|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This is why alignment should follow character and not vice versa.
So for instance, my Druid that was searching for his estranged father without being immoral nor particularly heroic was True Neutral.
My human conjurer who had a mild obsession with the plane of Leng was a bit creepy, but not at all malicious.
The exposure to Positive energy could kill you too.
If you are wise, you'll take the second monkey. It's the only one that does not directly put you at risk. The key is simply learning to let go of your hatred, or at least understanding that if you have $50 million, it really doesn't matter if someone else has $100 million.
Failing that, you could always wish for things that would be nice to have but not in excess.
Really, you don't need all that. Some things to remember to keep gunslingers in check:
1) Touch AC only works within the gun's range increment (unless you're dealing with advanced firearms, which I assume you are not) So a Pistol might target touch AC - but only within 20ft. Flying enemies have suddenly become the Gunslinger's bane.
2) Bullets are expensive. A lot like encumbrance, this is something that is fudged a lot for simplicity's sake that serves as a really good equalizer.
3)Disarm, disarm, disarm. Don't do it all the time - if your player wants to be a gunslinger, then when that gun is in their hand they should be the ultimate badass. But nothing says they have to be every encounter. If you want to challenge them, take that gun away and make them rely on their wits for a little while. Unlike other classes that will have an armory that they're semi-effective with, once the Gunslinger wades into melee she's a lot less impressive.
4) It's cheap, but Dominate/Sleep/Hold works just as well on Gunslingers as any other low-Will class. You don't have to prepare spells that seem specifically catered to shutting out Gunslingers.
No, I didn't realize. Guess I just assumed all Style feats had to take the -BLANK - Style > Second Tier Ability > Third Tier Ability progression. But that is awesome. Guess I won't need a monk dip after all. And I can free up some feats. Huzzah!
Yeah, a MoMS dip would let you ignore the prereqs. But I'm pretty sure that if you don't have those prereqs and you try to use Pummeling Bully, you're going to provoke AoOs from everyone threatening you.
That's fine by me. Really, Pummeling Bully is just a stepping stone to get to Pummeling Charge. I thought that's how it read but I wanted to be sure before I dipped MoMS.
Brawler 2/MoMS1/BrawlerX should do, I suppose. Losing 1 BAB isn't too bad to get the feat and I do get to bump my will save.
Yeah, there's a ton of these, aren't there? But I couldn't find this one, so here it is - and I suppose this is a more general syntax question in relation to feats, anyway, though I couldn't think of how to word it for a search.
In the Pummeling Bully feat it lists the prerequisites as this:
Improved Reposition, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, Pummeling Style; base attack bonus +9, brawler level 5th, or monk level 5th.
So if I'm reading that correctly, for a straight Brawler to take Pummeling Bully after grabbing Pummeling Style, s/he will also need to take Improved Trip and Improved Reposition? Just need to know to see if it would be worth taking the MoMs dip to avoid it.
Lord Snow kind if picked up the baton in discussing my original point, so I won't bother rehashing what will ultimately be the same arguments. But I would like to add that in addition to the fact that Ten's obsession with Rose was not just about her looks, series 3 also laid judgment on it. His obsession was wrong, and while he didn't come to love Martha, his learning to appreciate her for who she was was a huge part of his character development. 11/12's insulting of Claire is always played for laughs.
But what's interesting to me is how strongly everybody seems to react to Rose. I think I'm the only person who is a fan of the series that says, "Yeah, Rose, she wasn't bad." (Donna/Martha after she was the 'official' companion > Martha > Jack > Rose > Craig -if you count him- > Rory > Claire > Amy > all of the other one episode companions > no companion > series cancellation > River Song) It's like you have to either think she's the One True Companion and all others are merely imitators, or that she is the worst thing to happen to television since The Star Wars Christmas Special.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Actively working to subvert its effects when possible. Seeing a more fair representation of other people in places of power. Unraveling many of the racist assumptions that plague our criminal justice system. Recognizing and eliminating racial barriers to entry into higher education and economic strata. Creating more diverse media portrayals.
