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. 3,357 posts (6,098 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 62 aliases.


1 to 50 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

3 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.

Down. With. CHRISTMAS TREE!

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 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Have you ever run at someone and run straight onto a spear? I have a few times. In most cases it stopped me dead, sometimes it missed, and a few of them hit hard enough to redirect my motion.

They were also blunt, and I was wearing armour, which is why I'm able to type this. On or two of them missed the armour and left me with minor fractures, or the sort of bruising that goes away after a few months.

So if we're talking simulationism (which may or may not deserve a nod depending on the person considering it, but you brought it up), I highly recommend leaving the AoOs in. Though I think the feat chains around them are ludicrous and could use some pruning.

The problem with taking a simulationist approach is that, unless you stick to low levels, spellcasters just don't care about the laws of reality anymore. If you make it so that martials do, they will always be straight up inferior, because they have to play by the rules and the casters don't. So, I'd go by what makes martials more relevant in combat, because if mister sparky fingers over there can throw all sorts of reality bending magic around like it's not even a big deal, I should be able to take an inhuman amount of pain and keep going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:
This right here sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me. It's ridiculous statements like this that make it easy for people like Threeshades to dismiss your entire argument out of hand.

Except it's not ridiculous at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

If you read above, there is already plenty of pre existing situations where child fantasy/hero characters have gotten in harms way and even killed even mingled with adult heroes/veterans.

Indian Jones/short round
Batman/Robin
Heck the entire cast of goonies!

NOT teenagers… children.

How does that effect his argument?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I AM INJECTING MYSELF INTO THIS CONVERSATION.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You can enjoy anime while not enjoying specific prevailing tropes of it.

That's exactly it. I love anime, but the whole sexy early teen girl thing is disturbing in anything that isn't geared towards children. If it's a Shonen it isn't so bad, since that's a kids show and therefore including child characters has a totally different context, but in an anime aimed towards adults I do find it off putting. My games are geared more towards adults, so it would be disturbing to have child PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This rule is just a poor attempt at "realism" that effectively invalidates whole character concepts because of what is just a cosmetic choice.
I don't ban it because realism. I borrowed enough from my favorite anime that realism isn't a thing. I ban it because I'm highly uncomfortable with it.
I assume you meant you ban young characters.

Yes. I'm putting a clearly worded ban on non-adult characters into my house rules. I take a lot of my world building inspiration from anime, and I made some rules tweaks to make combat feel a bit more anime-ish, so I do expect the issue of child characters to come up eventually. That's why I'm specifically addressing the issue with my house rules, rather than waiting for someone to try it.

Quote:
And that's okay. But if a GM doesn't want his players to play child characters, then he should just say it. There is no need to go "Oh, you can play one... But you have to suffer these heavy penalties that make your character completely useless..."

I agree with the general idea that it's better to say no than to totally cripple a hated concept, but from what I understand it is RAW in this case. Granted, I would still outright ban it, because under RAW the character would be a useless drag on the party and not fun for the player, and I outright ban other things that are RAW anyway (teleportation, resurrection, summoning).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I want to see a sequel of this. I do most of my world building in North America inspired continents, so it adds some wonderful options that I'll get plenty of use out of. Looking through the PDF, I can't see much that I won't use.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought.

Tell that to the animal kingdom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

To be brutally honest, I would never allow a child PC in the first place. Given that I am an anime fan who mixes some of that medium into my house rules and setting, I forsee somebody making a child character eventually, which is why I'm pre-empting that request by putting a minimum character age of 20 into my house rule list. I just don't feel comfortable GMing for the sorts of characters who would actually allow a child to accompany them into combat. When children get into fights, they get hurt or killed, and I want that taken seriously, not played off as something that isn't a gigantic problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Drogon wrote:
I can't get behind the idea that the reason is because you hired too many people.

This won't be a popular response, but perhaps if the very clear priority of keeping the LGBT flag waving wasn't quite so front and center, if the social engineering and universal representation were left to the players and GM's themselves, the focus on these many other issues presented might be greater.

We can't get answers to any of dozens of questions in the FAQ, have classes coming out after months of playtests which immediately need tons of errata and the much-heralded Mythic ruleset is broken pretty much as soon as you get into the meat of it... but hey, we all know EXACTLY how much a sex-change potion will cost!

