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

Kelsey MacAilbert's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,360 posts (6,391 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 63 aliases.

1 to 50 of 342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Turner wrote:

My experience with police forces in the US follows.

My opinion:

When you're polite to an officer, they're polite to you. 1% of the time this isn't true.

When you're belligerent with an officer, they're belligerent with you. 99% of the time this is true.

That is highly dependent on race, geography, and how clean cut one looks. A lot of the time they will come at you belligerently from the start if you live in a s#$$ty area and dress baggy.

What some Americans (and internationals) are calling fear of the police, I call respect for authority (which I have).

I respect authority when I can trust them.


Simple rules, from my point of view:

If an officer engages you, be polite and respectful.

Sure. I'll politely ask if I am being detained, and if so for what reason. If I am not being detained, I will politely ask the officer to stop taking to me.

If an officer issues a directive, follow it.

That depends highly on the directive.

When an officer says, "Hands up!" don't start walking toward them! Put you hands up and be quiet.


When an officer asks for ID, don't invoke the Constitution or Patrick Henry, just show them your ID.

Absolutely not. In my state, I am not required to display ID to a police officer upon request. In fact, I have no legal obligation to identify myself to a police officer at all. As such, I will not be providing so much as my name to the police, much less ID.

When you've broken the law, no matter how trivial or what circumstances you believe mitigate your offense, be contrite and respectful--that doesn't mean you have to admit you did or didn't do anything, but don't be deliberately stupid.

Should go without saying.

When an officer tells you to calm down, or stop cursing at them, calm down and shut up: the officer's demand was explicit and black-and-white; there is absolutely zero chance that they actually meant for you to teach them all the profanities you know, and in as loud a voice as possible.

I prefer quiet noncompliance within the limits of state and local law, anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
That's actually an indirect reason I got rid of alignment. I am into Pathfinder for the escapism, and I like my escapism more optimistic.

You mean, you treat Pathfinder like a Saturday afternoon diversion, and you think the absolute last thing such an activity needs is the impetus for a knock-down, drag-out, philosophical war?

Say it isn't so... ;)

I get into rough themes sometimes, and I do take the game seriously. I just that I really like designing cities that are cool (I'm an urban planning student. I tend to use PF to do all the stuff in my dreams.). If the city is kind of a hellhole, it doesn't appeal to me. At the same time, I like gothic horror elements, and dark, gruesome stories. I just like the heroes to have something nice to go home to afterwards (Incidentally, this is why I couldn't get into Midnight or Lovecraft. I like the dark elements, but they lack hope.). I find the best way to reconcile that is to have a world that is a really nice place to live largely because people like the PCs go into the grimdark parts of the world and keep them in check.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

if humans don't dominate the campaign, then the bonus feat isn't good enough.

If the campaign is supposed to be distinctive in that humans are not the (far and away) dominant race of the world, then that begs all kinds of interesting discussions. But your standard world where the norm is human and every demihuman place is special for not being human, it doesn't make sense for demihuman racial advantages to overtake human ones.

That assumes PCs should be reflective of the population as a whole, however.

My assumptions on race are extremely non-standard, however. I usually call the Human race Magni, because I assume Elves and Dwarves and Orcs and Drow to be Human.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want a GM who lets me do the worldbuilding and is totes cool with my busy schedule. Oh, and I want James Jacobs to come down from his mighty dinosaur throne and announce a second Tian Xia book, a Vikings and Indians adventure path in Arcadia, NPC Codex 2, a Pathfinder hardcover dedicated to archetypes, and a Pathfinder hardcover dedicated to consolidating feat chains into scaling feats, improving combat feats, and giving martials a ton more combat styles besides TWF, THF, and Sword and Board. And I want Owen K.C. Stephens to come down from his throne and announce that when the Talented PDFs for every class in Pathfinder are finished Rogue Genius Games will be selling a hardcover with all the PDFs and a bunch of new talents that didn't end up in any of the Talented PDFs.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

While you guys seem bogged down in race - The central core of the matter is why is it so acceptable for police in the US to kill so many Americans?

Why so many Americans?

You are at war with yourself...

From the Economist "British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period."

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Just taking race out of this - 1000's of US citizens are being killed each year by their own police. 1000s

Then you distract yourselves from the issue by going around in circles focusing on race and not on the death toll.

It's shocking - each one of you is 100 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than an English person.

Instead of arguing about the minutiae you should be talking to your politicians abot the numbers.

