|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
A moment was once precisely 90 seconds. In the Medieval period, each hour was divided into four 15-minute segments known as points, which, in turn, were divided into 10 shorter segments known as moments.
In 1e D&D a "turn" was 10 minutes long. It was subdivided into 1-minute "rounds," which were further subdivided into 6-second "segments."
In his defense, I've stopped looking as Facebook partly because the "If you don't support Hillary, it's only because you're a misogynist pig!" meme is starting to get really old.
It's a shame. Johnson sees pretty much all the same problems I do.
Trump sees a lot of the same problems I do. Unfortunately, his "solution" is to throw a tantrum and make them bigger problems.
Clinton sees some of the problems I do. Unfortunately, her "solution" to the rest is to preserve them at all costs because they've become the status quo.
So to sum up you have no idea whether the group intended an insult or not, but because you believe you are a lesser gamer you take it as one.
Pretend my RL name is Goldman. I just bought something, and someone asks me, "How much did you Jew him down, you dirty Hebe?" Here's context: unless they're a very close friend, there is no possible way for that not to be insulting -- and no protestations of "I didn't mean it as an insult" are going to change that. Even if I paid full price, even if I'm not Jewish, I'm going to be offended -- not because of "what I believe about myself," but because at that point the person is, to be blunt, actively being an a!+~#$*.
The 007 game replaced Wisdom and Charisma with Perception and Willpower, respectively. It eliminated an awful lot of ambiguity. I really wish D&D had done the same.
As it is, Wis and Cha are random mish-mashes of stuff that in some cases overlap, and in others have almost nothing to do with one another, in a kind of two-stat soup that no one can sort out.
Oh, is this still being updated? Can I get a link to the most recent version, with the Bestiary & Spell lists included?
The Bestiary stuff isn't ready for release. Also, the master docs have art for every monster, meaning that the file sizes would be prohibitively large.
Also, what do you think of combining this system with Spheres of Power? With its more abstract and piecemeal magic system, getting interesting effects (such as teleportation, from the previous discussion) can be done as early as level 1.
If SoP had come out before I started working on the magic system, I would have done so. I'm unwilling to invest in the book, demolish the existing work, and start over at this point, however -- I have neither the time nor the inclination. That said, if someone else wants to take that particular ball and run with it, more power to them.
Well sure. If you're going for a strict sandbox setting, then hell, maybe the PCs don't take the road the farmwife lived on at all and miss this plotline entirely. Oh well.
And why is the villain kidnapping this farmwife? Obviously it advances his plans in some way, which will have repercussions down the road. And maybe the party, right or wrong, thought that investigating some other happening was a priority, and maybe it turns out they interfere with whatever is going on over there. Events will tell if it turns out that they were right.
I might also note that slinging around terms like "strict sandbox" is veering into "rollplay vs roleplay" territory. Guess what? You can have a coherent story and STILL allow the players to make their own decisions!
Or maybe they happen to arrive at exactly the right time and get slaughtered because they were stupid enough to try to interfere in a kidnapping without doing the research to discover the kidnappers were much tougher than they were. Again, oh well.
Adventuring is a dangerous business. Otherwise everyone would do it.
@ Kirth: why is there an intentional trip to the farmhouse?
Knowing my players, their PCs probably want to hit on the farm lass, or get provisions, or both. Or maybe enslave the farmers, for our current evil pirate campaign. Or maybe they're randomly passing by -- but even then, they might arrive before the bandits, or during, or after, depending on their timetable vs. the bandits'.
Or maybe they decide not to even go there, and the whole abduction happens without them knowing about it.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Let me stop you there for a second, because that's absolutely not how I personally would have done it. I'd have a note like "Tuesday, attack on farm at dawn if still on original timetable (adjust if needed). Attack takes 10 minutes, so assume 06:10 ride off with woman."
The day before: "So, are you guys stopping for the night, or do you try and push on to the farmhouse in the dark?"
