|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
But you know what Rosa Parks didn't do? She didn't yell, "Burn this b~*$* down!"
What she did say was, "It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand."
So what she did was more along the lines of not getting out of the street while holding some cheap cigars...
I guess the bus driver should have shot her, right?
Looking at Bestiaries 2-4, I admit I'm left kind of feeling unhappy about what seems like pointless inflation or "ramping up" of HD/CR for what are otherwise very basic, low-level monsters.
For example, the swan maiden (B4) is a woman with some minor SLAs who can turn into a swan. We could easily fulfill that concept at CR 2, and then use sorcerer class levels (for example) to get a more powerful one with better magic. Instead, the "baseline" swan maiden was pegged at CR 6 and 10 HD, making it unusable until much later in the campaign, because you can't just subtract levels from the one statted.
Likewise, the adlet (B3) is, in essence, an anthropomorphic winter wolf. That concept works just fine at CR 5 and 6 HD or so, but doesn't really have enough going for it to warrant the need for CR 10 and 15 HD. (We could start with a basic CR 5 one and add the Advanced simple template and some HD to make a more powerful one, if needed, but the reverse is not true.)
In contrast, the adaro (B3) is a shark-man with poison and rage. It's a simple concept, and it's a simple monster. They have it CR 3 and 4 HD, which seems just about right for that package. Again, if we want a more powerful shark-man, we can simply add HD/templates/class levels and we're good to go.
So, is there like a quota on CR or something, and if there aren't enough higher CR monsters in a given Bestiary, low-CR ones are simply given bigger numbers (in terms of AC, hp, and attacks) until they seem higher?
I do agree that there is a high number motivated by racism. I just don't believe that racism is the default answer to shootings, and many people do, even after proof is shown otherwise.
OK, next question: granted that it is less than 100%, what percentage of police shootings motivated by racism is acceptable to you? I think that's what the source of strife is here -- most people would answer "zero" rather than merely "any is okay because we know it's not 100%."
David M Mallon wrote:
The place was a boomtown up until the Romans sacked Carthage.
One of my best friends is from Carthage. It's the only place I know of where a murder defendant had to be tried out of town because none of his peers would convict him.
1. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
List subject to change depending on my mood at the time.
I was actually less worried about the crossguard than how "unrefined" the blade looked. It looked like it was using an unstable crystal or something.
My guess is, since the Sith are supposedly extinct at the end of Episode VI, that this new lightsaber was constructed by some self-trained dark jedi wannabe in his mom's basement or something, like a neo-Nazi trying to equip himself in Third Reich gear. Maybe all he could get was a substandard crystal from the local pawn shop?
Charlie D. wrote:
I am done arguing with faceless people on the internet. Many of you deal too much in emotion and not enough in concrete fact. I will leave you to it.
A few things to consider:
I've had to wait a further 5 years to see the changes I would have expected to see in 2009 being used for the Investigator.
At the rist of derailing, wow -- I just looked at the Investigator
which is what the rogue should probably have been right off the bat. Yes, its version of sneak attack affects a given creature only 1/day, but it's easier to set up (spend a move action; no feint or flanking needed) and more importantly, more reliable due to the +1/2 level to attack rolls. Plus they get skills boosts, plus talents, plus trap sense, plus bard spellcasting in the form of extracts.
In short, why anyone would play a rogue when this class is available is beyond me entirely -- it would be like playing a warrior instead of a fighter.
Any major emplacement is made with basilisk blood so teleporting into or out of it turns the person trying it stone.
I'm OK with these sorts of sledgehammer solutions if the game world is logically made to reflect them. In this example, every major city should have whole breeding centers and hatcheries for basilisks, all of them carefully blinded at birth, so as to ensure a continuous supply of something that, according to the rule outlined, is essential to the functioning of society.
I even take it a step further, and notice that the landscape is strewn with castles and dungeons, none of which serve any purpose whatsoever (and are in fact an impediment to your health, given the existence of the earthquake spell). Solution 1: eliminate castles and dungeons. Solution 2: give them a function (in my case, X thickness of stone blocks teleportation and scrying effects).
If you can tie in the mechanics you need with the game world you're looking for, you end up with a better-integrated setting than if you add mechanics with little attention to how they would really influence the setting.
