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. 19,074 posts (21,640 including aliases). 17 reviews. 4 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 23 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 19,074 << 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 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8 aka Jiggy

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Isaac V wrote:
Did anyone notice that the site didn't go down at any point? This was a triumph!

I'm making a note here: "huge success".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8 aka Jiggy

Congrats, everybody!

*fist-bumps Joseph*

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

He who picks Rich Parents is not an optimizer. ;)

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Some dude: Doing X means you're really being unreasonable.

Me: I don't think there's anything wrong with doing X.

Some dude: Oh, I totally agree, nothing wrong with doing X.

Me: Oh, maybe I misunderstood you then. Carry on.

Some dude: A person really must've missed the boat to actually do X.

Repeat a few times, then:

Me: I'm confused. Whenever you're asked directly about X, you say it's totally legit. But whenever you're discussing X directly, you keep bashing it like somebody would have to be really messed up to do X. You're contradicting yourself, sometimes even from one breath to the next. What gives?

Some dude: What are you talking about? Of course it's fine to do X; I even explicitly said so! Are you not bothering to pay attention to what I'm saying?

I am so confused by this.

I imagine it's a phenomenon similar to how someone can know that racism is bad, but if they drive through a new part of town and all the pedestrians are black they conclude it's a "rough neighborhood" and try to avoid it, and don't even know that's how they came to that conclusion.

EDIT: Or like how there was a study where a man and a woman would have a conversation, and they'd both think the woman did most of the talking, when actually (per the recording) the man did most of the talking.

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

Seth Dresari wrote:
Readying an Action already does that in Pathfinder, you must be thinking of Delay.
Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Ready an Action wrote:
Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

Videos, movies, etc without subtitles.

Why do you hurt me in this way.

If there are no subtitles, I have to make the volume louder, and replay seconds of the video over and over to attempt to understand what was being said. subtitles eliminate my having to do this.

I'm kinda hit-and-miss with this. Some movies/videos seem impossible to understand, while others are fine even without raising the volume.

Related: movies with massive swings in volume; you turn it up to hear what's going on, then get deafened in the next scene.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Some dude: Doing X means you're really being unreasonable.

Me: I don't think there's anything wrong with doing X.

Some dude: Oh, I totally agree, nothing wrong with doing X.

Me: Oh, maybe I misunderstood you then. Carry on.

Some dude: A person really must've missed the boat to actually do X.

Repeat a few times, then:

Me: I'm confused. Whenever you're asked directly about X, you say it's totally legit. But whenever you're discussing X directly, you keep bashing it like somebody would have to be really messed up to do X. You're contradicting yourself, sometimes even from one breath to the next. What gives?

Some dude: What are you talking about? Of course it's fine to do X; I even explicitly said so! Are you not bothering to pay attention to what I'm saying?

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

Jiggy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Can you direct me to the posts that suggested anything remotely like that? Maybe link, say, five of them? I hope I wasn't just blind to miss the posts made by "most people", but I'll give you the chance to show me before I rule out the possibility.
Azraiel wrote:
it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter.

"Like a knife through butter" implies something like punching through a skyscraper with barely a loss of momentum?

And one post is "most people", "filling" the thread?

Is your lack of response a "yes"? Like, you really did mean that just that one post about a knife through butter when you said most people were filling the thread with a notion comparable to a diamond spear passing uninhibited through a skyscraper?

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

Skylancer4 wrote:
A normal dagger is ineffective tool for bring down a wall, or carving stone. Adding properties to it, doesn't change that it still is an ineffective device for what you are trying to use it as. It just means it would be more effective than the rest of the ineffective devices.

Then I may have misunderstood your original stance; I thought you were saying that, like the bludgeoning-versus-rope example in the CRB, any "ineffective" device will fail to ever deal damage to the target. But if you're saying that adamantine does indeed make a dagger better at hacking at a stone wall than if it was a steel dagger, then I've got no beef with you. :)

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Guy prepares to run game for a new group he's never played with.

Guy reviews characters prior to any actual gameplay.

Guy concludes players have zero interest in any story-related aspects of the gaming experience.

(I've also seen the player-to-player version of this, where you show up to a convention/game day table, lean over to see your neighbor's stats, then say something like "So much for thinking there'll be any actual roleplay in this game.")

