Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

3,698 posts (3,737 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,698 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Riuken wrote:

Consider this: You are hiking with a group, and someone gets injured. You don't want to use your supplies that you purchased and might need for yourself on them. You decide it is better to leave them on the trail with a broken leg to "teach them a lesson" to bring their own medical supplies next time. I pretty sure most people would label that "evil".

The issue may be the perception of "evil". As far as I'm concerned, evil is simply selfishness to the detriment of others. Under that definition your character most certainly was acting in an evil manner. Some other people only define evil as mass-murdering, demon-summoning, undead-raising BBEG types, along with their followers who certainly don't questions those acts and possibly enjoy them. Under that definition the character is solidly neutral.

This is a team game, and not helping the team to the point of a death is certainly out of line with the intent. You don't have to keep playing with this guy if it's a problem; that's a core feature of PFS. The only excuse I would accept for "leaving him to die" is if it was an agreement before the game that if he didn't bring a CLW wand you wouldn't heal him. If everything is on the table from the start there's no fault but his own.

As a side note, a character can't really learn a lesson from getting killed, at least not when they will stay dead. A player can learn a lesson from it, but they would learn just as well by sitting out the rest of the scenario with an unconscious character. Choosing to leave him to die to teach a lesson is a decidedly out-of-character move. That's not cool in my games, but how much people meta-game varies alot by table.

Closer analogy:

You are diving with a buddy. You find an underwater cave. You explore and have a wonderful time. You are getting ready to leave and notice that your tank is just a bit under half full, so you decide to swap to your reserve. Doing this will blow at least 20% out of your first

...

All depends on how much healing you have already used, and how much danger is behind you.

If you are in a position where you have 10 charges left and the BBEG fight is still in front of you. Then you may feel disinclined to pop that wand on the dude who indignantly didn't help himself. Particularly if those 4.5 hit points may save your life in the next encounter.

at this exact moment you could save his life, but at what opportunity cost? You are asking me to gamble with my life to save yours.


Riuken wrote:

Consider this: You are hiking with a group, and someone gets injured. You don't want to use your supplies that you purchased and might need for yourself on them. You decide it is better to leave them on the trail with a broken leg to "teach them a lesson" to bring their own medical supplies next time. I pretty sure most people would label that "evil".

The issue may be the perception of "evil". As far as I'm concerned, evil is simply selfishness to the detriment of others. Under that definition your character most certainly was acting in an evil manner. Some other people only define evil as mass-murdering, demon-summoning, undead-raising BBEG types, along with their followers who certainly don't questions those acts and possibly enjoy them. Under that definition the character is solidly neutral.

This is a team game, and not helping the team to the point of a death is certainly out of line with the intent. You don't have to keep playing with this guy if it's a problem; that's a core feature of PFS. The only excuse I would accept for "leaving him to die" is if it was an agreement before the game that if he didn't bring a CLW wand you wouldn't heal him. If everything is on the table from the start there's no fault but his own.

As a side note, a character can't really learn a lesson from getting killed, at least not when they will stay dead. A player can learn a lesson from it, but they would learn just as well by sitting out the rest of the scenario with an unconscious character. Choosing to leave him to die to teach a lesson is a decidedly out-of-character move. That's not cool in my games, but how much people meta-game varies alot by table.

Closer analogy:

You are diving with a buddy. You find an underwater cave. You explore and have a wonderful time. You are getting ready to leave and notice that your tank is just a bit under half full, so you decide to swap to your reserve. Doing this will blow at least 20% out of your first tank. Your buddy notices that his tank is empty because he stupidly didn't check his equipment. He also stupidly didn't bring a reserve tank of his own. He b%&+*es at you because it isn't his job to look after and provide his own equipment. He tells you that if you want him to find the awesome caves, then you need to pull your weight by packing extra gear for him and maintainencing his stuff.

Your choices:

Give him your reserve tank before you unhook your primary. Maybe you have enough to get back, maybe you don't. You could die, but your buddy will make it out for sure on your reserve tank.

Give him your primary after you swap. There is basically no way he will make it to the surface on that amount if air.

Tell him to suck it up and wait it out, you'll be back for him with help in a few days because you cant make that deep a dive again for a while after surfacing.

Exactly which one of these is evil?

What is the minimum someone could reasonably expect?

My personal answer involves leaving a dude in an underwater cave, by himself, and without my gear.


Mighty Glacier wrote:
Tier system is a tool. Tools aren't bad if they are used correctly.

