Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,093 posts (5,116 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.
"Look, it's an attractive girl who chooses not to have sex. She simply must be mocked! I mean, if she is not mocked, why... I may have to examine my own life and the decisions I have made. But we all know that I made all the right decisions. All the ones with no baggage attached, all the ones the are acceptably normal. Yep. So, certainly it is this girl who is making silly choices. I mean, jeez. She believes in God and everything. So, silly and foolish..."
You know, this is the second time in the past week that I have been reminded of this.
Crabs in a Bucket metaphor:
There's a very powerful metaphor of crabs in a bucket. Supposedly, if you put one crab in a bucket, it'll eventually find a way to leverage itself out of the bucket. But if you put a bunch of crabs in a bucket, none will ever get out because as soon as one crab gets up near the top, the others reach up, grab onto it and pull it back.
I don't think the crabs are really thinking critically about this, but it's a very human metaphor because people often, when they see someone getting ahead or see somebody who's taking a different path, the tendency is to reach out and try to pull that person back. And if they resist, then to punish them in a whole variety of ways.
One of the ironic things is that often the people who pull you back are those who are close to you. I think one of the reasons is because they see your accomplishments and achievements and individuality as a negative reflection on themselves. It's like holding a mirror up to themselves and by comparison they feel like they're suffering. Their way of dealing with it, instead of themselves trying to achieve, is to try to pull you back.
-John Chaffee
Get over it folks. Whatever her reasons, there are no real risks to choosing to stay a virgin (zomg but it feels so awesome! really doesn't cut it. sorry.), while there are innumerable dangers and complications in choosing not to.
I generally avoid mentioning religion on the internet as it tends to keep conversations more civil and on topic.
The person I promised was God and it is personal. Though if you don't like that answer, it would also be legitimate to say I promised myself and the corporation, the church, to which I belong. When baptized I made a covenant, a contract, part of which was abstaining from sex until marriage. As I still claim membership in the church, I should fulfill my contract.
A friend would be disappointed that I violated the my beliefs. If I love someone, I should express it in accordance with my beliefs.
Though I'll agree people usually abstain for religious reasons, it is not always the case. Some swimmers at the local college abstain because they do not want to risk messing up their performance and it is easier not deal with the drama that comes with sexual partners. I do not believe any of them to be particularly religious.
Speaking as one of those who intends to wait until marriage to have sex, I don't feel oppressed, obsessed, or repressed. Likewise, I don't feel controlled, stunted, or overly stressed.
What troubles me, how is most of this thread certain I must be?
*edit. I don't have any STDs, never commited a sexual crime, and would be quite amazed if a parent. Abstinence works just fine, in fact it is the most effective, if you actually practice it.
So, the fact that #1, #2, and #5 of the world's 5 most populous religions teach self-sacrifice doesn't mean that self-sacrifice is a religious teaching? But the fact that #1, #2, and #5 of the world's 5 most populous religions have a history of violence means that violence is the inevitable result of religion? That seems kind of double standard-y.
When did this go from the "Is atheism a religion" to "Lets smear all religous people and ridicule them for their beliefs"? You people are as biased and hateful as the groups you seem so fixated on speaking against.
Well if it were a homosexual person saying that it's OK for me to be heterosexual even if he finds it personally distasteful, I wouldn't consider that offensive or even mildly insulting. It's OK for you to like broccoli even if broccoli disgusts me. That doesn't make you an idiot or a reprobate. Stating a personal preference (what I did) is not the same as painting an offensive stereotype on a group of people (what the post I quoted did).
every body does not consider it a belief system, many definitions, both common usage and specialist define atheism as a negative belief,
Which is still a belief. If atheism is not a religion because it does not have a belief in god, then most of the religions which have ever existed (note that most religions which have ever existed have been animist, animaetist, pantheist, etc.) are not religions either because they do not have belief in a god either.
No.
Nice dodge, squirmy!
Nope. It's not a system of beliefs because there's no system.
You're trying to strawman here and it's not going to go. No one made the argument that all atheists are irreligious, only that atheism is not a religion IN AND OF ITSELF, but rather a descriptor.
I will reiterate: If atheism is a religion, describe to me its tenets. Plural. Otherwise you're a sandman atheist, and a unicorn atheist, etc. merely because of your DISbelief in A deity.
Modern atheism?