I get too easily side-tracked on movie/book discussions, which is really bad because I'm usually the DM.
I tend to focus too much attention on players who are visibly excited about the game, potentially leading players who are quieter/more low-key to feel underrepresented.
I tend to drink a lot of beer while DMing (see my avatar). Not enough to inhibit my ability to run the game, but some people are hypersensitive about alcohol and frown on it. I always provide it for the players as well, so those teetotallers among them probably feel doubly annoyed.
Skills are easily trumped by spells, even from cheap wands. Why have Climb ranks when you can spider climb? Why does invisibility provide a +20 bonus to Stealth, rendering all but an extreme number of ranks in that skill superfluous? And when it comes to magic traps, Preception is trumped by a cantrip. Therefore, "skill monkey" was very intentionally designed to be inferior in all respects to "spellcasting," whether in or out of combat.
Also, bard gets skills (more than the rogue, when you include Versatile Performace) AND spells, making them indisputably better than the rogue in that role.
1. It's not true that most harcore optimizers are too focused on DPR to roleplay. In fact, in my experience, the exact opposite is true. People who are really into the game roleplay the most, but they also spend the most time playing and reading rulebooks, which makes them better at optimizing. People with only a cursory interest are generally not invested enough to roleplay, and also don't know enough to optimize, either.
2. A really hardcore optimizer will realize that direct-damage is a fool's ploy when it comes to the action economy at higher levels. They'll generally opt for a full caster instead who can use summons and/or pets as "free" martials. This can make trap dungeons a joke -- spammed summons and/or divinations and transportation spells negate that threat. Sure, you can optimize a martial character, but it takes a lot more savvy and the cap is lower; you end up with AM Barbarian on a dire bat, whom you can still roleplay, but eventually you end up rolling up a more interesting caster.
"The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and..."
Exactly -- so examples should stay there, not pepper the other Bestiaries. The Dark Dancer in the Bestiary 4, for example, is in essence a dark folk bard. But although they have 2nd level bard abilies, kind of, and 2 HD, they also end up with sneak attack, but no spells (is there a bard archetype for that?). In any event, they are a prime candidate for a Monster Codex entry, except that someone got lazy and decided to use exception-based design instead of existing rules.
Basically, if all the abilities of the "new" monster are nothing more than existing class features, then just use the class mechanics, and compile all those in a Monster Codex II. Don't kind of sloppily use one class' mechanics as a basis but then call it an "original" Bestiary monster.
DO NOT WANT:
In other words, if you want a goblin rogue, just stat it as a goblin with rogue levels, not as a "Darkstealth Goblinkin" that has the exact same abilities as a goblin rogue except with math that doesn't work.
"Options" like the Crossbowman or slinger archetypes, which have a different "flavor" than some other option (e.g., archer in this case), but which, mechanically-speaking, do more or less the same thing except nowehere near as well.
When Paizo says, "You can either have a boring sword that deals 1d8/18-20/x3 damage, or an awesome lightsaber that deals 1d6/20/x2 damage and makes cool laser sounds," the lightsaber is a Timmy card. You blatantly sacrifice utility for flavor. On the flip side, if your choice were "a boring sword that deals 1d8/18-20/x3, or a laser sword that deals 1d4/20/x2 and ignores armor," that would present a more meaningful choice -- neither is obviously better than the other in most cases.
Usual Suspect wrote:
So the problem really comes down to this. There are combinations that warp the game system completely due to unintended interactions. How should Paizo deal with them?
Step 1: Eliminate Timmy cards. That makes it a lot harder to accidently build a gimped character.Step 2: Fix remaining "broken" combinations by RAW as they are identified, not by Rule 0.
John Woodford wrote:
A competent player can still contribute relatively easily with a suboptimal character
...if and only if the campaign is structured to allow that. Some games/APs are balanced around a group of competent characters (e.g., Savage Tide), or even highly-optimized ones (e.g., Age of Worms).
Which means, again, that everyone needs to be on the same page as to what kind of game is being played, and they all need to design their characters accordingly.