What do you mean that a leatherman is more versatile than a hammer? This one time I needed to drive a nail and I had followed all the char-op boards so all I had was a leatherman. Completely worthless. Leatherman tools suck, and char-op is always wrong because they dis on hammers so hard.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Folks, I believe the reason he (or should I say, he and all of us for whom he speaks) doesn't bother to delve into the details of this structure is for the same reason he, as he says, usually walks past the issue: He walks away early on because he sees a foundational flaw in the whole proposition that puts the kibosh on all the details that come afterward. What we do see, however, is a strangulation of the game by this needlessly imposed order that leads to fewer things being possible rather than more - where once a person can come up with some novel idea and expect it to be appreciated and tried, it becomes everyone shouting the idea down with the foregone conclusion that it won't work because "the so-and-so system PROVES that X is superior to Y, therefore your idea is broken/unfair/lame/doesn't make sense/double-plus unfun." These games should be all about increasing people's mental agility, but these structures do just the opposite, shoving people into tunnel vision like worms burying into cheese and forgetting what it looks like on the surface, so, to continue the metaphor, you've got all these cheese-worms shouting at each other that their tunnel is the only real one, when those of us who haven't committed to burrowing see that everyone's just stuck in their own pits - but of course, the one thing the burrowers can agree on is that that guy's clueless.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is called insane when he speaks of colors.

All you have done is indicate that you have fallen into the fallacy of this topic as well. You openly admit at the top of your post that you made up your mind about tiers before fully understanding the topic. You then defeat your straw-man.

Nothing you discuss has anything to do with tiers. It's the same as listening to people say, "Obama's a Muslim!" or "We should invade Iraq! Dont you remember how you felt on 9-11?"


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:
The entire discussion here, on this forum, seems to be about how power tiers are expressly for narrative power. Meanwhile over on the FB forum there is a gnashing of teeth that narrative power would be associated with power tiers, because, to paraphrase and make polite, narrative power is something that's harder to quantify.
Shrug. So the FB forum doesn't understand tiers any more than you do.

Pretty much this.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

You have entirely missed the point of the tier system. Like utterly and totally.

People who use the tier system use it as a tool to determine the relative narrative power of a class. It just so happens that prepared-full casters come out on top. Most folks who advocate for the use of the teir system WANT to see class power moved toward tier 3.

It is merely an assessment tool, not an optimizers tool.

You have fallen into the standard fallacy of this discussion that so many others have before you. You confuse game analysis with player optimization. The fact that you introduce the article here by saying, "I don't read these arguments so I in no way have a nuanced view of the topic I'm about to spout off about," didn't help either.

Edit: Ninjas.


DungeonMastering.com wrote:

True, with an asterisk*

Per Wikipedia:

"A bird's velocity is necessarily variable; a hunting bird will reach much greater speeds while diving to catch prey than when gliding. The bird with the greatest airspeed velocity is the peregrine falcon, able to exceed 320 km/h (200 mph) in its hunting dives. The greatest self-powered horizontal flight speed is achieved by the white-throated needletail, capable of such speeds as 169 km/h (105 mph), typically during mating rituals."

So a diving Dragon going 90mph? Sure. I saw that Dragonslayer movie. But 90mph having to turn around, start from a dead stop & fly through a cave? Eh.

I think that I would consider a cave or tunnel that is less than twice as wide and tall as the flying creature to be "difficult terrain" for flight.

Complete house rule territory.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Neither the Run or Speed sections are limited to land speeds.
I'm not sure if that's true. It doesn't specifically say it has to be land movement, but the word 'run' implies it.

"Run" only implies that because on Earth there are no speech-capable humanoids with fly or swim speeds.


Jaelithe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You also are describing an extremely rare DMing arrangement. If round-robin (with the same characters) works for your group then great. I can't stand that either. I need more continuity aim my game. There is also a very real question of which GM 'owns' the campaign. Who is making decisions about the world? Who is keeping it internally consistent? When ever a group I'm with rotates GMs, they rotate campaigns as well. And it is more like 2-3 times a year, rather than every 2-3 weeks.

Since you haven't a clue as to the level of continuity in others' games, your comment about needing "more continuity" doesn't make much sense. More than you and your friends could manage? Perhaps so; I wouldn't presume to say, having never sat in with you and yours. More than me and my friends? Until you've played with us, you've no idea whether that's true.

