|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The only thing I will add to this fairly complete thread is that herolab tends to have issues with more complex character ideas. The more moving parts you expect to transition from a to b the more likly you are to run into a snag. This is never a problem for single-classed characters, but particularly is you have a bunch of stuff that "counts as" stuff and stuff that advances somethings else's stuff, or you are expecting x to stack with y, you may just double check that everything worked out, because that is where the problems lie.
Other than that, the only thing I have to add is that the multiple license for 2 computers are supposed to be in the same "household." I had a friend get one of his licenses shut off because he shared it with his GM. So I don't think that going dutch on herolab is encouraged by the publisher.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I'm going to assume (fully understanding the risks) that you directed that comment at me.
I don't play in PFS, but I have considered using it as a tool for pick up games, or for vetting out new players for my home game. I'm just consistently amazed that there is such a general thirst for punitive measures against people that would dare play out of the box with mechanics. This isn't an isolated issue, I've seen many of the actors in this thread express joy and glee at the idea that someone else will no longer be able to play their characters. Actors who carry leadership tags in their namelines. Some of these people say that their fun is degraded because someone else is playing a character they don't care for the theme of, or mechanics behind; and not for reasons related to game balance or relative power levels.
I've kept the PFS subforum arrowed open because I like to be up to date about whats happening in the community, in case I do take the plunge and give it a go. I also understand that forumites are different from the general population, but I find the folks I tend to agree with in the forum are those I would consider "regulars," and those I tend to get frustrated by reading tend to have leadership tags. That is more difficult to explain away as an inappropriately small sample of the forum.
I think for now I'll keep watching but bow out of this thread. I can't say that I feel as though the campaign is a place for me. I don't do well with "authorities" deciding that I can't be trusted to not cheat or be abusive or whatever. From what I see as an outsider, those sorts of conversations always seem to revolve around removing player options, or accusing someone of using a creative mechanic interlock that others don't like. I think that if, as a campaign, you want remove options that you required people to purchase that you are probably making the wrong choice off the bat, but combining that with accusations of cheating, abuse, or munchkining, is unpalatable to me.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Please note that the first FAQ opening up this issue, and the second one closing this unintended loophole were done by the Pathfinder Rules team, not the campaign leadership.
I simply do not understand how the word "loophole" reconciles with this statement:
The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Can you explain it to me? How can someone read the FAQ and come to the conclusion that early entry wasn't the intention of the PDT?
In other news (anecdote warning), I was talking to my high school teacher sister about this whole idea of free community college, and she felt fairly ambivalent about it and also advanced the idea that a focus on early childhood education might deliver the best results.
As a high school teacher, I would be curious to know how she feels about the idea of high school as a vocational/associates system rather than the current paradigm.
Essentially, any course taken after 11th grade should have the rigor and requirements to fulfill course requisites for an equivilantly named/numbered course that would apply toward an academic or vocational credential.
And then, obviously, put high schools in a position to grant that credential or facilitate transfer to a local community college where it could be obtained in less than a year.
Basically, I think that the Obama strategy could be implemented for little to no cost if we work to remove the redundant and superfluous courses being taught at high schools today.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Which is a fairly strong indication of why the folks advocating for an option that removes that concern feel unheard.
I'm just sayin, if you really want to give yourself a hard time (or torture your students) you'd translate Livy.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Replace "foul language," with "to stab me in the eye with a fork," and look how ridiculous the argument becomes.
The Aeneid, in its entirety wrote:
F$+! the Greeks. Do outlandish stuff to get your way. Go to hell either way. Rome is the bomb. Theus Endiucus.
Yeah, I absolutely expect the game to let me do something stupid like that if I choose. I bring 60 followers into a dungeon who are mostly 1HD, some 2-5HD and they catch a Cone of Cold or any other nasty AOE that's meant for my CR15 ass, they are dead quick fast and in a hurry; along with my leadership score. -2 for every follower killed while in my service. What exactly does someone with a -100 leadership score get? That's right, they get abandoned.
He's 18 and the model is different from a traditional university.
Fair enough. I'll make an OTD post later tonight.
