|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
-Upload our own assets (tokens, maps, music, etc)
These are some of the more important features i am already used to in a VTT. I'd really like to hear more about plans for such features.
However the big appeal I see so far over what I currently use is Paizo's large community.
Belle Mythix wrote:
I'm a fan of Roll20. Of all the suggestions I've seen about what Roll20 did wrong or doesn't have in this thread, this is the only comment that is actually correct. Everything is run through their servers, which limits the memory available to GMs for art assets, and limits the processing power for scripts (rarely an issue, but it has happened).
Also, at the beginning of this thread, Gary Teter said in 2012 that Game Space would be available in the Summer of 2012. That's a long enough lapse that WoTC's floundered VTT cmoes to mind. Any recent updates?
Roll20 has character sheets, and before that (which is a recent addiction) they had API scripts, some of which allow you to copy and paste a statblock onto a token, click a macro button, and poof you have a fully generated character/NPC/Monster with a long list of matching macros. Even with the character sheets, I still prefer to use the importer. And it doesn't just work for monsters (whose stat blocks you can copy and paste from online), I use PC Gen to make my characters, and it has an option to export as a Pathfinder stat block. Copy and paste that, click the mob-importer button, done.
Link demonstrating mob importer: http://youtu.be/48O8FyPTp64
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Sure, no problem. There are a lot of people here calling themselves and their buddies the "good guys". I take that with a grain of salt as well.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
So you're going to play the victim? Your comment came first about how a player who asked what I asked deserves what comes next. Don't go there if you don't want things to go there ;)
As far as Wurner's comment, sounds like you're saying the lightning bolt spell summons magical lightning, not just magically summons mundane lightning. I agree.
If you want lightning to function like normal lightning THEN take into consideration the laws of physics, but that comes AFTER the question i asked way the hell back in post #91 about whether you think the spell should magically summon mundane lightning or magical lightning. Clearly I've been discussing the former and what that entails, so to respond to that as if I were discussing the latter is a reply that has not been following from the start. I get it, it's a lot to expect to follow, but just a reminder at this point of where you're really leaping into the conversation.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Armour functioning as a Faraday cage is not anticipated in the rules.
I'll repeat it to you once more: if that's the level of realism you want in your campaign as DM, great. There are ways to handle that.
What I've been saying all along is if you want to use arguments based in realism, here's realism for you.
Since you are not the one who was making that original argument, you jumped into the discussion taking it out of context, and have refused to shift your view to said context.
Ok, fine. That explains the dissonance to me on that topic.
On another point you bring up though
I guess I'm closer to an A&&$$!* DM than an appropriate one, then.
It's not being an a!%%#~+ to say your campaign isn't too realistic in that particular way. But to say that in a really a%&$$$% way, and immediately react negatively to players asking questions along those lines is being an a&%~*+~. I was pretty clear about how I said it the first time around. Trying to twist my words to mean something you know they didn't mean isn't going to get you anywhere but frustrated and confused.
It's not just the physics there; people were completely missing the fact that the bumblebee wing twists to position itself to create lift on the backstroke as well, unlike birds who only create lift from the primary stroke.
There's nothing wrong with a player saying that. It's not what his character does or does not know that determines the rules of physics, and if a player knows more than his character knows, there is nothing wrong with him questioning you, out of character.
As I said, it's still up to the DM to determine how close the in game physics really are to reality, but to say you can't question about something a character wouldn't know about is silly and confused.
Appropriate response: "No, physics don't work that way in my game"
A**$&+% DM response: "You deserve what comes next because you think your normal old armor fits the description of a Faraday suit, even though your character was just wearing it as armor, I don't like that you as a player question my implementation and so I'm going to channel my insecurity into vengeful punishment."
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
That's up to the DM how much physics is to be included. But to just throw that out there that Pathfinder, as a general rule, ignores physics is utterly false. Bends, yes, but ignores? nonsense.
What you're discussing is called shots: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots
The wizard who casts shocking grasp has already smacked physics in the face and told it to lie down and shut up. I don't think that having your armor plead with physics is going to work in Pathfinder.
That's fine, but I'll just remind you that this whole string of conversation got started by someone trying to discuss how armor really behaves.
And of course there's also the question of whether your spell is conjuring magical electricity, or just magically conjuring electricity.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
The US army has been conducting fascinating experiments using lasers to guide electric bolts by forming a conductive laser induced plasma channel, much like electricity can be guided by spell casters.