As to "who 'owns' the campaign," well ... sometimes it's a co-op among extremely mature players who enjoy the synergy and creative tension, assembling something greater than the sum of its parts ... sometimes there's a campaign overseer and the other DMs think nothing of running short-term adventures about which he or she knows nothing to give him or her a chance to play regularly. The Head Forester doesn't necessarily know, or need to know, the location of every tree.

The last time I was running a game for a fairly standard-sized group, we had three RPG campaigns going simultaneously, one of which was a supers game, and would simply gather, decide what we wanted to do that day, and play. Worked for us.

Well, without getting too deep into your post; part of continuity for me includes the voice of the game. Unless you and your friends and very skilled voice actors I would have to presume that you aren't achieving that. I could be wrong.


Jaelithe wrote:
Pan wrote:
Agreed. Folks need to be flexible to make this game work. Everyone has a breaking point though too where it might be a good idea to walk away or sit out. Like lets say you are good at running a GMPC, and everyone says you are good at running GMPCs, but they don't want you to because they don't like it. Do you drop the GMPCs or do you drop as GM?

If all you'd have to look forward to was sullen silence and/or snide comments from your players, I'd say the answer was obvious. If you knew people just weren't as happy, and simply couldn't help it, I'd likely eliminate the DMPC/send the DMPC away—which in turn might leave me really annoyed despite myself, or might not.

In a round robin DMing setup, often a character is an NPC for three weeks and then a PC for two or three after that. I just don't see the problem as truly a problem, thus, perhaps because I'm used to that.

You also are describing an extremely rare DMing arrangement. If round-robin (with the same characters) works for your group then great. I can't stand that either. I need more continuity in my game. There is also a very real question of which GM 'owns' the campaign. Who is making decisions about the world? Who is keeping it internally consistent? When ever a group I'm with rotates GMs, they rotate campaigns as well. And it is more like 2-3 times a year, rather than every 2-3 weeks.


GM Lamplighter wrote:
VampByDay wrote:

Me: Wanna play PFS? It's a campaign where you play pathfinders, basically Iniana-Jones style archaeologists that delve into political intrigue to get funding, and ancient booby-trapped tombs to find lost relics of historic significance.

New guy: Cool! I'll build a fighter, basically a tough guy to bodyguard all of the archaeologists. I'll get a trait to get knowledge (history), stuff I've learned while bodyguarding the bigwigs!

So why wasn't the next thing "ME" said something like, "Well, the campaign is based on versatility, and you often run into things like traps or swarms or other threats that can't just be bashed with a club. There are some really cool options and gear in the Core Rulebook you should check out." Don't blame the authour for a conversation "ME" started but didn't finish.

Quote:
Gm: Okay, you find some scorpions. You don't have alchemist's fire or acid. you can't hurt swarms.

Yep, sometimes you run into an encounter you aren't 100% prepared for, and then you learn from it. This is actually part of the game, not a problem with the game.

"ME" did finish it, it's the OP of this very thread.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Not only that, but as a player I just don't trust the DMPC. There is too much temptation to bend a gray rule into your favor, too much temptation to meta the scenario. I feel that anytime the DMPC got the spotlight that it was taking away from the group. The whole time I would be contemplating that the DM gave an info drop to his PC instead of us, why? What did he really roll? (Are you rolling dice for the DMPC behind the screen too?) What kind of circumstance modifiers is he giving himself. Who is auditing the character build? Is he dropping preferred gear for himself?
Why don't you ask the same questions of other NPCs?

Because most of those questions are about party dynamics and other NPC's aren't in my party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I do find the whole, "The GMPC might have to interact with another NPC and that is just GM mental masturbation," idea a bit strange. I mean are there never two or more relevant NPCs "on stage" at the same time? A king, the queen, and the councilor? A general and his XO? Or is it always one "talker" NPC and a bunch of mooks?

Not only that, but as a player I just don't trust the DMPC. There is too much temptation to bend a gray rule into your favor, too much temptation to meta the scenario. I feel that anytime the DMPC got the spotlight that it was taking away from the group. The whole time I would be contemplating that the DM gave an info drop to his PC instead of us, why? What did he really roll? (Are you rolling dice for the DMPC behind the screen too?) What kind of circumstance modifiers is he giving himself. Who is auditing the character build? Is he dropping preferred gear for himself?

Basically, I don't believe anyone has a compartmented enough mind to do this fairly. Unless someone was actively down-powering, in which case I am irritated by carrying the dead weight. If you want to play a character then play, if you want to DM then DM. Don't do both. Because you'll end up doing neither very well.


