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 6 Season Marathon Voter, 7 Season Dedicated Voter, 8 Season Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 20,198 posts (24,048 including aliases). 17 reviews. 4 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 35 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 20,198 << 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.

Nope, never done this.

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

If memory serves, I believe the colors of MtG were very intentionally supposed to not map to good or evil, with any color capable of producing heroes and villains.

White is about order and community. At its best, it protects its own and provides security and reliability to its populations. At its worst, it's an oppressive bureaucracy that stifles individual freedoms.

Blue is about knowledge, precision, and control. At its best, it provides the tools to understand the world and keeps the chaos of life from getting out of hand and hurting people. At its worst, it pursues dangerous secrets at high cost and manipulates others into serving its own interests.

Black is about ambition and personal advancement without the fetters of pointless taboos. At its best, it's getting the job done and taking care of business. At its worst, it's making dangerous deals and using paths that are taboo for a good reason.

Red is about impulse, free expression, and passion. At its best, it's swift and decisive and energetic. At its worst, it's reckless, short-sighted (often sacrificing long-term resources for more immediate gains) and destructive.

Green is about nature, harmony, and life. At its best, it nurtures and heals and provides bounty and strength where needed. At its worst, it's wild and dangerous, trampling whoever is weaker in the name of the natural order.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trent formaldehime wrote:
Play pathfinder

*clatter*

Hm, that sounded like a 13 to me; what do the rest of you think?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
In any case it is better to not do anything unless/until you start seeing problems. There are groups out there that never see martial/caster disparity for whatever reason, it maybe will not even be a problem for you either.

Indeed, understanding the C/MD is only relevant to help with diagnosing an issue once you've already noticed a lack of fun that needs to be addressed. If you never reach that point, then it doesn't matter how much C/MD there is in your game, and you don't need to modify anything.

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

GM 1990 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

and, as per the examples above, only really hurts the martial characters.

A wizard getting 1/2 gold? meh still a good wizard, was only needing to buy 3 of the big 6 anyways.

A fighter getting 1/2 gold? He now needs to decide which of the big 6 to not buy to afford the big 6 he wants.

Not really. The wizard doesn't need three of the big six, but the wizard also needs a lot of other stuff, such as scrolls of utility spells that the fighter expects to have available, but can't necessarily use himself. The real advantage that the wizard has is that he's so SAD that he only really needs a single headband, while the ranger needs a Robe of Many Attributes to boost everything....
Along those lines, do you think using ABP helps narrow a little bit of the gap between martials and casters, especially if the GM removes crafting? I'm not sure I'll run our current campaign past around 12th level and we only have 1 full caster (cleric), so just wondering if there is more I need to consider as we're switching to ABP at 5th lvl.

If you're ending at 12th level with only a single full caster, your experience of the Caster-Martial Disparity is likely to be limited. If the player of that one cleric underestimates that class's power due to false assumptions unmet branding promises about what the cleric is/does (as many people do), then the gap is likely to be shrunk a bit.

I wouldn't worry too much in your case. :)

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

shadowkras wrote:

I didnt say a 50% risk of TPK, you are taking my words too far and going on about things i didnt say.

When i said 50-50 i was talking about the chances of a failed save for example, which was mentioned countless times in this thread.
Or the chances to be hit using a non-magical armor, or the chances to hit the target, or the chances of the target resisting your spells and abilities, etc.

Sorry, I misunderstood. The way you structured* your previous post made it look like the CR 15 encounter was itself supposed to be a 50/50 endeavor.

Quote:

If you have 10% chance to fail a save, never miss your attacks, never get hit, and your spells never get resisted, is there really any challenge?

Wizards have a lot of save-or-suck spells that will quickly defeat encounters. Fighters and other martials have health to last during a battle. Certain classes can buff or debuff and rebalance the odds.

But when everything is a bonus and you will only ever fail if you roll a 1 (or 5% chance), i dont think the challenge rating and wealth by level are working.

Here's an interesting thing to ponder: when a fighter has four attacks, on what roll should his fourth attack be hitting? Perhaps on a 19? If so, then that means his third attack is hitting on a 14, and his second attack is hitting on a 9, and his first attack (and all his AoOs) would hit on a 4 (oh, and a Charge or a primary attack with flanking would hit on a 2).

