|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The Inquisitor Wis-to-Initiative thing is the most damning proof I think anyone could provide. Are you seriously going to claim that this ability does absolutely nothing? That Paizo's developers didn't look at the class they were building/had built and said "let's give them an ability that doesn't do anything!"
You mean like giving inquisitors a spell that relies on having the Aura class feature?
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5. Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells shows the modifier for each score. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren't die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.
Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow
A Constitution bonus increases a character's hit points,
There is also no difference between "ability modifier" and ability bonus" if the number is positive.
Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Your misconception (the stormwind fallacy) is half the reason for posting the definition.
Speaking of which: Stormwind fallacy: the idea that optimization and role playing are opposite ends of the spectrum, and you get better at one by moving away from the other.
Michael Brock wrote:
That's still only half of it. Even a well done character still isn't one of my characters.
Grabbed a make your own sixpack of hard ciders the other day
Hornsbys Hard amber: you're supposed to take your socks off before you squash the apples. Tasted like someone had set them on fire.
Woodchuck hard cider with the orange label: Pretty good. I think this is supposed to be the "Dry" tasting one.
Strong bow: pretty good
Strongbow Apple and Honey: mmm.. sweet. Tastes sweet, feels like you're drinking water with just a little bite. I think i could down this by the gallon.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Why doesn't everyone who has a positive wisdom bonus get a wisdom bonus to AC? Is it because the monk special ability gives them that ability? Why yes it does. Hmm then it is a fair conclusion that the source of their wisdom bonus to AC comes from a power or else silly old fighters would be running around with a wisdom bonus to AC. We couldn't have that now could we.
This does not follow. At all.
Simon Legrande wrote:
The argument is "That guy has an obligation to write more books because he's only halfway through a story". This of course makes no sense if you insist that owe only means a legal obligation, but its very arguable if you use the definition that I bolded. Insisting that people are arguing the first definition when they not only clearly mean the bolded one, but have repeatedly told you they mean the bolded one is pointless.
Simon Legrande wrote:
verb: owe; 3rd person present: owes; past tense: owed; past participle: owed; gerund or present participle: owing
have an obligation to pay or repay (something, especially money) in return for something received.
Greyhawking the bodies/captives= performing a search so thorough it cannot legally be described with minors at the table and then taking everything of value.
Optimization: making your character better mechanically
Power Gaming: making your character the absolute best it can be within the rules
Munchkining: attempting to make your character more powerful by taking advantage of corner cases ,unclear, and poorly worded rules.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Pathfinders need Cha-based skills, particularly diplomacy, in *every* scenario, whether it's to get info at the beginning using gather information, or by talking to NPCs later, or to achieve the whole mission. There is no other ability score that you are guaranteed to use every game, since there are now (a few) scenarios that don't require combat at all, but there are none that don't require talking to NPCs and gathering information.
Charisma is very easy to evade or make up for with intelligence traits and skill ranks. Diplomacy is also rolled at a 10 to 1 ratio over all other social skills combined. (Handle animal is usually "i have +9 the critter knows this trick I succeed on a 1)
Simon Legrande wrote:
But it is possible for the text to deviate so far from whats expected to constitute actual fraud which would require a legally mandated refund. There should be a point where the text deviates far enough from whats expected that the reader can say justifiably say"... What the hell? You suck!". Voting with your dollar is one way of expressing your opinion, but so are reviews and parody videos.
Simone Legrande wrote:
An author is not responsible for your expectations, a story is provided as is for the reader to like or not like. You are well within your rights to never buy a book again from an author who wrote a crappy story or never finished what he/she started. Just because you find an author unreliable doesn't mean everyone else did. And just because you found something unsatisfactory, doesn't mean everyone else did.
Is there no limit here? What if you plop down 30 bucks for a hardcover copy of The winds of winter, go home open it up and its the words ha ha ha ha repeated for 600 pages?
They stated 4.5 per level, but then a few weird things started happening.
