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

Kirth Gersen's page

25,283 posts (26,168 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 13 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,856 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Misli, gammi gra'dil


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd argue that no support is given for play at level 11+. If you look at From Hell's Heart, for example, most of it is a 3rd level adventure -- sneak into a mundane fort and assassinate the mundane bad guy. But they needed it to be for 13th level, so they added 10 PC class levels to all the mook guards and called it good. By that standard, Pathfinder works at 80th level -- just make every street urchin an Advanced commoner 1/monk 20/fighter 20/barbarian 20/ranger 20, instead of just a commoner 1.

Granted, that destroys any semblance of a coherent campaign setting, and it adamantly refuses to even glance at what makes high-level play different from low-level play, but that seems to be what they expect you to do.

When we start seeing 13th level adventures be scenarios that CANNOT be run at a lower level, then we can think about 20th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Finally saw Spectre. The first half was very promising, despite the CGI collapsing buildings that apparently spew enormous clouds of CGI dust that Craig inhales without coughing, and CGI masonry that falls on his head only to vanish at the last second without his noticing it was there.

I'm willing to overlook that because of the awesome car chase in Rome.

I can't forgive the entire second half of the film for being nothing but pure unadulterated hokey cliches without a break. Typecasting Andrew Scott as the creepy bad guy from "Sherlock" -- bad call. Blofeld's backstory -- stoooooooooooopid crap I'd expect from "Days of Our Lives." Dark Knight ripoff house of horrors hastily assembled for no purpose other than to post dumb pictures of people for Bond to see as some kind of "deep psychological taunt" or whatever?

Spoiler:
Oh, and as an excuse to collapse another CGI building for no reason, of course.
Sad, stupid, pointless.
And the kicker:
Spoiler:
Let the bad guy go because we finally got the rights the character back and don't want to waste them?

Probably the single most insulting hour of cinema I've ever sat through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Content-wise, it seems awkward to wait until 12th level to swap out a spell that you get at 4th or 5th.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You also need to pick a name and stick with it. Is the proposed archetype called the Margrave or the Marcher?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Fails to fix 99.9% of the problem.
For the most part, the archetypes don't really provide you with any narrative abilities -- with any ability at all to do anything outside of swing and/or shoot a stick. That inability is the fighter's main problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gronka wrote:
To me, the game should really be all about telling a story. That's why it kind of bugs me that 3rd ed has reduced so much to dice rolls.

Then just ignore them. If all you want to do is tell a story, just tell a story. Make up any "rules" you need on the spot, as long as they serve the story.

Conversely, people who want to also play a game, actually want to do so. Unless it's Calvinball, a game involves actual consistent rules that are expected to be followed by the participants.

The great thing about RPGs is that you can, in theory, have both. People who advocate for comprehensive rules want to follow them, and then add the story based on what happens according to the results. People like you can just ignore what the results are and declare that your story trumps the one that the dice are trying to tell.

Now here's the important thing: for people who want a game, the rules have to work towards that end. Some degree of balance is pretty much needed for that. And, no, GURPS is not balanced, and, no, 4e is not the only possible endpoint. For the people like you who just want a story, it doesn't matter if the rules are balanced, because they can always ignore them anyway.

So, in essence, your argument boils down to "I get what I want either way, so I'm going to vociferously advocate that half of the other participants not get what they want." If there is some motivation there other than pure spite or a misguided sense of a need for consensus ("WE MUST ALL DO THINGS THE SAME WAY I DO!!!" -- I have yet to hear it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait... is the OP really saying "The game is totally unbalanced, but any problems that causes are the players' fault for not being sufficiently unaware of the problems"?

The Dutch should never repair dikes and levees. They should just tell people that walking and swimming are the same thing, so the problem will go away. It's all just dryness envy, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Does Kirthfinder cover martials having more attacks while moving? If so what chapter/doc is it in?

Yes; that's one of the first things we did.

