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. 20,045 posts (23,784 including aliases). 17 reviews. 4 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 35 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 20,045 << 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.

Revive a dead friend/relative/lover.

Put a stop to what he believes is the world's greatest problem (but has either misidentified the true nature of the problem and/or overestimated its significance due to a personal history) despite an unacceptably high cost or collateral damage.

Prevent/confront a cosmic threat that he thinks is coming but nobody believes him. (Could be crazy and there's no threat, or he could be right and now the heroes have to face a new threat and they just offed the only guy prepared to deal with it.)

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

A bit late to the party, so I haven't gone through and read everything after the OP, but...

In this situation, as in many situations in life, Step One is to check oneself. If you unknowingly have poorly-calibrated expectations of what "normal" is in a given area of life/gaming, then you'll inevitably misjudge the nature of that which differs from yourself.

For example, I quite commonly encounter people (especially those who have played multiple versions of D&D) who don't realize that in 3.X/PF, wealth/magic item progression and the accumulation of miscellaneous bonuses is a built-in feature of the system. They think that your starting stats and class bonuses (i.e., BAB and base save bonuses) are the only "givens", and that magic items and such are "extras" that you shouldn't count on. As a result of this misunderstanding, such folks will encounter players who are actually quite moderate in their playstyles, but see their assumptions of relevant magical gear as "powergaming" or "player entitlement". Both of those concepts are real things that exist, but the player/GM who misunderstands how Pathfinder is structured misidentifies other players as fitting those molds when they truly don't.

Now, a wise person will respond to such differences—especially if they encounter the same thing repeatedly—by first looking for ways to verify if their own preconceptions could be off the mark, and only seek out "how to handle" the dissenting views once they've verified the proper calibration of their own understanding of the situation. Unfortunately, too many folks neglect to take that step and instead (to go back to my above example) just continuously label one person after another as a powergamer/min-maxer. Some even go so far as to draw the conclusion that they must be witnessing an entire generation of entitled munchkins, rather than ever consider that they themselves might have a simple misunderstanding about one game.

The same goes for your other areas of concern, such as the respective roles of the GM and the rules. In each aspect of the game in which you consider this player to be deviating from the default assumptions of the game, have you put in the work to verify that you actually know what the default assumptions of the game truly are?

Only once you have done that can you truly assess which of you is acting in accordance with "the norm" and which of you is desiring something different (though it's also possible that you're both looking for deviations). Once it's clear which of whose desires are actually requests for houserules/variations, each such idea can be discussed among the group, with all of you working together to craft a mutually-enjoyable experience.

Honesty with each other, built upon honesty with oneself. Anything else is a train wreck waiting to happen. Best of luck! :)

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Belulzebub wrote:
It's cheese and should be changed immediately so there's good reason not to take the variant. A feat is easily worth every other racial bonus humans get COMBINED.

It's not that the variant human is cheese, it's that the "standard" human is pathetic.

The variant human gets +1/+1, a skill, and a feat.
The other races get +2/+1 (or in some cases +2/+2 or +2/+1/+1), often a skill or two, a language, and a grab-bag of hard-to-emulate features like darkvision, breath weapons, immunities/resistances, save advantages, and so forth.

When you compare the variant human to the other races, that feat is filling in for a second increase in your main stat and an assortment of powerful abilities.

If you were building a monk and there were a feat that gave you +1 DEX, darkvision, immunity to magic sleep effects, advantage on saves against charm effects, the ability to get a long rest in half the time, a free racial language, +5ft move speed, and the ability to use Stealth when only lightly obscured; would you consider taking it with your variant human? If so, then you just built an elf, and the variant human is not cheese.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rosgakori wrote:

“Your finger told you?”

“No that’s silly. The man who lives in my finger told me.”

Muppet Treasure Island!

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
apex of mediocrity

Pretty sure that's not a thing.

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

GM_Beernorg wrote:
Good suggestion Jiggy, torn between Undertale and Salt & Sanctuary as my new "buying this game, don't care if I should or not" myself currently.

