|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What about the people who participated in 9/11? Can we say that all of those people were just angry at America for various foreign policy decisions and if we never interfered with the Middle East they would have no reason to ever attack us? Where does this line of thought end? If we take foreign intervention off the table now, where does it lead?
Why don't we take this to PMs or another thread though? If you think it's worth discussing further, that is. I just get angry with conflating Iraq and Afghanistan, because they are not the same. Our invasion in Iraq was unjustified, at least for the reasons given. There are a lot of dictators who harm their own people, if we go after one, why not all the others? Including those who only came to power because the United States. If you want to lambast the US for our actions taken in the past, we helped the Taliban come to power in the first place!
Maybe we should just discuss Obama's proposed action, whether we should invest in the future, instead of ruminating on the past. Because I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. I'd like to take advantage of it myself.
A lot of people who could have attacked America are dead. That may have not been the best outcome, but it is something.
So were the Taliban really good guys? Were we wrong about them giving shelter to Al-Qaeda? Am I missing something here? Why does the War in Afghanistan always get lumped in with the War in Iraq?
Because the natural reversal of all those would make it better...like your own big black probe droid fitted with ripper claws (to keep jawas off your property), or daisy getting around dressed as a tuskan raider (hence the long rifle strapped to her bike), and a forestry project near tattoine's polar region where all the moiture farmers were selling their water harvest (it had to be going somewhere), And a speeder bike that looks like a land speeder being ridden on its side (all the kids are doing it these days-its the bomb).
They're not selling their water, they're using it to keep themselves alive and grow crops.
I am wondering if I could find several people to participate in a playtest of Occult Adventures. It will be 1st level, standard point buy and I would prefer that characters be limited to Core material along with the playtest materials, including spells and the like mentioned in the document. It will likely be set in Golarion, more specifically Varisia, but that's mostly just to give it an easily recognizable context.
It's strange to me that Paizo is so known for their adventure paths and yet their rules system is not really suited for it- since it's based on D&D. D&D (and therefore Pathfinder) is at it's core basically still a wargame. I like that, but it kind of gets in the way of trying to tell a story about a group of heroes on and epic quest, since there is always the possibly of the story coming to a screeching halt because of a TPK or other problems like- say a failed Survival roll to track the baddies to there lair. Yet Pathfinder still has been and might still be the most popular rpg in the world when there are many games who theoretically do what it's trying to do better.
I, as a player, usually feel cheated when, due to bad luck or an encounter that's just too hard, the character I've put months of effort into, dies. That's when I as a player feel cheated. I have never felt cheated because the DM fudged a roll to let my PC live and continue playing the game. But I get attached to my PC's, maybe other people don't.
I can't get attached to a PC that can't ever die. If my character was going to get to the same point no matter how the game went than what's the point of playing that all out? That's how I feel.
I generally don't change aspects of my adventure design on the fly unless there is a really compelling reason to do so. I'm certainly not going to do it to make sure characters do not die, for instance.
I generally don't fudge unless not doing so would punish a player for nothing but bad luck. If the PCs happen to run across the hardest monster on the dungeon level after a long and arduous expedition, for instance, I might fudge things so that they aren't instantly obliterated and have a chance to escape (but not to let them win). I might substitute a weaker random encounter if I feel that it would be disruptive to the game to have the stronger encounter at that time. Otherwise the dice fall where they may.
I don't really get this. Tracking xp is how you determine when you have accomplished enough to level up. I give it at little at a time because the players have earned that particular amount of xp by accomplishing whatever challenge they overcame to earn that xp in the first place. Only when they have built up enough xp to attain the next level is when they have accomplished enough to attain that level up.
To each his own. I'd much rather have the Plot or story determine levels since we've been caught in two different situations due to the XP system. Either we've leveled too fast and are going through the encounters like a breeze, or we're almost dying because we didn't level fast enough. Going by "plot" or "story" can ensure that the PCs are the right level to make the play challenging but not too challenging.
That's not true, in my games at least, because if you're playing in a player driven game, the PCs decide which challenges to undertake in the first place. If what they are facing is too hard or to easy for that matter it's their own fault. Unless they happen to encounter a monster that is an outlier for the area, but getting into whether the PCs should always face "appropriate" challenges is a whole other can of worms.
I don't think this is the case, at least not in my experience. All the elves I've read about either really are that old, or are, in fact, acknowledged as immature.
I like that ratfolk aren't chaotic evil.
I'm sorry but that isn't a good thing.
Ross Byers wrote:
Okay. That's absurd, but okay.
Ross Byers wrote:
So Ares, Aphrodite, Athena and Poseidon, just for instance, would be demigods in the Pathfinder rules?
Really the idea of gods being untouchable is not as universal as people seem to think. There are instances in mythology where the gods have been bested by mortals. Many mythological deities are certainly not able to just overpower mortals with no effort. How do you determine if a deity can defeat a particular mortal without stats? And don't say "story" because that really only applies in certain kinds of games.
Generic Villain wrote:
it's possible that they're not only in different solar systems, but different planes as well...in which case you'd need magic even beyond the spells currently available, magic that's so far only present in artifacts like Baba Yaga's Dancing Hut, or known by Baba Yaga herself.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
"Clear lower levels"? You don't clear levels in a true megadungeon. My interest is quickly evaporating...
It should be when magic is not involved in any way shape or form.
Issac Daneil wrote:
Well actually... plate armor probably should protect against firearms of the same time period. It wasn't until later that rifles made it obsolete. So full-plate arguably should have DR that applies against firearms. Or at least the ability to apply some of it's armor bonus against firearm attacks. Though perhaps the fact that firearms only penetrate within a certain range is already enough to account for this property of plate armor.
I can't agree with that. Getting stabbed hurts, regardless of how many hitpoints you lose. I don't know anyone that enjoys getting stabbed, and neither does my character.
Remember hp loss does not always indicate a solid hit, it can sometimes be a glancing blow or near miss. But getting stabbed definitely does hurt.
"Adamant" as a type of mineral is a concept that long, long predates Wolverine.