1.) There is no God
2.) I hate him
Atheists are far more likely to spend time posting on message boards about how 'ridiculous' belief in God is then they are to post about how ridiculous beliefs in Unicorns is. Look at this message board. In the past month or so we've had how many threads where people brought up atheism and how allegedly superior it is to belief in God? And, during that time, how many similar threads have we had on non-belief in Unicorns and how allegedly superior non-belief in Unicorns is to belief in Unicorns? For people who want so desperately to convince us that there is no belief system in atheism, you sure are spending an awful lot of time hammering on your belief system.
As for atheism in general? This gets back to understanding in what context one is using the word 'atheism'. Are you comparing it to theism? Then, I could just as easily ask 'what is the tenets of theism?' Are you referring to a more specific version of atheism? Then which version of atheism?
Humans do indeed have an evolutionary pre-disposition to making up patterns and explanations. That is why it especially important for everyone to think critically all the time. Atheists are generally just the people who understand this and take it the most seriously I have found.
Atheist elitism for the win. Clearly, not believing in a god or gods means you think critically about the world. You're not going to be scammed if your an atheist etc. If you are one of the sheeple who does believe that's there's a god out there, clearly your mind is poisoned and you just aren't as likely to understand how important it is to think critically.
When I was in middle school, I lived in SC, because I have darker skin and black hair, someone thought I looked Muslim, so I got threatened with, "You a towel head? You gonna blow up some planes?" while the kids cracked their knuckles...
I find that hard to believe is religiously motivated, unless by "religiously motivated" you mean a movement against a religion (and really ethnicity is the proper term at this point).
Religion doesn't tell people to kill and hate people, specific preachers do. If a preacher tells someone to kill or hate someone, religion gets blamed. If an insane doctor tells someone to cut up a living person for "science", the doctor is blamed.
I'm not Christian, and I'm not Islamic, hell I'm not even religious, but I'm not going to blame religion for people being dumbasses.
Sure religion is intertwined with culture, so is science, technology, history, environment, government, and economy. Even without religion, dumbasses will still find a reason to hate someone. Such as "Lesbians are removing the amount of available women", "Immigrants are taking all of our jobs", "Japanese are corrupting our youth with violent and lustful cartoons and video games". Blame religion if lets you sleep at night, but it's just stupid humans being stupid.
Irreligious people don't kill people because they believe God told them too.
You can't look at history honestly and not realize how many wars were fought over religion. Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, genocides and ethnic cleansing...
You have a better argument for Hitlers genocide being based on Religion than you do for either Stalin or Mao.
Actually most wars were fought for territory and economy. Even those religious wars. Religion is just a big excuse. Most people don't fight wars because "God told them too". Most people fight wars because they are paid and/or their authority told them too. Sometimes they will have "God's support" according to their priests, higher ups, etc. However, that's not the reason people usually fight. Religion is really only there to comfort them for if and when they die.
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.
If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.
Do I get to count Hitler?
If we are counting those who killed for power vs those who killed for God, Power wins.
If we are counting who killed for God vs who killed because they were non-specifically religious, it's not even close.
I was leaving Hitler out of it. I don't think either Christians or Atheists get him. We could start another thread about what team Hitler was playing for but I bet it would get closed faster than this one will.
As far as it being close, I don't think it is that cut and dry. How do we count "Christians" who are really killing for power? If we don't count them, then Christians don't even have to count the Crusades in my opinion.
This was a big example, but my point is that there isn't anything special about irreligious people. They are, as a group, just as big or bigger pieces of crap as religious folk.
@Zombieneighbors, I'm not going to reply to your whole post because most of it was just picking for pickings sake. I just skipped to the end when you asked if I was kidding you for thinking that Christians and Atheists are the same group of people. No, I'm not kidding. You are exactly the same.
If I were to make a gut guess, I'd say Christians were probably better.
If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.
If we based who is better on who does more good works, and measure it in dollars donated - you can tally up all of your Atheist organizations and I'll count up the Christian ones, and I bet I crush you 20 to 1.
The only thing you have to complain about is that Christians are disgusted by homosexuality, but I've got news for you, PEOPLE in general often are. The most homophobic people I've ever known weren't religious. Men are afraid of seeing other mens' reproductive parts and they are afraid that gay people want to show them, plain and simply. That's not a Christian problem. That's a human nature problem.
I'm with you on civil liberties. I think Christian groups need to move on with it, but they have men at the helm who are scared of looking at genitalia, are afraid gay people will show it to them, and use their voice to gather groups of people who also don't want to see it. The Presbyterian church just recently started allowing Gay ministers. Are they the good Christians?
You yelling on the internet about how Atheists are better than Christians does nothing but reinforce my mental image of Evangelical Atheist as being exactly like Evangelical Christians. You look and sound just like them.
