|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The Moonberry Goddess Travelling Perfroming Arts Company will bring joy and refinement right to the doorstep of the goblins of the River Kingdoms. Just because you're short and ugly with bad teeth, doesn't mean you don't want to be left out in the cold. Goblins, we understand your frustration, and our humble little group will do what it can to bring that touch of class to your otherwise dull and pointless lives.
The apostrophe as used for glottal stops is essentially a foreign letter. If there is really a case to be made for the glottal stop, then there is even more of case to be made for all the many diacritics and foreign letters.
I'd like to hear a case made why the obscure glottal stop deserves special treatment over the many many other symbols that also have a clear meaning in their own contexts. If you actually have a case for glottal stops, then make a long list of all the other characters deserving the same treatment.
Are we going to insist on Russian names being allowed in Cyrillic text? Of course not. Just like for glottal stops, there are conventions for transliterating the weird sounds from many other languages. Gatachta may not result in a perfect pronunciation most of the time, but that's an authentic experience living in a foreign culture that doesn't share your precise verbal palette.
"Gefällt mir" vs "mir gefällt" is just a small shift in emphasis. The first is on the verb, the second (how I phrased it) emphasizes myself in the sentence.
Sie is capitalized only when at the beginning of a sentence or when referring to the formal you. The rest of the pronouns are not by default capitalized.
"können sich mit..." that works too. Slightly different meaning. The way I said it emphasizes their creativity in coming up with compound words, the way you rephrased it emphasizes their knack for using them.
Wörtern...yes. Wörter and Wörte... I easily forget when which is appropriate.
PFO community loves itself sum epeen contests. That combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect sum up this thread nicely.
A majority scoring on self tests below average for narcissism and then posting the results, and the results creeping lower and lower with each post: this is narcissism in in action, patting itself on the back for its own modesty.
What’s more, it also found a relationship between all Dark Tetrad traits (except for narcissism) and the overall time that an individual spent, per day, commenting on the Internet.
Seems it's not just explicit trolling to watch out for.
And people proudly posting results of a binary, easy to manipulate test? Congratulations.
A bit immersion breaking to think that with thousands of people running around, each will have a rep meter over their head to tell you what to expect of them.
Two different intended effects. The intent of this thread is not being achieved.
Different people will want different kinds of fun, and people of differing points of view on this don't need each other's uptight approval before they go seeking it. It will happen, and drama like this will only inflate and feed into itself.
It's like you guys just discovered the internet yesterday. All this thread has accomplished is to reinforce the disgust of one group of people, a disgust and opinion that was already there, and to another group of people it has planted ideas and plans. Rant and plead about the intended purpose of this thread, the actual purpose is what it is whether you like it or not.
Just waiting for this thread to die. PFO will never be anything like that video. It was disturbing, and its just a game doesn't cut it. If you can't see that try putting yourself in the shoes of those people being told "take your pants off and you can live" for about a second. That's all I got.
I get that something like that can possibly be traumatic for someone who's lived through something like that, but if it's traumatic for anyone else then they need professional help. So when you tell me to put myself in those shoes for "just s second"...I spent a lot longer than a second thinking about it, and all I could muster up in personal response was "meh".
If people were genuinely worried about triggering traumatic memories in others, posting a video like this and making it the number one topic of discussion on these forums for the past few days is not the way to accomplish that - you're kind of working backwards there, m'kay?
People are going to try to play the game and get involved in the dev made stories as well as the player made stories. Some of these people will get bored from time to time and attempt to come up with ways of having juvenile fun. They won't be looking for or expecting approval from people with a different idea of fun, and now matter how the game is designed, it won't stop people from occasionally finding some way to do something stupid. For that reason, this whole thread really just amounts to this week's PFO forum drama. Nothing more.
Your own definition that you first cited provided the very example you ask for:
Those are prices meant to deter, but not outright prohibit purchase.
Like I already told you, you undermined your own argument from the beginning.
Prohibitive costs are quite common. Take taxes on tobacco and alcohol: they're both prohibitive but still allow actual purchase. But their purpose is still achieved - to reduce overall consumption.
And that is the case with what the devs have described here: the expressed aim is to reduce the overall number of characters with the discussed capabilities, not to outright eliminate it.
So I've cited two reputable and "professional" dictionaries for you, not to mention the points you missed in your very own citations, and rather than I scour the internet for you, I'm sure you can recall having heard yourself many times the phrase "the prohibitive cost of having children". And yet surprise of surprises, it's not actually impossible to have children.
