slower to cast. So spells with VSM/DF get -1 a level on initiative - level 1: -1, level 2: -2, etc, with a total roll in the negative meaning it carries over the activation of the spell to the beginning of the next round.

Have you signed up for the D&D playtest of the new edition? Yes
Do you actually plan to participate? Doubt it.
Have you been part of a pen-and-paper RPG playtest before? No, just video games.

I am going along with this just to see what the base draft looks like and where they are going. I highly doubt it is going to be what I want out of (A)D&D, so I guess I just want a see as soon as possible what they have in mind so I can write it off just as quickly.

I would want to see a return to balanced spells (not in power, but in cost and restrictions). Wish and Haste aging - back in! Fly+Dispel=fall to death. Bring back the good stuff....lol

Less focus on PC optimization and more focus on actual play time - that means an option to run a reduced Feat/Skill/class ability system.

Better multi-classing (1st and 2nd ed beat out anything which came after).

Non-generic stat modifiers. Less stat modifiers on everything - this has caused problems with stat manipulation, stat items, save manipulation, x-mass tree effect, etc, etc. Overall less emphasis on stats on the math side. That being said:

-Separate stat tables. Stats should not be generic with a universal multiplier for all the systems. PLACE SOME THOUGHT INTO THE VALUE AND IMPORTANCE OF A STAT AS IT IS USED IN ACTUAL PLAY!

-Also if there is going to be a point-buy system it should be balanced against the actual in-game value of the stat. Stats that have the least modifiers/effect in the game(ex: STR) as a whole should be balanced to cost less vs. high value stats (WIS).

An option of a Declared Action/Weapon Action Speed/Action Speed based round (with rules for changing actions) or just a better system than is currently in place for 3rd. Action-decision and cost associated with each decision. Lose the mashing keys aspect of attacking/full attacks.

Item creation should have rules that vary from easy to very difficult to create. My personal preference would be a diminishing return philosophy on item creation - making item creation almost not worth it...almost.

From the DM side I would like to see options for better creature design (some kind of real detailed design rules, and how to break them).

Creatures should probably not use the same rules as PCs, or if a point buy system is used, they should have more than PCs on an equal footing/comparison. The game should not be about perfectly balanced creatures using PC rules so everyone can talk about how great the system is (which it isn't). The system should be about creating challenging encounters, plain and simple. And I don't really care if the creature rules match up or are force-balanced with the rules for creating PCs. It was a nice try in 3rd ed, but ultimately it's a failure.

Hp of creatures vs. players in 1st/2nd ed made economy of actions a non-issue. In 3rd, with the explosion of Con bonus hp and stat defined creatures this has become an issue - either less hp for the players of more for creatures, or different rules for building creatures. I would rather see hp go down all around. Put some thought into this.

4e had the right idea for solo encounter, but it was poorly implemented (everything got more hp, but the long fights reminded me of boss encounters in Guild Wars with power recharges = Fail).

Better XP/CR paradigm - the current one is very weak: any reasonably moderate encounter just gives way too much xp for its threat (3.5/PFRPG).

In addition to stacking systems I would like to see alternate systems/options presented. If this lets me run an evolved 1st/2nd ed AD&D game - one that is a TRUE successor and is AD&D 3rd edition (not the crap which came out in 2000) then they have all my money. Even if I have to piece it all together via modular system – if they can produce a viable AD&D 3rd ed, then I'm in.

Of course,.... none of this will happen, just some musings on the subject.

They will set out with huge design ideas/goals, hit some walls and settle on a hybrid 3rd/4th game rules based game (with a few nods to 1st and 2nd rules). I

Color Spray is a very easy fix, just restore this to the spell (from 2nd ed) "From one to six creatures (ld6) within the area are affected in order of increasing distance from the wizard". Taking out the limited number of targets (1d6) and the unknown factor made the spell OP for it's level.

Putting the "1d6 targets" brings back a random element (which imo needs to be restored to most all spells) which makes the spell much less of a reliable "win" spell.

Glitterdust just needs a slight tweak to make it manageable.
Since it isn't a spell that can be resisted by SR, it should never have be a Wis save spell. Glitterdust should be more of a physical save with material being produced and an attempt to avoid blindness (obstructing eyes, getting in face, etc). I would change Glitterdust to a Reflex instead of Wisdom save spell. Since Ref saves are usually higher than Wis saves the change helps the martially inclined players and monsters making it a slightly less of a encounter "win" spell vs. most threats.

