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

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter, 2015 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 18,391 posts (20,255 including aliases). 17 reviews. 4 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 16 aliases.


1 to 50 of 3,153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@OP, I'm all too familiar with the particular phenomenon you're describing.

A classic example is whether rogues can Sneak Attack undead: the Sneak Attack class feature doesn't differentiate between creature types, and there's no rules elsewhere (like in undead traits) providing an exception, therefore undead are affected by Sneak Attack just like anything else would be. But some people got used to earlier versions of D&D prohibiting SA vs undead, and don't see any rules explicitly stating "Sneak Attack even works on undead", so they think it still doesn't.

I also recall the discussion leading up to the FAQ about TWF, iterative attacks, and multiple weapons. Plenty of people were saying "Show me in the rules where it says you DON'T take TWF penalties when you make an iterative attack (or even an AoO) with a different weapon than your primary attack."

I've also seen "Show me where it says you can Spellstrike with a two-handed weapon," and plenty else.

However, your example about touch spells and movement is not necessarily an example of this particular error.

Lists of options can be a tricky thing. Sometimes they're exhaustive ("You can do X, Y and Z and nothing else"), while other times they're merely examples ("You can do X, Y and Z and so forth"). Unfortunately, there are plenty of lists in the Pathfinder rules that don't clearly dictate which type they are ("You can do X, Y and Z").

Now, you say that the listing of options X, Y and Z in the touch spell rules means you have no other options at all besides the ones listed. But it could also simply be pointing out that those options are available. (After all, there are a lot of people who think the touch must be performed at the same time as the casting, until they're shown that rule—perhaps that list of options is just trying to demonstrate total flexibility.) How did you arrive at your conclusion of which type of list it is?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, it's funny: I've never seen anyone explain how they "use guile and smarts and all their available resources" to make the wizard "playable", nor have I seen anyone explain the importance of players who aren't "setting out to wreck their friends' games" with their rogues.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Well, an opinion can't be wrong

Wait, what? Of course an opinion can be wrong!

_
glass.

If it's capable of being wrong, it isn't actually an opinion.

"The rogue is strong enough for me" is an opinion, as it is completely dependent on the speaker's personal tastes. Can't be "wrong", because it's not objective.*

"The rogue is as strong as other 3/4 BAB classes" is NOT an opinion, because it's a reference to static, defined data. As such, it is either right or wrong, and given access to enough information we can determine which of those it is. It has no basis in personal preference, only in printed and/or calculable fact. It is not an opinion.

If you think people's opinions can be wrong, then you need to stop believing people who claim that their wrong statement is an opinion. ;)

*I suppose if you wanted to be really pedantic, you could say that the statement is capable of being wrong, as a person may lack the self-awareness to realize that (for instance) his successes were the result of lucky rolls or generous houserules or whatever and not the result of the actual rogue class. However, the actual notion of the rogue being strong enough for a given person is entirely subjective and outside the scope of factual correctness/incorrectness.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
The third time, Shax is absent, but if any PC looks for him, the GM gets to smash the player's mini with a hammer (included with the pdf download).

DOWNLOAD DA HAMMA!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
Nicos wrote:
ryric wrote:

This statement ignores the fact that you don't have to have the improved maneuver feat to do the maneuver - you only need it to avoid the AoO.

In what world that is not an importnat part?
Well, some posts make it seem that without the feat you cannot trip at all

Remembering that damage from the AoO is applied as a penalty to the CMB check, "will provoke an AoO" and "can't do it at all" become pretty close to the same thing in most situations.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't make magic items special until Pathfinder's second XP track stops calling itself magic items.

So either you rip the entire WBL/gear element out of the game (downsizing encounters to compensate), or you dress that particular aspect of character progression as something other than gear (such as a literal second XP track, or fixed level-based bonuses, etc).

But one way or another, you make magic items stop being a baked-in element of character advancement. That's your best shot at making room for rare, special, flavorful magic items in your game.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

If your style of play is offence oriented, dump as many stats as you can down to 7 or 8, kill them quickly because I have no defense rocket tag, then the objections in this thread make sense. I suspect the vast majority of games aren't actually played that way, and in more moderate games Combat Expertise is a pretty good choice.

Personally if the concept fits I'm willing to start a martial with 16 Str and 13 Int rather than 18 Str and 7 Int.

I like the idea of a smart fighter so much I went and published some archetypes and feats that I designed specifically to reward high-INT martials, yet I still dislike Combat expertise for many of the reasons mentioned.

