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

KaeYoss's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 16,283 posts (16,943 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 16,283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

another_mage wrote:
I have completed Ignore Script (Version 3) that is compatible with Paizo's new page structure.

Well done!

another_mage wrote:

Unlike previous versions, this version will ignore the user and all aliases tied to that account. Ignoring the account or any alias will suffice to remove them all.

Can you read minds? That was one thing I often thought would be very helpful for this script, but I never thought of, or got around to, telling you to include it. I guess other people had the same idea.

another_mage wrote:

(Due to this, your old ignore list may no longer work. Sorry about that.)

No problem.

By the way, I saw some "xxx aka yyy" entries in the list, but not all aliases of all posters with them are mentioned. What's with that? Is it when I ignore someone via the alias rather than the actual account name?

kingpin wrote:
Just make sure that your once fun RPG sessions don't turn into what they feel as extra homework.

I don't know about his kids, but when I started reading novels in English, I had to look up words all the time. Had a huge dictionary (it was before tablet PCs or even common laptops and to look stuff up.

I didn't see it as homework. I saw it as something that lets me enjoy what I enjoy more: Understanding what the books say.

And when I got better and had to look up less and less words, reading became even more fun. And my English got better.

Vic Wertz wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

You're still my personal hero - without your script, I wouldn't be posting here.
Err... make that "We didn't previously have any real incentive to go out and deliberately break third-party scripts..."

Hey, no need to switch around scripts. If you don't want my business, you can just say so.

Cheapy wrote:

Strange, I don't think KaeYoss has responded to me in a while...


You're not on my list, so maybe your posts were just boring :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Name Violation wrote:

Oracle wants sunblade for rp reasons (NOT a bad thing)

Actually, it's much too flimsy to be considered a valid roleplaying reason.

Name Violation wrote:

Threatening to not heal-petty
threatening to kill them-over the line. D-bag move.

Actually, since you brought up roleplaying and lauded it as not a bad thing, his reaction was more in line than the action itself. For an oracle of life worshipping Sarenrae to threaten to stop healing a comrade over a material dispute is close to being a heresy. On the other hand, for an atheist ninja to make a counter-threat ("Do that and I'll just kill you") is definitely spot on. It's basically intimidate. Something I consider very appropriate for ninja.

Name Violation wrote:

if they wont heal, then dont "tank" for the caster. you should be able to afford plenty of healing supplies at your level. (Also i think you mentioned a level of ranger. you can use wands of cure if you didnt sac casting with a archetype.)

The main problem is that this all takes place during a dungeon crawl.

The issue is not that there should be some redistribution of wealth. I don't have all the numbers, so I cannot really comment on it.

The problem is that there is no chance, right now, for them to buy or sell anything.

Here's how I handle things as GM (and the group totally supports it):

When it comes to buying/selling time, when they return to civilisation, the quest fulfilled, the opposition crushed and so on, the treasure list is consulted. That's all the stuff they have found since the lest shopping spree. Prices are tallied, the total treasure for each party member is determined (in gil). Before anything is actually sold, though, people can choose to take stuff for themselves. That reduced the total amount of gold they get by however much they'd get for selling the item.

If more than one person wants something, a solution can usually be found. If a person wants more stuff than he could get with the current treasure, he'll have to pay the group with his personal funds (though there's always ways to hold on to extra stuff in certain circumstances - but that's up to the party members.)

But until they get there, until they can actually sell unwanted items to get funds to buy new ones and all that, i.e. when they're still up to their heads in enemies in some dungeon or green hell or actual Hell, if someone can make use of an item, he'll make use of the item. Even if it's the only treasure they got and it means that right now, he has all their shares of treasure. Can't be helped. In that situation, they probably can't go and shop (even if they already have teleport available, it's unlikely that they have enough castings to teleport out of the dungeon, into a big city to sell and divide up the proceedings, and then teleport in. And there's often a time issue. Unlike Diablo, you often can't clear the dungeon at your own, leisurely pace without being disadvantaged by it or even failing your mission). So yes, one guy might have more treasure than the others right now. It's not as if he intents to keep it. Or, even if he'd like to, he won't get to keep it in the end.

Blue Star wrote:
If your GM allows the item customization rules, you can get it as something else, like a wrist slot item.

In my games, I allow phylacteries in the amulet slot for this reason.

One of the GMs I do have has the "gotta win the game" mentality, so there's not much of a chance to get him to allow this. I have asked for a more sensible variant to have it shot down before.

But right now, I'm not playing a cleric in any of this games. I'm currently thinking of leaving all his games, too, so it might never be an issue again.

omgabear wrote:
My main issue is he has it ingrained that her only job is to heal him.

It is quite clear that that's the only thing the character is good at. Giving her the sword would not only mean giving in to a whining child, it would also mean that unless she never uses the sword (which isn't that unlikely, her main "claim" on it is that it's a sun blade, and her goddess is the sun goddess.), she will get herself killed trying to go up against the kind of killer critters they're fighting. And then the party has no more healer. That probably means they're all going to die.

omgabear wrote:

Even in WoW, healers are more than just walking health pots.

Even in Pathfinder, healers can be so much more. But I doubt that in WoW, this is automatic. Just as it isn't automatic in Pathfinder.

omgabear wrote:

While I do not believe the oracle should be using a sunblade with her current build. I don't think this problem will ever be solved as long as he views her as nothing but a healbot.

