Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Scale

Gallo's page

544 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

Well, this could easily become an IC thing ... since this guy is taking more than his share, and not helping the rest of the team out, the other PCs could just say 'We're tired of your crap. Get lost' to the offending PC.

"Because our characters have gotten tired of this nonsense, and throwing you out is what our characters would do."

Historically groups that were kind of similar to adventuring parties - pirates, mercenary companies and the like - had very strict rules about how loot was divided up.

Breaches of the rules were strictly dealt with. Getting thrown out would be the mild end of the punishment spectrum.

One way of dealing with it in game is the next time the offending character is in trouble in a fight the rest of the party declare they are spending a round looting. Unless the player is completely thick it should only take one or two occurrences before the message sinks in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Act I, Scene I

Scene Somewhere in Golarion

Cast Charles the Cleric 1 and Wanda the Wizard 3 / Cler 1

Just before dawn

Charles and Wanda kneel, heads bowed in prayer

Charles: O Mighty Saranrae! Please bestow your blessings on me so I can serve in your name.

Saranrae: Certainly, my devoted follower. What shall it be today?

Charles: A Bless and a Command O holy one!

Saranrae: Certainly. Sure you don't want a Cure Light Wounds?

Charles: No thank you. As a Pathfinder Cleric I can convert a spell into a cure spell of equal power.

Saranrae: Slaps forehead Silly me. Got muddled up after bestowing my divine graces on a bunch of 2ed hold-overs.

Charles: Now that you mention it o mighty one. Any chance of a Cure Moderate Wounds? You know, as a special treat? We're smiting some pretty heavy duty evil critters in your name today.

Saranrae: Alas, as I have told you every morning for the last Me-knows-how-long, you are not yet spiritually powerful enough to handle such powerful spells. You are simply not sufficiently well versed to manifest or handle such powerful divine magic. CLW or nothing today.

Charles: Oh well. Never hurts to ask.

Meanwhile

Wanda: Oh might Saranrae, please bestow upon me....... etc etc

Saranrae: You aren't going to ask me for Cure Moderate Wounds today are you. Charles does it every dawn and I am getting really close to smiting his irritating a##.

Wanda: No need, o holy one. I'll just convert my Wizardly Glitterdust into a CMW if need be. It's really weird, even though I am not in any way powerful enough to cast such powerful divine magic, I apparently can. And you, in your infallible wisdom have pointed that out to me that you could not even grant such divine magic to me as I am too lowly a cleric to handle such power. Yet, it just so happens - it's actually really funny how it works - because I am moderately proficient in arcane magic I can actually cast CMW. It doesn't make sense, but who am I to argue......

Saranrae: !?!

End Act I, Scene I


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
I can imagine the devs crowded around one of their member's desk and laughing their holes off at the way some of this is interpreted.

I reckon they have a whiteboard in the corner where they keep score of how many times the same issues come up (flurry, weapon damage size increases, etc) and another one for "I can't believe anyone even asked this question".

I suspect it is next to the list of "FAQ requests we refuse to even consider on the grounds of simple common sense". When the list gets too long they then let SKR loose with one of his brilliant and refreshingly direct posts ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.

You might want to read the article you quoted there, big guy. It says the exact opposite of what you claim. Gallo isn't the one speaking from ignorance.

[/QUOTES]

Could you elaborate? The article clearly states that Israel does indeed have submarines, and that experts agree they are used as nuclear weapons platforms. Sure, they are diesel, not nuclear' but still....

The Dolphin is a diesel-electric boat, an SS or an SSK if you are feeling fancy. It can certainly launch cruise missiles- SLCMs.

It is not, however, a boomer like a US or Russian Federation SSBN. it is not nuclear powered and cannot launch ICBMs (well, SLBMs). They are different things.

SLBM are the ones that can hit anywhere on Earth from pretty much any launch point and can carry multiple warheads with megaton yields. SLCM vary widely, but I've never heard a quoted range greater than 1500 miles and 300 and less is more likely. Smaller warhead, too.

That being said, I don't want to be shot at with either one.

I do concede that what Israel possesses are not SSBN's - my apologies to everyone (Gallo in particular) for the factual error.

Your gracious apology is graciously accepted. I think a couple of us, myself included, have gone a bit far with some of our comments :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:


Gallo wrote:


You mean like Russia did in 1944

No,in 44 there was collective responsibility for numerous(thousands!)acts of treason.

Now it's squatting.
Surely even you can see the difference.

So the Russians deport the entire population due to the actions of a minority, leading to the deaths of thousands of Tartars, men, women and children. Which you think is acceptable. Then when they are finally allowed to return many years later you then consider them to be squatting. Really?

And if the Tartars deserved to be deported then by your same twisted logic, every Russian, Ukrainian, Moldovan, Cossack and pretty much every other ethnic group in the former Soviet Union should have been deported to Uzbekistan and beyond because lots of men from those groups served in the German Army. Kind of throws a spanner in your twisted narrative doesn't it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
Well there go the Tatars

Oh,seven thousand members of radical islamic organization,"which was mainly active in education and politics"(c)left Crimea and said organization's cell was effectively disbanded?

That's a shame(and this is sarcasm).
Problem is,of course,that they didn't return to Turkey.From what i heard,now they are based somewhere around Lvov.
But,this is Ukrainian problem now,and possibly Polish.Not Russian.

So tell us, why should they go to Turkey (is this some bizarre reference to the fact that the Crimea was once an Ottoman vassal)? And, no they are still a Russian problem as their traditional homeland is the Crimea - which as you have been making abundantly clear is apparently Russian. So the Russian authorities can't mistreat them and steal their land to the point where some leave and then you claim it is no longer a Russian problem. Though given what happened in 1944, the Russian authorities have form.......

And while we are at it, let's have some sources for your "7000 radical Islamists".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:


So you are sad you don't get to see people getting killed.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:


Deployment,logistics,C3,reliability of new tech,and a few of my favorite units.

In the immortal words of the emperor...

I saw plenty of people killed in Odessa and Mariupol,thanks.