Again, I do think that 3.0/3.5 was shooting for too much MtG "clean and easy" spell coding and quick association when the converted 2nd ed. More so in the 3.5 conversion when they dropped the random output of some spells to get fixed MtG type spell interpretation (3.0 Bull Strength giving you 1d4+1 Str vs. the fixed +4 of 3.5/et al). Too much emphasis on clarity and quick spell/rule recall of spell effect (due to paring down) to help players "get" the game was a poor trade-off.

I agree with some of the sentiment regarding spell power, but from my perspective it isn't the power level (spell level), it's the consequences and mechanics behind the spells.

Fly shouldn't have the "Mary Poppins" gently glide to the ground feature. You fly, back it up with Feather Fall (yet another resource, and that multiplys when considering adding party members) or take damage when the spell ends and you hit the ground.

Same thing with Haste - fine at 3rd level, but instead of training wheels give the spell Exhaustion or Fatigue for 1 hour after use.

Many of the spells were just poorly converted from 2nd ed, hell Haste used to age you a year if you were the target of the spell, talk about balance in use!

Counter/Detection spells should be 1 level lower as a general rule due to their limited use.

I would say that spells that boost skill ability - such as Knock should be re-written. Ex- Knock: Should give a +10 bonus to caster check to magic warded doors, +5 to mechanical. All Portals in area affected area would get a +10 enchantment bonus to open (Disable Device) for 10 min/per level of caster.

This is similar in thought to how a Fly skill is helpful to a Wizard who casts Fly.

So Wizard guy has a chance at opening magic barred portal, and if that doesn't work the rogue guy gets a crack. Also now the Rogue guy gets a boost on all conventional locks for the duration/area of effect. This goes also to the "caster can do everything" mentality of spell use. Spells that offer a skill stat boost should offer a greater boost to those who have it as a class skill. Thus you create a group incentive to cast spells on the best target (i.e. not always the Wizard or Cleric) in the party.

All in all I have given up on 3rd ed/PF spells as written. IMO very little thought was placed in balance of power and group dynamics when they were first converted over from 2nd ed to 3rd and all the way to PFRPG.

My opinion on the matter, YMMV.

That'd be an interesting exercise. I went with Munch because he's my favorite, but we could sure do all the others.

Benson. Lawful Good or Neutral Good? She seems to generally have no problem with authority, but she's broken the rules more than once.

Cabot. Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral leaning towards Good. She's a good person, but she places a lot of emphasis on regulations, and it's gotten in the way a couple times.

Novak. Lawful Good, despite getting disbarred for going against the law.

Good assessments -

Benson - solid LG, even if she gets wobbly she always tries to uphold the law.

Stabler - That's a tough one. I think he is good, I just don't think he falls into the LG category. Too much bending the law and going around procedure. Very much a means to a end type of guy, so LG is out (even though he's a cop). Maybe NG?

Don Cragen -Solid LN, and imo a good role model for how an LN character can actually operate as "good" character without the "G" part in his alignment.

Yea, but he's also a cop, so maybe Neutral Good would fit a little bit better?

I would have to go with this.

I think in his heart he is a very CG type of guy (distrustful of power and authority, etc), but he is also practical enough to realize that the powers that be are a necessary evil for society to function (and thus has some value).

So he is about some compromise and I think puts him in the middle (imo).

I wonder if we could get a whole alignment listing for the SVU set of characters?

I have to second a few of Commie Anklebiter's suggestions.

Repo Man could easily be paired with Suburbia (1983) or The Decline of Western Civilization (both cult flicks) for a good punk rock night. Not exactly large buget flicks but entertaining.

Also in the vein of counter-culture - Romper Stomper and This is England would both be a fun night of skinhead mayhem.

Plan 9 From Outer Space/Brain from Planet Arous/Robot Monster/Astro Zombies are all great films - combine in any order and they are good for some laughs.

Giant Insect/B-Movie night: Them! is a classic, so you probably have already seen it (giant ants). Can easily be combined with the Black Scorpion (1957), Tarantula (1955, with a small cameo by clint Eastwood) as a fun night of atomic age horror.

For some western/weirdo crossover you can have a showing of Billy the Kid vs Dracula, Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter with a bonus of The Valley of Gwangi (cowboys vs. dinosaurs!) for a full bill.

For some Post-apocalyptic fun you can go with classics like Mad Max and the Road Warrior, but for something different try Def-Con 4 and Damnation Alley. A Boy and His Dog plus Delicatessen would also be good for a night PA laughs.