To put it succinctly, an all around leveling of the playing field that begins to undo many of the ills caused by our history.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Unfortunate use of the word irony aside, that's still incredibly ignorant.
Nobody says only whites can be racist.
OK, most people don't say that. A very select few do. Just like a few people will say all heterosexual sex is rape. But their numbers are so negligible that they could hardly be counted at all and are more often used as a strawman to conflate valid arguments with ridiculous ones.
It's not that people of any race cannot be racist. It's just that institutionally whites have power in America. That's such a plain fact to say it isn't a level of denial I can't even begin to debate with. And the problem is not that people are racist - which sucks, but will never be solved - but that this particular racism is widespread and institutionalized.
Taken individually, it doesn't matter if Abdul next door to me thinks all white people are shifty-eyed devils, or if Jim Bob down the street thinks all blacks are intellectually inferior criminals.
What matters is that our entire culture had been built upon the backs of an oppressed people, and in many ways continues to do so while also disenfranchising those who are identified by other socially outlying features. That is what needs to be fixed, and ignoring it is a tacit endorsement of a system that is still heavily weighted against minorities. Deflecting onto those individuals whose attitudes you find distasteful gives you an all-too-convenient excuse not to worry about how those people are treated.
GM Xabulba wrote:
Amy was not useless, she has legs you can look at to forget...hmmmm...Amy's legs.
This right here sums up a huge problem with Moffat's run.
Rose: Provides a human connection and through sheer determination alone - without advanced strength, wits, or technology - rescues the Doctor and all of the human race from a Dalek invasion.
Martha: A brilliant medical student, eventually doctor, who while not possessed of Time Lord intelligence, is easily the most clever of the companions. On many occasions it is her cleverness - The Family of Blood episodes, Last of the Time Lords - that ultimately saves the day.
Donna: Provides a moral center that keeps the Doctor form straying too far. She convinces him that even fixed points in time provide opportunities to do something right, and the lack of her influence is felt severely in the "Waters of Mars" episode.
Amy: Has nice legs. The actress, Karen Gillam, was essentially hired on that feature alone. Moffat was going to pass because thought she was "wee and dumpy". It wasn't her acting ability, or her personality that changed his mind - he just had to see she was actually tall and fit.
Claire: Fairs marginally better, but is constantly subjected to unflattering physical comparisons to Amy and quips about her looks. Also the whole "born to save the Doctor" nonsense. He found a way to keep stuffing the same character in the fridge over and over and over and over . . .
Really, I know there's a lot of complaints about it, but I feel like the sexism wouldn't even be that bad (still bad, but sadly not any worse than most of the industry) if not for the nonsensical storytelling, the recycling of recent plots, and the lack of interest in coherency or motivation. Matt Smith's characterization and now Peter Capaldi's is infuriatingly nonchalant about sacrificing others to save himself. I get that he can be dark, he can resort to killing if he has to, but the peaceful resolution isn't even a blip on his radar any more. The end of this most recent episode - which has earned an inordinate amount of praise, imho - goes right back to that.
For me, there's one saving throw that could be made, and a few people have suggested it. This is all speculation (I don't think Moffat is actually clever or moral enough to make it happen, but I've read a couple of fairly convincing arguments), but right now about the only way to redeem this incarnation is if he actually does turn out to be The Valeyard.
OK, so I've been reading up on this Gamer Gate thing, and I'm a tad confused still. I'm not a huge gamer (Tabletop > Video Games, forever and always), but it seems like this is inescapable at the moment (My YouTube is currently inundated with pro- and anti-Quinn videos.) So tell me if this is sort of correct:
-Zoe Quinn made a video game called Depression Quest and released it on Steam.
-Quinn claimed to be harassed in the lead-up to releasing the game by members of a board called Wizardchan. They say they didn't.