The thing is, this isn't just an issue of shootings. It's an issue of the entire policing approach in America. That policing approach does have racial issues, such as the fact that it tends to be blacks stopped and frisked much moreso than whites. Blacks don't use more pot than whites, but blacks are WAY more likely to actually get arrested for it. Where I live, a white or Asian kid or light-skinned latino is caught with pot? Probably just gets it confiscated if he isn't selling. This is urban California. It's not that big a deal. A black kid? Not getting the same chance, because suddenly it's a problem that needs to be addressed because Broken Windows Theory, and every offense has to be slammed on. It's like having two totally different policing standards. Available data suggests a stop of a black man is 21 times more likely to end with him shot than a stop of a white man. Once you get into the justice system, that continues. A black man and a white man arrested for a first drug offense on the same substance? The black man often gets a harsher sentence. This is absolutely a problem that has a strong racial component.

I'm note sure how I feel about #CrimingWhileWhite (I've heard it said it's taking focus away from dehumanization of blacks to focus on whites doing dumb s%#$ and getting away with it), but the tag has a point when it comes to fairness in policing. Here's some info, with stats:

Hashtag and pot stats

Shooting rates

Simply put, we're bogged down in race because we have gigantic racial problems in our policing methods.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have endless ideas as GM, and don't much follow through with them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

James, Golarion has a Norse settlement in America. Any chance of getting a Vikings and Indians Adventure Path? I would give Paizo so much money.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Got to thinking about making the Spellslinger into something that can both fight with a gun and shoot spells with the gun. Natural choice for that was the Magus. Here's the preliminary write up. Pretty sure it has problems, so please point them out.


Weapon Proficiencies:

A Spellslinger is proficient with firearms.


At 1st level, a Spellslinger gains Gunsmithing as the Gunslinger class ability, but a Spellslinger must choose a musket. This ability replaces Spell Combat.

Spell Combat:

At 2nd level, a Spellslinger gains Spell Combat, and can use it with melee attacks or with a musket. If used with a musket, the Spellslinger fires the spell through the weapon. This ability replaces Spellstrike.

Fast Musket

At 3rd level, a Spellslinger can reload a musket as if it were a one handed firearm. This ability replaces the Magus Arcana gained at 3rd level.

Arcane Gun:

At 4th level, a Spellslinger gains Arcane Gun, as per the Wizard class feature, but when casting spells through the gun she does not have to roll to see if it gains the broken condition. This ability replaces Spell Recall and Improved Spell Recall.

Musket Training:

At 5th level, a Spellslinger can add Dex to damage with attacks made by muskets. This ability replaces the bonus feat gained at 5th level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed it from my campaign setting, but I use it when I theorycraft character backstories in case I use the character under a different GM. I have several reasons. I touch up against issues that are major political arguments IRL, and I don't want to start throwing up alignments to those involved in those issues. In the setting backstory, humans and various allies killed all the gods but one, and that god is a horrid creature, so alignment isn't being enforced from above and humans are free to define their own moral compass. We don't have a cosmic or absolute ruling on what good and evil are. Finally, the setting revolves around government agents who keep the biggest threats in the monster population under control and deal with rogue mages, both of which are extremely dangerous jobs. This slants the game towards Law and towards Good heavily enough that I find it better to just have people be people instead of tagging them with an alignment when the game itself is heavily biased towards certain parts of the spectrum. Law and Good are very easily conflated when looking through the eyes of those who uphold law and order, and Chaotic Good is just going to cause trouble. Maybe even more than Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral. If that much of the alignment spectrum is problematic, it's easier to get rid of it and just say "You are an elite Crown Agent. Please role play accordingly." then have an alignment system where most alignments don't fit the game well.

So, what about you guys?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Whatever. Hama asked what happened and I told him. Your opinion is just that.

That's not opinion, it's fact. I have never seen a video game do that to an Xbox, but Xbox is very well known for that exactly problem. So yes, you are blaming the wrong company. Microsoft is the one with shoddy design.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to write up a warrior who is incredibly well read and quick of wit, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of monsters and their weaknesses and wades into battle clad in steel and wielding sword and shield. Funny enough, the Investigator seems to be pretty good for this concept, with studied strike and inspiration being pretty useful, and extracts being somewhat favorable for a campaign setting where alchemy is by far the most common form of magic. There isn't anything in the Investigator class that out and out discourages heavy armor and a shield (other than the fact that I have to be careful about when to use extracts, since I lack a free hand when fighting), so I dipped a level of Fighter at first level to get heavy armor, shield, and martial weapon proficiency, 10 HP, and Power Attack. So, here's what I came up with at level 6, with 16000 gold:


Did I do good with the build? Is there anything I should change to fit my concept of being really good at identifying monsters (and coming up with useful facts outside combat) and fighting, and reasonably good in social situations? Is there some disadvantage to heavy armor and shield as an Investigator that I have missed? How is this build liable to hold up as a primary melee damage dealer?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quirel wrote:

For some reason, this reminds me of a weaboo I knew who found a katana and scabbard in a pawn shop... and spent ten minutes trying to reproduce the metallic shing of a sword being drawn.

