Gallo's page

Happler wrote:

he is hitting them with a weapon and it is an attack roll, just not against their "armor/touch/flat-footed" AC, but against their "maneuvers" AC.

Now that is an interesting line of thinking, but I'm still not convinced ;-)

Given a rend simulates hitting with both weapons and giving them an extra "twist", for want of a better description, to cause damage on top of that caused by the original two hits, rend wouldn't work with a trip.

Trips don't cause damage so any effect that produces extra damage wouldn't kick in.

Pual wrote:

I'm beginning to wish I cared about rugby instead

I care about rugby.... we are just fine tuning for the world cup... ;-)

The bad thing is if we win we will have to keep Ponting on as captain.... Punter is a first class knob and Australian Cricket would be much better off without him.

+1

He is a graceless, charmless bogan whose poor captaincy became apparent when McGrath, Warne etc retired.

Gallo wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

A lot of tribal warriors use 'magic' and drugs in the forms of 'snuff' or other substances to prepare for battle, so your use of magic wasw probably more appropriate than you realise.

at least in Pathfinder the "magic" would work!

In the real world it did too, when 20,000 Zulus took snuff laden with canibinoids and kicked the British hard at Isandlwana. Guys with spears attacking across open ground against rifle fire is a tactic that really should not work ... but in this case, it did, and the drugs were part of what gave the Zulus the edge to make it work.

That's not a magic, that is just a shot of Dutch courage, no different to British sailors having a tot of rum before battle.

I was thinking more along the lines of "magic" that makes you immune to bullets and the like.

Guys with spears attacking guys with rifles, as at Isandhlwana, works fine if the guys with rifles run out of bullets due to inept tactical dispositions and negligent logistics. Then it becomes 18,000 guys with spears versus 700 guys with bayonets......!

Strangely at Rorke's Drift shortly afterwards the opposite was true. The British were well placed and had an ample supply of ammunition that could actually be used. The Zulu commander, on the other hand, employed terrible tactics and persisted with small waves of attacks all day. If he had launched one big attack at one side of the defences the defenders would have been overwhelmed, and the battle of Rorke's Drift would just be a footnote to the disaster at Islandhwana.

A lot of tribal warriors use 'magic' and drugs in the forms of 'snuff' or other substances to prepare for battle, so your use of magic wasw probably more appropriate than you realise.

at least in Pathfinder the "magic" would work!

Yes, a fencer will often spend time feeling out his opponent before executing his strategy (except saberists), but not attacking is about the worst thing you can do as a fencer. I can speak from experience there. It also emphasizes single combat, which I did kind of want to get away from. However, perhaps an advantage of some sort if you can catch your opponent off-guard (flat-footed)?

I have also fenced and my parents were both champion fencers. Since sport fencing is all about one-on-one and has some restrictions that do not translate to real sword fighting (limited target area, riposte rules etc), trying to equate any aspect of the sport to pathfinder would be difficult. So trying to build a class that is more "swashbuckler" than fencer might be more feasible.

If you are after a base class who wields a rapier or sabre with dash and panache while not getting clobbered by the heavily armoured "traditional" Pathfinder melee types you are going to have to look more towards the "dashing swordsman" (but perhaps a bit more three dimensional than the mighty Elan!).

Regarding combat maneuvers, I think sunder fits the duelist just as well as disarm, the sword-breaker dagger was designed to let someone like a fencer ruin an opponent's sword, after all.

If you want to make sword-breaker daggers, main-gauches or various other off-hand weapons viable, ie for sundering, then you need some kind of exemption for abilities that only work when you have your offhand free.

Another ability that might fit is some kind of insight bonus to attacks or damage if you spend X rounds not attacking your opponent or a bonus for every iterative attack you give up in a round. This would match a fencer watching their opponent to see if they have any exploitable pattern in their technique or some flaw that can be taken advantage of.

And given this is a fantasy setting, some kind of bluff/feint ability based around witty quips and sparkling repartee would be a fun option.

What kind of bear? Grizzly, Polar, Brown, Black, Sun or Moon? If it was a Koala Bear then the lion wouldn't have a chance. (And yes I know koalas aren't actually bears)

I would like to see a way of creating a character that could emulate one of the historical warrior races such as the Maori or Zulu without ending up gimped by having low AC (short of using magical enhancements of some form). That is warriors who wear no or limited armour, use mainly simple weapons (essentially clubs and spears for the two listed above).

The only way I ever managed to create such a character was in 3ed where I made a Maori-styled cleric who used lots of self-buffing and magic items to be survivable while unarmoured. I've tried to create an effective Zulu-style fighter but carrying only a shield means they are not very survivable until they can afford magical assistance.

Samnell wrote:

But my experience came with a decent command of French and a general refusal to use English with the Parisians.

I've learned that a decent pronounciation of the local words for "Hello," "Thanks," and "No" makes all the difference between an excellent experience and a tourism nightmare, almost anywhere you go.

I was pleasantly surprised by my last tip to Paris. Even though it was the end of the tourist season everyone we dealt with was polite, even the the supposedly surly waiters! Having a smattering of French helped. Though I think the main factor was we had our incredibly cute 12 month old daughter with us. Outside Paris was even better. I'd happily go back and travel anywhere in France.

Shifty wrote:

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees.