-Quinn's ex-boyfriend makes a blog about her which mentions numerous infidelities with members of the gaming press - the one everybody seems focused on is this guy from Kotaku, whose name escapes me.
-Quinn files a DMCA violation against a YouTube user named TotalBiscuit, which raises the ire of 4chan.
-4chan users are accused of doxxing Quinn and release nude photos, personal information, etc. They maintain that Quinn did this herself to garner sympathy.
One side says that the whole thing is not about Quinn's behavior at all but an expression of hostility toward female gamers and developers. I'm a bit confused by what the argument is on the other side of the coin, though - is it that she deserves no sympathy because she faked the attacks, or that she deserves no sympathy because she brought it on herself?
Josh M. wrote:
I feel like without the Order abilities the Cavalier wouldn't really be worth playing though. I guess you could rename the orders or call it something else, but I see no reason to gimp it by flat taking out one of its major class features.
Sorry, I meant Greater Spell Focus.
But really, I still say Human > Kitsune. At some point the save DC's don't need to be higher. Really front-loading the save DC's are where it's at. I'd rather get an extra spell known every level than +1/4th DC to a save they probably won't make anyway.
Everybody knocks Fey, but "Laughing Touch" is actually a pretty amazing bloodline power and there are some very worthwhile bonus feats. But why I really say Fey over Serpentine or Impossible is because A) animals are still susceptible to the biggest enchantment spells and B) enchanting something isn't always the best solution.
Sure, if you mean by "ultimate enchanter", he should be able to enchant his way through every situation every time, then you have a case. But if by ultimate enchanter you mean best enchantment specialist, then he should be great when enchantment fits and have other options when it doesn't.
I am actually a big fan of human over kitsune for enchanters. I know this goes against conventional wisdom, but really at a point there's no reason to increase spell DC's any further. With my last human enchanter, by level 8 most enemies had to roll at least a 15 to beat my higher DCs and the combat-oriented ones could only save on a natural 20. I also prefer Socerer over Wizard because the Charisma boost is thematically appropriate.
As a human at 1st level you take Spell Focus (Enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment). The bonus feat gives you the same +1 that you get as a Kitsune.
So with a 20 CHA you could have DC 20 Sleep and Hypnostism spells (10+5+1+1+1+2) at Level 1. And compulsions become even better in the higher levels once you get Hold Person, Dominate Person, Hold Monster, Dominate Monster, Unnatural Lust, Suggestion.
Put your human FCB into extra spells known for utility. If you really want to enchant mindless or undead pick up some metamagic rods, but I had a lot more success switching up my tactics as the situation called for it. (Undead have good will saves anyway.) Make conjuration your secondary focus and transmutation your tertiary.
And remember that Heroism and Rage are also Enchantment spells, so you can make your summons or lackeys absolute beasts.
I actually like the occasional theme game with restricted classes. Other systems may be "better" but come on - role playing games are not the easiest thing in the world to learn. Deadlands might do Weird West better but my friends know Pathfinder. Easier to make Pathfinder fit a concept, no matter how imperfect, than have 6 guys stumbling through a game and pausing every 5 minutes to check the rules.
That's a good call. Could work for both Alchemist or Investigator.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Another option would be to use Clarke’s third law. It states that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Just reskin the spells to a more scientific explanation. Wizards could create small devices that create the effect instead of casting spell. For the most part the device or at least most of the components are expended when the device is activated. Divine magic will be tougher, but could be done by calling on the energy from other dimensions. The alignment restrictions could be that without the proper mindset (Alignment) you are not able to understand the dimension.
I can appreciate reskinning whatever you want to be whatever you want, but I really wanted to present a world with a very different sort of magic. Making yourself more monstrous or donning a headband that increases mental acuity is feasible, but summoning creatures from planar rifts or wagging your finger to sling fireballs should be off-limits.