Not every instance of people disagreeing with you can just be handwaved away with a declaration of "Bah, it's just those silly stat-dumping munchkins again, there's no real issue here!" So if you want to keep any kind of credibility, you might want to take the time to thoughtfully consider others' points of view instead of just assuming any problem you don't share doesn't really count.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
I'm not sure if all of you are just out and out lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard than I do.
At the risk of giving you advice you didn't ask for, I'm going to say that "a number of people have had experiences that I don't seem to have had, they must be lying" is pretty much never the right answer, in any context. What it actually means, particularly if you want to maintain a reasonable level of intellectual honesty, is that it's time to re-examine your own biases, particularly your confirmation bias, to see if they're interfering with your ability to accurately assess what's going on. Sometimes you'll find it is. Many times you'll find that it's not. Either way, the re-examination is worth your effort, and will hopefully keep you from dismissing valid experiences that you just don't happen to share.

I agree that people should check their biases and verify their information/conclusions.

So, hypothetically, let's say that Bob Bob Bob (hereafter abbreviated as "BBB") decided to go ahead and do that. Suppose that he went and "did the homework", and discovered that (for example) condescending or insulting "rogue-is-weak" posts were, as an objective fact, vastly outnumbered by polite/respectful "rogue-is-weak" posts.

Suppose that, having discovered this to be a fact, he now encounters someone asserting the opposite.

What is he allowed to say now? Is he allowed to question whether that person is "lying, exaggerating, or see an entire different messageboard"? Or if not that, then is BBB at least allowed to instead insist that the other person perform the same fact-checking that BBB did?

Does there ever come a point where a person has done enough fact-checking that they can assert that forum behavior is X and call into question the validity of claims to the contrary?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


People will tell you that your opinion is wrong.
.
.
.
People will tell you your opinion is based in ignorance.

I don't see any bad thing in the first and the second could be equally ok.

Opinions can be wrong, if the argument focus on the opinions and not the persons then there is nothing bad about it. Many times a wrong opinion/statement of mine have been corrected in this forum, many times my opinion about a issue have changed due to argument that other people have made, there is nothing toxic about it.

Well, an opinion can't be wrong, but people can be wrong about whether or not the thing they just said is actually an opinion or not.

Example:
"The rogue is so weak I don't want to play it" is an opinion. It is outside the scope of rightness and wrongness.
"The rogue is the only 3/4 BAB class without an in-class way of boosting its attack bonus and therefore, among that group of classes, it is the worst at attacking things" is an assertion of fact, and is either right or wrong regardless of how anyone feels about it.

People mix up this identification a LOT.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Did you just equate my incidental, admitted vent on the internet to mass murder?

Did you just fail to distinguish real life from a fantasy game?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Maybe it's because I'm playing the game wrong

Just so we're clear, putting this in your own post doesn't count as an example of people telling you that you're playing the game wrong.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:

My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.

It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.

Then exercise more precision. If you blow up a bunch of innocent bystanders when you use a fireball spell to shoot a troll standing in a crowded market, the fact that there really was a troll there and he was your only real target doesn't make you any less of a mass-murderer.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.

It's more that I'm afraid I do see your point, but I keep hoping against hope that maybe I've made a mistake and you're really not the kind of person who can't hear an opposing viewpoint as anything other than an attack.

I'm trying, buddy, but you're not making it easy. The words you've actually said are communicating that everything's fine until someone says X is weaker than Y and then suddenly they're implying you're stupid. That's not just me, that's what you actually said.

So if that's not what you were going for, then just leaving it isn't doing yourself any favors.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best.

What I keep seeing in those threads is this:

OP: "I want to make a rogue."
Respondent: "What do you want to do with your rogue?"
OP: "I want to be good at X, Y and Z."
Respondent: "The rogue class isn't actually good at those things. For that combination of abilities, you'd be better off playing this or that other class instead."
(Sometimes lines 2 and 3 are skipped due to it already being spelled out in the first post.)

That's the vast majority of what I see happening with "rogue hate" in Advice threads. Do you call that "telling everyone who has ever played a rogue that they're playing the game wrong"? Because I sure don't.

Or do you think that's not how it usually goes down?

Tell you what: whenever you see someone actually talking down to people in the manner you're claiming, you PM me a link to the post. And then for every instance you come up with, I'll show you three instances of the opposite, and we'll see who runs out first.

What do you say?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
You seem to be a very literal person.

No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)

Quote:
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.

Quote:
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.

Okay, this seems self-contradictory.

First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.

Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.

How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?

If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...

I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:

So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.

The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."

So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.

Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dkeller wrote:

So I've been looking in the forums up and down and on other rules websites etc for a ruling on how spellstrike works 2 handed?

I've seen a lot of contention about people interpreting the rules different ways but really i'm looking for the official ruling on this (by the way what is RAW?).

