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

Kolokotroni's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 8,137 posts (8,165 including aliases). 17 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 8,137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kittyburger wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
Correia dismisses discussion of actual incidents of sexism by women, discussion of actual incidents of racism by people of color, actual incidents of gender identity and sexual orientation bias by LGBTQIA+ people (notice a running theme here?).


George never mentioned any actual incidents of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias. He insinuated that the predominately white, straight, male makeup of GenCon is the result of racism, sexism, and sexual orientation bias, but never actually bothered to identify the actual source of any of those problems. I'm guessing this is primarily because: a) Insinuating that racism is a problem is easy to do (and doesn't require pesky evidence), while actually identifying its source is hard; b) the primary cause of the lack of diversity he sees probably isn't actually racism, sexism, or sexual orientation bias - that's a far less parsimonious explanation than, say, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and so on; and c) bringing up actual incidents would open George up to people actually involved in those incidents offering alternative (contradictory) explanations for them.

In short, Correia literally cannot be dismissive of something that was never mentioned there to begin with.

Wait, people literally running around GenCon in Nazi paraphernalia isn't a specific actual incident?

If I was a person of color, knowing that white people are eager to latch onto any excuse to ignore the experiences of people of color that don't reinforce white supremacy, I'd be reluctant to share specific examples from my own experience, too.

So, given that this is the perception, and it seems to be a fairly widespread perception among people of color given that it's one that I've seen online and heard in person many times before, might it not behoove us to examine our own behavior and see if it might actually possess merit, instead of rejecting it out of hand?

There was A person in Nazi Cosplay, there was A booth with nazi paraphernalia. Thats 2 people out of 50,000 attendees plus staff, merchants and guest speakers.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

The issue is that some people have a flat tire on their car. The issue isn't how some people have tires that aren't flat.

By describing an issue with flat tires as "non-flat tire privilege" you (1) skew the issue away from the actual problem, (2) lose credibility with people who's tires aren't flat.

All right, so what I'm getting here is:

The problem is that institutionalized racism is bad for non-whites. It has nothing to do with how white people don't suffer from institutionalized racism.

The whole point is that it's all relative and comparative.

1. White privilege doesn't distract from the problem, because it's descriptive of the problem: white people have their skin color treated as the default (see: "flesh-colored" Band-Aids), their names treated as "normal," their natural hair is never considered "unprofessional." They aren't disproportionately pulled over by cops, illegally searched by cops, brutally murdered by cops and vigilantes. White privilege is a term that explains the racial disparity that is the problem. You can't talk about racism without talking about the people that aren't affected by that racism in even close to the same way.

2. Glad to know that you don't find me credible for using a term that I've explained several times and provided helpful explanatory links to. Unless you're just talking about some other "people whose tires aren't flat" and not yourself????

Your links are extremely helpful and they certainly help explain for someone who is willing to read them. But as you mentioned before you shouldnt have to post those links, or walk around with flyiers to be able to talk about this problem. But that specific term, makes that necessary with a majority of the people who need to learn, understand and act on the issue.

As I said before. Its not white privaledge. Its White, Anglo-Saxon, Straight, Male, Protestant, Wealthy Privaledge. Alter any of those terms and the degree and nature of that privaledge changes.

By using the Term White Privaledge, you are not only invoking a negative image in the minds of those people that most need to be educated on the subject. You are also being inaccurate.

My Name? Not normal, 'flesh colored bandaids?' about as close to my skin tone as it is to an asian person or a hispanic. My hair? Not 'normal' since the 1950s. At the same time, I no one will argue with my choice of mate (I am straight), I dont worry about whether or not the police will randomly shoot me, or whether I will be sexually assaulted on my way home from work (white male). My sense of cultural pride? Comes from the fact that my parents dragged me to school AFTER school and had someone from our community teach me our language, and our history. Didnt come from movies, or for the most part from history books. Hell, the English word for my people, Greeks, is an insult. Not a racial slur. Not slang. The actual dictionary english word was one assigned to us by another people that conquered us that is at best like calling a Native Amrerican an Indian, and more likely a direct attempt to diminish my people's heritage.

We are in fact a disperate nation. The term white itself ignores the diverity of culture and challege that makes up, at the moment, a majority of this nation.