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

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember when this thread wasn't like four pages of traffic and army arguments.

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

TOZ wrote:
You can't. A knife isn't effective at tunneling through butter. Just use your hands mouth.

Fixed that for you; hands aren't effective against butter either.

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

Skylancer4 wrote:
Besides the fact that the rules for the game we are playing have called out weapons that would be effective for the actions you are trying to take?

So, is it that you're taking "such as a pick or a hammer" to mean "only a pick or a hammer," or is it that you think a blade into a wall is comparable to a hammer onto a rope?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
el cuervo wrote:
...and the players know the golem is aware of their presence, which changes their behavior towards said golem. As I mentioned earlier, I am not blessed with perfect players who never metagame.

Then teach them to do better.

It is okay to say "...but your character wouldn't know that."

It is okay to say "Why would your character be doing that?"

It is okay to say "Is that really what your character would do when he doesn't know X?"

Those are all preferable to the experience you had.

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

Kthulhu wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Can you direct me to the posts that suggested anything remotely like that? Maybe link, say, five of them? I hope I wasn't just blind to miss the posts made by "most people", but I'll give you the chance to show me before I rule out the possibility.
Azraiel wrote:
it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter.

"Like a knife through butter" implies something like punching through a skyscraper with barely a loss of momentum?

And one post is "most people", "filling" the thread?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:
"Damn shame the game doesn't work like the real world isn't it?"

Wait, then how did you determine that a dagger was an ineffective weapon against a wall in the first place?

It sounds like you're changing the standards of what it takes for something to work so as to only favor what you already want to be the result, and trying to avoid directly addressing any inconvenient counterpoints.

But I don't want to come to that conclusion prematurely; maybe your posts just look that way by chance. Could you explain your position in a bit more detail? Thanks.

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

Kthulhu wrote:

I find it amusing how this thread seems to be filled with people who think that when a substance makes contact with another substance that is less hard than it, the less hard substance is instantly annihilated.

If I had a spear made out of diamond, and I threw it at a skyscraper, judging from the comments here, most people would expect it to sail through the skyscraper with barely a loss in momentum.

I seem to have missed all those posts that are "filling" this thread. I've seen posts saying that your diamond spear does not forever fail to damage the skyscraper no matter how hard you swing/throw it, and I was just about to make a post poking fun at the suggestion that your diamond spear would get worn smooth as you continued to stab the skyscraper over and over, but I must have missed all these posts saying that it would punch through with barely a loss in momentum.

Can you direct me to the posts that suggested anything remotely like that? Maybe link, say, five of them? I hope I wasn't just blind to miss the posts made by "most people", but I'll give you the chance to show me before I rule out the possibility.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:
Is paying an additional 3000gp for your weapon, justification for bypassing and trivializing numerous encounters, plot points and various other situations in the game?

I submit that if "numerous" encounters/plots can be bypassed/trivialized by the ability to cut things, the ability to cut things is not the problem.

Quote:
My gut is saying no.

Guts are no less prone to error than heads are.

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

Thought experiment for those discussing the "ineffective weapons" thing:

Okay, so let's suppose that an adamantine dagger is an "ineffective weapon" against a stone dungeon wall, because daggers aren't designed to destroy walls. Thus, the adamantine dagger can't damage the stone wall.

Now, suppose I cast stone shape, replacing a segment of wall with a 3ft-high stone box. It's open on top, with inch-thick sides. The box's sides are still stone walls, but they're thinner than the length of the blade and I can cut down from the top instead of chiseling in from the side. Can the adamantine dagger damage these stone walls, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed for destroying stone walls?

Suppose I cast stone shape again. The box now turns into humanoid figure; basically, a stone scarecrow/training dummy. It's not a wall now, but it's still an object, and made of the same material. Can the adamantine dagger damage it, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed to destroy stone statues?

Now suppose I animate this statue I just made, turning it into some kind of stone golem. It's still made of the same stuff as the stone wall my dagger couldn't scratch, but now it's a creature who happens to have hardness. Can the dagger harm it now, since daggers are designed to hurt creatures?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not telling your players whether it's a surprise round or a regular round is kinda like making them guess which Knowledge to roll to ID the monster. It's (presumably) a well-intentioned hedge against metagaming, but it actually harms the narrative by having the characters do nonsensical things because they're controlled by players who don't know which sets of mechanics to use. The GM's effort to preserve roleplay actually damages it instead.