The "official ruling" is what's written in the rulebooks. That's as official as it gets.

And in the Core Rulebook, it says that non-light weapons can be wielded two-handed. Nothing in the Spellstrike class feature provides any kind of exception to this. So that's all there is to it.
(Note that Spell Combat, which is very different from Spellstrike, DOES prohibit two-handed wielding. If you've found arguments/contention on the topic, it's probably mostly the result of people getting the two confused.)

Theoretically, "RAW" is an acronym for "Rules As Written," but most people use the term to mean something more like "an interpretation that isn't specifically called out as untrue," which is subtly (but significantly) different. For instance, if someone made the claim that druids aren't allowed to use metal weapons, that would not be something supported by "rules as written", but it is something that the rules don't specifically call out as being untrue. People very often defend stances like that as being "RAW", all while thinking they're talking about "rules as written".

Quote:

Also how does being a staff magus and having the quarterstaff master feat fit into all of this. This feat allows me to use my weapon one or two handed each turn, however I have to decide whether I use it one or two handed before each turn. Does that mean that the feat actually stops you from spellstriking 2 handed as you can't use a "free" action to switch hands as specifically stated in the feat?

Weird, so does that mean that someone without that feat has an advantage over someone with it?

Normally, a quarterstaff is always a two-handed weapon, making it impossible to attack with it at all if you're not using both hands.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bowser36 wrote:
So can a magus cast the spell for spell strike then proceed to swing his weapon two handed? I'm assuming no

Spell strike? Yes, you can absolutely do that.

Spell combat, however, only works with a weapon wielded in one hand.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes, good game design is making something that's better than the bad things that already exist.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I think what you're saying would work, but you'd have to build a new system.
No I wouldn't. All the prices and abilities are already there, you just make it character-based instead of item-and-money-based. What issue are you seeing that makes you think a new system would need to be built?
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about spending money to collect upgrade points or something. In retrospect I think we're talking about basically the same thing. The only difference being the flavor.

I'm talking about something like this:

GM: Okay, having defeated the brigands, everyone gains 213 points.
Fighter: Cool, that takes my total up to 2,102. I'll spend 2,000 of that to get a +1 enhancement bonus to all my attack and damage rolls, bypass DR/magic, and deal half damage to incorporeals.
GM: Sounds good. Now, who's opening the next door?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cleric. You can have one or two that fight better than a fighter, then have a couple Theologians (able to prep domain spells in regular slots) with really good wizard-list-poaching domain choices and maxed WIS. Prepare to roflstomp everything ever.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not interested in things like sleeping, bathing, and "coitus" being parts of playing a game with my friends, so I don't even bother dealing with this.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
As for mana points and the like...

This has me thinking: What if all magic was at-will, with no resource tracking at all? I mean, obviously you couldn't just plop that straight into Pathfinder since every spell would need to be balanced against that constant availability. But theoretically, couldn't that work? And would it reduce gameplay headaches since you don't have to track anything for it?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Any discussion of "waiting until marriage" as advice or policy can't ignore the culture that surrounds it. At least until you surround it with a ton of disclaimers as you have done.

You call it "surrounding it with a ton of disclaimers", I call it "actually discussing the issues instead of settling for easily-targeted labels that I can feel enlightened for pointing at". ;)

Anyway, back to seriousness: The fact that there's a certain culture surrounding it has been part of my point from the beginning; I'm trying to improve people's "targeting" by showing which things are central, load-bearing walls of the problematic cultures and which things are extraneous structures whose only crime is to be wielded by the badness and which won't actually help anything to remove.

Anyone who wants anything to actually get better has to learn to see which parts of the tangled mess truly need to be removed, and which parts of the tangled mess are just tangled up in the mess.

Too many people see a tangled mess and just light it on fire, then if anyone says "Hey wait, there was something good in there!" they think they're defending all the terrible messy tangles.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I think using the short hand "marriage" carries along a awful lot of baggage, including all the legal issues.

Well, the type of relationship I mean is the sort which either is an actual legal marriage, or (typically) eventually becomes one but is already basically the same relationship just without the papers having been signed yet. So I think the term is close enough.

Quote:

I suspect about 99% of people saying "wait until marriage" aren't thinking of it the way you are.

Most of them are probably thinking in religious/sin terms.

