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

Hudax's page

740 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nihimon wrote:
Hudax wrote:
The ability to duel or skirmish could be critical in training new players or just for practice. A safe zone or a safe pvp mode is not at all unreasonable. Rather, it should be an expected feature.
You might want to read Ryan's answer to the question Why no "non-lethal" duels?

I did. A year and eight months ago.

I agree that getting duel requests can be annoying. That's easily solved by only allowing them in predetermined locations (ie: arenas).

I agree that a gladiatorial style arena system can and should be implemented, possibly in every settlement that chooses to build one. Arenas could offer one-on-one duels or group skirmishes.

No one here can honestly say they wouldn't appreciate the opportunity to practice. I can't tell you how much I hate duels, but I also can't say how many times over the years they have been useful when I need to try something out. What breaks immersion more--being able to test a new technique immediately with a trusted friend (or say, a target dummy?), or having to travel halfway across the River Kingdoms to the single in-game arena just to try something out?

I disagree with everything else in that post.

1: There is nothing immersion breaking about pulling your punches. Duels don't have to end in death.

2: Agree. Solution is arenas.

3: The reward for dueling is obvious--you get better at playing your character. That is a reward worth investing resources toward.

4: Real combat is not devalued. Duels carry no risk/reward, no loot, no territory. Real combat does.

5: People are constantly dueling in other games despite lack of reward for the sake of socializing and improving their game. Ie: meaningful interaction.

6: Saying that people who enjoy dueling are generally annoying is kind of a silly thing to say. One could say the exact same thing about people who enjoy PvP.

Nihimon wrote:
There's no reason you can't fight a duel and simply stop when the loser is near death.

There are several.

Define "near death."
How do you get someone near death if you can kill them in just a few hits? At some point, you're either fine or dead.
What if your opponent doesn't notice or acknowledge they are near death and kills you while you're standing down?
How do you attack someone without bringing the guards down on you? How silly is it to have to leave town to duel? Or travel halfway across the map?
How many people on a team have to die before the team is near death?
How do you get everyone on two skirmish teams on the same page of an arbitrary honor system of victory?

The ability to duel or skirmish could be critical in training new players or just for practice. A safe zone or a safe pvp mode is not at all unreasonable. Rather, it should be an expected feature.

Continuing this discussion here where it's more appropriate.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

MTX pay to win: An MTX item is meaningfully better than the best item that can be created via player action in-game. No meaningful human interaction.

Selling Characters: A human had to play them to make them good, thus creating meaningful interaction with other humans in the process. The purchased character has no intrinsic superior benefit to a character you played from inception yourself.

Thanks for the clarifications.

I would like to counter with the typical definition of what pay-to-win means: paying cash to gain an in-game advantage or to skip content.

It's clear to everyone that cosmetics don't do this. Neither do toys that don't affect gameplay, like mounts and pets. Training likewise is fine because no matter how much money you spend, you can only train at the same rate as everyone else.

However, it is generally accepted among gamers that selling gear of any functional kind is automatically pay-to-win. The fact that you can craft something just as good is irrelevant. The cash shop item allows you to skip content--either the crafting process or the in-game transaction. Skipping either of these removes human interaction that would otherwise have to occur, and also upsets the playing field between someone wanting to play the game in a typical way (using in-game resources) vs. someone wanting to spend their way past that requirement. Not to mention if people feel the desire to skip content, how interesting is that content to begin with?

Regarding toons, I think it's fine if one player wants to sell their toon to another (as long as the toon was actually played by a human). MMOs have too long held the irrational stance that our toons are their property, and I respect this change of attitude.

However, if toons ever show up in the cash shop, that would be unacceptable for obvious reasons.

This game is going to be about advancement, loss and recovery. You should not want to allow people to spend their way past these stages. It will backfire in one way or another. If someone doesn't like the advancement stage, they're not going to like the recovery stage. If they bought gear to advance and lost it, they're not going to think "Oh well, I'll just throw more of my bar tab money at GW." They're going to think "Well that money just went down the drain, screw this, I'm going to the bar."

That's someone getting alienated from your game on an individual level.

On a group level, you may very well have lots of people willing to throw money at you over and over. But what sort of players will they be? What sort of players have they been in other games (ie: EVE)? These are the sort of people who pay their friends to hang out with them, and will join PFO because they'll see it's a game they can treat like it's their own private server. Get a significant number of them, fully equipped with everything money can buy from the cash shop, and suddenly there's a major problem in the balance of power. Actually, just get a bunch of them equipped with tons of healing potions. Still a big problem. Great for GW's bank account, but bad for the game.

If that doesn't scream pay-to-win, I don't know what to say.

You have lots of good ideas going for this game. Don't ruin it by underthinking the cash shop (or worse, by trying to redefine what is pay-to-win). I sincerely hope you take a look at every single proposed cash shop item and reevaluate it with this in mind.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
You want to build & sell accounts. Eventually we'll have to have a system for this because not doing it will cause us more grief than directly supporting it. There are people who make a living making and selling MMO characters. You might be one of those people.

Temporarily lifting my "lurker" status.

I get that people will buy and sell accounts whether it's against the EULA or not. I get that MTXs are fine so long as they're cosmetic. But I don't get this.

A skilled/geared character is not cosmetic. How is supporting these third party transactions not supporting third party pay-to-win?

