|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Unfortunately, right now, with all the oil company geologists having been laid off, there are about a zillion applicants for every position. I've also hit a point where I'm chained to my desk inside most of the time -- a huge bummer for me.
That said, if my current Sith apprentice gets tired of being in the field all the time, there may be an opening after all.
The main difference between working under those conditions and doing leisure is that, for work, the bosses back at the office (who aren't out in it) assume you'll be equally as productive as when conditions are perfect. So you can't usually take a break or get in out of it if it gets too uncomfortable. You're also often faced with tasks that, while very easy at a table indoors, become nearly impossible in the wind and flooding rains (for example). I'm also usually managing subcontractors who may not be fully acclimated, so the health & safety of the field team, always a top priority, becomes even more critical.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Yeah but how is any of that helping Kirth?
That's exactly where the modern Democratic Party keeps falling down.
Dems: "We're helping the working class!"
Trump: "I'll Make America Great Again (TM)!"
without care, the right tools and serious trekking experience, it can be pretty dangerous out there - cold, scalding pits of water, brutal wind, uneven floor...
I've spent much of my career working outdoors in hostile conditions in all climates -- scorching deserts, dust storms, swamps, 60 mph winds, sub-zero blizzard conditions -- so I was a little less worried about that aspect than most. (Also, my tour package had supposedly included it.)
so you are the guy that does still drive when it snows in Texas, and wonders what the big deal is LOL.
Are you kidding? The way people try to drive in the snow around here, I'm the LAST person who would venture out on the road with all of them slamming and sliding around at ridiculous speeds.
I grew up in Troy, NY, and recently spent 3 years in Pittsburgh, so I know snow!
My best friend growing up ended up settling in Rochester. It's a nice city! And Jay's Diner is not-to-miss.
On another note - whom did you meet? Perhaps I know the guy!
Fellow named Sebastian, goes by "Vinz Vik" on Facebook. We met on a tour of the Egil Skallgrimsson brewery, then led our tour group to a local bar where we all got completely blotto. He was a fantastic drinking companion!
I started out trying to speak German (I was born in Germany), but was ashamed to discover I'd forgotten pretty much all of it -- I couldn't even carry on a simple conversation. Thankfully, like all Germans, our new friend was totally fluent in English.
I remember in Kingmaker they have a Jabberwock with Vital strike feats and they have it use them with its Eye beams.
And its BAB is high enough to push that to 60d6. Which is actually semi-reasonable for a CR 23 challenge, if you think about it, because that's equivalent to fighting an actual demigod. A party of four 19th-level full casters will win, because things like displacement are just as effective against rays as they are against swords, and energy resistance spells are low-level and easy to come by. Unfortunately, martial feats like Vital Strike are great for everyone except martial characters, who can never achieve a fraction of the potential that casters and monsters do.
It is a narrative, shared experience. As long as all players are having fun, there is no "good" or "bad" build. It certainly isn't a concept that can be "proven."
You're absolutely right -- if that's the experience the players are all looking for. Some groups, believe it or not, really enjoy hardcore tactics and strategy and that's the kind of shared experience that they expect. So if one person "shares" a team member that has to be carried, or gets the whole party killed, that person has produced a bad build for that particular game.
Likewise, if everyone is playing a happy furry and they just want to romp and play, someone bringing in a super-optimized hunter-killer has a very bad build for that game.
Granted, most games fall somewhere in between, but there is still a very wide spectrum. So we (all of us) really, really need to remember that playstyles are not universal, and that the game is meant to support ALL of them, not just our own.
There are a number of things I dislike about Vital Strike, some of which BWO already discussed, but I think the main one is that it's an obvious feat to give monsters -- especially given the damage dice some of the Bestiary 1-5 critters get, out of proportion to their size. But if the DM does the obvious thing and swaps out Improved Critical and Power Attack on a seps for Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike, it deals 9d8 bite damage (plus poison) and you either start killing melee PCs more often, or else you have to start softballing encounters to keep from doing so. Granted, an experienced DM would probably avoid doing that, but that same DM would probably wonder what the feat is actually supposed to be for.
I've long advocated that Vital Strike's damage dice increase would be better as a set number of dice, say +2d6/+4d6/+6d6 at BAB +6/+11/+16. That way you could still use it on monsters, but a halfling with a dagger would get just as much mileage out of it.