I don't think you're in the minority. Most of the people of my (and Seth's) gaming group dislike Torch for one reason or another. We're the reason he had to stat out Torch, because there was a serious debate about causing a time paradox and trying to slag him in season 1. =)
Clarification on what happens if a player ‘looses’ an equipment item. I’m not talking expendables; I mean how does PFS deal with a situation where an NPC relieves the session’s Fighter of his +2 Keen Greatsword and he in unable to retrieve it by the end of the session. Then what? Considering that sword may very well be half of that character’s current wealth.
Perhaps some consideration for PCs if they fall WAY below expected wealth guidelines for any reason.
-James
Oh, let's not open yet another can of worms.
Why should a character who loses his weapon get a better deal on a fancy sword than someone who has been saving up to buy one? And why special-case equipment - after all, a resurrection can cost you quite a bit more than that sword, but the only break there is you can (perhaps) pay for that using prestige points.
1) increase the PP gain from modules from 4 to 6. These are the most difficult scenarios I've played (including handing me my first death); they should be more rewarding as well.
2) Let Heirloom weapons be turned masterworked for 300 GP or so. Usually it's for a small CMB trip bonus or Martial Weapon Proficiency; this doesn't seem overpowering.
3) Give an option for "factionless", who essentially get 2 PP if the module is "successful" and 0 Otherwise. You can offset it by disallowing purchases besides resurrection; essentially it is for people who think factions are a time-waster and just use PP for magic item avail.
Just some thoughts; on #3 i'll be interested in what you have in store season 4... Factions seem awkward right now, and while I love the flavor I'd generally opt out of the "fetch/skill roll" missions they amount to right now.
2) That's a pretty broad generalization. I know plenty of atheists who will rage on satire.
So you know a couple of atheists who aren't afraid of satire. I know a couple of Christians who aren't afraid of satire. That doesn't mean that all Christians are cool. Stupid stereotyping. Dealing with satire has absolutely s+%& to do with what you believe.
Personally, I think most atheists aren't at all any better than the religious types. Here's why. They will read something in a magazine and believe it must be true. They don't really check the credentials, or the science behind it. They aren't any better the masses that sit around and take the word from a religious figure.
There are just as many quarrels about history and what is ethical or moral within the atheist community as there are with people who believe in one or many gods.
One of the dumbest things I've heard was Religion vs Evolution. That doesn't even make sense. You can believe in evolution and still have a religion. I've heard theories about how "God made life able to adapt to survive and grow". It's creationism vs evolution, but people are stupid and mess it up, making broad generalizations.
What do you call people aliens and magic? Are they religious too? Even if they don't believe in gods?
Many atheists are not respectable in my eyes because they act like they are better than most people and yet they're only reporting what they read. No better than a priest, really.
I respect most scientists and people who pursue the truth. To do such is admittance to the fact that there's still things you don't know. The only reason that so many religions are refuted is because of so many claims of things that have been shown to be contradictory to what actually happens or what has been found. I mean would you trust a scientist who's claimed so many things that have been proven to be false?
In fact, if most religions weren't so stagnant from becoming organizations and trying to standardize and preserve their doctrines and control its followers, there'd probably be more religious people.
Every edition going back to 1st has had some troubles and inconsistencies and things that required house ruling, particularly with undead. For example, in the 1st edition Monster Manual, the ghost was listed as being irredeemably evil. Then in one of the published adventures, there's the ghost of this pharaoh who's not really evil at all. Contradiction? Yes. Easily solved? Yes, that too. You just decide that most ghosts are evil, but some aren't at the GM's whim.
With Pathfinder, I do a few simple houserules to get the sort of world I want to run as a GM. They are as follows:
1. All healing spells are no longer Conjuration (Healing) but instead Necromancy like they were in 1st edition. (My assumption was it was changed in 2nd edition to please the Moral Majority {which was neither} but it was just bad metaphysics and should have been changed back for 3rd, and Pathfinder couldn't change it back because 1st ed is not part of the SRD plus backward compatibility concerns).
2. Animate Dead loses the Evil descriptor and skeletons and zombies are neutral.
3. Sentient undead can be of any alignment because like lycanthropy, undeath is a curse. The evil ones may think they're cursed with awesome, but the neutral and good ones are a lot more upset about it and may actively be trying to break the curse.
4. Create Undead, which keeps the Evil descriptor, does not automatically work. Unwilling subjects get a saving throw. If the spell fails, the spell cannot be retried for another week, same as Speak with Dead.