Conclusion? "They made the scabbard wrong."




For obsessive fans, weaboos seem to not know a lot about Japanese swords. Or swords in general, really. Or samurai, for that matter. I had a weaboo roommate who thought katana meant Japanese sword and samurai were totes more honorable than those who used guns because swords are so manly. I really should have showed him this, but I didn't.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Correct, but at the same time the Japanese do that with Americans and Europeans about as much as we do it with them. Distinctions that seem natural to someone who grew up with them aren't natural to someone who didn't, and nobody is smart enough to know all the proper distinctions. An effort should be made to get it right, but I don't think getting stuff wrong is offensive. Unless you buy into misconceptions that are in and of themselves racist, of course.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:
So why is no one whining that asians are using european stereotype themes? White ninja racist, yellow knight ok?

Aside from the fact that cultural appropriation comes off as a negative term, and I don't think that whites having an interest in Asian culture is at all negative (insert rant about how "cultural appropriation" is basically how human civilizations have been acting for at least a couple of millennia, and globalization is a larger scale version of a common historical phenomenon), I would be inclined to agree that a lot of it has to do with white Americans perceiving European things as "normal" and Asian things as exotic. We also tend not to really care when other people borrow our stuff, because historically we have been in the majority, so it doesn't feel too strange that others adopt some of our ways. That's fairly common to American history.

I would also point out that different groups don't quite see things the same way. A good example is your use of the word yellow in reference to Asians. This is actually somewhat offensive, yet to use the word white in reference to Europeans or the word black in reference to African-Americans is not offensive. Why is this the case? Historically, yellow has been used to refer to Asians in a very derogatory manner, whereas white has never really been used as a slur towards Europeans, and we had other slurs to throw at African-Americans. As a result, you really shouldn't call any Asian people yellow, but to call someone white or black is almost never insulting. You can apply the same to the idea of other cultures adopting European things. We are very used to this sort of thing (and historically have encouraged it), so it generally doesn't insult us. Other cultures, such as American Indians, have dealt with white people trying to assimilate them into acting like Europeans, so many of them get insulted if we try to borrow things from them. I don't agree with the idea that it is wrong for a white person to have an interest in American Indian cultures, but I can understand how it causes anger to see a white teenage girl pretending to be a war chief, given the history of how we used to portray American Indians in media. Same reason you don't wear blackface anymore. Historically, that has been used to demean people. In essence, wearing blackface or a war bonnet isn't offensive because acting like a member of a culture other than your own is offensive, it's offensive because it mimics behaviors white people used to carry out when mocking or overly simplifying other cultures. That's why a black person who puts on some form of whiteface probably wouldn't catch too much flack. Historically, black people have not put on whiteface to demean white people, so it lacks the level of offense blackface carries.

Now, in the case of East Asian culture, I haven't really heard much anger from East Asians over white people borrowing things. Most of the anger, especially involving the Japanese, seems to come from white Americans who are either overreacting out of a dislike for Japanese media, or find it really creepy that a white person could become completely obsessed with Japanese culture and argue that everything Japanese is totally superior to everything else (in a word, weeaboos). From what I gather, the borrowing of East Asian elements by European fantasy isn't actually all that offensive to most East Asians, so "white ninja racist" isn't actually all that close to what the situation is. If anything, I'd be more suspect about the behavior of some of the white gamers who are hardcore against Asian elements (Not the ones who just don't like them, which is fine, but the hard core folks who constantly rant about white people who do enjoy such elements).

tl;dr: Cultures usually perceive this sort of thing as offensive because of a negative history with it, and not all cultures share that history, especially Europeans (though a fair number of people in Ireland seem to heavily dislike it when Americans claim to be Irish based off of Irish heritage, and I've seen Irish people get somewhat upset about how Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day). Also, I don't see much to suggest that East Asians generally find it offensive for Americans to borrow Asian cultural elements.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Are players entitled to:

Gamers aren't entitled to anything.

A game world specifically designed to their specifications, or at least modified to suit their interests and goals?

If the world doesn't suit the players' interests and goals, and the GM isn't interested in a world that does, that group shouldn't play together. It's just not going to work out.

Play whatever character race or class suits their fancy, even it if doesn't fit thematically, so long as those options are available to all the players?