Don't know anything about Salt & Sanctuary, but I recommend Undertale if:

• You like learning the original lore of a new world
• You enjoy a strong narrative in your gaming
• You like a game with memorable, interesting characters
• You like the general JRPG format, but could do with less grinding and more engaging combat gameplay
• You can appreciate old-school pixel-art graphics, ala the NES and SNES eras
• You want a game that will affect you forever without you having to devote hundreds of hours to it

------------------------

If that list seems mostly positive to you, then you should play Undertale ASAP (and try really hard not to run into any spoilers). If instead that list seems mostly negative (hate old-school graphics, looking for something you can play regularly for years to come, prefer grinding over narrative, etc), then Undertale might not be a priority right now.

But if you don't play Undertale, then there will eventually come a point where you can't really call yourself an RPG gamer anymore. Just sayin'. ;)

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

Dustin Ashe wrote:
Perhaps the greatest surprise of all to me was that, after new feats, respondents most wanted new character classes. Here I was thinking that 5e class archetypes could fill out any concept niches not already covered. Aren't people worried about bloat and power creep?

The class archetypes definitely cover a lot of bases, but there are still some notable gaps. One classic example is anything alchemy-based, and my own "pet" example would be an arcane half-caster martial (something with the same casting progression and combat chassis as the ranger and paladin, but arcane and differently-themed).

Also, I suspect that a large proportion of the clamor for new classes is for psionics in particular, rather than just more classes in general.

As for power creep, I don't think 5E is nearly as vulnerable to it as a system like Pathfinder is.

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

Crystal Frasier wrote:
I also love games with tons of exploration and quirky characters... Never got much into the Final Fantasy series, sadly; something about the grinding always made them feel more like work than fun.

Played Undertale yet? If not, you should. It's an indie RPG on Steam with rich (and original!) lore, memorable characters, and no requirement for grinding. Not to mention a soundtrack that's to die for.

I can 99% guarantee you will fall completely in love with it.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Trying to set my players up to latch onto the clear plot hook and move past the set dressing, and then taking a drink every time it doesn't work.

man i am so f@#!ing drunk rigt now

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

<----- Is jealous.

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

So, like, getting aligned with white wouldn't keep me from learning burning hands or whatever? (I'm a fan of versatility, both in M:tG and in D&D, so being put on monocolor makes me a little leery.)

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My meatspace group is playing Curse of Strahd (a Ravenloft 5E adventure), and player absence is explained by the mists coming and taking the PC and doing something weird, then when you come back your PC rejoins the group with some kind of minor, random psychosis. My rogue spent my absence surrounded by mist, with wolves jumping out and attacking him at random times. Came out with a constant fear that at any moment, wolves would jump out and attack.

There is now a haunted house containing multiple pieces of wolf-shaped décor that have my arrows in them, despite the local merchant charging 10x the book price for everything. And when we finally had a combat against wolves, I threw myself against them first with daggers, then with my bare hands, then finally with my face, in a blind rage.

Not very effective, but seemed appropriate to the narrative.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:
Ten Minute Background

That looks super cool. :)

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

DM Default wrote:
...since I'm going one of each color specific?

By the way, why specifically are you doing a party of single-color-aligned PCs? Does color alignment do something in-game? (I haven't had a chance to read the document.)

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

Well I was waiting to see if this post was going to be modded due to the "using an alias to insult someone" rule that is sometimes applied and sometimes not, but since it hasn't:

Grammar Nazi wrote:
It's probably due to you not knowing what "earned" means.
Just because you don't agree with the use of a word in a certain context doesn't mean the user doesn't understand the definition of the word. Childish behavior Jiggy.

I didn't insult you. All I did was point out a factual incorrectness. It's not like I said (or implied) that you were stupid or illiterate or anything. My statement was completely confined to the identification of an objective error. (And yes, it was an objective error, not a matter of how each of us feels about the use of the word "earned".)

I have no intention of insulting you. That does not mean I'm not allowed to point out factual incorrectness.

Just like how, if there were an obscure alternate definition of "earn" that made your original usage correct and you pointed it out to me just like I pointed out your error to you, that also wouldn't be an insult.

It is not childish or insulting to correct factual errors.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It's a rather optimistic assumption to think you can go through that campaign without getting hit by a serious status effect or three.
If that were the assumption I wouldn't be recommending a medkit of remove blindness/deafness and lesser restoration potions.