Same for all your other examples. For example, I use their actual movement speeds, rather than the Speed of Plot. That way, the ranger's ability to keep from veering off-course, and to track at full speed, has actual value instead of just being flavor text. A dwarf or halfling with no pony slows the party to 2/3 normal and might make them too late for some encounters. A night ride, and not being able to rest and re-prep spells, is a calculated risk. Etc. Yeah, you have to track time, but, hey, being an immersive DM involves some work.
I finally figured out how to do dragons and oozes, and am making big headway on those. I think I have fey mostly figured out, but haven't converted many yet and probably still have some bugs to work out.
Undead are still proving to be difficult, if only because I want to come up with something better than simply designing a new template from scratch for each type, but I also don't want a generic "undead" class.
This is why preparation GMing [I can't give detailed advice as I'm a zero prep GM, aside from helping the players to level up and-when using published material instead of made up stuff- pre-reading the adventures] works best if you prepare encounters rather than adventures and wing the story aspect creatively.
I'm borderline OCD when it comes to overprepping, and yes, I painstakingly prep encounters and NPCs. I give them motives and assets, then allow the story to proceed -- if the PCs ignore them, their plans advance, if not, they react appropriately and we see what happens.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what?
This happens to me a lot. The answer is that I have 2-3 others ready to go, in my back pocket, so to speak. I've got hundreds more in my library, catalogued and easy to insert. So I allow them to go do whatever it is they decided. Usually I find that they come back to the one I'd intended by their own decision once they've finished their side trek; curiosity is a powerful motivator for my groups. But I don't tell them they have to.
As DM, it's my job to run the game world. It's not my job to run their PCs, or make major decisions for them.
As a player, I try to cut the DM some slack, and make it a point to stick with whatever adventure he or she has prepped. But that doesn't make him/her a perfect DM; rather, it makes me a considerate player (or, to an extent, an enabler, if you want to be harsh about it).
My 2-year-old is OBSESSED. Given the chance, she'd watch this movie non-stop forever. If she sees me with a pencil, she immediately hijacks me with demands of "Draw Bob! More Bob! Draw Stuart! Draw Poochie Rat!"
The saving grace is that Minions is actually a really good movie. Some of the shorts are good, too.
That's because they wanted to make it easy for lower level PCs. Frankly the best conversion for a 2e/1e killer adventure to 3.5 was the one from Dungeon called The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb.
We tried that one. Every monster has DR 30/adamantine. We had no adamantine weapons. We didn't last long.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
With that said, I don't see anything particularly objectionable about KG's "Hard Work Party," except by omission. One of the key points that distinguish modern Democrats from modern Republicans is the issue of protecting people's rights, particular the rights of vulnerable populations. Would the "Hard Work" party act to prevent states from disenfranchising minority voters? Would it act to make sure that schools in minority districts were fairly funded? Would it act to make sure that local police treated all citizens fairly? If these are among the "hot-button" topics that are left to the local governments to decide, then we've just allowed the racist dog whistles back into the "Hard Work" party.
Ideally, they'd be selling (and basing their platform on) the idea that anyone can succeed through hard work. To make that even remotely convincing, you'd need fairly-funded schools, equal treatment by police, no disenfranchisement of voters (except maybe if they're unemployed? I'm obviously spitballing here.) You could actually sell this even to the borderline racist contingent by explaining that you therefore favor and encourage "hard-working" minorities who "believe in the American way" (as opposed, in their tiny minds, to "thugs"), and of course you'd have no problem selling most of it (except maybe the no welfare votes) to Democrats.
When it came to issues like abortion and gay marriage, they'd fall back on Jesse Ventura's famous, "the supreme court already decided that, so I don't have to comment on it."
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Of course, the "eliminate large corporate subsidies" plank would cut strongly into the amount of corporate money that would flow into the party coffers. That's basically the problem in a nutshell: the party you propose is essentially Republican-light ("A third less voters than the regular Republican party!")
It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.
It surprises me there isn't a "Hard Work Party." They could tap into the bootstrap myth but appeal to a broader base. They'd have a platform that looked something like this:
You could tap into the disaffected jobless base that Trump is relying on, but without the overt racism. You'd also appeal to the Sanders people/OWS contingent.