5. Raise Dead does not automatically fail if the soul is unwilling to return or simply trapped. There are plenty of souls who would like to come back to life even if the body they come back in isn't their own.
6. True Resurrection isn't prevented just because there's a skeleton or zombie somewhere made out of a soul's former body. When cast, the skeleton or zombie crumbles to dust as the new body is reformed wherever the caster is.
7. Liches may be of any alignment, but are generally wizards because defying the gods and the natural order is part of the job description.
Does everyone at least understand why the "prove *Blank* doesnt exist" arguement is fundamentally flawed?
In the "prove it doesnt exist" arguement replace your deity of choice with "Flying spagetti monster" and it has the same amount of validity.
All I'm saying is consider a new arguement because when one uses that one they lose any shred of credibilitiy they may have originally had.
Consider this a public service announcement.
I understand that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the existence of the unobservable.
I was simply pointing out that anyone who claims they can "prove" god doesn't exist (which doesn't include any self-proclaimed atheists I know) is mistaken, and that the thought process that would lead to such a mistaken assertion seems comparable to that which leads to religious certainty.
So... basically... can I summarize a major argument running through the thread as "Some Atheists jerks act like Theists jerks", respectfully agree to disagree on the existence of God and leave it at that?
It'd be nice if we could, but some atheists on this message board consider it their religious duty to assert the 'toxicity' of theism.
@ Tels I can find again but I already quoted the FAQ where we can tell even SKR just found out it was a "clarification". He says in the FAQ for Feral Combat Training that the monk can make all his attacks with his natural weapon. Somthing that unless they come in pairs this "Clarification" prevents.
Oh I know, I've read that FAQ and I thought it funny that SKR seems to be of two minds about Flurry.
One of the reasons I won't play PFS is because of all the Monk hate and errata's that I don't agree with. At the same time, the strict rules interpretation really appeals to me because I play with GMs that hate the fact I know more about the game than they do, and will often houserule away clever things I do (like Heightening a light spell to 4th level to over power Deeper Darkness). I like the challenge of out-witting them, but I hate the fact I have to struggle and fight, just to make a semi-effective character because they are convinced every move I make, or do, has an ulterior plan that has consequences later in the game.
They know I have the ability to break the system if I so choose, but I keep telling them I only break the system in theory, so I can be vigilant of those that intend to break the system in practice*. We have 2 people that are all too willing to play munchkin characters if they can sneak the abilities in there. I've always got to keep my eye out for those two, whether I'm a player or a GM.
*Had a guy who tried to bring AM BARBARIAN to the table. He got miffed when I saw what he was doing and said, "No, you can't have that toy."
Just about anything on the 'Lifetime Movie Network'
I once blocked that channel--it's the most deceitful thing I've ever done to my wife. I made a channel preset, a favorites menu that didn't include the listing and that I renamed 'All Channels' and set as the first set-list on the satellite receiver, and even called Dish Network to see if I could have it removed from the programming.
My wife would watch a couple of Lifetime's misandry-movies, and then blame me for all the foibles, crimes, and perfidies of men worldwide.
I remember going to work once and overhearing some of the guys talking about how much they hated the Lifetime 'Man-Hater' Channel. I rolled my chair over to the little knot of unknowing misogynists and nearly wept for the joy of commiseration and companionship I had finally found.
The Lifetime Network had succeeded in the ultimate transmogrification...
Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.
But personally I would rather see the health insurance industry go the way of the dodo -- it's a bloated tick on our health care system and needs to be burned off.
That's not going to happen. They've got the deep pockets and the lobbyists to buy up enough of Congress to keep them at the trough. They flexed that muscle in diluting Obama's health care initiatives to what we have at present.
I'm realize that -- I was simply restating personal preference.
The disconnect for me, james, is the idea that multiple provocations /= multiple opportunities. I think this is some weird mental gymnastics. The system is much cleaner and simpler if when you provoke an attack of opportunity...you provoke an attack of opportunity. The language about movement seems to indicate that it is a special situation rather than a general trend, otherwise why not just say "multiple acts that would provoke from a single action instead only provoke once"? Certainly that would be infinitely cleaner language.
When the guy who has no authority keeps getting referenced as a valid source it just tells me the debate is already over.
You can't go asking the general of the Navy(James Jacobs) can you borrow an Army tank just because the General of the Army(Jason.B) is not available.
Healer:I want to use that Army tank, can you explain to me how it works?
James J:I have seen them in use. I will give my opinion of how they work.
Healer:Hey everyone James just told me how to operate a tank, so I am going to drive one.