Here's the deal on manspreading, 85% of the photos ever shown are BS. They aren't dudes just lettin it hang out with reckless abandon. They are the result of terribly designed seats that are too narrow to begin with.
1) take a chair and saw the legs so that when you sit in it, your knees are 4 or more inches above your waist with your feet flat on the floor.
2) saw the back legs two more inches.
3) sit in the chair and watch what happens to your legs.
Public transportation seating is designed terribly. If you want people to stay in their slots then build taller seats that don't dump you backwards into them.
Holy crap that is the most racist muppet of all time.
Quark Blast wrote:
And business degrees have always been rather dubious in their value (no matter the institution that awarded them) with a notable exception of 1998-2008. And to be honest, calling it a science degree doesn't make me feel any better about it.
Andrew Torgerud wrote:
I made no value arguments of any kind. I saw passive-aggressive behavior toward someone expressing frustration at the situation and challenged it.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Maybe since you don't even have an example of what might have possibly triggered the clause you were so happy to cite, you should instead accept that some people are not happy and back off telling them, "you should have seen it coming. Neener neener" (paraphrase, don't hold me accountable). Nobody saw this comming and it is completely unreasonable tell people that they should have known their builds were in Jeopardy.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
(1) I don't recall any mention of risk in the FAQ.
(2) The FAQ said that IF this ruling caused balance issues it MAY be revisited. A year and a half later no one I could see was reporting balance issues. There were still a bunch of rumblings about "the icky FAQ that tastes bad and I don't like it" going around but I can't get anyone to point be to a single build or instance where this ruling caused a balance problem.
(3) Could you show me where you saw the balance problem with the previous FAQ?
Possibly true if Weslocke didn't have a pretty vocal history right up that alley.
He also didn't identify players but forumites.
This is why thread Necromacy is .... unnatural. BURN IT!
Looks like YOU have some writing to do to realize your attack. Don't expect others to do your dirty work or you may not like what you get.
Freehold DM wrote:
I simply defend pragmatism over delusion. People are expecting to graduate and be handed a tenure job, that's not likely to happen, those have alway been fiercely competitive. People find themselves able to land one course as an adjunct per semester. That is the system working as intended. You are meant to be a professional in your field in combination with that one course, not try to scrap several together to scratch out a wage.
Beating your head against the wall and complaining that that wall doesn't yeild and your head is bleeding doesn't help anyone. You have the highest obtainable education in your field, go work in it.
If you chose poorly you can look in the mirror, but someone mentioned a biology professional earlier and there is simply no reason to not have a job with those credentials.
Edit: on the note about Paizo: some players play the game fairly, but that doesn't make the system perfect. Last I was aware they paid 8cents a word which is still below many other content creation jobs. They also freelance out more work than several full timers could handle because they want to keep the company small.
Freehold DM wrote:
Only because a glut of applicants are trying to fill a role never designed for them. Seriously, the sooner these people come to term with the fact that there are no jobs here the better off they'll be. I can tilt at windmills all day long complaining about how hard it is to make it as a professional golfer but all I can find are jobs selling clubs at golfsmith; that isn't the PGA's fault.
I can complain about how hard it is to break into the RPG industry and how freelancers get paid paltry wages by comparison to other content creators, but that doesn't make it Paizo's fault.
As soon as these people figure out that there isn't a job for them the better off they'll be. Until then it is an elitist entitlement expectation. Blue Collar Woes of the Ivory Tower.
I think that misses the point of adjuncting. Adjunct positions are designed for field professionals to teach a class, not to give people a post-doc alternative to scramble together multiple part time jobs and complain about not being able to make it.
There isn't a job there for you, you need to move on. That will also allow people who want to actually adjunct a slot to do it.
Unfortunately, that is what the undergraduate system is becoming.
Pearson and McGraw Hill are universally adopted and provide digital content that the instructor need only select and assign, then the next time they teach that class they don't even have to do that much work because they can just rollover their blackboard class which integrates seamlessly with pearson's "mastering" series and mc graw hill's "learn" series.
Provided to the students behind a paywall naturally. Instructor PowerPoint slides are created to have parity with the courses textbook including the same charts and images.
Scantron tests are always instructor discretion and grading essays is not what it used to be now that "turnitin" is a thing.