In linked playtest versions, it's right up front in the Introduction chapter.
I'm currently working on a Combat chapter that will go into more detail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ask and ye shall receive.

This compilation is somewhat more recent; Toz's links are to the Beta playtest version.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I better just stay out of this thread...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When being nice isn't good.
And it applies to grown-ups, too!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
Sounds like a jerk.

Boo hoo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chopswil wrote:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/03/31/1644258/study-says-people-who-c ontinually-point-out-typos-are-jerks

"Being nice is how a man pays his way into the party if he hasn't the guts to be tough or the class to be brilliant."

--Trevanian


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sir Jolt wrote:
The Internet and the various social medias are the poster children for miscommunication.

Technically speaking, "media" are plural already. The singular would have been "medium." However, through a history of incorrect usage, "media" (and "data") are now treated in English as if they are singular. Writing things like "These data suggest that..." straddles the line between proper usage and hypercorrection.

If this is confusing to you, you are not alone. (That's a joke; "you" used to be a plural or formal form of "thou.")


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also enjoying Big Bird as Ice Cube.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Juan de Cornelius wrote:
This Mashup Video of the Muppets Rapping Warren G and Nate Dogg's "Regulate" Is Amazing

THIS has long been my very favorite rap video.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssyvan wrote:
I leave the decision of whether or not to do that up to the players.

(snip) I find that, the more I DM, the more I enjoy it when I do exactly that.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I've often posted before about the guy I played with whose character's prized possession was his flaming sword. The first time the group encountered a troll, he said, "I drop my sword and draw my dagger."
Everyone at the table stared blankly at him.
I said, "You ALWAYS use your sword! You yell 'flame on!' every time we meet a monster! And now all of the sudden you don't want to?"
Player (proudly): "Well, my character wouldn't know that fire hurts trolls! I'm not metagaming!"
Me: (headdesk)

There definitely comes a point at which the efforts of the "metagame police" are self-defeating. In this instance, the poor player was so traumatized by previous DMs that he resorted to blatant metagaming in order to avoid the appearance of metagaming.

I'd rather let the players know stuff, and have us all know that we all know it, and then let the game proceed based on how the character would act.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

One final thought: sometimes it's worth engaging a person, even when they argue in bad faith and there is no method by which reasonable communication can be achieved, if only because their arguments can seem reasonable and lead others to either emulate those (causing more problems than it solves) or simply to the wrong conclusion.

In that case, it becomes not about the person who is incorrect, and it's certainly not about having the last word, but rather it's about clarifying the concepts for the sake of others - clarifying the path so that others can follow, as another poster put it succinctly, above.

I can vouch for the fact that this has worked in the past for me, when I've been an outside observer -- someone made a dishonest argument, another person made a seemingly pointlessly masochistic clarification -- and I saw the clarification, realized what was wrong with the argument being presented (which I had been agreeing with up until then), and changed my view accordingly.

Actually, this happened to me a lot during the Pathfinder Alpha/Beta playtesting, until the dissenting voices finally gave up and went away and there was no one left to debunk the dishonest arguments anymore. There were a lot of people whose tone I disagreed with, who nevertheless had far more awareness of their opponents' views, and far more logical arguments backing up their own, than I was willing to give them credit for until I saw them continuing to offer clarifications to people who weren't listening.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
In my experience, hiding mechanical information from the players actually hurts the narrative and the roleplaying, rather than protecting it. There can be exceptions, of course, but as a general trend, my games keep getting better and better as I hide less and less from the players.

Beautifully, beautifully put. And this exactly matches my experience as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Plus there are times when people post things that they think are funny, but in turn simply distract from the topic at hand.
Yeah, I've been trying to be better about that.

If by "better about it" you mean "do it more often," then so have I!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Freddie Hubbard, "Born to Be Blue"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Jym should have to roll an Endurance check to get all that out without taking a breath!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
Highlander 2 was a terrible sequel.... but it was a half-way decent sci-fi movie.