I find your choice of topic interesting. You see, creating an LGBT character doesn't really take any more effort that creating a heterosexual character. I have never seen anyone claim it does. Writing up a potion? About ten minutes. It's not a significant time expenditure at all. So, I am left with the impression that you have an issue that goes beyond the overall editing and rules quality of Paizo products. The use of the phrase "social engineering" is even more telling. I have never seen that phrase used by somebody who isn't bigoted against some other group.

Quote:
I'm not saying the two are related, but in earlier pathfinder materials, the focus wasn't so great, the constant LGBT banner wasn't so zealously waved and many of these issues weren't near so pronounced either.
If I remember correctly, homosexual characters in Paizo APs predate Pathfinder.
Quote:
Can we skip the social agenda,
Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.
Quote:
cut the rules bloat and just get back to what Paizo has always been best at - telling great stories through gaming?

You can ban anything you consider bloat at your table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He doesn't always play a woman, but when he does, he's a total perv about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sniggevert wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.
I have zero tolerance for the furry aspect of this community. I've never had to play with someone like this but I think the second I heard a guy even remotely entertained the idea of playing an anthropomorphic animal I would tell him not to re-roll but to look for a different group.

No anthropomorphic animals?

So no lizardmen? Grippli? Wolfweres? Boggards? Kua-Toa? Ibixians, minotaurs or Assweres?

Anthropomorphism is pretty huge in scope, and the sentient animal-monster-humanoids in D&D would make a very long list.

This also means that the Agathian celestial race gets completely discontinued, and Nirvana becomes empty.

And where do you draw the line? Do serpentfolk/yuan-ti get ditched because they're snake-people? If so, do you also ditch mariliths and nagas? If not, why not?

If catfolk go for being cat-people, do you ditch sphinxes and lamiae? If not, why not?

If tengu go for being bird-people, do you ditch sirens and harpies? If not, why not?

Or is it an issue of "antho-critters are okay as monsters for the party to kill, but damn you if you ever think to play one!"?

For me, this. I'm much more straight-laced and conservative in my fantasy sword/sorcery than most, and I know it.

If you want that at your table, more power to you. Unless that's the only option given, I probably won't create a character like that, but would still join in and play none the less without fuss.

But if I ask, or end up stating, that such are not allowed as PC's at mine I expect the same respect.

Everyone has a preference to how/what they play. It's not right or wrong, it's just a preference....

Yea, but you are actually being reasonable. You don't want it at your table? Fine. I ban stuff I don't like all the time. Never see a teleport spell in my games. That's not the problem. The problem is the original post quoted was taking the attitude of "If I find out you ever entertained the thought of playing this, you need to leave my table". That is very unreasonable. Banning something from the table is one thing. Banning someone who kind of likes something from the table is quite another.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As the title says, which feats are underpowered? Which feats do you pretty much have to take to pull off specific concepts? I want to hear everyone's opinions on what feats are trap options or underwhelming, and where the feat taxes are.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
Icebergs work.

I nominate the RMS Titanic for the Ice Water Challenge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been thinking about my setting, and I think I need a better technology level. I've noticed a common anime/JRPG tech level trope, where medieval weapons are mostly the go-to (armor to a somewhat lesser extent), and many things about the world feel medieval, but at the same time there is a lot of modernity to the world (trains, homes and shops that look like something out of a modern US city, very modern looking clothing). A good example of what I'm on about is the anime Fairy Tale. I've seen it in some JRPGs, too. I also like the feel of Eberron. I enjoy many aspects of this tech level, and I want to crib heavily for my setting. Some decisions I've made:

Mass production is a thing. Most of the clothing people wear came out of a factory and was bought in a shop. The same applies to household and recreational goods. T-shirts and jeans (and my favorite, plaid flannel shirts) are pretty common, but the fashion industry is in major swing, and almost everybody can afford to spend on it. A modernish service economy is in unprecedented boom, and agriculture employs very few people. Canning and freezing have been mastered, and food can easily and cheaply be transported worldwide. In most countries, between 70% and 90% of the population is urban, though there are outliers. Poverty is low and the standard of living high. With a crystalline mirror and some magical tinkering, you can create something kinda like a cross between a smartphone and a tablet, and these are gigantically popular. Like, "everybody wants one, and almost everybody can afford one, so it's revolutionizing society" popular.