Jaelithe wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:

"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."

"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."

"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"

"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"

The difference being that the people who've said, "It can't be done right" have been proven wrong and entrench themselves in their perspective anyway, whereas those who've seen it done right have proven their point, much to the dismay of the naysayers.

Only Sides 2 and 3 in Aranna's above post have any validity. I'm a Side 3 guy, but I certainly comprehend Side 2.

I think your standards for "prove" are a bit squishy.


KestlerGunner wrote:

Can any budding entomologists weigh in and let us know how long it would take for a hollowed-out humanoid head's worth of bitey insects to suffocate to death?

We also need to know how much remaining air can pass through dead tissue to reach the insects within, and how this might change in an extradimensional space.

Are these ridiculous questions?
NO! THIS IS PATHFINDER!

In a bag that has enough air for a man for 10 minutes; a 9 pound head of insects would run out of air in about 4 hours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
...assuming that what you encounter is the norm for everyone.

OP didn't do this. OP states, "this is what I'm seeing, here are my questions." No assumptions of any kind.


Goth Guru wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Rolls will save, nat 1, great.

Goth Guru wrote:
GMPCs by raw do not exist. If you were talking about NPCs adventuring with characters, I doubt most of you would be making these broad assumptions.
I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?
I added back the rest of the statement. Don't scold me with part of an idea.

Doesn't change anything but to disambiguate the question I was asking. What does "rules as written," have to do with GM's running player characters in their own games?

Let me illustrate what I'm getting at.

GM: After Gargamel tosses you out the window you land in the moat.

PLAYER: Gargamel isn't RAW.

GM: ???

Any character the GM runs is an NPC. Not a PC. When I run an NPC as part of a party, I keep reminding myself of that.

Since I and everyone else keep repeating the same points, I'm going to hide this topic. Don't DM me about this.

If it's part of the party then it isn't non-player anymore. It's definitely a player character. Who's player character is it? The GMs, thus GMPC.

I still don't understand why you brought "RAW" into the discussion. It isn't a related concept.

Also, this topic and your opinion aren't valuable enough to me to PM you. So, no worries for you there.


Goth Guru wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Rolls will save, nat 1, great.

Goth Guru wrote:
GMPCs by raw do not exist. If you were talking about NPCs adventuring with characters, I doubt most of you would be making these broad assumptions.
I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?
I added back the rest of the statement. Don't scold me with part of an idea.

Doesn't change anything but to disambiguate the question I was asking. What does "rules as written," have to do with GM's running player characters in their own games?

Let me illustrate what I'm getting at.

GM: After Gargamel tosses you out the window you land in the moat.

PLAYER: Gargamel isn't RAW.

GM: ???


pauljathome wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think the worst (ie, most harsh) interpretation against you would to be require you to "push" (DC 25 handle animal) twice. One to fail the save, one to do whatever you had in mind. The second one may have a circumstance penalty attached depending on how you altered to environment with the spell.

Also, for emanations, the mount has a bit, bridle, and saddle, which could all function as "object touched."

Nope. I would NOT allow you to push the animal to fail a save. Not without some means of communication at the very least. How are you telling the animal to fail its will save?

The same way you make an animal do anything against its will, by pushing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All I can say, is I hope we get a new official stat block for Blackjack.


Gorbacz wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

Weapon Style: Ray/Touch Spell?

90% sarcasm and humor. 90%. . .

Seems like your sarcasm filter combined with confirmation bias made you miss the blurb about "divine fighting techniques". Who knows, maybe the elusive Paladin of Jesus Christ is finally around the corner? ;-)

Not sure your point, Seoni is arcane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rolls will save, nat 1, great.

Goth Guru wrote:
GMPCs by raw do not exist.

I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?


Dragon78 wrote:
Wasn't there supposed to be a seminar or something that would tell more about the new/future products?

That was the banquet. All the spoilers that got released on Saturday night were them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
StarMartyr365 wrote:

I was hoping to get a update since it is Paizocon this weekend. Even if all you say is: "This project is now sitting next to the Ark of the Covenant in a US gov. warehouse and will remain there until the heat death of the universe." That's better than deafening silence.

SM

I think that if there was anything to update it would already be updated. Ie, there is no active development on this project, no staff are devoting resources to this project, there is no set date to change the status of this project, on a scale from [Extreme Priority! Missed Deadline!] to [Burried under a T-Rex Turd in Jacobs' office] this project falls somewhere in between [Vanity means "you never say die"] and [Squirrel!]