I viewed it as a very successful self-parody, rather than as a failed sequel. Much like Steven Seagal playing "Cock-Puncher" in The Onion Movie. (Yeah, it's really him, and yeah, he's really spoofing his own movies.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, yes, haven't they as much as said so? None of the egregious rules loopholes were closed during the transition from 3.5 because, "Well, we just don't play that way" and "Well, that's what the DM is for" and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The title of the talk turned out to be a bit clickbait-y, but do tell. (Newport News, that's the shipyard town, right?)

Yep, that's the one, although I was technically across the district line. Anyway, I started at $19K, which even in 1995 dollars isn't that much. Six or so years later, I get called into the assistant principal's office and the following conversation ensues:

AP: "Did you really tell [redacted] that he hadn't learned anything all year?"
KG: "Yes"
AP: "Well, it hurt his feelings."
KG: "Someone should hurt his feelings at least once a day. Then maybe he'd learn something."
AP: "What gave you the impression you're here to teach these kids anything?"
Me: "OK, then I want babysitting pay. $3 an hour per kid."
AP (pulls out calculator, then looks shocked): "That's never gonna happen!"
Me: "Then I guess I'm wasting my time here."

This is following the revelation that, because my students were scoring so high on the state standards test, I was rated one of the worst teachers in the state because the sole metric was "how many points did your students' mean test score improve since last year" -- mine had gone from 92% to 93%, a mere 1% improvement. Compare to someone whose students went from 40% to 50% -- they obviously improved ten times as much -- and that teacher was obviously ten times better at teaching!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiiador wrote:
The d20pfsrd doesn't really factor into this, as it has nothing to do with being official.

We're talking about a game. Or, more accurately, a second- or third-generation knockoff of a game. It's hard to take words like "official" seriously, in that context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
The addition of the hyperlink in the official PRD lends weight to the interpretation...

Not in the case of the PRD. I strongly believe the hyperlinks were created by some kind of hunt-link-word code, not by people, because some of them link in circles, some of them link to the correct word in the wrong context, and so on.

Hell, just do a simple search for something and you generally have to scroll down for several pages to find it, if you ever do at all.

There's a reason almost everyone uses the d20PFSRD instead of the official PRD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hulk Hogan having sex IS newsworthy, because it means he somehow found a way to circumvent at least one well-known side effect of all those steroids he spent all those years abusing...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By the way, someone posted a somewhat more up-to-date version HERE. These are a lot further along than the Beta playtest rules that TOZ has up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, if UK gets that many divisions, then so would the state of New York alone. And the U.S. would have thousands. Let's not go there!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was just looking back over the thread and saw this:

Moff Rimmer wrote:
Kirth disputes Creationists' views because they are wrong. It has little to do with [his] understanding or misunderstanding the Bible.

From 2009, and still my favorite quote ever from the Paizo boards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
we're calling Aachen 'Akwizgran'

I think you guys have too many letters and are just trying to get rid of them through overuse!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Firewarrior44 wrote:
Awesome, thanks! I figured it was probably something to do with combat being in a transitional stage at the moment.

Sadly, that's exactly the case. Every time I sit down to work on it, Baby Gersen toddles in and demands that I read her dinosaur book to her.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Movement wasn't very clear in AD&D. There was a lot of wiggle room within the rules.

Nicely put! It's much more polite than "AD&D was riddled with vague hints that led nowhere, false leads, general and specific inconsistencies in what was there, and even outright contradictions."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
If you read page 50 of the 1E DMG, you will see that the white dragon's speed of 12 inches translates to 4 mph for land speed and 30 inches translates to 10 mph for the flight speed. That's just their basic speed. That doesn't include "sprints" and "running."