Obscure Alien Invasion Night: Day of the Triffids/Invaders From Mars - two classic invasion flicks not readily know outside of sci-fi circles.

That's it for now. I need to look at my wall of movies at home to get some more ideas.

You might want to take a look at this thread from a year or so ago.

RUINS & WASTELANDS: AFTER THE CATACLYSM P20 RPG
It is pretty much a Gamma World 4e conversion. That is the 4e version of Gamma World, NOT the D&D 4e board game.

Actually it would be considered GW 7

1st & 2nd used the weapon class chart, 3rd (my favorite) used the ACT resolution system, 4th was a class based version (laid out some pre-d20 groundwork), 5th was the Alternity GW (more pre-d20 system work) and then there was the S&S d20 Modern based GW game -the 6th edition.

I am not including the Amazing Engine -Starship Warden book, nor the Polyhedron "Omega World" by Tweet (which was very good) versions of GW.

And then we have the edition that Wotc released last year (based off of the 4e engine) - That would be the 7th ed.

So what Michael converted last year was a very strong mix of d20 modern/future and based off of the PFRPG rules. And would have been a "7th ed", if it was an official release in the timeline - since he beat out Wotc release by a half a year.

Due to mounting medical cost at this time I will have to cancel all 5 of my subscriptions. I don't know if I will be back soon, but I hope to be able to pick them up again in the future if the situation permits.

Thanks to everyone at Paizo, you guys are a great company and nice group of people.

Just purchased,...and just from looking at some of the pics and encounters it's going to be murder.

Good stuff

Demogorgon only had 200 hp.

And yes, most evo sucks in 3rd ed (or derived) games.

The first few should be in an Advanced Bestiary with alternate monster rules - since that would never happen:

More Templates (complex)
How to build and score templates
Solo creature challenges/dealing with action economy
Custome creature abilities, creatures designed (or templated) to fit various roles - horde, solo, defender, etc

How to really make the changes to be able to run variant game styles (low-power, low-magic, gritty, horror or various mixes of different stles) with actual changes need to WBL, magic items, feats, saves and stats to make it work.

I'm sorry for your loss mdt.

What are you rules that raise your eyebrows?

Most if all 3.5 based rules/abilities. Here are a few:

-Cannot fail a skill check on a 1 (the "skills are in constant use" paradigm). Take 10/20 nonsense. Skill checks should only be made at dramatic moments and not in constant use.

-Create X (water/food/walls) and the in-game world consequences of making something from nothing (society, economy, etc). Aka, anti-immersive and creates a nonsensical world beyond what you would get in a fantasy world. Fanatsy is one thing, having to make excuses and impact on the world due to the rules is another (unneeded) thing altogether.

-Falling damage and Hps rules in general (no critical non-hp long term conditions - ex. Broken bones, they don't exist)

-Stat emphasis (at mid level or higher CON can almost be as important as HD) and stat value imbalance.

-Crafting rules and making magic items - beyond horrible rules (self inflating characters/stats, "Something from nothing part II")

Those are just a few. Personally 3.5/PFRPG is on it's last legs in my group. Going to go back to an older edition or switch systems entirely.

I have never had as many "bitter pills/that's just the system" arguments as I have had with 3.5 and derived games.

You could use the advanced template and then bring up it's HD to to change it to a CR 5 vs CR 6.

Then for a +1 CR you can give it Max hp for its HD. Throw in a toughness feat and DR 2/- or DR 3/- (great for multiple foes/action economy) for a full transition from CR 5 to 6 (not checking any numbers here).

This gives it more hp while keeping some of the DCs in a more controllable range.

Just a suggestion.

To the OP:

I'd go one further and make it ALL level associated class abilities - following these guidelines. here is something I am contemplating for my "Multi-Classic" approach:

Open to attacks/and or criticism.

Why would you get banned? There was nothing excessive or insulting in your post.

Anyhow, I probably won't go out shopping - not because of some Adbusters campaign (or other anti-capitalist notion), I won't go out because there are too many damn people. Everywhere.

Sometimes I forget it's Black Friday (I usually do every year) and make the mistake of driving out to pickup something I need,... say Petco - which happens to be in/near a mall. I see all the cars and people fighting for spots and I just say "oh yeah, Black Friday,.... stupid" , then turn around and drive home as I think about Nuclear war.

Much like Bitman posted, I'll just pay the extra to not deal with the hordes of crazy people.

