|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Magic missile in 1e was great because of the 1-segment casting time, and the fact you auto-lost your spell if you took damage while casting it. A duel between archmages sometimes devolved into throwing magic missiles at each other because other spells were too slow to get off.
It was also nice in 1e because you could wipe out mirror images with it (making the fighter's life easier) and ablate a bunch of hits worth of stoneskin with it (the latter was way better back then as well).
As TOZ pointed out, the advantages we're left with are extremely situational, which makes it not a top choice for filling a limited number of "spells known" or prepated per day.
He also claimed that it was okay to ban criticism of vaccines, because it is childishly simple to distinguish to these people which vaccine you're talking about.
I actually claimed it was okay to ban false criticisms of specific vaccines, because intentionally conflating all vaccines with one another is in itself a lie and can be proven incorrect and so "a different one might be harmful" is in no way evidence that the one under discussion is.
Andrew R wrote:
I say better to allow both sides to try to fight with their proof since once it was proven fact the earth was flat and all....
You're agreeing with me to an extent. All evidence should and must be presented. But when one side's evidence doesn't hold up and the other's does, it's time for the discredited people to give it a rest. At that point, they've stopped presenting evidence and are instead simply lying. If they get some new evidence, they can try again.
1. Which is why examination of evidence should not be left to PR, which is exactly what I've been saying. In a trial, we take people out of the PR arena and place them in a courtroom setting for a reason.2. Given the formulae, yes, it would be.
3. I don't care what they want to say; I care about what the evidence says in each case. If traditional vaccines are not only demonstrated to be safe but also shown to be essential to keep down preventable debilitating and fatal childhood diseases, I don't see why these people's ranting should be allowed to overrule their use on the basis of "free speech." Facts =/= opinions.
Andrew R wrote:
Would you then advocate people only hearing the official government endorsed facts, opinions and religious views to be safe that they do not believe the wrong thing?
Let me keep trying, since my point seems to be sailing right by you (and Sissyl, for that matter). No government or church gets to decide what "facts" are correct. Evidence does. Things that are demonstratively false -- that are disproven by the evidence -- are false. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
I don't care if you like Fabian better than Elvis. I might not agree, but that's an opinion, and it's off-limits for any person or organization to dictate. I do care if you claim that Fabian invented the toaster oven, and start charging me royalties for toaster oven sales on that basis. We have a legal system in the framework of which I am allowed to prove you wrong and stop your "free speech" there. And, to reply to Sissyl as well, I don't see why that shouldn't apply to the anti-vax claims as well -- they have been disproven by evidence and acting on them is harmful to the population as a whole; saying they're "just an opinion" or "OK because free speech" is pushing the boundaries.
Andrew R wrote:
Then educate on the truth rather than sacrifice freedom to speak.
Unfortunately, research shows that, paradoxically, efforts to debunk myths only strengthens belief in them, because people's brains don't logically process information the way we think they do.
If I spend $10M on an ad campaign about the Earth being flat, and the meme catches on, after that, everything NASA does to prove me wrong does nothing but strengthen my ad campaign. That's one reason "money = speech" is so pernicious a concept.
But the Earth being flat is not an opinion; it's an incorrect fact, and, ultimately, a lie. It can be proven wrong using evidence, even if 99% of the population biologically cannot get past the sound bytes to the contrary. Widespread acceptance of a flat earth would disrupt flight plans and confuse a lot of people, but isn't anywhere near as dangerous, on the whole, as the anti-vax movement (of which I can only assume you're a supporter).
Andrew R wrote:
Who decides the truth of belief and opinion and who gets the right to silence the other?
Um, there are things called "facts." They can be demonstrated by independent people, using stuff called "evidence." Philosophically-speaking, you can't prove them 100%, but you can get way past any standard of evidence ever required in a court of law.
"The Earth is flat" is not an unverifiable opinion; it's an outright falsehood. "Your 1-week-old blastoid looks like a baby and has a heartbeat" is another.
Opinions involve sentiments that are not testable hypotheses. "David Hasselhoff is cool" is not a testable hypothesis, so it's an opinion.
The fact that lies are so important to some people that they constantly "forget" the difference between fact and opinion is quite telling.
1. It's not a staw man if people are outright advocating it.2. See #1. If you don't like my example, pick another one. Slander, libel are actual things, for example; I believe they should remain so. YMMV.
Andrew R wrote:
Ok so nazis deserve no freedom of speech because they might be dangerous. So where does that end?
If I make sausage filled with rat poison and toxic waste, can I market it as "fresh, wholesome, 100% organically-grown pork sausage with no fillers"? After all, you have no right to take away my freedom of speech. I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech, but even I stop when it becomes outright lying.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Everyone who works in the US trades their labor for money. Even "the rich." Turns out their labor is just worth a lot more than yours.