Incidentally, I'm looking at the 1st edition (1979) DMG, and, while a 30" = 10 mph distance flight speed is given, land speed is not mentioned at all:

1e (1979) Dungeon Master's Guide, p. 50 wrote:
For the purposes of long-distance aerial travel, assume every 3" of speed equals one mile per hour. Thus, a broom of flying, with a speed of 30", can fly long distances at an average speed of 10 m.p.h.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David M Mallon wrote:
"St. Elmo's Fire (Man In Motion)"

For anyone who was alive in the '80s, I'm trying to figure out how you can listen to this song YET AGAIN without driving red-hot iron spikes into your ears just to make it stop. Phil Collins' "Against All Odds" is similar in that respect.

Everyone loved Seger's "Old Time Rock and Roll" when he recorded it, but 5 years later, after Risky Business, people would gladly commit suicide rather than have to hear it any more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SunstonePhoenix wrote:
I've always been creative.

And modest, too, huh?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Where did you find this information? It's hard to believe that the brain can stay 5 minutes without oxygen and be just fine.

Did you see Mission: Impossible 5 last year? When they were filming the underwater vault scene, Tom Cruise held his breath for 6 minutes. And he's an actor, not a professional skin diver (then again, he trained for a year before attempting to film the scene). As to whether his brain is "just fine," let's not go there!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
If you read page 50 of the 1E DMG, you will see that the white dragon's speed of 12 inches translates to 4 mph for land speed and 30 inches translates to 10 mph for the flight speed. That's just their basic speed. That doesn't include "sprints" and "running."

Why these numbers are exactly double the calculated numbers remains a mystery for the sages to ponder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
Are you talking about AD&D or D&D?

1e = AD&D. Original D&D = 0e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

The speed issue used to be even worse: Many years ago, I remember calculating the air speed of a White Dragon under 1st Edition AD&D rules, and it was about 1 mph.

The 1e white dragon's speed was 12"/30", so it could walk 60 ft./round or fly 150 ft./round, and a round was 1 minute. 60 ft./min = 0.68 mph; 150 ft./min = 1.7 mph.

But those were underground speeds; remember that all ranges and speeds outdoors were tripled (an artifact of the game's scale-model wargaming roots). So the white dragon could walk overland at 2 mph, or fly at 5 mph. And remember those are mean overland speeds, and 1e MM specifically said critters could move faster in short bursts, although that wasn't quantified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah. Cue accusations of trying to turn Pathfinder into a video game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
Seriously, a Dragoon is just a fighter that focused on spears and jumping, and got really good at it.

Spears and jumping? Not horsemanship and musketry?

I see this association between dragoons and jumping all over, but I'm at a loss as to why. Is there a Manga called "Dragoon" or something that features a lot of flying jumps? (Bear with me, I also had to ask what a berserk had to do with stoopidly oversized swords.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. Continuing the last couple of posts, before we say "resurrection is dumb," or "too easy," let's look at the alternative.

If you make resurrection too difficult (or impossible), you're basically telling the player to roll up a new character for next session. In real life terms, this means you've inconvenienced the player a great deal, but haven't changed the game at all. And that's a pretty bad trade, IMHO.

As OQ ninja'd me with above, resurrection is functionally no different from rolling up a new character, except you use the old one to save time. It's exactly like in A Better Tomorrow II or Beerfest, where the character's identical twin brother shows up so the story can continue. A new character subverts the "identical twin brother" trope of resurrection at the expense of being a pain in the neck for the player IRL, but otherwise it's the exact same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mcv wrote:
But even if you do want realism, there's a really easy solution to that: magic is unrealistic, so it shouldn't work on high-level fighters.
Infocom's 'Enchanter' wrote:
> Adventurer, open door

Granted, you could still zifmia the poor guy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
CRB wrote:
"(1) Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, (2) training with many weapons or just one, (3) perfecting the uses of armor, (4) learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and (5) studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into (6) living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, (7) turning hunks of metal into arms capable of (8) taming kingdoms, (9) slaughtering monsters, and (10) rousing the hearts of armies. (11) Soldiers, (12) knights, (13) hunters, and (14) artists of war, fighters are (15) unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them."