Roy Brown - Hard Luck Blues
Roy Brown - Long About Midnight
The 5 Jones Boys - Mr. Ghost Goes to Town
The Deep River Boys - Swinging at the Seance
Louis Armstrong - St. James Infirmary
Bing Crosby - The Headless Horseman
The Misfits - Devilock
The Misfits - Mommy, Can I Go Out and Kill Tonight?

LOL

Sure! Gaming is the tie that binds, my friend.

Helps keep my group together - half are hard core libs and the other half are conservatives.

They all like killing bad guys though.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Being a Christian means being pro-life

Proof, please.

First off, I’m not pro-life (at..all). I know you didn't even read my whole post before you spasmed and responded to one part of it but I’ll lay it out for you.

The act of abortion is to stop a child from coming to full term (being born). That wasn't a question.

-

I'm not talking about "when" it becomes a child and all that nonsense - for purpose of argument I've distilled the point down to its base. If you agree or disagree that's your prerogative - I live in realty and deal with facts (and consequence). An abortion stops something from being born, that isn’t a morality question but a statement of fact.

And before you spew/rage attack me, I have no dog in this fight - beyond illustrating the hypocritical behavior of many Christians ("thou shall not kill" nonsense).

It's very hard to talk about Christian behavior without getting into the specifics - sorry about even bringing up the abortion issue.

Meh, just another guy saying "I'm doing it right, everyone else is doing it wrong" while saying "People who say other people are doing it wrong are doing it wrong."

I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a guy saying that if you are Christian and claim to follow the teachings of Christ, you should follow the teachings Christ.

-

Couple of points here - I do believe in the right to discriminate in any and all forms with regard to preference, association and person choice, doing anything else is contrary to our innate humanity. How I carry myself is my choice – am I going to be indifferent, critical or even lazy when I am confronted with difference, I don’t know. I reserve the right to do so but I also accept the responsibility.
-
That being said my views don't represent the Christian ideal, and it's hypocritical (or just ignorance) to claim to understand the gospel while hating anyone or having hatred in your heart. Being a Christian means being pro-life and being against the death penalty, not a viewpoint bandied around many conservative Christian circles these days. Same goes for war (vs. patriotism).

But this hypocrisy isn't just reserved for gays (as the article points out), it applies to any outsider. I've seen it up close and on a day-to-day basis. I don't know if it's people fighting against their innate human nature vs. their teachings or just their inability to fully grasp (and practice) the tenets of their faith.

Personally I don't think religions promote behavior but serve as a mask or cover for it, and when humanity changes over time they change their religion to interpret and function within their range of current desires (as a group, society, etc).

Sorry for the ramble….

-

TL;DR - He's calling people out on their hypocrisy.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Also, I do have a problem with the "to half" max approach as still being overly powerful for a 0 level spell. At low levels you can easily (over the course of an adventuring day) have CmW restore half of what CLW would have restored - that effectively doubles your healing output and halved your need for healing resources.

Consider Ray of Frost... you can cast it once per round all day long. Eventually (9 rounds on the average), you could do more damage than a level 1 Magic Missile.

Ray of Frost is something which doesn't scale in utility in use like CMW would (as proposed) and would rarely be used after level 3. If anything it is a backup attack at best. CMW on the other hand could easily heal 60-90 hp in one hour/hour and a half in-between fights or before resting for the night. Divide that number of healed hit points amongst a group of low to mid-level PCs and it becomes a HUGE game changer.

-

You now increased all healing resources available to the party, which in turn changes the entire game (more healing during fights, pacing, challenges, etc).I don't think any arguments are going to sway me on that one, sorry.

Auxmaulous wrote:

You don't think that will have any balance issues or effect on the game as a whole?

-

Considering the abundant usage of Wands of Cure Light Wounds (as viewed by comments on this board), not at all.

Two wrongs do not make it right. I think one of the worst/broken inventions in 3e was the creation of the CLW wand. That of course is my opinion of the matter and I'm sure I am in the minority here.

-

The point isn't subbing out CMW for the need for CLW wand, et al - the point is: do you really need to have max hp before every fight? Does there need to be that much free healing available so the PCs are not inconvenienced by damage or the threat of going into a fight at less than 100%?

-

This goes towards play style, but I am of the mindset of "too much, too easy", spammable CMW is part of that problem (again, as presented as max 1/2 hp, 1/use minute).

I chose up to half max hitpoints because anything less too often means that someone is one hit from death. Being positive hitpoints, but at a point of actually dying on the next hit fails the litmus test for fun for me. Being at half hitpoints is still a fairly hefty penalty disadvantage.