Why? Aren't people allowed to join one?

Wal-Mart has a policy that if the word "union" is mentioned anywhere on their property they have a million dollar anti-union program that goes into effect.

I am only aware of two Wal-Marts where the employees successfully organized--one in Quebec and one (I think) in Vermont. Each store was immediately closed.

So, no. People aren't allowed to join one.

What happened in those two places after Walmart left? If there was a demand for the goods and services Walmart provided then someone would have filled that demand. There may have been a period of adjustment for locals, but they obviously had somewhere to buy things before Walmart turned up and would again have alternatives once Walmart left.

If there wasn't the demand then why did Walmart go there in the first place? Was it to stifle competition and make it the only place to shop in town?

Spellcasters who have to look up every spell every time they use one - "magic missile, that is 1d4+1 per level, right?". Even when you suggest they make a reference sheet with spell stats, they don't.

Spellcasters who can't remember spell DCs or even remember the simple formula for calculating DCs. "DC is caster level plus int bonus. Right?" See point about making reference sheet above....

Melee types who don't have their BAB, bonuses, damage, etc written down clearly on their character sheet.....

Players with messy character sheets who take ages to find anything.....

Players who don't plan their action in combat while other players are having their turn. And then spend ages trying to find something on their character sheet when it is their go.....

Archers with multiple attacks per round who have to calculate all their bonuses to attack and damage every single round because they have not written it down.....

Basically any player who doesn't have key stats, bonuses etc clearly written on their character sheet for quick reference.

A dice box is only going to shift the behavior to some other venue, such as cheating on his character design or spell selection.

+1.

Fixing the dice rolling is a (hopefully) easy way to cut out an obvious facet of the cheating. But, short of keeping a duplicate copy of his character sheet and maintaining it in parallel, you will still get the problem mentioned by other posters - potions not being marked off after being drunk, etc.

I had a player a few years ago in 3.0 who played an uber-archer. At high levels he was getting 4 or 5 attacks a round and doing all sorts of bonus damage (ie a mass of d20s, d6s and d8s per round). Strangely the green d20 that rolled low last round but was just enough to hit as a first attack, suddenly became the last attack when he rolled high.

I pointed this out a few times "wasn't the dice order blue, red, white last time?" and he'd pull his head in for a while but then go back to his old tricks. Even the other players were pointing it out to him! Eventually I started just ignoring half his damage each round without making it obvious to him that was what I was doing. The other players were annoyed too and started pointing out other things to him - such as adding certain bonuses to all attacks instead of just the first (can't remember exact feats etc). We knew he was fudging all sorts of other things about his character.

This player never role-played, never contributed outside combat, but he was part of a "buy one, get one free" with his best friend who also played in our group. Eventually the other guy became such a pain too that we all left the two of them and formed a separate group.

At times the benefits of having a cheater (or any other type of disruptive player), in the group are outweighed by the negatives. A happy three person group beats a disfunctional five person group.

gear: boots of levitation, snipers eye (custom item gives distance, +1 hit, and increases crit range by 1), cloak of arachnidia, belt of +2 con, efficient quiver, ioun stone +2 wis, golem bane scarab, ring of protection +2, ring of force shield +2, amulet of natural armor +3, robe of blending, ring of evasion (swapping).

weapon: +3 compound long bow (str:20) of icy burst.

The character also has well over double the standard wealth by level (62k at level 10). The bow alone is 50k.

So unless you are playing a very high magic campaign, and all characters are equally well provided for, you may want to somehow reduce his magical gear. Though how you do that mid-campaign is a whole new bag of worms :)

A good example of this is Wal-Mart. There are no unioned Wal-Mart employees. Somehow, even lacking unions, they pay above minimum wage (and damn near set the minimum wage in most areas). People love to hate wal-mart because of the "low" wages and treatment of their employees. I worked at wal-mart for a time back in the day and you know what? I didn't make a truckload of money, but I was fairly compensated for the work I was doing and was eligible for health benefits. What is so wrong with that? Does running a cash register and straightening up shelves really warrant more than $8/hour? If you got unions into wal-mart they'd have to pay their employees $20/hour and full benefits and prices would go through the roof (thereby affecting everyone who shops at wal-mart...so in essence, everyone).

Have you seen the studies - a few years old so maybe the situation has changed - whereby Walmart employees' pay was so poor that they could not afford the basic necessities of life if they tried to buy them at Walmart. ie employees of a supermarket chain have trouble even shopping at the place they work at and where the alternatives for shopping may be very limited.

If $8 an hour is above minimum wage in 2010 then that is plain scary. I remember my first fulltime job as an 18 year old in 1986 was A$5 an hour. Fast forward 24 years and the minimum wage in the US is roughly only double that. I wouldn't begrudge anyone getting paid a decent wage for "mere" blue-collar manual work.

So somebody who is skilled should be earning the same amount/less than an unskilled worker? I'm not saying that unskilled laborers should be subject to a life of poverty, but $52,000/year to watch an assembly line or move boxes? C'mon, gimme a break.

As for us getting our goods from china...we wouldn't have that problem if we didn't have unions, IMO. There's a difference between having no labor laws (ie.-china) and unions having such a stranglehold that it is inefficient to produce goods domestically. It's not like if unions went away the labor laws would go with them...unions did their part by getting labor laws established. They have outlived their usefulness...it's time to pull an "Old Yeller" on them.