Simple cause and effect: As long as she is good for nothing than a "healbot", she won't be seen as anything than a "healbot". Giving her the sword won't make her any good at fighting - and it will make one of the primary frontliners a lot worse at his job.

So unless she gets a new character or has this one ret-conned to be actually able to do anything other than heal, there is no use to giving her the sword. Not in a dangerous dungeon.

omgabear wrote:

Since he is obviously a powergamer (not the same as a min/maxer)

So am I. From you, it sounds like an insult instead of a compliment, which it actually is.

omgabear wrote:
he should know in combat healing is no where near as effective as making things dead/disabled faster. He should be supporting her branching out into a more active role.

Getting one weapon is neither here nor there. The character needs to be remade.

And I don't think the middle of a dungeon is a good place to do anything like this.

DrDeth wrote:
He refuses to invite her or the DM to give their sides.

That is wrong. Read what the situation is actually like.

DrDeth wrote:

She just may well be saying “Hey, you have three times the loot as any of the rest of us, how about sharing a little? I’d be fun to do a little damage once ina while, so that “secondary weapon for your Back up fighting style” would be fun and great for roleplaying too”.

That is all wrong.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blue Star wrote:

@Kaeyoss: I meant that in a "something for their head" sort of way, the summoner can't even make use of the item, because of his rod of splendor being better, and I'm not sure what slot the oracle's hat takes, it could be the head slot, or the helmet slot.

There's the head slot, for hats and helmets.

And there's the headband slot, for headbands and phylacteries.

As far as I know, the only real trouble item that will get in the way of anyone using a headband of int/wis/cha is the phylactery of positive channeling (or negative). It's an item that gives you an extra 2d6 when you channel - except that if the cleric (or oracle) uses it, he has to do without a wis (or cha) booster.

Considering there was a whole moving around of stuff in Pathfinder to make sure everyone can get a belt and/or headband of ability score boosting and still get all the other cool stuff, forcing clerics to choose between better channelling (to be better at healing) and higher wisdom (to be better at healing, buffing, hexing and damaging enemies, as well as better will saves and Perception bonuses) is a counter-intuitive move.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Blue Star wrote:
everyone already has a hat of some kind so no one wanted the headband

Note that those are two different item slots. You can wear both a hat and a headband.

Ghenn wrote:
If this is going to be an issue, and it's causing strife (which it obviously is), isn't it just better to give her the sun sword and be done with it?

Nope. Went over it a few times, but here I go again: She's being a child, holding her breath until she gets something. You don't give in to that sort of behaviour, because it only encourages the child to do it all the time.

Giving in to her constant whining puts you at the risk of having to deal with a greedy Abadar worshipper next - one who insists on getting all coins, since Abadar is the money guy. Or, better yet, a champion of Norgorber, who goes all for his greed aspect and demands to get everything. Greed, you know.

And even if nothing so drastic happens, there will be other instances where she will get her will by nothing more than whining until she gets it.

Blackpawn wrote:

You're causing the disruption at the table. It's in your power to escalate the situation or defuse it. You want to choose escalate. That means *you* are the problem.

I always wonder who is responsible for all those terrible children running around being insufferable little brats.

How many of those are yours?

Blackpawn wrote:

You need to step back, gain a mature perspective, and realize that you're playing an imagination game.

You need to step back, open your eyes, and realise that this goes beyond an "imagination game". It's about someone acting like a child. Her parents apparently failed at raising her properly, but that doesn't mean she now gets her will at all times.

Blackpawn wrote:

You have the choice. Be the adult and focus on the game. Or be the child and throw a tantrum and break things if you don't get your way.

You got it all wrong: That's her. She's throwing the tantrum. Him not giving in to a tantrum IS the adult thing to do.

Blackpawn wrote:
You could solve the problem in 5 seconds, yet you don't. You're dragging out the issue. You're at fault as much as the other player.

Again: Giving in to childish demands does not solve problems, it creates more problems.

Blackpawn wrote:

You think you deserve it because you're minmaxing

Just because he's effective doesn't mean it's minmaxing. He's the frontliner, he fights with two weapons, he only has one good weapon in addition to the sun blade. That means it makes a lot of sense from a technical AND a roleplaying point of view.

Blackpawn wrote:
Even though from an RP perspective it's best in someone else's.

Translation: You have no idea what roleplaying is.

You think because the name is similar to the character's god, it's suddenly a roleplaying reason. It's not. It's a munchkin's pretence.

The fact that you're clueless is further illustrated by the fact that you call someone a minmaxer for making decisions using sensible reasons.

Blackpawn wrote:
And you have a perfectly servicable weapon to use, plus one that is RP-flavored properly for your character. You're munchkinning at this point.

How is a wakizashi flavoured properly for a ninja? It's the opposite. Ninja aren't part of the samurai caste. That means they're not entitled to a wakizashi. If any one weapon is the proper weapon, it's a ninja-to, i.e. a katana that has been stolen and crudely shortened. But, really, the real ninja fights with whatever he can get his hands on, whatever works best. They don't concern themselves with crap like honour and divine mandate. That's why they're ninja. They're against all that celestial order b~%&+!@#.

So for trying to defend a petulant child who wants a sword because it has the name "sun" in it - even though she can't even wield it properly (because she never learned to use swords AND because she is a crappy warrior) AND her deity is a crusader against irredeemable evil and wants them to perish not people be hung up with crap like "this sword is the right colour for me" - and calling him munchkin for not giving in, you out yourself not just as a munchkin, but as a clueless munchkin.