I'm a pretty big believer in each game world having a specific theme, and the players creating characters that fit that theme. A player who cannot create a character that fits the theme is not playing the right game, and if the GM can't recruit enough players that theme just doesn't work for her situation.

Realization of their original and/or evolved vision for said character?

Neither the GM nor the players should expect everything to progress via their visions.


Chronic and customary victory, in the sense that the GM tailors encounters so that they will very likely be victorious after what he/she perceives as a hard-fought battle?

Survival (and even prosperity out) of even the most dangerous scenarios?

Some groups like easy battles and little or no player death, other groups prefer a hard and gritty game, and most groups are somewhere in between. The GM should recruit players and tailor the game accordingly.

Rapidity of advancement to more efficacious and (to them, likely) more entertaining levels of power?

Another situation where every group has a different ideal that needs to be figured out.

Flexibility from the GM to the point of impromptu rules emendations to serve any of the above purposes?

Depends on how rules oriented the GM and players are. A rules oriented GM and rules flexible players generally don't work together well, and vice versa. It's best the group has similar preferences as to how strictly to follow the rules.


Override the GM via, say, majority vote, and thus to an extent dictate campaign parameters and strictures?

If the GM and the players disagree about what the game should be like to the point that the players can get a majority vote to overthrow the GM, that group should probably break up. It is obvious that there is a pretty big gap in what everybody wants to play, so everybody should seek a group more suitable to their interests.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...That is an amazing idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Allow it, I would think. Dressing up as Leia was pretty cool, though. My parents would never have let me be an "opposite gender" character in the first place, let alone join the fun.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Metal is already covered as a branch of terrageokineticism.
Ah, dang. Hadn't gotten that far yet. Still... I like the term "ferrokineticist." :D

Wouldn't work. Ferro derives from Latin, and Kineticist names except for terrakinetic (which I get the feeling is becoming geokinetic) are Greek. This is an important enough issue to cause much rustling of jimmies. Ferro also doesn't refer to metal in general, but to the presence of certain types of iron.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did my own theorycrafting. 8th level volcano mage. Started out with Earth as the primary element, since any geologist will tell you it's the debris (well, superheated and poisonous gas, too) that usually kills you, not the lava. Here she is:


My first main issue was how long it takes to gain a second element, as I said earlier. This is the number one issue I have with the class. Dual element characters are really hard to do. I originally wanted to build to 5th level, but I couldn't get fire until 7th. I also couldn't find a way to make earthquakes, and I didn't have enough class skills. I do wonder about my build's accuracy and DR penetration ability, but I leave that to the more experienced. I really do like the class abilities, for the most part, and I love the flavor. This will probably end up being one of my favorite magic users, alongside Alchemist and Witch. I just think dual element should be available at low level, but you should of course have to pay a price for that flexibility. I don't want to wait until level 7 for volcano mage. Yes, that is a massive issue for me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
The restrictions in place at the beginning has little to no inherent connection to the amount of agency the players will,have once he curtain rises on the stage.
the restrictions are a harbinger of player agency. If a DM is unwilling to let a character be a race or class or even idea (pirate, magic-user) then do we really expect that DM is going to let the players shape the world? No way. That DM will always have the circle of baby-sitters of 8 be 10-12 levels higher than you can ever be. That DM will never let you ride in politics in a major city. That DM will retire your character by murder, campaign ending or alignment change (ie, that one act caused you to become NE, hand over your c-sheet) to remove player agency.

Can you demonstrate any of these assertions as logically following setting restrictions?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fire so hot even immunity can't save you? Every substance has its limits.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
When I think about this class, I want to play a quarterstaff wielding monk who can manipulate the elements. I also want to play a dragon disciple. Also an ice make wizard straight out of Fairy Tail.

Also swashbuckling wind mages, elemental fistfighters, volcano mages, thundermages, and stormcallers. Should have kineticists that manipulate bodies (necromancer types) and plants.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Put me in for changing Terrakenisis to Geokenisis, too. Geo just plain sounds better.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Which comes back into different GM styles being equally valid. The GM who has a group of friends and accomodates them and the GM who pitches an idea and recruits people who fit it are both playing the game "right". They might not work well in the same gaming group, but that's okay. Different kinds of players should have different groups.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
In other words, I NEVER set a campaign in stone without consulting the players first.