Jews are white. Are we going to sit here honestly and say their privaledge is the same as the rich WASP? A Serb who's family came here to escape the mess that is the former Yugoslavia doesnt know what oppression feels like? How about my family that lived under the Military Junta in Greece in the late 60's and 70's?

White Privaledge is a bad term because its immflamatory, and because its not accurate. It implies at its core, that their all white people recieve this privaledge, which isnt remotely true, since the term white itself, is inaccurate. You arent being descriptive. You are being dismissive.

Do all 'white' people share certain benefits? Certainly. But not all of them share all of the privaledges. And by using the massive generalization that is 'white privaledge' you dont just not make your point. You actually turn people that would be receptive to the idea against you. Many of those 'white' people know what oppression and systemic racism is like. And they would be allies in the fight if they didnt think you were calling them southern plantation owners with the first words you speak describing the problem.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

E: Gestalt with synthesist summoner. 2 evolution points gets you flight equal to your land speed. Each additional point you put into it (24 at 20th level) gets you +20ft. Extra evolution gets you 20ft each time you take it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

To my experience it is not possible to play pathfinder RAW. There are countless omissions or contradictions for rule interactions.

Some people view this as something to be fixed, and for a lot of it that is true. On the other-hand if the rules were ironclad, then PF would be better suited as a video game with a GM mode to create encounters and campaigns.

That about sums it up. It isn't unique to Pathfinder, either; it's as old as RPGs. Older if you want to go back to things like poker and other pastimes in which everybody has a slightly different understanding of the rules because the rules evolved differently in their area.

I think there is a difference between the rules being ironclad and immovable like a video game, and them being functional as written. And even if they were somehow so, I'd still say dms are better then video games, because in the end video games can only do what they are programmed for, the gm can improvise.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Greylurker wrote:

talking about magic

One of the things I noticed in the Spells is that a lot of them have had their duration changed to Concentration. Conjure Monsters - Concentration, Invisibility - Concentration, Antimagic Shell - Concentration Barkskin - Concentration, Fly - Concentration, Hold Person - Concentration, Flesh to Stone - Concentration, etc....

Concentration is a bit easier than previous editions but the simple fact is, you are running only 1 spell at a time for the most part, eliminating the huge Bluff stack you tend to see in PF.

(and in the case of Fly, Concentration drops so do you, none of this float gently to the ground when the spell runs out. Someone with a Bow will pluck you right out of the air)

Thats definately interesting. One of the things I've been looking at is the Riven Mage, by Rogue Genius Games. Instead of requiring concentrating, these effects instead last mostly for very short durations, like rounds/2 levels mostly. And every spell scales, you dont have a gillion different spells, just a bunch of basic effects that you put more or less energy into.

Different approach to concentration, but I think it has a similar effect. No mega buff combinations.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Actually a Paladin can "radar a room", it just takes longer. The Paladin has the option of using Detect Evil normally - a cone effect that takes 3 rounds to give him/her the detailed information on "this creature is evil with (strength) aura, this creature is... etc...." - or using it as a targeted effect that gives all that information immediately but is limited to one person.

I see "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range."

I see no where that they can radar a room. I see that they can detect evil as the spell leading to a specification on how it works differently.

Read it again,

At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell.
A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds.

So there are two aspects to this ability. One is that they can detect evil as the spell. The other is a special version of detect evil that only paladins can do. They can do both.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

I like pathfinder. I think its a great system. I like what paizo has done with it by and large. That doesnt mean I dont think it could be better.

Also, I enjoy debating things on internet forums. Pathfinder is a thing i like with disperate ideas, and without any kind of real 'bad' side. Debating pathfinder stuff on the internet is fun for me. And I think a productive analysis of something I like. The more I undestand the rules of the game, and disperate view points on those rules, the better I can make my game at home. Sometimes the debate itself is an end worthy of persuit.

This is a great post and I wish it was indicative of how more people felt who argue here. But it is the internet, and there are people who get their jollies by tearing down what others like or love. A spirited debate can be good and even improve the product. Some of what we get, however, isn't on the same level as what Kolokotroni is going for and only serves to make the place unpleasant.

I love this game, whether just out of the box or modified to taste. It can be better, but it could be FAR worse. It gives me the platform to play out of the box with others with only minor disagreements or to modify to my heart's content for any number of games.