So the historical role of unions in forcing through decent conditions for workers is fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist to have a role in maintaining those conditions? You have to take the good with the bad.

The reason China gets away with it is because it is effectively a dictatorship where human rights, workers' rights etc are controlled at the whim of the ruling party. People who have the temerity to try and start anything vaguely union-like there disappear or end up in labor camps. At least in the West we have the right to organise, even when sometimes that right gets abused. Take away that right and see how things go....

A person should be paid based upon the work they are doing, not based upon what somebody has bullied their employer into paying them.

And equally valid is: Why should should a person be paid based on what an employer has bullied them into accepting?

The lowly manual workers getting $25/hour which seems to excite so much displeasure aren't complaining. They earn what looks like a reasonable wage and have more money to spend on looking after themselves and their families. Gosh, they may even have enough left over after paying for necessities to save up for a holiday or some other luxury. And the money they earn, and then spend, works its way back into the economy.

As I have said before, some unions, or union management, go too far, but the opposite end of the spectrum looks like factories in China where management lock the doors so everyone burns in a fire, forces them to live in company dormitories and basically treat them little better than slaves. But that apparently is fine provided it keeps the price of consumer goods in the US, Australia etc, down. Who cares about human dignity and a fair go for all when it impacts on our hip pockets?

Chakka wrote:

LoL. Mr Fishy cracks me up.

( sorry for thread jack)

Mr. Fishy likes attention =)

I think Mr Fishy just made a serious slip and revealed himself not to be a true gamer. I mean, how can you seriously put together a list of the big six without including pizza? ;-)

I too really liked the idea of the phalanx fighter but didn't think the things it gains are worth the things it gives up. Plus some things are just plain ridiculous - wielding a polearm one-handed? Sure a long spear can be wielded one-handed - the classic Greek hoplite is a great example. But a halberd or glaive or guisarme? Maybe if you treat it as a long-handled axe, but trying to wield an axe on the end of a 5-8 foot pole? Perhaps if it instead allowed you to wield a polearm, other than a longspear, while using a shield but with some kind of penalty....

Brace as an immediate action is very situational (especially as it has limited usage per day). I'd much rather get the attack and damage bonus usable on every attack.

Lower penalties to attack while using a tower shield are nice-ish, but historically the shield was used in phalanxes offensively (which in D&D speak can be a shield bash), yet you can't shield bash with a tower shield.

But then at level 15 you get nice bonuses to bull-rushes when using a tower shield. So you can smack someone with a tower shield to knock them back, but you can't smack them to cause damage?

If phalanx fighters gained the ability to shield-bash with a tower shield, then I think the variant would work much better.

As it stands you could build a standard fighter who could outperform a phalanx fighter when equipped exactly the same.

Gallo wrote:

I like to think of unions a bit like that line in Star Wars "Many brave Bothans died to bring us the Death Star plans". In the past many brave labour activists suffered and/or died to bring us the working conditions we enjoy today. It was the sacrifices of those people in the past which had a great direct impact on the employment conditions we enjoy today - including the working conditions of those who are anti-union....

In the US, the history of unions are more associated with the Godfather than with Star Wars.

The same analogy could be used with the history of how employers treat staff.

Rhetorical tools aside, sure there are issues with how unions operate, interact with members, employers and government. But when weighed up against the alternative of a union-free environment, I am glad of the presence of unions in society.

(lots of good stuff about unions)

For every union that is misusing its members' money, there are many many employers who would get away with murder if they could. (I speak both as an employee and an employer in my two different "jobs").

Some aspects of unions' reason for existence may not exist any more due to the general progress in what society thinks is fair and what isn't and overall improvement in human rights since the days before unions. But many of us still hold to the idea that it is important for unions to exist.

For example, the right to collectively bargain. I suspect many on these forums have the education, skills and ability to negotiate for themselves, but many don't. Without unions representing them then they can miss out.

Here in Australia unions are very focussed on workplace safety. Some unions abuse that but I'd much rather work on a building site with unions monitoring safety than one where the unions have no right of entry.

I like to think of unions a bit like that line in Star Wars "Many brave Bothans died to bring us the Death Star plans". In the past many brave labour activists suffered and/or died to bring us the working conditions we enjoy today. It was the sacrifices of those people in the past which had a great direct impact on the employment conditions we enjoy today - including the working conidtions of those who are anti-union....

Quote frankly, no, composite longbows were not martial weapons. They required specialized training which is literally the definition of exotic weapon proficiency. English longbowmen regularly have been found with deformed skeletons due to how the usage of the weapon twisted their body.

Longbow as used by English/Welsh bowmen = bow made from a single piece of wood - yew, ash etc

Composite longbow = bow made from a composite of materials - woods, horn, sinew etc.

Having spent many an unpleasant day/week in constant rain while in the army, I'd say your morale and energy levels would take a hit (especially when some annoying instructor says "Rain, it's perfect infantry weather").

Getting little things done takes longer or can be virtually impossible. Being wet all the time has an impact on your health (I'll skip the unpleasant details, but just think "chafing" and extrapolate in your mind).

So in game terms, on top of the suggestions above about visibility, impact on rest, etc, some kind of penalty to attack, save and skill rolls, could work. Or becoming fatigued/exhausted is easier to achieve. Wet gear is heavier gear, bow/crossbow strings don't function well when wet, movement can be slower.