"The rich" don't really work for the lion's share of their money. Their position and assets generate wealth, which is then taxed at a much lower rate than actual earnings from labor.
Take a the CEO of [radacted], a modest Fortune 500 company. His salary is $1M, which is reasonable. But somehow his "total compensation" is actually $11M with stock options, and his total earnings including capital gains are off the charts.
I'm not going to talk about specifics; most of what I'd want to see has been covered. But more than any of that, I'd like PF2 to feature a total change in the development mind set.
Instead of coming up with fluff and then grudgingly assigning crunch to it haphazardly, I'd like to see a system in which the mechanical stuff all works like a swiss watch, and then the cool flavor laid over it so that you can't see the gears beneath.
That means no more trap options or Timmy Cards. It means no more spending a feat on stuff that's worse than the stuff you get without a feat. It means no more of this "balance is for evil people with agendas" stuff. It means no more Martials Can't Have Nice Things. It means no more heavy reliance on Rule Zero to fix everything.
Contrary to the usual canard, this will NOT turn PF into 4e. It would simply make it a game that's simultaneously playable as a game AND as a storytime, because the rules would directly lead to the type of game people play, instead of working at odds to it.
My current character is a hobgoblin for whom I rolled a 7 Comeliness. I describe him as "ferociously ugly," with puke-colored skin and a blue nose like a mandrill's. He wears a hoodie all the time to avoid people pointing at him in horror. But I'm the one who got the girl last session (natural 20 Diplomacy! Woot!)
Yeah, when I run a game, it's near 100% game, but it's my creative task as DM to then cover that game with a compelling story as well. Like a mechanical bull with such cunning taxidermy over it that it looks exactly like a real one (or, if I fail, more like a bunch of gears with some mangy fur stuck to them, I guess).
I tried that once, and found that the game turned into an ongoing stuggle for better divinations and transportation blocking/enabling, and that no one else really had anything to do 90% of the time. Eventually I went for almost the exact same solution that Claxon did, which also has the advantage of explaining why there are anachronous castles and dungeons all over the place.
Yes, of course, we can clearly observe species evolving. The theory of evolution is AFAIK the model for explaining the history of evolution, right?
"The Theory of Evolution" is itself a lay term. We science dorks sometimes go for "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis," implying that natural selection is the most likely mechanism, with evidence in the form of genetics and so on. It explains not only the history, but the reasons it happens.
no because this leads into so many corner cases, specific spell being activated just to counter the monk and vise versa. "naked" is the only fair way to guage who would win, yes that means burning higher level spells to quicken cast those buffs before you die.
Pardon me, but that's absurd. A 20th level caster with access to all-day buffs will typically have them up all day. A 20th level druid isn't ever going to be in druid form unless an occasion specifically requires it; the rest of the time he'll be wildshaped as an elemental and sleeping in the ground or whatever.
By all means, a list of active effects should be provided before any fighting starts, but saying "my sohei can kill your caster if I ambush you and you're not allowed to have any spells active or be using wild shape" is like saying "I can beat a caster if we're in an antimagic field."
If you want to start "naked," with no spells, then we should also be "naked," with no gear.
People still think point-buy is "totally fair": one last try.
What could be more fair?
Never mind that we're putting Bob's payment in the form of stock options in a sheltered offshore account and the company CPA (not me!) provides him with some legal loopholes so that he doesn't have to pay taxes on it. The company also provides him with a house and a car, but HR handles that part, so it has absolutely nothing to do with me (wink, wink). HR has also managed to get him free health insurance, even though you have to pay full price for yours. You pay full federal, state, and local taxes and don't get a house or car.
And, to your mind, this is "the very definition of fair."
In contrast, imagine we make everyone roll dice to determine salary, and to see if you can get some perks, too. Yeah, the end result might be totally loaded in one person's favor after all, and that would most decidedly be unfair, but at least you're starting without a totally stacked deck.
TL; DR: Dice rolling can produce extremely unfair results. No one disputes that. But point-buy as written* leads to unfair results right out of the gate.
* If buying 17s and 18s cost exponentially more than it does now, but buying 14s were actually cheaper, you could make a very good case that point buy was a fair system. Until then, the "fairest" thing to do is probably to give everyone a set array with a bunch of stats slightly above average, but none very much so.
That's because, with all respect, you're to a fair extent ignorant of how orogeny works and why mountains look they way they do. Either that, or you're wilfully misrepresenting my post.
If we want to ask sub-questions, then riddle me this; why is a randomly generated 8 better than a point-buy 8?