Didn't you know? For any given conclusion, there's only one thought path that leads there, so that's all anyone ever needs to reply to. ;)

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, so someone says "My players tell stories about XYZ, not about what stats they rolled", and Fake Healer and Tormsskull have categorized that as labeling rolled stats as criminal badwrongfun? That's... wow.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've started letting my players just pick their stats out of thin air. Nothing's gone wrong with it yet. :)

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Explain "gamist"

Actually, I decided to edit that out of my post, lest the term carry any sort of baggage I might not be aware of and alter the meaning of my post.

like derogatory.

Yes, that's the type of thing I was worried about. I "built" the term in my head while I was typing, just to mean someone whose focus is on fun and engaging gameplay, then afterwards I was like "Wait, I think I've heard that term used before, and I think it might have been something bad." So I removed it.

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

captain yesterday wrote:
Explain "gamist"

Actually, I decided to edit that out of my post, lest the term carry any sort of baggage I might not be aware of and alter the meaning of my post.

EDIT: Ninja'd by your edit about my edit.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh, it's all just a matter of playstyle preferences.

Rolling in order shifts character creation from "preparation" to "gameplay" by offering a challenge in the form of a "puzzle" to be solved by figuring out what you can make with the stats you get. Thus, folks who prioritize engaging gameplay will have lots of fun rolling up a set of stats and trying to work with it.

By contrast, point-buy allows you the chance to invent any type of character you want and faithfully represent it in the game, which is something that rolled stats work against (for example, you can't play the "feeble wizard" trope if you roll a 15 STR). Thus, folks who prioritize roleplay will have lots of fun using point-buy (or in my games, simply picking whatever stats they want) as a means of faithfully realizing their character concepts.

So basically, rolling stats (particularly in order) is the more gaming-oriented approach, while point-buy/selection is the more roleplay-oriented approach. Of course, some players could have fun either way, and thus might jump at the chance to do whichever one they haven't done in a while.

All in all, I don't really find the OP surprising in the least.

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

All kinds of interested. Zendikar was probably my favorite block I ever played in.

My tendencies are toward W/B (with the occasional dip into R or G), but I could settle on just one of those if need be.

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

Intriguing! Can't check out the document just yet, but I loved the first Zendikar block in Magic, and fantasized about putting a D&D campaign there.

I'm especially curious to see what they do with the Kor.

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

Apupunchau wrote:
Although combat is important to games like DnD and Pathfinder many people find that It takes too much time.

If you're lumping D&D and Pathfinder together into the "combat takes too long" thing, you've clearly not played 5E.

Quote:

What Measure do you take to actually make it take less time?

I switched to D&D.

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

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dark Die High wrote:
I kind of side with Deadmanwalking here. The host and the GM. I disagree with the people who say it's everyone's responsibility. Essentially, anyone besides those people is just a guest and doesn't have the right to tell other guests what to do. However, everyone has the right to speak their mind. In essence, you can tell my guests there being jerks, but you can't ask them to leave. However...

Reading other people's posts, I'm not sure there's actually disagreement here on what people should do, I think there's disagreement on what the word 'enforcement' means in this context.

I immediately, in my head, leapt to 'impose actual penalties' which necessitates authority. I'm betting you did the same.

Other people seem to have gone with 'does anything about it at all' which is a valid definition, but not the one I was thinking of.

In short, I think we all agree that everyone should speak up about this sort of thing...we were just using different definitions of whether that constitutes 'enforcement'.

This. I, for one, was thinking of "enforcement" as including social enforcement, not merely the ability to banish someone from the premises.

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

"Well, you've been busy. Let me ask you something: do you think even the worst person can change? That anyone can be a good person, if they just try...? Heh. Okay. Here's a better question: do you wanna have a bad time? Because if you take one more step forward, you are not gonna like what happens next."

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

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
I didn't say "all Christians like to..."

I have a hard time believing you would accept that same distinction if I were to talk about what "women" do and then pointed out I didn't say "all".

Look, I'm philosophically opposed to the entire notion of "acceptable targets", but apparently you're not, and it seems we've found (one of?) yours, so I guess there's not much more point in discussing this side topic with you. Maybe we can get back to the main topic now. Or if not, maybe I'll just hide the thread. :/

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I just disagree that acceptability of condemning the entire group for the actions of a subset of its members is part of that difference. How a person got into a group—inborn genetics, cosmic perspective, voting history, romantic decisions, whatever—has no bearing on whether or not it's okay to condemn them for the actions of others.
Which very nicely avoids being able to hold any group accountable for anything. No, no group is 100% responsible for the actions of individual members. However, when they don't condemn those actions, and benefit from them, yes, they bear responsibility.