Gallo wrote:

Electric Monk wrote:

Aretas wrote:

How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?

Because one kills a person and the other doesn't.

How are conservatives against abortion but for capital punishment ;-)

Because one kills a person and one doesn't.

+1

It seems what's good for the conservative goose is not good for the liberal gander. And often vice versa.

If you raise the minimum wage of businesses in low class neighborhoods, you're going to reduce the number of people being hired (because business owners will feel they won't be able to afford higher wages).

I'm sure you'll agree that making it harder to find a job in a low income area is counter-productive.
What is needed is more small businesses. This will increase demand for labor.

So let's make it easier for poor people by making it easier for them to get a job which doesn't even pay enough for them to live off? How about working out what the minimum wage is required for people to live off and then set the minimum wage on that basis. It's not as though that money is going to be funnelled to Caribbean tax havens. Any extra money those people earn is going to be largely spent in their own communities. So the money is being fed back into those very same businesses that are afraid to pay their workers a few dollars an hour more. More money being spent at those businesses will create growth which in turn creates jobs.

Look at it as a form of investment. Businesses invest in equipment, technology, training etc to expand and improve performance, how is wage levels any different.

Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage. That hasn't stopped employers hiring staff or made the economies grind to a halt. In some cities the low wages is actually having an impact on provision of services as low income workers can't afford to reasonably close to where they work, for example menial workers in the CBD.

Aretas wrote:

How are liberals for abortion but against capital punishment?

Because one kills a person and the other doesn't.

How are conservatives against abortion but for capital punishment ;-)

Gallo wrote:

A bunch of irrelevant crap about Conservativism

You do know that this thread is about liberalism, not conservativism, right?

And, like I said, if the best defense of liberal politics you can muster is "quick, look over there!", it's damning your position.

Funnily enough I do know what the thread is about. It's a tad tricky to have a discussion about one aspect of the political spectrum without looking at other aspects. As some people have posted criticisms of "liberal" politics from a conservative standpoint, there is nothing wrong with raising conservative issues in response. It is the very nature of a thread like this and if you expect it not to happen, or to have a whinge because it does, then you may as well stay off the boards.

I still have no idea what your "look over here" stuff is all about. I assume it is an attempt by you to play the man, not the ball. Feel free to summarise my position as "irrelevant crap", again playing the man, not the ball. The same summarised descriptor could just as easily be applied to what you have said, but it doesn't really progress the discussion.

Perhaps if our politicians all rode on chocolate flavored unicorns, everything would be better!
The fact is that if you could have spread funds evenly across all public schools, you would have. You've had decades to do it in. The fact is that you've failed to do it. Your method isn't working.

Very funny. I haven't had anything to do with it. Given I am neither an American politician nor an American the failure of your system has nothing to do with me. I am merely pointing out that some countries get it right - Germany, The Netherlands, amongst others. Don't use the excuse 'the US is too big" as size has nothing to do with it.

Pointing to your failures as if they were excuses doesn't help your cause.

Not my failures. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have happily supported this system. Conservatives can't attack social welfare while supporting one of the most egregiously unfair pension systems around. Likewise Republicans seem to love giving tax cuts to those who least need them, particularly high income earners. If that is not a form of welfare aimed at benefitting the big end of town ...

I'm not a conservative and, frankly, if the best defense you can muster is "quick, look over there!" that's not much of a defense now is it?

And your point is? If you want to defend conservative policies, feel free. It's your country not mine. And what do you mean by "quick look over there?" Bizarre. My point is that at least the left of politics appears to give a toss about the disadvantaged in society.

Gallo wrote:

When you have economic powerhouses like Germany showing that these "leftist" programs work, then it can work anywhere and size is irrelevant. Germany, and similar countries, actually care about the wellbeing of all sectors of society....

You do know that Germany has a population just a little over 1/4th of ours - right? It's a postage stamp sized country compared to ours. Also, Germany isn't exactly the role model you want it to be. As Stefan Karlsson points out, [words]

Actually I do know that as I lived in Germany for a number of years. Hardly a postage stamp. Though that is a pretty lame rhetorical tool to try and dismiss its economic and social performance in recent years. You can throw all sorts of stats around but I'd much rather live in Germany than in the US, especially if I was poor. See how Germany has recovered from the GFE compared to the US. If size is a determinant of whether "socialist" policies can work or not, then why is not the reverse true? Or is neo-coservatism and the like so good that it works anywhere? If so it is hardly taking the world by storm.

If you look at the big immigration surges of the past, you'll note that the giant welfare industry we've got today didn't exist back then. So, when there were surges of poor people, they didn't overwhelm the welfare industry. If the welfare industry went away tomorrow, huge immigration surges wouldn't be a huge economic problem.

The old "welfare industry" argument. That opens up a whole new area of discussion.... Would you prefer the good old days when Irish immigrants walked off the boat straight into the army to fight in the civil war? Back in those days there wasn't really a welfare system of any form for anyone, so bringing immigration into the discussion about social welfare today is not relevant.

The socialization of public schools is nothing to boast of - considering the performance record of these schools.

Perhaps if funds for education were spread evenly across all public schools it might be different. But wait! That would be evil socialism so we can't do that.