Once this support is in place, the obvious small step for GW to take is offer similar characters in the cash shop as MTXs. In that eventuality, could you explain how this would not be pay-to-win?

I recently quit WoW because they're sticking their big orc toes over the line with their latest cash shop ideas and I see the writing on the wall (one reason among many). People are on the forums in droves asking "Why can't I just buy a max level toon?" not getting why it isn't an appropriate question. It's like all of a sudden the colloquial meaning of pay-to-win changed from giving someone the slightest edge to giving someone a raid-ready toon.

It seems pay-to-win doesn't really mean anything anymore, and I would like to know what it will mean in PFO.

Nihimon wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
"You [expletive] [expletive], I can't believe how [expletive] [expletive] you must [expletive] with [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] pancakes."
Anyone else feeling a weird curiosity about the uncensored version?

Not really. I've seen enough after-school WoW trade chat to pretty much know exactly what he's talking about.

And I'm fine with people getting banned for talking about doing that to pancakes.


Shooting for the moon only works if you can pull it off by yourself.

Germany is doing a lot of smart things. Spain did well with moving toward solar power. I wish we would do that here.

Austerity is Gollum trying to keep the ring out of the lava. The solution is the same as it is here in America--tax the hell out of the rich, and also cut spending. Suffer in the short term and be ok later. Sadly, I don't think anyone will do this, here or anywhere. Because the rich own government.

Regarding Catalonia, my guess is most Americans don't know it's a separate country.

Is your friend's mom Martha Stewart?

A Man In Black wrote:
What do political rallies have to do with Burning Man again?

Because of the slippery slope of right wing logic:

Burning Man = heathens = weed = boobquake = commies = democrats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Respectfully, I think the FAQ on ranged touch attacks may be in error. I didn't participate in the thread on the subject so I don't know what was discussed, but it seems off to me. Here is what the PRD says from the combat "cast a spell" section:

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity...

Making a ranged touch attack is a single action (whatever action the spell requires to cast). The attack is made as a part of casting the spell. The last line "Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity" is, in my opinion, only there to clarify that they do provoke, but only once. Obviously casting a spell in melee provokes. Obviously making a ranged attack in melee provokes. However, if as a ranged touch attack doing these two things together "do not require a separate action" then they should not provoke as if they were two actions.

Blaeringr wrote:

According to recent genetic evidence all humans, except those of pure African descent, are at least part neanderthal: 3-6%. That percentage may grow some more as we continue to map the neanderthal's DNA.

In fantasy terms that means black people are the only pure humans, and the rest of us are some mix of half orc with a little more human than orc in the mix.

/neanderthal grunt of approval

Gruffling wrote:
I think its important to remember that any alternate race is almost certainly going to think of its race as the "true race"

Yup. I think the name of every native american tribe translates into "the people." As in, THE people.

I would drop his CHA down by one and boost his WIS up to 14. Better survival, perception, will saves for virtually no cost.

Antagonize is just about the worst feat there is. It's a standard action, so instead of chopping something in half, he makes something attack him, wasting resources (his HP) in exchange for not progressing the fight towards conclusion. If he wants to be intimidating, suggest Intimidating Prowess or Skill Focus.

Other than that it looks pretty good. Out of curiosity, what is his wife making?

It wouldn't be racism or segregation, it would be homogenization. Race-only groups exist in every game I've ever played, and probably every game I haven't. There's nothing wrong with it in game or out of game. It's roleplaying a homogenized group, nothing more.

I'm trying to build a Sensei. I have a lot of questions.

WIS>>>>DEX>>CON dumping CHA.

1) I gather Qinggong is a good match with Sensei, although I'm leaning toward Ki Mystic for the skill utility and reroll buff.

-Is it possible to take all 3 archetypes? Qinggong says you replace monk ability X with a ki power. Can you replace the conflicting monk ability (mystic visions) with a ki power to resolve the conflict? (And generally, can you ignore everything past level 12 for PFS in terms of conflicting archetypes?)

-For Ki Mystic, does the +2 to all knowledge skills allow you to use them untrained, or would I have to spend ranks to use them?

-Any suggestions on what item to choose for Vow of Poverty, or would that make life too difficult?

2) Aside from buffing, what is my secondary role? Grappler, stunner? Stay out of combat? The latter seems like it would be a waste since I could get pretty good AC/HP.

3) Any trait/feat suggestions?


James Jacobs wrote:

Now... on to what I think is the core of this problem... and it has little to do with Dervish Dance at all.

The nature of massively multiplayer RPG games, be they online like Warcraft or offline like Pathfinder Society, is that each "build" for a character is going to have one perceived "best" choice. This is REGARDLESS of what rules we provide. The only way this perceived "best" choice changes is if we add or subtract rules from the game, but then something else comes along.

If you want to build a character in a game who looks unique and has an unusual style, and your game of choice is a Massively Multiplayer game... you more or less have to come to peace with the fact that if your choice isn't in sync with the perceived best choice, your character will be perceived as being inferior.

It is, in fact, one of my biggest complaints about World of Warcraft—all the high level characters of any one class end up looking identical. Blizzard actually addressed this relatively recently (alas, about a month AFTER I lost interest in the game) and allows you to transmogrify (within some limits) your gear to look like any other piece of gear you own. It's a totally cosmetic change that doesn't alter the fundamental game stats of your gear, be it armor or weapon or whatever.