If your fighter's primary attack is "about 50/50" (hitting on an 11 or so), then his second attack needs a 16, and both his third and fourth attacks are only possible thanks to the "auto-hit on a 20" rule. You're welcome to run your games that way, but it's pretty self-evident that that's not how the system was designed.

*If you'd like to know how you gave that impression, you transitioned away from talking about the odds of passing a save or hitting with an attack by moving to a new paragraph and introducing a new topic. ("Also, a CR 15 encounter is not supposed to be "easy" for a lv15 party, it's supposed to be average.") After having introduced the topic of an "average" encounter you immediately followed (in the same paragraph) with "Average to me is 50/50." Any intelligent reading of that paragraph would be that the "average" which you said should be 50/50 is the same "average" you had just mentioned in the previous sentence: an average encounter. Thus, whether you meant it this way or not, what you actually said was that an average encounter is 50/50.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

I dont think they are at a disvantage, a 40-60% chance to resist a special ability is not a disvantage, it's an average outcome.

That cloak of resistance increasing your chances to 65-85% is the real advantage here.

Also, a CR 15 encounter is not supposed to be "easy" for a lv15 party, it's supposed to be average. Average to me is 50/50.

If there is absolutely no risk of a TPK, then the challenge rating isnt working.

Your preferences are not necessarily the design parameters of the system.

An encounter of a given CR is supposed to drain about 25% of the daily resources of a party of the same level. So in your example of a CR 15 encounter and a 15th-level party, Pathfinder is NOT designed for a 50-50 shot at a TPK. The party is supposed to defeat that encounter and still have 75% of their daily resources remaining. Pathfinder is designed with the intent that they can handle four of those encounters each and every day before they're all tapped out and have to stop.

Now, if you want a deadlier game, that's fine, and reducing the availability of magic items is one way to achieve that. I just ask that you don't paint your preferred variant as being the baseline assumptions of the system, because when random people show up and start talking about "how Pathfinder works", they're not talking about your preferred variant and you shouldn't respond to their ideas as though they were.

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

Did you know you can be a successful 5E GM with only the PHB? ;)

As for the alchemist thing... Yeah, that seems to be the one big glaring issue with folks switching from PF to 5E: the lack of any sort of alchemist. Most other concepts are supportable, but the alchemist is nowhere to be found. There might be a homebrew floating around the web somewhere that you could use, though.

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

What's the basic opening premise of the adventure? I want to make sure I make the type of character who would get involved.

EDIT: Also, a few other questions:

How do you feel about tweaking backgrounds, per the guidelines in the PHB?

Can unwanted starting equipment be sold back for half price, and that gold (along with the little bit of gold from the background) be used to buy other stuff?

I kind of have a thing for straight-bladed slashing swords, but there's no such thing among the martial finesse weapons (scimitar is curved, shortsword and rapier are piercing). It may seem trivial, but can I use a sword that's identical to the rapier except for dealing slashing damage instead of piercing? (Maybe call it a "longblade" or something?)

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

I'm leery, but also curious. I'll roll up some stats, just in case:
.
.
.
.
.
3d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 6) = 14
3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 5) = 14
3d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 3) = 11
3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 2) = 10
3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 2) = 14
3d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 3) = 11

Huh. Is that good? I don't know the system. But it looks good, right?

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

mechaPoet wrote:
No, because its important to recognize that race and racism create and enforce certain power structures. Which is to say, white people in the US benefit from racism (its structure and its history) even if they're personally against racism.

Granted. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

Quote:
There are (at least) two definitions of racism. The first is the standard dictionary definition of discriminatory behavior based on race. However, this fails to take into account the historical context of race and racism (and also, who do you think writes English dictionary definitions? Mostly white guys). A more socially conscious definition of racism that takes into account social, historical, and political context recognizes that racism is a structural issue that benefits one race at the expense of others. Under this definition, you can't be properly racist against white people in the US because American racism is built on a history of white supremacy.

Sure. I mean, part of me wants to assert that you can be racist engage in racist behaviors even if you're not effective with it, but that's a minor semantic quibble. :)

Quote:
You can still be discriminatory or prejudiced or distrustful toward white people, obviously, but negative attitudes toward white people aren't preventing them from getting loans and housing or causing them to be targeted by police.

Agreed.

But that's not my point.