If people can't separate the idea of waiting until marriage from the idea of religious dogma even while I spell out in front of their faces that I'm not talking about religious dogma at all, then that's on them. (Also, that mistake has pretty little to do with what I mean by "marriage". Even if I meant ONLY legal marriage, it would still be a pretty foolish assumption to automatically connect my posts to religion/sin when I'm very plainly and explicitly describing something entirely different. If I say "talk to your kids about how things work and encourage them to make healthy choices," but someone manages to hear "religion and sin" just because of one phrase I included, then that's a level of closedmindedness for which nobody but them is responsible.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I think the idea is also innately harmful because even a couple who sincerely believes in it and follows it completely informed might end up finding out they aren't sexually compatible, which might lead to an unhappy life for the couple. Obviously, sex isn't all that matters, but it's a big part of a couple's relationship...

The decision of whether they can or cannot live with their incompatibility should be an informed one. Hoping for the best and only finding out after you made an emotional and legal commitment is a dangerously foolish idea to say the least.

I'm not saying it's wrong to wait... It isn't. Everyone has the right of waiting for as long as they want... I'm just pointing out that making auch a huge commitment without knowing such an important part of the relationshio is rarely a good idea...

You know, there is a reality in between "had sex beforehand" and just sort of flying blind ("hope for the best", "without knowing", etc).

Sex and money are the two most common topics of conflict for couples. It's a good idea for a couple to discuss finances in detail before getting married (seriously, every premarital counseling curriculum will hit that topic). But they don't have to share a checking account before they can know if their financial habits are compatible.

In the same way, I agree with you that a couple should be making informed decisions about the role sex will play in their relationship. That does not automatically require that they need to actually have sex in order to become informed. They need to talk about it. Heck, even once they HAVE had sex, they need to talk about it. [ETA: For sexual activity to actually inform you in any meaningful way, it would need to be happening regularly (with lots of talking as well). But by that point, you're already committed to the relationship, so it's no longer a "preparing to make an informed choice" kind of thing.]

"Haven't had sex" does not automatically equate to "completely uninformed". In fact, if a couple can't communicate well enough to reach a point of deciding whether to commit, then frankly they can't communicate well enough to sustain a long-term relationship at all, regardless of how sexually-compatible they are. Also, if your relationship is such that discovering a sexual issue would be a deal-breaker (rather than something to work through together), then it's not a good life-partner relationship in the first place.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It's very easy to mistake the initial lust and infatuation of a new relationship for something more - to believe you're in a more deeply committed relationship than you actually are.

Remember that whole "well-informed" thing? The fact that a new and exciting relationship can feel more solid than it is would be one of the things to teach. Or if you failed to teach that, then the resulting consequences have more to do with that failure than with telling them that their sex life will be the most fulfilling if they wait for the right relationship.

Just because there are ways to mess someone up while suggesting the "wait for marriage" plan doesn't mean that those pitfalls are in any way connected to that particular plan. Failing to teach your child about how relationships work will get them into trouble regardless of what context you think is appropriate for sex.

Quote:
With strong pressure to not have sex outside of marriage, that's easy to translate into "we should get married".

I think it's slightly dishonest to summarize what I've been advocating as "strong pressure". It's a parent's job to teach their kids to make healthy, satisfying choices. That includes responsible use of alchohol, healthy eating/exercise, good sleeping habits, and how sex works. The fact that the parental guidance topic we're discussing happens to be the last of that list doesn't suddenly turn it into "pressuring".

Quote:
Whereas if you just date and have sex and let the sexual tensions work out, you can get past that stage and find out if you're really compatible before making legal commitments.

And you know what? If you talk to your own kids about that rationale, and keep them informed so they can make that choice, and let them know they always have your love and support as they work through all that relationship stuff, then I'm not going to say that you're applying "strong pressure" for them to become sexually active before they're ready.

So if a different parent, who is not you, approaches their kids' sexuality in the same way you do, just with different ideas about the "therefore I recommend X" at the end of the logic chain, then how is that parent any different from you?

Some parents might think it's best to work through early sexual tension to keep from making an early mistake, and others might think it's most rewarding in the long run to reserve sex for after carefully establishing and time-testing a relationship; but if both sets of parents are keeping their kids informed, loved, unshamed, and supported, then can either really point at the other and cry "pressured"?

Quote:
You also seem to be switching back and forth between "committed relationship" and marriage, when they're not the same thing. I'm not really talking about completely casual sex here.

"Marriage" is a lot shorter of a term than how I personally define the appropriate type of relationship for sex, and I'm already being pretty verbose. ;)

Quote:
"No sex before marriage" made a lot more sense before birth control was widely available and effective. If the chances of pregnancy are high, legal commitments to handle that are critical.

Sorry for the confusion; I'm not talking about legal issues. I'm mostly concerning myself with the emotional and psychological issues. (Having a psych degree, that tends to be the first place I go.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Yes, but even its status as a "recommendation" has the power to completely derail the lives of people who have done nothing "wrong" other than defy that recommendation.