Well, who's the "they" that failed to condemn the actions? I'm pretty sure an awful lot of members of the group in question would absolutely condemn the actions you described. How would you ever find out? I mean sure, if the group's leadership or public-facing representatives fail to condemn fellow group members' actions, then the group's leadership absolutely bears responsibility, just as you say.

Of course, that's assuming that the leadership even knows about it. Meanwhile, there's the other umpteen million members of the group who may or may not even know the actions in question were ever performed, and if they do, may well condemn those actions quite thoroughly, even if the group's leadership does not.

So once again, you're generalizing about a massive group based only on what you personally have or have not heard about its handful of public figures doing. That's massively unfair.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
to criticize a group of people who are defined as a group because they believe the same thing

The group you criticized is not defined as a group by the thing you ascribed to them.

The group you cited ("Christians") is defined as a group by all believing in the "Christ-ness" of the Jesus in the Bible. Very little else is part of the definition of being a "Christian".

The thing you ascribed to the entire group was "they like to throw Judaism under the bus". That is not part of their definition as a group.

If you wanted to critique the belief that Jesus was the Christ, then it would be valid to refer to "Christians"; just like if you wanted to critique the belief that there is no god at all, it would be valid to refer to "Atheists". But as soon as you want to critique an activity/position that is not part of what it means to belong to group X, then it is no longer okay to refer to the group as categorically embracing that activity/position.

I agree with you that there is a big difference between being in a group due to a choice of beliefs and being in a group because of genetic chance. I just disagree that acceptability of condemning the entire group for the actions of a subset of its members is part of that difference. How a person got into a group—inborn genetics, cosmic perspective, voting history, romantic decisions, whatever—has no bearing on whether or not it's okay to condemn them for the actions of others.

Now can we please get back to a productive discussion on sexism, without having to kick anyone on our way past?

EDIT: Wait, hang on, this is "misandrists in the setting;" what should we be getting back to? Dang, this thread has really wandered.

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

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
Christians like to...

...be a monolith?

Most of your post was reasonable and fair (regardless of whether anyone might agree or disagree with the actual points you made), but here you've slipped into the exact same type of "Here's what this whole group is like" talk that I've so often seen you caution others not to do in regard to women. (And to be clear, I agree that we mustn't talk about "women" as though they were a homogeneous whole; I'm just saying that applies to all large groups, including those of a religious nature.)

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Osakaben wrote:
4. Add in enough extra healing/channeling items to make up for not having a cleric.

"Extra"?

Can I ask what your understanding is of how (A) wands, (B) the wealth-by-level guidelines, and (C) the magic item availability settlement rules, function in Pathfinder?

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.

Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.

Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?

When religion is part and parcel of the foundation and justification for our prejudices, it's fair game. For millennia Eve has been used by both Hebrews and Christians as justification for women's "lesser" place in the world. The Greeks did the same thing with Pandora, the first woman, a creature created by Zeus specifically both to tempt men,and to make foolish decisions, such as opening the eponymous Box, to unleash all of the Troubles to plague mankind.

By all means, discuss those specific things that have been done wrong. Those are very valid points of contention.

They're also not what I replied to.

I replied to a backhand against an entire category of people, not a citation of specific grievances.

Folks who believe in some form of god are no more a monolith than women are. Discuss individual wrongs (religious or otherwise) that have been committed, rather than taking cheap swipes at entire categories of people. You know, just like how you'd like men to handle this discussion. Hypocrisy is bad.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.

Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.

Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?

But anchovies!!!

I understand; I've been there too. It's not easy to embrace diversity; you can't just simply mentally acknowledge that it's good to treat others as equals and leave it at that. You've got to proactively alter yourself, because your actualized beliefs don't automatically align with your declared beliefs with the flip of a switch. It takes ongoing work. It's a process. And the moment you think you're done, you've failed. You must constantly work toward greater acceptance in practice, not just in declaration.

Even in regard to anchovy-lovers.

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

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
...shrinking even faster than reasons to believe in a God.

Whatever your own beliefs may be, taking pot-shots at people for their religion as part of your speech about discrimination and equality is pretty hypocritical.

Sex, gender, orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, abortion stance, marital status, economic class, pizza topping preferences... How about we don't weaponize any of it, okay?