Pathfinder, alas, doesn't have that luxury, since the physical appearance of your character isn't something that exists as a fundamental aspect of the game play experience—this is one way video games have an advantage over tabletop games—the visuals. You can certainly call your scimitar a longsword and describe it as a straight-bladed weapon, but unlike a video game where the other players "see" your character's appearance and not so much his stats, in a tabletop game other players "see" your character's stats and not so much his appearance.

Transmog was certainly a welcome and long belated addition to WoW, and I'm in a similar boat--too little time to enjoy it before the game wore my interest away. I agree it's not so simple to reskin things in tabletop games. For one thing, many of the weapons that have increased critical range have slashing curved blades, and this makes sense--curved blades have a better chance of connecting perpendicularly at the point of impact. It's not trivial to justify giving a slashing straight blade the same crit range as a weapon that was designed (in real life) to be better at it. Definitely not impossible, but not trivial.

On "best" choices. WoW is attempting to buck this trend. I'll assume you're too busy/uninterested to avidly read the Pandaria beta forums. The short of it is classes are getting really beefy specs that contain every ability they really need, while getting a small number of talents that can greatly customize certain things they might want. In theory, this will eliminate or at least reduce cookie cutter builds. It's moderately successful, since they have been largely resistant to cookie cutter builds for months of beta, while in previous expansions the "best" builds were mathed out within hours of releasing talent info.

I'm interested in how that type of idea could be translated to the tabletop. I suspect it would involve the sacrificing of certain sacred cows, most notably (or maybe only?) the idea that some classes should be better damage dealers than others in combat for flavor reasons. If all classes were of approximately equal combat effectiveness more or less out of the box (within 5% is hard to achieve with dice, but I think around 10% is attainable), I think a lot of customization options might open up that do not currently exist. For instance, rogues wouldn't have to bend over backwards to be subpar melee; they could take their "spec" and then focus their feats on whatever they wanted (instead of being taxed 4-10 feats for being a TWF DEX build).

I would caution against a whip bard for a few reasons. One, it is an optimised bard build. The bard isn't a suboptimal enough class to warrant an optimal build for what you want. Also, if I were a new player, I would personally just want to jump into things. I wouldn't be at all optimization minded, particularly in terms of strategy. If I were a melee, I wouldn't know I got a bonus for attacking a prone enemy, nor would I be inclined to do so, figuring you were taking care of it, and I would want a more "live" opponent anyway. If I were ranged or a caster, the bonus would be mostly irrelevant.

A new player is probably going to want to get into the grit of the game, rather than be handed a lot of things that make the game easier. What's more fun and memorable, the fights where you almost die, or getting a +4 to hit everything?

I would echo Lazurin's suggestion, for a different reason. Don't just be a suboptimal build. Be a suboptimal party choice. Your experience will make the character/party viable without making the newbies feel like you're bringing the training wheels for them.

In short, be a rogue. ;) Optimize slightly with UMD. If the new guy rolls a caster, you're the suboptimal tank. If they roll a melee, you're the suboptimal support. If he rolls another rogue, then you have the ultimate suboptimal party.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The question is "how do we make the presence of unique opponents that produce exceptional loot maximize human interaction"?

I don't think the original suggestion is for unique opponents. Unique strongly implies named which would obviously break persistence. I think the suggestion is merely for rare elites. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

On the subject of interpretation, would it be possible to define exactly what you guys mean by "maximize meaningful interaction" (or a link if I somehow missed it)? Maximize could mean as large a group as possible or as frequently as possible. Meaningful could mean necessary to complete a task (purely mechanical), or serves to inspire roleplay (purely social). A clear sense of what you want could go a long way toward helpful suggestions.

@Decius: If rares are only in "dungeons" (per PFO definition), you always know where you will find them. Therefore all your exploration can be focused on finding dungeons. I would rather there be things like this out in the world as well. After all, they will be rare either way.

If rares are only in dungeons, they could potentially never be soloed. Requiring a group is one way of maximizing interaction, but not the only way. Having valuable loot drop that you will likely have no use for is another way, requiring a different kind of interaction. The loot doesn't have to be a windfall, just valuable enough to make the attempt to find someone who can use it a priority before you get killed and it disappears.

If rares are also out in the world, finding one and setting up a solo hideout to ambush solo adventurers could be an effective and interesting playstyle. You could wait for an adventurer to engage the rare and then try to kill them both, or just snipe the cache and disappear. Yet another type of interaction.

Say you're an explorer. You're passable in combat against mobs of typical difficulty for the area. You run across a rare you don't have the skills to handle. Now you have a reason to call for help that you might not otherwise have had.

I think having rares outside as well as inside dungeons is very important, and would go farther toward maximizing interaction than restricting them to dungeons. I think this is true of any difficulty level of rare creature, from the soloable wasp queen to the raid worthy dragon.

As for how rare, obviously making the times and places somewhat random would be key. Rarity should also be proportional to difficulty. At the low end of rare, a wasp could spawn every hour-ish, to give newbie adventurers a fair chance at finding one with some regularity. Going out and hunting rares with a friend as noobs is fun, meaningful interaction. On the high end, I imagine dragons might have timers measuring about a week, or even longer.