Even if a person's "white people have XYZ qualities" belief isn't directly hurting the group that's the subject of the belief, they're still holding to a belief pattern of "[racial group] has [stereotypical qualities]" and being told that's an acceptable way to think. This has one of two consequences:

1) They come to accept "[racial group] has [stereotypical qualities]" as a generally acceptable way to think, thus making them more susceptible to starting to think that way about other, less empowered groups;

or

2) They may find "[racial group] has [stereotypical qualities]" to be unacceptable in general, but they get so used to holding that view in regard to one particular group that they start to lose the ability to identify this unacceptable thought pattern within themselves, so if they unknowingly hold such beliefs toward other, more vulnerable groups, it's going to be harder to identify and correct it.

Quote:
So the issue with "labels" is not so much that they exist, per se. It's that the dominant cultural structures (sometimes government forces, sometimes cultural attitudes) created the labels and applied value judgments to them, then insisted that these values were natural rather than artificial. In other words, trying to personally avoid labeling people doesn't do anything to work against the social influence that those labels hold and propagate. Instead, it is better to recognize racist power structures and how they function in order to work against them, because you can't opt out of racism. If I personally decide to ignore and avoid labels, that doesn't mean I suddenly don't racially benefit from being white in America. Presumably if everyone decided they didn't care about race (which would be the goal, right?), those labels wouldn't matter and wouldn't have use, but you would still need to recognize their power to correct the damage they have done.

I agree with this. I was never trying to suggest that ceasing to use labels would make racism and its associated power structure issues disappear.

Quote:
So I tell people that my PFS scene is mostly white guys, because omitting that label isn't going to erase the social power dynamics of race and gender.

Omitting the label does not erase the racial power dynamics of society, but using the label does reinforce racism-enabling thought patterns in the speaker.

There's more to an action than the question of whether the target gets hurt; it also matters how engaging in a given action/belief affects what type of person the doer is gradually turning into. A person is always affected by what kinds of actions they repeatedly take.

Most bigotry is not the result of someone choosing to try and oppress someone; it's the result of someone adopting a thought process that wasn't hurting anyone at the time, getting comfortable with it, and then sooner or later letting that thought process target a vulnerable group without even realizing it.

A big part of the reason that many folks who do racist things honestly think they're not acting racist is because their racism is simply the expression of a mindset that they always used to think was okay because it wasn't hurting anyone, and they've thought that way for so long it's hard to go back and un-learn the okay-ness of it.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Essentially when I say "It's mostly middle aged white guys", what I'm also implying is "It's mostly middle aged white guys, and if you generally feel uncomfortable around that group because of your experience with them (especially in gaming spaces) then I want you to know up front what you're getting into..."

But isn't this basically the definition of racism (or other "isms")? I mean, what would be your reaction to a statement identical to what I'm quoting here, but with "middle aged white guys" replaced with "urban black men" or "millennial trans folk" or basically any other group? Sure, your shorthand comes from valid personal experience, but does that make it okay? If we changed out the group, would a similar set of experiences on the part of the speaker make you feel any better about the statement?

Now, granted, not every group is in equal need of guardianship against racism and such. Please understand that's not my point. My point is that this just happened to end up being a perfect example of the dangers of categorical labels: they make it unbelievably easy for even the best-intentioned person to slip into racist (etc) patterns without even realizing it. (Heck, I've already caught myself like three different times just in writing this post!) Doesn't that mean it's worth the effort to break habits by avoiding these types of labels whenever possible?

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

For the record, I'd be totally fine with a "linear" adventure; in PbP, the slower pace can often mean that a more "sprawling" adventure runs the risk of players getting a little lost.

Also, I'm already playing Curse of Strahd in a meatspace group, so there's that.

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

Alright, I think I'm gonna try putting together an elven fighter/wizard—sort of a re-vamp of a character I tried to play in another game that fizzled. How high of a level are we likely to eventually reach?

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

Nicos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Even just switching from "the black one" to "the one with dark-brown skin" would be a step in the right direction. "Black" doesn't actually describe Bob physically and instead puts him in a category with all kinds of cultural and historical assumptions tacked on.
I see no improvement. In this context "black" emcompases more color spectrum than dark-brown skin, which may not fit bob description, and certainly dark-brown skin is less direct than black.