That might be a reason for the disconnect. Some of us create a campaign for an existing group, and others create a campaign and then recruit a group for it. I'm more of the second, so bending over farther than I want is less attractive than just choosing a different player who fits the concept better.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Some stuff just isn't going to fit, Scott. My setting focuses on a specific type of game, involving the king's best monster hunters. A character who doesn't much care what the king says straight up doesn't work. Gnomes have never existed at any point during the history of the setting. The gods are dead, so a Cleric of a sun deity isn't really appropriate (We have Clerics, but they are rare and get their power from the planet itself). I don't see these as unreasonable things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:
Also i find the whole thing a bit racist. If you look asian (doesn't matter if you are chinese, loation, or vietnamese) no one cares, if you are a white dude insults are to be expected.

In my experience, it's other white people who do most of the insulting. A weeaboo is also not a white person who likes Asian culture, plays Asians in rpgs, and watches anime. It is a separate phenomenon, and is not limited to obsessing over Japan. Plastic Paddies are essentially the same thing.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I think you should just write the characters normally and if you want to include relationship status then just make it part of the story like you would normally. I don't think you should feel the need to make it the central part of the character. Heterosexuality isn't the central part of most well written characters.

With all the b@+@+#+@ LGBTs go through, it can feel cathartic to have a character who is really gay, and is damn well going to be public, because it's okay to go around being really gay, and damnation to all the haters. It also feels good to have a character who strongly represents who you are, which straight people get a ton more than LGBT people.

I would also ask if heterosexuality is not a central part of James Bond or Conan the Barbarian.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:

So today I ran into something I didn't realize would be awkward but I think I handled it right.

I had a new patient from out of state who was transgender. When she approached I treated her like anyone else (no surprises there). I had to enter her information into the computer and when I got to the gender I didn't want to assume anything. I certainly didn't want to ask what gender she is because that could be offensive on two points. One, it's not a question I would ask anyone else so why should she be different. Two, it would mean that she looks more masculine when she's trying to be feminine. I asked how she identifies herself.

I didn't want to assume anything. I'm male but like wearing women's clothing. Is there a better way to ask? I don't normally worry about it but this was so we could bill insurance properly and it is important for some medications.

Personally, I prefer to just be straight up asked my gender. I don't like being treated like I'm too sensitive to to take a question about my biology from a medical professional without freaking out.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, guys. That helps me better understand what I am looking at.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist. I want to see the alchemist next. I will buy it the instant I have the money in my account. I must have it. The alchemist is the most numerous magic user in my campaign setting and practices what is fluffed as a very diverse and important art, so the variety of roles for the class provided by a Talented PDF would be an amazingly useful resource.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Because I actually like anime and wuxia in my Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We Californians have our moments, though.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For some inexplicable reason, I decided to attend the school LGBT club. Turns out we just voted on new officers, and we didn't have an election so much as we had a purge. With the Mean Girls crowd out of office, maybe there is some hope for the club after all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
I find it amusing that 'metrosexuality' is considered something new and unmasculine.




As a historian, I should have made the connection between upper class aristocratic behaviors and metrosexuality long before you said that. I shall flog myself most severely.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not bisexual, so I admittedly lack the full perspective on what's going on, but it seems to me that bisexuals are generally getting more bigoted crap from lesbians and gays than us trans people are. Why do people pull out that crap like how bis are either gay or straight, or dating the opposite sex means you are straight, or that bis are untrustworthy, or that dating the opposite sex is treasonous? I've seen all of this from the mouths of gays and lesbians, and I can't help but wonder what the hell their problem is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hypothetical scenario. PCs are in Cheliax, and one decides he just has to have a Halfling to make camp, mend tools and clothes, and such. So he buys one. Now what? While adventuring, how do you keep a slave obedient and prevent escape? What do you do with the slave in combat? Where in the Inner Sea do you need to stay away from?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
My confusion is this: to my understanding, there are no laws against standing up in front of a group of loved ones and publically announcing your love and commitment to another person. Legal benefits of marriage all seem easily addressed in other ways (power of attorney, medical power of attorney, etc.), legal adoption of children by LGBT couples and individuals have been increasing dramatically every year...

Except that isn't the case. You cannot file taxes jointly. You do not gain the same tax incentives married couples get. It is much harder to own property jointly. It is much harder to have your legal arrangements recognized across state lines. There is more, but it was already linked to above.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The last network showing them will no longer do so.

It's not the death of cartoons, of course. And, with streaming, we can watch whenever we want. We just don't have that good old bastion of childhood anymore. Granted, it was my brother who was allowed to watch them, not me, but still. It feels like another piece of the 90s kid identity has slipped away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It might go a little ways towards changing the culture, which would be a good thing.