Me:I have several transcripts with James saying he has is not an expert or leading authority on the operation of tanks. He even says it is better to ask other people who have studied tanks since that is not his area of expertise. He also says he can't authorize their use.
Healer:Well he is the only military guy I could find, so he must be correct.
Me:You don't understand. He does not have the authority to make that call. The tank is not his to lend out.
Healer:I don't care if he says that is someone else's call and out of his realm. I am going to pretend he has the authority to make the call, and drive that tank.
FWIW my perspect is that...it's unclear! My brain tells me that each instance should provoke individually. That makes the most sense to me and jibes with the rest of the rules about AoO the best. But then something like Scorching Ray would provoke, like, 4 AoOs which seems overmuch. That's the one corner case that makes me wonder, not if the rules as I've understood them are wrong, but if Scorching Ray needs to be a special case. Or that the rules in general need to be clarified.
I'm about 99% certain that a single action can provoke more than once. But there are obviously corner cases where this seems punitive, one of which being Scorching Ray and another being Vicious Stomp.
scorching ray does seem excessive, but if you think about it, you roll 1-3 ranged attack rolls, and thus should provoke 1-3 attacks, i think. but that's my interpretation
You are saying that each attack of a full-attack action with a ranged weapon doesn't provoke. That's not how the game works.
You are saying that someone can do as many combat maneuvers they want in a turn without the improved versions of the CMs, and only provoke one AoO. That's not how the game works.
You are saying that a magus who uses spell combat with an unarmed strike and no IUS only provokes once. Better cast the spell after the full attack, that way they'll take the AoO against you for that, and then they can't try to disrupt your spell! But no, that's not how the game works.
You are saying that a multitude of feats and abilities do not work the way they were intended to when written.
Your misinterpretation completely ignores the intent of the rules. What is the intent? That if you do something distracting, you provoke an AoO. The intent is NOT that you somehow automagically gain immunity to being distracted if you've already provoked an AoO. No, just because you were distracted and were hit by aiming carefully at an enemy 90' away doesn't mean you won't be distracted when you're aiming carefully at another enemy 45' away in a completely different direction. That is ridiculous.
Doing any sort of distracting act, that is, anything that's listed in the table as provoking an AoO, provokes, no matter what Action it's a part of. You do NOT gain immunity to AoOs after your first one during an Action and there is no text to support this idea of "distraction immunity" that you continue to spout off as the truth.
Jason added the Ranged Touch Spells in Combat section for a reason. It was to make it clear that the ranged touch attacks from those spells provoke as normal, whether or not you successfully cast the spell defensively.
I mean seriously. That section he added even says "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity" in the context of spells that grant them.
It doesn't get any more clear cut than that.
But hey, let's go with your CAGM logic about how it specifically says the attacks provokes AoOs, thus it gets around this supposed "one action = one opportunity max" rule.
Guess what else specifically says it provokes AoOs? Yep! Ranged touch attacks made as part of a spell.
Your own logic shows, based on your assumption, that ranged touch attacks made as part of a spell provoke.
*sigh* Have we swung back around to the "full attack only provokes once" side of the pendulum again? This is getting exhausting.
Well, right now we have someone saying that an attack of opportunity is an action, except when it's not, and that only actions can provoke attacks of opportunity, and even then only once (except for the exceptions that say it provokes multiple times), and that provoking an AoO isn't the same thing as an opportunity, thus an action can provoke multiple times but only be one "opportunity" which is something undefined by the rules.
So it's much much more complex than how you state it :P
I removed some posts that contained personal attacks or were getting excessively heated.
I've also removed some posts to the effect of 'in before the lock' or 'I bet this is gonna get locked'. At best, those are spam. At worst, they're self-fulfilling prophecies.
If you have a problem with what someone is posting, flag them or ignore them. Yelling is not going to be productive.
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that trolls thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or that you know they are a troll, only encourages them to continue.
Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them. Just continue the conversation as if there were not there, just like a child throwing a tantrum.
Well, Hangar, if only actions can provoke AoOs, then being tripped cannot provoke. It's not falling to the ground that provokes, it's the attacker's successful trip attempt. Since the AoO CAN BE provoked by another AoO (trip attempt for example) surely you must concur that not ONLY actions can provoke attacks of opportunity.
I don't see how you can be getting this. It seems clear that multiple parts of an action can provoke. It doesn't have to be either or. James is just saying that each opponent only gets one opportunity attack per action. So moving past one monster provokes. It takes its action. If it happens to stop the movement (via trip) then the action ends and we're done. If it just wails on him and lets him by he can still provoke against a different monster by movement or attacking unarmed. He just can't provoke against the first opponent a second time with the same action.