That simply isn't the case as universities which want to retain tier 1,2, or 3 research status will continue to need and hire full time faculty to support their publishing effort. The number of jobs is the same as it always has been, it is just that the applicant pool is saturated.
Blue Collar Woes of the Ivory Tower.
Im torn on the idea of adjuncts and poor pay. Partly, I see it as an entitlement issue and partly I see it as trying to make a part-time job be full-time work.
PhD Adjuncts at my local community college earn $40 per contact hour (page 16) and that includes a mandatory 1 hour of "office hours" per week even if the instructor doesn't have an office and meets with students by arrangement only. So, an instructor teaching a lab class will have 3 contact hours for lecture, 3 for the lab, and 1 office hour. So that's 280 bucks or $1175 a month for teaching a single class. If the instructor were to teach a full load of 12 hours or about $3500 a month. That's with 8 weeks off a year, ultimate flexibility in scheduling, and still only working 20-22 hours a week.
This is particularly notable with automatically graded coursework, use of blackboard to rollover and copy classes. The job is only asking you to present course material in a compelling way and then go home.
If you are having issues making ends meet on a part time gig, then maybe try working full time; also maybe teaching isn't what is best for you and your family and you should look into the practical career of your field of study.
I am probably one of the biggest proponents of DPR on the boards, but I advocate DPR as a method for balancing consideration, not as a method for build exploitation.
I think that people see DPR and don't see the context, just like a bull and a red cape.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I'm sad that we still have to have the conversations about martial/caster issues. I think they they are old too, but I'm not willing to let them go, in the hopes that some day I can play a mundane with story agency granted by the rules and not a benevolent GM.
I think you are confusing "decent school" with "prestigious school."
On a side note, between the courses that I have taken at Tarrant County College, University of North Texas, TCU, and Rice, the adjunct lecturers at TCC that actually work in their fields and teach at the community college at night were BY FAR the most rigorous/demanding AND most informative instructors.
The largest cargo ship afloat today is the CSCL Globe and is powered by a MAN B&W 12S90ME-C, which is most certainly a Diesel engine.
Coal certainly would be the goto to staunch the bleeding caused by the loss of oil, but it just isn't long term viable. (Mostly because on top of the other issues brought up, it is so much more dangerous.) What you would really see is a mad dash to develop the electric technology of the next 200 years.
Just because of the state of technology today it would probably be solar electrolysis of water and then either burning hydrogen gas or using a hydrogen fuel cell.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
No, for cargo ships that spurred on globalization.
:-P Coal pollution is so bad that there are scientific papers documenting its effects as evolutionary pressure in London in the 19th century. (Essentially, being a pitch black bird was beneficial in hiding among the soot that literally caked every surface in the city.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
You think those are large ships, that's cute.
Edit: on a serious note, diesel has almost twice the energy density of coal (45 MJ/Kg ; 24 MJ/Kg) which is actually closer to wood (18MJ/Kg).
Plus steam systems are WAY less efficient. AND coal requires WAY more energy to extract than oil so it is even less efficient from a cost standpoint.
And we finally get down to the end of the issue; peak coal. We simply couldn't produce the amount of coal required to replace oil in the energy market today. Hell, we can barley produce enough oil to to keep up with the demand on oil.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Upon closer reading, the spell says that you must have line of sight on the creature to get the school. Invisibility will certainly prevent you having line of sight. So the most that could be learned is strength (and only if it's the strongest aura) and location, not even school.
So, it's fair to say then that race isn't playing any part in entry to those PrC's?
If race shouldn't play a part in entering Prestige Classes, then what about humans for every PrC that requires feats? Don't they get an unfair leg up over other races?
Can you think of a PrC that you can meet all the requirements for at 6th level except for the sheer number of required feats means you must put it off to 7th? ... unless you're human of course.
No problem. I've got it bookmarked because it's a pet peeve of mine AND it seems to come up frequently.
You can disagree all you want, which is probably why the game designers decided to include:
CORE RULE BOOK/ TAKING 20 wrote:
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Please note that perception checks while searching for traps IS EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY called out as exactly the kind of thing you can take 20 on.