I'm not sure. It seems to ignore the fact that consent is very often something communicated via body language rather than verbally. Two people are making out, somebody reaches for a belt buckle, the gesture is reciprocated, coitus ensues. To me, the fact that the gesture was reciprocates indicates consent. No need to legally require that the two stop and verbally agree as to the next course of action, and periodically reobtain verbal consent through the act. In fact, my initial response, as a female California college student, is to ask what the hell right the state has to tell me my method of communicating consent isn't valid. But no. I'm just a weak little girl, and I need a big strong man like Jerry Brown to govern my sexual choices, because I'm not capable of deciding how to communicate consent by myself. It comes off as kind of stupid. In fact, have fun enforcing it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got to thinking about the role of Dwarves in my campaign setting. They are the hardest race to do creative things with. They seem to always be axe-bearded drunken Scottish miners, and that's just what they do. In my setting, I plan for them to be curly bearded drunken Bavarian mountain men, because that concept just plain works, but it's still a bit too similar to what Dwarves usually are in fantasy. Interestingly enough, however, Dwarves are something that, it seems, most cultures have some version of in their folklore. Which gives me an idea. Given that myths about them are so universal, what if they were a race that exists worldwide, just like Humans (in my setting, demihuman races are usually from just one specific geographic region, and do not form their own nations), and that, as a result, has a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities? That right there gives more room for Dwarves to be interesting. We have those jolly drunken Bavarian mountain Dwarves, surly axe-beared Scandinavian miners who live underground, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish hill dwelling Halflings, salty Scottish fishermen and sailors who live along the northern coast and islands, and cosmopolitan French craftsmen, architects, and engineers with a penchant for designing things that are far more complicated than they need to be. That makes Dwarves start to get more interesting, and makes them into a much more versatile race.

What I need is some examples of Dwarves from non-European folklore, especially East Asian and Native American Dwarves. I can handle the European ones with the ideas given above, but I don't know my American and Asian folklore well enough to find information that could inspire me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Is there something more he can do for you?

Maybe write a new game people will like and want to use?

not screwing it in the first place would have been nice, or going bak and fixing the mistake before he left/more books came out (so that "m-muh pagecount/legacy buyers" couldn't be used as an apparently ironclad excuse of why paizo cant fix their books). even an FAQ/errata would have sufficed.

really anything but "whoops, no fixing it now!".

What?! A designer made a mistake, you say? Quick! Bring me my pitchfork!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Those that play RPGs tend to fall into two categories: setting lovers and system lovers. There are those that really get into the setting and are satisfied with a minimum of rules books. However, there are those that want to build the most intricate character for the campaign. They will scower book after book for the perfect class, race, feat, spell, etc. Paizo is aware of this and builds books accordingly. Hense why there is not much in the way of mechanics in the settings books and no setting material in the RPG books.

That sounds like me. I love character generation. Most of the time, I never even play the characters. I just build them because that in and of itself is fun. As a result, I naturally want to see content that adds to that repertoire of options when building. With just a few rulebooks I'd get bored fast.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saigo Takamori wrote:

Is discussion went far from the original purpose...

Vagabonds. wrote:

So, recently, while attempting to sign up for a campaign online, I proposed a 11 year old half-Elf Wizard who taught herself magic from the ground up from the age of six (Int 20), but was denied due to her being too young, and said that if I wanted to play a child, I would have to use the Young Characters ruleset.

This, predictably, is annoying, primarily due to forcing me to take NPC class levels, rather than actual wizard levels. My question is, should DM's enforce the child ruleset on their players?

A note: I would be the only child there.

Should he? No. Each setting/group/dm is different, and it's not mandatory to do it that way. Can he? It's PFS so yeah, unfortunately.

Wait. Where did he say this was a PFS character? I never saw that.

If it is PFS, it changes this discussion quite a bit. PFS either requires children to use the young character rules or requires PCs to be of the minimum starting age. I forget which, but know it is one of the two. If it is the first, the GM is completely in the right, given that PFS rules are non-negotiable. If it is the second, the GM is in the wrong and should not have allowed a child character at all, again because the rules of PFS are non-negotiable.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Chernobyl wrote:
was not a fan of the ACG. might as well have called it players handbook 5. were more classes really needed? i'd much rather see more setting books, I'm holding out hope for a hardback Guide to Tian Xia, like the ISWG.


I agree. I felt the same way about Mythic and I'm feeling the same way about Unchained though I've yet to see it. I understand that I'm probably in the minority in that, but MOAR! isn't always better.

Unchained, as I understand it, is about seeing what could be done with the game if it didn't need to be reverse compatible with 3.5. That's very different than just adding another options book.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Chernobyl wrote:
were more classes really needed?

If Paizo ever stopped delivering new things in the RPG line, many people would move on to something else that can keep delivering new content. I like having new options periodically. That's why I spend so much money on third party materiel and encourage the likes of the Advanced Bestiary, Occult Adventures, and Pathfinder Unchained.