DrDeth wrote:
I don’t think he ever answered the question about how often he’d use the Sun Power (which is the last thing I’d see a Ninja type ever using, as it makes you a clear and obvious target).

Why would that even be relevant? He uses the sword to hack up undead by the dozen. That's what the sword is for: Fight the undead. He fights the undead.

And a ninja will use whatever makes sense. In the case of undead that are destroyed by sunlight, that is the sword's sunlight ability. If that never comes up, he'll never have to use it. Doesn't mean he doesn't put the sword to good use.

DrDeth wrote:

I think the Oracle players wants the sword as she sees that her WBL is about half the ninjas and also she wants to whup some undead tail rather than just being a boring healbot all the time- good for her!

Except that a sword does not an undead slayer make. It helps, but if you're weak, clumsy, frail, and untrained in swordsmanship, the sword won't keep you from being torn to shreds by those undead.

Plus, you don't decide that you don't want to be the healer any more in the middle of a deadly dungeon.

DrDeth wrote:

It also appears to me that another big reason the OP doesn’t want the Oracle to have the sword as she will be in there fighting instead of keeping HIS PC alive by being a good little healbot.

Yeah, how weird of him to want to be healed.

Could you leave now and go back to your WoW or whatever you play where cooperation within the group and the combination of different roles to achieve your goals isn't a core concept of the game? Except I think WoW does that, too. So, Diablo player?

LoreKeeper wrote:
Excellent. We're only 2 posts away from Godwin's Law now.

What can he do? People are being either phenomenally stupid or trolling to the extreme here. The normal, reasonable explanation why giving in to a child holding her breath is being ignored, or people fail to understand one of the most basic concepts of human interaction/child upbringing, so you have to make it more crass.

But, on the other hand, you're probably right: Those who just don't get it simply won't get it, and the trolls just get what they want if you lower yourself to their level.

This is a very bad week for the ignore script to fail.

Kryzbyn wrote:

The RP reason here would hold alot more water if the weapon were a scimitar, instead of the herp derp that it has the word "sun" in it.

New idea!

Ret-con the item. No change of abilities. It's just no longer called a "sun blade". It's the "Urgathoa Basher" now. Or the sword of glory/justice, a weapon holy to Iomedae.

another_mage wrote:

Indeed, it seems both the ignore script and the topic auto-link script are both broken.

On the bright side, you are correct, the new page structure does lend itself to an easier/better script.
Alas, change happens. I'll have to put out an update for these scripts.
I'll see how I feel after the gym tonight; if I'm not exhausted, I'll work on it then.
If I am exhausted, it may need to wait for the weekend.

Don't overtax yourself, the weekend will be fine. I can endure/do without the boards for a few days.

You're still my personal hero - without your script, I wouldn't be posting here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gary Teter wrote:
I figured today's changes would break a third-party ignore script. They might actually make creating a new one easier, but I wouldn't be surprised if future changes break that one too.

But you did it despite that side effect, not for it, right?

Gary Teter wrote:
Our policy on ignoring individual posters hasn't changed
Neither has mine
Gary Teter wrote:
though please note that you can now hide entire threads if you like.

I find it a lot more useful to hide entire users. Threads aren't usually the problem, and they're easier to ignore. It's if you have to treat a thread you do want to read like a mine field that things get annoying.

Gary Teter wrote:

The behavior you're seeing is actually how the quoting feature has been supposed to work for some time now—it's supposed to remove quoted material and only include new text. Last week I had some time and tweaked the code a bit to make it do what it's supposed to do.

Personally I have a very difficult time reading conversations on our messageboards where there's a lot of nested quoting and find myself having to go back and re-read posts that I had skipped previously because they were lost in a sea of nested grey. But maybe that's just me.

It's just you. Or, at least, it's definitely not me.

I edit my posts. I cut away what I don't need, which is a lot easier than putting things in that are not included per default (by which I not just mean the original content the bug is cutting away, but also quotes-in-quotes).

On a similar vein, the post cut-off is extremely annoying, too: I rarely quote an entire post, but often, the stuff I do want to quote is way at the bottom of a long, long post, and so I have to go and copy and paste it because it was in the part that was cut off.

Gary Teter wrote:

In general I think quoting a quote of a quote of a quote is something that people have been doing not because it's the best way to express themselves but rather because it's been the default behavior of the reply button. And clicking "reply" is the easiest way to join a conversation here since it's on the page up to fifty more times than "add new post." So I think this is a pretty good example of a default behavior actually hindering the very thing it's intended to enhance—good conversation.

I know that when I hit reply instead of add new post to put in something new, I always clear out the text box.

Gary Teter wrote:

I would like to keep this new behavior around for at least a few days to see how it affects thread readability and the quality of the conversation rather than just knee-jerk reverting it because it's different.

There's not just readability to consider , but also "writability"

Dark_Mistress wrote:
If it wasn't to much I would pay for a hi-res art pack for each AP myself. I like to print out some of the images and show them during the game and that would be better having a art pack like that.

There's always Plan B: Get the PDF, extract the images with the PDF reader of your choice (some require you to click each picture by itself while others have "extract all pictures" options), and print that. The pictures from the PDF should be good enough for printing and showing.