I think the worst (ie, most harsh) interpretation against you would to be require you to "push" (DC 25 handle animal) twice. One to fail the save, one to do whatever you had in mind. The second one may have a circumstance penalty attached depending on how you altered to environment with the spell.

Also, for emanations, the mount has a bit, bridle, and saddle, which could all function as "object touched."


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Those are two different sources, creating the same effect.

Replace strength with dexterity, and replace strength with dexterity.

It's like an effect that effect that makes you Invisible, and an effect that makes you Invisible. You don't become "double Invisible".

Even effects which don't "do the same thing" won't let you double up a "stat to roll."

Ie, if you had a "add dex to weapon attack and damage," and a "replace STR with DEX for weapon attack and damage rolls," you still couldn't actually get Dex twice.


Fergie wrote:

{Note: My players did a similar thing while facing a green dragon. I think they found a hallow tree, and did the rope trick inside, but same question was at hand.}

"The rope cannot be removed or hidden."

What do they define as hidden? That is the question...

I suspect they are talking about invisibility magic, or other affects that would make the rope invisible. I would think that using vines or branches to camouflage the rope would be ok, but that technically would be hiding it...

I think I would need to know WHY that bit of text was there to understand the intent.

Perhaps the solution is to just hang bits of rope from every tree in the area?

EDIT: How about this: "The rope can be covered or benefit from concealment, but only indirectly. You can not target the rope specifically with an illusion spell".

That bit of text is there because of enterprising adventurers in 3.5, who would pull the rope up behind them and thus have a completely concealed and safe resting place for 8 people; well beyond the intended power level of the spell. It was changed in PF to prevent that exploit. Which is the big reason I think what RD describes is a fair use.


I would agree that you can hide the rope from the outside. I disagree that you can use a figment to do it. You need a glamer to change the appearance of (ie, hide) other things.

Edit: Also, you can't use silent image to make a crackling fire...


Hama wrote:
No Mt Dew either. Don't have them in my country.

smoki and sinalco


Wise Old Man wrote:

Hello everyone. I'm a long time role player, writer, graphic designer, and coder. I've worked with many development companies that focus on books, apps, board games, card games, and video games. I'm here to hopefully grab some ideas off you community members who spend countless of hours writing stories, and optimizing builds to no end.

I'm currently working on a project that involves similar mechanics to the Inklewriter, from inkle. inkle Ltd is the development company of the Sorcery! saga, and 80 Days, that are published in the Android and iOS app marketplace. Their idea is derived from the famous 'Choose Your Own Adventure' gamebook series that I'm sure most of you are familiar with.

I came here to ask: If you could create any type of writing game, what would it be?

If you are serious about getting some community input you should do a few things:

1) Complete your paizo forums profile. Give us a sense of who you are, some links to previous projects, etc. when people ask for professional input on these boards the first place I look is their post count (ie, are they *really* community members in an active sense) and then I look at their profile.

2) Be more specific about what you are seeking. Many people won't understand what that means, and very few will look it up. A quick google search for the term "writing game," reveals a page full of childhood development games, and youth focused games. They seem closer to idea starters for adolescent writer's block. Even adding the term "for adults" didn't tell me much, as I got results like "madlibs," and poetry rearranging magnets.

3) As a continuation of 2, share some games with us that you like the experience of playing, and that got you excited about recreating.

4) Sell us on your input on the project. Are we doing this roots up for you? Tell us about the work you have already done, the framework of the game, and your vision of where it's headed. I understand incorporating ideas into a work-in-progress is more difficult than doing it from the beginning, but great things are made inside constraints not without them. Give us a frame to work with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Has he renounced his U.S. citizenship to go play king?

If not, he's no more legitimate than I am.

Has he left Virginia to go live in his desert kingdom?
If not, he's an absentee landlord at best.

Is the area permanently uninhabited, or do people move through there? If the latter, do they recognize his sovereignty? If not, he can either subdue them and enforce his borders, or accept that his claim is meaningless.

Finally, Daily Kos is, as usual, behind the times; this story broke a year ago: link

Well, a few interesting points on this guy.

