I wasn't deliberately misrepresenting you. I was representing you how I saw you and my perception of how you behave in these situations. I'm not surprised that you view yourself differently, I'm sure I view myself differently than you view me.
I like how you wrote that as if I didn't already completely agree with what you said multiple times in this thread.
I'm not going to apologize. If we were to do this all over again, I would do the exact same thing.
You want me to play nice? You're going to have to prove to me you aren't dismissive of sexism and gender issues. I'm still not convinced that you didn't intend it that way and just walk it back afterwards.
The Character Burner is obsolete. All the info in it is now included in the main book (of the Gold edition).
Magic/Monster burners can definitely be useful, but I would say you don't need them right away. The Adventure Burner is interesting, it has a lot of useful advice. There are a lot of essays and pieces about how to run BW on the interwebz, they took some of those and reworked/expanded them for the Adventure Burner. Not needed, but useful.
I also get mad because it takes courage for people to stand up and talk about how they've been abused, harassed, raped or discriminated against. To then talk down to them and say that their experiences are unimportant and don't matter/apply to the rest of us is insulting to them and only serves to keep other people who might also share those experiences quiet. Then it's no wonder we don't hear about it.
So yeah, I get mad on this issue. Really mad. I've known too many people who have gone through this kind of thing and have been told to keep quiet, or that they didn't matter, or that they were asking for it, or it's somehow their fault... damn right I get mad.
I get mad when people refuse to look at the problem. Or try to convince me the problem is just in my head, or someone elses head. Or try to justify their own behavior and contribution to the problem itself.
Maybe this is an abstract topic for you. It isn't for me. This is a topic of pain and suffering for me.
You're right, I do get defensive on gender issues.
You also tend to be dismissive of any problems that you haven't experienced first hand. You then relate your experience as being more valid than someone elses.
Maybe that isn't your intention, but that's how you come off.
Edit: "defensive" isn't strong enough. I'm a self-righteous bastard on this topic.
This is one of the fundamental design quirks I dislike about the game (and earlier iterations D&D). When is the spell description just a description and when is it a mechanical interaction. PF has reduced the amount that this happens, but it does from time to time.
Something like TV Tropes or Wikipedia gets addictive because there are direct and obvious links between topics. The links are present precisely because they do relate in one fashion or another. I get the same thing with Youtube, you click one interesting video and there's another on the side that's related and also interesting...
The forums, you get specific topics and even though next to each other, aren't necessarily related (they are, but in a vaguer sense). If you're on the PF general section, the next topic down might not be something you're interested in at all.
The addictive part of the forums is the interaction with others. Once you find the interaction style that your brain likes most, you keep coming back to it. The slowing part of it is that you have to wait for time to pass (for the other poster to respond) to get your next dose.
I'm a DM, I don't need SoD spells to threaten the party.
We've even instituted a rule recently. If the party unanimously agrees to flee, they will automatically succeed at fleeing. There will be a cost to fleeing, but they'll live. They've been lucky so far, I have encounters designed for when they're more powerful and they've been close to them but haven't run into them yet. If they do find them, I'm not going to hold back though.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm wrong.
Shifty has a history of being highly critical of anyone discussing something that doesn't match his own personal experience, particularly when it comes to gender issues. He likes to point out that he doesn't see these issues happening, so they must not actually be a big deal and aren't important enough to really discuss.
Clearly this one anecdote proves that gender issues are a thing of the past and no one ever has to worry about them ever again. I'm so glad that's over.
We do two things:
1) if you show up for part of the session, you get all the XP for that session. You make the effort to show and participate, you get credit for it.
We use our own XP system that alters the math some and don't use standard CR rewards. It works for us and we've been using it for over a decade.
All of this was already part of the trend before Obama even started running for president. The ACA is only highlighting it as companies feel the have a scapegoat. The law of unintended consequences, instead of protecting worker's health care, the ACA has merely set the benchmark for companies to stay below so they don't have to provide it. Companies were already dumping health care coverage as fast as they could, because it's too expensive, which is the real root of the problem.
This is part of the reason I think we need to have a public options/single payer system. In places like Europe and Japan, our primary competitive markets, companies don't have to provide health care to their employees. This reduces the complexity of hiring employees (at least on this topic), makes compensation negotiations and plans simpler and makes the workforce more flexible.
If the government takes over administering health care, businesses will be relieved of the burden freeing up more of their resources and energy to actually do what their business is supposed to do. American workers become more attractive, because the business doesn't have to provide them with everything, they need only compensate them for their time and skills.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Irontruth is confusing Burning Wheel's Fight system for Mouse Guard's (which is also good). Burning Wheel has a similar system for settling social conflicts, but for physical conflicts it is much "crunchier". In some ways crunchier than Pathfinder even; or more simulationist, I should say.
My memory is foggy, I thought BW had it too. BE had disposition for firefights. Luke Crane ran a demo of BE for me at GenCon '06 and we (to his surprise) achieved our objective quite handily.
