|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yes. It would make them feel less irrelevant. If you don't see why, take a look at this video.
(Okay, this was mostly an excuse to post a link to the video. I'm kind of surprised no one's brought it up earlier.)
I think I'll join in on the fun this year.
I'll be gifting six (6) copies of the Psionics Unleashed PDF. First come, first served, assuming I can figure out this "wish list" thing.
Note that I have an ulterior motive: I want more people to try out Dreamscarred Press psionics. So, no exchanges for Psionics Expanded, Psionics Augmented, or other products. :-)
Or you could go with 18d1. That would have a really tiny standard deviation.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Distant, don't confuse not being balanced perfectly with not being random.
In the context of dice, "random" generally implies "uniform random".
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
"Random number generators" are not random AT ALL. They are generated through an algorithm that will generate exactly the same number from the same seed every single time.
I know. However, if they're well-made and used properly, especially in the context of dice, they act randomly enough to be indistinguishable. And technically, rolling dice isn't random, because physics isn't random. Unless there's quantum involved.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And if you get decent dice, they should be pretty balanced.
Unfortunately, it's difficult, if not impossible, to tell if dice are "decent" by looking at them. GameScience dice are probably the most random, but otherwise all you can do is hope for the best.
Yeah, there are a few online random number generators that do things like sample background radiation to create a seed, which would seem to be pretty random, but you never really know. Those are random enough for me, but I still like the feel of rolling dice.
I'm not trying to talk you out of using dice. If you're satisfied, great! I'd prefer to roll dice, but I don't trust the randomness of my d20s, or any die that tumbles too easily. But random.org constantly tests their numbers for randomness, so I have great confidence in them.
Do I need bona fides?:
This is based on my study while getting both my Masters and Ph.D. degrees in mathematics, including two course sequences in probability and writing a paper on random number generators for a computational number theory course - which included coding said random number generators.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I used to be a programmer, so I know how "random" dice rollers work. Hint, they aren't "random." So I don't use them as a matter of principle.
Dice aren't all that random, either. Most well-made random number generators are at least as random as dice. If you want true randomness, go to random.org.
I have two sets of dice I used to like: one sort of opalescent dark gray, the other sort of opalescent red. I call them my lava dice. Then, I tallied up the results of their d20 rolls after using them a lot: between 2/3 and 3/4 of the rolls were either 1-5 or 16-20. Essentially every d20 roll was a 50-50 chance, with extra crits and auto-misses.
But some souls -- heroes' souls -- can sometimes displace the souls in fully-grown individuals, and retain their skills and memories.
Sorry if this is too harsh, but this sounds horrific to me. What happens to the displaced soul? At best, I'd guess it's the same thing as if they died. If so, the heroes are essentially killing someone else and taking their place. Even if it's not on purpose, and out of the heroes' control entirely ... I wouldn't like it.
If peace, forgiveness, and mercy are part of your character, you aren't coming back as a revenant or poltergeist. But if you're a spiteful bastard? Say hello to new natural weapons and supernatural abilities.
My take on it: When someone "comes back" as an undead, it's not the original person coming back, but a foul corruption of their body fueled by a mockery of a soul.
The evil person doesn't get magic goodies for being evil.
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop. So it effected the hobby.
I'm not sure that MMORPGs were the video game they were using as a model ....
FIGHTER is evolving!
Congratulations! Your FIGHTER
evolved into SWORDMASTER!
SWORDMASTER wants to learn
STORM OF BLOWS but SWORDMASTER
already knows 4 moves!
Should a move be forgotten to make
space for STORM OF BLOWS?
1, 2 and ... Poof!
SWORDMASTER forgot STEEL SERPENT STRIKE and...
SWORDMASTER learned STORM OF BLOWS!
What about it being a "bundle" makes it a more enticing deal to you than simply putting the AP books, maps, cards, etc. in your cart and purchasing them piecemeal?
Because one has to go to (it seems) five or six different places in the store to track down all those things.
I like ryric's idea, too.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I could easily see a cavalier build with no mount and no charge, who focused on siege warfare, or being a falconer, or a hound master, or a squad leader. I think the biggest limitation to the cavalier is that it is so tied up in being a mounted combatant, which makes it difficult for archetypes to remove that element without rewriting the class. But the core concept of a knight who is more strongly tied to the nobility, chivalry, and a code of conduct than fighters, without being a paladin, is much stronger than mounted combat in my opinion.