For me at least, a lot of the debates have driven house rules I've written, and I have further ideas that I am tinkering with. When they are mature I'll share them with the community, because thats honestly half of what I love about pathfinder. Paizo wants us to be a community.

Early in PFRPGs career, I honestly thought paizo made a mistake for not having an 'optimization' board or something of the like. But now I think they are right to force us all together. The 'roleplay vs rollplay' argument needs to be had, because in general, contact between opposing view points has an effect of pushing everyone to the middle. Isolation of viewpoints tends to radicalize.

Every once in a while the 'dont play x, x are stupid' crowd needs to be shouted down by people who think concept is important. And the people who make deliberately bad choices because 'roleplaying' need to be reminded that their characters are going into extremely dangerous situations. And being an expert basket weaver, while interesting, might not make the best case for them being included.

Even if there are more arguments because of it (and god is there really a caster vs martial conversation going on in THIS thread right now?) I think the community and the game are healthier for the exchange of ideas instead of the insular way I felt like the wizards boards pushed the community by dividing it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like pathfinder. I think its a great system. I like what paizo has done with it by and large. That doesnt mean I dont think it could be better.

Also, I enjoy debating things on internet forums. Pathfinder is a thing i like with disperate ideas, and without any kind of real 'bad' side. Debating pathfinder stuff on the internet is fun for me. And I think a productive analysis of something I like. The more I undestand the rules of the game, and disperate view points on those rules, the better I can make my game at home. Sometimes the debate itself is an end worthy of persuit.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not somehow exempt from privaledge. I just think the blanket statement of white privaledge is pretty ignorant. There is more to the story then that. And simply calling it white privaledge is more divisive then it needs to be.

How is it ignorant? It describes the privilege that comes from being white or perceived as white. Those articles address white privilege, and some list even more forms of privilege, but there are an inexhaustible number of possible privileges that can be at work in a given context. Being Greek and looking different from other white people is certainly a way that you differ from the average holder of white privilege. In this case we would be talking about you lacking something we could call Anglo privilege, or Germanic privilege, or whatever. I'm easily identified as white, and very pale. So I have an enhanced form of white privilege compared to you--no matter how tan I get, I doubt I would ever be construed as non-white, and strangers don't come up to me to ask what race I am (a common enough occurrence for people of somewhat indeterminable race, or American-Asians who are asked by random strangers, "What are you?" or "Where are you from? No, where are you really from?"). But to be more specific to your case: historical erasure is awful, yeah, but that's also part of white privilege: the presentation of history as the progress of almost exclusively white people, and they have to be the right kind of white people. Getting "randomly" selected at airport screenings for being not white enough sure seems like white privilege to me.

My point is there are lots of degrees of privaledge. And the idea that there is a single unified 'white' is ignorant. The articles you stated talked about things like seeing people 'like you' in magazines/movies, or learning about 'your history' in school. Unless you are Straight Male White Anglo Saxon Protestant and wealthy, you dont enjoy all of perceived privaledges. There are different degrees of privaledge. So calling it 'White' Privaledge is ignorant.

And my brother, doesnt get stopped by airport security for 'random' screenings. He gets stopped because he looks middle eastern, but has a European Sounding Name. He doesnt get the presumption of 'white' from a very important section of law enforcement agents. Thats one of I think the more important aspects of white privaledge is it not?


Pointing out white privilege doesn't have to be divisive. What would you prefer we call it? Should I explain the concept in full every time I see the need to talk about it? Should I print out articles about white privilege to hand to offended white people so they can fully understand what I'm talking about? I want people to understand it, but it feels like pulling teeth to get people to talk about it if they're unfamiliar with the concept. It's not my job or any non-white person's job to educate people about white privilege, and it sure as hell isn't my job to coddle white people who are offended by my pointing out that they benefit from a racist system, even if they have no direct hand in it.

Until its common knowledge, yes you have to explain it. No its not your job to educate people. But you also cant expect people who dont understand it to respond positively when its mentioned without the explanation. As you say, the biggest aspect of white privaledge is that you dont see it. The only way it will change is if more people become aware of it and act accordingly. So if you want things to change, then yes, its your job to explain it to people. You cant expect people who by definition dont know a thing exists to learn about it on their own.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

He cites several examples of other gamers dismissing his concerns about race representation, and points out that the leadership and decision makers of the Con (and the people they choose to honor with awards, recognition, etc) are sorely lacking in the PoC department. This isn't racist in the KKK way or anything, but it is a symptom of PoC systematically being denied opportunities and voices in gaming culture.