Yet you still want the Russian and Ukrainian militaries to fight..... Did you see the deaths firsthand or just watch them on tv (or via your questionably internet research talents)? Have you ever served in a conflict zone and seen the effects firsthand? I have, it's not pretty. War is not a game, yet you seem to be desperate for the situation to deteriorate to the point of all-out war. Why is that so? Do you like watching people die? Or you don't care how many die as long as you can see the equipment in action. You certainly like to keep score, like some perverse football game, with your regular updates of how many people have been killed so far. If war does break out you'll get more than you can track of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:


What exactly are you sad about?

That i don't get to see russian military in action,duh.

Fight between russian and ukrainian military isn't possible.

So you are sad you don't get to see people getting killed. You really are a pathetic individual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
And then look at what Russia did to every country under its control or sphere of influence just after

You mean,rebuild from COMPLETE destruction and industrialize Ukraine to the point that even now TWO western rebellious provinces account for something like 25%GDP,directly or indirectly?

Should we,maybe,talk about Kazakhstan or Belarus?
GDR,maybe?
And people ask why these rebellions happen.

I'm sure the millions of Ukrainians who died in the 30s courtesy of forced collectivisation, state sanctioned mass killings, withholding of food supplies, medicine and the like would disagree with what Russia has done for the Ukraine......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the EU

,Greenpeace...

Only UN matters.Others have the reputation of selling out.

So apparently only the UN is a reliable source of information, yet you'll happily quote unreliable media sources, discount reliable ones and basically ignore anything that doesn't support your position, up to and including statements by Russian soldiers in the Crimea that they are Russian soldiers in the Crimea. If only the UN matters, presumably in terms of what can be considered reliable, accurate and impartial, what does that say about all the arguments you have been presenting?

Vlad Koroboff wrote:


NATO in last two decades used everything in it's arsenal short of nukes against targets both civilian and military.
Might makes right,this is how world works.

The difference is any actions by NATO have been authorised by UN resolutions and the like. Russia's weren't. Nor does NATO deliberately target civilians. Russia and its proxies do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I blame the Albanians. They were moving into Serbian lands unlawfully. A few of the Albanians went so far as to kill off Serbian families for their land, Serbians retaliated, Albanians retaliated, and so on.

I was there soon after NATO moved in. I liked dealing with the Serbians, they were mostly polite, but some were pissed off they were stopped. The Albanians reminded me of entitled children. Most we dealt with were pissed that NATO did not kill off a bunch of Serbians and felt they deserved land in exchange, never mind the deaths on either side.

You could always tell the difference when approaching the villages. Serbian ones were mostly free of refuse. On the other hand, you would see burning piles of trash on the roads at Albanian villages. Made a difference in which group the NATO forces hired as well. Albanian food workers were often the cause of food hygiene problems and they did a poor job with the laundry.

Given the Albanians have centuries of being mistreated and suppressed by the Serbs, I fail to see how they are to blame. Self-detemination is an accepted right. A lot of misinformation was spread in Serbia, Kosovo and elsewhere in the lead up to the fighting in 1998. But when the fighting started it was Serbs responsible for the first massacres of civilians, followed up by further atrocities on both sides.

So the Albanians didn't do a good job with your laundry. Way to trivialise an issue with a petty first world problem. Try being an Albanian under the control of the Serbs, then you'll know what problems are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Yes, well, as I said, meatrace set a standard. Let's see how he matches up to it himself. After all, if he can't quote sources, meaning links, where unquestionable sources clearly support his claims, it's all meaningless, and he's trying to sell something he has no idea about.

And the prize for passive aggressive nonsense goes to…….


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Wealth inequality is better fixed by making more opportunity for the lower end than punishing the upper end and personal accountability must be part of it.

What are these opportunities? Current economic and social thinking of the right does not really talk about creating opportunities. You get talk of the nebulous trickle down effect which somehow allows the poor to get some kind of benefit as the rich get richer. "Personal accountability" suggests the poor are poor because they have not done anything about being not poor.

Here in Australia the new conservative government is going hell for leather to get rid of "onerous" hinderances to business. Red tape and green tape are all evil as they slow down business's ability to operate and grow. Nevermind a lot of this "tape" is there because without it in the past business had happily screwed the environment *, mistreated workers and basically did whatever they want to make a buck and bugger any side effects that came out of increasing their bank balance. One goal of the anti-red tapers is to lower wages, reduce penalty rates, remove various standard conditions relating to health and safety and the like - so business wants to make the "lower end" poorer all in the name of "increased productivity" or various other euphemisms for "reduce costs, increase profits".

Much of the "upper end" doesn't want the "lower end" to become wealthier. Much of the upper end doesn't give the proverbial flying $#@# about the lower end - provided that the lower end exists to do all the crappy jobs the upper end don't want to think about. Those jobs, that is, that have not been outsourced to countries whose lower end is even worse off.

The group in the middle - the middle class - in certain western countries has been progressively getting smaller. Some are luckily now "upper" but most would now be categorised as "lower". Yet other countries, for example those horrible high taxing social democrats in Scandinavia have a large middle class and the lot of the poor is better in a large part because of government activities (financed in part through higher taxation rates), not solely because of some nebulous opportunity creation on the part of the private sector.

* Side note on environment. I'm not a fan of everything Greenpeace does - Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd fame humorously calls them the Avon ladies of the environmental movement. But without environmental groups, of which Greenpeace is very prominent, our world would be a much worse place, irrespective of whether you believe in things like anthropomorphic climate change or not. Remember the 1952 London Fog that killed over 10,000 people, ongoing problems of toxins spewed in to the sea at Minamata in Japan or countless other examples of unchecked pollution by business? In a large part they were forced to clean up their ways due to campaigns and pressure by environmental groups. You may have your reasons for disliking them but their work has improved your quality of life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tirisfal wrote:

Dude. Tax isn't that hard. I work off a budget, and I just imagine a buffer between the subtotal and the total when I'm shopping. Simple. It's not a "random" amount - I'd say if you're planning on visiting a place, checking out the local sales tax is something you should plan into your budget :P

As someone else has already posted, tax can't be uniformed because not all cities/states have the same fiscal needs, so listing the "actual price" {read: post-tax price} would cost a LOT of money. Every restaurant menu, every drive-thru, every piece of retail shop signage, etc in every city would have to be DIFFERENT. Let me tell you with my decade of retail experience, what you're asking is ludicrously time consuming. By setting one pre-tax price, we can save a bit of time and money (driving prices down for you, the consumer) by uniforming said signage and menus, and letting YOU do the post-tax math for yourself.