(1) The fighter's spatial influence is currently restricted to a 5-ft. radius (or 10 ft. using a reach weapon), and/or an uninterrupted straight-line bowshot. To be a "lord of the battlefield," that needs to change. Full movement plus a full attack in one round, interspacing them as he sees fit, would be a start. Drastically expanded threatened area would be nice. At higher levels, a command presence that provides big boosts to entire armies is what's needed.

(2) Get rid of enforced specialization. Give fighters proficiency with all weapons (including exotic ones) and expand weapon training a LOT.

(3) Armor training is OK for this, but sort of lackluster. I'd like to see it also provide DR and/or fortification, scaling with the AC bonus. Also, to throw a bone to the sword-and-board people, maybe make the effects stack if you use a shield as a shield instead of TWFing with it? It would be nice if they could make their armor and/or shield count towards touch AC and Reflex saves, too.

(4) Feat chains need to be condensed to feats with effects that scale by BAB. For example, the Improved Grapple feat would, eventually, subsume the entire Tetori Monk archetype. Then fighters really could master multiple styles of combat.

(5) Tactics and strategy are currently almost entirely player-driven -- although we turn a sword swing into a dice roll, relieving the player of having to be a real-life swordsman, at the same time we expect the player to be a real-life tactician and strategist, but then yell at the player if the plans seem "too smart" for the PC's Int score. This has got to break somewhere. Introducing a Knowledge (Warfare) skill and giving fighters free ranks and huge bonuses in it is not out of the question.

(6), (7) Give the fighter a class feature that makes any weapon he wields a "+X" weapon, scaling with level, and let him assign properties like ghost touch, etc. Like the paladin's weapon bond, but always active with any one weapon at a time he wants. And also give him better ability to craft arms and armor -- Master Craftsman as a bonus feat, and substitute fighter level for Spellcraft ranks?

(8) Kingdoms are currently under the purview of "DM fiat," which means the fighter is no better at winning them than the wizard or the commoner. Military and political influence should be baked directly into the class instead. I don't care if Bob's fighter is itinerant and has no keep or troops of his own. If General Kirthamo the 15th level fighter walks into a totally foreign kingdom on an other plane of existence, within a week they should be declaring him the acting Imperial Warlord, because he should be that awesome at all things warfare.

(9) This means being able to reach them and reliably hit them. Which means seeing through displacement and mirror images and projected images, knocking flying monsters out of the sky with a thrown weapon, and so on.

(10) See last sentence of (1), above.

(11) I would like a game designer to actually open the U.S. Army Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks. And make sure that even a 10 Int fighter (or 8 Int human fighter) has the class skills to cover all of the contents (that would include Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Jump, Heal, Perception, Sense Motive, Survival, Use Magic Device (especially!), and a slew of Knowledge skills), and enough skill points to invest heavily in all of them, plus an MOS.

(12) Loot the Samurai and Cavalier classes completely, and hand their class features over to the fighter instead. And the entire Gunslinger class, too, if the fighter chooses guns as a weapon training group.

(13) I'm actually OK leaving that to the Ranger.

(14) See (5), above.

(15) (1) and (8), above.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me that Roger Zelazny already wrote a story about this, with himself as the master and his word processor in control of his house.
It's written from the processor's point of view, too.
Zelazny-the-character figures out what's going on halfway through.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe we could step back even further, too, and examine the system itself. Like, what if it, too, was more class-dependent in some areas? Casters get to play a whole sub-game (spells) that occupy half the rulebooks, and that martials for the most part don't get access to. In 1e, the thief got to play a whole sub-game (skills and traps) using different rules than everyone else.

What if the game rules themselves were totally different for fighters?

Bluff for them might not be a simple skill purchased with skill points, but an entire manual of options and checks and modifiers and different outcomes, none of which non-martials could use? Likewise for athletics, diplomacy, leadership, tactics, and so on.

1 to 50 of 2,856 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.