Don't apologize to me for arguing semantics, I love semantic details. If you want to apologize, then do so for mucking it up.
"Never a viable option" =/= "sometimes not an option". Same distinction with "no matter what". He says they shouldn't always get killed running away, which does not equate to never get killed, only that it might be possible to run away. How great that possibility will be is not explicit or implicit in his statement, and we can't just assume like that.
No, it's not.
Neither definitions here equate to impossible. The first one uses the words "serving or tending" which implies a situation that is not universally so, or that it does have exceptions. The second gives and example, "prohibitive prices" which is again not an impossibility but discouragement.
A quick search of other sources for definitions of "prohibitive" and "prohibitively" turns up the same thing: definitions that do not equate to impossibility, only somewhat approaching impossibility with exceptions clearly implied.
Zombie Ninja wrote:
I might be wrong, but it looks like the chain mail is attracting the electricity, and his rubber boots are grounding him.
Faraday suits need to have metal going head to toe. While there may be a lot of rubber on the boots, there must be significant metal in them else you'd see the electricity arcing around them to get to the ground. If not, let me ask: where do you think the current is flowing to?
The metal does no attracting. Electricity works on a quantum level to determine the path of least resistance, and chooses what would be the best path before actually going down it. That's what makes evasion vs lightning bolts make no sense: wherever you dodge, the electricity is already there with you.
Another misunderstanding posted earlier in this thread is that a Faraday suit insulates. This is a half truth. A Faraday suit causes electricity to create an electro magnetic field that creates insulation. Without the electricity flowing through the suit, there is no actual insulation though.
A typical Faraday suit will have metal pieces resting right against skin, and as the electricity flows along the surface of the metal, it is actually flowing right next to the wearer's skin. But electricity conducts along surfaces, and creates fields as it does so to guide it along the best path, and in a Faraday suit, or a suit of armor, that best path is definitely not your skin or nerves.
The armor as DR system I envision takes away armor bonus to defense (formerly known as AC) but will add weapon bonuses to defense. So players should not actually get hit more often by attacks that do extra stuff on hit, like ability/level drain attacks. Not to mention I've also written in this very thread about armor mitigating magical/spell effects, not jsut straight weapon damage.
And like Orich points out, it's a slow witted DM who doesn't modify the encounters to fit the new system.
A defensive bonus that completely vanishes as soon as someone closes in.
Just look at the results: the majority of players favor swords of one form or another over spears. Historically the sword was a backup weapon for just about every unit in history, not the primary weapon. The spear was FAR more common a primary weapon because it worked well to hold back enemies, and not just for the first "round" of engagement.
Here's a little more information on the topic from a guy who teaches Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA): Historical fencing (HEMA) Swords vs. Spears - thoughts and experience
A system that reflects reality a little better will lead to players more often making characters that favors weapons that worked well in reality.
Now I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea; some people like a lot more fantasy in their fantasy. I personally find reasonable authenticity and a slightly higher level of complexity to be more satisfying.
What I want incorporated into my homebrew system are mechanics that treat different weapons and spells appropriately, not a blanket level for all armor that responds identically to all kinds of attacks. As I fine tune it more, I want the system to acknowledge the different strengths and weakness of specific designs of armor too.
The more I learn about how armor and weapons actually worked, the more I view the current system in this kind of light: video about historical adviser for big Hollywood film.
Essentially the current system manages to entertain well enough, but those who want a little more authenticity can quickly see how superficial the design is.
I haven't put together specifics yet on this thought, but what you said reminds me of an idea that crits vs armor should not just depend on the weapon used and crit feats, but also the type of armor. Some armor has more weak points than others. For example, it's a lot easier to make chain mail that is uniform all over (except for the eyes, but magic could solve that), because it's flexible, but platemail simply must have gaps, overlaps and openings to work.
I'll need to take a look at 2nd ed DnD. Thanks for the idea.
The tuck, aka estoc: yes, exactly. That is a longsword modified precisely with armor in mind. The mace and morningstar were all about fighting armored opponents, but at the cost of reach. The flail also, but at the cost of defense.
As far as parrying not being a thing until fencing, I have read and seen enough historical information to know that is completely false. There are many clubs that teach historical european martial arts (HEMA) using lessons based off of teachings of historical masters, and they demonstrate parrying and defense with all manner of weapons, not just swords and shields. Spears, for example, were phenomenally good defensively. Having seen spear vs sword demonstrations, I'm thinking it would make sense that weapon length be tied to active defense bonus (ie. not count when flat footed or flanked).