Asphere wrote:
Hudax wrote:

Yes there is a difference. But I see "I am without belief" to be identical to "I cannot know," for a similar reason to how one cannot know the state of the hidden coin. One can try to assert unbelief in one state of the coin or the other, but ultimately that assertion boils down to unbelief in either state, which is the same as "I don't know." Simply because there is no purpose in stating unbelief in one state without either asserting belief in the other or asserting ignorance. The only difference being whether one is willing to admit they don't know, or only willing to admit unbelief.

So the difference I see is 1 is agnostic and 2 is atheist.

The coin analogy isn't a good one. You either postulate that heads will be the outcome, tails will be the outcome, or you claim that you cannot know. Both would require proving a positive. Proving that god exists is proving a positive. Proving god does not exist is proving a negative.

In the analogy, one side of the coin is "god exists" while the other is "god doesn't exist." With respect to your criteria, the latter side is proving a negative.

However, I think the analogy presumes the coin is never revealed, which in my opinion makes it especially apt.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
How would you implement this idea in a way that maximized human interaction?
Put unique (no respawn) creatures in dungeons requiring a combination of numbers and varied skills to find and overcome, and have the rewards be partly coin, partly equipment, partly materials needed to craft better equipment, partly a material or catalyst needed for building construction, and partly something which is used primarily by PvP players.

Agreed. To maximize interaction, the rewards need to be varied enough that stuff will almost certainly drop that your group can't use. Compelling them to find someone who can. Ideally that stuff would be rare and valuable enough (as it should be, being from a rare encounter) that whoever can use it would be excited to get it. The trick being, not making it so rare that people wait in line to kill it, or having the reward be a bottleneck in someone's quest/craft that they might be stuck on for weeks.

I would not limit such encounters to dungeons though. The idea seems to me to be a rare mini-boss type encounter one could find anywhere. I also wouldn't limit it to just being a creature. A trap, puzzle or simply a loot cache (requiring multiple skills to find/disarm/unlock/smash) could supplement the encounter. Split the loot between the mob and the cache. Then if you are exploring solo and are powerful or skillful, you could conceivably defeat one but not the other for a modest reward. But a group would have a greater chance of besting the whole encounter.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I can't believe how religiously indoctrinated this board is!

Of course it's not evil! In many cases, it's probably a good act! It may or may not be lawful, as in local laws...but if it's a paladin (as this thread seems to be about), he follows the laws of a "higher power" and still does not give a single ****.

DM: You see before you the altar to Anthrax, god of child murder and Celine Dion music.

Paladin: I take my adamantine greatsword and smash it to pieces for great justice!

DM: Yeah...sorry, by being "religious" it's automatically sacred, so doing that's gonna be evil.

I'm just...speechless right now. very month I think, "that's it, these guys couldn't possibly convince me any more to never, EVER play a paladin in one of their games!" And surpass yourselves...

Exactly this.

I can't believe this is even an honest question. "Is doing good an evil act?" Seriously. "Defacing" or destroying an evil temple is called "consecrating." In other words, it is literally impossible to "deface" an evil temple. It can only be worshipped, making it more evil, or consecrated, purging the evil. There is no grey area here.

The only relevent part of destroying worshippers/temples of evil gods is the fact that they are EVIL. By RAW, this makes thwarting/killing/destroying them GOOD. Period. And for paladins, Good always takes precedence over Law.

Good and Evil are black and white in the game world. The sooner you guys figure that one out, the sooner these stupid evil threads can stop.

TOZ wrote:
Deism. *waves*

Oh, you. :)

Asphere wrote:

Question: Do you think there is a difference between the following statements?

1. I am without belief in a god or gods.
2. There is no god or gods.

Yes there is a difference. But I see "I am without belief" to be identical to "I cannot know," for a similar reason to how one cannot know the state of the hidden coin. One can try to assert unbelief in one state of the coin or the other, but ultimately that assertion boils down to unbelief in either state, which is the same as "I don't know." Simply because there is no purpose in stating unbelief in one state without either asserting belief in the other or asserting ignorance. The only difference being whether one is willing to admit they don't know, or only willing to admit unbelief.

So the difference I see is 1 is agnostic and 2 is atheist.

If the possibilities are binary, the process of elimination is short. If there were more than two possible states of the coin, this whole conversation would be very different. The coin could be a trick coin with only tails. Or the coin could be both heads and tails until revealed. Now it's not either/or. Now you could say you don't believe the coin is heads, and you could mean something other than a passive belief in tails.

So it is you that is qualifying clearly defined and understood terms above and it really limits the continuum.

I can see why you would think so. But my thought is the simpler continuum is more liberating. You acknowledge that beliefs change over time, usually with knowledge. Do you constantly alter your status? How useful is that to anyone other than yourself when the terms are poorly understood? In a continuum of three, no alteration or explanation is required unless you experience a major shift in belief.

The usefulness of the more complex terms in my mind is limited to people wanting in depth discussion of intricacies of philosophy. Which is what we're doing here. But you have to start with the general and move to the specific. Going the other way promotes misunderstanding.

I'll fully grant any terminology you want. I just think their usefulness is so limited.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Goblinworks animator, in art approval meeting: We're going to need bigger underwear.

Kevin's mom from the Wonder Years, buying him pants: Plenty of room in the crotch!

A Man In Black wrote:
Just to make things confusing, "I am indifferent to the relevance or state of the coin" is also called atheism.

I'm not sure that level of uninvolvement would qualify as an ism. :)

But out of morbid curiosity, what would "I believe there is a god but I don't care" be?