Without boring everyone with plot details to a game they're not playing in, too much magic ability would kind of subvert the whole premise.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I didn't intend on banning magic items, but I was looking at an ECL5 with standard WBL. I figured that wouldn't be getting into the truly ridiculous equipment. After reading some of these posts, I might ditch the Alchemist and Investigator.
Rather than ruling what classes will or will not be allowed based on what they have access to, why not simply ban spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities? If a class grants one of those abilities, the player can't use it. Then leave it up to the player if it's a worthwhile option.
Seems like that might require too much legwork on their part.
But I am reconsidering the alchemist allowance. It would be a fairly large power disparity.
I guess I could say Barbarian with none of the supernatural rage powers, and vet anything they want to use for final approval.
Mr. Hyde barbarian could be interesting.
They changed that in the 5th season in "The Time of the Angels" and "The Flesh and the Stone". Truthfully, it was when I realized I really wasn't going to enjoy Moffat's run - the angels were creepy when we didn't see them move.
When we did, they were just crappy CGI.
I'm honestly shocked how much praise this episode of Who received. It's the exact same Dalek episode from Season 1! It uses even almost the exact same "WHAM!" line:
I know people wanted a 'darker' Doctor, but really not a fan of how easily this - and the Smith incarnation - are always straddling the line of 'murderous psychopath'. I don't know, maybe that is closer to the incarnation from the 70s, but we have enough of those types on television now. Do we really need another show with an insufferable genius who really doesn't care for people and only shows interest in them as 'mysteries' to be solved?
First of all, an Antipaladin of Callistria sounds TERRIFYING and quite possibly EXTREMELY ATTRACTIVE.
I think a Calistrian Antipaladin is actually the least terrifying and most . . . well, honorable. Here's her code:
Seems like if you just mind your own business, Calistrian antipaladins aren't the worst sort. I could even see them working in a party. What boggled my mind, though, was that Calistria got an antipaladin write up but Gorum didn't. GORUM! I mean, come on! (Also why I am not a huge fan of "one step away" - it just doesn't make sense a lot of the time.)
Also, I second the vote for Arshae. Arshae is way more up this guy's ally.
I'm going to be running a one-shot very soon, and thought to mix it up a little I'd do a Steampunk-esque setting with the only "magic" in the world being alchemy. (Magic items would be a mix of slchemical reaction and sci-fi technology.)
That being the case, I need to restrict to specifically mundane classes - so that means, even though Barbarian isn't technically a spellcaster, it's still out on grounds of having mystical powers.
I think I have a pretty thorough list here, but wanted some help filling in the gaps. Here's what I've got:
Are there any archetypes or alternates I've missed that replace the core build's spellcasting/other mystic abilities with more mundane things?
OK, I've tried avoiding this thread for a while, but this is so endemic of everything wrong with this debate and society in general I can't let it go.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It's not a No True Scotsman. If his family had immigrated from a Latin American country and had a background there, then I would have no problem saying he's Latino. At some point there's a difference between NTS and just ignoring facts.
The Dutch colonized Africa, too. Most South Africans speak a version of the dialect they inherited. Do I get to say I'm black now? If you answer "no" to that, well, then I suppose you're submitting to No True Scotsman. I could easily be mistaken for a really, really, really, really light skinned black guy, so obviously I've faced discrimination.
Remember, if you point out the absurdity of that, you're engaging in a logical fallacy!
If I insisted that Larry Correia wasn't Latino because he doesn't act stereotypically Latino enough, or doesn't trace his lineage far back enough, you would have a case on your hands. But that is not the case at all.
Nobody was insisting he, personally, is rich. There was some conversation about gaming typically being a middle upper-class hobby, which is predominately white. But being a poor white person is not nearly the same as being a poor PoC. Just like being a poor man is not the same as being a poor woman. Or being a poor straight person is not the same as being a poor gay person. Wealth is its own distinction with its own set of inherent privileges, but poverty is not the great equalizer everybody likes to treat it as.