Oreo is a sandwich cookie consisting of two chocolate wafers with a sweet creme filling in between, and (as of 1974) are marketed as "Chocolate Sandwich Cookies" on the package in which they are held. The version currently sold in the United States is made by the Nabisco division of Mondelēz International. Oreo has become the best-selling cookie in the United States since its introduction in 1912.
Many of us grew up thinking of Hydrox cookies as "Oreo ripoffs," not realizing that the Oreo cookie itself (1912) was actually a copy of the 1908 Sunshine Hydrox. As an added bonus, the Hydrox was Kosher, unlike the original Oreo.
kept saying "Shibe" all the time
Are you trying to say "Scheiße"? You're hurting my eyes!Trivia: a native German speaker in my day would almost never use it by itself except in the sense of "worthless" ("Das ist doch alles Scheiße!"). For cussing, it's more fun when combined with other words. ("Hundescheiße" is a favorite).
In the days before battery key fobs, searching drunkenly for one's car, one might exclaim "Wo in der Teufel ist mein Scheißauto?!"
Look, whatever, her lettering is flowery at the best of times, it just looked like there was a capital B in the middle of the word, okay?!
When I was in high school we hosted a German exchange student, with the goal that the next year I'd go there and take advantage of the opportunity to apply to retain my German citizenship (the plan failed because the guy turned out to be a dick, but never mind that). Anyway, he saw a vending machine selling Mr. PIBB and immediately exclaimed, in disgust, "What is this 'Mr. Pissss'?!"
The moral: sometimes a B is just a B, not a ß. It's only an Eszett when it is!
P.S. Swarms are done. They work nicely as a template, and then add racial HD to taste:
A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature. A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures. In order to attack, it moves into an opponent's space, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey. A swarm can move through squares occupied by enemies and vice versa without impediment, although the swarm provokes an attack of opportunity if it does so. A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures.
To create a swarm, start with an animal, vermin, etc. as appropriate, then apply the Swarm template and possibly additional racial HD.
SWARM TEMPLATE (CR +1)
DR: A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.
Immune: flanking, precision damage, targeted effects (see below)
Weaknesses: A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells.
Melee: Swarms don't make standard melee attacks. Instead, they deal automatic damage to any creature whose space they occupy at the end of their move, with no attack roll needed. Swarm attacks are not subject to a miss chance for concealment or cover. A swarm's statistics block has "swarm" in the Melee entry, with no attack bonus given. The amount of damage a swarm deals is based on its Hit Dice, as shown below.
Swarm HD Base Damage
Face: 10 ft. x 10 ft. For larger swarms, use multiple contiguous 10’ x 10’ swarms.
Feats: Some feats work differently for swarms:
Cling (Ex): If a creature leaves the swarm's square, the swarm suffers 1d6 points of damage to reflect the loss of its numbers as several of the pests continue to cling tenaciously to the victim. A creature being clung to takes Vital Strike damage at the end of his or her turn each round. As a full-round action, the ants can be removed with a Reflex save (Dex-based save DC). Any amount of damage from an area effect destroys all clinging creatures.
Distraction (Ex): Any living creature that takes damage from a creature with the distraction ability is nauseated for 1 round; a Fort save (Con-based save DC) negates the effect. Within the area of a swarm, spellcasting, concentrating on spells, or using skills that involve patience requires a Concentration check at the appropriate DC (plus 2x spell level, if casting).
Immune to Targeted Effects (Ex): A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of [mind-affecting] effects if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind.
Just as an aside, I think the term "purity" for caring about economically-progressive policies is misleading. In fact, the people pushing for those policies want LESS "purity," in the sense that they want more than one issue to be tackled -- economy as well as civil rights. In that sense, they're actually pushing for 50% less purity.
I know it's not intended as any kind of Orwellian double-speak, but that's how it strikes me.
Selective Spell - Was huge expansion of utility intended? As written, you could apply it to an Antimagic Field, Wall of Fire, Cloudkill, etc. Likely a Wall of Force too. Tons of horrifying combinations. Should it only work with instantaneous spells, like Fireball, Holy Word, etc?