I used "dark-brown" as just an example of a possible skin tone for the description. I originally typed "[insert skin tone here]" but then deleted it and replaced it with an example because I thought it would read more smoothly and make the example easier to follow. I never dreamed in a million years that someone could read that sentence and honestly believe I was suggesting that the entire spectrum of brownish skin tones ought to be collectively described as "dark-brown".

Which is why I'll be ignoring your posts from here on out.

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

Groovy. Now I've just got to narrow down my character ideas. :D

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Something that bothers me, as a gamer, is that my local PFS scene is mostly middle aged white guys. I've been witness to sexist and racist language...

So, which thing is the offensive part: the sexist and racist language, or the large number of middle-aged white guys?

Quote:
Whenever I talk to my friends, I'll occasionally tell them about PFS, but I also mention that it's mostly older white guys.

Why are you mentioning the age and race but not the sexist and racist behavior? Isn't the latter more likely to be something your friends would want to know about?

Quote:
If I just described them as "you know, they're all just people!"

To be clear, I never suggested such a thing.

Quote:
then that does a disservice to my friends who aren't white guys who maybe want to avoid what is going to be an uncomfortable space for them.

Again, what is it that's going to be an uncomfortable space for them: a place with lots of white guys, or a place with lots of prejudiced speech? Wouldn't the best way to avoid doing your friends a disservice be to mention the part that's actually problematic?

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

Nicos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed.
If, lets say, bob is a black person and he is standing among a group of white people, and someone ask you which is bob? the most direct answer is "the black one". Reverse white for black and black for white and it is still true.

Even just switching from "the black one" to "the one with dark-brown skin" would be a step in the right direction. "Black" doesn't actually describe Bob physically and instead puts him in a category with all kinds of cultural and historical assumptions tacked on.

Furthermore, if Bob is in your presence, you can just point and say, "Him" instead of describing him at all. And if he's not in your presence, then the group is obviously not all in one place, and therefore the listener can't assume there's only one dark-skinned person to be found, so a fuller description is warranted. Thus, once again it's a contrived, purely-theoretical scenario.

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

Let me re-frame my question: If I'm only able to view the map a couple of times per week, and therefore have to do most of my posting "blind", would you—as the GM—consider this a problem?

I already know that I can go maples; I'm trying to be considerate of you. :)

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

Lemmy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed. And if you're not describing their appearance, then I still see no need for the labels.

The problem is precisely the fact that some people are offended by descriptive language. Sometimes we have/want to describe a persons's appearance, but many listeners will be offended by your choice of words, despite the fact that you're simply giving them an objective description (which may or may not accurate, depending on the speaker's ability to describe a person's features).

Sorry, sorry... Failed my Will save. Leaving now.

It would be easier to weigh your opinion if you gave examples of what you mean by "descriptive language".

For all I know, the "objective descriptive language" you're saying some folks get offended by is the same kind of shorthand "they're black"-type statements that I'm questioning the need for. My response to your post with this understanding would be very different than my response to your post if your "descriptive language" was something like "about X tall, such-and-such a build, medium-brown skin, black hair in shoulder-length tight braids".

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

mechaPoet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Can anyone tell me a legitimate situation where such a term is actually the best way to communicate? Have I overlooked something?
Someone's race is important to consider in the context of discussing racism.

Okay, you might actually have a point here. I'll have to ponder that one.

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

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Well, like it or not, there are macrocultures that encompass microcultures, and racial uniqueness is one of those defining macrocultures. There are cultural commonalities of these groups. Not nearly as much as a microculture, like national ethnicity or religion, but they exist - if only because society forces them to.

Hopefully we break that one day and physical descriptions are only that, physical descriptions, but today, in 2016, we haven't completely overcome that yet...and thus during this time, racial descriptions in our world help to encompass an entire macroculture of humanity in as few words as possible.

I don't understand how this is an answer to my question. All you did was talk about cultures in a very generalized sense and then go right back to the theoretical situation of "IF you need to summarize a group of details in as few words as possible, then these terms let you do that."

What exactly do you believe I asked?

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

Quote:
•Additional resources - I will be posting images for maps, and we will be using theater of the mind.

Can you elaborate on this? How vital is it to be able to view the map regularly?

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

Freehold DM wrote:
Time for intimate, erotic adventures.

Wait, didn't captain yesterday already suggest that?