At least, that's how it would seem to me. And how I'd rule it at my table. Not that this sort of debate ever came up during my 4+ years of a GMing for my levels 1-20 campaign.
I'm playing devil's advocate. People have said that an action can only provoke once. I don't believe this is so and my question was to show how absurd that would become.
If I charge a large creature who has Combat Reflexes, then attack at the end of my charge with an unarmed strike (when I don't have IUS) I provoke twice. Once for the movement, movement out of a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. Second for the unarmed strike. If the creature has Combat Reflexes he can take two (2) attacks of opportunity, once for movement which provoked, once for the attack which provoked.
Right?
IF you can only provoke once per action (a silly notion) then he would only provoke once for his charge. But...what would provoke it? It would matter because if the player decides that his unarmed strike will provoke, then the movement will not.
Do you see what I'm trying to get at? It must be the case that a single action can provoke multiple times, provided the acts contained WITHIN that action (moving, tripping, unarmed striking, bull rushing, etc.) each provoke separately.
Yea, like people refusing to listen to the lead designer of the pathfinder roleplaying game. Or accepting as official the word of the guy who said he wasn't the guy to ask rule questions for an official answer.
Sorry, I don't see James Jacobs as an authoritative resource, based on his own preference and him repeatedly saying that he is not the person to ask for authoritative answers to the rules of the games, and that that is Jason Bulmahn and the other designers. Heck, he even said in that response that that's how he'd run it.
But I do see Jason Bulmanh as the definitive authoritative resource. You know, because he is.
Ok, so James makes an unarmed attack against Me. James does not have improved unarmed strike, so his unarmed attack provokes. I make my AoO against him. He then changes his mind about who he is targetting, and changes his target to Devil's Advocate. Now he provokes an AoO from Devil. Devil takes it, and hits. Oh, but he decides he wants to change it again, since he still hasn't actually punched anyone yet. So he swings at you meatrace. Provoking from you, you think you should save your AoO for someone more threatening, and lucky for you, he misses with his swing anyway.
Sorry, but that does not make any sense at all. Once the decisions about who is being attacked is made (and the roll made) that can not be undone. The AoO interrupts, inserting itself before the resolution, but the character who provoked it cannot change the action which provoked.
Now, to the rules: "Attack Roll: An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."
"An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn)."
Lets see how this plays out following these rules.
James makes his punch against Me, and rolls his d20. The GM points out he doesn't have improved unarmed strike, and lets me know he provoked an AoO and asks if I want to take it. I say yes. I make my AoO attack roll, hit and do my damage.
Now, we resume the current turn, in which James now checks to see if he beat my AC. If so, he now gets to hit me and do his damage. He gets then gets the rest of his turn.
However, the OP said that the Drow in his world are COMPLETELY irredeemable, so they basically have the Evil sub-type, which in turn means that killing them would be like killing Demons, Devils, or whatever evil outsiders that you might happen to come across. The heroes would be doing the world a favor by getting rid of them.
Actually I don't even use it with outsiders. I try to avoid absolutes in my games. There are always exceptions. Sure a good, or even neutral, Balor is reeeeaaaaly unlikely. But impossible in the entirety of creation, that just breaks my suspense of disbelief.
When Pathfinder released the Core, it attempted to learn from the mistakes of 3.5 regarding the decline of the iconic builds.
The bump in power to the iconics was intended, it was stated, to bring them in line with later base releases that were more powerful than the core versions, and becoming more common than intended.
At some point, I expect Paizo is going to need to do a new release. I hope it is more like 3.0 to 3.5 rather than a new version, with a nod to backward compatibility or at least ease of conversion. But I also don't think it is far off as we've reached a point of complexity and loophole manipulation that is making a "common" character build far from common.
With that in mind, I humbly offer these suggestions.
1. Make the core weapons, that is the weapons most commonly used, the best weapons. Because people will commonly use the best weapon. Sure, exotic weapons can be better, but they also require a feat. So if you want a cool new weapon, make it exotic, rather than tacking it on the martial list.
2. When re-designing the classes to be what a single developer envisions them to be, rather than the amalgam some of the recent classes have become. Pick a single developer who loves the class, let them design what they what that class to be thematically, then everyone else playtest it down to power level equality when they are done making it "cool". I am looking particularly at the Monk, Ninja and Gunslinger, but I think this is true of many of the new classes and some of the variant classes that seem to be victim of having too many cooks in the kitchen prior to playtest release.