He has a mining and drilling background and there is suspected water reserves in the area. So he is likely to be able to improve the area, which is one step toward legitimacy. 2nd, both Sudan and Egypt both want to claim Hala'ib, which is immediately adjacent but has better soil and access to the Red Sea. Two treaties were signed between Egypt and Sudan around the turn of the 20th century; one granting Hala'ib to Sudan and Bir Tawil to Egypt and the other vice versa. So, each country recognizes the treaty that gives them claim to the preferred holding. Leaving Bir Tawill quite literally directly unclaimed, unused, and unadministered by both countries. Both countries would be upset by their citizens making use of the land because it could be construed as a claim to the land. Both countries are specifically not interested in annexing.

3rd, he does currently live in Virginia but is in plans to begin permanent settlement (corporate) operations there. I don't know if he plans to live there full time, but one imagines he would maintain a residence.

4th he has supposedly been in contact with both Sudan and Egypt about recognizing him as a sovereign state and what he would need to do for them.

As for his citizenship I couldn't tell you. But you're right about the Kos, when I read this article this morning I remembered the details pretty clearly from a report several months ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
As vassalages? I'm not familiar enough with modern monarchies, but, from my understanding, most modern monarchies are independent monarchies, but part of the countries government. I don't know of a country that is a Vassal, as a country, that is a monarchy, of a (or two!) republic different from their own?

I meant monarchies functioning as republics. Doesn't every monarchy in Western Europe function as a republic? Also, don't most of the former British holdings function as republics under the monarchy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Y'know, I have trouble seeing this as quite so sweet when the guy is pretty blatantly spoiling the kid rotten (most little girls and boys grow up and realize that, y'know, not all these dreams make sense). That said, if he's trying to improve the region, who are we to complain?

Spoiling? I don't know. More like, "you want to be a princess? Ok, here hs a god-forsaken hell scape that the nearby countries won't touch with 11 ft poles. You can be princess of that."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Uninhabited is one thing, but is that area still owned by a country?

No, both Sudan and Egypt specifically don't claim it.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

It just seems odd to me that you can, with Rapid Reload, you can Reload, Fire, then Kick, with a Sling, but somehow, when you Reload, Fire, with a Bow, you would be unable to Kick.

There is no difference in actions required, and no difference in damage applied by strength(with the right strength rating), and yet, we try to play them out differently.

There is no great advantage, and no rules finagling for some otherwise unavailable benefit.

Because basic iterative attacks and TWF follow different mechanics, even though they can essentially be the same thing. The TWF FAQ says you can use separate weapons for iteratives, but you can't for TWF attacks. You use one weapon for one set of iteratives, and then you use another weapon for the other set you acquire from TWF.

Additionally, until it's clarified that the sole reason you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is because of the "unwritten rule," it's unclear as to whether you can do that with Armor Spikes and, say, an Agile Elven Curved Blade, or not.

That being said, if you can do it with an Agile Elven Curved Blade and Armor Spikes, then I don't see why you can't do it with a Bow.

BBT's example has nothing to do with iteratives. Why do people keep thinking he is talking about iteratives. There is no iterative in his example.

He is saying that *using two-weapon fighting* that someone could use a sling and make an off-hand kick. However, one could not use two-weapon fighting, to fire a bow and make an off-hand kick.


Tacticslion wrote:
But, has there historically been a monarchy that functions under a republic? After all, technically speaking (Sudan being within the current state of its political problems aside), both are "republics" (from my understanding).

Don't most western constitutional monarchies function that way?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

kos says he should be sent back home. By who? The area is literally unclaimed (until now.)

Also why is this racist? Because he is doing it in Africa? Kos says "in the motherland of the people America has so furiously oppressed for hundreds of years," which carries two big problems. (1) Kos is committing the classic western fallacy of treating Africa like a single entity instead of a gorram continent. (How dare you evict that Jewish lady from her London flat, this is the seat of the holocaust, Europe!) (2) Kos needs to buy a f~$%ing map. The sub-Sahara is specifically south of where this dude is, you know, in the Sahara.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Portable hole + bag of holding


No, spells with a casting time shorter than "standard action" do not have their casting time increased when using metamagic.

The entry specifically calls out standard action spells and spells with longer casting times.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gannondorf. OoT version.

Shredder & illusion Shredder. Turtles in time.

Bowser in an inverse helicopter throwing wind-up toy bombs.

Mike Tyson.

The dude you had to fight before Mike Tyson.

Dr Wiley. MM3 version.


It is definitely a nerf. It removes the ability to attack multiple targets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it got locked because that dude took my post completely out of context. Liz removed the entire string of posts related to it. So, she probably thinks I'm Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity, or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

Since we've moved on to Diplomacy as an example, here's an example of bounded accuracy at work taking level 5 bards from organized play campaigns (as the most prevalent campaigns for their respective systems).