This sounds more like you're doing a Knight class which subsumes Cavalier, rather than expanding the Cavalier. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The meaning of the term "feat tax" seems to have changed since I first heard it. To me, a "feat tax" is a feat you have to take to stay competitive with the opponents, and not an onerous prerequisite for the feat you actually want.
Back when I was paying attention to 4e D&D, someone had pointed out that, using expected gear and ability boosts, 4e character got worse against level-equivalent monsters. For example, if your 1st-level character had a 60% chance of hitting a typical 1st-level monster, then your 30th-level character would have a 40% change of hitting a typical 30th-level monster. [The exact numbers are likely not accurate.]
4e's Player's Handbook 2 introduced feats characters could take to boost attack bonuses and saves (and maybe AC; I forget) to counteract this issue. Having to take these feats in order to stay even with the monsters was called a "feat tax".
Terry Pratchett (Thud!) wrote:
Jim Groves wrote:
I think another issue is that, if you try to make a copy of a published spell, it often ends up either weaker or at a higher level (or both).
This by itself doesn't upset me, as long as Words of Power have some other things that they do better than regular spells. I don't have enough play experience to know what those things might be, though.
That's already two votes for tagging - Guess I got some mind-numbing work ahead of me. ;)
I don't know how your web page is set up, but is there any way to have others (publishers, or just visitors to the site) do the tagging for you? You may have to edit incorrect tags, but I imagine that wouldn't be as much work as putting them all in yourself.
With some trepidation, I respond:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Chastity is all about being faithful, not about abstaining from intercourse.
However, since the generally accepted borderline between being faithful or unfaithful is the sexual act (it's much easier to define whether or not penetration has taken place than it is to define whether or not your feelings of affection for any person to whom you are not married have gone too far), then the moment you have sex with someone who is not your spouse is also seen to be the same moment that you became 'unfaithful'. This is why the meanings of chastity and celebacy have conflated over time.
This is probably true.
A similar thing happened with the word, 'virgin'. Originally 'virgin' meant 'unmarried female human'. It had nothing to do with whether or not a person had had intercourse, nor was the term applicable to males.
This is also probably true.
But when society views that a woman is somehow spoiled or damaged after having sex, and when a woman is only allowed to have sex within marriage, then it was expected that an unmarried woman had never had sex.
Why is that first phrase there, except to stir up trouble? The rest of the sentence fits quite well without it.
Men could do what they wanted.
I disagree. If you said "Men did whatever they wanted," that would probably be correct.
Thus, the meaning of 'virgin' gradually became synonomous with 'never had sex', and gradually became applied to men too, and gradually lost its original meaning of 'unmarried female'.
This sounds correct.
In the bible, Mary was a virgin. She was described as such because she was not married to Joseph (or anyone), not because she hadn't had sex!
This is not correct. The word "virgin" comes from Latin. The New Testament was written in Greek; it doesn't use the word "virgin". As I understand it, the Greek more specifically talks about Mary not having sex.
Over time, the meaning of 'virgin' shifted, and the 'virginity' of Mary evolved into a miracle of being with child without ever having sex(!), and since St. Augustine hated sex so much he called sex a 'sin', this evolved as Jesus being born 'without sin' meaning he was born 'without his mum having sex', which has indirectly led to millenia of persecution of women.
How is this helpful to the discussion? The discussion of chastity compared with celibacy isn't really affected by this paragraph. Again, this part seems to be here only to be inflammatory.
Why do you want to pick a fight?
[...]i miss the days of the old box sets with alot of goodies in there[...]
Alot of Goodies? Man, I wish I knew Alot of Goodies. I imagine it wearing a Santa hat and sort of a miniature Santa suit. It's times like this that I wish I could draw.
More seriously: I'm not interested in all the stuff listed at the $100 level. The $15 pledge level, giving the Emerald Spire PDF, may be more my speed. I'll have to think on it.
She doesn't have any kind of a familiar - witches on the Disc don't seem to, though some of them pick up what could be animal companions, especially Nanny Ogg's Greebo.
Nanny Ogg, with her family, clearly has the Leadership feat. Greebo is her cohort, not an animal companion or familiar.
That is what you meant, right?
(Now I want to start a Pathfinder "First World Problems" thread ...)
Does the current most popular touch spell / Magus rule interpretation seem thematically broken to anyone else?