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

thegreenteagamer wrote:

...She doesn't want to be called African American.

Meanwhile I know other people who don't want to be called black, but rather AA. You can be trying all you want, but if you say what one considers right, the other might get offended.

But what if... we just didn't use either label?

I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but in what contexts is it relevant to even bring up the pieces of information conveyed by those terms at all? The only one I can think of is if you need to give a physical description so somebody else can find them, and in that case neither term is really specific enough because of how much variance in appearance there can be even within that term.

So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed. And if you're not describing their appearance, then I still see no need for the labels.

I can understand the "Which term do I use?" dilemma in theory, but that dilemma is founded on an assumption that you've found yourself in a situation where you need to use such a term, and are therefore forced to pick one.

Can anyone tell me a legitimate situation where such a term is actually the best way to communicate? Have I overlooked something?

Quote:
Some people just look to get offended, too.

Yes, but that handful of people is not really relevant to the discussion, so there's not much (legitimate) reason to mention them.

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

:(

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

Qaianna wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:

So oriental characters should have their family name on the left, and their individual name on the right? They read from right to left.

Am I being insensitive? I just can't tell.

.

A little. Basically, they're referring to family-name given-name constructions. Which, in English, would look like that--hence, say, 'Kurosawa Ryoko', a nice lady named Ryoko by the Kurosawa family. But it's only written 'family name on the left' due to how English (and other Latin-alphabet languages) usually write.

Speaking of eastern naming schemes and "Things that bother you"...

There seems to be no consistency in how English subtitles arrange characters' names in anime. I'll watch one show and see the name written in the order the character spoke it (Family/Given) and then watch a different show and see it written "English-style" (Given/Family). The former was what I got used to on the first couple of anime I ever started watching, so every time I encounter the latter it confuses the crap out of me.

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

Dire Elf wrote:
The largest population on Earth, the Chinese, don't follow those naming customs, so why should fantasy characters or aliens follow them?

Because too many gamers can't recognize racism unless it includes the phrase "because you're black"?

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

Man, suddenly there's all these recruitment threads and my head's buzzing with character ideas. When am I gonna find time to make them all? :(

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

Now I'm imagining a dragonborn bard (headed toward the Valor college), though I'm a bit concerned of the possibility of dying before hitting 3rd and gaining proficiency with medium armor and shields. Hmm...

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How many times must I test my own assertions before I no longer need to prove anything any further?
That's not a state a person can reach.
Technically, no, but there has to be a level that can be declared "good enough for any reasonable person to accept/good enough that it would be perverse by this point to say otherwise" otherwise you're just testing and testing and testing forever, and then you have no functional life. Are you saying I'm arguing with a whole temple's worth of ascetic monks whose existences are devoted to endlessly verifying their every thought? If so, I must admit that's a bit hardcore for me.

Thread's moving faster than I can really keep up with, but I wanted to go back to this one.

IHIYC, how in the world did you manage to interpret my post like that?

I wrote that a person can't reach a point where one's own assertions/beliefs no longer need to be subject to review/proving/scrutiny/whatever.

Somehow, you interpreted this statement as meaning that I'm in favor of constant testing of one's every thought, day in and day out.

Normally when someone responds to such a straightforward statement with a reply as unfoundedly extreme as yours, it's taken as deliberate hyperbole used in an effort to turn the original statement into something more easily refuted so that they don't have to face an inconvenient observation.

But since you've been so big on how honest you are and how you always "fight fair", I guess we have to rule out hyperbole and conclude that you honestly believed that "you never reach a point where your ideas are beyond contestation" somehow meant "you must test your every thought constantly, even to the neglect of other life activities". If you were honest about being honest, then we have to conclude that your interpretation was genuine, despite its gross wrongness.

So, you've understood my statement to mean something vastly different than what I said. Why could this be? Well, according to you (earlier in this thread), it is fully the responsibility of the listener to make sure they understand the speaker's ideas. Since you have not understood the speaker's message, you have failed in the very responsibility you had proclaimed to the rest of us.

If you've been honest this whole time, then you have a self-elected responsibility to go back to my post and figure out where you went wrong and what I really meant.

Do you intend to do so? Or would you like me to explain it further, in spite of the values you've proclaimed thus far?

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

I can't seem to get past my "bird soldier" mental image into a full concept. I might have to start from scratch. What's the deadline for applications?