Can't find my copy of BWG at the moment, but I'll trust you.
Intent was one of the great lessons of that game for me. I try to pull it out of my players when running anything these days. "What do you want to achieve with this roll?" is a question I ask all the time.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
Just curious, prior to the ACA, what was preventing them from cutting you off from health care coverage?
If you think you're using my argument against me, please quote the post and bold the part of my argument where I claim that what you're saying is possible.
Who exactly has argued that you can cast the spell multiple times on different body parts to make clones?
You're inventing a scenario, that no one was proposed, which you don't think should be possible either. There's a name for that in debate terminology.
We have our own unique characteristics, but we are all equally powerless before the elements and the other inhabitants of this land.
Summer North of Sixty by James Raffan
The book was just given to me as a gift. I'm an avid canoer, but finances have curtailed efforts of late. I haven't taken a trip to a truly remote place, but it's really making me want to go.
Overall, I think the issue is both the complexity of the system and the demands that people place on it when asking questions, particularly when looking for official clarification.
Technically, Disintegrate doesn't add any condition or status that prevents BoL from working. It's obvious when you read the text of the spell that it shouldn't work, but "dust" isn't a special form of death that's covered in the rulebook. It's purely descriptive, as compared to petrified, which is clearly codified.
I think it's possible to discern the intent of the design team, particularly when you look at Reincarnate. Breath of Life does have limitations and allowances written into the spell, but Disintegrate doesn't distinctly break them.
Giving Disintegrate a connection to an already existing term would have been much cleaner and more effective, making it's relationship to other spells and effects much easier to predict.
It also highlights one of the biggest flaws in magic in PF/D&D IMO. Instead of more generalized rules/effects that are drawn upon, we have hundreds of spells written up and eventually almost each of them has to be adjudicated against all the others.
Matthew Downie wrote:
For your hit points to change numbers, something has to happen. Disintegrate already tells you how much damage it does, and it's not 1000d6.
T. B. wrote:
The basic mechanic is simple. You have a skill/attribute/whatever with a numerical value. You roll that many d6, 4/5/6 counts as a success. The difficulty of what you're trying to do determines how many successes you need.
Combat is actually moderately complex. There are some aspects of combat that are definitely familiar to other games (not D&D though), but it did have one major innovation at the time it was originally published. Intent.
In most conflicts, social as well as combat, you don't just stab each other in the face until one side falls down. There are rules for that, but most of the time combat is considered to be more nuanced than that. When you engage in a fight, you declare what your goal is. Examples:
-save the princess
The other side chooses their goal as well. They might be diametrically opposed, but they don't have to be. For example:
-save the princess vs distract the guards long enough to assassinate the king
So what happens at the end of combat, if the losing side scores enough for a minor concession, they might achieve part of their goal. The same goes for duel of wits (the more detail social interaction... when a single roll isn't enough and it deserves a whole scene).
The coolest part of the game IMO is the Beliefs/Instincts/Traits system. Each PC has 3 beliefs and instincts, and however many traits they've gained from character creation. Beliefs are essentially plot hooks for the PC. The player is responsible for writing them and working with the group/GM to make sure they fit the game. When a player pushes the game towards his beliefs and causes something to happen during the session, they get Artha, bonus points that can be used to boost rolls.
Instincts are behavior quirks. The player can use them as minor rule bends. For example, they can't do anything that requires a roll, but they can automatically accomplish actions for combat. For example, a character with an instinct "I'm always searching for ambushes" should be considered to always be doing so, regardless of whether the player declares it or not. Here's the thing, the player can use the Instinct to earn more Artha, if they either follow the instinct, or disregard it, in a way that gets the character in trouble.
For example, if the "I'm always searching for ambushes" describes how he's searching for hidden threats in the presence of the king (and the player describes how the king takes offense to it) that's causing him trouble. Or if the player willfully walks into an area of ambush and doesn't prepare... also trouble. Assuming they survive, they get more Artha!
Matthew Downie wrote:
You fall to 0 hit points and are then reduced to dust. I would consider being reduced to dust to be the equivalent of 1000d6 extra points of damage. So if you can heal all that with your Breath of Life, you're fine.
Per RAW, you are either at the actual negative amount that Disintegrate reduced you to, or an amount equal to your negative Constitution score.
Agreed, I think that if we ask a designer, they're going to go with disintegrate > BoL (unless perhaps, that designers is JJ and he's only talking about his home game).
I don't think that per RAW, it is 100% that BoL can't bring you back from a Disintegrate death. If were at the table, as player or GM, I wouldn't push for it, but my personal feelings and preferences aren't what determines RAW.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
You're right, I did the opposite of narrowing the goalposts.
I'm all for holding government accountable and being able to speak their mind. I do agree, one can be an a!$+$$$ and still participate in the political process in valid ways, it isn't mutually exclusive.
Other than purely defending his right to free speech, I'm curious what the value in that kind of behavior is. You seem to be approaching it as if he did something useful. I want to know what that is. We seem to be in agreement that it doesn't really change people's minds.