Look at the in-character narrative of what happened: for about six seconds, the PCs suddenly all slowed down to about half speed for no (in-universe) reason, then sped back up to normal. That's complete nonsense.

If you want to preserve the narrative/roleplay, you've got to tell the players which sets of mechanics are appropriate for interacting with the current scene of the narrative.

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

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I think I'd kinda prefer my first PbP experience to be a single player/GM one. I've never done PbP before and I'd like to get my feet wet just a little at a time before joining a larger group.

Sent you a PM.

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

Oh hey, the voting tags are gone! My other tags aren't long enough to break my browser, so now I can read things again! Hooray! :D

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

Goth Guru wrote:
I've found when playing a rogue who is skill focused, it's good to multiclass as a bard. The bard song and use magic device are good in combat, often better than a surprise attack which works once. Does that change with Pathfinder or 5th edition? It's not looking like it.

Disagree. The 5E rogue is as accurate with his attacks as anybody, and Sneak Attack is REALLY easy to get consistently from round to round. If you think the rogue plays out the same in 5E as it does in 3.X, you haven't looked close enough at 5E. They are worlds apart.

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

Daynen wrote:

I agree: no one should HAVE TO hide who or what they are. I understand that kind of pride...

...your right to feel safe, may one day be worth more than that pride.

Wait, you said that "your right to feel safe" may be worth more than "pride", but you've been using "pride" to refer to the idea of not wanting to hide because the person has a right to feel safe.

So... Their right to feel safe may one day be worth more than their right to feel safe? Huh?

Your logic asplode.

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

@DM_Blake: Re-reading your previous post, it looks like you're talking about modern gamers rather than older gamers' modern selves, though I can see the latter meaning now that I'm looking for it. I'll chalk that up to simple miscommunication; sorry about that. :)

There are a couple of things I want to point out, though:

First, you are erroneous in your (apparent) assumption that disliking your post must necessarily mean I thought you were talking about me and I took it personally. Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who will speak up when they see someone else in the line of fire, rather than only when they get their own toes stepped on. I just saw something that seemed potentially hurtful to others, and I thought pointing it out might be more beneficial than flagging it.

In addition to a dislike of your post not meaning I was personally offended, it also doesn't mean I have an opposing viewpoint. I in fact explicitly stated that I agreed with the actual content of your post, so I'm not sure what "differing viewpoint" you think you "welcome" from me.

Furthermore, I do not (as you assert) "feel aging gamers are a detriment to the hobby". The fact that you could look at my post and take it that way was kind of the point.

As for "attacking" you, well, that's a very interesting interpretation of the Golden Rule.

Anyway, I can only give you feedback; I can't force you to do anything particular with it. Sorry for the derail and (apparently a bit of) miscommunication.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

At my job, I (and my team) often have to write letters. Since they're the same handful of letters over and over again, we use "templates" (meaning Word docs with fillable fields for name, address, relevant customer info, etc).

Now, since it would be chaos if everyone could edit these templates, only a certain person can edit them. Thus, if a letter needs to be changed (maybe updated wording for legal reasons, or to reflect a change in procedure, whatever), you have to go through this person.

As it happens, there is a certain letter template which I personally am the only person in the whole company who uses it. Then one day, I discover that it has been changed.

I was not asked whether it needed to be changed.

I was not asked whether the proposed changes would be helpful or not. (There wasn't even a "proposed changes" phase.)

I was not so much as informed of the change.

I just ran into it when preparing to write a letter. And the actual changes? They ranged from completely unnecessary to actively detrimental.

Completely unnecessary: Changed the wording on a couple of things, still communicating the same message with no meaningful change.

Worse than unnecessary: Added additional fields of information to be filled in (extra steps for me to do), despite not being relevant to the topic or function of the letter.

Dubya tee eff: Removed the phone number the customer can call with questions and replaced it with a drop-down menu where I have to select a phone number. However, (1) that letter always has the exact same number so selecting one is pointless, and (2) the correct phone number isn't even in the list! So I have to delete that field entirely and then type in the number manually.

GWAAAARRRGGGH!!!!