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
plead a blonde moment

*looks at avatar*

DENIED!

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read the thread title and immediately thought this was going to be a poop joke thread. I feel slightly disappointed. Yeah, I'm a terrible person. Sorry. :/

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

I mean, I can list simple facts:

(1) Fact 1: In the last 4+ years, I've run 13 players (as a GM) and played with 7 others (as a player) through 33 AP books.

(2) Fact 2: In that particular experience, there is a strong correlation between "problem players" (players with whom I or another GM have a problem) and "number of source books used for the PC".

So while I would reject the assertion that "multiple source books" = "bad", I would say that "multiple source books" is a strong indicator that the player in question is choosing more powerful options without regard to their character concept or the storyline as a whole

I can list simple facts too:

(1) Fact 1: In the last 4+ years, I've run well over a hundred players (as a GM) and played with a similar (and overlapping) number as a player through dozens upon dozens of scenarios. (Some scenarios I even got to experience from both sides of the screen at different times, which adds quite a bit of perspective.)

(2) Fact 2: In that particular experience, there is a strong correlation between "problem participants" (players/GMs who tromped across other people's fun to enforce their own ideals) and "number of decades of D&D experience/number of editions played".

So while I would reject the assertion that "multiple decades/editions" = "bad", if I were to say that "multiple decades/editions" is a strong indicator that the player/GM in question is choosing to trample other people's fun in order to enforce their own ideals, would you accept that conclusion as being just as valid as your own? Because if not, you're being hypocritical and need to reassess your position.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Now, nobody likes feeling inferior
It may be nitpicking... but this isn't true. I have encountered players that are happiest NOT being the powerful mega hero. And I have also seen different people take the weakest character and make him shine like a sun by brilliant or colorful playing.

If you go back and read my statement in context, you'll see that the reference to feeling inferior was not "feeling like the character is inferior", but rather, a player might feel inferior in such cases as the gap between PCs results from a gap in player skill. The things you're talking about are entirely outside the scope of the statement you're replying to.

Do you disagree with what I actually said?

Quote:
Jiggy wrote:
Over the years, some of the less-skilled players felt the need to paint it as a strength rather than a weakness. That's where we get expressions like "ROLEplay not ROLLplay"
Wow you love to paint in only one color don't you? While this might be true in some cases It certainly isn't true as a general rule.

You're going to "correct" my statement about what some people do by pointing out it only happens in some cases? I agree with you that it's only "some". That's why I said "some".

I realize that in a post as longwinded as mine it can be easy to let your attention slip, but if you're going to do a line reply, it would be worthwhile to give it another pass at full attention to make sure you're not asking for something that's already there.

Quote:
Many if not most people talk about rollplay vs roleplay as a numbers vs fluff argument, NOT as a slight against rollplayers.

I agree that sometimes "rollplay and roleplay" gets discussed abstractly in the manner you describe.

But, again, if you go back and re-read my statement in context, you'll see I wasn't referring to all uses of the term "rollplay", but rather "expressions like 'ROLEplay' not 'ROLLplay'". The capitalizations and the "not" are important: I'm talking about when people say things like "This is a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game" or otherwise try to "ROLE" is how things are meant to be done and "ROLL" is missing the point or otherwise morally inferior.

I was specifically and explicitly speaking ONLY of when people talk about how it's "X, not Y", not every time that X is mentioned at all.

Quote:
Sorry, while most of your post was spot on, leaving these falsehoods unaddressed would do injustice to the ideas.

Hopefully this clears things up for you.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
The idea that "the majority MUST be right, because it's the majority, and an individual who thinks differently cannot possibly be other than arrogant/stupid/whatever" is the veritable poster-child for "evil mind-plague."
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
...but evidently, I don't know what's reasonable (and neither do my family, friends, and teachers, apparently)...

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How many times must I test my own assertions before I no longer need to prove anything any further?

That's not a state a person can reach.

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

Did I overlook the starting level and stat generation method...?

And just to confirm, are feats on the table?

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Heck, I've even watched you...
You are now getting into "claiming you can read my mind" territory...

What? Noting what I've seen you do is claiming I can read your mind?

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I am not always good at communication... and people often misinterpret me because of that, but that's their coming up short, not mine.

Huh? You admit to being unskilled in communication, but the resulting misinterpretations are other people's fault?