If it's "raising awareness", I can honestly say that I couldn't tell wtf he was angry about just from the video.
I'm all for people getting more angry and using that energy to get involved. I think that getting angry and letting your steam off the way he did is a pointless exercise and will probably do him more harm than good in the long term.
I'm only continuing on this line because you seemed to want to defend his action in some way.
Raise Dead's spell description clearly says the body must be whole.
Can you bold the text in the Breath of Life spell that says the same thing?
Edit: So, if I took the spell write up of Raise Dead and Disintegrate, I could bold the part of Disintegrate that voids Raise Dead and bold where in Raise Dead it becomes voided.
It would be very simple and obvious. That to me would qualify as "common sense".
Bitter Thorn wrote:
I didn't ask if you've ever been an elected official.
I asked if you've ever had your mind changed by someone yelling at you.
I hate the phrase "common sense" it's too easy to abuse. For example, I can use it in the exact inverse to what you are doing.
Raise Dead specifically calls out body conditions that make it void. The petrified condition specifically calls out body conditions (limbs broken off while in stone form) that affect the character.
Since Raise Dead calls out specific conditions, but BoL does not, we can therefore assume that BoL is not subject to the same conditions that Raise Dead is subject to, because either BoL would repeat them, or it would say "see Raise Dead for similar restrictions". We see that all the time with other spells. For example, the Cure spells say "this spell functions like cure light wounds except...."
Unless Raise Dead is specifically referred to in the spell, it doesn't impact the spell.
It's not that BoL doesn't say it can't and that's it. It's that another spell specifically says it can't, while BoL does not have that restriction in place. Therefore, BoL is not subject to that restriction, per RAW.
The restriction is clearly known about by the authors and implemented in other spells. Since this known restriction isn't implemented here in the text, it doesn't apply.
Remember, as a GM, I would probably agree with your interpretation for a home game. But RAW, when two spells do the same thing and one has a restriction written into it and the other doesn't, it seems pretty clear to me that the other spell is NOT subject to the same restriction. Otherwise it would reference that restriction or include it in it's own text.
Another Dungeon Crawl Classics concept is the character funnel.
Each player makes 3 characters, with the 3d6 - in order, method. Make some more random rolls, a roll for a useful piece of gear, a background skill, etc. They then enter the dungeon, where most likely, 0-1 of their characters will come out the other end.
You get the amusing part of character deaths without players having to sit around and do nothing.
Honestly, I might agree with you if I were making such a ruling in my home game.
But this isn't the "homebrew" section of the forum. It's the rules questions, and first and foremost, discussions should be rooted in the RAW. We can add commentary about how we might adjust it for our own games, but that means separating out that commentary from the concrete discussion of what the rules do and don't say.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
You said they weren't mutually exclusive.
I'm just curious when you've experienced this tactic to have been effective on yourself. When has someone behaved in a similar manner and actually changed your mind.
Breath of Life brings you back to life. There is no condition called "dust". Breath of Life doesn't have a stipulation of what condition the remains must be in, unlike Raise Dead. There is nothing in the rules of Disintegrate that actively prevent the usage of Breath of Life.
If it had text like Raise Dead:
"the body of the creature to be raised must be whole"
I would agree with you. But it doesn't. Therefore, the fact that the remains are dust is irrelevant. The dust is still your remains, just as your ashes are your remains after being cremated.
A story-focused game that's a bit more downplayed on the fantastic side and goes for a gritty/realistic feel without getting bogged down in a physics simulation:
One suggestion would be Burning Wheel Gold.
A newer, slimmed down version is being released soon, called Torchbearer. By soon, I believe that backers from the Kickstarter are being shipped their books now-ish, so probably a little after that it'll be available. It's taking some of the core concepts from Mouseguard, which was itself an adapted version of Burning Wheel, and making 1e style dungeon crawling game, but with BW style mechanics.
It's a good system, I've found that for myself it doesn't fit my personality as a GM. I can play in a game as a player and have a ton of fun though.
That was like... one of the most polite requests* for information I think we've seen on these message boards... and you're calling it a straw man?
The mind. It boggles.
*in a politroll thread at least
A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character's petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation.
Breath of Life does not remove the petrified condition. Therefore it has no effect on someone targeted by Flesh to Stone, a basilisk, medusa, etc. It has nothing to do with HP, it has to do with having a condition, and this spell not addressing that condition.
If being dead causes you to become an "object" for all intents and purposes, then regardless of the source of the damage, Breath of Life can never recover anyone from death and the text of the spell, other than it's use as a healing spell or damage against undead, is pointless.
There are two conditions that cause BoL to fail.
1) The creature died from a death effect.
If you want a spell to make a creature unrecoverable from BoL, you have to show how it causes it to fail on either of those counts.
With Stone to Flesh causes you to become petrified, which is a condition in the glossary. BoL does not remove that condition, so it has no effect on Stone to Flesh.
By that reasoning, BoL doesn't work on any creature killed by anything.