1) People noticed that they needed to do faction missions and made characters that were better at doing them.
2) Dms were a little more reluctant to fail people
3) People cooperated. The background story for a shadow war over absolom fel to the fact that the guy you split a pizza with sitting right next to you, that healed up your wounds, needed a disable device check to take the scarab out of the statues forhead and couldn't make the skill without you. You didn't just get your resources to complete the faction missions you got the entire parties.
Senzar is an ancient language i think, so i don't think you can start with it as a bonus language off of your intelligence.
Magical knack only works if you multiclass. it doesn't do anything to a single class arcane caster.
You have more points in strength than you do in con. I know you said you weren't looking for optimization, but in PFS you don't always have a meat shield and that could be very, very bad.
As for the last part of your thing, what about when someone slips a girl a roofie, or as in my article I posted, what about when she gets pulled over by a cop? Why are we telling women how to avoid being raped by a cop? We should be making sure cops do not rape!
You should be doing BOTH. One does not preclude the other.
Have you tried logging on with a male handle ? There's no shortage of suggestion for those for the males either. A comedian on the subject Not safe for work (surprise)
I think people throwing insults would still go for the easiest and most obvious thing they could use.
re kafka trapping. Not nearly as cool as I thought it would be
Healing is mostly done with wands of CLW in between combats. Blowing spell slots on it just doesn't work. Keep 1 or two up your sleve for emergencies, but its pretty rare that another spell wouldn't prevent more damage than you'd heal.
Like all spellcasters, druids start off with very limited options but get a lot better once they level up a bit and have some spare spells to throw around.
Summoned critters after level 1, and spells like flaming sphere , aqueous orb and call lightning give you something to do every round. If you have the animal archive you can give the pet the trip trick and have him draw an AoO and trip things. If he's wearing masterwork studded leather his ac and hard shell should be enough to let him do this.
Its expensive, but a wand of channel the gift can expand your number of spells per day immensely: generally a better buy than pearls of power after level 1.
The problem is you're trying to put up an argument known as "false equivalence".
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence.
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal-wiki
How on earth is accusation, which you make without directly addressing anything I said, make ANY sense whatso ever when I have repeatedly said that comparisons between the genders are apples to oranges and impossible.
You are accusing me of setting up a false equivalence when i have repeatedly and expressly denied that no sort of equivalence is possible.
That is the position of false equivalence And that doesn't apply. For all the progress that has been made, Men still hold the balance of real power, measured in terms of political, but most importantly, economic.
Which does nothing to counter my argument that women are pushed towards the middle, not down, while men sink or swim at the extremes.
If the game doesn't depend on the protagonist as a person it doesn't. If the game depends on the protagonist as a character you're either asking for 2 story lines or to leave gender and relations completely out of the story line, which is harder to do than you'd think.
How does it threaten you to include us in the fun?
The problem doesn't crop up when you want to be included in the fun as it currently exists. The problem comes up when you expect that the normal course of action is for the group to both know exactly where the limits of your fun are and to accommodate your personal preferences. That is not generally how guys interact with each other.
It gets even weirder when you're not even allowed to be caught making those accommodations. -Oh just treat me like one of the guys or then you're sexist...-
Why does gaming with a girl seem SO threatening to boys?
There's a girl here, now we have to behave and watch what we say.
If you're defining rescuing the princess and scantily clad females as sexist then yes.
This is how it comes across.
At best its -your games are bad and you should feel bad for liking them-
On a bad day it sounds like -I'm a woman so I can tell you the proper way to behave and what you should like-
No one is going to put up with someone trash talking their beloved hobby like that. Its not a privlidge to have a largely male demographic acting like a bunch of guys. Its not a privlidge to be able to be yourself and like what you like.
Just because we're playing a fantasy game doesn't mean we have to buy into the myth of what some people demand that we should be.