We'll assume for this skill challenge, that the bard is meeting with a leader/elder/chief/etc and needs to make a hard Diplomacy check. Thus, the bard gets a few minutes to prepare themselves before going in.

1. PFS Core: 35% chance at hard DCs

In PFS Core, there is a system of bounded accuracy, which is essentially that you're limited by a limited set of rules to stacking bonuses.

** spoiler omitted **

A PFS Core Bard has a 35% chance of success for a hard diplomacy check in a 5th level adventure.

2. PFS Classic: 100% chance at hard DCs

This is where there's really no bounded accuracy anymore. This bard automatically makes the hard diplomacy check without needing to roll (their diplomacy is at +30 for the check).

** spoiler omitted **...

Point of order, a need for 13+ is a 40% success chance. A need for a 10+ is a 55% chance of success. With reroll that is 80% (79.75%) chance of success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Consider how you would feel knowing that the same thing was happening to your children, your friends, and your neighbors.
This may present a problem -- his idea of being "rational" is to have a fundamental lack of empathy.

I choose to believe that the issue is relatability not cold-heartedness. I could be wrong, but that is what I choose to believe.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Seriously. A man's death is a HANGNAIL?

Wow.

One man's death compared to thousands. But you can make political hay out of the one death and attempting to deal with the thousands will take you places you don't want to go. Much better to heap scorn on those who are trying to point out the big picture.

You imply that I am insensitive because I am less concerned about the one death than I am about the thousands. My point is that all life matters and that willfully blinding oneself to thousands of deaths so they can focus on just one they can use to advance an agenda is arguably depraved

Given that many of the recent posters have demonstrably departed rationality this will be my last post on this subject.

We imply that you are insensitive because you are counter systemic issues with individual case retorts.

But the bigger picture stuff is what you are missing out on. There is a literal and real systemic bias against the trust, promotion, and peace of black persons in this country. This bias is present and prevalent in the citizenry, in business, and in the rank and file of the government. This is seen most demonstrably in police action, but make no mistake that it isn't the only place it exists in the government.

This systemic bias and active oppression is what creates the "environment for learned behaviors" you describe. That environment is the direct result of systemic bias. So, you are actually asking people to look at the symptom, not the cause. Despite how deadly the symptom is, it is ultimately folly to treat symptoms and hope for a cure. Problems are not solved this way.

To mirror your analogy; someone comes into the hospital with a gun shot wound and dies in the ER. You say that the cause of his death is from blood loss, he dies because he bled out. If we can just stop people from bleeding out we can fix this problem. No one will have to worry anymore! All we have to do is just tell people, don't bleed out and you'll be fine.

But you didn't address why it happened. He bled out BECAUSE a bullet severed his femoral artery. Similarly, black urban neighborhoods sometimes see high instances of violent crime BECAUSE of the environment created by systemic bias. Pointing at the cop who chokes out and kills an unarmed black man begging for breath and saying "this is the problem," is accurately identifying an actual source of bias, an actual source of what is creating the environment. Pointing at a street crime statistic and saying "this is the bigger problem," is inaccurately purporting the issue as separate, and inaccurately identifying the true issues in play (AKA, red herring)

Also, running away from a thread when you get called out for BS and blaming your cowardice on the "irrationality" of your detractors is one of the single most disgusting displays of white-privilege I can imagine. The next time you decide to walk away from a discussion about how people are treated unfairly, consider if walking away wasn't an option for you. Consider how you would handle the "irrational" person if they had a gun, and harassed you on your way to work every single day because they decided you didn't belong where you were. Consider how you would feel knowing that the same thing was happening to your children, your friends, and your neighbors. Consider how you would react if walking away from an "irrational" person in a conversation was grounds to arrest you, detain you, or question you forcibly. Consider if you "moved your hand" in a way that made the "irrational" person "think" you had a weapon. Consider the "irrational" person decided that was cause to throw you on the ground, put their knee in your back, press with their entire body weight against your spine and kidneys, lift you up off the ground by a handcuff chain straining your arms and hands under your own weight. Consider that this "irrational" person could decided to take you to jail if they chose. Consider if that meant losing your job, your means to support your family, or your means to start one, all hinged on the gut-check decision of an "irrational" person who just threw you on the ground. Consider if this person letting you go with just a torn shirt, a bloody face, and a bruised rib could be bought by apologizing and thanking that person for their kindness and understanding. Consider if this was your life every single day. Consider if you couldn't identify "irrational" people by their internet handles. Consider if you had absolutely no way of telling "irrational" people apart from rational people.