Only if the "recommendation" is made shallowly in all the terrible ways that I've already described (shaming, lack of information, etc). If you teach your kids "Here's this wonderful thing, here's exactly how it works (to the best of my knowledge), and I think it'll make you the happiest if you do it this way, and in the meantime I'm here for you if you have questions or if anything goes wrong," then nobody's getting their lives derailed.

Quote:
And I'm talking about millions of people throughout history, who have been completely ruined, not by the law or enforcement of it, but social pressures alone.

Yes, by the social pressures alone. "I think you'll be happiest if you do X" is not that kind of social pressure. "If you don't do X, then we'll all look down on you as a dirty whore" is that kind of social pressure. The definition of X exists independently of which of those models you use.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
One inherent problem with the whole "no sex before marriage" thing is that it's very easy to flip into "get married to have sex", which is a lousy reason to get married.

Only if "no sex before marriage" is all you ever say about it. If you instead do what I described and say "Hey, here's what sex is like, and because of that I think you'll be happiest if you save it to be a part of a committed, deeply-trusting relationship," then your concern kind of falls apart.

What you describe only happens if their idea of "marriage" is "find somebody who'll marry you" and their idea of "sex" is "this thing that I have the urge to do but I'm not supposed to unless I'm married". If instead they're taught that "marriage" is a deeply committed relationship with someone you trust more than anyone because they're your best friend and partner in doing this whole "life" thing, and you also teach them that sex is a powerfully-intimate relational experience that affects you in XYZ ways; then "get married to have sex" isn't really a thing.

So again: "no sex until marriage" isn't the problem, the lack of information/trust/transparency/unconditional love and support is the problem.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well Jiggy, I think there's something to be said for taking consent between two people and replacing that with a social/religious/state approval.

I think it is intrinsically harmful. But you're right, it's not the ONLY thing.

Now, to be clear, there's a difference between "no sex until marriage" as an ideal, and that ideal being delivered in certain ways.

So, for example, requiring "state approval" (I guess you mean making non-marital sex illegal...?) would be a part of that "bigger picture" that I was talking about, but is not inherently part of "no sex before marriage".

Or to put it another way, the problem with "the state says no sex before marriage" is the "state says" part, not the "no sex before marriage" part.

If my wife and I were to decide to have kids, I would teach them to reserve sex for a committed relationship, but it would not be "because I said so" or because sex is dirty or anything like that. I'd make sure they were very well informed about sex, which (unlike much of the discussion here) would include not only physical ramifications but also emotional and psychological considerations. Sex is powerful and messy and wonderful and complicated. It affects people. It can be deeply rewarding or deeply traumatizing (and anywhere in between) depending on how it's handled. Since I would want the best for my hypothetical children, I would want to teach them to handle it in the most rewarding way possible, which I think would be within a committed relationship of mutual trust and open communication.

Yes, I recognize and respect that others disagree with that opinion, but that's really not the point; the point is that "no sex until marriage" can be the message of a well-informed parent to a beloved child in an effort to give said child the best life possible. It is not inherently tied to the iron-fisted religioustates that it's so often lumped together with.

Fight the withholding of information/resources and the shaming, not the "no sex until marriage" that often accompanies it. The former is unhealthy, while the latter is not.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this thread exploded. Maybe I'll just reply to one or two points.

Re: "No sex until marrige"—I think folks are misidentifying the issue here. Yes, destructively-repressive sexual cultures exist, and yes, they tend to include the "no sex until marriage" line. However, there are some important things to realize:
1) The cultural "packages" that damage people via sexual repression include waaaaaay more than just "no sex until marriage", to the point that
2) The removal of "no sex until marriage", if you leave the rest of the package unchanged, wouldn't actually make anything any better, and furthermore
3) If you took away the rest of the cultural package but kept "no sex until marriage" (in the context of an entirely different cultural framework) then the "no sex until marriage" thing wouldn't actually be harmful.

To put it another way: "No sex until marriage" isn't actually bad, it's just an easily-recognizable emblem that's often attached to the thing(s) that actually cause the damage.

Seeing the issue of a sexually repressive culture and choosing to respond by fighting "no sex until marriage" is like seeing an enemy army and responding by trying to shoot all trucks: sure, you'll knock out all the enemy trucks, but you'll also blow up civilian and friendly trucks while leaving tanks and planes unchecked.

Things like withholding information and attaching shame to the topic of sexuality are unhealthy, but those qualities are not inherent to "no sex until marriage". That is, there are other reasons (and healthy ones at that) to consider reserving sex for a committed, marriage-type relationship. There are a nontrivial number of couples who reserved sex for marriage and still have sexcessful (see what I did there?) lives/relationships.