Chernobyl wrote:
i'd much rather see more setting books

The RPG line and the Golarion line are separate, because the Pathfinder RPG in and of itself is setting neutral. So, switching from generic Pathfinder rules to Golarion specific materiel would cut into the section of the market that doesn't use Golarion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what irritates me? My school LGBT club. The members are mostly all cool, but the officers? A group of judgemental drama addicts who seem to have mistaken our college for high school. Plus, meetings are mostly discussion about LGBT topics, and the Secretary hates it when any of the more socially awkward members try to contribute. I'm strongly considering just not showing up anymore.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

These rule changes are aimed at buffing melee in general, and high mobility melee in particular, while also fitting the general of my campaign setting (mostly focused on monster hunting and bounty hunting, magitech, partially inspired by anime, borrows a lot from European, Asian, and Native American sources).

Magic items that don’t have to be frequently recharged are rare and special. I use Evil Lincoln’s rules for replacing magic items, which you can find here , but with Purchase DC replaced by Enhancement Points, which mimic Wealth by Level on a 1 to 1 basis and are used to purchase the effects of magic items (no consumable items) . These effects become supernatural abilities of the character who purchased them. This is explained by the fact that, within the lore of my campaign setting, some people are a bit more magical than others, but not because of a Sorcerer bloodline or Oracle curse. These people generate stats with 25 point buy (10 or 15 is much more common) and get the benefits of this magical enhancement system, allowing them to be stronger, faster, smarter, and so on than the average person and use a touch of magic. This actually meshes pretty well with my setting’s explanation of where magic comes from.


Combat Expertise is no longer a feat, it is the way fighting defensively works. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

It’s not like anybody even uses the damn thing.

Improved Shield bash is not a feat. If you are proficient with a shield, you do not lose your shield bonus when bashing. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

Sword and board needs a bit of a buff, and effective shield bashing isn’t something the average sword and board warrior would skip during training, given that it was a very common technique.

Power Attack and Deadly Aim are no longer feats, it is something people of Str 13 (PA) or Dex 13 (DA) and BAB 1 can do. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does so long as the character has the requisite ability score and BAB.

Almost every Str based melee character takes Power Attack anyway, so might as well just let them have it. Deadly Aim is the same basic mechanism and cost/benefit as Power Attack, so might as well give the ranged guys that.

The bonus from Point Blank Shot increases to +2 at 6 BAB, +3 at 11 BAB, and +4 at 16 BAB. If something had Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

As written, Point Blank Shot just plain sucked, and I can’t find a rationale to keep it as a requirement for almost all other archery feats.

Vital Strike can be used in conjunction with Spring Attack or Shot on the Run. This does not make Vital Strike an attack action, and does not allow any other non-attack action to be used with Spring Attack or Shot on the Run.

I can’t figure out if it is or is not an attack action to use Vital Strike, but my understanding is that it normally cannot be used with Shot on the Run or Spring Attack.

Weapon Finesse is not a feat, it is a weapon property that applies to all weapons that the feat could normally be applied to, plus spears and quarterstaffs. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does

Because I think 5e had that one right, and because rapidly whirling spears and quarterstaffs is awesome and should totally be a thing for Dex builds.

Slashing Grace does not have Weapon Focus as a prerequisite.
Slashing Grace shouldn’t need Weapon Focus. That’s too expensive for what it does.

A spear can do slashing or piercing damage.

I’ve seen reports of Chinese spearmen using the weapons to both slash and stab. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it is cool, so it is incorporated into the rules.

Spears count as monk weapons.

They are already proficient, and it seems thematically appropriate.

If something had Mounted Combat as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

Mounted Combat isn’t necessarily weak as a feat, it’s just not an ability that needs to be a basic prerequisite for mounted characters.

Dodge has a prerequisite of proficiency with at least three martial weapons or 1 level of Monk or Brawler. Dodge gives you +2 to AC and +1 to reflex saves if you don’t wear armor, and allows you to gain armor enhancement bonus as if you were wearing armor. At BAB 6 it goes up to 3/2, at BAB 11 it goes up to 4/3, at BAB 16 it goes up to 5/4. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does

Dodge sucks as written. Now, I’m aiming it towards making unarmored warriors more feasible.