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Who's responsibility is it to enforce the non-harrassmemt aspect of the campaign?

Everyone's. Until things are physically or legally risky enough that police need to be involved, anyone who decides that intervening against harassment is someone else's responsibility is as guilty as the perpetrator.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If I can make an effective character and roleplay just as well as I'd an inertective one... Why wouldn't choose to be effective?
"Optimized" and "effective" are not, despite people trying to constantly use them that way, synonyms. Something does not have to be optimal to be effective.

Well, to "optimize (a thing)" is to make that thing as "effective" as possible.

And what does "effective" mean? "Successful in producing a desired or intended result".

So, the two things you're wanting to make sure we all know aren't synonyms are
"To make something as successful as possible in producing a desired result"
and
"To make something successful in producing a desired result".

So, "optimized" is not 100% interchangeable with "effective"; rather, "optimized" is simply the fullest degree of "effective".

Now, you say that something can be non-optimal but still be effective. Well, if we fill in our definitions for those terms, that means you're saying that something which is NOT
"as successful as possible in producing a desired result"
can still be
"successful in producing a desired result".

I suppose, depending on what your "desired result" is, you may well be right. If your desired result has a gradient of outcomes for which two results can both be considered successful while simultaneously one of those two results is more successful than the other, then you do indeed have a situation where that which is non-optimal can still be considered effective.

However, if (for a given desired result) either of those elements is not the case—that is, if there is only one result that's considered successful, or if all successful results are of equal value with none being superior to any other—then it becomes impossible for something to be less successful than something else and still be considered successful, which in turn leaves no room for a differentiation between "successful" and "most successful". Therefore, in such a situation, "optimal" and "effective" have indeed become synonyms.

Alternatively, we could all just unclench a little, treat each other like real people, and stop devoting all our focus to revealing the mustache-twirling villainy of anyone who voices an opinion contrary to our own.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But it is also "not the italicized text the OP was asking about". ;)

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
For your specific example, of course the Iron Golem is going to detect as metal. It's literally iron.
The counter argument to that is that nothing in the Iron Golem's statblock mentions iron anywhere.

Incorrect. You didn't finish reading the Iron Golem's entry.

Look:
Iron Golem wrote:

An iron golem has a humanoid body made from iron. It can be sculpted into any shape its creator desires, but it almost always displays armor of some sort, from simple and utilitarian to ceremonial and ornate. Its features are much smoother than those of a stone golem. Iron golems sometimes carry a weapon in one hand, though they rarely use these, relying instead on their slam attacks.

An iron golem is 12 feet tall and weighs about 5,000 pounds. An iron golem cannot speak or make any vocal noise, nor does it have any distinguishable odor.

Although the practice has fallen out of favor in modern times, the ancients of certain powerful civilizations once took great pride in crafting iron golems of tremendous size and strength. These golems, which are never smaller than Huge, still exist in remote parts of the world, mindlessly following the orders of a long-dead empire.

Ergo...

Quote:
Therefore, mechanically the Iron Golem is not made of iron, as the fluff text related to the monster is irrelevant. See also an earlier thread that concluded that an adamantine golem's fists aren't adamantine.

...this conclusion is flawed.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

I've seen a pretty common thought on various forums discussing Pathfinder that italicized text at the heading of feats and monsters and other things doesn't matter.

This was a source of a lot of debate back when Pummeling Style was first printed and I've seen similar contentions with people arguing whether Iron Golems are valid targets for Detect Metal and Rusting Grasp and so on.

I haven't been able to find anything one way or the other in the rules though. So is there anything definitive?

Paizo doesn't italicize feat descriptions and such. They reserve italics for spell names and magic item names, so you don't get them confused with other rules elements (like feats, class features, or normal uses of similar words).

For example, if the rules refer to "darkness", they're talking about a specific spell; if they refer to "darkness", they're talking about the simple absence of light.

Open up your Core Rulebook. Look at the feats chapter. You won't see italicized descriptions like what you're asking about. Those are added by sites like d20pfsrd.com, specifically to make the italicized text look like it's separate from the rest. That is, the contributor at d20pfsrd.com already believes the line to be "flavor text", and so they italicize it so that it'll look that way to the reader as well.