Asphere wrote:

1. Atheist (I know there is no god)

2. Agnostic Atheist (I am without belief in god)
3. Agnostic Theist (I am with belief in god but I will not define it)
4. Theist (I know there is a god)

Let's flip this around:

1. I believe there is no god -- atheist
2. I can't know if there is a god -- agnostic
3. I believe in a god I can't define -- agnostic
4. I believe in god -- theist

I don't see the point in trying to qualify clearly defined and understood terms. Isn't that what the point of your "vegan" story was? She was a vegan who didn't want to be called a vegan? Well, it seems there are a few agnostics in the thread who would rather be called atheists. (No offense meant to anyone.)

meatrace wrote:

*flips coin*

Ok. Under the palm of my hand is a coin. Neither of us know the result. I do not believe it is heads. That does not mean, suggest, or infer that I believe it to be tails.

That is exactly what it means.

At first, if you remain in the state where you know the coin is unknowable, you can only acknowledge that you do not know. Agnostic.

As soon as you assert any kind of belief regarding the state of the coin, you have chosen one side or the other, regardless of whether you attempt to distinguish between positive and negative qualifiers. "I don't believe the coin is heads" is therefore identical in all but semantics to "I believe the coin is tails." Theist/atheist.

When you say you "don't believe it's heads," that isn't really what you mean at all. You mean "I don't believe it's heads OR tails, because I can't possibly know." By leaving out the latter part, you are deceiving yourself and being disengenuous to your argument. (Again, no offense meant to anyone.)

So a caster could go down that whole feat tree?

Wow. How did this elude me?

Am I missing a FAQ or errata or something?

PRD wrote:

Point-Blank Shot (Combat)

You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets.

Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.

I'm out of the loop. What is the FoB clarification, can someone link it?

Nihimon wrote:
Hudax wrote:
If the wizard blurb advertises the archetype as a controller first and a blaster second, that's probably fine.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If the Sorcerer is a better Blaster because he has more spells per day, then why can't he also be a better Controller for the same reason?

If we're going to be suggesting significant departures from the RPG, why not just shoot straight for the problem area and ignore the precedent that Sorcerers have more spells per day than Wizards? Then we can simply focus on the fact that Sorcerers have a very limited Spell Book from which they can cast any spell, while Wizards have a much larger Spell Book but must prepare a specific set of spells.

Good point. Forget what I said about that.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
So, if every archetype should be able to fill every role equally well

When I say this:

Hudax wrote:
I don't want a chracter's potential to be limited by chosing to follow a certain archetype. I want the limitation to be on the build instead.

the only role I'm referring to is damage.

AvenaOats wrote:
I think "equitable" is a good idea in theory for balance, but I'm not so sure balance is possible in sandbox

There are certainly a lot of variables, but those are all in the player's control. I'd be surprised if the potential maximum damage output of each archetype couldn't be balanced within a few percent of each other. (Maybe that's not something they're worrying about, but if not I'm requesting that they do.) Obviously there will be unanticipated combinations, but those can be tuned as they arise.

Nihimon wrote:

I just read over the Sorcerer and Wizard classes again. The quote that sticks out for me is "A sorcerer's selection of spells is extremely limited". At first, it doesn't look too bad because they can add 1 known spell per level while Wizards only add 2. However, at level 20, a Sorcerer is limited (forever!) to 43 spells known (9 of which are 0 level).

Why isn't the proper course of action to replicate this? To simply limit the number of different spells a Sorcerer can know?

Ultimately, I would think it would be pretty simple for me to pick out 43 spells that made a Sorcerer a very effective Debuffer, while I chose to prepare spells on my Wizard that made him an extremely effective damage dealer...

Sure, except by choosing wizard you are automatically reducing your potential damage. Certainly you can still be effective without being optimal, but it is still an unremediable handicap. That's the only thing I take issue with.

Alternatively, so long as it's made very clear when you choose archetypes exactly what their strengths and weaknesses are, it's not as big an issue. If the wizard blurb advertises the archetype as a controller first and a blaster second, that's probably fine. It's the feeling of rolling a class thinking you can do something with it that turns out later to not be the best choice that I want to avoid. Like rolling a druid in vanilla WoW thinking you would do anything other than heal, or rolling an illusionist in EQ thinking you would have a place in a raid.

Nihimon wrote:
Hycoo wrote:
... AND that you are limited to a certain number of skills on your hotbar (8 is a good number).
Please, no.

It works for Diablo and Guild Wars. GW2 for example gives you 5 abilities (4 really since one is autoattack) that are predetermined by your weapon, 1 heal ability, and 4 open abilities chosen from a long list of options you have to earn. IMO it's an improvement on the WoW model where you have to hotkey 25-50+ different abilities. 25 is doable for me (F1-F12, ~-=) but more than that and I start cutting things and making macros. Less is more.

The WoW devs have recently argued (and GW2 seems to agree based on their design) that 4-5 rotational abilities are ideal (with the rest being utility or situational). Fewer than that feels remedial, and more starts to feel cumbersome. If you add 4-5 utility or situational abilities, 8-10 total abilities feels reasonable. Of course these would be selected from the catalogue of skills you have earned. I'm not saying it should be that way, but in an open ended skill system, you could quickly run out of keybinds. Some hard cap just makes sense. Somewhere between 10-25 I think.