Social security will soon be bankrupt and my generation won't be getting any of it - though we need to continue to pay into it.

well if it was only available to those who needed it instead of public pensions not being means tested.....

Liberals -talk- like they alone value things like healthcare for all, education for all, etc., but when you look at the track record of liberal programs, it's crappy. All they're really accomplishing is getting people dependent on the federal government. Though, all that -talk- is good for elections. So, I think what liberals really believe is that if they keep up this -talk-, they'll win elections.

At least those evil so-called liberals are trying to do something about it and actually put in place programs to help the disadvantaged. All conservatives can do is scream "big government is bad", "socialists are trying to ruin us" etc without actually doing anything.

Mind, though, I am aware that there are many governments in Europe which are left of the US. In some of these countries, leftist programs have worked. Then again, Europe is a bunch of postage stamp sized countries. I think they've proven that leftist programs might work on the small scale. In the US, most liberals want to bring liberal programs to the federal level. I know of no country which has shown leftist policies to work on such a big scale.

When you have economic powerhouses like Germany showing that these "leftist" programs work, then it can work anywhere and size is irrelevant. Germany, and similar countries, actually care about the wellbeing of all sectors of society. Programs that reduce poverty and social disadvantage has flow on effects - lower crime, better health standards mean less stress of primary health care system, better educational outcomes etc. Conservatives have an attitude of if you can't make it yourself, tough luck. Compare educational standards between Germany and the US, percentage of the population in prison, or a whole range of other social indicators. Tell me which system works best.

Also, note that many European countries have far more stringent immigration laws than the US does and far more social pressure to have small families.

So are you suggesting immigration is bad or good? Or are immigrants a convenient scapegoat for wider woes? Remember, the US wouldn't be the US without immigration (though I suspect a lot of Native Americans wish immigration hadn't started back in the 1600s!)

Lets see....America is embracing every failed socialist policy that Europe is quickly abandoning for its collective survival. Take a good look at Europe to see were socialism can take a nation. I don't expect the hard core socialist, communists and America haters to agree with me. So for all you red, white and blue Americans who are a little right or left of center be proud of your country, its the best in the world!

There is a big difference between "socialism" and "social democracy". The latter is what many Western European countries actually embrace, as opposed to socialism as communism-lite (for want of a better term).

The fact that social democracy is actually a stock-standard form of democracy where certain basic human rights are prioritised is overlooked by the conservative side of politics, especially in the US. Things like universal access to decent health care (no medical insurance? well you'd rather live in France than the US), quality public education standardised across the nation (not dependent on how wealthy the district you live in is, Germany or the US?), a minimum wage that provides enough income to live off (US or Australia where the minimum wage actually is a "living wage"), the list goes on.

The US is a fantastic country with lots of great things about it, but that tired old conservative mantra of "socialism" is bad gets rather tiring, especially when it is socialism misattributed to social democracy, Labor or any of the other left-of-centre political systems.

It is baffling to me why so many in the US are opposed to a functioning universal healthcare system. Why should access to decent medical care be income reliant? Why, in the richest and most powerful country in earth, do so many miss out. Particularly when so many on the "right" who are opposed flaunt their "Christianity" - a basic tenant of which is to help those less well off. Or do they selective choose to adopt the "God helps those who help themselves" mantra?

Perhaps the US needs to embrace a few other "failed" "socialist" policies - better oversight of money markets, stopping rapacious home lenders who don't care whether people can actually pay their mortgages as long as a commission in gained, institute government driven energy generation reform so that more clean, green energy can be generated domestically and lower the reliance on imported oil....

In the Kingmaker campaign I am playing in, the GM has made a ruling that Master Craftsman combined with Create Magic Arms and Armour allows my character to enchant any weapon or armour (though admittedly I haven't raised the issue of bows). That is, he doesn't need to take Master Craftsman twice - once for Armoursmith and once for Weaponsmith (which is what we took RAW to require). I have skills in Craft(Armoursmith) and Craft (Weaponsmith) to use towards enchanting arms and armour.

I kind of see it as a bit like the scene in Conan the Barbarian where young Conan's dad makes the magic sword. He has no inherent magical skills but through his mastery of his craft he can turn the weapons he makes into magic ones. As opposed to Mr Random Wizard, with Create Magic Arms and Armour, who locks himself in his study, mutters a few incantations and hey presto! the sword is magic.

Different process, same result.

The fact that you need ranks in the relevant skill could suggest that the crafter needs to make the weapon himself and as part of that process the weapon becomes magical, as opposed to just buying a bunch of MW weapons at 300 or so GP each and spend a day turning them into +1 weapons, without slaving over a hot forge creating the MW weapons himself. That is, Conan's dad's method as opposed to Mr Random Wizard.

But RAW would suggest the latter method is how the process works, even if the former has more RP appeal. If I was DMing I wouldn't allow a random skill to be the prerequisite for enchanting a weapon. Spellcraft would be the only alternative to not having ranks in the skill directly relevant to the weapon or armour you are enchanting.

It is an expensive process in terms of feats and skills for a non-caster, even for a fighter like my character. Especially as in my case he is also our ruler so is spending skills and feats to make him a better ruler. He certainly isn't optimised as a fighter but is fun to RP :)

Try using channel energy and heal both sides of the combat. If you have Selective Channeling you could have even more fun with who gets healing in combat.....