3. Keep it simpler. Stop adding addendum point systems and alternate rules. If it is a spell like ability you only want them to use so many times a day, make it that. If it is something you want them to always be able to do, make it that. No more "if you have a grit/ki point" stuff that makes players and GMs keep multiple running tallies. Caster classes already do that, which is fine because that is more or less the entirety of the class. Don't make what should be simple, complicated. It isn't a computer game, it's table top.
4. Don't start from scratch. You have built a library we all want to keep using. When 3.5 came out, we didn't have to throw out our 3.0 books, modules and adventures. We still haven't had to, and that is great as it lets everyone play at their own level. But that said...
5. Clear the slate with each class. You did a great job last time with lessons learned from 3.5. Sure, some stuff didn't work, but for the most part the changes really improved the product and play. I feel like a lot of the new classes really just need to get the same treatment you gave to the 3.5 classes.
6. Stop taking concepts you want to exist and trying to force them onto archtypes. I'm not talking the variations of the actual theme archtypes, those make sense and are...well...archtypes. I'm talking things like the Summoner with a powersuit or the bard archaeologist. Those are great concepts, I want to play those things. However when they are shoehorned onto the bard and summoner templates, the unintended consequences of mash up both fail to give us the cool thing we want, as we want it. I don't want to hear about base class creep, if it is a concept that is "big" enough, it deserves proper treatment. And not the "Gunslinger that was going to be a fighter alternate, but then became some Frankenstein's monster of two many ideas in one bag..."
To sum up, good job for the last 5 years or so making what we are currently playing. But we may be reaching a point where a reboot is needed to clear some of the memory. When that time comes, please reboot using the same strategy you used to convert from 3.5.
If you do, I think you will get similar positive results.
Since the last (several) post(s) got locked before any official answer was given and it has not yet been added to FAQ I have created a new thread for discussion on the matter.
Here is the original question:
Spoiler:
What I am asking is could a caster provoke once for the casting of the spell, and once again for the ranged attack portion.
Discuss.
PS:The point of this is to get this FAQ'd since no exact answer has yet to be given.
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a bunch of posts and their replies. Really, folks, is it that hard to have a respectful discussion with each other?
Also, I'm locking this thread. After 500+ posts in a rules question, either the discussion is going in circles, or an answer WAS reached and is just getting buried under more posts.
I do not know what the offending posts were that were removed but I'm sure Ross had good reason to remove them. I do not doubt his motives on this.
However, with this being at least the 3rd thread created on this topic with several hundred posts in each, being FAQ'd several hundred times between the several threads with no response from the Devs on it ... I sorta think it is an issue that needs a bit of attention. To be truthful, I'm not 100% on what my opinion is of how it is meant to work.
But locking a thread and simply saying that, "either the discussion is going in circles, or an answer WAS reached and is just getting buried under more posts." ...does NOT make it true. And to be completely explicate, it is not true. The question has recieved no attention from the Devs at all.
It is true that posters here have given their unofficial opinion on how it should work, but I had thought that the purpose behind hitting the FAQ button was to get the attention of the Devs? Correct me if I'm wrong here.
For those who do not wish to discuss the matter: Good news! You don't have to. You can just leave the thread be and you don't even have to bother to post a complaint. Because, honestly, forums are for people to discuss what they'd like to discuss.
If you don't want to discuss it but still want to see it FAQ'd there is a button for that too.
Are there going to be any generic, combinational prestige classes that let you merge two classes? Things like the Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster, Battle Herald, or Rage Prophet?
Just one. The Paladin of Irori will, I hope, be a good paladin/monk combo. I also hope it'll have Paladin of Irori code stuff, and some more flavor stuff. Classes like those mentioned above exist primarily in a world-flavor-vacuum, and are mostly of interest purely on a mechanical level for multiclassing. That's not what these prestige classes in "Paths of Prestige" are doing, for the most part.
There's a reason this book is in the Campaign Setting line, folks... my philosophy is that prestige classes are MUCH BETTER when they are used to present world-specific stuff. Like Hellknights, harrowers, red mantis assassins, and low templars. ALL of the prestige classes in this book are built to support Golarion-specific organizations and options. Several of them will work not only as PC options, but as prestige classes you can put onto monsters (something Pathfinder is SORELY missing at this point). And they'll all bring with them some new flavor to 30 different organizations and philosophies and faiths and factions and whatevers that need more info, in many cases.
Will the prestige classes be usable outside of Golarion? Absolutely—just as you can use Hellknights and harrowers and Red Mantis Assassins and Low Templars in other settings. You might need to fiddle a bit with flavor here and there, but they'll work.