Then you and I will never agree on the subject, every game I run or play has to have some degree of "one hit from death" component to it. The weakest/softest being a modified version of PF (with some 1st/2nd ed AD&D rules) to other game systems which are just more brutal. That is just a play style preference for me and my players.

-

If CMW works for you and your group then, great - more power to you and I sincerely wish you good gaming.

(in relation to Fast healing)
Well, via temporary effect yes. Long term, no.

I can see the need for it in an insanely violent and destructive game, I just can't see it for 3.5 or derivatives, that or the need to re-set HP between encounters.

I think (and my players do) that the current 3rd ed incarnation is too easy. It would be fun to see a campaign or adventure that would require fast heal or regen for the PC; now that would be interesting.

It really isn't that much more powerful, honestly, and it really doesn't mess with the resource management nearly as much as you seem to think, in all honesty. Well, not in the sense I'm suggesting that Cure Minor works. It can't heal anyone even near their max HP, just enough to let them continue to act and know they need to be very careful if they want to continue to do so, but it doesn't make more powerful Cures any less desired nor does it get rid of the need to a CLW wand or potions.

Well, coming off of a 2nd ed game I would say that unlimited healing (even to half) is a huge game changer when it comes to resource management.

Also, I do have a problem with the "to half" max approach as still being overly powerful for a 0 level spell. At low levels you can easily (over the course of an adventuring day) have CmW restore half of what CLW would have restored - that effectively doubles your healing output and halved your need for healing resources.

You don't think that will have any balance issues or effect on the game as a whole?

Edit: Anyway - Not trying to start a fight with anyone here (have enough enemies already), I'm just stating a different view on what unlimited 0-level spells should/should not be able to do.

The wrong game Auxmaulous?

Yeah, in regards to PC power level and reasonable expectations.

I just have differing views on power, resource management, expectations, etc, from most other posters here.

But the problem is mine, not theirs.

Still think that unlimited healing is too powerful, even for 3.5 gaming.

W E Ray wrote:

What do you guys think?

If any of you playtested it, what happened?

I brought it back except I only allow it to heal up to half max and it takes 1 minute to cast.

This makes the spell able to always bring back someone back from the brink of death (but never to full power), and it eats up time (i.e. buff spell duration) in a nice calculable manner.

It's working pretty good.

That seems way too powerful for my tastes. You can get 4 maximized CLW (1d8+5) equivalent in just under an hour, something easily done before camping for the night. Too powerful for a 0-level spell imo.

Then again, I'm playing the wrong game.

I despise unlimited spells (for a ton of reasons), but if there is a need for a zero level Cure Minor Wounds I would offer up:

Unlimited use but cannot heal more than a targets Con modifier (min 1) in total points per 24 hours.

Still can be useful at low levels, ex - where a full CLW is not needed (couple of points down)- without stepping on other spells and resources.

Probably too "low powered" for this crowd is looking for but I thought I'd put it out here.

Jeremiziah wrote:

2142 was really a fantastic game - interesting to see that so many played it.

They got me with the promise to pilot battle walkers to walk right over enemies.

Would love to have a new take on it, too.

I was a 2142 fanatic, I'm actually ranked 3rd in the world (2nd in the US) with the Ganz HMG support weapon. I would love to see a 2143 frostbite version of the game.

.
I have a nVidia 570gtx and don't have major problems with the game. I do hear that people running chrome or firefox (I use the latter) have less problems than loading up the game via explorer.

So for me BF3 works ok for me for the most part. I do get some white and green flashes at random points throughout the game, also I have had a few freeze/then death situations occur. Also a key "lockout" - I can hit enter to deploy, but the cursor does not let me change kits, squads, etc.

The thing that bothers me the most is the total blackouts when I am going to spawn or when I am being revived. It isn't so much the blackout but the game seems to "stall" in-between spawns.

I don't know, I really hope they fix the stupid spotting and bi-pod issues…and of course all the connectivity issues. At least when my game locks up I don't need to reboot (in some cases with BC2).

There was a case that has some similar components to it:

Paraphrasing here - I remember awhile back a case where some WAR skins beat an Ethiopian immigrant to death. They had read some pamphlets which were distributed by a Klan group. I believe that the Southern Poverty Law center took the Klan (and Tom Metzger) to civil court and sued their group into bankruptcy due to their influence and instruction (written and verbal) that killing bootstomping/immigrants is a good idea.

So again, different circumstances but you have: instruction of (potential) criminal action and financial culpability.