It's a bit of work, but it's better than nothing.

Blue Star wrote:
She has a child's mentality, when she sees something shiny, she declares "mine", and doesn't give up until she possesses it.

That's what I keep bringing up: She throws a fit until she gets her way, no matter what the circumstances. You just don't encourage this sort of behaviour in any way. In a child, you remain firm because they need to learn that you can't always get what you want, no matter how loudly, long, and hard you cry.

In a 40+ woman, that ship has obviously sailed. You won't teach such an old dog new tricks. But neither do you give in.

There is a German proverb that could be translated as "The smarter person relents". Never liked it. It just means the dumber person gets its way. Decisions should be made based on reasonable facts and for good reasons, not to appease a screaming child. Show them it works and they'll look just how far it will go.

You think you give her the sword to shut her up? Pretend (or even believe) that just because she worships the sun goddess, the sun sword is hers?

Next up: A greedy champion of the god of commerce. All money should go to that champion, because he's the money guy! It all makes sense, and if you don't agree, prepare for a tantrum. Last time it worked after months, so she knows she'll just have to try for a few months and finally everything will be hers. Alternative: Cleric/wizard of the god of magic. All magic items are hers. I'm sure you can see the pattern.

Also tried with Opera 11.52

Both under Win 7, by the way.

Then I tried my Android Pad.
Opera Mobile does the same.
So does the stock browser.

With 3 (or 4, if you count Opera and Opera Mobile as two) plus Joana's chrome all doing this, I don't think it's the browsers.

I also noticed that the paizo_ignore script stopped working properly about an hour or so ago, which points towards some changes in the code.

Joana wrote:
Have you done something to remove nested quotes or something? Because it just quoted what came after the quoted text.

Same here. Using Firefox 8.0

another_mage wrote:

I have completed a user-friendly version of the script. There are some rough edges I'd like to smooth out, but it's functional enough to release to users.


In order to make use of this you need three things, and you are recommended to install them in this order:

1. Firefox

2. Greasemonkey

3. another_mage's paizo_ignore script


On the messageboards, where you typically see "Flag | List | Reply" you will now see "Ignore | Flag | List | Reply". If you click "Ignore", all of that person's posts will immediately disappear. They will also be added to your personal ignore list; none of their posts will show up on any future threads that you browse.

If you decide you would like to stop ignoring somebody, scroll down to the very bottom of the page and you will see something like this:

Ignored: DeathQuaker | KenderKin | TriOmegaZero |

Click the name of the person you would like to remove from the ignore list. IMPORTANT: Their posts will not reappear immediately. You will need to reload the page in order to see the posts again. This is one of those rough edges I mentioned at the beginning.


- This is a greasemonkey script running in the user's browser on their own computer. If you are not running the script, there will be absolutely no difference in your online experience. (The script runs locally for those who install it, not on Paizo's computers.)

- I've given the script quite a workout while creating it, however, it may contain bugs. If it starts to adversely affect your online experience, click the Greasemonkey icon in the lower right-hand corner of your...

Is it just me or has the script stopped working?

superfly2000 wrote:

He actually didn't insult anyone. He just said "a lot" of people might think like that...

Now if you happen to feel like you're one of them that's another story...

Do you believe what you say or are you being facetious?

"I'll say 'some people who disagree with this are idiots' and legally there's nothing you can do, and if you disagree with me you admit to being an idiot." Is the oldest trick in the book.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

@KaeYoss: I would give your post +9001 if I could.

Like the ISO certification thing? Ew! ;-P

I just had enough of people trying to "win" an argument by ridiculing the other side. If I wanted that crap, I'd follow politics.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Daily Cheesecake and Fan Service! ;-) (I don't have problem with daily Beefcake, to keep everyone happy)

reigam has a point: D&D did contribute significantly to my English. However, I spoke English (maybe not quite fluently) before I ever got tired of crappy German translations of computer games, novels and rulebooks, and got the original material.

As for the Beginner Box:
After reading a few passages, I'd say the language is not overly complicated and avoids the more difficult words. However, the Beginner Box is not a comic book with just a few captions here and there. The books in the box are actually books, with actual text. And while it might not require an expert of native speaker, I'm not sure someone who has been learning English at school for only a couple of years now will have any fun with it.

To post a short excerpt from the margins of the cleric pre-gen sheet:

Your Character Sheet
This character sheet gives you all the information you need to make
dice rolls for your cleric character. It also gives you places to keep
track of your equipment and treasure.

You can find the pre-gen sheets HERE (link). If you follow the link, you'll also find some free material to supplement the box, like the Player Pack. download all the free stuff. See for yourself if you think the stuff too difficult for your kids, or show them some of the stuff and find out if it will overwhelm them.

Blue Star wrote:
So you think we should give all the weapon sand armor to the Summoner and Oracle to make up for it? That seems a little suicidal, but if that's the way you do it in your groups then by all means do it in your groups, but I'm going to try to avoid it in my group altogether.

Story and good GMing and RPG advice time everyone, put down your books, arrange your chairs in a half circle and listen!

I much prefer equal funding in my games, whether I'm one of the players or the GM. "Fits me better" is not an excuse to get more treasure. If there is more stuff fitting one character than the others, he can have first picks, but the rest is either distributed, or, if nobody wants the extra stuff, it will be sold so all players will get their fair share.