The following feat chains scale with level, meaning that if you have the first feat in the chain, you get the subsequent ones at no cost when you meet the prerequisites.
*Two Weapon Fighting/Improved Two Weapon Fighting/Greater Two Weapon Fighting
*Vital Strike/Improved Vital Strike/Greater Vital Strike
*Improved Dirty Trick/Greater Dirty Trick
*Improved Disarm/ Greater Disarm
*Improved Feint/Greater Feint
*Improved Reposition/Greater Reposition
*Improved Steal/Greater Steal
*Improved Trip/Greater Trip
*Improved Bull Rush/Greater Bull Rush
*Improved Drag/Greater Drag
*Improved Overrun/Greater Overrun
*Improved Sunder/Greater Sunder
*Iron Will/Improved Iron Will
*Great Fortitude/Improved Great Fortitude
*Lighting Reflexes/Improved Lightning Reflexes
*Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus
*Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Specialization

All of these chains are too expensive for what you get.

Greater Weapon Focus is not restricted to Fighters, but does have a BAB 6 requirement.

With Weapon Focus scaling with level and being a common enough prerequisite for feats non-Fighters take, this one had to go.

All those +2/+2 to skill feats improve to +4/+4 at 10th level. These feats and Skill Focus both allow rerolling one failed skill check related to the feat once per day at 10th level.

Those feats weren't worth the cost.

Jump heights listed for Acrobatics checks are quadrupled and distances doubled.

Why yes, I am a fan of anime. Why do you ask?

Characters that have a shield apply it’s full AC bonus to reflex saves against area of effect attacks or rays that deal elemental damage. Mage Armor can also apply it's full AC bonus in these situations.

How often do you see a knight blocking a dragon’s breath attack with his shield in fantasy art? All the time, and it is cool. I feel the same about when spellcasters throw up a force field to block fireballs and stuff.

No Summoners, Dimension Door, Teleport, or resurrection magic.

Just booting things I particularly dislike from the game.

Generally, I prefer something similar to E6, but terminating at either 8th or 12th level.

Higher level play be crazy.

I use Golarion, but much of the game takes place on a heavily explored and settled version of Arcadia, mostly the western portion. Avistan, Tien, and Arcadian people are all present in large numbers and are considered thematically appropriate for the game, and mixed ethnicity characters aren’t at all uncommon. The common language is Taldane, but Tien is almost as heavily used. The Dragon Empires character options can most certainly be used (though any Samurai are probably ronin immigrants), and I have quite the affection for catfolk.I do allow planetouched. CRB, APG, UM, UC, ACG are allowed, ARG options for already allowed races are allowed, other ARG options or races not specifically mentioned as allowed can be discussed with me.

The standard Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Cavalier are not banned, but I prefer to use the talented versions from Super Genius Games instead.

I consider them to be somewhat better.

Members of the Machinesmith class are not particularly uncommon in my setting.
I run a high magitech version of Golarion, so Machinesmiths fit in well and fill a character role the increased tech level opens up. It is also available on the D20PFSRD, which makes it easily accessible to players.

I like spell points as written by Super Genius Games, but their use is negotiable. They will either be applied to everybody or nobody.

I double check 3PP before saying yes as a precaution (I consider both balance and the theme of the game when deciding), but I own and view favorably the following items:

*Alchemist’s Discoveries (Super Genius Games)
*Beyond Bloodlines (Super Genius Games)
*All of the talented PDFs for the Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Cavalier (Super Genius Games)
*Fey Archetypes (Rite Publishing)
*Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler (Rite Publishing)
*Grit and Gunslingers (Super Genius Games)
*Heroes of the Jade Oath (Rite Publishing)
*Heroes of the West (Little Red Goblin Games)
*Kitsune Compendium (Everyman Gaming)
*Classes of NeoExodus: Machinesmith (Louis Porter Jr. Design)
*Gothic Campaign Compendium (Legendary Games)

I use all of the above to varying degrees, and don’t be surprised to see content from 3PP monster books. How much I use the Gothic Campaign Compendium or allow it to be used by players heavily depends on whether the party as a whole is going towards games with optimistic or pessimistic leanings. It’s a book I reserve for more pessimistic games.

I like and use 3PP, just got to make sure I always know what I’m allowing.

I don’t like non-heroic PCs.

Just the way I like to play.

Maxximilius archetypes and multiclass archetypes are considered on a case by case basis.

Changing rules: Given the amount of 3PP content and house ruling, there will be a balance issue eventually. Rules will not be changed during play, but balance issues will be resolved in between sessions. If it’s a PbP, the rule will be modified after the encounter is resolved. Players will always be informed of any rules changes.

I understand that changing the rules on the players in the middle of play is massively irritating, but I will still have to resolve balance issues.

So, what balance issues did I open up and not notice? I'm sure I did something, somewhere. Do my rules come off as reasonable?

1 to 50 of 342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.