Magic is prevalent, though only since the Gods were killed (about a century ago). There were spirit casters like Witches, Druids, or Shamans before the Gods died, but they were low in number. These casters still exist, but now Alchemists, Wizards, Arcanists, Magi, and the like also exist. There is no Arcane-Divine magic divide, since God magic and Spirit magic aren't all that different in practice, just in source. Once that divine power entered human hands, the current Golden Age began. This divine power people wields is very dangerous when abused, however. Every government has monster hunters (the Player Characters, basically), who are also tasked with dealing with abuses of this power.

All the weapons of Pathfinder are common. Gunpower is alchemical in origin, will go off when wet, and doesn't cause much fouling or corrosion. Firearms are still a pretty new invention and are slow to reload and gives away a shooters position with a bang and colored smoke, however, and elite warriors like the PCs are way stronger than normal people and can draw bows most couldn't, so archers haven't disappeared yet, but they tend to be seen in elite units (especially since archery takes years to learn, meaning most archers were sporting archers in school [governments tend to encourage that]). The average soldier has a melee weapon or a musket, though many second line and reserve units still issue crossbows. Light and medium armor are used, and a lot of skilled warriors aren't armored at all, but plate armor isn't much of a thing.

I like environmental friendliness, so electricity generated from wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal power is used. Coal was used, but it turns out alchemist's fire is actually a powerful and cheap way to drive a steam engine, so coal isn't seen much. Trains are ubiquitous, but not cars. We don't yet have alchemist's fire engines quite small enough for them (alchemist's fire is cheap and available in massive quantities, but engines burn though it at a massive rate, so miniaturization is a gigantic pain), and electric cars don't have much range do to poor batteries. Currently, almost nobody, even the rich, buys cars, because they just can't go far at all and streets aren't designed to accommodate them. Cable cars are as ubiquitous as trains, and dominate urban transit along with bicycles and, to a declining degree, the horse. Horse transportation is still a big thing in rural areas, the military, and law enforcement. You could use a thunderhorse (kinda like a horse golem), but those are pretty hard to create, so only a few people have them.

Children are required to attend school, and as a general rule if you want to go to university you can. Pretty much everyone is literate, and finding out somebody is illiterate would be a shock, prompting wonders of how somebody can function in society at all.

That's what I have so far. Can you guys ask me questions about the tech level to help me hash out more details? Give opinions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I picked up a home made apple pie flavored "malt beverage" with 14% abv at a gas station upstate. What could go wrong?

Everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have my own homebrew under construction, but it is a modern tech setting. Often, I'm in the mood for something a bit more archaic. For those days, I like having published settings around. Currently, I own:

Nyambe: African Adventures
Dragonlance
Midgard
Razor Coast
Deadlands

I'm looking to branch out a bit. I am only interested in settings that are D20 and could be converted to Pathfinder. It doesn't have to be easy or specifically billed as compatible, it just has to be doable. I consider the effort that went on here to be reasonable. I am looking for settings that would cover some of the following flavor desires (No, I don't want one setting that covers all of it.):

Ancient Greece
Ancient Rome
Ancient Egypt
Heavy Celtic elements
Heavy Slavic elements
Heavy Gothic elements
Any period of China
Feudal Japan
Renaissance Europe
Colonial America
The American Frontier
Pre-Columbian America
Steampunk
Dieselpunk
Anime/Manga style games
Medieval France

Also, if anyone knows of a setting with a "Europe" I could insert into a homebrew campaign setting (kind of like how Nyambe is an "Africa" that can be plugged into a homebrew campaign setting easily), I would be much pleased. My setting is focused on North America and Asia, so if I can use a plugin instead of having to design an off-map Europe, that would make my work a lot easier.

I wouldn't be interested in a kitchen sink style setting. I like having settings with a theme to them. I don't have a problem with well designed low magic settings, but I do have a love of high magic. I can enjoy dystopian settings unless it reaches the sheer hopelessness of Ravenloft or Midnight, but I prefer optimistic ones. The more opportunities for sailing, the better.