In fact, calculate what everything we found (minus stuff like scrolls, potions and other perishables, in some cases) will net us when we sell it, divide the sum by the number of players, and get what everyone gets from out of this haul.

If you want something from the treasure haul, you'll "buy" it from the group, i.e. your share of the pile of gil will be decreased by what we'd get for selling. If you want more stuff than is your fair share, you'll have to actually get some of your cash to pay off the others, or do without.

It's the fairest system for everyone involved.

HOWEVER, that only applies in the long run. Until we can actually sell the stuff, people can loan things. If one character ends up with all the current treasure as loaners because he can use them better than anyone else or nobody else has any interest in anything (say, we find two legendary super swords and there's only one swordsman, who happens to be a two-weapon fighter), that's okay. It can't really be changed, and forcing him to give one of the swords to the wizard or something is just silly.

Akshun wrote:

@KaeYoss: Please accept my apologies for the marriage proposal. That was my off centre (and sometimes silly) sense of humour showing through.

Don't sweat it. I wasn't exactly considering the whole thing (it's a bit early in our relationship for marriage. I prefer to actually know the people I marry before I marry them. A user name and avatar is a bit below my minimum knowledge requirements ;-))

Akshun wrote:
Suffice to say that I enjoy your witty writing and level headed approach to advice when you post on the forums.

Not half as much as I do! :D

Elth wrote:
These are failures by the game developers for their game mechanics.

Just as failure to put safeguards against unwanted PVP in the game will be the failure of this game's developers.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.

They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.

It seems you and I have an irreconcilable difference in regards to gaming philosophy my friend. In my games, 'non-player characters' are just that, characters who just so happen to not have a player. Michael of the city watch, along with his wife Shaina and their daughter Elaine are every bit as 'real' as the PC's.

When NPC's happen to fight the PC's, make no mistake, it is to win. They have goals, dreams, and purpose riding on the outcome of the fight (not to mention not dying) and they're going to fight tooth and toenail to come out on top, aka they play to win. (Note I say they, being the NPC's, not myself as GM. I'm just here to neutrally run the world and let the party interact with it.)

Sure the PC's have the advantage 95% of the time (though that varies from cakewalk to near-even match) but the NPC's aren't just there to be a roadblock. They're living breathing parts of an interactive world, just like the PC's.

There's a reason I don't use a GM screen to hide my rolls :P

Not even close to relevant, because you ignore the salient part: The GM creates these NPCs to be a challenge. He doesn't create them to win. Unless he's a sociopath who likes griefing people.

If the GM plays to win, he wins. It's that easy. He can just sic a great wyrm red dragon on the 1st-level party.

But he doesn't. He creates challenges that the PCs can overcome. Whether he pretends they're "real" people with lives or just enemies that spawn in front of you isn't really relevant to this part.

And that's the difference. Whether the NPCs try to win the fight or not, the GM doesn't try to win. That's what separates him from other players in a competitive game. Those do try to win. They don't try to create an appropriate challenge for other players. They want to kill them and take their stuff. Not just the characters. The players. The people who are really doing the real thinking in the real world.

A GM might make adjustments to the threat level if one player decided to be focussed on things other than combat. An enemy player will laugh all the louder while he cuts that non-combatant down and then loots the corpse.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

Day in day out I see it. Trolls insulting the other side and portraying their arguments in the most hyperbolic, ridiculous way possible. And then they act surprised when the board is divided.

You are part of the problem, dude.

Akshun wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
@Akshun: those are very good questions, the answer is probably, but he wouldn't as he's built it around reach attacks. I will inquire when I see him Friday.
He could still keep the 'reach attacks' concept intact if he did decide to help you out. He'd just be doing it as a biped instead. He could have his Eidolon look like a fiery avenging angel, which would really look great when wielding a sunblade. (c:

I don't think the serpentine base form precludes arms. So the summoner might not get to change his critter to a biped, but he can totally have a snake with arms. Of course, the extra reach for the bite doesn't apply, but I think you can give the arms reach.

I wanted to bring that up in my previous post, but apparently marriage proposals derail my train of thought.

Akshun wrote:

The only other suggestion I have (as have a few others in this thread) is to get your GM involved. He might not like to, but I think it is the cleanest way of putting this to rest. I can't imagine GMing a group where in party fighting has been taking place for so long. Allowing this to go on for so many months is really poor form.

That's probably the best thing. Before anyone does any excessive character retooling, the GM should make a speech. It's part of the whole GM gig.

Akshun wrote:

edit: typos

Hm... someone who is concerned with correct spelling! This does wonders for your chances of me marrying you (still provided you're female) :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Akshun wrote:

Blue Star, would the Summoner be willing to change his Eidolon's evolutions so that it could wield the sunblade? e.g a biped with the appopriate weapon proficiency. That way the blade is being used best in your undead infested dungeon AND the ninja and oracle have no reason to fight.

That might, however, mean the oracle and the summoner are now at each other's throats.

I'm generally not too fond of the "you have something, someone else wants it. You can make good use of it, they can't, but they're getting on my nerves with their complaints, and since you're not giving in to the constant whining, I take it away now so nobody can have it.

It's a faulty solution. It can be appropriate if neither has a decent claim on an item, but the way this situation looks, the ninja does have a decent claim: He is a front-liner who can make very good use of the item, while the only claim the oracle has for this 50k gil item is "It ties into my diety's theme". And even that is nor 100% because we're not talking about a cleric, but an oracle of life.