I'm fine with it applying to things like a wall of fire or wall of force, and with the various cloud spells (I guess I'd need a caveat that they still obscure vision, however).
AMF would be a 7th level spell, meaning a (minimum) 13th level caster; as a point of comparison, an 18th level barbarian can do that any time he rages. So, a somewhat higher level increase cost for non-instantaneous spells seems like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
Help me balance a setting where the PCs have little / no magic vs. enemies who have 9th level spells
This sounds like a perfect setup for an E6 game, which is specifically intended to create a "gritty," more realistic feel. Above 6th level, the PF game's genre shifts from struggling adventurers to comic book superheroes, simply based on what the characters can do. That applies even to martials, who by that time can wrestle dinosaurs, and go skydiving without parachutes and live every time.
People have a hard time with E6 because of expectations: "But... we want to play the same game at levels 7-20!" But that's not how PF is set up. If you go in with the expectation that level advancement will be slow, and that the campaign will stay somewhat grounded in realism, then it's ideal for what you're envisioning.
River of Sticks wrote:
That was the goal, anyway -- I appreciate the feedback.
If I were in charge of the Democratic party, I'd look for job-creating opportunities in every state, then find people to run for congress who would plug those projects. "Martha Gersen wants to bring 50,000 new jobs to Pennsylvania." Republicans sarcastically ask how to pay for it -- raise taxes? No, by "closing tax loopholes for Wall Street." Want to get us out of Afghanistan? Hammer the job aspect again. "We've spent 17 years rebuilding Afghanistan. Now it's time to start rebuilding America -- building our future!"
By branding themselves the "put Americans to work again" party, the party of small businesses vs. Wall Street, you tap into all the disaffected people who put Trump in office, but you do it state by state in 2018. Then look at approval ratings, and plan 2020 accordingly.
People with their brains in alt-right parallel universes are never going to vote Democrat. But they're not what ultimately gave Trump the win.
Finally, never underestimate the power of catchy slogans. Just saying "Hope and change!" was enough to elect Obama. The Trump voters I know kept repeating "Make America Great Again!" like it was a litany.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So, yet again, I ask you; were you trying to refute my point with the counterpoint that republicans don't create their own reality because HRC is bad
In no way.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
or was quoting me simply a non sequitur (I have never used that so often in one day before) so you could attack Hillary Clinton?
It was an attempt to steer back to what the Dems can do to get the country out of the downward economic spiral it's in. Not so much a non-sequitor as an attempt to get back on topic (just like the title of the thread says).
As I mentioned to the jeff, Democrats cannot fix the Republican party. (In fact, I think at this point the Repubs are actually so far gone they're past their own ability to fix.) The Democrats aren't anywhere near that badly off, and they could (and, in my opinion should) be the party we turn to. But if they keep using "we're not as bad as the other guys" as an excuse to continue to cater to the 0.1%, they're not really helping the middle class out of the jam it's in.
I'm exhorting the Democrats to stop griping about how bad the opposition is -- I think everyone in the thread knows how abysmal they are -- and instead start focusing on where the Dems can shore up their strengths. Again, I'm not exhorting the Republicans because (a) they're too far gone to be reached, and (b) there seem to be none in the thread, and (c) that would call for a separate thread ("The Future of the Republican Party") anyway.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
But only because I'm a democrat, right?
There's this thing you can do, when arguing in good faith, where you try to actually rephrase a person's stance back to them -- not to caricature it or score points, but to actually see if you're getting it right.
If I understand yours correctly, you view criticism of HRD, and of the current Democratic party, as somehow excusing the Repblicans' much more egregious behavior. Is that accurate? If not, please correct me.
And, if you're actually trying to have a discussion, rather than just blowing off steam, you might try the same.
That she wouldn't have an attorney general that actively suppressed the black vote by having community activists arrested
Yes. Don't get me wrong -- she has some stances that I very much approve of.
That she's be appointing a supreme court justice that wouldn't be in favor of citizens united, which is what keeps the people from having any say in their government
I'm all in favor of overturning CU, but I'm not sure this follows from electing HRC. Justices are still (hopefully) beholden to precedent and other jurisprudence, not to the person appointing them. Also, at this point it would require a Constitutional amendment. Still absolutely necessary to fight for, though.