1. I've been using Dimensional Jaunt, per Firewarrior44. And, yes, rogues using Shadow Hand and/or skill tricks can qualify, per Talonhawke.
School: Conjuration [teleportation]
Level: arcane 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: standard
Range: touch (subject)/close (teleport range)
Target: creature or object (up to 50 lbs.) touched
Saving Throw: Will neg.; Spell Resistance yes
Description: teleports target to a specified location within close range.
I always feel like they should establish themselves first, then worry about more difficult tricks like collaborative writing. It's even worse when there's a "junior partner" who's leaning on the senior one -- the only time I've ever seen that work is when Fletcher Pratt took L. Sprague deCamp under his wing.
I've posted before that the most enjoyable games I've ever been in were with people who were very good at both. The least enjoyable experiences involved people who were good at neither. And I've never actually seen a well-optimized character in play who wasn't role-played well, unless someone else built the character.
People may prefer one aspect over the other. But generally, in my experience, people get better at BOTH of them the more they play.
It also turned into a bit of a pissing match between Cherryh and Janet Morris for awhile, IIRC. I liked their characters, so it didn't bother me, but it turned some readers off.
IIRC, those two collaborated together on most of the "Heroes in Hell" anthologies, too, so it must have been relatively amicable off-page.I admit to having a personal bias against authors who habitually work as part of a twosome (Janet & Chris Morris, Hickman & Weiss, etc.).
Let me try and clarify that killing equivalent opponents in an equal fight is indeed attainable at lower PB. But when I have to identify the enemy's weaknesses and can't afford to buy Knowledge ranks, or talk my way past someone and not only can't afford Diplomacy but also had to tank Cha to boot, or have to climb out of a pit and realized all my skill ranks went into Perception to keep me from getting surprised -- the game grinds to a halt for me. So I've sacrificed my ability to even meaningfully participate in many scenarios, in order to be competent in one limited area. That's something that a higher point-buy can help ameliorate.
My buddy's caster doesn't need higher point-buy to be good at all of those things and more, but let's gloss over that for now. And if my archer's enemy is standing behind a wall of force, higher stats still aren't doing me any good. But that -- as you correctly point out -- is still an issue, but a separate one.
And I have somewhat of a problem with the idea of 'ideas' being offensive and not allowed to be expressed. Its only a short road to very bad places with that particular methodology.
The problem with this is that some "ideas" are factually incorrect. I can express my "idea" that gravity is false and we can all fly like Superman if we really want to. I can derisively refer to everyone who doesn't fly as "lead-body," and they might find it offensive -- but more likely, they will find it absurd.
Likewise, the Stormwind Fallacy is actually a fallacy. Referring to someone as a "role-player, not a roll-player!" implies that the two are mutually-contradictory, which they demonstratively are not. So when someone calls me one or the other, I'm not offended so much as shocked at their ignorance.
So, if you want to spout all kinds of falsehoods and then claim people who argue against them on that basis are simply "trying to find offense," you're living in an imaginary world in which physical reality doesn't actually get factored into your thinking.
Is "competent" for a martial supposed to mean "has a somewhat comparable breadth of narrative options to a caster"?
I would love it if that were exactly the case. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen in a straight PF game, so no sense even discussing it here.
Or is "can solo a CR appropriate encounter in a hail of arrows or raging pounce(s)" enough to qualify as at least "competent" for the purposes of this evaluation?
A martial guy should be able to do that with mooks, sure. With equal-CR martial combatants, 50/50 -- he dies or they do. And you can hit that benchmark with a reasonable PB. But that's not all he should be able to do, so that he pretty much has to sit out any encounters that don't involve a mundane opponent walking up to him and offering to trade blows Queensberry-style.
Is that the shared-world setting based off of Tales of the Vulgar Unicorn?