What can you guys recommend to me?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the purposes of keeping OP posts for homebrew campaign settings, major rules projects, and the like reflective of recent updates, could the 1 hour editing limit be removed within that specific subforum?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the main thing we need to take from this is that cops really do need to be wearing vest cameras, and the unedited footage needs to be public domain except in cases where it would violate standing laws protecting children, rape victims, and the like. If what happened in the initial shooting was obvious, the local police probably still handle it poorly, but it'll be much more clear that they did so. Also, as the state police showed, the soft approach really does work.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

You are releasing a Pathfinder version of Unearthed Arcana, you say? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's hit BBC, so it's probably legit.

It's a damn shame. He was one of the best there is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As those of us who read the Homosexuality in Golarion thread have seen asserted quite frequently, that thread is supposed to be for Golarion talk only, not for the frequently occurring debate as to what place LGBT themes should or should not have in Pathfinder publications and gaming culture at large. I believe that it is now high time we had a thread specifically dedicated to this debate, so that we can stop dragging Homosexuality in Golarion off topic and then getting our posts removed.

So, let's have at it. I'll start out by expressing my deep affection for Paizo and it's open minded and egalitarian view towards LGBT issues, and I don't believe LGBT themes as presented in Paizo products are at all inappropriate for young children (It's probably better for kids to be exposed to than a lot of the themes in Pathfinder we don't argue about, in fact).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
I might point out that women don't typically wear men's clothing. They wear a women's version of the clothing. Women's slacks, women's jeans, etc. They are not rocking the men's outfits. So if men wanted to wear dresses, they wouldn't put on women's dresses, they would need men's dresses designed for men.

True, but when women started wearing men's clothing it was actual men's clothing, because no one was making women's pants, since women didn't wear pants.

If men have to wear men's dresses made for men, it's a Catch-22. You can't start by wearing them since no one makes them, because there's no market.

There are several manufacturers who produce dresses sized and shaped for a male body. Crossdressers and people on the Trans spectrum buy them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many of us have something we created for our setting that we love, but that our players probably wouldn't like. As a result, we don't use it in our games.

In my case, it's academic language. The elves laid the base of the modern government and educational systems (this is a modern campaign setting, so that's pretty relevant, since everyone has years upon years of schooling and sees what the government is up to on TV), and as a result their languages form the base of academia rather than Greek and Latin. Elves are only found in areas roughly analagous to Celtic and Nordic regions, and outnumber all other races in these lands. So, the language of science is a hybrid of Old Norse and Modern Icelandic, not Ancient Greek, meaning that biology is lifþekking and geology is grunnrþekking. The same applies to magic. The language of law, government, and literature is a hybrid of multiple forms of Gaelic (basically, whoever among the Gaels has the best sounding word for what I want), so casus belli is cóir coimhlint and ad hominem is míchuí masla. This is cool, and I'm proud of it, but it won't work in an actual game, for the simple reason that it's awkward, annoying, and infuriating to have to remember the correct word for chemistry (efnaþekking) when in character instead of just saying chemistry, and it makes no more sense than making everybody speak a language bummed off of Japanese just because their character is doing so. So, my lovely creation gets to stay out of the game, for the most part.

What about you guys? What did you create that you can't use?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Davick wrote:
Andrew R wrote:

I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.

You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.

People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.

Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.
Then find an incentive to do right.
Food, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices.

Assuming you actually find work that pays you enough for those incentives. In the ghetto? Pretty good chance you can't, because that kind of job is in very short supply.

Quote:
When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?

When we were on welfare, my mom worked extra hours (Yes, people on welfare do very often have jobs. At that point, both my parents did. My dad is on housing assistance now, and he has a full time job in a supervisory position.) to get us off as soon as possible. Not only was it not a lot of money for a four person family in urban California, the hit to our pride from having to take welfare was pretty devastating. Are there abusers? Certainly. Could changes be made? Certainly. That does not translate into no incentives to get off not existing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.
And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?
You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?

Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.

The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.

Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.
For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?
Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.

That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say some rich wanker wants that horse as a status symbol or something, and pays me to get it. Or something else that would make me want that specific horse and not any other horse. Assuming I can get the Paladin into a position where the mount has been summoned but s/he isn't on it, and I mount it, now what? Does the horse automatically refuse to obey orders from me? Any way I could force it into submission if this is the case? Can the Paladin desummon it and leave me in thin air? Can I command it like any other horse? Can the Paladin locate the horse through magic if I escape with it? Is there a way to prevent the Paladin just summoning the horse back?