You'll have to ask someone who actually holds that position, which excludes me. I was just responding to the canard that "point-buy is always more fair!" -- it's not. That's not to say it's an inferior method or that rolling is awesome; it just means that one (1) of the cited advantages doesn't often hold up.
Moondragon Starshadow wrote:
Given the amount of time spent discussing level 20 performance on the forums, I must be in the minority of people who rarely play a level 20 character.
If the game flat-out doesn't work at 20th level, then maybe the rules shouldn't pretend to go that high to begin with, until that can be corrected?
Re: Good rolls only occurring away from the DM: Who are you playing with -- 10-year-olds? Presumably you need to carefully audit the point-buy stats they come up with, too? I can't imagine playing with a group of people who are totally untrustworthy.
Re: Methodology, I personally allow player's choice: each player can roll stats, or use an equivalent point-buy, or use a set array, at their option. This would, I assume, tend to keep any whining and arguments to a minimum (in my case, I wouldn't expect anyone at the table to be whiny and argumentative to begin with, so it's probably moot).
My favorite sort of game revolves around outmaneuvering the BBEG to try and tilt the odds -- if you charge right in, the chance of TPK is like 90%, but if you ruthlessly exploit every advantage, deny him resources, and keep him on the defensive at every turn, eventually you can tilt that to more like 80% in your favor.
I find the method of stat generation to be a lot less of an issue than expectations of what "reasonable" stats should be. I'm used to 3d6, so stats of 10 and 11 don't bother me, scores below 8 are common, and still I think of 12 as "above average" -- not only does it give you a bonus, but it's also the equivalent bonus of what a 15 or so in 1st edition would have given you! By that standard, a character with all 12s would be awesome!
Then I read about people using 25-point buys and roll 54d6 and drop the 36 lowest and so on, and they consider 18-17-16-15-14-11 to be "baseline" stats and anything less to be "unplayable."
Personally, if I wanted to be that superhuman at 1st level, I'd just play Amber Diceless, in which you "sell down" a stat to be Olympic Athlete or Einstein, and "dump into the ground" to be a normal human.
P.S. IT deployment could mean programmer, but probably means something like sysadmin.
Meh. Either way, people who deal with computers, rather than other people, tend to develop the same kinds of weird antilogic. Present company excepted, of course.
Remember that B.S. "scientists against evolution" petition? Mostly computer scientists/software engineers, not physical scientists.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
I've got a IT deployment coming up, so I won't be able to continue the conversation.
Ah! That explains the unique brand of logic.Did you hear about the programmer whose wife sent him to the grocery store?
She said, "Pick up a loaf of bread. And if they have eggs, get a dozen." He came home with 12 loaves of bread.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Also, I hope nobody minds if I cry a little bit. New England men aren't very emotional (unless that emotion is anger), even when it turns out their fathers had a stroke, but, thankfully, I have a goblin avatar here on Paizo.com and goblins aren't nearly as reserved.
Wishing Goblin Sr. a speedy and full recovery.
I think part of the breakdown is that we look at statistics that show, clearly and uniquivocally, that women tend to get a raw deal in a lot of situations. We also see rape statistics that are nothing short of horrifying.
But instead of saying, "OK, we need to get women a fair deal in the workplace through X, and we need to deal with rape by prosecuting rapists and better enabling women to report it (Y)," we try to wrap everything together into one big conspiracy and spout slogans like "male privilege is empowering rape culture!" and so on.
Yes, there's male privilege, and that's something to work on. More darkly, there are subhumans who rape women, and they should be imprisoned/killed. Blurring the two together isn't something that I'm sure is useful, because all it does is make the vast majority of male non-rapists defensive and less likely to work on the privilege part.
F High Elf Ranger 1/Wizard 4
To the bartender: "Good sir, is there a place in town we can find respectable lodgings, suitable to our status?"
This has the potential to begin a long string of Vancian inn-bickering, if Cricket wants to play Cugel, but otherwise I'm willing to assume you get it worked out.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Re: rent alone, have you seen the maps of how many full-time jobs a minimum-wage worker (e.g., college student) needs to afford rent for one small apartment?
Sure, it's easy if you can live with mommy and she pays your rent and all your expenses and feeds you. But those aren't the people we're talking about here.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
In-state tuition, right now in my state, costs $8000/year. That's only out of the realm of possibility for people who are too lazy to work. $8/hr x 20hrs/week x 50 weeks per year = $8000.
$8,000 x 70% after tax = 5,600. $8,000 + 3% inflation = $8,240 year 2, $8,487 year 3, $8,741 year 4 = $33,469. $5,600/year x 4 years = $22,400. Working gets you only 2/3 of what you need to cover tuition alone.