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
The fact that you're trying to paint ME as belligerent, manipulative, and un-self-aware

I didn't have to paint you as anything; simply referencing your own use of expressions like "evil mind-plague" is where descriptors like "belligerent" come from, and your bafflement (in this very thread, even) at the suggestion of communicating differently is the evidence of your lack of self-awareness.

If simply referencing your own actions feels like you're being painted in a negative light, then maybe it's your own actions that are doing the painting.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
...people like you seem frighteningly adept (and comfortable with) weird "guilty-until-proven-innocent" sucker-punch maneuvers...

Referencing your own past behavior is not "guilty until proven innocent", it's "here's what this guy has done".

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
...one thing you can take to the bank about me: ...I fight fair

No, you don't. Fighting fair is when you demonstrate an understanding of someone else's idea, and then specifically and politely point out the issues you see. "Parasitic meme" and "evil mind-plague" are not fighting fair. I don't know where you got the idea that you "fight fair", but it sure wasn't from a careful review of your own actions. (See also: "trying to paint me as un-self-aware".)

As for your honesty that you keep touting, I'm trying my best to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Those who have given up on your honesty are the ones talking about "feeding the troll". The fact that I'm still here bothering to talk to you shows that, despite the mistakes you've made, I'm still choosing to have faith that your words here might be earnest.

Unfortunately, your consistent use of self-contradictory and verifiably false assertions is quickly eroding that faith.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

I don't see how I was "holier then thou"

It's all true. I'm very happy having quit. Anyone can do it.

ERIC: Can anyone answer some questions about this means of quitting smoking?

YOU: Just go cold turkey like I did! Aren't I awesome?!

... You didn't answer Eric's questions, you just bragged about your own success.

The hell? He didn't say anything about how awesome he was or do anything remotely like bragging. He said what he did, asked if the OP had considered it as an option, and gave it his recommendation. Given that the OP was the one who explicitly brought up the topic of quitting, offering/suggesting an option that one has personally found success with is completely reasonable. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean that the person suggesting it is looking down on you; just because you didn't find success in a given endeavor doesn't mean that anyone who mentions their own success is trying to rub your face in it.

If someone expresses an interest in quitting smoking, then other people saying "I did X, it worked, I highly recommend it" is completely appropriate.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Anyone else ever encounter anything similar?

Yep, and it's one of the major reasons my melee cleric was a lot more powerful than folks on the forums tend to assume, and why the warpriest isn't that much better at fighting than the cleric is.

My cleric needed a single standard action for buffing at the start of a fight, so I would typically cast my buff (divine favor) and then walk forward and draw my weapon, ending far enough forward to be a target but far enough back that the enemy would have to use a move action to reach me.

People keep trying to dismiss the combat potential of the cleric with ideas like "Sure, if you want to spend forever buffing first, but by then the fight's basically over anyway," but as you noticed, round 1 is the "meet and greet" of the melee combatants, so spending that round buffing will often actually be a stronger move than getting in that first attack.

It's a peculiar quirk of the system, to be sure. If it bothers you, 5E did away with the "moving reduces your attacks" thing, so you might look into making adaptations (unless we're talking about organized play, of course).

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

Headfirst wrote:
Mergy wrote:
High initiative isn't about always going first. It's about being able to choose when you enter the battle.
In my opinion, this is probably the biggest reason why people think rogues suck.

Your opinion is uninformed.

If you would like to know the actual biggest reason(s) "why people think rogues suck" (or why people think anything, really), your best bet is usually to ask and listen, rather than to speculate and assume.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And I just realized that gear is, like, really important.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: In Pathfinder, "wealth" is just a second XP track.

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

Potentially interested, but I'm disinclined toward Out of the Abyss.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I advise against it. Part of why it works in 5E is because of "bounded accuracy". The relationship between bonuses and DCs in 5E is such that you almost never have a near-automatic success or near-automatic failure; always somewhere in the middle. As a result, advantage gives you good odds, but still leaves a very real chance of failing (or of succeeding with disadvantage). In Pathfinder, however, the math much more frequently moves toward "only fail on a 1" or "only succeed on a 20", and when you're that far to the extreme, the power of (dis)advantage scales up tremendously. (This is why so many GMs dislike the few reroll abilities that exist in Pathfinder, such as Fortune/Misfortune.)