Be careful. Sometimes they go beyond just italicizing things that they want to label as flavor text. I remember looking up something once and discovering that they'd chopped up a couple of sentences, rearranged the pieces, added a line of space between the resulting parts, and then italicized one of them. Somebody had an idea of how they thought that rules element worked, and edited it to demote the part they didn't like into "flavor text".

Any time you EVER have a rules question, Step One is to look at something other than d20pfsrd.com. Your question about the italicized text wouldn't even have come up if not for the way they re-format things.

EDIT: One exception: Paizo does actually italicize the opening one-liner on monster stat blocks. But they also have more (non-italic) descriptive text after the stat block that covers the same stuff and more anyway, so no big deal there.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two thoughts:

First, I feel like maybe I remember "text trumps table" being a thing.

Second, the table heading which reads "Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" could be meaning "The weapon enhancement bonus that is considered equivalent to the property in the first column".

I'm not aware of any clarifications, but those two elements make me think you need actual enhancement bonuses.

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

Feral wrote:

The game would be unplayable if optimization was the standard to which encounters and things were designed.

Ignore your friend. He's playing a different game from the rest of us.

Though you're correct that Tower Shield Guy is playing a different game from the rest of us, you've got his relationship to optimization backwards.

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

Just a little aside on the topic of GM metagaming: I want to point out that it IS something that can happen; being the GM doesn't mean that there's no such thing as metagaming.

One classic example is when the campaign has multiple NPCs who are capable of mind-control effects, and they all just happen to have a listed alignment of true neutral, no matter how many babies they eat, because that way protection from [alignment] won't work.

Another example was often cited by a PFS member whose characters included a high-AC guy with full plate and a tower shield. This character owned two hats of disguise (back before the ruling that it only lasts a couple of minutes) and would loan one to whoever was the most visibly squishy PC at the table. They would basically swap appearances, so the tanky guy would look squishy and vice-versa. They would even switch minis on the map to represent it. But an appalling number of times, the GM would have the enemies ignore the squishy-looking tank in favor of attacking the tanky-looking squishy. Even on round 1, with no reason to think anything was up.

The GM is absolutely capable of metagaming. I'm not commenting on whether any of the examples other folks have been talking about would qualify, but in a general sense, the GM is not immune to that particular gaming foible, and it's no less bad when the GM does it than when the players do it.

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

I hadn't given much thought to the medium. Is that relevant?

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

Tormsskull wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Yes.

I brought up the topic of how a preference or desire is expressed, and you somehow managed to take it as questioning whether it's okay to express preferences at all.

Okay, so to put in more simple language:

Jiggy: It's inappropriate to say "x playstyle preference is not welcome in this game."

Tormsskull: "I disagree."

Do I have that correct now? Can we move on to discussing why you think it's inappropriate for a person to say "x playstyle preference is not welcome in this game?"

That's what I'm curious to know. Of course, if I still have your position wrong, please correct me.

You're closer.

Part of it is how you fill in "X playstyle preference". There's a difference between identifying a group by an actual behavior/characteristic and identifying a group by using a stereotyping label that already has a history.
"People who are mostly just into the numbers and not so much the story are not welcome in this game" is not equivalent to "Rollplayers are not welcome in this game".

Another part of it is how you express the potential clash of playstyles. There's a difference between stating what playstyle the GM has or is looking for, and stating that another playstyle "is not welcome here".
"I like my games to focus on XYZ, and I'm seeking players with the same preference" is not equivalent to "Non-XYZ-focused players are not welcome here."

Acceptable: "I'm looking to run a narrative-focused game where the mechanics are changed on the fly to suit the story. If that doesn't sound fun, this probably isn't the game for you."

Unacceptable: "Rollplayers are not welcome."

Acceptable: "I'm looking to run a game for a group of interesting characters who act like real people. If you're more into established stereotypes (like the growly, drunk dwarf) and a 'kill monsters and take their stuff' type of game, this isn't what you're looking for."

Unacceptable: "Grognards are not welcome."

Are you starting to see the distinction now?

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

Tormsskull wrote:
Am I missing some pertinent aspect that you're trying to get across?

Yes.

I brought up the topic of how a preference or desire is expressed, and you somehow managed to take it as questioning whether it's okay to express preferences at all.

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

You seem to be under the impression that as long as your concept is sound, it makes no difference how you express it.