But seriously, playing the game should be fun. If the rest of the gaming group are being prats and the DM doesn't care, then find another group.

Thanks!

Considering I run my game in a University Lecture Theatre with a computer, a laptop, a projector screen and my books the idea of being outraged by a single laptop is kinda funny to me.

I don't need all those toys to play, but I have to say there's something atmospheric about bringing up the picture of an owlbear. Or a map of a Tatlwyrm nest projected onto a white board that makes a special kind of experience.

Can you expand on how you use the various bits of technology in your game please?

Do not guess-timate weights or fling tree stumps.

Very dangerous.

Seriously

so no link to a youtube video then ? ;-)

Trebuchets were built on site because the arm was basically an entire tree. We're not talking about trebuchets here. They don't even have rules for trebuchets. We're talking about a light catapult, something like the Roman onager.

Often if it was too much hassle moving an entire siege engine, an army would just take the metal parts, ropes/cordage etc for it and use local material for the wooden parts. Getting seasoned wood could be a problem (or any wood in some cases), so that is when they would take the wooden bits too. Though I'm sure plenty of local houses were demolished over the years for the nice seasoned beams in them....

If you want to move a siege engine any great distance (ie more than manouevring it where it is being used) you would want large wheels. Look at Napoleonic era horse artillery - small calibre cannons with huge wheels relative to the size of the cannon itself. Small wheels are mechanically not feasible, for example poor ground clearance on what would be very poor quality tracks between Oleg's and the SL's fort.

Sure the PCs could dismantle it and transport it to near the SL's fort, but as others have said, reassembling it would be no easy task (ie a trained profession required), let alone getting the correct tension etc. Not a reason to stop them trying - and it would make the PCs feel creative - after all being creative in solving in-game problems is a large part of the fun of the game (practicality, on the other hand often is hand-waved away!). But seriously, the effort to move it 60 odd miles (or however far it actually is) by any means, may be more than it is worth.

PlungingForward wrote:

Andreas Skye wrote:

But sacrifice for sacrifice's sake is normally a directed attitude by an ideological dominant power (like a church in this case). Sorry, but I personally find that your childhood and teen years attitude was far more genuine and unbiased by ideology.

Let's be careful with proposals of self-renouncing and self-denial, they tend to be mechanisms of control.

To consider it "sacrifice for sacrifice's sake" is to miss the point. And I think that's what Chris was trying to say he learned.

Definitely not missing the point, but assessing it from an ideological pov. I mean "sacrifice for sacrifice's" sake in the sense that Catholicism (among other religions) sees virtue in denial when there is no practical reason to do so (e.g. fasting once a year in the "World Fast Day" to be aware of people in need, where you don't give the food you save to hungry people, the important thing is just the experience of denial or deprivation). In other words, a ritualized approach to sacririce and denial, which, unlike some other belief systems, is incidental, as it is based, e.g., in calendar dates such as Lent, as opposed to a personal path of self-denial, like the one to be found in certain Asian systems, which I won't bring into the discussion, because I find inaccurate and Western-centric to call them "religions".

To think that renouncing something on a voluntary basis and in a ritual community setting can make one connect with people who are deprived daily because of life situations is really preposterous. It would be more productive to focus resources and energies in helping them (if they want to be helped) instead of "communing with their feelings". I do not doubt the genuine good feelings of many practitioners of such procedures, ie, Chris and other posters, but I am wary of its implementation by Church hierarchy at large; ritualized denial is a good way of washing away our conscience from misery in the world without really trying to change anything.

+1

If someone gives up something due to their religion and as a result decides to do something to improve the world around them - for example giving up something at Lent and that experience leading them to go out and volunteering at a soup kitchen - then great. If it is purely an introspective exercise driven by the requirements of your religion, then what is the point? You can feel empathy for those who are hungry without giving up food, but actually doing something to help others - irrespective of what you do to change your own life - should be the mark of a "good" Christian.

One of the reasons I am an atheist. Religion is driven too much by ceremony, inward-looking self-satisfaction, peer group pressure etc. You don't need any of that to do good deeds, live a "good" life or be a good person.

Gallo wrote:

Trying to put a D&D discussion to bed by claiming Judeo-Christian culture/morality proves a point is fraught with peril.

Fraught with peril? This is not an Indiana Jones adventure or the such. How would you define the moral basis of our modern society (from a majority view) and the moral influence (foundation) of Pathfinder? Greco-Roman? Buddhist? Confuscian? Islamic?

I'm not claiming anything about the moral basis of our modern society (not sure what all the Buddhists, Hindus etc would say about your use of "our modern society").

Though as far as moral influence goes, I'd argue that many of the culture/moral aspects Judeo-Christian religions are largely universal aspects of human society that have been given prominence by Christianity becuase Chrisitianity has been the dominant religion in western cultures for much of the past 2000 years. They are certainly not unique to those religions.

In terms of influence on Pathfinder/D&D, the battle of good v. evil that is often plyed out reminds me more of some of the great Hindu epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharatta than of some of the basic tenents of Christianity.

DM: The evil sorcerer casts Lightning Bolt at you.
Brother Albertus the Cleric: I roll a reflex save of 17
DM: You save for..... 17 damage. Ok, it's your turn, what do you do?
Brother Albertus: I turn the other cheek.