What if I kill the Paladin to prevent those last two issues? Does the horse disappear? Does it take orders?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?
What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?

Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.

So, I think people want a bit more consistency.

necessary evil is still evil and needs to be kept to a minimum. That doesn't change the fact that some things are indeed necessary, but evil beyond that...

If defense is among this necessary evils, would not a healthcare system that costs less and provides better care to the population as a whole also be a necessary evil as opposed to a more expensive and less effective system that isn't funded through taxes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Obamacare better than the old system, but I would like pneumonia better than the old system. I do hate the mandate. I really, really hate it. It seems mostly like a handout to the insurance industry and puts a lot of people with somewhat low incomes but too much money for aid in a really bad position.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That is the stupidest idea I've heard out of you in the last five minutes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
What.

We seem to have encountered a Libertarian. They believe the market repairs all because financial gain totally makes people reasonable and forward thinking, the government should let corporations do what they want because they will then give workers more money for some reason, and that the government is bloated, useless, and shouldn't be trusted with anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it's theft when the gubmint takes your money to pay for healthcare, is it theft when your insurance company takes your money and tries to decline as many claims as possible?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was reading this, and it references Sami using skis to move around incredibly fast, wielding bows that well out powered Viking bows and firing them while moving at top speed. I couldn't find much about this online, but I was able to find statements that ski troops generally can match light cavalry in speed given favorable terrain. Having read this, I now think I should totally roll up a Ranger who can rain down shafts while flying across the snow so fast nobody can catch her. Are there any special rules governing archery while on skies, like there are with mounted combat (I would love if they were similar. Then I could get some mounted combat feats and switch to a horse in terrain that doesn't favor skis.)? All I could find was rules about how fast skis are and the fact that they give penalties to some checks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:

Just wanted to comment on one part of JiCi's post, the assertion that it was standard to kill people for being gay in middle age Europe. There is a lot of evidence that Homosexuality was not only tolerated but preferred over living single. The general reason for this appears to be that couples are more productive than single people and in a world where life hangs by a thread any boost in productivity was valued.

Of course I am sure there were exception and moments in time where this was not the case but in general middle age Europe did not kill people just for being gay.

I could have sworn that I saw an article on how they mutilate your body 2 times (for 2 "infringements") and then the 3rd time, they outright killed you by execution. Bah... whatever...

The Middle Ages was a 1,000 year period spanning multiple continents and hundreds of cultures that changed as the decades passed. I really don't think we can come anywhere close to generalizing how LGBT individuals were viewed and treated, because there must have been hundreds of different legal responses to the issues. I really wouldn't be surprised if each of you were correct for a few locations and time periods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a preliminary character build, but I have yet to apply equipment or traits/drawbacks and her archetype. I'm just posting design decisions, because I have to get to work soon. I'll post the rest of the mechanics when I get off shift. She is going to take Free Hand Fighter, and arm herself with a rapier and throwing knives. I have decided not to be a spellcaster at all, and focus on her being really skilled and flamboyant with a sword. I'm taking her combat style from Three Musketeers and Zorro.

Spoiler:
Esmerelda
Female Human Fighter 5 | [True Neutral]

STRENGTH
15 (+2)
DEXTERITY
20 (+5)
CONSTITUTION
15 (+2)
INTELLIGENCE
12 (+1)
WISDOM
8 (-1)
CHARISMA
7 (-2)

HIT POINTS
HP 47

FEATS
Combat Reflexes
Dodge
Mobility
Weapon Finesse
Combat Patrol
Nimble Moves
Acrobatic Step

SKILLS
Acrobatics 5
Climb 5
Know Nobility 5
Know (Nature, History, Geography, Engineering, Religion) 1

