|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Or it says that because it assumes that, like 99.9% of characters, the warpriest is using a weapon in their size catagory.
On top of that Spells don't actually enlarge the weapon, they just make it hit harder as if it were bigger. By that logic an enhancement bonus can't add to the 2d6 because 2d6+2 isn't 2d6.
Quantum Steve wrote:
There is nothing incompatible between the idea that a weapon does x amount of damage and that x can be increased (either via a formula or addition)
A bigger warpriest would have a bigger sword.
A bigger sword would do more damage.
The rules are going to be read in plain english with an eye for intent,sense, and balance because they were written in plain english with an eye for intent, sense, and balance. Hyperliteral reading has a horrible track record.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
It's not the building of characters that is why the term was coined. It's the play style. As I mentioned, it refers to people who few the game as simply a board game instead of telling a story. Which isn't inherently a bad thing, but the entire group has to agree to it. Since combat rules for Pathfinder are extremely detailed and assume you're using a map, the game does lend it's self to this style of play.
And everyone that makes a mechanically functional has had the term applied to them via people in the Church of Stormwind. It's been used far more to mean "you suck" than it has to explain an arbitrary but valid choice of how to play the game.
I think you can tell a lot about someone from their fighting style: a more straightforward barbarian might make reckless brutal cuts right down the enemies body while a fighter might slash the blade about dragging as large of a surface area over the opponent as they can. . but i don't think you're going to get enough out of that to qualify as really role playing.
You don't know what's motivating the character
master marshmellow wrote:
That's pretty constraining
No. It is not. It is (as intended) a very broad definition. This objection makes absolutely no sense, particularly in light of..
and I'm fairly certain that one cannot describe their character's actions without doing at least one or two of those things.
So I had a constraining definition that just happened to include what you were saying role playing is as a part of it... on accident?
We're talking about mammals. You're using the word mammal to mean red wolves.
NPC Dave wrote:
Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.
Trumps a sinking ship.
When trump goes, he's dragging the senate with him.
President + democratic senate= Bernie sanders on the supreme court if she wants.
Then there goes citizens united and the koch's brothers ability to overtly buy elections and KEEP getting those tax breaks.
You're apparently using the phrase "role play" to mean "adding description to combat". Since no one else uses that phrase to have that meaning it confuses people when you use it that way AND you have the wrong meaning when you read people's words that way.
Role play is:
Taking actions that your character would take
The last one is a bit limited at tabletop as you can't really move or gesture TOO much without clocking people next to you on the nose but you can do some.
Let's not. They were answered.
There's no "realistic" answer for what happens when you rip open spacetime to reveal a hole in the ground. You moved space, they got lucky and moved with it. You rode the wave on the warp drive.
In the end it comes down to how extreme a person is in one of these two ideologies.
You. This is the stormwind fallacy.
You are not balancing your role and roll play by being better or worse at one or the other. That's the entire point. They are 2 independant axis' from each other, NOT a spectrum. There is no middle. They are not mutually exclusive terms.
The definition and designation of roll-play vs. role-play is the topic of the thread, and Stormwind is a part of that, but not the focus.
he phrase "if you roleplayed instead of rollplayed" or any similar phrase is offensive, even if you don't mean for it to be, and it should not be used here.
The complaint there pretty much IS the stormwind fallacy.
But that only means that there's no or less role play if you subscribe to the stormwind fallacy: the idea that optimizing your character makes your roleplay worse. That simply isn't the case.
How much role playing there is in a scenario is a combination of the scenario, the group and the DM. I've had a Nagaji Bard talk through 3/4s of what was supposed to be a straight out dungeon crawl because they were basically a giant kobold with obscene bonuses vs talking to reptilians.
BNW- thanks for the input, I'm not a PFS player (morally opposed, but I appreciate what it does for the community)
It really isn't as bad as you'd think looking at all the technical rules and whatnot. Its far more permissive than most DMs in terms of what's allowed, and the dm really does run the game pretty much the same way they'd run everything else.