If that's what we were saying, most of us would be calling ourselves racist. I didn't agree with a lot of what A.A. George wrote. But there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with an article, and being utterly dismissive and calling the author a racist.
Which is what happened. The first people to start throwing around the "R" word were people who wanted to dig at "SJW" types so they blatantly called A.A. George a racist. And then we were racist for pointing out that Larry Correia is actually Western European, so even if you say "OK, that's Latino", it's still really disingenuous to describe himself as a person of color.
If you want to break this down into a way oversimplified version of events, it's a lot more like:
"I definitely agree with Larry. That tor.com was full of it."
People on this side of the divide have been very careful about calling those on the board on the other side racist. mechaPoet even apologized for straddling too close to that line. But pointing out problematic attitudes or acknowledging that white privilege exists is not the same as saying white people are racist. The same way most men aren't chauvinists or most heterosexuals (well, sadly, that still depends on geography a bit) are not homophobic - it's just that those who are privileged by a system tend not to notice it. We live within a very narrow experience and don't bother to look at it through the lens of somebody who hasn't had that experience.
Saying, "Your attitude is contributing to a problem," is not the same as, "You're a racist." But nobody likes to hear they're part of the problem, so it's far easier to dismiss anybody who points it out as a bunch of wild-eyed slacktivists who are just looking to slap labels on people.
That was, er, kind of my point.
I was going to respond to Alex Martin, but thejeff pretty much summed it up for me. I really, really don't care how light skinned he is. My point is that he's entirely of Western European descent - he's Caucasian. He wouldn't have even bothered saying he was Latino if he hadn't seen that the DOL technically counts Portugese. (A fact he conveniently leaves out when claiming to be a PoC.)
You can claim to be anything you want to be, but it's stupid to take every one of those claims seriously. I had a German (as in Germanic descent) Math teacher in 10th grade that liked to say he was black - just really, really deep down - because humanity ALL hails from Africa. Is it racist to point out that no, really, he actually isn't black?
Sorry, but I don't see right-wing a-holes at the border with their guns turned on refugee children because they have a problem with the Portugese. Take issue with me not being 'open-minded' enough or treating it like a big gotcha racist moment if you want, but Correia really isn't Latino. Using it to gain some sort of credibility is disingenuous, and that's being generous.
And, as illustrated here, this is the conversation going nowhere. I don't know why I decided to throw in, even though it went exactly as expected. On this issue, people just don't seem to budge. I don't think I've seen a side give on this issue.
The sad thing is I still remember when I used to come to these boards to talk about . . . some game. Packfreer, I think? It's been so long.
That, itself, is making assumptions. I didn't take it that way, neither did thejeff or mechapoet, and even the people who are actually participating in this thread area small sample of all people on the Paizo messageboards, let alone the general population.
We are all responsible. Businesses reflect their consumer base - not perfectly, but predictably. No, in the grand scheme of things they do not have the power to change that dynamic everywhere. But something cold be done to change it here.
OK, this is a bit of a tangent, but that attitude irks me. Going beyond GenCon, just overall, this irks the hell out of me. For one thing, it assumes white America cares about what is happening to minorities. (One look at the overwhelming disparity in response to the shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson illuminates nicely that, on the whole, they really don't.) Your advice actually is great in the context of an actual dialogue between two parties in a disagreement. But that's not the context we're speaking of.
But the really bothersome part is that it's ultimately saying that the onus is on those people who have historically been oppressed. (Again, not just black people but women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and so on.) After years and years and years, how could people who have had no wrong done to them and - even if they'd not personally contributed, silently benefited from the system that perpetuated it - have the unmitigated gall to say, "Now I'll listen, but only if you watch your tone"?!
These are difficult things to hear, and I understand the resistance. But it's our responsibility to get over that. Just like the "privilege" you used - Growing up poor, my first response to white privilege was, "That's a load of crap! I haven't had ANYTHING easy!" Of course, when I actually read what was actually meant by white privilege and how it applied, it's indisputably true. Sorry if the language isn't dressed up enough not to offend, but we're not talking about a term that says all white people think this way or act that way. Just a term that means being born white in America comes with certain unfair advantages, which it does.