Even with the insulation from flames, it would make sense to add a crit system for spells where they happen to hit or go through a weak spot.
Tesla cages (should have said Faraday) do insulate in a weird physicky way, but my understanding about armor is that it is the path of least resistance for a current. Normally when a person is electrocuted, most of the current goes through their nervous system because that is the path of least resistance. For example heart attack often occurs because of the disruption to the normal pattern of currents travelling through the nerves to the heart and damage to those nerves, not because of electrical damage to the rest of the heart. But in a full suit of armor, the armor itself offers even less resistance, so the current chooses that path to the ground, leaving the occupant relatively unharmed.
I'm not familiar with the Stormbringer system. Got any good links?
It's already talked about in ultimate combat p. 191 to 192 as a variant rule. Now if you really insist on making it from scratch, good luck.
It is indeed talked about in ultimate combat. That would be exactly and precisely what I was talking about when I said "I've looked at the variant rules: armor as damage reduction, but I feel that still somewhat misses the mark in some aspects, and completely misses it in others."
There were rules for increasing or decreasing the effectiveness of specific armours against types of damage in editions before 3rd. Few people used them. It slows down combat even more when with each attack you need to stop and ask "Is that B, P, S, or a combo?".
Thank you, I'll look into that. I appreciate your concern, but I think I wont be in too terribly much over my head with keeping track of B, P, and S, as it already comes into play with some monsters and existing types of damage reduction.
Replies inserted in bold.
I'm somewhat puzzled by the replies I've received so far. Despite stating my familiarity with the existing armor as DR variant rules in the OP, it's been repeatedly suggested I check out that system first. I'm being told what I'm trying to do is complicated. I'm being told it will slow down combat.
That last concern: it will slow down combat, seems like a legitimate concern, so I'll address that. If I work the defense and DR values into the character sheets, I believe that will resolve most of this concern. I have a fairly good grasp of which weapons do piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage, so I honestly can't see that adding any time to combat. But as I get more complicated than that with how types of spells will be affected and calculating differences between enchantments on weapons vs armor, it may indeed slow things down.
Ultimately, I'm not saying it's a perfect idea though. I'm saying I like the extra authenticity, and I want to see if it's worth it to add the extra bit to my game sessions. And what's the worst that will happen? I'll either decide it's too much trouble, or I, and my players, may end up really liking it. It doesn't hurt to try, and I had posted here in hopes of getting any insights into bettering the ideas I've presented.
But if your intention is to just post here to tell me "why bother?", then I ask you the same thing. If you don't want a system like this in your game, then relax, I'm not changing your game.
But if any of you have some helpful advice, I am curious.
I've been researching historical weapons and armor recently, and the more I learn the more I feel the rules systems for most RPGs just don't grasp the concept.
I've looked at the variant rules: armor as damage reduction, but I feel that still somewhat misses the mark in some aspects, and completely misses it in others.
I'm determined to write up my own variant rules, and would like to toss out my rough ideas so far to see if I can gain more insights through this community.
Here's a link to the google document where I'm drafting this up: Revision: Armor as DR
And here's what I've written up so far:
1) Different armors and shields were more or less effective against different types of weapons. Just as an example, any metal armor tended to be extremely effective against any kind of slashing attack.
4) Armor should provide protection against many non-weapon based attacks:
5) Just as there should be measures to bypass armor DR, there should also be counter measures (which can get expensive and require you to anticipate specific dangers):
And GMs should come up with creative new ways to bypass DR.
6) There are weak spots in armor. But weak spot does not mean no armor. A critical hit should treat damage as being dealt against armor of a lesser category (heavy becomes medium, medium becomes light, and light armor ignored on a crit), and a confirmed vorpal hit (or double vorpal?) should ignore armor DR altogether.
7) While many damage based spells should be less effective against armored opponents, not all should, and spell selection should become more of a priority.
Some of the Questions to Work Out
1) Magic weapon vs magic armor: how much DR is ignored per difference in weapon enhancement number above armor enhancement number?
Pax Charlie George wrote:
That in essence is the rub. I could agree with your perspective on good, but I am lost as to how mechanics can measure that with any degree of accuracy.
That is a critical distinction. Goblinworks already thinks they can develop meaningful game mechanics that will determine good vs evil. It's not really up to us as players to agree or disagree with what they say good and evil is in Golarion, but to help them troubleshoot when their system misses the mark.