Why would it be difficult? Accounting software and point of sale technology can easily accommodate it - just put the price with tax-added on your price tags.

Before we got the GST (Goods and Services Tax - like the VAT in the UK and other places) in Australia in the 90s there was a wide range of different tax rates for different categories of goods and services, yet all retailers managed to display the tax inclusive price on price tags. Now when you buy something the sales docket shows the total price as well as a breakdown of the pre-tax price and the total amount of GST included.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of one's views on the issue, at least this time around all the people of Scotland will get a say, not just a small elite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PsychoticWarrior wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The real problem with the independence campaign is that the Scottish Nationalists are trying to pretend there will be no real consequences coming from independence. There a (wrong-headed) dislike of the toffs down south but in reality the appetite for independence among the Scots is pretty shallow beyond that. They want their lives to continue as before with the relatively generous welfare spending, but the reality of independence won't really allow that. So Nationalists have tried to pretend that they can get away with independence lite - basically retaining all of the stuff of Britishness while somehow also being independent - hence the desire to retain the pound in a currency union, retain the Queen as head of state, even retain the BBC. Unfortunately, they assumed that the English would just fall in line with all of this as being "plainly" in our interests too, but it actually implies a cost upon the English taxpayer that we are pretty much unwilling to bear. Why should we? The Scots don't seem to like us and want independence. Fine, they have a strong national identity and history, I have no objection to their nationist desires if that is what they vote for. I object very strongly if I'm expected to pay for it all.

Wow. As a Canadian who has had to hear, for pretty much my whole life, how much the province of Quebec wants to separate and become its own nation, I can really sympathize with this.

I have seen 3 referendum votes on this issue alone in my lifetime (2 since I've been able to vote) and it just gets tiring. It erodes any sense of unity the country has when 20% of it wants to go its own way and yet keep all the perks the other 80% are paying for (in Canada's case it is mostly about language - 80% of the province of Quebec is french-speaking (while hold about 15% of the population) while that number drops to less than 20% across the rest of the country. Officially we are bilingual but in reality that only applies to a small portion of the population). We in Canada hear of violence towards and persecution of anglophones for something as meaningless as having the french and english wording of a shop sign being the same size (yes - this actually happened and the shop owner was fined) or Quebec's latest 'triumph' - banning "large" religious symbols from public workers (unless its a crucifix of course) this was mainly about persecution of Muslims, Hindi and Jews.

Sorry to ramble and thread jack I just thought some of the similarities in the 2 situations as noteworthy.

A major difference is that Scotland was once an independent nation so why should it not regain that independence - as Ireland did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Who is saying it is aberrant?
Gallo, earlier wrote:
What other industry expects the customer to directly pay part of the staff wages rather than paying the restaurant owner the full amount and having them then pay their staff properly?

So, you.

We have different views on the meaning of aberrant in this discussion.

Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
I would expect the hairdresser's employer to pay them a reasonable wage and if the customer wants to show their appreciation by tipping then they can.

Did you read that article? Hairdressers are independent contractors. They aren't directly employed.

Again, what you expect really isn't the point. Tipping culture exists, and it's not going anywhere because most people don't see any problem with it.

No, of course I didn't read it. Was I supposed to?

Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
All things that you would expect a professional taxi driver who cares about his/her service to do irrespective of how he is renumerated.

What the hell?

What, do you think he's going to do just those things out of the kindness of his heart? He needs money, and if he provides good quality service he expects to be tipped accordingly.

No one cares what you expect.

Take a chill pill Scott. In all your responses to other OTD discussions you manage to be eloquent, insightful and direct without resorting to boorishness. Somehow this thread seems to elicited a different tone of response.

As for taxi drivers, you think they only provide a good service in expectation of getting a tip, not out of a sense of pride in his work? So what about professions where tipping is not necessary? Are people not going to provide good service "out of the kindness of their hearts", no professional pride in doing as good as job as possible irrespective of whether someone is going to slip them a fiver afterwards?

Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
When I visit my accountant I expect him to keep a tidy office, do my books efficiently, engage me appropriately, provide useful accounting tips, recommend things to improve my business etc. I don't tip him though.
And that's fine. We don't really have a tipping culture surrounding accountants.
Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Why are not all service sectors equal? Sounds very Animal Farm to me ;)
You could write academic papers on that. The fact of the matter is that many areas in the service sector feature tipping culture, and you need to be aware of that and act accordingly.

I am fully aware of the tipping culture in the US and abide by it whenever I am there. I just think it is an inequitable and inconsistent system that applies to sectors where the employees by and large have limited power (in an industrial relations sense). I know I am not going to change your mind, nor is that my intention. I will however try to refrain from using italics and bold …...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
I don't really care whether it is uncommon or not. The fact that other service sectors have their own renumeration system does not make the restaurant sector's system (or the other sectors' for that matter) optimal or fair.
No, but it does dispel the notion that tipping culture is somehow limited to the "aberrant" restaurant sector.

Who is saying it is aberrant?

Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Does an employee hairdresser get $x per type of haircut/styling etc and then get tipped on top? Or do they get a low hourly rate and then tips on top. If it is the former the boss also determines who gets which client so potentially the boss can restrict/control the employee's takings above and beyond what they get from tips? If the latter, at least they get a certain level of renumeration even if business is slow.
You can read this description of hair stylist pay if you're curious as to how it typically works.

I would expect the hairdresser's employer to pay them a reasonable wage and if the customer wants to show their appreciation by tipping then they can.