^That's what it looks like when I "just reply to one or two points". ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
1. Do you allow magical weapon/armor enhancements to function with all types of weapons and armor? For instance if I was a +1 Flaming fighter at the cost of 4,000 arbitrarily named points, would that apply to all melee weapons, unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and bows or would I need to purchase a different set of abilities for each type of distinct weapons? If I bought armor enhancement would it apply to all suits of armor or even while I was unarmored as per Bracers of Armor?

For weapons, my inclination is to be as broad as possible. This is largely because part of the problem with martials in Pathfinder is being married to a single weapon. Changing that to being married to a single type of weapon is a step in the right direction, but not far enough, IMO. Also, a fighter who can sheathe his longsword in flame ought to be able to sheathe his mace or fists in flame just as easily. There might be certain abilities that don't make sense on all weapons, but those can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

As for armor... I think as long as you preserve the "slots" of armor/shield/natural/deflection/etc so as to not have to do a bunch of re-engineering of the math, then it doesn't make much difference whether you tie it to when you're actually wearing armor or not. It doesn't even make a difference for the "attacked in your sleep" scenario, considering fighters usually have chain shirt jammies anyway.

Quote:
2. The cost for magic weapons escalates rather quickly so sometimes it's preferable to get an odd situational weapon enchantment on an off weapon; is that a thing with your system or do you handle it differently? For instance if I wanted a Phaselocking weapon but was too poor to raise my +1 Flaming Fighter to a +1 Phaselocking Fighter, would I just have the option of just buying the second enhancement set and then declaring which I am using with each individual weapon strike?

(Aside: Not "too poor," but "too inexperienced".) ;)

For things like that, I'd probably just re-price the ability to be a flat cost so the martials can afford to be a little more versatile. But that's a case-by-case thing as well.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There's definitely some degree of limitation due to the sheer volume of things that already exist in print. However, remember a few things:

1) Our starting point was "It can't be special at all", so we can't help but improve.

2) Since it's a unique item and not something that could be manufactured elsewhere, you don't have to balance its abilities around the possibility of every PC taking that ability or putting it on some oddball weapon that gets published later. Publishers have to guard against that, but you don't.

3) Since it's a unique item, you can (and probably should) tailor it to your campaign. After all, why would you seek it in the first place? Maybe the campaign centers around Troll-king ImmuneToFire's army and this is the Sword of YouDon'tRegenerate. Maybe the campaign centers around outsiders and this is the Sword of InfernalsHaveNoDR or the Sword of SickensDemonsOnContact. Maybe attacks with it get to reroll 1s. Maybe it has some kind of HP-drain effect. Maybe it's just so friggin' legendary that it has a fear aura when wielded. Maybe its damage dice increase whenever you're low on HP. I could keep going all day. The possibilities are plentiful.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Elder Basilisk—I don't think you're understanding the full scope of my suggestion. I'm not talking about just moving the "pluses" over from items to PCs and leaving the rest of the magic item structure intact. I'm talking about completely removing magic items as a central mechanic of the system and replacing it with character abilities.

So you don't have a +1 fighter wielding a flaming scimitar (for example), you have a +1 flaming fighter wielding any old weapon he pleases (scimitar or otherwise). Maybe it's ancestral, maybe it's what he first bought upon graduating fighter college, maybe his old sword got rust monster'd and he grabbed this one off a downed enemy. It doesn't matter, because gear isn't really a thing anymore.

As a result, the Sword of Awesomeness could have ANY ability, because the very fact that it's any different from any other weapon of its type AT ALL makes it inherently unique and special.

When the only difference between longsword A and longsword B is the power of the fighters wielding them, suddenly it becomes really easy to design That One Special Sword That's Actually Different.

Does that address your concerns?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
boring7 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Excalibur

What's the plan for the macguffin sword that you go questing for?

No wait, that seems passive-aggressive; what's YOUR plan for the Macguffin sword that the party goes questing for? I can think of a few ways, but I'm curious what yours would be.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

You've got a plot, the plot involves searching for a MacGuffin Sword of power (golden lance, holy avenger, Master Sword, whatever) somewhere on the way to completing the adventure.

How does the career of the sword-swinging warrior's sword abilities go through this plot?

I'm just curious what your preferred method would be.

Um... his abilities would progress just like they would progress if the story weren't about the Sword of Uberness? I mean, the Sword of Fabulosity probably has some special powers of its own that any wielder can use, but that would be 100% independent of the fighter's capabilities.

I'm still not sure if I completely answered your question, though. Feel free to rephrase and try again if I missed it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The difference in a non-repressed country is that people can discuss sexual problems with their doctor or school nurse,

Granted I haven't been in a position to be treated by a school nurse in a good long while, but American doctors do, in fact, handle sexual problems.