Taking it away from someone who can make good use to someone who is just as well off without it (or even better off without it) Just to stop the complaints gives power to the person complaining.

We're talking about humans here. They're often petulant and vindictive. If they find out they can get their will with whining, even if it doesn't otherwise make sense, they will do so. And if they find out they can at least cause someone else grief, especially if it's someone who annoyed them by not giving in to the whining, they'll do that, too.

So, right now, i.e. in the middle of a death trap dungeon full of undead, the only feasible option is to let the ninja keep the weapon. Then, after they have weathered this dangerous situation, they can go and make other decisions.

Akshun wrote:

Whilst I'm not completely familiar with all the Summoner class rules, a Summoner does have that option everytime they level, right?

I think that while you can change your evolutions whenever you gain a level, the standard rules do not mean for you to change the standard body type after you have chosen it. This is, of course, subject to GM ruling.

Akshun wrote:

Oh and one more off topic thing. KaeYoss, will you marry me? (c:

Uh... that depends. First of all: Are you female? Since I'm not. I'm not trying to bash gays (the gay guys frequenting these boards, for example, are decent guys for the most part), but it's simply not for me.

If you are, we might be able to work something out ;-)

Before you can "channel" that spell, you have to cast it.

That means you do cast a spell.

Casting a spell provokes an attack of opportunity, when you cast the spell. The attack you do after you cast doesn't provoke, but by then, you will already have provoked an AoO for casting a spell.

If you want to avoid that AoO, cast defensively.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
When you're playing D&D with a GM, and some people, be they bandits, or agents from an enemy country/faction, or other adventurers with opposing goals of your own are the opposition, who do you think those people are? They're the 'other players' in the game.

No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.

They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.

Plus, the environment of the average PnP game is perfectly controlled: There is a party that works together and is usually designed to be a functioning group. Not all of them are necessarily ace combatants, but as a group, they can take on the challenges the GM throws at them. They might include a character who has spent skill points and/or feats for character creation, but that generally works out.

Now, in an MMORPG, the opposition is opposition. They're controlled by different players, with no GM around to make sure things are fair. And they play to win.

That makes all the difference in the world.

So you're on with your crafter character, and a bunch of bandits with warrior skills attack you because f+&+ you. You probably have no chance, because you made a crafter character like the game advertised was perfectly doable, with no chance of fighting off the fighters.

Uninvited Ghost wrote:
I'm sure there would be many players who care about nothing but just running around and trying to kill any player they see.

It's a given.

I see similar behaviour all the time, in games where you have a lot less freedom:

  • There was Crysis 2, a train wreck of a game with more errors than features. In the beginning (and up to the point where I stopped playing because of all the errors they never fixed), the game was really crappy at protecting players against cheaters.

    A lot of the time you could forget a server because someone locked on, flew into the sky (there is no flying whatsoever in this game), and started killing people with perfect aiming (i.e. aimbot). Nothing you could do, except watch your statistics go to hell as someone else got to 100 kills in less time it usually takes you to shoot 100 bullets.

    And that doesn't include the easy loophole where you could pad your stats by working together to constantly grab the flag, drop it, and have someone from the other team releasing it. There were lots of servers where they did nothing else, no matter when you logged on. And when you tried to play, you were insulted for stopping their scheme.

  • In Battlefield 3, a game that is a lot better at weeding out cheats, there's still lots of people who will do nothing but keep spamming grenades from the grenade launcher or rockets from a RPG. Not the tactical use of these things, but basically making certain corridors impassable. Annoys people to no end, but what can you do?

    There's lots of stuff like that in all kinds of first person shooters.

    A lot of it is minor, true, but people make the most use of the tools they're given.

    Now put them into a sandbox with no real supervision. Anyone thinks they won't be trampling sandboxes?

  • Blue Star wrote:
    @Moocrys: 1)You've missed an important part of this: she's not a cleric, she's an oracle, a class that really has no business being in combat.

    Nothing much to do with the class really. The class, by itself, actually has half-decent combat abilities. What matters more is the mystery, and, of course, the character itself.

    Now, life is not the right mystery for a fighting oracle. Battle oracles can be down-right frightening (I know what I'm talking about there. The Warspeaker was destruction on two legs).

    But it sounds a lot like this character was not at all geared towards martial combat.

    gnomersy wrote:

    Just resurrect the Paladin

    Or they could just copy the sword so everyone has one.

    He did mention that they're in the middle of a dungeon, which makes stuff like getting someone to resurrect a character rather difficult. More difficult than it is usually in Golarion, where clerics of level 13 or up are few and far between.

    Apparently, they can't even buy/sell stuff, and finding shops is usually easier than finding high priests.

    "Of course, we went on trying, because that's the military way!"
    "You mean, pile dreadful failure on top of failure?"

    "Contrary to popular belief and hope, people don't usually come running when they hear a scream. That's not how humans work. Humans look at other humans and say, 'Did you hear a scream?' because the first scream might have been you screaming inside your head, or a horse backfiring."

    "Whole new theories of money were growing here like mushrooms, in the dark and based on b&!$$@!%."

    "I hate it when there are two four o'clocks in the same day."

    "Vimes had never got on with any game much more complex than darts. Chess in particular had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the kings lounged about doing nothing that always got to him; if only the pawns united, maybe talked the rooks round, the whole board could've been a republic in a dozen moves."