That she's not going to start a war with Elbonia in three years
Syria maybe. Staying in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost certainly. But, I agree, not Elbonia.
We'd at least acknowledge that global warming is a thing, not a scam to get free trips to the arctic circle
People have a reasonable expectation of what they were getting with Hillary. It was okay, but compared to trump it was amazing.
That's my issue -- as long as we keep comparing sand to ground glass, of course we'll keep eating sand. But I'd like more nutrient value in my diet than that -- this way we just starve instead of dying faster and in more agony. I'm not even asking for filet mignon or anything -- just something to keep us (the middle class) from wasting away.
If you want to stop the republican/democrat light consortium from destroying the middle class you need to move the government from republican/democrat light to democrat and democrat light. To do that, you need to ungerrymander the country. To do that you need to elect the republicans light.
I agree. Let's get to it, then!
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I do very much disagree with the narrative that both parties are the same and are part of some secret plot to destroy us all. Maybe that's the same thing to you, I don't know.
They're not the same.There is no secret plot; there are very open policies. And those policies won't destroy us all -- only the middle class.
If that end is OK with you, by all means let it continue.
But apparently it doesn't matter. The first order of business is to destroy the Democratic party because it's the real problem.
Are you a Republican? No? Then you can't fix the Republican party. Are you a Democrat? Yes? Then you can help fix the Democratic party. That would probably be a lot easier and more useful than destroying it. But that would also require being honest with yourself, when their policies are a continuation of the Republicans', or even an expansion of them (in at least one case).
"Republicans are bad, therefore Dems can do no wrong!" is precisely what's allowing a number of the Republicans' worst economic policies to continue.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Just to be clear, you're not right wing but you do believe Hillary Clinton had a secret (or maybe not secret) plan to turn America into a feudal serfdom? That's your reality?
What's secret? Is she in favor of for-profit prisons, based on her past voting record, etc.? Check for yourself. And did Bill Clinton in fact start the massive upward trend that now leaves us with 1% of the adult population in prison (far greater than any other nation on Earth)? Again, check for yourself.
Has Hillary come out in favor of expanded foreign wars, based on her record and debates? Did previous Democratic presidents (Obama) continue our involvement in those wars? Do both Democrats and Republicans both continue to spend far more on those wars than on all our own internal problems put together?
Has Hillary been on record saying "Wall Street isn't really responsible for '08"? Again, don't take my word for it. Inform yourself.
The reality I'm inhabiting is the one you're ignoring, which is entirely distinct from the alt-right hellhole.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So you don't believe...
... that Saint Hillary would have continued to expand our already unconscionable incarceration rates (expansion begun under a Democratic president she happened to be married to), continued to wage overseas wars to disastrous effect on our young people and economy (as did the last Democratic president), and continued to abet Wall Street's destruction of the middle class (as every president, Democrat and Republican alike, in recent memory)?
Ryan Freire wrote:
RH, please bear in mind that your stance has consistently been that ALL of the rules are merely advice. Therefore the argument tack you're taking is a trifle disingenuous. Much like when you tell us (a) lying is always OK and no one should be offended, and yet (b) only the offended party is capable of determining if offense is given -- you contradict yourself in every argument.
Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder game. Hope to see you all next week. Oh and make sure you bring another character sheet okay? Great see you then.
As opposed to "Oh, you're 1st level and you encounter Cthulhu! Roll initiative! A 6! Cthulhu rolls... 19! I mean 1! He slips on a banana peal and dies! You win!!! Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder game."
If you thought your post was scathing commentary, this reply is what it sounds like coming from the other direction.
This lesson is taught every week to Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Or Brennan on Bones. Or <insert character here who doesn't understand how to talk to people> on <X show/movie>.
STUNTMAN MIKE: "You have no idea what any of these shows or people are, do you?"GIRL: (Shakes head, maintaining deer-in-the-headlights look)
Whether you call the GMs cheaters or fudgers (this sounds wrong somehow) surely there is no disagreement about them being untrustworthy.
I disagree, in many cases. If the players want them to softball things by fudging the dice, and they agree, they're upholding their end of the bargain if they do it.
When you go on to clarify, "without letting the players know," I get a lot less sympathetic to them, and if you add, "after telling the players they wouldn't," that's the one that reduces my sympathy to zero.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.