Scott Betts wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Taxis - it is irrelevant whether the driver owns the licence or rents the vehicle. The fare system should be set to such a level that a driver can earn a decent wage by doing their job. At least with a waiter you can differentiate their quality of service, and determine a tip, on a range of things - speed of service, manners, providing informed comments about items on the menu etc. What does a taxi driver do to differentiate? Get you to your destination by the best route (should be a given), chat or not chat to you about how [insert posting team here] went on the weekend, or my favourite - not listening to right-wing loony radio shock jocks on the radio.
Plenty of things - keeping a comfortable car, driving efficiently and safely, engaging the passengers appropriately, providing helpful tips or other information to visitors, recommending destinations, accommodating requests, handling baggage, etc.

All things that you would expect a professional taxi driver who cares about his/her service to do irrespective of how he is renumerated. And if I have a driver who is particularly pleasant or helpful then I'll voluntarily tip them.

When I visit my accountant I expect him to keep a tidy office, do my books efficiently, engage me appropriately, provide useful accounting tips, recommend things to improve my business etc. I don't tip him though.

Why are not all service sectors equal? Sounds very Animal Farm to me ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
Gallo wrote:
And why does it appear that only low paid sectors use the system?
I believe you just answered your own question.

I didn't know how to put in a tag for a rhetorical question ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Except that tipping is not unseemly, exploitative, and mean. That is just making something up and pretending it is real so as to downgrade something you don't like. Pretty silly.

Not when you come from a culture where tipping is only considered an option if service is particularly good. In Australia we have wage rates and the like that pay wait staff reasonable wages so that tipping is not a necessity. What other industry expects the customer to directly pay part of the staff wages rather than paying the restaurant owner the full amount and having them then pay their staff properly?

I understand why tipping is required in the US (and do it when I go there), but I still think it is because the industrial relations system is flawed, not because it is an optimal system for remunerating restaurant staff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
J. Christopher Harris wrote:
They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.

True, they are capable of accidental causing harm. But they certainly don't intend it.

If a dog ruined your lawn, would you say the dog is "toxic"?

Do you really think no creationists seek to cause harm with their beliefs? That their pushing creationism is not linked to broader religious issues - sex ed, abortion and the like?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Is he actually using the knowledge or just reading ahead?

If he's just reading, there's no real problem. There's a lot of cool stuff in the AP books that will never show up in the campaign proper so easily spelled out.

I also think it's okay if he's using it to speed his turns up somewhat by knowing the base stats of a monster (not acting on metagame knowledge of its strengths and weaknesses, more "Well I rolled a 14 vs its AC which is...15. Okay I missed, we can go ahead.").

If he's actually cheating though...yeah you need to have a talk, that's really your only option besides booting him entirely. If he flat out lies to your face about it (as you say he probably will), he's probably not worth keeping around.

How should the player know what the AC of a monster is? It's up to the DM to determine whether an attack hits or not as only the DM knows the exact AC - there could be buffing or other amendments a player won't know about. If the DM wants to reveal an AC to the party, then that is the DM's prerogative.

If the player wants to know what stuff they missed in the AP then they need to wait until the AP is over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is it that Paladin's are Divinely Graceful 24/7, yet Swashbucklers' Lives are only Charmed 3/day?

Why not make Charmed Life a 3/day get to roll twice and choose the best roll (other than giving another bonus for actually having a high CHA instead of just taking the Extra Panache feat)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Googleshng wrote:

It depends a bit on what you mean by "built like a swashbuckler." I mean, if you're going off dex and neglecting str, dumping a lot of stat points into int and cha, using a rapier exclusively, and refusing to wear more than light armor, the swash is going to have better AC and do more damage... but still snap like a twig in the face of any fort save.

If you aren't arbitrarily handicapping the fighter's stats equipment though, they have better AC, do more damage until the pendulum swings up in the teens, and can generally replicate all of the swashbuckler's deeds with feats that don't have the same limits on their usage.

This rather long post becomes a side by side comparison if you make your way down to the bullet point lists. Tone's a bit over the top now that I read back over it, but I think it covers most of the bases.

Thanks. I admire anyone who has been following every post in this thread!

As an aside, I had a thought about the whole parry/riposte issue and panache/AoO cost issue. (Noting that we have a Swash 4 in the RotRL campaign I am GMing).

Given the number of builds that go Crane Style to get the once per round "miss", what if the Parry/Riposte mechanism was altered to be similar to Crane Wing/ Crane Riposte. They both have the same game effect - an attacker that would have hit you once now misses you and you potentially can attack him in return.

Something along the lines of:

Level 1:

Parry - once per round while fighting defensively, if you have at least one panache point, you can parry an attack so that it automatically misses (no dice roll, no panache cost)) You need to be defensively focussed to parry

Riposte - if you parry then you can spend one panache to riposte. This also use up an AoO.

Level 3:

While fighting normally you can spend a panache to parry. While offensively focussed you can still parry but it will cost

Level 6:

At the start of your turn, give up your lower iterative attack to have a "spare" extra parry you can use any time before the start of your next turn.You can increase your defensive capacity but at a direct cost to you offensive capacity

Parry while not fighting defensively. If you want to parry more than one per round you need to spend a panache point per extra parry

Level 9:

While fighting normally you can parry once per round for free. You are a talented swordsman and getting in a free parry every few seconds is well within your amazing skills

Level ?:

Be able to parry attacks allies provided you can reach the attacker and you meet the other conditions for parrying.You are so skilled and combat aware that you can counter multiple attackers at once.

Rationale

Basically you can start off defensively and parry for free but as you go up in levels you get more options to parry - either while fighting normally or using up some of your offensive potential to boost your defences if required.

At mid levels you can boost your defense at the cost of one potential attack.

At high levels you should be able to parry and riposte virtually at will (provided you have panache).

At any level you can defend quite well with some panache in your pool but if you expend it then you will have to go on the attack to get more points to enable you to defend.

Anyway, that's my 2c worth :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Posted in another forum, moved here to put it in the right spot....

Swashbuckler - I really like the look of it.

Some thoughts:

1. Maybe start with panache points equal to CHA mod +2, so low level Swashbucklers have a few more tricks per day - unless, as someone suggested above, there are more ways of getting points back.

2. Given Swashbucklers are famed as much for fighting as for deeds of skill and daring, I think Swashbuckler's Edge should be granted at a lower level and a more advance version at higher levels. i.e. Derring-do at 1, Swashbuckler's Edge at 8 and then at level 15 grant a deed to spend panache points to take 20 on a skill check for some heroic acrobatics and the like.