    "Shoes, men, coffins... never accept the first one you see."

    "Oh, all right. Of course I accept as a natural born criminal, habitual liar, fraudster and totally untrustworthy perverted genius."
    "Capital! Welcome to government service! I pride myself on being able to pick the right man."

    "I commend my soul to any god that can find it."

    "What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."

    "Always remember that the crowd that applauds your coronation is the same crowd that will applaud your beheading. People like a show."

    "Good evening, gentlemen! Please pay attention. I am a reformed vampire, which is to say, I am a bundle of suppressed instincts held together with spit and coffee. It would be wrong to say that violent, tearing carnage does not come easily to me. It's not tearing your throats out that doesn't come easily to me. Please don't make it any harder."

    "Ninety per cent of most magic merely consists of knowing one extra fact."

    It's more or less what I'm doing, too. Weapon Finesse like the rules know it now is automatic, and if you take a feat, you get to use it for damage.

    Just try it out. Tell everyone it's provisional and that you might withdraw the change again if you find it unsupportable (and will allow character retooling at that point).

    Even though you can now dump strength altogether, strength still wins out if you want the mostest damage, especially since the leading damage strategies rely on big, hunking weapons and stuff that is based off strength. Or, at least, that's my opinion. See for yourself how it plays out. That has the advantage of seeing how that specific rule will work in your specific party. Party dynamics and player preferences can influence stuff like that a lot.

    Fake Healer wrote:
    Full of faceless people not caring if yours or my day is ruined.

    That's not a very truthful depiction of the internet. Those people care. They're sitting in front of their PCs, giggling at your misfortune until their sides split.

    They probably compete with each other to see if they can't drive a player to commit suicide...

    Obsidaeus wrote:

    Now i know alot are going to cannot do that..what about my button mashing and skill trees.

    You'll find that if you don't insult the people answering to your post - especially before they even answered - you'll much more likely get an actual discussion going and are much less likely to be called a troll.

    Especially with that spelling. :P

    And the rules do perform poorly with a MMORPG. They were created with pen and paper roleplaying and its strengths in mind: The rules only have to fit onto paper and there are actual, thinking humans in control of everything.

    Once you try to force the whole thing into a computer arbitrating the rules and take away the human looking for loophole exploits, the system works a lot less well.

    MyTThor wrote:

    To me the Oracle wanting the Sun Blade is 1 step better than a priest of Nethys holding on to an arcane spellbook instead of the Wizard because of the logo on the cover.

    Exactly. It's a munchkin tool. "Here, I should get this treasure, it ties into my character concept". I've actually seen an actual munchkin actually killing a campaign by "roleplaying" a greedy character.

    Usually, if someone claims to be roleplaying and calling someone else a powergamer who only cares about numbers on a shield - while demanding something - chances are it's a munchkin who wants his way by playing the political game. Be first to insult the other so when he calls you by name, you can just play it down as a lash out against your "legitimate accusations".

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dennis Baker wrote:

    Ultimately, someone in your group needs to show a little maturity and give up the weapon.

    How is giving in to whiny children mature? It just shows them that with enough whining, she can have what she wants.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Urlithani wrote:
    I think many people on both sides are taking things to their worst possible extremes: "non-consensual PvP" means the world will be an apocalyptic wasteland with griefers waiting every 10 feet.

    We are talking about a game that will be played over the internet.

    Chubbs McGee wrote:

    (I cannot imagine a company that would willingly turn subscribers away as a business model)

    Oh, I have a relatively recent example from this very industry. It was worded as "firing their customers", but the end result was the same.

    Chubbs McGee wrote:

    Sitting around crafting all day sounds really, really boring.

    Well, if the forced PvP stays in, you won't do that. You'll sit around part of the day crafting and the rest is spend defending yourself against characters with warrior skill sets who decided that they'd rather kill and loot you than pay you for a sword...

    ElyasRavenwood wrote:

    Yee Koss

    For that, I now wholeheartedly support enforced PvP!

    Moving on to clerics:

    I did play several clerics mainly to make a point. Not the same point, obviously.

    One was an elf archer cleric in 3.0 times. The point I tried to make is that this isn't 2e any more, clerics weren't a pathetically weak class only good for standing around until someone needs healing. That might be an exaggerated view of the 2e priest, but not much exaggerated in regards to what many people of the group thought about clerics. So this one was a doozy. You know how 3e archer clerics can get. Long story short, after that nobody thought clerics couldn't be used for anything other than healing any more.

    The other was a dwarf priest, where I tried to make a point that there is more than one dwarf character out there, and that doesn't refer to the variation of the name from the pre-approved name snippets (orc, axe, hammer, beard, any sort of metal, any sort of stone). So this guy was NOT racist and proud of it, he did NOT have a serious drinking problem, he was NOT gruff to the point of being a sociopath, he did NOT think that mining and killing orcs (as well as insulting elves) were the only worthwhile things to do. And I did it without creating a ridiculous "anti-dwarf", like a dwarven fashion designer whose name is Fredegar.

    The fun part was that another character in the group was also a dwarf - a dwarven loremaster. Both of them were LG. None of them were CLICHÉ! (which, by the way, is an Onomatopoeia, hence the capitalisation and exclamation mark).

    Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

    I want to hear about the coolest Cleric's you've experienced.