EDIT: Whoops, kind of got ninja'd on that one. Took WAYYY to much time getting the quote brackets right.
I love when people accusing me of racism are being racist themselves. A fine touch of irony don't cha think?
There would be, if anybody actually called you racist.
To be absolutely sure of this, I went back through this whole post. The only person to ever outright be called racist was people saying the tor.com writer was racist. To be fair, thejeff did a couple of pages ago point out some of your arguments echoed right-wingers in the US, but nobody called you racist. Again, going back through, the only time I actually SAW the charge of racist leveled against someone, it was the tor.com writer.
I'm not talking about whether people like it or not. I'm saying that the only time the issue of whether something in either article was racist was directed toward the tor.com writer.
I don't really agree with either article - like I said. But Correia's article is dismissive and hostile, and he's made quite a few posts that definitely trot the line of casual racism/sexism/homophobia. But the only time racism actually came up (until now) was when somebody accused the tor.com writer of saying something he found racist toward white people.
Maybe next time actually READ the post you're responding to.
I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.
Ding, ding, ding.
Of course, he didn't discover he was Latino, anyway. I know that's your point, but I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error by the DOL to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.
And from what I've been reading, that seems about the level this guy is on. Reading over a few more of his articles it seems like he takes every suggestion that sci-fi writers and fans consider other races, genders, or sexualities as evil thought police insisting we're not allowed to write about straight, white males any more.
Convenient how he used that opportunity to mock it, but then uses it in this article, without so much as an allusion to the irregularity, to lend credence to his point. It just makes an already rubbish article that much worse.
And my God, how people are eager to defend him and attack the tor.com writer. The fact alone that so much more scrutiny has been heaped upon the minority person - and that they have so far been the only one to face any allegations of actual racism in this thread - is so very, very telling. Sad, but very telling.
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Actually, I based it off to how he responded to earlier posts specifically talking about minorities. The grammatical syntax he used indicated being separate from the subject being spoken of in previous replies. It's based on context clues, not stereotyping based on his political outlook.
But I love how many people were eager to agree with your assumption.
Also, I don't get pride in anything but your own accomplishments. Why should anyone be proud of something they had no influence over?
The reason you don't "get it" is because you are not a member of a group that has historically been discriminated against or told that part of you makes you inferior to the dominant group.
That pride is not the word as you would use it. Pride is refusing to accept a cultural attitude that your race is something to be ashamed of, or that you should change aspects of yourself to appease those in power.
Adam B. 135 wrote:
I don't find it offensive at all.
Too often (usually) well-meaning white people say, "I don't see race" as confirmation that they're not at all racist. But it is a rather ignorant thing to say for precisely the reasons he's pointing out. What he's saying is that it is used as a way to be able to ignore other cultures and experiences because, to you, there is no difference.
There's a reason Stephen Colbert mocks the "I don't see race" line in his conservative-pundit guise. It is a dismissive thing to say. (And too often used to justify ignoring very real racial disparities in hiring, education, and our criminal justice system.) To respect a person is to respect the whole person - that includes understanding how their experience differs from yours due to not being a member of the dominant culture. The statistics do not lie - being black in America is very different from being white. (Also being gay, Latino/a, a woman, or non-Christian, but one thing at a time.)
He, uh, never claimed it was factual. And, much as I'm actually a strong advocate of working to destroy subconscious and cultural prejudices (which are a serious problem), a lot of people who go on about them come come across precisely like that, especially when they talk about it on the internet. So...it's a caricature, but not necessarily a completely inaccurate one.
The factual claim was in response to Hama's post. Hama did call it a factual, well reasoned argument - which I did not find the response to be at all.