3. As Swashbucklers were also famed for their way with the opposite sex, perhaps the skill-based deeds should be expanded to include Diplomacy and Bluff when dealing with the opposite sex and maybe also Intimidate for dealing with the same sex.

4. I think they should also get Improved Dirty Trick for free. Or maybe allow the Swashbuckler to expend one panache point to get temporary access to Improved Trip/Disarm/Reposition/Dirty Trick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Swashbuckler - I really like the look of it.

Some thoughts:

1. Maybe start with panache points equal to CHA mod + 2, so low level Swashbucklers have a few more tricks per day - unless, as someone suggested above, there are more ways of getting points back.

2. Given Swashbucklers are famed as much for fighting as for deeds of skill and daring, I think Swashbuckler's Edge should be granted at a lower level and a more advance version at higher levels. i.e. Derring-do at 1, Swashbuckler's Edge at 8 and then at level 15 grant a deed to spend panache points to take 20 on a skill check for some heroic acrobatics and the like.

3. As Swashbucklers were also famed for their way with the opposite sex, perhaps the skill-based deeds should be expanded to include Diplomacy and Bluff when dealing with the opposite sex and maybe also Intimidate for dealing with the same sex.

4. I think they should also get the feat Dirty Trick for free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


And, before PF, in all my 40 years of playing, other than as a back-up weapon (and slings still excell at this) or for a halfing, I don't remember ANYONE playing a slinger. Not in ODD, AD&D, 3.5, 4th or any edition. Nor in C&S, T&T, Runequest, Fantasy hero or any of a dozen other FRP games. So it's not just PF, it's not even just D&D, it's FRPG's in general.

Oh, and in my miniature wargames, the sling was also inferior to the bow in every single rules-set with one exception where all ranged weapons were the same. So, it's not even a FRPG trope, it's that way in wargaming in general.

That just shows that for 40 years game designers have displayed a mixture of historical inaccuracy, ignorance and deliberate bias towards the sling.

The point someone above made about heavy crossbows potentially being faster to reload in Pathfinder than certain types of slings sums it up.

I wouldn't expect to see slings out-damaging a long bow, but historically standard slings were essentially as effective as short bows. Maybe it was slower to reload and fire accurately as a bow. But when one feat can let someone reload and fire a hand or light crossbow multiple times in a round yet slingers need two and archers get it for free then something is wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asphere wrote:

I couldn't think of any American jokes about Americans - we need some! There are plenty of jokes about specific areas of America. I searched for some jokes about Americans but most of the ones I found were probably derived in another country. They were really funny though. I liked this one:

Quote:

An American was telling one of his favorite jokes to a group of friends. "Hell is a place where the cooks are British, the waiters are French, the policemen are Germans, and the trains are run by Italians."

The lone European in the group pondered all this for a second and responded, "I can't say about the police and the trains, but you're probably right about going out to eat. A restaurant in Hell would be one where the cooks are British and the waiters are French - and the customers are all Americans."

The version I've heard is:

European heaven is: British police, French cooks, German mechanics, Swiss bureaucrats and Italian lovers.

European hell is: British cooks, French mechanics, German police, Swiss lovers and Italian bureaucrats.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Male Human Fighter with Greatsword
Female Human Rogue with Longbow (and a treasure fetish)
Male Dwarf Cleric (now with vampire template)
Male (probably) Elf Wizard

Then have as what is effectively the rogue's cohort:
Male Human Bard

And as the fighter's quasi-cohort:

Male Halfling Ranger (with psychopath template)

Just make sure they are played very two-dimensionally......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven T. Helt wrote:

How is atheism NOT a religion? It's not a fallacy just because you don't think of it the same way as I do. Atheism is a belief regarding God and religion, specifically that there's no such thing as God. But it requires as much blind faith as any other religion. If you reject the whole conversation about how the Bible makes accurate predictions or natural science evidences an act of creation, we are still stuck perpetually at "can't prove there is a god, can't prove there isn't". You're defending your belief there is no God. You have a theology. You reject the terminology because you want to classify your faith as superior in reasoning and evidence. But you probably take a lot on faith, unless you have advanced degrees in anthropology/geology/microbiology/astrophysics AND have conclusively defeated the questions of irreducable complexity and similar questions, AND have a time machine AND saw the creation of the universe as well as that lucky lightning strike that correctly zapped the correct combination of chemicals with the right salinity on the back of the perfect crystal.

So who/what exactly do we atheists apparently worship if atheism is a religion? Atheism is not a belief in the sense that belief in a god or gods is a belief. I am an atheist because I see no proof (or need for that matter) of the existence of god(s) and no one has ever presented an argument for god's existence that makes sense or cannot easily be disproved.

What exactly do we "take on faith"? I don't have a medical degree but when my doctor tells me something about my health I'll believe him. That's not taking the doctor's word "on faith". Likewise if a physicist says something is true and their claims have been tested, peer reviewed, questioned and challenged, then why would I not believe them.

I don't need a degree in astrophysics to accept that the age of the universe is 13 billion years plus or minus. The same scientific research/processes/methods that were used to determine the age of the universe are the ones used to demonstrate why aeroplanes can fly or why an electric light goes on when you flick the switch. You can't pick and choose which science you want to accept and ignore that which goes against your religious beliefs.

If you believe the bible "makes accurate predictions" then give some examples that can be demonstrated to be true. You are the ones who claim god exists yet can give no reliable evidence to support your position. And please don't say "because it is in the bible" - it is a document written by humans who purport to have written down the words of god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Gallo wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Gallo wrote:
And the one card in the deck that is an auto death just becomes a serious injury but not death (we currently play perma-death style so no resurrection, raise dead or reincarnation).

I’ll bet you don’t.

I’ll bet a buck right here and now, that if a PC dies the player gets to keep on playing, just by bringing in a new PC.

It’s better to just allow Raise Dead.

You obviously have a different interpretation of perma-death. Of course a player whose character dies could bring in a new character. ..

Saying that isn't permanent-death would be like arguing a person playing DDO in perma-death mode should delete the game if their character dies.

