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?
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Hopefully, lots of other people will give their opinion on this. I, unfortunately, haven't had any chance to actually use Words of Power in an actual game.
An expansion of the existing system, with perhaps some tweaks where needed, is what I was thinking of. If you feel it needs more than that, that would be fine, too.
Some examples of words that I think are missing:
Here's a big project: I'd like someone to take on the Words of Power system and modify it into something that feels more robust and complete. I don't think it's necessary for the system to simulate every Pathfinder spell, or even all the core spells, but I think it needs some re-tuning.
Do you take this line to mean that witches (for example) actually are proficient with light armor, since they aren't monks, sorcerers, or wizards?
In-game, the fighter is presumably part of a group. It's not unreasonable to believe -- or know -- that someone else can handle the wizard. If the fighter can't slash him to death, maybe the wizard can fireball him to death (or charm him onto our side!).
If the fighter isn't part of a group, he probably should run away. Although, the personality of the character may say differently.
It requires what I would call "syntax knowledge". Things need to be typed into the text files in the right way to get things to work correctly. The trickier abilities can be a little like programming, but there are people to help you with that kind of thing.
Kitsune Knight wrote:
You don't like "your plan fails cause you rolled a 4", but you're OK with your character dies cause you rolled a 4? I guess I'm the other way around.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
In an ideal world with a great GM, a tactically aware and well trained player group can reduce healing needs to a fraction of what they are in situations where the party has to "lead with their chin." Those games, in my experience, have been rare.
Is this (the "great GM" part) true, or is it too general? Or maybe that world isn't as ideal for everyone. To me, this sounds more like the GM is letting the players cakewalk through the game. I'm not sure that's "a great GM" for me. If the players (and characters) are tactical masters, wouldn't it make sense for a reasonable number of the foes to be similarly masterful, to make the challenge more balanced?
Of course, if one prefers a less challenging game (I know I do from time to time), then that method sounds great.
Louis Agresta wrote:
Maybe you should write an article on how parties should divide up their loot. :-)