From what I understand from Robert Asprin's afterword and the publishing dates, Tales (1980) was the second collection published, after the original Thieves' World (1979) turned out to be a hit. They were followed by Shadows of Sanctuary, Storm Season, The Face of Chaos, and a ton of others. The whole series gets called "Thieves' World," which lends a bit of confusion.
Looking at the contents lists, individual authors' quality and participation varies quite a bit, with a lot of no-name second stringers showing up more often in the later volumes. Marion Zimmer Bradley and Poul Anderson both have stories in the original volume, but apparently didn't like sharing their characters (Lythande, in the case of MZB) and/or had other commitments, and never collaborated with them again (Anderson did write more Cappen Varra stories as well).
In answer to the OP, I come from a 1e background, in which a 15 usually gave you a +1 bonus, scaling to +4 at 18. In 3e terms, that means a 12 is, to me, exactly equal to the 15 I used to expect. If a roll or buy a 14, that's equivalent to what used to require a 16. From that perspective, 25 PB in 3e is like using the 9d6 method from the 1e Unearthed Arcana that we all used to make fun of.
Point buy is a tool of the magocracy. As noted upthread, 15 PB is more than enough to make your wizard or cleric into a god, whereas 25 PB is barely enough to make a competent martial. The problem isn't with the number of points; it lies in the martial/caster discrepancy that's built into nearly every aspect of the game from the ground up.
If you wanted to even that out in terms of stats, start with a relatively narrow array (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) and don't let racial bonuses apply to one's primary casting stat.
If you havent checked out West World on HBO yet, well, you ought to.
I loved the movie but despised the sequel -- and it looks like the TV show is a lot more like the sequel. Still, it's getting great reviews and I'll probably end up checking it out when it's available on either Netflix or A'.
S2 of True Detective turned out to be awesome. Ended up loving it, except for
Vince Vaughn's silly and needlessly long death scene
S2 of Masha and the Bear was finally released, pleasing both me and Baby Gersen.
And Justified is back on Amazon Prime, giving me something to watch if I ever get an evening with the house to myself.
M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
Gwlybwr is a half-step ahead of Uro, and steps into the thieves' rapiers:
One rapier skids along his ribs, and he narrowly avoids a more life-threatening injury. 10 damage to Gwl.
One of the fish-man's claws subsequently connects with the acid-spashed goon, however -- and drops the thief to the floor, bleeding out his life.
Uro steps up smartly and, if he wants, can take a -4 for using the flat of his axe and still knock the second guard senseless.
M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
One of them fires at the monstrous fish-man, but his terror throws off his aim. The other evidently is prejudiced against short people, and takes a shot at Jym, nicking him in the arm.
Without waiting to see the results of their volley, the two thieves drop their hand crossbows and brandish rapiers.
M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
There's a small (10' x 10') room to the north, with the door open. As you approach, two Lotus Dragons pop out and yell "Die invader scum!" and fire hand crossbows at you.
Uro=1, Gwl=2, Elebrin=3, Jym=4
except the fair share surcharge specifically covers capital gains income as well as payroll income...
Then you just put it all offshore, or "re-invest" it, or offset it with capital losses from previous years, or any of the zillion other things you can do with income that's not from a paycheck. It's seriously not even that hard to do.The wealthy do not play by any rules that you or I would recognize.
Changing that fact is what Sanders campaigned on, and failed.
...I don't suppose the proposal could count stock options and other compensation as income when determining tax...?
For all her experience, Hillary doesn't get to reform the entire tax code in a single bullet point -- at least not if she intends it to be halfway believable. Redefining what counts as "income" (and how) means overturning decades of tax code law.
Hillary Clinton calls for imposing a four-percent “Fair Share Surcharge” on Americans who make more than $5 million per year.
In other words, on a few pro athletes only. CEOs don't get a $5M salary; they get $200K and then $4.8M worth of stock options and so on that, like Trump, they can easily avoid paying any taxes on. Very wealthy people don't get any salary at all; they just sit around and their money generates more money faster than they can spend it. Hillary's proposal, as stated, affects almost no one and generates almost no revenue.