Quote:
they can get contraception without jumping through hoops,

I didn't realize my occasional trip to the store counted as jumping through hoops. Or are you only counting forms of contraception that have enough chemical effect on your body that you really ought to see a doctor first? Because in that case I'd say that's good health practice, not sexual repression.

Quote:
they will have sex ed worth the name and thus be able to protect themselves from complications,

Been a while on this one too, so I couldn't really comment. (Though your protest is vague enough that I'm not sure I could comment effectively anyway.)

Quote:
you could have a sensible treatment of sex offenders instead of a horror show crusade against them.

This is another really vague comment, but it sounds like you're saying that punishment of things like rape and child molestation is more harsh than such crimes are worth. Feel free to clarify.

Quote:
People would discuss sexual matters BEFORE starting relationships (oh, if only).

Wait, like, before even a first date? Or do you just mean before it becomes, you know, a relationship? If the former, that seems cumbersome and unnecessary. If the latter, then yeah, you've got a point.

Quote:
People with non-standard sexualities would possibly not get as vilified.

Ehhh... I'm not sure that's based on a sexually-repressed culture so much as it's based on the vilification of the not-like-self. There's more psychological similarity between the vilification of atypical sexuality and the vilification of min-maxing than there is between the vilification of atypical sexuality and a shyness towards discussing one's own sexuality. The central mental theme is "My experience defines the norm of this topic, and the other is perverting it."

Quote:
Making that shameful, forbidden or hidden is a) not going to work, and b) hurt a lot of people in the process.

On this broad point I agree.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cinderfist wrote:
I have to disagree there, 2nd edition didn't have any WBL or CR, and DMs were perfectly capable of gauging an appropriate encounter.

But the math was different in that system. Not every system is equally forgiving on encounter design/selection. You can't assume that what could easily be done in a game made by one company decades ago will automatically be feasible in a nominally-similar game made by a different company more recently.

Quote:
I'd even argue that the methods used are still viable in pathfinder... ignore CR, look at the HD, AC, SR/saves and decide.. how hard will it be for my party to defeat this, and look at it's attack bonus and damage and gauge.. how quickly would this kill a pc in a corner.

Oh, I definitely still spot-check my monster selection. But there's a big difference between looking at a list of a couple dozen CR-appropriate monsters and making sure there's not a glaring issue (like energy drain for a 1st-level party), versus looking at the entire Bestiary.

I think you just don't realize how much you have memorized, and how much of your on-the-fly approach is made possible by YOU, not by the system, and in fact in spite of the system.

EDIT: Or what kestral said, below. That was the point I originally started to make, then accidentally sidetracked myself with my own anecdote. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cinderfist wrote:

Do you all as DMs, really have this much trouble balancing encounters if you don't slave yourself to the wealth by level tables? I'm genuinely curious because i've never had this problem, or never to the extent that adding in an extra monster doesn't cure any balance issue.

If you insist on the existence of the big six as absolute must haves and a pc uses all of their wealth to acquire them... does your campaign really go all to crap if they get a pair of magic boots on top of it? or an adamantite dagger and a cache of potions?

I've seen a lot of posts about this, but I'm just not getting how it's such a dilemma for other Dms if they deviate from the WBL table.

Discussions of sticking to WBL generally aren't about being off by just a little bit. Also, it's usually a discussion of giving too little treasure, not too much.

Discussions of WBL often center around players wondering why the party is 8th level with a single +1 weapon between them, and the GM saying "Magic is special! Magic-Mart is the WoW-devil!". Then the players say "Sure, but could we find more treasure? I mean, by WBL we're—" and then the GM says "ENTITLEMEEEENNNNT!!!"

Or something like that.

Nobody uses WBL as a strict boundary, but it's a good guideline to make sure you're at least in the general ballpark that the game expects.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Just like you can't have a +1 Flaming Barstool.

After enough fried jalapenos I can.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

EZREN used COLOR SPRAY!
It doesn't affect BELLSPROUT!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Conjugation brings things closer

That's one way to put it, I guess. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arrius wrote:

However, there is an instance where the idea (both of them) may clash with our theoretic instance (or simply practice).

Under your idea, how would you handle a character utilizing a weapon that is stronger than he is (effective cost higher than remaining Mojo/lollipop/moneyxp)?
A level 1 rich character who inherited a Vorpal longsword or a ring of wishes (as we established the decoupling of wealth/power) is an example.

Would the item be effectively downgraded, as it requires the character himself to grow stronger until they realize its true capabilities? Would they be flat-out unable to use them?