    I had an awesome cleric of the god of teaching who smote everyone who used a plural apostrophe...

    And yes, that's a lie and I'm really threatening you with smiting if you don't stop using the plural apostrophe. :P

    Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

    Druids too, because I consider them a kind of specialized cleric. Oracles are divine too, but their are enough threads talking about them.

    Tell me about the clerics in your games that have been memorable.
    Why are they Awesome? Incident that showcased their awesomeness?

    I had a great druid I only got to play for one session. Half-orc druid, int 6, name "Hunting Wolf". Didn't talk like a total retard like people seem to think int 6 has to work. Instead, he had no idea about cities. He was a country boy, all about living in the woods, and never really using that much of intelligence, since mostly, he had been using his instinct and connection to nature (i.e. wisdom). Did I mention that was supposed to be a city campaign.

    I did manage to pack enough awesome into that one session to rival some campaigns. Not just a character in a campaign, mind you, the whole thing!

    He kept asking the other party members about the stuff he saw.

    "What's that?"
    "That's a house."
    "What's it good for"
    "Uhh.. A home? You know, shelter."
    "How do you carry it around?"
    "You don't. It stays in one place."
    "Sounds bad. What if the place becomes bad for living?"

    "What's that in the way in of the house?"
    "Uh, the door?"
    "What's it for?"
    "To keep others out."
    "You mean like predators? I thought you had no predators in the city."
    "No, like a burglar."
    "Never saw one of those. What do they look like."
    "It's a person that steals."
    "What steel?
    "No, steal. Like take what's not yours."
    "Uh. why?"

    It was fun seeing how long it took the snooty elf duelist type to get exasperated about the whole questioning thing. It's like a child asking you stuff, except the child is over 6 feet tall, has a really dark voice, muscles that seem fit to bend pipes, and a sword as big as you are."

    "You hit like a girl" (after being beat to within an inch of his life in a single round by a deific avatar)

    "...thus kabloowie, thus death."

    "My spell is powered by love."
    "Yeah, every time I cast that spell, some love is forever sucked from the world."

    "We are about to witness an inverse relationship between the number of stab wounds I inflict and the number of answers you start giving me."

    Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
    This reinforces my thinking that all such creatures are products of Chaos, the seeing of which should seriously mess with PC's minds.

    Quite possible.

    On the other hand, Chaos is very fond of the evolution concept. Take a critter - any critter - and randomly change it. Then let it prove itself. The ones whose changes were for the better will tend to survive and have offspring, thereby propagating and vindicating their changes. The mutation becomes the baseline.

    Goto 10.

    It would seem that the three-headed freaks that exist, like chimeras, were those who got some extra heads and made it work. On the other hand, it could be an intentional change, too. The fact that the heads aren't random, but always the same critters (with the minor variation of dragon colour), it points to intentional design. Someone helped the process along. They still might have tested and modified the critter, but that's no real substitute to the total randomness, since you never know what will turn out to work really well.

    Force-feed that chimera some Amorphia, wait an aeon or two, and see whether the heads won't be something like racoonish, linnorm-like and human.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    We only heard one side, lack the whole picture, can't know for sure what's going on, so this is all contingent on the assumption that what we have is the proper story. But here goes:

    We have here one party in a huge big death trap. One of the characters is two-weapon-fighting character, right now with two good weapons to fight in his usual style. Also, we have one walking band-aid who could, right now, use none of these weapons, is apparently not really made for mêlée, and never goes to the front lines, anyway.

    In regards to this sun blade, the logical choice and the one that will maximise party survival is to let that ninja have both the adamantine katana and the sun blade. Giving it to the oracle would mean the front-line fighter would be less useful, and, at best, the weapon would die of boredom in that scabbard. (Turning it into a scimitar won't really help unless that character has taken weapon proficiency in it. Oracles aren't proficient in scimitars, even if they worship Sarenrae. Only clerics get extra weapon proficiencies, and since oracles aren't tied to deities, it wouldn't make sense, anyway). At worst, the squishy healer would get battle crazed and stop doing her job (healing) in favour of getting herself killed in the front lines.

    And if you weigh "roleplay" considerations over survival matters, in a dangerous dungeon, you will die deservedly.

    Plus, "I'm a fire oracle of the Sun goddess, it's a sun sword, I should get it" ? Invite me into your game. I'll play a priest of Abadar, which would mean all gold should go to me. Or, better yet, a priest of Norgorber, god of greed. Everything should go to me, then.

    I actually saw something like this. Well, indirectly. The guys playing in that campaign told me about it. One min-maxed powergaming character was "greedy", so the player felt justified in taking all the treasure. This killed the campaign, or contributed to it.

    Plus, giving up valuable tools of survival because someone throws a fit? And that's supposed to be mature? I hope you never have to raise children. Teach them that they only have to cry to get what they want, and they'll be insufferable.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    karkon wrote:
    Rocks fall. Everybody dies. Your bodies are not found for *roll, roll, roll* 2000 centuries.

    Collective punishment? Good call...

    karkon wrote:

    You claim you don't meta game but then won't let the Sun Oracle have the Sunblade because she is not proficient in it.

    How is that metagaming? Do you know what metagaming means?

    "I want that sword" "I'm a swordsman. Do you have any training with swords?" "Not in the least" "Then I'll hold on to the sword in order to keep our enemies from killing us all."

    Not metagaming.

    1 to 50 of 16,283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.