;-)

Ion Raven wrote:

I mean, it's not good, but is it really evil?

It is evil to violate the dead in Judeo-Christian culture is it not? The system is founded in that morality and enough said.

I think claiming D&D/Pathfinder is based on Judeo-Christian morality should generate a thread of its own..... Trying to put a D&D discussion to bed by claiming Judeo-Christian culture/morality proves a point is fraught with peril.

But on-topic - what if the dead being raised are non-sentient creatures? Being non-sentient they have no souls (or whatever you want to call whatever kind of post-death sentience they may have) so raising them against their will is not an issue. ie a "good" necromancer with an army of animal skeletons and zombies at his or her command.

(/tongue-in-cheek mode on) Especially as according to Judeo-Christian "culture", God gave man dominion over all the animals. Therefore it would not violate the apparent Judeo-Christian morality of D&D to raise them. (/tongue-in-cheek mode off)

Gallo wrote:

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

These sorts of ambiguities are frustrating....and unnecessary! Just send me the galleys of all future products, and I will mark in RED the things you missed...or need clarity....or totally contradict other rules....etc.

Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed

fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a
charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his
Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces
armor training 1.

There is no ambiguity at all in this statement. There is no mention of dealing an additional anything, no 50% on top of double your strength bonus..... Simply double your strength bonus....

On the contrary, that is exactly where the ambiguity lies. The simple statement "when a fighter makes a single attack, (etc) he ADDS (etc)", strongly implies that you use the normal rules for the attack damage and ADD double your strength bonus. And many, if not most, players of fighters who enjoy laying down the smack will see it this way.

When you contradict and/or fiddle with the normal working of a rule, you should drop a simple line like: he adds double his strength bonus on the damage roll (instead of one and a half times his strength bonus).

Easy as pie.

PS I should clarify that while I think this is needlessly ambiguous, I did not for one moment think that they actually meant for the fighter to add double his bonus on top of the normal damage. I wouldn't allow that anyway.

It doesn't "strongly imply anything", it simply states that when you make a single attack you add double your strength bonus. How does it suggest you use the normal rules for damage and then add double your strength? Like I said, there is no suggestion, inference, whatever that you calculate normal damage then add an extra 2x. Does it say "when a fighter makes a single attack and rolls normal damage... he then adds double his strength bonus" or something like that? The "when a fighter makes a single attack" is simply a conditional clause that provides context for the "he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls" bit.

From the PRD.

Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

The Overhand Chop description uses the same language as the standard strength bonuses - add your strength modifier, add only half your strength bonus, add 1 1/2 times your strength bonus...add double his strength bonus. No mention of "on top of normal damage" etc. People are taking a simple description and complicating by reading too much into it.

Sure they could put in an additional clause in as you suggest, but then all the Pathfinder books would be twice as long.

That said, as some of the other posters have said, a bit more consistency in descriptions and terminolgy across feat descriptions, class abilites etc would not hurt.

A fighter using a greatsword with a 16 STR deals 2d6 + 4 damage.
The same fighter, with the two-handed fighter archtype in the APG using the overhand chop ability, deals 2d6 + ?

Do they add double their STR bonus, so +6 and then add 50% to make +9?
Or do they add 50% to their original STR bonus - +4 and then add their STR bonus again for +7?

Or, and this is a long shot, do they deal their original STR bonus, +4, and then ADD double their STR bonus for a total of +10.

What do you think?

These sorts of ambiguities are frustrating....and unnecessary! Just send me the galleys of all future products, and I will mark in RED the things you missed...or need clarity....or totally contradict other rules....etc.

Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed

fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a
charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his
Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces
armor training 1.

There is no ambiguity at all in this statement. There is no mention of dealing an additional anything, no 50% on top of double your strength bonus..... Simply double your strength bonus....

Gallo wrote:

Stating that the alchemist level determines the variables based on caster level is in no way saying an alchemist is a spellcaster. He uses his alchemist level in a manner similar to caster level.

I specifically stated that an alchemist was NOT a spellcaster.

Yes, I can read. My post was a general comment about whether alchemists are spellcasters for the purposes of PrCs in light of comments about caster levels etc.

A lot of the alchemist threads are similar to the discussion of Artifiers when Eberron came out - are they this like this? are they not like that? what are infusions?......

I know alchemsits aren't spellcasters and don't cast spells, but they do have a caster level. What else would you call it?

From the Alchemist class ability:

An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

...that seems pretty clear to me. The wording is nearly identical to that of traditional casters.

The reference to uses his caster level simply means if the spell being duplicated is X rounds per caster level, it works for X rounds per alchemist level. The reference is to how strong/long/etc the effect of the extract is.

Stating that the alchemist level determines the variables based on caster level is in no way saying an alchemist is a spellcaster. He uses his alchemist level in a manner similar to caster level.

Perhaps the writers should have said ...uses his level as caster level, but is not a spellcaster, but then the book would be twice as long as they would have to put explanatory clauses/disclaimers on every second sentence.