There's nothing really wrong with a rogue, although they may not play the way you would hope in PFS. Stealth and pickpocketing are pretty useless, and trapfinding and disable device are not required. Basically you get a highly skilled, moderately combat capable character.

If she is leaning toward an archer character, there are lots of options. Including an archer rogue. More challenging to get sneak attacks, but not impossible. You could do like another poster suggested and roll a g/f support character--something that would allow her more sneak attacks for instance. Illusionist wizard, fighter with imp. feint, that sort of thing.

Or if she likes rangers as a class choice, she is not required to have an animal companion, and I think there is an archetype that swaps out spells for something else.

Most importantly, you get to redo your character before level 2 if you don't like it.

I guess I should clarify a little.

Yes, sorcerers are better blasters than wizards in PnP because they get more spells per day. Thus, making an optimal blaster in PnP means rolling a sorcerer.

I don't want a chracter's potential to be limited by chosing to follow a certain archetype. I want the limitation to be on the build instead.

Part of the spirit of the PnP game I want left out of the MMO is the idea that one class should be better at something than another because that is the flavor of the class. Fighters are superior melee damage dealers to rogues, whose flavor is more skill-based. Sorcerers are superior blasters to wizards, whose flavor is more control-based. I think the MMO should have a different standard. Those superiorities should be build-dependent, not archetype dependent. Rolling a wizard shouldn't automatically de-optimize your DPS potential like it does in PnP.

To come back to the thread question, how I think magic should be done is, first and foremost, equitably, and flavor considerations should be secondary.

This is what I don't want to see:

Wizard: more spell variety
Sorcerer: more endurance/frequency

Why? Because this makes sorcerers superior blasters in PnP, and would do the same in the MMO. I think that's an unacceptable tradeoff in an MMO these days. I should be able to build a wizard blaster that is as effective as a sorcerer blaster.

The tradeoff should be:

Wizard: more overall variety but choices are restricted in the short term
Sorcerer: less overall variety but unrestricted choices in the short term

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fredrik wrote:
I grew up in a house with a solar water heater. Not photovoltaic; I think it was like the glycol system that Robert Hawkshaw mentioned (perhaps exactly that). It wasn't enough by itself, but it was handy for keeping monthly costs down.

I also grew up in a home with solar hot water (glycol). The Colorado winter sun is usually sufficient to heat water up to 90-100 degrees. Pretty easy to get it up to a comfortable temperature from there.

I'm intrigued by tankless water heaters, since I know from physics that they could be much more efficient. (It takes tons of energy to heat up water one degree, and there's no such thing as perfect insulation.) But I haven't researched them.

I've researched them a little but have no hands-on experience. It seems they are extremely efficient, but take a little practice getting used to. Point-of-use heaters would make an excellent pairing with solar hot water.

And finally, whatever you do, try not to get tied into a single source of energy. When a resource becomes supply-constrained, the primary result is that prices become spiky, which is horrible for people on fixed incomes. Either natural gas or electric would be fine for supplementing wood; but electricity is nice for being able to be generated in many different ways.

Ideally they would remodel as renewable as possible, for their own energy security if nothing else. But of course that costs money, and you have to anticipate the length of the return on your investment. How long will your parents own the house? If they plan on being there a long time, it may be worthwhile to invest in solar water, PV, even wind. Otherwise it may be best to just get really efficient appliances.

You mentioned they have 20% shade. If they have the money they should consider a sunroom for passive solar heat gain. A properly designed sunroom can keep the summer sun out and let the winter sun in--a significant heat supplement.

It would also probably be a good idea to evaluate their insulation. The roof is the most crucial for keeping summer heat out and winter heat in.

Check with several contractors and try to get a referral from someone you know. Contractors follow the 80/20 rule--80% of them suck.

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Congratulations. You are playing a 5 stat character with no downside.


mdt wrote:
Plus I find it annoying that only dex goes into initiative. Honestly, the more you are in combat, the better you should be at reacting to combat. The smarter you are, the quicker you think, and the faster you can react.

I went around and around about this for months myself.

Do you have initiative because you:

Sprinted? = STR
Wove through the crowd? = DEX
Are composed? = CON
Saw it coming? = INT
Sensed motives? = WIS
Abandoned diplomacy? = CHA

The conundrum is obvious. For a time I just had it as an unmodified d20, but that was kind of unsatisfying. Eventually I just gave up and gave in to DEX because DEX needed love as an ability score and rogues/wizards really need the bonus most.

Nothing wrong with feats that let you swap in another ability though. They have those for almost everything now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That the spell is transmutation school should clue most of you in to the fact that you're incorrect. There is nothing in the spell that says things like *no plant in the square = no entangle in the square* or *can only use parts of plants that are visible (ie: subterranean root systems) or *cannot make plants larger.* You know, one of the main principles of transmutation--making things larger?

Nevermind the obvious thought experiment no one's bothered with. If you place a potted plant in a grassy field and cast entangle on the vicinity, does the potted plant respond?

Pirate's choices are therefore incomplete and should be ammended:

Option 3) A single potted plant could very easily be magically transmuted by entangle to entangle at least one creature or square.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
So what happens if they prove too much solar is bad for the planet? The materials lead to problems, too much space needed to produce enough electricity, Climate change from too much of the sun's heat redirected, etc? Not to mention problems with batteries.....