I for one like this philosophy. I think that the PRC makes more sense in that capacity. I think that this is one of the reasons why I am such a fan of the Dragonlance world. It is one thing to fight a generic evil wizard in a random tower but if you know that you are fighting a Mage of the Black Robes in the Tower of High Sorcery in Istar or Palanthas then there is a much more flavorful ecounter.
This really, really irritates me. It is reaching dealbreaker status for Pathfinder for me along with the other problems I've been having lately.
I can name so many martial arts movies where the monk-type character attacks with the same weapon multiple times at speeds unequaled to a regular fighter it isn't even funny. You can look at endless stream of Honk Kong martial arts movies to see how we all assumed Flurry of Blows worked. Was the monk designed to emulate a fantasy martial artist or not?
How many sources can we come up with where a martial arts type attacks multiple times with the same weapon.
1. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Single sword, definitely reaching an insane number of attacks.
2. Polearm and spear fighting in various movies from The Shaw Brothers. They are spear and polearm specialists who attack with supernatural speed.
3. Superkick fighting styles where a guy uses his strong leg to attack someone over and over again with the same leg.
4. Sword styles period: How many martial arts movies have you seen a monk use more than one sword? Usually a sword style involves attacking with one sword over and over again.
I'm not sure what SKR and Buhlman are talking about. Maybe neither of them want the monk in the game because they don't seem to have watched many martial arts movies. I was assuming the person that designed the monk had, which is why they made sure to simulate several different fighting styles when they expanded monk weapons and the like.
I play Pathfinder because it simulates the fantasy classes better than 4E did. If they are going to start focusing too much on rules balance rather than on proper simulation like worrying about the two-weapon fighter having to use two weapons while the monk only has to buy one, then the game is shifting more to balance and away from proper simulation.
The martial arts types definitely can attack at supernatural speeds with a single weapon over and over and over again. And usually it is their best weapon be it a sword, superkick, venom fist, or any other special attack they utilize to simulate their style. It's a part of the martial arts fantasy genre to be able to do this. Even Samurai did this in the Japanese Samurai movies. Zatoichi or Yojimbo were definitely monk/fighers using one sword over and over again at supernatural speeds.
And the reason it is a dealbreaker is because they are making a change that no one asked for, no one was complaining about, hasn't been a game balance issue, and is being applied to a class already known for offensive weakness. When you start to make changes your customers don't ask for and aren't necessary to make the game more balanced or playable, you start to make mistakes in game design that damage your game.
I ask for Buhlman, SKR, and any other Paizo officials to ask yourself the following questions:
1. Does this make your game better?
2. Does this make your customers happy?
3. Was anyone complaining about this issue from a game balance perspective?
4. Is the monk a class on these forums that you have ever seen brought up as overpowered, unbalanced, or in anyway in need of a change to make them offensively weaker?
The monk already suffers from Multiple Ability Disorder which inherently limits their offensive capabilities. I think that balances the fact the fighter might have to spend a little more on an off-hand weapon. They get to focus on a couple of stats, max BAB, and have tons of feats to make up for the slight advantage the monk has in two-weapon fighting by getting feats like Penetrating Strike, Double Specialization, Crit Feats so their attacks have effects, and the like. There is no way anyone at Paizo can paint the two-weapon fighter as offensively weaker than the two-weapon-based monk.
I played a two-weapon fighter in the same group as a monk. I far outdamaged the monk. My crit damage was higher and I had more crit effects which completely neutralized my enemy. My damage output due to Weapon Spec, Weapon Training Equivalent, Power Attack, and my limited focus on Str once my dex was high enough made me a much more lethal fighter than a monk. I also hit more often.
I once again advise Paizo not to make an issue where there was none. Not good for your game and not good for your business.
Whether you read this as multiple ranged touch attacks from one spell or "ranged touch attacks" in general, either way it only allows for AN (singular, one, uno, un) attack of opportunity. That being said, I still feel this whole argument about multiple rays, blah blah blah, is moot because since the casting of the spell and the rolling for the touch attack occur simultaneously, that, in it self, only provokes one Attack of Opportunity.
I find it funny that you're still not seeing what I'm saying. Even after talking this out for pages.
It does say ranged touch attacks generate an AoO, that's the rule. It is a 1:1 ratio. If you make another ranged touch attack that also generates an AoO. I hardly think that the devs mean that all ranged touch attacks (in the world) generate a single AoO. That's just... well..
If you make more ranged touches, it provokes more AoOs.
Posts