Not including books, fees, meals, transportation, rent, etc.
Sen Bloodtalon wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the metric system came before U.S. standard. It's actually MORE old fashioned.
Meter first defined: 1793.International standard yard defined in terms of meters: 1959.
Yard first defined by law: ca. 1266-1303 (Compositio Ulnarum et Perticarum): "It is ordained that 3 grains of barley dry and round do make an inch, 12 inches make 1 foot, 3 feet make 1 yard, 5 yards and a half make a perch, and 40 perches in length and 4 in breadth make an acre."
So, if post-dating the yard by 500 years or so makes the meter "MORE old fashioned" to you, have at it.
I'd suggest that a desire to look at data and trends dispassionately, and to determine on a case-by-case basis which things are symptomatic of a larger problem and which are similar but unrelated problems, is not necessarily "backlash."
If someone says "None of these are problems," I'd think that person insane. When someone says, "all of these are part of a grand conspiracy," I also want to look at the pieces.
The thing is, Pathfinder already punishes the hell out of you for multiclassing (most particularly casters), and goes out of its way to reward you for staying single-classed. Punishing people even more for multiclassing because it's "not realistic" to you is really above and beyond what's needed.
And before people start spouting about "multiclassing is pure cheese!" -- a single-classed wizard or cleric is WAY cheesier.
1. So is the problem with "men," or with these particular construction workers? None of the men in my acquaintance act the way you're describing.
2. No one I know of complains of sexual harrassment anymore -- the lawsuits seem to have, thankfully, put an end to it. I do know men who are terrified to speak to or smile around any female co-workers, however, lest it be used as an excuse to fire them.
3. Everyone should be cautious and avoid dark alleys -- that's just plain common sense.
4. Every time I act assertive, I get that. And if I played favorites or acted half as passive-aggressive as some of the female managers I've worked with, I'd have been fired years ago.
5. I've been told my only real purpose in existence is to provide sperm and money, and then shut the hell up.
6. I'm overcharged by pretty much all mechanics, regardless of gender.
7. How many men's purses are on sale? Have you seen what happens when a guy attempts to carry any small bag that could in any way be considered comparable?
8. That's six people at New Bruswick who are in desperate need of a prison sentence.
A lower tax rate on capital gains makes sense if everyone is at more or less the same economic level, and you want to encourage people to save money (for retirement or whatever). It's a terrible idea if some people can just straight-up live off of the magic money created by their massive piles of existing money, while other people work hard and can never get there because of the higher taxes on the money they're actually earning. An equitable solution would be to have a steeper scale, so that at low and moderate capital gains, they'd be taxed a lot less than wages, but at the upper end they'd be taxed more. But that's not going to happen.
You're right, Helio -- any of those not spelled out would need to be.
Severing Strike wrote:
A useless arm cannot be used to wield a weapon, hold an object, or carry a shield; a creature with only usable wing cannot fly; a quadruped with only one usable foreleg moves at half normal speed.
So some of those are spelled out. A biped with one leg can only hop -- I'd call it 5 ft. speed, for the sake of argument.
The thing is, I really want D&D/whatever to involve severed limbs. In 1e/2e there were any number of monsters (slicer beetle), traps (devil's mouth in the Tomb of Horrors comes to mind), and magic items (sword of sharpness) that could do that; in the 3e there aren't, and that makes me sad.
Regarding the scaling of severity:
Black Dougal wrote:
In fact, while Dan Akroyd has done some hilarious movies, I don't think he is in Bill's league, although Trading Places is a classic, and I enjoyed the couch trip as an equivalent to what about bob and Dr. detroit, well it has Donna Dixon in it.
Trading Places is definitely a classic, as was The Blues Brothers. Aykroyd was always great as the sleazy salesman back on SNL ("bag of glass!"), and IMHO, Murray never came close back then.
I also loved him in Grosse Pointe Blank:
Just like we don't have too many Theoretical Nuclear Physicists who are also Major League baseball players.
Yeah, it's not like Ted Williams (3.85 GPA, Amherst College), one of the greatest hitters in MLB history, could also have been a decorated military officer and veteran of two wars, IGFA hall-of-famer sport fisherman, philanthropist, and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient.
Just as it's absurd that a self-made printer invented bifocals and the lightning rod, and brokered a treaty with France that enabled us to win the American Revolution.
But, seriously, arguing it's hard for a person to be good at optimization and roleplaying is a lot closer to saying that it's rare for a supermarket checkout clerk to be good at both scanning AND bagging (note that they're both part of the same job). Of the people I gamed with in Houston, pretty much all were good at both optimization and roleplaying, so again, rarity isn't really anything I'm seeing.