Solar by itself isn't the answer, but if you honestly think the impact of procesing silicon and lithium outweighs the processing of oil (nevermind burning it), you're dreaming.

Also, you don't need a battery for solar hot water.

Cheap oil is already gone, or hoarded by OPEC. Same difference.

No way we will continue using the "same" amount of oil in the future. We can either blithely continue using more and more to our inevitable doom, or wake up and drastically reduce our usage.

Defining the problem and the solution.

Technology exists off the shelf today to build low/zero energy net usage homes and buildings. All we need to do is start building them. Israel passed legislation that every new home had to be built with solar hot water. In 1980. A mere 25 years later, Spain became the second nation to adopt similar legislation, and the first to require PV in new construction. The U.S. must be the next, ASAP. That would be a start.

Kill three birds with one stone. Solve the energy crisis AND the housing crisis AND the economy crisis with one plan.

Wiggz wrote:

That seems confusing to me. Since you're not using Power Attack, martial types +1 attack/damage per level? So if they give up spending a feat to get -4/+12 damage at 12th level you have to give them +12 attack and +12 damage for free to compensate? I need to give my characters +20 good saves and +10 bad saves over the life of their characters to make up for not having a +5 cloak?

There seems some pretty dramatic inequity there. In my experience well-built and well-played characters need very little in the way of gear as a crutch.

What I outlined completely replaces normal progression. So no, I don't give them +20 saves to make up for +5 cloaks. I take away their magic items AND save progression and replace it with +1 save/level. Final save ends up being 17, but I just fudge it since we don't spend much time at max level and getting stuff per level is fun. Also, I consider power attack to be a non-choice--both in taking and using the feat. Nearly every martial character has it, and must consistently use it to bleed off excessive attack rating. Hence the replacement.

Because if you have no numerical bonuses from magic items (I know you didn't say that, but as a reference point), you would need +1 AC, almost +1 good save, and +1/2 poor save per level. Attack and damage you'll have to work out. I play without power attack and that requires me to add +1 attack & damage per level as well.

If you're giving people one magic item, it won't come close to filling the gap between what players are intended to have and the bandaid you're giving them, unless it's a crazy awesome item.

I suggest removing all numerical benefits from all magic items (leaving only items with effects as relevant) and going with a progression similar to the above.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I'm not really commenting on Pathfinder Online in specific, but I can tell you by far the overwhelming momentum in the MMO space is for games to allow players to spend money to be mechanically better than those who do not.

You don't have to like it, but you should get used to it. It will be the new normal.

How much better?

WoW's new black market auction house will have randomly spawning mid-range gear for extravagent gold prices. They're really pushing the line, but not going over it. No one could conceiveably gear up in that way. Too much gold, too much luck involved.

So you must be talking even worse than that, like actually buying gear and weapons for cash from the game store?

I don't think people will get used to it. People simply won't play those games. It will shatter the mmo market. Of course, there would be opportunity for a non-sucky game to pick up the pieces.

Right on.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Grandma might try to convice you otherwise. Don't listen.

Oops. I thought everyone knew the basic tenants of Information Theory.

Uh oh...


Riddle one. Orc is no more able to state the parity of the

original bit pair than he was before he was given his bit and the same
is true for Kobold. That is, each one has 50% of the data, but neither one has received any information at all.

This is akin to tearing a book in half, giving half to each minion, and rather than asking them what they think the book is about, you ask how many periods the book contains.

The meaning of the parity is extremely small--in an existential way. The meaning of the data on the other hand, is quite a bit more.


Riddle two. Even though each minion has received 99% of the

data, none of them has received any information at all.

Again, you've torn out a page of 100 books and ask for the sum of periods rather than anything meaningful. I'm using the word meaningful because the riddle so helpfully defines what is meaningless. Clearly the data is meaningless if it is not 100% intact.

The minions each have 99% of the data. Independent of the rest, each should know the contents of the data. Unless they're not sentient. Unless you're just saying that computer parts don't understand data.

This problem is exclusive to computer science. Nothing else in the known world is incapable of functioning because of a 1% lack.


Riddle three. The information in the 100 data bits cannot be in

the bits themselves. For, which bit is it in? Not bit 1, since that bit
was given to 99 minions, and didn't provide them with any
information. Not bit 2, for the same reason. In fact, it is clear that
the information cannot be in any of the bits themselves. So, where is

In the bits in totality only, apparently.

Riddle four. Suppose my 100 bits have odd parity (say, 45 ones and 55 zeros). I arrange them on a piece of paper, so they spell the word "odd." Have I added information? If so, where is it?

Certainly. You've added the knowledge that you enjoy trolling.

Riddle five. Where is the information in a multiply encrypted message, since it completely disappears when one bit is removed?

In your head. Let me, here, hammer, just hold still a minute...

Grand Magus wrote:

[Riddle zero.] The most important question has to do with context: Does meaning reside in things themselves, or is it merely the interpretation of an observer?

Meaning is to be discovered. It is both inherent in the object, and also a function of observation. The observed meaning can be different from the intended or inherent meaning, although that difference often degrades the inherent meaning.


Riddle one. If meaning must be known/remembered in order to

exists/persist, does that imply that it is a form of information?

Since meaning exists only as a form of communication, it is definitively information. Meaning is conveyance of knowledge from one thing to another. Only the recipient must be sentient. If there is no recipient of intended meaning (ie: one sentient to another), the meaning is for the intender alone.