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

Belac93 wrote:
A warning: Aarakocra and Flying tieflings are a completely valid, un-nerfed, definitely good option in this game. However, it is a privilege. Trying to make a character who flies up 600 feet and snipes will be met with flying enemies.

Hm. You know, for a good long while now I've had the mental image of an aarakocra soldier, possibly wielding a spear (not sure why). Perhaps this would be the right time to make him.

Question: Will I need to be able to see maps or other outside resources to play?

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

10 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Apparently, I'm not anti-optimization, and neither is anyone else...
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
...If I feel that I'm less effective in combat/social interaction/skills than the rest of my party, and I'm looking for help with feat choices that will improve my success rate, then the "you must be a munchkin" attitude isn't helpful.
If the latter attitude is at all something that actually happens, I've never seen it - I've certainly never said it. I think that's a strawman for when people object to something completely different, namely a contemptuous/dismissive attitude toward anything that isn't number-crunching...

It's not a strawman; it does happen, and in fact happens so frequently in some communities that it contributed to my abandoning PFS organized play. For example, I watched a conversation in the PFS GM forum touch on the topic of PCs with a high armor class, and someone commented on the high AC of their own character. A multi-star PFS GM then declared—based solely on the knowledge of how high the character's armor class was—that the PC was "a spreadsheet, not a character", and said he would boot such a character from any table he was running without hesitation.

Things like that are/were actually so common that eventually someone started a thread titled "Not at MY table" to try and address the issue that multi-star PFS GMs (including plenty of Venture Officers) were frequently responding to discussions of well-performing builds (or elements of builds) with the declaration that they intended to violate PFS rules by banning it from their tables.

So it does happen, and plenty.

But you already know this, because you do it yourself. Heck, I've even watched you criticize people for making effective gameplay choices in games that aren't even role-playing games. I'm seriously considering saving a link to this post of yours, and then posting it every time you display anti-optimization attitudes and saying "This is what you said is a strawman that you've never seen happen."

And speaking of strawmen...

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
There ARE people who hold imagination in contempt and only want to build big numbers ("because that's what GROWN-UPS do! Make-believe's for KIDS, and kids are STOOPID! And actors! EWWWW I HATE actors they're all stupid sluts say did you seeThe Avengerswasn't that AWESOME brah...?")...

Though there are certainly people whose interests lie solely with building big numbers, your characterization of them as "hold[ing] imagination in contempt" and as seeing themselves as more grown-up/intelligent/sexually responsible than those who enjoy the play-acting part of RPGs is something you made up yourself.

That means that either (A) you're the one who's full of contempt, making things up in an attempt to demonize the people whose preferences you don't share; or (B) you saw people who seemed to only care about the numbers and somehow used that as a premise from which to draw the conclusion that all that other stuff must go with it, which is a truly monumental failure of reasoning.

This is why people don't trust you and you keep running into conflict. Do something different or expect to keep having the same experiences. As one of my professors back in college liked to say, "If you keep on doing what you're doing, you're going to keep on getting what you've got."

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

12 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
So why have people kept telling me I was way wrong (and worse) when *I* said this stuff? If this is all there is to it, then where has all the conflict come from?

Maybe it's because when *you* say it, you refer to other people's ideas with terms like "parasitic meme" or "evil mind-plague"? Do you think maybe that could be why you keep encountering conflict?

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
tonyz wrote:

The other thing with optimization is that it's possible to theorycraft for maximum effectiveness in _something_ -- but at the expense of some necessary or useful features. Usually this results in glass cannons, powerful but very vulnerable characters.

Playing in a campaign with a variety of threats may require a variety of defenses. The fighter that optimizes one-strike one-kill melee combat gets dominated. The archer is shut down by the maze of 10' little passages, all alike. The sorceror with hyper-DCs for his charm spells is powerless against the mindless foe. The AC-of-doom defending cleric can't DO anything other than stand around unhit (until his enemies get around to wrestling him). The paladin who can do more damage in one blow than any creature in the Monster Manual can survive but can't figure out the murder mystery. Et cetera.

Optimization in excess of practicality is not necessary.

(Sometimes one's friends can fill in roles. Sometimes they can't.)

/facepalm

Glad I went to all that trouble to try and help people have more productive conversations.

1 to 50 of 20,198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.