The idea is not simply to de-couple this power progression from money but also to de-couple it from items. So there's no such thing as "a vorpal sword".

Instead, your grandpa's sword is just your grandpa's sword. This might sound unappealing at first, but think about it:

In Pathfinder, if a Fighter1 picks up his grandpa's sword, then that sword needs to be level-appropriate (so, masterwork at best). Then, as the fighter levels, he needs a better sword, so he has to either relegate his heirloom to "flavor" status and do all his fighting with a level-appropriate weapon, or he needs to repeatedly spend lots of downtime having a crafter upgrade his grandpa's sword into not-really-his-grandpa's-sword-anymore so he can keep using it.

With the method I'm suggesting, grandpa's sword is just grandpa's sword. But because it never needs to be replaced or upgraded (since upgrades are attached to the character, not the item), he can keep wielding it throughout his career. And as an extra bonus, if he ever needs to conceal his identity and wield a different weapon, he can do so without gimping himself, because the ability to add +2 to attacks/damage and deal half to incorporeals and crit on a 17-20 with a longsword are all skills the fighter knows and can do with any sword he picks up.

"But wait!" you say, "If all items are the same, you can't have cool stuff like legendary weapons, like Excalibur!"

Actually, this system enables legendary weapons better than Pathfinder does. In Pathfinder, any given piece of gear is relevant only temporarily, and eventually has to be replaced. Therefore, Excalibur (or grandpa's ubersword, or both if grandpa's name is Arthur) has to either (1) appear only at the very end of the campaign when there's barely anything left to do, which sucks because you don't get to spend any real time with it; or (2) you'll upgrade past it eventually, making Excalibur not the least bit special at all.

But in a world where, on the whole, magic items just aren't a thing? Well, now you can throw in something like Excalibur with special, unique abilities, and the fighter will keep using it throughout the campaign because it exists completely outside of his actual power progression. You can even invent cool new powers for it, since you don't have to match a wealth progression. So maybe Excalibur bypasses all DR of evil creatures, or Grandpa's Ubercleaver lets you smite constructs x/day.

There is SO much creative freedom for legendary weapons when you break out of Pathfinder's magic item structure. Attach the expected power curve to the character, and then actual magic items can be rare and special again.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
If violence was something shameful and not celebrated, and sex admitted to be a simple fact of life, perhaps the world would be a better place?

*imagines the local gamer population*

NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cnetarian wrote:
Swarms and of incorporeal creatures

Fixed that for you. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
I'm guessing back at L1 was a lot rougher

Not too familiar with inquisitors, eh? ;) Hint: I'd bet dollars to donuts he used the Conversion Inquisition.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an idea:

Step 1—Recognize that wealth progression is really just a second XP track.

Step 2—In accordance with that fact, change the currency of that progression from money to some sort of "point" (such as "mojo" or "XP type 2" or "numerical awesomeness"). PCs accumulate these points for overcoming obstacles, completing quests, or even for good roleplaying. You know, basically like XP type 1.

Step 3—Let PCs spend these points to acquire the mechanical effects/bonuses that they would get from the usual magic items, but the bonuses are inherent to the PC rather than tied to an item. For instance, a PC could spend 2,000 lollipop points to get a +1 enhancement bonus to all his weapon attacks (and count them as magical). He could later spend another 6,000 widgets to upgrade that to a +2, or to gain the ability to add 1d6 fire damage to every hit, etc. Most items can be translated just that easily, and others can be handled on a case-by-base basis.

Step 4—Watch as your world is freed from weird economical issues, the PCs are freed from weird imbalances like TWF requiring twice the price or a fighter's effectiveness plummeting if he can't use his primary weapon, your game table is freed from arguments between a player who recognizes that rust monsters are actually dealing level drain and a GM who thinks he's just acting entitled, and your narratives are freed from those weird "fate worse than death" issues where it's cheaper and easier to raise the dead than to restore lost gear, and your players are freed from the fear of being a 20th level fighter who would unquestioningly lose to a CR3 enemy if that enemy happens to be incorporeal and the Fighter20 lost his magic sword.

Hope that helps. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The difference between the good and bad meanings of "rules lawyer" are kind of like the good and bad meanings of a certain racial n-word. It's always referring to the same general category of people, but whenever you call someone out for using it as a perjorative, they'll be quick to point out that there are some people who use the term among their friends in a completely non-offensive way and therefore the term isn't inherently insulting. They seem to believe that fact somehow makes their own comment into something other than petty, elitist name-calling, just because the word they used has a non-offensive usage as well.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Because quite frankly the folks who keep this subject alive won't be happy until Paizo gives them the reversal it's not going to give.

I think you've misidentified who's doing what.

1 to 50 of 3,153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.