Riddle two. In the late 18th century, many examples of Egyptian

hieroglyphics were known, but no one could read them. Did they have
meaning? Apparently not, since there were no "rememberers." In 1798,
the French found the Rosetta Stone, and within the next 20 or so years,
this "lost" language was recovered, and with it, the "meaning" of
Egyptian hieroglyphics. So, was the meaning "in" the hieroglyphics, or
was it "brought to" the hieroglyphics by its translators?

There were no "rememberers" but meaning was still inherent in the glyphs. They had meaning when they were carved and retained it when they were untranslatable. It was there waiting to be unlocked. Even without the Rosetta stone, people would have figured out the glyphs were pictographs matching whole words, just as they cracked the Mayan code--with study and intuition.


Riddle three. If I write a computer program to generate random

but intelligible stories (which I have done, by the way), and it writes
a story to a text file, does this story have meaning before any person
reads the file? Does it have meaning after a person reads the file? If
it was meaningless before but meaningful afterwards, where did the
meaning come from?

Yes. Yes. Irrelevant. The meaning came from the writer. The question confuses meaning with value. A story may have no value locked in a shroedinger box, but the meaning is still waiting to be discovered when the box is opened.


Riddle four. Two cops read a suicide note, but interpret it in

completely different ways. What does the note mean?

The note means what it was intended to mean, and one or both interpretations is incorrect to a point. The more factual the misunderstanding, the further from the intended meaning. The more esoteric the content, the lower the degree of degredation of meaning.


Riddle five. Suppose I take a large number of tiny pictures of

Abraham Lincoln and arrange them, such that they spell out the words
"Born in 1809"; is additional meaning present?

Additional to the sentence: Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809? Yes. The aditional meaning is: I like him enough to make a collage about it. That sounds trite, but as I noted above, the emotional meaning will be more purely conveyed.


Riddle six. On his deathbed, Albert Einstein whispered his last

words to the nurse caring for him. Unfortunately, he spoke them in
German, which she did not understand. Did those words mean anything?
Are they now meaningless?

I could argue that the brain remembers everything perfectly and can recall perfectly with training or assistance, and the words could easily be retrieved and translated. But what if the translated words were "please take out my trash tomorrow." That would have less meaning as a known fact than the mystery of an unknown last word of potential wisdom. On the other hand, he might have said "Yes I see you mother," in which case the fact would have more meaning than the mystery.


Riddle seven. When I look at your family photo album, I don't

recognize anyone, or understand any of the events depicted; they convey
nothing to me but what they immediately depict. You look at the album,
and many memories of people, places, and events are engendered; they
convey much. So, where is the meaning? Is it in the pictures, or is it
in the viewer?

Like you said in the beginning--it's in the context. I have context for my photos and you don't. Just like an ancient egyptian had context for reading glyphs, and archeologists didn't. However, they discovered context--the Rosetta stone. Even without it, they would have discovered context in another way.

If time wore on, and a single photo remained after a few centuries, some archeologist might find it and search for the context to understand it. He might note the food laid out on a decorated table in the foreground, fireworks in the background, large crowds of people, and deduce an extravagent public celebration. A sign might even say "July 4th! Lake Woebegon" and he would search for other such references. This could lead to other discoveries, other digs, and new understandings of these ancient people.

To you, it's just a family photo. To me, it's memories. To him, it's a crucial finding in discovering and understanding a lost civilization.

Or it might get thrown out or disintegrate, because what do we care about junk and why would we bother to chisel stone?

Fleshgrinder wrote:

This still assumes that he arbitrates that necromancy is inherently evil.

If he decided it is not, then the necromancer isn't "committing evil acts for their own gain."

And what if the necromancer goes out of his way to raise the dead to help others?

If a necromancer raises a corpse to take an arrow for a little girl, was the act good, evil, or neutral?

As a GM, I'd arbitrate that act is good, not evil, regardless of the spell descriptor.

This is not arbitration, this is houseruling. The rules are crystal clear regarding necromancy. No adjudication required.

If he wants to houserule good/neutral necromancy, that's fine. I just think he didn't give the other player a fair ruling if he's willing to houserule one definitively evil concept but not another.

Talos Valcoran wrote:
Hudax wrote:
Talos Valcoran wrote:
Funny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.
How is it you are considering allowing a necromancer then?
As I said above It probably has to do with the player has been asking for a while and he is a close friend of mine

Point being, you made a blanket ruling about the other player's assassin idea rather than figure out a way to make one work. Now you're trying to shoehorn a different definitively evil character concept into not being evil.

Part of your job as GM is to be consistent. Playing favorites among your players will not turn out well.

Talos Valcoran wrote:
Funny you should mention an assassin PC notabot, the good cleric previously played a rogue who wanted to specialist into assassin. I told him straight up no I'm not running evil characters.

How is it you are considering allowing a necromancer then?

Andius wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
What makes WoW more kid-friendly than LOTRO? Is it only the art style?

Pimp Hat's

Chuck Norris Commercials.
And other stuff...

DeciusBrutus wrote:
If so, what about Call of Subtitles: The Sequel appeals to the same group, since that genre trends towards attempting to be photorealistic?

Guns, blood, violence, and other things that their parents don't like.

You can pick the cheese out of any game and say it's immature, childish, contributes to cult worship, etc., provided you dislike the game enough.

1 to 50 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.