Also, I don't accept the 'caricature as not entirely inaccurate' argument. A personal anecdote: My greatest shame is that in my late teens and early twenties I was one of those MRA guys. I technically believed in equality for women, but I saw every argument as the work of feminazis trying to undermine men at every turn. Women should have rights, but if we weren't careful, these castrating man-haters would make all penetrative sex classified as 'Rape'.
The turnaround came when somebody finally asked me if I had ever, personally, encountered a feminist who was actually like that. When I had to really think of it --- no, no I hadn't. Not on the internet. Not in real life.
No, the only feminists like that I ever "encountered" were straw feminists and precisely that type of made-up caricature everybody just knew existed. Even the actual woman that were often singled out as being the perfect example of how those women REALLY exist- Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin - came across very different when you read them in context and not as clips cherry picked to sound terrible. Those marauding misandrists I'd been told about existed only in the heads of my fellow men's activists.
Worst of all, because that was how we saw the opposition, the things we said truly were vile. You can justify so much when you just know the other side is ten times worse. And once I was out, I saw it in so many other groups that had picked sides in the so-called culture "war" - because all is fair in love and war, after all.
So I ask you - How often have you actually encountered these kind of "SJWs", and how often has that encounter been second hand through people complaining about them? I'm betting if you really stop to think about it, most of that awareness we have of those sort of people is through news stories that thrive on drumming up controversy (Don't get me started on the infamous "Some are saying..." 'news' pieces) and people like Larry Correia that want to make a point.
I do not accept that any caricature is accurate, because I have had it demonstrated to me firsthand how blinding and dangerous that sort of thinking is. If there is a group or individual this guy thinks is wrong, he needs to argue with that group/individual. His issue is with the tor.com writer's assessment of GenCon and gaming - so that is the argument that should be had.
Also, this thread's title is misleading . . . it's true he DID say that, but it was a minor point in an article with a very different main thesis.
So obviously your take is clearly unbiased and not all weighted to side with the person whose opinions coincide with your preconceived notions.
I especially love his comparison of being a Republican to the suffering of ethnic minorities. That's totally accurate and factually sound, and not at all ridiculous hyperbole that ignores very real societal issues in favor of being judged upon a political philosophy with well defined values that many people disagree with and you can choose not to make the focal point of a conversation.
But my absolute favorite part of his 'factual' account is when he had a made-up conversation with a fictional Social Justice Warrior caricature whose words he got to cherry pick.... gee, who left all of this straw laying around?
If someone had an interest in turning a critical eye to these pieces, they would see that both have their issues. But nope, it confirms a convenient outlook that doesn't require you to have to consider people different from you, so obviously it's a complete blowout!
Sorry those "Social Justice Warriors" bother you. How dare those jerks ruin your good time by trying to make things better for minorities or women? Dastardly!
The sad thing is the Hunter would actually be a great class . . . if the Druid didn't exist. And technically the fact that it's mechanically weaker is a good thing for balance's sake. It's not like it's terrible - I'd still rank it a solid Tier 3 alongside Paladins and Bards.
But the problem is the Druid DOES exist, so I struggle to find a reason you'd choose a Hunter instead.
I'm going to add to the chorus to say you might encourage him to become a paladin of Shelyn. She seems way more in line for what he wants to play.
Of course, the problem also is that this is RotRL, and it treats 'lust' as being something "sinful", so . . .
Fair warning, this is going to get rather maudlin.
Lately, it seems like there has been an uptick in threads blasting Paizo for the editorial decisions they've made. I won't be too specific here, but let's just say there have been complaints levied about the insulting lack of eye candy, or Paizo menacingly pushing the so-called 'gay agenda'. And to the credit of the posters here - and the human race - most of the community has rushed to Paizo's defense.
But I'm tired of waiting an reacting to negativity. Too often those of us who are impressed by the decisions a company makes are content to say 'Oh, that's nice' to ourselves and move on, while the bitter and angry minority tries to drown out the rest to sound bigger than they are.
