Distant Scholar's page

Blog wrote:

WAR! What is it Good For?

...absolutely nothing!

“War, Nobby. Huh! What is it good for?” he said.

“Dunno, Sarge. Freeing slaves, maybe?”

“Abso—well, okay.”

“Defending yourself against a totalitarian aggressor?”

“All right, I’ll grant you that, but—”

“Saving civilization from a horde of—”

“It doesn’t do any good in the long run is what I’m saying, Nobby, if you’d listen for five seconds together,” said Fred Colon sharply.

“Yeah, but in the long run, what does, Sarge?”

The way people carry on about it, I thought there was some other issue besides lack of support.

Am I wrong?

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.

I'm glad you explained that, because I was totally thinking, "Why would apes make iron, and why is it good for staves?"

Yes. Yes. And, yes.

I wish it weren't undead-specific, though. [How can spell words be undead? Are they for undead? Are they for making undead? Are the words themselves undead?]

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.

I think I would like this one better if the words weren't encroaching on Our Heroine's face so much. Not sure what you can do about that, though.

Godzilla was based on a Manga Monster.

[citation needed]

Because wizards aren't powerful enough and need help?

Ultimate Campaign is supposed to have retraining rules in it which may help with this; see if you can convince your GM to use them when they're out.

Maybe you could have one of those organized nations send the PCs (and colonists) off to explore a New World.

Carefully.

With some trepidation, I respond:

Chastity is all about being faithful, not about abstaining from intercourse.

I agree.

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.

It and distance distortion flew away on a chariot of Sustarre.

What, no shocker allosaurs?

And I'd love to see some megafauna that's not dire critters (like say glyptodons (which is my favorite megafauna. I even have a stuffed one)).

Glyptodons are dire armadillos.

I often consider Knowledge (Local) to be more like the Streetwise skill found in other games.

Well,

• The First World is Western Europe, the USA, and their allies. Today, it's often synonymous with developed countries.
  
• The Second World is Soviet Russia, Communist China, and their allies. Today, it's mostly defunct and not referred to often.
  
• The Third World is non-aligned coutries. Today, it's often synonymous with developing countries.
  
• The Fourth World is the realm of the New Gods.
  

That is what you meant, right?

(Now I want to start a Pathfinder "First World Problems" thread ...)

Is the magus using two different weapons? Because you have to use two distinct weapons to use Two Weapon Fighting.

Well, in monk threads you do, anyway.

Distant Scholar wrote:

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.

A lot of folks seem to like this idea, and I think the system is a cool concept. So, let me ask you, exactly where do you feel the current system falls down? What does it need to handle, that it currently can't, that would increase its robustness?

Also, are you only interested in an expansion of the existing system, or would a top-down reworking of the same basic idea appeal to you, if it covered your concerns and needs better?

I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this, btw. :)

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:
* Words that can create items (temporary or permanent)
* Words that can modify items (improve weapons, lower hardness, etc.)
* Words that add a condition to the target.
* Words that remove a condition from a target.
* Short-range teleport words.

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.

PRD, various proficiency feats wrote:

Special: All characters except monks, sorcerers, and wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

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.

Distant Scholar wrote:

Unfortunately, no volunteer has decided to code up Bestiary 3 (I did nearly all of Bestiary 2, and am reluctant to do that again). Ultimate Equipment will likely be similar to Bestiary 3, in that is a large chunk of data that will take a long time to build and test.

Does it require a lot of computer knowledge to do? I'd volunteer as long as it doesn't require loads of programming skills or such.

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.

Am I the only one who read the title to this and immediately thought of this -->

Spirit Fingers!

Maybe not that exact picture, but I was wondering if the supplement also included a Jazz Hands arcana.

Honestly, I loved playing Sword and Sorcery and Osric (no one owns the earlier editions just the clones). Personally, I have always hated the skill system. Just felt like it was an obtuse way for the DM to shout, "NO!". At least with old-school games when the DM says no it is just no, not some sarcastic, "OH! Of course you can do that just beat a DC that you'll never pass in a million years even on a roll of 20,". Or, have a perfectly good idea that even the DM agrees with and roll a Diplomacy check to convince everyone else? NOPE, your plan fails cause you rolled a 4. Happens to me more often then not. I'll take a skill-less system like Osric any day over that (given the choice that is).

Rant Over

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.

Maybe you should have him submit his idea for his race in prose (and not game stats), and then you pick the stats for the race. It would likely end up more balanced, and it would probably feel more like a race and less like a pile of abilities.

Selgard wrote:

Sometimes you need /the rule/ not "well just decide for yourself what it means.".

You really don't need /the rule/ at all.

You really don't need any rules at all. I don't know how many people play Pathfinder that way, though.

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.

Nah. That's not hard. Every attorney and bank has an escrow account. All proceeds to be paid into escrow. Record of transactions viewable to all parties to the escrow agreement, so everyone knows how much was paid in. Appoint an independent third party like the bank (in the escrow agreement) or said lawyer to make quarterly distributions to all the parties.

How much to distribute to who can be equal shares or by word count and should be defined in the escrow agreement to a bank or attorney's satisfaction.

Or skip the bank/attorney (and their fees). Set up an independent account to which all parties have read only access and select one of the groups number to be the trusted source who has to play the same distributive role.

Handle the details in a group contract.

Something like that.

Maybe you should write an article on how parties should divide up their loot. :-)

I'm hoping that, when Distant Worlds comes out next week, there'll be a bump in pledges. Or maybe even a surge.

He's a halfling; he's supposed to be jolly... Why isn't he jolly? WHY ISN'T HE JOLLY???

How about: The PC picks up a scar when the player thinks it would be fun to have a scar. Or is there some game rule involving scars that I'm unfamiliar with?

Troglodytes aren't stinky any more.