I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "I like X and I'm interested in gaming with like-minded people" and "Non-X people are not welcome."

And every time someone tries to point out a difference like that, you somehow get it in your head that they're challenging whether it's okay for people to like different things.

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

Tormsskull wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
(2) the people labeled in such a way are consistently demonized and ostracized.
This may due to you hanging out in different subforums than I do, but I honestly cannot remember the last time anyone said anything about someone being a bad RPer which wasn't immediately followed up with one or more snarky responses and "Fallacy, fallacy!" statements.

Just because it's followed up by something bad, doesn't mean the first part wasn't bad. Both sides can be bad.

So when I saw a multi-star PFS GM say "Your AC is ##? That's not a character, that's a spreadsheet that you're trying to pass off as a character, and I would boot you from any table I was running," his guilt is unchanged by how people responded to him. The respondents might ALSO be guilty if they reacted poorly, but that doesn't take away his own guilt.

So pointing out that "You're a bad RPer" is often met with snark and cries of fallacy doesn't change the moral nature of the original "You're a bad RPer" statement, whatever that moral nature may be.

How people respond to an action has no bearing on the moral quality of the action to which they're responding.

How people respond to your actions never makes those actions more or less okay than they already were.

Quote:
IME, the vocal Paizo forums community members tilt pro-optimization, so I don't see how a person describing their character's mechanics could be ostracized - There simply aren't enough people for that.

I won't claim to know which group has the most people. I just know how easily I was able to rattle off a list of things I've personally seen others cite as reasons why Person B is bad roleplayer and doesn't know what this game is all about. None of them were hypothetical.

Quote:
You're probably right about rollplayer and munchkin, but I've actually seen powergamer used by people referring to themselves.

And I've seen black people use the n-word to refer to themselves and their friends. That doesn't make it okay for someone else to use that term toward them.

Quote:
As I eluded to previously, I don't think it is up to poster A to determine that poster B is label x.

That's kind of my point. It's not up to Poster A to determine that Poster B is a rollplayer/munchkin/whatever, but they keep doing it over and over, to the point that it made it into the Community Guidelines.

Quote:
I think the labels can be helpful in describing preferences for game ads though. If a GM recruiting for a game says "Powergamers are not welcome," that is helpful info.

I think it's worth pausing to reflect on how a person could come to think that "[GROUP] are not welcome here" is helpful info rather than divisive toxicity.

Quote:
Fun side note: Auto-correct likes to turn you into Jiffy.

An upgrade from the usual "Jiggly".

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

Oh, okay. Carry on then.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Skeld wrote:

I make these kinds of rolls for my players. I also make Disable Device and Sense Motive checks for them, oftentimes. There are some saves I'll roll for them too,,such as the Fort save versus disease they get when they're hit by a diseased creature attack. In fact, I keep a post-it note on the inside of my screen that has all their saves, Perception, Sense Moytive, and Disable modifiers so that I don't even have to ask for them.

Some checks/rolls are, by the very act of rolling and seeing the number that appears, can be metagamey.

-Skeld

Why do you even have players then?
There was a time when the players didn't roll anything and the DM rolled everything.

There was also a time when your character's awareness of the world around them depended on the player's ability to expertly grill the GM for unambiguous information.

And I believe those times were one and the same. So I'm not sure I see your point.

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

graystone wrote:
Terronus wrote:
In this particular case, 10s and 20s were not allowed because-- being in a dungeon-- the GM ruled we were in danger.
The easiest way to work with this is to physically take 20. Every step pick up and roll 20 dice. No different than take 20 except it's super annoying but you couldn't call it metagaming. You're checking 20 times. I just wastes a lot of in game time which is what the take 20 rule was meant to save. As Lemmy put it, forcing a "voice tax", or in this case roll tax, isn't fun but that's what you're left with.

I did something like this once. I was playing the designated trap-search guy, and had asked ahead of time how the GM understood T20 to work (since I know folks have varied opinions and understandings of it, and I hadn't played under this GM before). There was something weird (can't remember what) about how he saw T20 working that made it not actually work.

So when I wanted to search for traps, I picked up all ten of the d20s I owned, announced "I'll spend ten move actions searching for traps at this door" and dumped the dice across my character sheet. Scanned for the highest roll, did the math, and said "My highest check is XX".

I'm not sure he ever caught on.

1 to 50 of 20,045 << 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.