So, apropos of no (specific) complaint:
Thank you, Paizo, for making a dedicated effort to include LGBTQ individuals - who have made up a large part of the human experience, but who have been relegated to obscurity bordering on invisibility.
Thank you for writing well-rounded female characters that are not relegated to damsels in distress and trophies to be won. For not treating female sexuality as something sinful or shameful, or as something that exists for men and male players.
Thank you for presenting humanity as a wide range of ethnicity and body types, and creating a human 'culture' that is as varied as our experiences in the real world. We are not uniform as a species - our art should reflect that.
Thank you for being accessible to your consumers. Far more often than not it feels as though companies are an unknown entity, rather than actual organization made of up of living people. Many companies, especially the larger ones, are content to allow third party intermediaries handle any direct public interaction and remain hidden behind official press releases.
Does Paizo achieve these things 100% of the time? No. Nobody does. But they are perhaps the most consistently thoughtful of any major tabletop or fantasy publisher on the market today. That they strive to reach a goal that is ultimately impossible, while managing to get a little closer at every opportunity, is something most of us appreciate - even if we do not say it often enough.
I started playing Pathfinder because I love role-playing and I love fantasy. It could have been any fantasy TTRPG, but with nearly every decision that Paizo makes in its materials and as a company in general, I feel more confident about that decision. There are very few companies I will gladly give my hard earned money to without a bit of ethical trepidation, and Paizo is chief among them. Thank you for being that, especially in an industry that desperately NEEDS a company like that.
After seeing so many people choose it, I have to ask: Am I the only person who feels like the "Original" Core 4 is probably the worst lineup you could choose?
Fighter - Super, super weak.
I'm surprised so many people want to keep them.
Just to make my actual list:
Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, and Gnomes.
What, I can't do that? Fine I'll play by the rules.
Dwarves - Dwarves are sort of on here as the least-bad of "Races I Don't Care For". (The worst I can say? Every dwarf I've ever encountered was played exactly the same. Left a bad taste in my mouth.) Most of the extra races are elemental or planar - which, as many others have said, should really be an applied template. The remaining ones are 90% anthro and I HATE anthro.
Elves - I've always enjoyed elves, and they offer so much mechanically that it's not hard to justify keeping them.
Gnomes - I love Gnomes. They're different from any other race and get some boons that are flavorful without being gamebreaking. 3.5 Gnomes? Meh. Pathfinder Gnomes? Friggin' awesome.
Goblins - Replaces halflings as the other small race. I always feel like Halflings and Gnomes are too similar, and I just don't care for halflings - they have the same problem as the Summoner for me: They never seem to fit ANYWHERE in the provided world. Apparently they're there to remind us this is based on Tolkien. Goblins are fun, over the top, and make way better halflings than halflings.
Hobgoblins - Replaces half-orcs. I despise "half"-anything races. The only reason I've ever seen anybody take one is for the weapon proficiencies or broken alternative FCBs. Also half-orcs encourage way too much "Rape as Backstory", another thing that sticks in my craw. I prefer hobgoblins as the outsider, semi-monstrous go-to race.
Humans - To provide a baseline. We are human, having humans gives us a reference point to understand how the other races relate to us. They need a nerf, but that's a different topic. (I felt like a Bonus feat and extra skill point were good enough boons - did they really need the floating +2???)
Kobolds - Replaces half-elves. With a stat boost, preferably. Really play up the difference between kobolds and goblins here - possibly giving them a CHA or INT boon to reflect their draconic heritage and intricate knowledge of engineering. Also rounds out the list a little more to have 3 small races vs 3 medium races vs 1 in between (Dwarves are sorta smallish-medium).
I very nearly did - in fact, I think the only full caster to make it on my list was the Sorcerer. But ultimately that was because casters are just too big a part of the game to me, and Sorcerers are slightly more balanced than a Wizard imho. But truthfully, I might consider replacing Sorcerer with Hunter for balance - without the broken Druids or Summoners around to steal their thunder, the Hunter is a pretty solid class.