I didn't request that the letter be revised, and nobody else uses it, so why did this person even decide to spend time on this in the first place? And how were these decisions made of what changes to actually make? URGH!

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

DM_Blake wrote:
Is that the entire problem? Certainly not. But I'm sure it contributes.

Little disclaimers like this, which take a thorough post that speaks in broad terms about a large population of people and then deny responsibility for its broadness, are often carelessly hurtful.

Yes, there are some tables which are negatively affected by one or more individuals whose addiction to instant gratification has kept their attention spans to a minimum.

There are also some tables which are negatively affected by one or more individuals whose advancing age has long since reduced their ability to process information accurately.

Suppose I wrote a post as long as yours, discussing in a similar level of detail the rather large population of aging gamers and the potential detriment they can bring to the hobby, and speaking in the same broadness of terms as you did, with the same short disclaimer about how they're not the whole problem, they just contribute. What would your reaction to such a post be? Would you be okay with someone having the same kind of reaction to what you just wrote?

If you're going to speak about a group of people that includes people you've never met or interacted with; if you're going to speak more broadly than just your own personal experience; stop and ask yourself what it would feel like if someone wrote the same thing about a group to which YOU belong. If you don't like how it would feel, then perhaps you could reconsider how you communicate your point, or even whether it needs to be said at all.

Thanks.

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

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Subraces like cloud dwarves, ghost elves, wiseheart halflings, and river gnomes.

Those sound pretty intriguing!

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

Indeed, the game's math (and, relatedly, the core proficiency/advantage structure) is clean that houseruling/homebrewing is a breeze. Definitely a strength of the system.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:

Is it the power gamer attitude?

Is it bad DMing?
Or is it simply player inattentiveness?

First of all, I think you would gain some benefit from comparing this list of ideas you came up with to some of the ideas that myself and others will offer, and seeing if you can discern some trends in your own ways of thinking that might help explain why you've encountered so much friction with other gamers lately. You might end up happier in the end. :)

Now then, I have indeed had a couple of instances of getting tired of a character. I'll try to articulate my experiences:

I had a fighter that I played up to 9th level. I thought maybe I could buck stereotypes and have a "smart fighter" who was able to defeat foes as much with superior cunning as with brute force. So I made a fighter with some INT, and picked up things like Improved Trip and Improved Disarm. Up through about level 3-4 or so, it was pretty cool: tripping and disarming was something that other PCs couldn't do, so the character actually felt different instead of being just another brute. Sure, I did a little less damage than others, but it didn't seem to be making much difference. So it was cool and fun.

But Pathfinder changes as you level up. I started facing foes who couldn't be tripped (no legs, flying, too many legs) or didn't care much about being tripped (spellcasters) and who couldn't be disarmed (monsters, spellcasters). Against those foes, my fighter played exactly like all the carbon-copy brutes (except weaker, though that was a smaller issue than the loss of identity). Also, I eventually realized that even when I was at my best using trip/disarm/AoO tactics against humanoid weapon-users, the net result on any given round was that I'd taken this long, roundabout path to eventually just dealing damage, but did it during AoOs instead of on my turn. So I was still just hitting things like everyone else, except I used up more table time doing it because of how many extra dice it took to get the same final result.

So to sum up, I got tired of a character because Pathfinder doesn't support the concept I wanted to roleplay. (Pathfinder's so bad at it, in fact, that years later I even published some 3PP "smart fighting" material to try and help fill the gap, with mixed success.)

I've had other characters with similar stories: I would get a cool concept in my mind, make the character, then discover over the course of a few levels that it did not at all offer the play experience I was after. There was a rogue, a druid, a cleric, one or two others... (Eventually I did manage a "perfect storm" of a concept that I liked and which was also supportable in the system, and he was my favorite character ever—and well-liked by my tablemates too!)

I would make a guess that this is one of the more common reasons people get tired of their characters: they don't support the intended concept as well as expected, leaving them playing a character other than the one they were in love with.

Hope that helps. :)

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

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Spell Combat seems too much compared to EK.

Don't compare to EK, as the 5E EK is built to be just barely dabbling in magic because he still gets all the other fighter class features. Compare to ranger and paladin, who are the 5E benchmark of the fighter/caster.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I'll just stick with "Pathfinder's Knowledge skill system is borked". ;)

But just for fun:

Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
getting the core idea across that Jesus had to feed hundreds of people with only 5 loaves of bread and two fish, and by blessing the food he was able to not only feed the entire crowd but had several baskets of waste left over.