I cant speak to his direct experiences obviously. But in terms of the con. If the overwhelming majority of gamers are white, and consequently the overwhelming majority of game writers/developers/artists are white, then the fact that the people being honored are mostly white is not a function of racism, but probability.

And this is the sort of argument that often gets people hackles up. Because of the idea that people who are not white must be forced into prominence or a given potision simply because they are currently absent. Gencon should honor people influencial in the gaming world. It shouldnt matter what the color of their skin is. When more people of color play games, more people of color will become influencial in the industry. That is the issue that needs addressing, not the choices Gencon made.


Literally nowhere does he say GenCon is racist. He says there is a "Race Problem," and describes some ways in which he feels excluded. The thing about the Nazi cosplayer is definitely a weak example of this, but the article he links to about it also notes a booth that sells sexy Nazi pin-up art (which has problems on multiple fronts [dammit did I just make a WWII pun ugh]), which is disallowed by GenCon rules but the complaints seemingly went unheard. I think he also writes about things a little too generally, but he still provides specific instances of various gamers and gaming communities being an uncomfortable place for him as a PoC.

The thing about the Nazi pinup art and cosplayer is probably the biggest problem with the article. When you say things like 'It reminds me of the old south, then describe a community of people, then identify effectively 2 of 50,000 people there as racist, you have associated the entire group with racism. You cant bookend the description of a cultural event with the slave south, and nazis and then say you arent calling them racist. You are.


But here's the real meat of the issue: it doesn't matter whether his article has "rational arguments" or is "too emotional." He identifies some things he didn't like and provides some suggestions of how to make GenCon more inclusive. He doesn't owe anyone a "logical" argument for inclusion. Part of white privilege is not seeing the discomfort of non-white groups who feel underrepresented in a given community. Having white privilege doesn't mean you're being evil and ignoring it, it means you literally don't see it. When George writes about feeling out of place at GenCon, the proper response shouldn't be, "Prove it!" There are a lot of people asking for more inclusion in the gaming community, and it's there if you look for it and listen to those voices. The burden of proof is not on George here.

When you publish something you open yourself to criticism. And whether you want to say it or not, he did call gencon, and the gaming community as a whole racist. If the article was about how to get more people of color into the hobby, Even Mr Correia agreed it was a good idea and he was on board. He even has the right to say he was uncomfortable, or felt underrepresented. He didnt do that though. He drew on imagry that is among the worst we can think of for racism in history.

He has the right to talk about how he felt, but he also is responsible for what he says and how he says it. And what he said, was insulting. Correia had a right to be insulted and to respond harshely to poorly chosen words that paint a community with a single thoughtless brush. Because that is the essence of prejudice.

I went to primarly african american schools growing up, I think there were 20 white kids in my entire Junior High of more then a thousand students. Most of my piers were african american, I'd say about 3/4ths of my teachers were african american. Most of those teachers and staff lived near my school, also a minority neighborhood.

Some African american students attempted at times to pick on me because I was white. I was at many times uncomfortable because I did not conform to the culture that prevaled at my school.

This is experience is very similar at least in a vaccume to George's Gencon experience. Do you think it would be reasonable for me to say it shows a race problem among the african american people of new york not being inclusive enough to white students? The idea is literally laughable. But the evidence is the same as what George gives. But it requires ignoring a whole host of other factors that are the primary cause of my discomfort and the absents of people I identify with in the community in question.

I can accept the idea of white privaledge, though I do think the idea of intersectionality is more accurate. I do however think one needs to consider the context of the situation before they write something like that article.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Proper level is the same level as the party. In terms of wealth, if people can freely obtain the kinds of magic items they want, it should be the same wealth level as the party average. If the party generally only finds what they can, or is low wealth for their level, the gm should give items manually in line with what other players have, and then give an amount of gold to bring the player close to the party average.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It's kind of sad, because the 3.5e halfling hurler with a ring of blink and a sackful of acid flasks and alchemist's fire was long considered the benchmark of good class balance: he could hold his own in combat, he had plenty of skills outside of combat, he had reasonable defenses (slippery mind, etc.), and so on. Paizo nerfed his combat potential to near-zero, and now the rogue seems to mark the dividing line between PC classes and mundane NPC classes like the aristocrat.