PS mundane electricity hasn't heard of Michael Faraday either, but still follows the principles he observed.
PPS I get that a lot of people don't want the game to be too realistic. I'm just here to remind those who try to bring reality into the conversation, what reality really is.
Have you tried Googling "how to build a Faraday suit"?
And here's a video of a guy wearing chainmail as a Faraday suit: http://youtu.be/QqEesFaboV4 And no, those boots are not insulated, otherwise he'd be dead. The suit must act as a low impedance path to ground.
Gaps in the Faraday suit can lead to some electricity going through the wearer, but unless the gaps are really big, this will be a small portion of the overall shock, so in tabletop terms that means greatly reduced damage, if any.
C. Make certain spells really good against armored targets, like fire attacks to cook that potato in its foil.
And for whoever is thinking electricity, please look up Faraday Suit and realize that most metal armors under the medium and heavy categories function as one.
Table top has rules to mitigate the advantage of high mobility, and we are not currently seeing the attempts to realize that in PFO working too well. For example, in tabletop you cannot generally attack and move away from your target more quickly than they can charge + attack after you. Even if your speed is double theirs, their charge will match your retreat (if it includes an attack in the same round), plus they'll get the opportunity attacks if you attempt to run away and attack in the same round. That is a very different balance than we are seeing in PFO right now.
The article also gives weights, and those weights don't match typical 15th century armor but were in fact double the high end field armor from the 15th century. The weights they quote matches late 17th century armor which was thickened to be more resistant to bullets.
Not just heavier armor, heavier anything. Weapons, armor, pack, anything.
FMS Quietus wrote:
According to that study they were using the heaviest armor they could find: "which is similar to the weight a modern soldier might carry in their backpack", and "they weigh [up to] 50kg"
Traditional full plate armor could weigh as little as 20 kg, but most usually between 20 and 25 kg. Rather than reference a newspaper, let's reference someone who specializes in facts about this stuff: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#weight_b
What they were testing in that study you referenced was late 17th century armor which was greatly thickened to increase resistance against bullets. So it is very much out of context for this discussion.
Moving mass requires energy. Not a problem in a 45-second video, but a considerable challenge in a long engagement. Maybe the solution is a gradual encumbrance escalation, where fresh and rested characters can initially move at full speed in heavy armor, but over time move more slowly as exhaustion sets in (modified and dependent on environmental conditions, STR, CON and buffs, of course).
How about this:-carried weight increases the rate at which fatigue is accumulated. That goes for armor, weapon, backpack, etc.
-fatigue is what slows down a combatant.
-fatigue increases more quickly for running with a lot of weight, and only somewhat more quickly for wearing armor (yes, they're swinging around more weight, but the actual weight of a weapon and armor that is being swung to make basic attacks is not very much, and the armor at the base of the arms and on the core are not moving very much, most of the force is still in just swinging the weapon)
-fatigue mitigated by higher str and con.
But the real question is "how much?" Definitely, without question less than wearing a backpack with the same amount of weight. If heavy backpacks don't slow you down, there's less justification for armor to do so.
For short sprints in combat, the difference should be minuscule. It should only be a larger difference in longer distances, and even then it will be less of a problem than a backpack weighing the same because of distribution.
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.
A big misconception about armor. Armor that is properly worn should do extremely little to limit speed or flexibility. It's a myth that ranks up there with the idea of the superiority of the katana - ideas that persist in fantasy culture despite all evidence to the contrary.
A half-assed crafted full suit of plate armor does not restrict movement of joints at all, weighs less than half of what modern marines carry into combat today, and that weight is distributed evenly over the body and close to the body, which makes the weight even more manageable.
Here is one of many examples out there that are easy to find that demonstrates how unrestrictive armor is: http://youtu.be/Pz7naZ08Jd4
Think of it this way:Think of it this way: not playing is not a playstyle, and customers aren't going to pay to not play.
If you think it's okay to pay to play a style that only works at the expense of someone else (who then gets to pay to NOT play his own style), with no danger for yourself, maybe it's your priorities that need adjusting?
If you were saying that to someone suggesting no consequences, you might have a point. But the person you're talking to is merely disagreeing with your particular suggested consequences. As he pointed out, your suggestion can not possibly accomplish what you want it to.
Here's point A.
Here's point B.
The directions you're giving don't lead from one point A to B, you only think they do because you continue to miss the point that not playing at all is not a playstyle, and you can't make money off it.