Well, you're close: it was thousands, not hundreds, and in fact the source material includes more than one instance of him using one lunch to feed thousands of people and get a few baskets of leftovers. So what DC do you suppose you hit? Maybe 13? ;)

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

Yeah, in theory the tags are supposed to "wrap" to a second line so that doesn't happen, and I've heard a few people say that's the case for them, but for me (and apparently others!) they stay on one line and force out the page width.

Once RPGSS ends, the related tags become hidden (unless posting in the RPGSS subforums), but in the meantime our intertubez asplode.

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

Did this thread get wider for you now that I've posted?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Well that's part of what makes the knowledge local skill kind of odd in my opinion. I can be from Hartford and particularly well studied in the gossips, rumors and local legends (nor do I even have to be to know common rumors in my community), but none of that experience tells me anything about the talk of the town in Seoul.

Maybe Kn(local) is like Reddit or something? Yeah, you're not the only one who finds it odd. :/

Quote:
On the other hand, I am not trained at all in Christian theology, but I can remember some Christian myths and some of the commandments. If I saw iconography of Jesus holding bread and fish I would undoubtedly recognize the story it's based on. In that case maybe we have a different definition of the word 'common'.

It's DC 10 to be able to recognize holy symbols and clergy (which, remember, requires that you have some concept of that religion's nature/existence in the first place).

As for knowing some of the myths, you say you "remember" some of them; buuuuut can you actually recite those stories, accurate to the source material (in this example, the Bible)? Or do you just kinda remember "there was this one story where he fed a lot of people with bread and fish"? I'm of the opinion that a successful Knowledge check means actual, accurate, real, solid knowledge of the thing in question, not just kinda recognizing it. If you do really know the stories, then I bet you at least went to Sunday School as a kid or something, in which case you totally have at least one rank.

Or maybe Pathfinder's Knowledge skills are just borked beyond hope. ;)

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

Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
What I did was I picked the DC that isn't really intended to be challenging (for example a Local 15 is knowing a common rumor and a Religion 15 is know common mythology and tenets), and then chose the modifier that was just below to think about the odds.

Knowing what rumors are going around in a town you've never been to, and being able to list and number the Acts of Iomedae, "aren't really intended to be challenging"?

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

Freehold DM wrote:
It's funny- this whole "pull your weight!" stuff never comes up in my game or any game I have been in. Usually characters that suck on their own merits die on their own merits.

I saw it every now and then back when I played PFS. There was a rogue with 9 STR and high DEX who didn't know Weapon Finesse existed but fought in melee anyway. There was a gunslinger at like 9th level or so still managing only one shot per round, with no other contributions to speak of other than a high Perception skill. A few others.

And in organized play, you're contributing to the math that determines which subtier you play, which in turn determines how tough the encounters are. Which kind of goes back to your "die on your own merits" thing, except then the other players are still stuck in a math'd up difficulty without you, and possibly get pressured into helping pay for your raise with resources they can never get back. So... yeah.

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

...What does any of that have to do with my response to your assertion that the important thing is to act like a samurai?

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

DigitalMage wrote:
Basically, give them History and Intimidation proficiency, proficiency in Calligraphy supplies or similar artistic toolset, some appropriate gear and a feature that reflects their code of honour and also the respect and privilege they gain from that.

Come to think of it, the Battle Master fighter archetype includes proficiency with calligraphy supplies, and the more I think about it, the more I think the whole archetype has a bit of "eastern enlightened warrior" influence. That's probably exactly how to make a samurai-type character in 5E.

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

Lorathorn wrote:
Character concepts are even more flexible with backgrounds as well! Want a samurai? Why not a fighter with a background that reflects his fealty? And the code of honor could be among his traits!

If memory serves, one of the illustrations in the Backgrounds chapter (I think next to the "knight" variant of the "noble" background, but I could be mistaken) is, in fact, a samurai.

Quote:
Having some coded bonus for being a samurai is not nearly as important as acting like one.

Ehhhh.... Yes and no.