All it means is there is no way of raising a character who dies. Nothing more, nothing less.

We've got to level 16 in our current AP without a death but if someone did the player would just roll up a new character - just as someone in a different campaign would do if they didn't want their character raised.

So, since there’s no danger from dying*, and all that happens is that the campaign possibly loses a key PC, where’s the upside to this?

* and usually a advantage, as a fresh created from scratch PC is usually better than an organic PC at that level.

You might think there is no "danger" from dying, but given we have spent over three years in the campaign none of us particularly want our character to die. If one did we would obviously bring in a new character but that character would definitely not be better than the dead one nor would it be as satisfying playing them. We're in Kingmaker and it has been a long journey to get to a few sessions before the final boss fight so it would be very unpleasant to die and bring in a new PC.

Losing a key PC at this stage would not be a minor thing. If it happened at a lower level then no big deal, level 16 = big deal. Sure it would be a chance to play certain classes without all the weaker lower levels - like a max level Mystic Theurge - but it's always more fun to develop and build a character from level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Here's the problem.

If the magic item creation system is supposed to be held together by "GM fiat" AKA "Home brew", then the entire system itself should be in the homebrew forum and never be allowed in the general discussion.

I expect the General Discussion section to start decreasing immediately because it is full of threads where people are offering suggestions.

Now if it doesn't happen then I will start to get a fishy smell in my nostrils.

The magic item creation system is not held together by "homebrew". You just don't like the system. Many of your proposed changes are because you do not like some of the elements that are clearly spelled out in the rules - base price 50% of sale price, crafting while adventuring, etc - not because "GM Fiat" is needed to make them work. They work perfectly well as written.

The area where they drift into what can be called "GM Fiat" is custom items. This is not a flaw of the system - it is a feature explicitly built into it. This, however, does not mean the rest of the creation rules are GM Fiat.

If you have a better suggestion just start a post in the homebrew forum with a clear explanation of your own system, rather than throwing out posts basically saying the system is broken and then attacking people who say it isn't. None of the suggestions you have made to date could not be accomodated within the Pathfinder magic item creation rules. But that is the beauty of the system - you can use what you want, modify other bits, homebrew to your heart's content.

But to continually attack other posters, devs and moderators is just tendentious and childish. Some of your suggestions have some merit and provide options for someone to change how things work in their own game but many people will just ignore them because of the manner in which you express them.

In conveying a message, how you say it can be just as important as what you say...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Can we see the rules on item creation actually fixed or even an attempt at fixing?

The problems of the system have been pointed out so how about work from there.

I have seen questions about things, and things that need clarified, but I have yet to see things that actually need fixedthe only exception to this is a feat or ability that could theoretically make crafting free, but I believe that the entire idea is based on a false assumtion about stacking discounts, which falls under "a need for clarification" not a need for change, nor have I seen any problems posted.

So a quick summery of these problems would be nice.

Shallowsoul has created several threads recently bemoaning the fact that magic item creation in Pathfinder is broken. But for every person who thinks that the rules desperately need fixing, there are many more who are perfectly happy with the rules or that there are issues that just need clarifying.

The problem with changing the rules to match the demands/desires of the vocal few is that you would then have lots of people complaining about the changes and that the old rules were just fine.

If you don't like the rules discuss the issues with your group and houserule to your heart's content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
How do you decide who deserves the second amendment?

I'm getting pretty tired of people acting like this is nothing but liberals spitting on the second amendment. It's time you grew a halfway decent understanding of what the Constitution is and what it means.

Quote:
What steps are you calling for people to do to "not allow" their guns to fall into the wrong hands?
Read the thread. I'm sick of repeating myself for your benefit.
I'm not the one trying to hold its rights from others, you try reading it. of course i get the feeling you are one of the folks that think it is outdated and you know better than those long dead men what people should and should not have.

If those "long dead men" could see what some people are trying to claim the 2nd was meant to mean I think they would wish they had spent a bit more time clarifying the wording.

And plus if protecting the broader population means that the "rights" of others are restricted n some way, then so be it. That is what life in a civilised society is all about. Or are you advocating things like no speed limits anywhere, drink driving is fine, etc etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Duncan wrote:

I feel very conflicted by this thread.

I've spent eight years as a LEO, four as a Constitutional law scholar and attorney, three as a professor.. most importantly, six years as a father.

My professional work revolves largely around law enforcement and firearms law (it was my seminar in law school and my mentor just finished writing the first casebook on the subject), so it would seem natural for me to go straight there.. but when I heard the news, I thought about my daughter's own school.

I've dropped her off every single day and never paid a bit of attention to how the school is locked, whether somebody needs to be "buzzed" into the building, whether or not it was easy to break into.

I reviewed the VTRP report and wrote my college's comprehensive emergency plan.. why had that never crossed my mind?

I looked over the VTRP report and came across this:

"The campus is not enclosed; anyone can walk or drive onto it. There are no guarded roads or gateways. Cars can enter on any...road entrance[], many of which are not in line of sight of each other. Pedestrians can use sidewalks or simply walk across grassy areas to get onto the campus."

This sounds like my college. It sounds like my daughter's school. It sounds a lot like Newtown.

I don't know about you, but I'm not planning to dig out my Constitutional law or firearms law textbook. I'm going to my school board and asking for better locks, better fences.

This is not the best solution, and I know that. Anybody who is /really/ determined can get through /any/ barrier or use /any/ weapon.

Locking my door and putting the alarm on my house is going to stop a casual burglary, not a serious criminal who is willing to take the risks getting in.. Same goes for schools, I suppose.

My only point is this: I need to do what I can /right now/ to try to make my home, school or workplace a little safer.

For me, that doesn't mean keeping a patrol rifle by my desk or lobbying Congress to ban high capacity magazines. It means walking around and paying attention to things I took for granted: who can get in my building? what am I doing to control access? if I needed to lock down a building, could I? how am I handling mass notification? how am I making my workspace and my daughter's school harder targets?

If you want to do something right now, go to your kid's school and look at the locks, doors, walls, fences; ask your school board to take safety seriously and fight for more funding related to safety and security measures.