At some point simple English comprehension mixed with some commonsense needs to be applied. But then that would negate the need for a lot of the threads on this messageboard ;-)

Quote:

I agree that it is strange to have a polearm that doesn't have one of the key features of all other polearms - namely reach. Perhaps halberds should be moved to the axe category. After all they function essentially as a long-handled axe with a spike on top and a hook/projection opposite the blade. The D&D guisarme seems to be closer to the historical halberd (if you add a spear point to the end).

I think in the Kingmaker campaign I am in, I'll just turn my halberd-wielding fighter into a guisarme-wielding one if I go for the polearm fighter type.

If I were running a campaign, I'd just re-skin the guisarme stats as a halberd. . . . Not sure *why* they don't have reach.

Another houserule alternative might be to give a hally reach but then make it exotic (and maybe up the damage slightly?)

In fact that is what me and my DM had been discussing. In the end we just went with a plain old halberd. Then along comes APG polearm fighter variant and it got us thinking again.......

Gallo wrote:

Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

If you want to be a polearm fighter archetype, don't use a halberd. Simple stuff.

So Paizo creates a fighter variant called the polearm fighter, yet gives the variant an ability that is of no use whatsoever for said fighter using a commonly used polearm.....

Suggesting someone just not use a halberd is just tendentious. All the other abilities work fine for a halberd, yet to get them the halberd-wielding fighter wastes what is effectively a feat at level 2.

Almost as strange as phalanx fighters being able to wield halberds, glaives etc one-handed. But that's a whole thread in itself....

To me it seems that the point of the archetype is to get fighters to use reach weapons. . . thus making that ability *extremely* useful. All of the other abilities in the archetype are primarily beneficial for reach weapons, especially the one that lets you move the square that establishes flanking. Likewise, the one that grants bonuses to AOO's just screams to be used with a weapon that can threaten *lots* of squares.

Halberd, IMO, seems to be the odd fit with the archetype, but I don't see it as a problem.

I agree that it is strange to have a polearm that doesn't have one of the key features of all other polearms - namely reach. Perhaps halberds should be moved to the axe category. After all they function essentially as a long-handled axe with a spike on top and a hook/projection opposite the blade. The D&D guisarme seems to be closer to the historical halberd (if you add a spear point to the end).

I think in the Kingmaker campaign I am in, I'll just turn my halberd-wielding fighter into a guisarme-wielding one if I go for the polearm fighter type.

If you want to be a polearm fighter archetype, don't use a halberd. Simple stuff.

So Paizo creates a fighter variant called the polearm fighter, yet gives the variant an ability that is of no use whatsoever for said fighter using a commonly used polearm.....

Suggesting someone just not use a halberd is just tendentious. All the other abilities work fine for a halberd, yet to get them the halberd-wielding fighter wastes what is effectively a feat at level 2.

Almost as strange as phalanx fighters being able to wield halberds, glaives etc one-handed. But that's a whole thread in itself....

I think he is saying that the archetype basically gets a class ability that is wasted, if he uses a halberd (a fairly iconic polearm). Not saying he should get something instead, but I understand his POV.

Exactly. Given halberds are, at least in my experience, the most commonly used polearm, it seems strange to create a fighter variant that, as Bruno says, wastes an ability.

Sure I could have started new thread in the house rules section, but it does fit in with the OP's original question.

Gallo wrote:

Here's a polearm fighter question that I though I'd toss in here.

At level 2 you get the ability to attack adjacent targets at -4.

Given a halberd is a polearm without reach, how would you apply that ability to it?

a. ignore it - ie tough luck for using a polearm without reach.

b. reverse it - allow halberd wielder to adjust grip to get reach at -4 to attack.

c. some other variation to the ability.

Interested in your views.

Non-issue. The ability specifies "can shorten the grip on his spear or polearm with reach. . . "

so, our answer is E., use the weapon as intended.

I am aware of what the ability specifies - but I didn't have the book on me to quote verbatim. I am more interested in whether people have come up with their own adjustments - house rules, making halberds a reach weapon etc (without diverting into discussions about polearm design).

Please stop talking. I've been keeping up on this thread since it started and you pushed it over the top.

You are a blatant and obvious troll, and you will be flagged as such.

On the off chance that you are being serious, my suggestion is as follows. Find an actual play group and stop playing the game in your head and in spreadsheets because if you actually believe an single fluid ounce of that dribble you are spouting, then it is clear that you have never actually PLAYED in a PFRPG game, and quite possibly from your lack of understanding maybe any 3.X D&D game at all.

Hear, hear.

Any class can be fun, any class can be played well, any class can be played poorly. But you know what? As long as everyone is having fun, who cares if the fighter isn't the most powerful character in the party. If everyone wants to play a melee type with no healers, that's great. If the players want to do that, then a good DM will work with them. Modify the encounters if need be - but make the whole process fun, challenging and occasionally frustrating so that everyone is engaged and enjoys themselves.

Here's a polearm fighter question that I though I'd toss in here.

At level 2 you get the ability to attack adjacent targets at -4.

Given a halberd is a polearm without reach, how would you apply that ability to it?

a. ignore it - ie tough luck for using a polearm without reach.

b. reverse it - allow halberd wielder to adjust grip to get reach at -4 to attack.

c. some other variation to the ability.

Interested in your views.

and I suppose the fact that the Royal Navies entire efforts during most of the 19th century were devoted to stopping the transatlantic slave trade would have had no effect on this..if you are going to write alt his at least make it plausible and not some fevered rambling..

+1