If you consider those things, you may glimpse at 1% or so of what its like to be a black person in America today.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
This discussion of the recent happenings in my hometown gives me hope, as the mandatory attempt to derail with whinging over intraracial crime was summarily ignored as the red herring it is.

Say what you want. Believe what you want. Bury your head as far down in the sand as you feel comfy. The incredibly sad, stone cold, multiply documented truth is that the most dangerous thing a black male will ever encounter ... is another black male.

Note that this is a cultural/"learned" behavior problem. It is NOT a problem that is any more inherent in the genetic/biological make up of black people than it is for any other group of people one could define. If the culture breaks down in certain ways then various things will happen.

The good news in all of this is that as one is dealing with a problem that results from learned behavior then it can potentially be fixed. At least in some of the broader aspects. But of course that can't possibly happen as long as the entire issue is dismissed as a "red herring". But hey, somebody got the chance to rag on a "conservative" point of view and that must be the only thing that counts.

IT IS a red herring in the context of a discussion about how white cops interact with black communities.

There is absolutely no value in the following conversation:

"There is a problem that is deep in the community; society is collectively treating black people like second-class citizens, and in particular cops seem to think that beating, or shooting black people is something they need to do at a far greater rate than other colors of people."

"Say what you want. Believe what you want. Bury your head as far down in the sand as you feel comfy. The incredibly sad, stone cold, multiply documented truth is that the most dangerous thing a black male will ever encounter ... is another black male."

Do you understand how (even if it is true, which I don't accept) that the statement in that context ISNT HELPFUL, and is quite clearly a red herring being espoused to draw attention away from white people behaving poorly?


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Since we're on the wish list of think we want in a new edition:

I want masterwork to really mean something. I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry that is 3rd level and above to have a masterwork weapon. I want, "Six-fingered man commissioned a special sword. My father slaved a year on it." I want masterwork to be something that no one short of 10th level gets. Sure you have your flaming sword at 4th level, but it is not "masterwork." A masterwork sword can have twice as many magical properties as a regular old sword. The same magical properties are more powerful on a masterwork sword. And there should be a table of quirks and/or backstories stories for masterwork weapons. I want them RARE!

I have a system I use in my homegames that does this. A few things that I've changed that are important to note beforehand:

I have an inherent bonus system, so that at level X you get +Y to attack/damage with weapons.

Named enhancements (Ie, keen, flaming, ghost touch) are available only through "augment crystals" that can be attuned to different weapons with the appropriate (short and free) ritual. They cost the same as their enhancement would indicate. (Keen = 2000gp, Speed = 18000gp, etc)

So, regular weapons cant attune a crystal, and can only benefit +1 from inherent character attack/damage bonuses. They take a craftsman between 1-3 days to make. Cold Iron is the only special material available in regular weapons.

Good weapons is a new category I have added. They can benefit upto +3 from inherent character bonuses to attack/damage. They have the ability to attune 1 augment crystal. They take a craftsman 1-3 months to make. Some special materials like whip wood, silver, and gold, are available in good quality weapons. Good quality costs +3000gp from the base price.

Masterwork weapons are the highest quality goods available and are exceedingly rare. They can benefot upto +5 from inherent character bonuses. They can attune 3 augment crystals. They take a craftsman 18-24 months to make. Any special material may be used in their construction. Good quality costs +30,000gp from the base price.

Armor works the same but the good upgrade is 1500, and the masterwork upgrade is 15,000.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the STR 30 is in line based on the draw and quarter equivalent. However, the biggest advantage the horses have is that there are 4 of them, and they are large sized.

So, if you were to reduce that requirement from 4 large things to 2 large things (hands) you get an idea of what's needed. A gargantuan creature has large hands.

So in order to pick someone up (medium humanoid) and rip them in half like a loaf of bread, you need a 30 STR and to be gargantuan in size.


Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Rather than dropping +4 swords and +5 cloaks of resistance, you can drop flying carpets, immovable rods, or various staves, etc.


@irontruth

The issue with PED is why I suggest implementing testing of each player before each game. If a player is caught using you can eliminate them from the game and because they didn't play on PED then the team doesn't need to be punished.

1 to 50 of 3,698 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.