Don't you find it incredibly sad that you even have to look at your child's school (or any similar location) and think in terms of how you could make it safe from someone with a gun? Or even worse how to make it a "harder target"? We are talking about a school not a wartime military target.

I think that it is appalling things have got to the point in a society where they are issues that people even have to consider. If I talk to my school about funding I want to be discussing educational issues not having to "fight" for security measures.

They aren't things we have to consider where I live. I look at my kids' new school fence (not erected for security issues) and I don't think they are safe from loonies. I think that it is now a shame I can't take them down to play on the play equipment on the weekend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Security and freedom are opposites, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Nothing we can do can change that, though some people may be happy with less freedom, others, not so much.

How about you come and live in Australia for a bit. We have lots of freedoms and lots of security. I don't feel the need to own a gun on the off chance some loony attacks me. I don't feel the need to keep semi-automatic weapons in the house to defend myself from an armed home invasion.

If someone were to break into my house I'd get in trouble if I shot them - proportional use of force and all that. Perhaps there are people who'd relish the opportunity to shoot someone who threatened them in some way. Personally, I think that is just sad.

Out of curiosity how many people in the US each year are shot and killed by someone legitimately defending themselves compared to how many people are accidentally killed by guns kept by someone for the purpose of legitimately defending themselves?

You and others keep going on about freedom and rights as though certain ones (ie your ones) are more important than others. Does the idea of balance enter your thinking? A balance between an individual's rights and freedoms versus the wider community's? Add in a few things like obligations (you pay tax and the government provides certain services etc) and you get a complex mix of issues that contribute to a functioning and safe society. Lots of countries don't place individual gun rights very high but still manage to be stable, safe and prosperous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
2nd, I am better then most at combat. One thing about guns, is they don't require training at all to use, so most don't train, even the military has substandard training (well maybe the front-line guys, and the marines might make par) so if I win against the drill sergeants, I think I can take a few untrained whackos. Might get hurt in such a confined space with no maneuvering space but hey I honestly wouldn't hestitate.

Have you ever been in combat? No one knows until they have actually been in combat.......

And you really think guns don't require any training to use? You mean basic things like clearing stoppages correctly, putting a magazine on your weapon the right way around by touch, selecting the right setting when you flick the safety catch with your thumb, aiming, firing, etc. Nah, none of that really needs training. And that is when no one is even shooting back at you.

And you know those untrained whackos? How would you know they were untrained? And if they have guns, well - as you have claimed - they don't actually need training so technically, in your world, there is no such thing as an untrained whacko.......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I agree that most people don't have the training to handle that situation, me I prefer to treat people as adults and educate/train them as opposed to treating them like babies and tell them they aren't allowed because of Bobby down the street.

I could handle it, I know this because I was a soldier, and I was better then the drill sergeants. That is a really good reason to believe myself capable of doing some good in a bad situation. Can you come up with a better reason to believe otherwise?

Better than the drill sergeants? Really? At what point did that become apparent? And in what skills? I hope you let the drill sergeants know, because when I was an instructor in my army we always appreciated being told by our trainees that they were better than us. We could just hand over the lessons to them and nip down the pub for a beer or two.......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:


Actually it is not pointless at all. What the book "says" is often clear. What is "means" is something different. If you want to argue that there are "twist and turns" then present them.

We are just going around and around on opposite sides of a merry-go-round. Again, the very fact that this thread even exists shows that what the book "says" is not clear and therefor it is up to us to work out what it "means". I think enough people have illustrated the "twists and turns" in the form of the logical arguments they have presented to make their particular case to not warrant further pursuit.

Malachi wrote a very well-structured post (which I don't think was at all high horse) presenting one side of the argument, other people have written well-strucutred posts arguing the opposite. None of us are defintively right, just as none of us are definitively wrong (even if the general consensus is RAW right-or-wrong, RAI is pretty clear) - until Sean or someone comes down and lays down the Paizo version of a Supreme Court ruling in an appeals case :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How big is your group? Getting rid of the problem player and having a smaller group is a much better outcome than being unhappy in a slightly larger group.

Either the player is immature and just doesn't get he is causing problems or he is just a d&++@ead who doesn't deserve to be included in a group that wants to enjoy the game.

I'd suggest making your feelings very clear to the GM and individually talk with the other players, bar the problem one. If you can reach a consensus about booting him, just do it. Life is too short to deal with obnoxious people. And if you are real life friends - is obnoxious towards you all outside of the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a Strength based MoMS monk - admittedly only two levels at this stage, but with 3 levels of fighter (brawler) and two of alchemist. He's a kind of "Incredible Hulk". I may take a level or two of barbarian for extra cheesy hulking goodness.

I couldn't see any benefit of going more monk levels at this stage. I might take one or two more to get better UAS damage with a Monk's Robe. Though taking light armour with the brawler ability would probably be a better option.

My two styles are Dragon and Crane. WIth a bumped up Str, especially with a mutagen up, the to hit penalty of fighting defensively is not noticable. The extra damage using Dragon Ferocity is impressive. All in all he is quite a fun character to play but will soon be hit with the age old conundrum of enchanting his UAS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And it took all of about 10 minutes to show how it is virtually impossible to have an intelligent discussion about a class without someone getting obnoxious.

If you don't have something constructive to contribute just go back under your bridge and wait for some billy goats gruff to wander along.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi Sean - thanks for the opportunity to provide input on this issue.

I have some thoughts on the prerequisite issue as that is one of the main sources of confusion.

There needs to be clear rules, written in one location (to help clarify the old "specific text" trumps "general" text), that clearly define and list what "missing things" will add to the DC and what things cannot be avoided with an increased DC.

Missing spell in spellbook (eg Wizard spell you do not yet know)
Missing spell (eg Sorcerer has it on class list but does not know it)
Missing spell (eg Wizard making item requiring Cleric spell)
Missing spell (eg non-caster using Master Craftsman feat)
Caster level 3 x + of item (eg level 6 crafter making +3 sword)
Race or class requirement (eg Elf making "Dwarf-only" item)
Caster not high enough to know required spell (Wiz5 wants to craft a wand of a level 4 spell)
etc etc

The only thing everyone agrees on is that you need the relevant item creation feat. That is, for want of a better term, a hard requirement, everything else is a soft requirement.