Its more than anyone's done to show that black men are better off than black women, other than claim that men have privlidge so they're better off and that shows privlidge.
The wage gap for black men and black women that are earning wages isn't so high that even that standard (which favors men) isn't so high that men who aren't earning wages at all won't even them out. Its also incredibly hard to argue that a minor increase in earned wage is going to counter higher unemployment rates, much less make up for that whopping 1/3 chance of going to prison.
One in every three african american males can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.
Black men being shot by police for being scary black men
Black women are starting to earn more money than black men (They call it a recession. I say its the new normal)
The dayjob is vastly, VASTLY , overrated as a mechanical option, and PP is horribly underestimated.
And the US hasn't had a draft in 40 years, so that hardly applies to today's conditions. Do you really want to argue that women were even close to equal back in the '70s? Or earlier.
If you're going to argue that cultural factors are oppressive to women for unfairly keeping them out of the top spots then its equally valid that cultural factors unfairly keep men in high risk mediocre reward job- even before you get to a draft.
I think its a moderate to mild biological base being exacerbated by culture.
And I don't think you can even say that because its an apples and oranges comparison. How do you rate double the likelyhood for being a millionaire vs double the likelihood of being homeless?
It's feminists who've been pushing to let women into the military and into combat roles in particular
The social trend is going to outlast the legal mandate. Probably until wars are fought with t 1000s.
Male Privlidge implies that its a 1 way street: that everything is better if you're male. This is simply not the case. Men are 4 times more likely to die violently, 9 times more likely to be in prison, less likely to get social services in the same circumstances, and less likely to be awarded custody of their children. If a man can get welfare or a job where the loss of life and limb is a real possibility then he'd better hope he's not too attached to his limbs. A man hitting a woman is an atrocity but a woman hitting a man is just funny. Women don't get drafted to fight in armies. Men are more respected but people are nicer and more helpful to women. Women are allowed to be offended and set the bar for social interaction in group settings.
Yes, women are discouraged from top leadership positions but its not as simple as women being pushed down. Women are pushed towards the middle while men are pushed towards the extremes. Jack goes homeless, Jill gets welfare is just as real as the glass ceiling.
The different ways that life sucks for both genders are simply incomparable. There is no way to compare X times more likely to be victim of assault with Y times more likely to be blown to smithereens on a battlefield. About the absolute worst interpretation you can come out of with such a complex interaction is "males are privileged". Its at least half false and makes it seem like you're using a sociobabble buzzword in place of an argument.
Could you be more specific?
Games deal with male oriented subjects better than they deal with women oriented subjects. That's going to attract a disproportionately male audience which due to the social nature of the game will result in a disproportionately male subculture. Reduced social pressures against women gamers can leave it a little less skewed but nowhere near close enough to 50 50 prevent a self reinforcing feed back loop resulting in a male audience which is going to be enticed by sexists things like rescuing the princess and pixilated daisy duke shorts.
You mean specifically to video games, I assume? I was talking about the larger picture, since privilege seems to provoke the same kinds of responses in other contexts.
Then when discussing the other issues you need to be specific, because in the larger picture "privlidge" is a giant timey whimey ball of confusing and contradictory ideas that implies a lot of things that simply aren't true. If you're shown espousing something that isn't true then it undermines all of your other arguments.
The larger idea is gender roles. Act in them and you're good, get outside them and society can do anything from a doubletake to a lynch mob. Nothing smaller is really going to cover it.
I'm not that worried. I'm pretty sure that blowing someone's pixilated head off with a rocket launcher is always going to result in some very unlady like language whether or not there are ladies around to hear it or say it.
So, moving aside from the question of whether the word "privilege" is somehow inherently insulting, is there a way to talk about this concept that won't have the same effect? Or worse effects.
Not in this case.
As soon as you admit that men and women are different, have different tastes*, and react differently to different things and there's nothing wrong with that and that subcultures set their own mores and values, then you lose any basis for a complaint.
*as a group.