This thread is based on the assumption that there will be a good/evil system in place. If that's the essence of your questions, then back it all the way up and address it to every post in here so far. Or better yet, start a thread discussing what you see to be the major obstacles to designing game mechanics around alignment.
Sensible suggestions, Bluddwolf.
From the trespasser flag, a system can be designed that responds to how settlements respond to that flag. Settlements who respond by driving out trespassers might experience a shift towards law. And depending on how harshly they deal with trespassers, and whether they discriminate on alignment of trespassers, could easily lead to a system that shifts them towards good or evil based off those responses.
The mercenary flag I think would make most sense if it were applied to entire companies, rather than just individuals.
Merchant...I'm curious to hear how you think that flag would interact with other characters in PvP situations.
Are you asking me?
I have proposed no new flags. I have proposed only two alternatives to dealing with criminal flags, and I personally lean towards the latter of the two alternatives: fines.
Should I propose a new flag though, it would be one for settlement specific crimes. Settlement leaders would have the ability to declare specific individuals criminal within their borders. If a fines system were also implemented, then said "settlement" criminal could only be fined within that settlement's borders, only for smaller amounts, and fines could only be taken from pools accessible from within the grieving settlement. That would mean NPC banks, so that would create a market for PC run banks, or of course you could just keep all your money on alt characters.
But that's only if I did propose any new flags. So purely hypothetical.
Alright, that's progress.
I'm of the opinion that "individual" viewpoints on morality are like "individual" viewpoints on health: just because over one million Americans believe that the only actual cause of cancer is suppressed negative emotions, and just because there are many other very popular and very crackpot theories out there, it doesn't in the least tempt us to believe there isn't a very correct and true answer (whether we yet know said answer or even how to get to it, just that it is there), and that these crackpots are just noise.
But that's reality, and we're discussing video game mechanics.
And we agree that the devs will have a morality system, and that it will be applied to individuals, and that it won't apply differently based off of the individual interpretations each may have of morality.
Killing characters free of justifying tags will be evil, and there will be tags that will justify killing, and I would argue that such situations should not be considered evil by default, and I don't think it will be a challenge to code a game thus.
So I'm saying it should be based off of tags triggered by specific behaviors, and you reply that the devs aren't taking people's individual concepts of morality into consideration, and I don't understand why that's the emphasis of your reply, or even how it matters.
just that I have not observed them taking individual viewpoints on morality into consideration.
and in response:
A good/evil alignment system is, by definition, a morality system.
Since the developers ARE going to implement an alignment system, and since they HAVE given examples of what will be good and evil, then you have indeed seen them taking morality into consideration.
You can leave the conversation if you wish; what I said was for clarification for all.
I also think we're making plenty progress with the conversation. Maybe time will help to see it that way.
Pax Charlie George wrote:
It doesn't have to be subjective. A career criminal will have plenty of flags related to good/evil, law/chaos, reputation, and criminal actions vs settlements and individuals to make it extremely straight forward to ascertain whether a kill is good, evil, or neutral (as in wars or self defense).
If the programmers can't sort out something that simple, then there's no reason to believe they're even going to attempt an alignment system at all.
If that truly is your belief, then that is a completely separate discussion. This thread is built on the assumption, including the original post, that alignment and morality will matter to players and game designers, and that there will be ways to flag it. If they're all wrong about it, as you claim, that's a big discussion. Likely one for it's own thread.
I strongly disagree with one of the foundational assertions off of which this is based: "killing is an evil act".
Disclaimer: I intend to play an evil character who will do my fair share of evil killing.
Evil is acting contrary to compassion. Is it more evil to kill one murderer or to allow the murderer to walk free and kill many others? To truly act on compassion, you must choose to take some kind of action against murderers that will result in less killing overall.
This thread proposes that not only do law enforcers do less to stop the killing, but that law enforcement now give criminals a heads up that they're coming for them. So it penalizes stealth and surprise among bounty hunters.
The only argument for bounty hunters or other forms of law enforcement not needing to kill a criminal should be imprisonment or fines.
Imprisonment: character locked away for several days. Not popular from a developer point of view: you want players playing more, not less.
Fines: Lawgiver takes what's on the corpse - that's nothing new - but the system also siphons extra cash out of the fallen criminal's secret stores, be they in hideouts or in lawful banks.
Pax Keovar wrote:
The Greek etymology you quote is not wrong, but it's not correct to apply it that way to Golarion. It means without gods be it through ignorance or choice to disbelieve. In Golarion that may be remotely possible, but dystheism or eutheism are far more likely.
And etymology, while fascinating, is no replacement for current definition.