I don't really care what falls into which category (other than relevant feat), but a clear list of what, using my suggested terminology above, is hard and what is soft would make things easier. People could houserule to their heart's content but the core rules would be clear.

Cooperative crafting

Clarification (and perhaps some simple examples in the text) on how characters can work together to simplify process.

eg. Wizard with Craft Wand wants to make a Wand of Cure Light Wounds with a Cleric helping.

Can it be done? Does he even need the help if he can just add +5 to the DC for not knowing the spell.

eg Fighter with Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Weapon wants to make a +1 Flaming Burst Spear. Can a Sorcerer who knows Fireball help? Does the Sorcerer have to be there every day of the crafting process

eg. Can two Wizard 5 with Craft Wand make a Wand of Fireball twice as fast as if they were working alone?

Terminology

Differentiate the words used in mundane and magical crafting as the terminology is confusing. Sometimes you are making ("crafting") the magic item from scratch and other times you are basically enchanting ("crafting") an existing item. Why not replace "craft" with "enchant" to cover the magic item side of things.

This could impact on the whole "how does the Master Craftsman feat work" issue. I see that process being the character imbues the weapon/armour/item with magic as part of the process of crafting the base item from scratch. As opposed to a Wizard casting spells/performing arcane rituals/[insert fluff here] into an existing item.

Spellcraft

Why is Spellcraft needed for crafting magic items? Why does a powerful sorcerer with amazing inate magical talent need Spellcraft - an INT based skill - to enchant a magic item?

I can see Spellcraft being INT based for other uses of the skill, but if "crafting" a magic item involves imbuing it with magical power why does a sorcerer need to use spellcraft?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He's read the adventure....

He makes the game less fun for other players and the DM....

He ruins encounters....

When he DMs he gets annoyed with players who do anything vaguely like what he does when he plays....

Sounds like he is a complete tool.

So why are you playing with him now, let alone considering having him in your next campaign?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
STR Ranger wrote:

Man I feel sorry for you guys.

I am very lucky to be living in Australia. We seem to have the best health care system in the world.

Need a root canal? Done!
Appendix need to come out? Done!
Daughter broke her arm? Fixed!

All these happened to my family with only a day or so wait and 0 out of pocket cost!
I got a workmate who has cancer and gets chemo on the public system.

Private health here really only means a private room and you pick your doctor.
Oh and our public system won't pay for cosmetic surgery.

Anything else and you are sweet.
Our nurse to patient ratio is 1 to 4.

I have had American friends visit who marvel at our health care.
The downside?
We are about the highest taxing nation in the world!!!
He said Americans would riot over our taxes.

I'll admit I hate tax time. But I was so happy when the doctors fixed my daughters turning eyes. She would be blind otherwise.

Arrrgh. We are not "about the highest taxing nation in the world". That's just yet another simple Liberal party slogan meant for the masses whose political understanding goes as far as the words of the loonie right wing talkback hosts will penetrate their memory (and for US friends - our Liberals are actually the conservative party in our system). Look at comparisons with OECD countries to get an idea of who we compare with other countries.

Our public health system is fantastic but wait times do vary a lot depending on where you live. Private means you don't have to wait - and in a life-threatening emergency the public health system is fantastic (from personal experience twice).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Canada still has a relatively high rate of gun ownership (as does, surprisingly, Australia), which is my point. They are there, but they aren't usually abused.

Australia does not have high levels of gun ownership and the list of what types of firearms private citizens can own is very restrictive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it would be fine from a RP perspective if you were tithing that 10% to your church - and make it clear to the group that is what your are using the 10% for.

Down the track the church may then step in to assist the kingdom in some way because you (and the party by extension) have been so supportive of it.

In Kingmaker you can easily create an in-game purpose for that money that none of the other players should have reason to complain about. Talk to your DM about ways to incorporate the 10% into the game in a meaningful way. Have you befriended the kobolds? Perhaps the church is using the money to "civilise" the kobolds.

In my group we spent a squillion BP building a "spa resort" on Lake Silverstep just for the fun of it. Be creative and encourage the rest of the party to do the same :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the character was captured by human barbarians as a child how does she know how to use a hand crossbow? Racial weapon proficiencies come from nurture not nature. Even if she learnt how to use it a bit in Drow kindergarten, picking one up years later does not automatically mean she can use it effectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

and back on topic.....

If the guy has been spoken to once and hasn't modified his behaviour then I'd remove him from the group. DMing is hard enough, particularly if you are inexperienced, without having an obnoxious prat making things unpleasant for other people.

DnD is meant to be fun for all involved and a cooperative activity. With a large group you run the risk of the "nice" players getting fed up and starting their own group and you are left with the problem player(s).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Having spent way too long carrying heavy backpacks while in the army, trying to do anything active while heavily loaded is both very tiring and seriously impedes your capabilities. And on the rare occasions I had to carry a second one on my front (usually while helping carry a stretcher with the backpack's owner on it!) my ability do anything else was about zero.

Pathfinder basically hand waves away any in-combat issues with wearing a backpack in combat. Though trying to add rules around the issue would get messy.

The idea of wearing two backpacks and still being able to do anything other than walk in a straight line without tripping over and do all the things an adventurer does - which is presumably what your player wants to do - is stretching things.

Let him have his two backpacks, sack, bag of holding etc. Then ambush the party and see what he does. "How are you wielding a shield? Wasn't that the arm with which you were carrying that heavy sack? What, it was strapped to your pack? Ok, move at more than half speed and the sack swings around and gets in the way of your sword arm". If he drops the sack, or backpacks, keep note of where he dropped them and have the baddies grab them, or present a situation where he has to decide whether to stay and protect his gear or run away and live.

You don't have to be mean about it, just present realistic situations and see how he reacts. Will the rest of the party want to stay and risk dying just so Mr Multi-backpacks can protect his gear?

As an aside, how much stuff does he want to carry if he can't fit it in a handy haversack anyway? Sounds like he is a compulsive hoarder. A Scroll of Remove Psychological Disorder wouldn't go astray.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.