I'll start with the "no": it is vital to a roleplaying experience that meaningful differences between characters are represented mechanically. If two characters have identical chances of success at disarming the trap, but you have one of them say to the other, "I'd better let you handle this, Mr. Sneakythief," that's just nonsense. In fact, I'll even go so far as to call it an actual failure to roleplay, because that's not really what those characters would do (unless they're seriously deluded about their own capabilities). Thus, in order to have that "Better let you handle this" roleplay moment, there need to be mechanics in place such that the dialogue would actually make sense in character.

On the other hand, does everything need to be mechanically represented? I say no. I'm all for differentiating (mechanically) between a raging barbarian and a studied martial master. I'm all for further differentiating two studied martial masters based on whether they use an armorless duelist style or an armored dual-wielding style. But do we really need to create different statistics based on the exact degree of curvature of the sword(s) and whether his armor has round or square plates? I personally have no need for that.

I'd hazard a guess that 99% of RPG gamers could agree to the general statement that meaningfully different character concepts need to have those differences reflected in the mechanics. The sticking point is just what constitutes "meaningfully different character concepts". For some, it's no more than whether you're focused on weapons or magic, and everything else is just window dressing. For others, the specific tenets of eastern and western feudal/knight codes are significant enough to merit mechanical differentiation. For others, it's somewhere in between.

So although I suspect that the earlier poster who felt he couldn't build a samurai in 5E might have just not looked closely enough at 5E's options, it's also possible that he wants a much finer degree of mechanical differentiation than I do, and there's nothing wrong with that.

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

I didn't have to; it was right out in public (the PFS boards, as I recall) for everyone to see. Dude was piiiissssed that I dared to quote a rule contradicting him after he asked me to do so.

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

DeathQuaker wrote:
I have been made to feel unsafe on these boards

Just wanted to pop in and offer condolences for this. I've been threatened here once (made my wife nervous about me going to GenCon last year), so I can sympathize to some degree (though, as a dude, I don't face it regularly). I'm sorry you've had to deal with that.

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

I'm following you on the difference between sitting with your friends versus sitting in front of a computer, but the notion that dice are a meaningful element of that same dichotomy is hard for me to wrap my head around. So if you had a face-to-face game but replaced the dice with some other resolution mechanic, the experience would be diminished?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In PbP you lack the magic of rolling dice at a table with friends, it's just a digital random number generator.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the only reason you include randomized resolution mechanics in an RPG is because you like throwing pieces of plastic on a table? I'm very curious about that notion, as to me the primary role of dice in an RPG is literally just to serve as a random number generator for resolving actions when success/failure is unclear. I'd love to hear more.

Quote:
Besides that, with a dice-based game like Pathfinder you have to wait until dice are rolled to know how you should RP your turn.

That's a simple matter of hitting "Preview" then typing up your post. Honestly, given that the roller can do the math for you, I find that "waiting until the dice are rolled" is often shorter in PbP than how long I usually wait for someone to resolve an action in face-to-face. I honestly have no idea what significant delay you're seeing here. Could you elaborate?

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

As a disclaimer, I've hardly played any 5E beyond about 3rd level, so there could be more stuff further in, but so far I've yet to encounter anything but those two that I can remember. "The interrupt issue" hasn't really been a thing yet for me.

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

137ben wrote:

Another thing to watch out for is immediate-interrupt abilities, or 'make an enemy re-roll' abilities. If you have a limited-use ability which can be used during specific circumstances on someone else' turn, you need to be watching the thread to say whether you are using it. If you can't log on for several hours, the next turn might already have passed by the time you see you could have used your ability!

How does 5e handle those sorts of abilities? Are there a lot of immediate/interrupting actions you could use in combat that come up in pbps?

Two immediately come to mind: the Lucky feat, and the Shield spell.

Lucky gives you a daily pool of Luck points, which you can spend to either roll an extra d20 on either your own or your opponent's roll, and pick which gets used. Shield is a 1-round bonus to AC and immunity to Magic Missile, but can be cast as a reaction when you either would be hit with an attack or are targeted by MM.

I have consciously avoided taking Lucky. I have one character with Shield.

No other such abilities come to mind.

EDIT: Wait, does Feather Fall count?

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

DM_Blake wrote:

For climbing, "perfectly smooth" does not mean "smooth as mirrored glass". It does not require good dwarven stonework, magical construction, polish or sheetrock.