And for the record:
I suggest, rather than perpetuating Paizo's lexical tomfoolery, that we use words like dystheism (belief that god is not good or worth worshiping) or eutheism (hatred of god) to more precisely fit the ideas being suggested.
Not that there is any reason to suggest any of it negates alignment. Alignment in these situations remains, as it always has been, a propensity to follow or ignore law, traditions, codes, etc. (law vs chaos) on one axis, and to follow or ignore a sense of compassion about the well being of others (good vs evil) on the other axis.
Pax Keovar wrote:
If the term is defined that much differently in golarion, and you're not simply confusing agnostic with atheist, then I'd suggest the publisher need to review whatever source material defines it in that way. And it won't help to move a rational discussion forward to keep misusing the term, if it is in fact misused in the source material in that way.
Then again, look what we're discussing - so forget rational discussion, I guess.
*Edit* I've looked at your link. Simply looks like the writer misusing the word. "Agnostic" wouldn't even apply there, nevermind the more critical "atheist". That is clearly a misnomer, and will will not help a rational discussion to perpetuate such semantic abuse.
Pax Keovar wrote:
Agnosticism is the absence of belief in a god, atheism differentiates from agnosticism in believing in the absence of a god. Although sometimes agnosticism and atheism are lumped together, and only in such a broad generalizing way can it be said that atheism is just the absence of belief (ie when you really mean to say agnosticism).
In the Pathfinder setting though, it's really not even worth discussing for any character with an intelligence score above 2.
If you're talking layers in that sense (ie. different blends of steel layered together) then I repeat that the higher quality European swords were also layered. Each layer was smelted independently, and then heated/hammered together.
So my reply was addressing the term "layer" in the only sense that mattered in comparing European vs Japanese steel. Forgive me for not realizing that you actually meant a sense in which there is no actual difference to compare.
The clay coating method used by Japanese sword makers that created the different "layers", as Decius uses the term, was done after the folding as part of the tempering process. Again, the only benefit to folding is to work out impurities that might create weak/brittle spots in the final product.
The only thing that "high purity steel" could be is iron.
Steel is by definition an alloy. "high purity" means nothing other than iron and carbon.
Though there may still be mysteries surrounding the exact construction of swords from those times, samples of steel and finished swords from the time do exist and the great myth of folded steel does not, when scrutinized, hold up to the best European steels.
Layers don't "propagate [force] through the layers" very effectively when those layers are heated up and hammered together. Yes, there is a visible grain that appears in the finished product, but one could hardly call it layers as each "layer" is melted/hammered into the adjacent layer.
The only layers in Japanese swords that mattered were the layers of different steel alloys (different mixtures of iron and carbon) which was achieved in Japan by coating different parts of the blade with different kinds of clay to get different degrees of stiffness/flexibility. But of course the Europeans also layered their steel, but not just with different iron carbon ratios - some of their layers had other elements mixed in as well (eg tungsten and vanadium).
There's just a lot of hype out there about Japanese swords.
HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Folding steel was a necessary method for the Japanese because they had a much smaller supply of iron ore than Europe, and the ore was often a lot more impure. Folding the steel gets the impurities out, but folding high purity steel is pointless and provides no benefit.
European metal smiths made stronger swords than the Japanese by focusing on mixing in the right amounts of carbon in low oxygen furnaces, which gave them few imperfections, like Japanese steel, but also a more precise alloy than the Japanese could manage.
The katana specifically was actually designed as a less lethal sidearm for the samurai of the Edo period when the military was trying to tone down the arms of the obsolete samurai. The larger No-dachi were much more important in their time.
The idea of the katana remains very fantasized in the minds of many people, but all the science boils down to is that the Japanese just did what they did because of the limited resources in their region.
Ironically Japan uses a huge amount of steel today and it's a crux of their economy, but it's pretty much all imported.
"Balance" as an all encompassing philosophy is garbage.
Designing classes so that different classes excel under different circumstances is much smarter game design. In a way though, it still amounts to balance.
But a barbarian who doesn't know when or how a barbarian can be better than a wizard and allows the wizard to set the situation against the barbarian deserves to lose. A fighter who treats every enemy the same, or wants every enemy to be "equal" in all ways is going to ruin the game for everyone else.
Some classes should have the upper hand in group combat, others in single combat. Some should have the upper hand when they manage to pull of a surprise ambush, others should excel in facing the enemy directly. If the game design doesn't reflect that, you should take it as a direct personal insult: the game designers suggesting you want something that simplistic.