I know, I read that part. You're essentially connecting making someone's character respawn (which is what death is) to making someone not be able to play at all. And despite what's been said to you, you're still not grasping what a huge problem that is for a company whose success depends on getting people to play more, not less?
Fair enough. I've offered my critique. You're not getting it. I'm ok with that. Good day, sir.
First of all, this is meant to be some kind of punishment to serve as a deterrent from extensive, ad-hoc crime (to make up for the fact that there is no other serious deterrent). It should primarily be a time out (similar to the time-out necessary for rebuilding that the victim requires). You should go to prison immediatly after you are "caught" and stay there for the necessary time. No coloseum, no waiting till the time is right. You're caught and you serve time. Otherwise, it turns into some perversion of the concept of punishment and becomes more of a reward.
So essentially "we want you to play this game as much as possible" and "when we don't like how you play, we'll make you play less and even give you strong negative associations with playing our game at all"?
Again, if somebody could actually make those two concepts mix without the end result looking like a sad joke, then they will have pulled off a miracle.
Design a game, one that you want people to spend as much time playing as you can get them to, and then introduce a mechanic where players can stop other players from playing the game for extended periods of time.
That's the challenge. Do it and make it not suck. If you can pull it off, (and you won't and nobody else will) then come back and talk about it.
You just took all the fun and pride out of soloing. Even in tabletop, if the GM is adjusting the CR for a small groups/soloers, that is the GM basically admitting you're weak little kittens.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Welcome back, Blaeringr. One difficulty: when have you ever known something small and reasonable to keep lawyers quiet?
Back? I got a PM recently from someone saying I'd be sorely missed. It made me chuckle.
When have I ever known something small and reasonable to keep lawyers quiet? Every one of the billion times someone has made an elf-like character in an MMO and named him Drizzt.
This topic is as engaging as the time in grade 4 I heard one kid tell another he was going to sue him for drawing stickmen the same way he did. The first had come up with a silly little variation in the way he drew them, and when his friend copied his style he began ranting about copyright infringement.
Please, do tell me more.
Lee Hammock wrote:
If I "join a guild" will that be visible to others on the forums? Some people, and my group's not the only one, have arrangements to support other guilds and said arrangements are only known to the officers/leadership. Can I do this in the landrush without making it public knowledge?
That's interesting, but overshadowed by that fact that there are so many examples of soldiers who were equipped with both polearms AND swords, and primarily used the polearm with the sword as a backup.
One example that really drives home the point is the very large two hander (aka zweihander or bidenhander) that was used to combat pike formations: as soon as the knight was able to form a gap in the pike formation (by swinging the swords great mass around in figure eights) he would generally then switch his grip moving one hand above the guard onto the blunted section of the blade and then proceed to hold and thrust with it like a polearm to attack into the formation. This one example is a very rare case of favoring a sword vs polearm, and only worked for two reasons: 1) the polearms it was targeting were much longer than the average polearm and thus the wielders had poor leverage (although I suppose the momentum really helped too, but didn't work as well against multiple shorter polearms because the momentum was still not enough for that many targets with good leverage), and 2) its attacks were mostly made using it as if it were a polearm.
And yes, good swords were expensive. At the height of the middle ages, a knight was generally expected to pay the price of 10 slaves for one good longsword (not quite the same as "longsword" in Pathfinder)
Historically spears were a far more popular weapon than swords. In most cases the sword was a "side arm" - meaning the back up weapon, not the primary. There are very few historical examples of soldiers using swords as their primary weapon.
Contrary to how PF rules portray spears and reach, there was no "inside" a spearman's reach. A spear's reach can be shortened very quickly and very easily, to shorter than even a sword's reach, so it's far more likely to see a spearman slipping inside the reach of a swordsman. Combine that with how the wider grip used to hold a spear gives it far greater leverage, and it's easy to understand why the spear was almost always preferred to the sword.
If anyone is curious about this, try looking a spear vs sword "HEMA" duel (HEMA = Historical European Martial Arts).
Shield and spear was a lot more effective in formation combat. One on one, holding a spear one handed gives up a lot of leverage making it easy to swat aside, and slow to recover. Holding it two handed does the opposite though, gives you more leverage and able to bring it back more quickly than a sword - so definitely the way to go in a 1v1 fight.
Holding the spear under the armpit helps regain that lost leverage caused by holding it one handed, but it's still more sluggish to aim even if you could still thrust fairly quickly. But you don't really have to aim well when poking at a formation.
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.