It simply means there is nothing to hold onto. A simple plaster and lathe ceiling, or stucco, or wood planks, gives nothing to hold onto and counts as "perfectly smooth" (unless there are big gaps between the planks). If you can't put your fingers and toes into cracks, crevices, crannies, holes, whatever, enough to get a grip, then it is "perfectly smooth".

Even a natural slab of rock could easily be "perfectly smooth" enough for this definition unless it has holes like swiss cheese or lots of cracks.

Most structures could conceivably hold his weight, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is something for him to cling to - he doesn't hang from the ceiling with suction cups or with magic; he needs to actually have something for each of his feet to grab onto.

Core Rulebook, Skills chapter, Climb, chart of examples wrote:

DC 25

A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

True, but those examples seem to line up pretty closely with good/bad (or mature/immature?). Nobody is actually aiming to be the guy who gets upset when the game doesn't go his way.

The GNS paradigm (and I think nosig's two schools) are actually different good & valid approaches to the game. Different things to strive for. And potential causes of conflict when that isn't acknowledged and different people in a group are pulling for different things, assuming the others also want what they do.

Although some of the specific behaviors I described aren't great, the core divide I described is not one of good/bad or mature/immature.

For instance, maybe a group of friends decides they'd have a blast playing out a hyper-cliche'd "horror" narrative for laughs. To that end, they might all be interested in things going as one might expect in pulp horror (like investigating strange noises alone in your most revealing underwear while there's a killer on the loose). Curveballs (in this example, things like having your character behave with a sense of self-preservation) would ruin the fun of such an endeavor. There's nothing wrong with a game like that.

Just like with the GNS paradigm, it's a good and valid way to play, and the issues arise when not everyone's on the same page (i.e., some players want to play up the unrealistic pulp horror tropes while others want to start with that premise but then act like real people and see what happens as a result).

EDIT: And I'll go ahead and add that in my experience, 99% of the instances of people NOT being on the same page mostly has to do with one or more persons not realizing that there are different pages to be on, and/or which one describes themselves.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
For years I have noticed two general kinds of Players (and we are players on both sides of the DM Screen) – which I refer to as falling into the “Two Schools of RPG Gaming.”
Flite wrote:
I prefer the gamist-narativist-simulationist trichotomy.

Interestingly, I think there's an even more fundamental divide than either of these breakdowns.

I think the most basic, root-level way to classify players/GMs is whether or not they're open to seeing things go differently than they expected. I think there are some gamers who, if thrown a curveball, will get upset or argumentative and try to force things back toward their own vision (and shame those who get in their way), while there are others who will encounter such twists and simply adapt (possibly even loving the fact that such adaptation was warranted).

The reason I think this is a more fundamental categorization than the others presented is because you could take any of the categories listed above and find that it contains this division.

For example, take nosig's #1 (the "Us vs Them" gamer): If it's the GM, then he probably has an idea of how deadly a given encounter will be. If the players then do something which bypasses, shortens, or otherwise overcomes the obstacle with less time/resource loss than anticipated, then the GM will react in one of two ways: either they'll accept it and think "Okay, next time I've got to be ready for that possibility," or they'll fudge HP, mysteriously always make the save (at least until a PC is unconscious), or start arguing about how absurd it is to think that the players' ideas/capabilities would actually work. Or on the player side, you can see this divide when he encounters a peculiar situation where his normal specialty doesn't work: does he think "Ouch, I didn't realize this gap in my capabilities would be this harsh; I need to find countermeasures"? Or does he (much like the GM, above) start arguing about the difficult circumstance being unreasonable?

For another example, take Flite's "narrativist". They're playing to tell a story, but have they already created that story (whether through worldbuilding on the GM side or elaborate backstory on the player side) and they'll get upset when the game goes in a direction that doesn't spotlight their masterpiece (foil the BBEG the wrong way, use an unanticipated solution to an obstacle, fail to include the network of NPC contacts from the backstory, etc)? Or are they coming to the table with only a starting point, intending to discover what story gets created as it happens?

Regardless of whether someone likes winning encounters, telling a story, defeating the other side of the screen, or whatever else; to me, the big thing is whether or not there's a certain thing they need the experience to end up aligning with.

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

Thanks!

EDIT: And the correct email is community@paizo.com, yes?

1 to 50 of 19,074 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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