Few people intentionally make a gimped character, but in Pathfinder it's very, very, very easy to inadvertently do so. Someone says "Ooh, I want to be an awesome crossbowman!" and they take the crossbowman fighter archetype, which is inferior in almost every way to an archer. (It can't really do anything more, and usually does a whole lot less.) Examples like that are legion.
If "optimization" means "scouring tons of splatbooks for specific combinations that let you do certain things while avoiding all the Timmy cards," then "optimization" really does mean "not making a gimped character."
Not too badly, I think. It might be useful for everyone to revisit standards of evidence. "Subject to independent varification" is generally one of them, which implies that "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true" doesn't count, and neither does "The NSA isn't doing anything shady because the NSA says it's not doing anything shady."
captain yesterday wrote:
Coolidge, FDR, Ike, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Dubya were all right-handed, so you need to check your numbers: either you mean "1974" instead of "1900," or you mean "at least eight" rather than "two."
666bender, did you notice that everyone else in the thread is posting in sentences, and that your posts are in bursts of microbytes? It kind of reminds me of my grandmother, who would sometimes sit there and interject Spanish into everyone else's English conversation, just because she knew half of them wouldn't pay attention.
I'm not saying it's wrong, just that your points would reach more people by following their lead.
I don't have a problem with anglo-saxon, germanic or gaelic facial structure. Been to France and Germany and England. Just Hungaro-finnish for some reason.
Interestingly, Finno-Uralic populations tend to have the highest % Neanderthal DNA (4-5%, as opposed to general 2-3% for Caucasians), so there might actually be some atavistic reason for that.
Modern sub-Saharan Africans have 0% except through non-African ancestry, so I guess Freehold is more human than either you or I.
Modern Asians and especially Pacific Islanders have some 3-5% Denisovian DNA (another archaic non-Homo sapiens sapiens population).
How many trans people have been killed in Houston during the last, say, ten years, for using the "wrong" restroom? I'm not saying it's unimportant, but if the answer is "zero," I wonder if it isn't wiser to focus efforts on, say, general public education and advancement of rights overall, or on mental health care as needed for transition, suicide prevention, etc.
Of course, from my point of view, the need for gender-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. is both antiquated and absurd -- but 99.9999% of the U.S. violently disagrees with me on that, so my opinions aren't really worth much in the grand scheme of things.
As GM, I set up the bad guys and scenario, strictly according to the rules we're playing by, and I run them as impartially as possible. Very occasionally I might get called on to resolve a rules issue, but that's pretty rare during play -- my players are usually very exprienced and highly rules-savvy.
What I don't do is force my storyline onto the players, or artificially give them breaks, or artificially blunt their successes. Sometimes the adventure goes in a totally different direction than I expected -- in fact, when it does so is when I find DMing to be the most rewarding. Sometimes a BBEG will go down like a chump because the PCs legitimately outmaneuver him, or just get lucky. I applaud them when this happens. Sometimes they get in over their heads and the whole party gets wiped out. I urge them to roll up new characters.
Sometimes they'll disagree with a rule. Before the next session begins, I ask them to discuss it and vote on it -- and I abstain except in the case of a tie.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I don't want to play with you either if you're doing said creepy thing!
I can totally sympathize, but it doesn't in any way detract from the people who do enjoy that sort of game: your preferences are not universal.
But, "mature" content entirely aside, some people just don't like hanging around with kids. That doesn't need to make them social pariahs unless you insist on it.
A note on the players' side: As parents, I understand it's hard for us to imagine that other people aren't as fond of our kids as we are. But that's a reality we sometimes need to accept. Some people just don't like kids, don't want them, aren't comfortable around them, etc.
That doen't automatically make them bad people.
For some, it just means you hang out with them without the kids -- usually not at your own house, for obvious reasons. For others, maybe you don't have time to do childfree activities; no harm, no foul. Either way, no sense in forcing things.
I love my daughter. I can't wait until she's old enough to play.
Instead, I would try like hell to have two separate games, one PG-13 and one R, if you will.
Explaining to the 12-year-old that there are two different games, one which he's allowed to play, and one that he's not, shouldn't be too different than explaining why he's not allowed to watch movies with "Emmaneulle" in the title. Yeah, it's slightly awkward, but doable.