PFS year 5 was only slightly jokingly referred to as the year of the diplomat for all the talking and recruiting you had to do, the mission and the bonus point very often require that you NOT murderhobo the place
Role playing is, by its nature, not something that there are rules for. Ultimate intrigue opened up a more complex system and thats starting to get a little bit of play in the scenarios.
I'm a 4 star dm which means I've run over 100 pfs games, toz is a 5 star which means he's gone completely insane.
Master marshmellow wrote:
PFS promotes hyper-specialization and optimization because from what I understand, it is mostly based on putting the players in a combat scenario where combat is the main medium of play. Characters who aren't built for this type of game will perform more poorly than those that aren't.
PFS has more skills and social interactions than most games, but lets face it, the rules for diplomacy is one table and combat is 5 pounds worth of dead tree. This is a combat heavy game and its unfair to blame PFS for that.
Hyper competency is not usually required in PFS because the combats are usually pretty easy and you usually have action economy on your side.
Delbert Collins II wrote:
Several people have said that if I had just explained my reasons for denying them support in the first place, this would not have happened. I am curious if that translates into - I got what I deserved?
No, it translates into you should have explained your reasoning
Otherwise people fill in the blanks with what they think of the other person, and as you're demonstrating here it is VERY easy to think the worst of someone that you disagree with.
Because you can't see you as they see you, the rant looks like cyberbullying, trying to coerce people into doing what they want etc. when its a reasonable response to what the OP THOUGHT was happening, and that thought wasn't entirely unreasonable given the (lack of) information that they had.
It was wrong, but wrong and unreasonable aren't the same thing.
I've found them to be very useful on a mesmerist, who has very few spells per day.
A rogue (that i'll probably be turning into the aformentioned intrigue oracle) that didn't have any other spellcasting options found charm person handy a few times
They're great on a fox shape kitsune: no components means you can cast in critter form. Since natural spell is specifically for wildshape, not anything similar, its pretty much the only way to cast spells while passing yourself off as the familiar.
Intrigue oracle with the wrecking mysticism curse
Wrecking Mysticism (Kitsune)
Whenever you would gain a mystery spell, you can gain Magical Tail as a bonus feat instead. Once this choice has been made, it cannot be changed. You cannot replace a bonus spell granted to you by an oracle archetype with Magical Tail, even if it replaces a mystery spell.
And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).
Please tell me someone hit an I phone in those giant hats..
the acting out or performance of a particular role, either consciously (as a technique in psychotherapy or training) or unconsciously, in accordance with the perceived expectations of society with regard to a person's behavior in a particular context.
Players do that every time they speak in character and say something that their player wouldn't say in that same situation.
Rogue Druid: Have a druid with a high int score, take the traits and skills to do the traditionally roguesh things like stealth and disable device. Size bonuses in wildshape make your stealth absurd, earth elementals and animals allow for a great deal of scouting.
Tiny foxform fighter: Mine's a Vexing dodger rogue 4 Mouser swashbuckler 1 Urban barbarian 2 sacred fist Warpriest of Gorum 1: Absurd stealth and acrobatics for mobility, walks into peoples squares and starts sneak attacking with a claw claw bite routine. There are a lot of combat advantages to being tiny. (many drawbacks too) but its very funny when the "useless familiar" with a giant pink bow that reads "this end towards enemy" hops off and is an actual tank thanks to the mouser abilities
Paladin shadowdancer: The shadowdancer fills in some nice skills that the paladin is missing, and a shadow thing with a butload of hitpoints is pretty dangerous on its own, and shadowdancer adds some much needed mobility to whats usually a melee class.
My highschools a literal stones throw from NYMA.
The kids were a mix of military brats who wanted to get into west point, rich parents who's kids needed babysitters, and future violent offenders of america trying to stay out of juvie.
So not that much different than most other schools. The difference being that with the uniforms you never knew which roving pack of students you were dealing with until it was too late.
The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes. :P
The Libertarian party: Lets not intervene for anyone.
The republican party: Lets have government intervention for the rich and say we're not having intervention for anyone.
The Democratic party: Lets have a lot of government intervention for the rich and a little bit for the poor and say we're only intervening for the poor.