HUMAN
+2 Dex bonus
Favored class Fighter (+1 HP/level)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I decided on below average Cha, because she doesn't command respect at all. People used to listen to her solely because of rank, and now that she lacks that they don't listen to her. She may be pretty, but she is abrasive and annoying and comes off that way very quickly, without having any aura of authority or personal magnetism that might encourage people to listen to her anyway. People will either tell her to shove her attitude or ignore her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a really good analysis. I do like the idea of her treating the other PCs in a polite manner even if she doesn't want to, out of sheer necessity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Considering that hispanics are a different racial group from whites, that is a pretty serious case of sheer racism.
A bit of a nitpick, since it doesn't effect your analysis too much, but that's not the case. Hispanic is a cultural group derived from Spanish colonialism, not a race. Hispanics can be Amerindian, White, Black, Asian, or a mixture of these. There are a great many white Hispanics.
Technically, "Caucasian," "African," and "Asian" are not races either; they're racial groups defined by a combination of regional origin and cultural similarity. The fact that "hispanic" covers several races but generally has a similar cultural and regional origin pretty much means it qualifies. The quibbling that it doesn't qualify is mostly originating in people steadfastly ignoring the fact that the entire idea of racial classification as it currently exists is pretty much BS.

Whether or not the racial classification system is logical (I think it ignores a lot of very important Anthropological facts, personally), Hispanic is not a race under the classification system used in the US. It is an ethnicity that applies regardless of race.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whatever values the players and GM want have a place in fantasy gaming. Isn't that the point of playing Dungeons and Dragons instead of a linear progression video game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
No. Chattel slavery is an evil institution in all occurrences.

So..

George Washington, President of the USA
Alignment: Chaotic Evil (owns slaves = evil, revolutionary = chaotic)

List of a few evil (slave-owning) cultures: ancient Greeks and Romans, ancient Egyptians, colonial English and Dutch and Spanish, revolutionary America, African tribes, the Muslim Sultanate, native Americans, New Zealand Maori, ...

Being an important historical figure or culture does not exempt one from having done evil things. I can't think of a figure that hasn't' done wrong. Where that puts them on the alignment scale is up for debate, but the institution itself is still evil. Everybody having done it does not reduce the suffering of the victims.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. Chattel slavery is an evil institution in all occurrences. So is labor exploitation, as a matter of fact. It may be a necessity to tolerate it because violent revolution against it will lead to a bloodier Galt, but never should it be considered a non-evil act.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been reading through the What Don't You Like About Golarion thread (surprising good for idea mining for my homebrew, actually), and it has me wondering what cool things just don't get used enough in Dungeons and Dragons settings.

Personally, I'm going to go with firearms as my first choice. Personally, I'm all or nothing with guns. Either the setting is a guns everywhere setting where every soldier is issued one, or it's a guns nowhere setting. I don't like stuff that's in between. There is a deep wealth of guns nowhere settings to pick from, but the guns everywhere settings tend to ditch most Dungeons and Dragons tropes, such as elves, dwarves, dragons, and wizards, or they have a setting where magic is hidden from public view. I want to see a guns everywhere setting where demihumans, spellcasters, dragons, and all the other fun stuff about D&D is there, and the public at large knows it's there. Also, revolver magus.

A close second is settings where humans are not the majority. Humans aren't bad, but I'm tired of worlds where they are the default everywhere. want to see a setting where no demihuman race can claim clear superiority over the others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klebert L. Hall wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:


Pretty much this. It's hard to present a cohesive world setting when you've got stone-age tech all the way up to space-age tech (Numeria). Just doesn't sit well.

You realize that you have just described Earth, right?

-Kle.

Pretty sure most Third World fights go down with Kalashnikovs, not stone clubs and axes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always took stealth and deception against a legitimate evil to be perfectly valid for a Paladin. It minimizes casualties among the good and furthers their causes, and I see little reason why that is less honorable that kicking the door down and taking someone's face off. Direct force is useful, but not for every single problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of it is flavor. Personally, I love guns. I've been working on a setting where firearms are the default weapon of combat for a while now. I hate guns in settings where melee weapons, bows, and armor is the default, however. I find having guns in my quasi-medieval fantasy makes it feel like it isn't medieval anymore. Yes, I know guns were a medieval weapon. This is Pathfinder, though. Historical accuracy isn't a thing. I want flavor, and to me that means fighting with swords and bows. If I'm going to hand out guns, that's going to be a part of the setting flavor, and everybody will be packing heat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blech. Samuel Adams Juniper Ale is pretty bad. It tastes like pine trees, and that is not a pleasant flavor.

1 to 50 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.