I think the specificness of what was required to make the rogue good is sort of symptomatic of the problem dont you? In the end classes need to stand or fall on whats there in the class description. If a specific magic item, or very specific build is necessary, the class is probably just as problematic. I played 3.5 for its entire length. I never saw a ring of blink. I saw lots of rogues. Lots of halfling rogues. No rings of blink though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

All right, I'm back with the links I promised.

However, before I list them, I want to make it clear that I found these on the first page of a Google search for "explaining white privilege." I'm providing these because Kolokotroni showed an interest in having this conversation. I'm happy to provide some general information on what I mean when use the word privilege, but also keep in mind that you all could have looked this up yourselves. This isn't an admonishment in any way, just a note that people aren't always obliged to educate you just because you ask them to. Like I said, a lot of people have written about this, and I trust that all of you know how (at least on a basic level) to do internet (and other kinds of!) research.

(These are all largely, if not entirely, American-centric, just fyi)
From On Racism and White Privilege
-a general overview of what white privilege is
From Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person
From How to Talk to Someone About Privilege Who Doesn't Know What That Is
-The two above talk about talking about privilege, and also explore the difference between various kinds of privilege
A comic about what white privilege is: Comic
-I've saved this one for last as it contains some mildly accusatory language, and if you can get through the first three and try to understand what (white) privilege is without feeling accused of anything, you can probably handle this one being 90% informative and 10% disappointed that people don't understand privilege

Definately interesting reads. I particularly think the concept of intersection is an important consideration. There is privaledge associated with things like gender, class, sexual orientation, citizenship, and ableness.

In particular since the word intersectionality probably has no connotation in any culture, if you start the conversation with something that needs explanation, its alot easier to get a positive response.


P.S.: With regards to Correia's race: I do realize that Correia identifies as Latino. However:
-I saw the picture of him on his website. He's more or less white-passing, which is another form of privilege (the first article I link to specifically uses the phrase "white skin privilege" at one point, and that seems relevant). Which isn't to say that his opinions as a non-white don't count or something, but I still think he's a huge [redacted].
-I'm a little confused about how being Portuguese makes you Latino, but it's not something I feel remotely qualified to talk about, so I'm gonna leave it alone. I got the impression from Correia's article that he was equating the two, but it's not like there aren't both Portuguese white people and Portuguese PoC, so, again, dropping it.

Well there is slightly more to it then that. Obviously growing up in a portugese neighborhood is not the same as growing up in an african american neighborhood, but it still differs from a 'white' neighborhood.

Not all 'white' people are the same, or have the same amount of privaledge. And its more or less tied to their cultural identity.

I am greek. I grew up with a very strong cultural identity. I am the child of Immigrants. My family, my people, while ostensibly white, look different then the typical 'white' person, their culture, behavior, values, differ from the 'norm'. In some of the most important aspects of privaledge I still benefit. But in others I dont.

Other then my big fat greek wedding, there isnt much I can think of off the top of my head where i can turn on a tv or open a magazine and see my people.

And while the history books celebrate my classical heritage, they dont have a whole lot to say about it in the last thousand years. That and the fact that the English word used, is Greek, its 'Greco Roman' history. Its not the word we identify ourselves with (Hellenic), and was effectively assigned to Greeks by the romans after it's conquest.

Another interesting case is my brother. He is as you might imagine also, Greek. But he has a darker complexion then I have. I have to tan pretty heavily to appear to the casual observer as non-white, though it has happened. My brother, generally gets pulled aside by airport security every time he flies, tan or not.

Just to be clear, I am not somehow exempt from privaledge. I just think the blanket statement of white privaledge is pretty ignorant. There is more to the story then that. And simply calling it white privaledge is more divisive then it needs to be.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DrakeRoberts wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Thormind wrote:

Rogue with greater two weapon fighting and/or boots of speed and/or a speed weapon has 5-6 attacks on a full round. Base weapon damage 1d6+4 when sneaking(i am using swords of dubtlety). Base sneak damage 5d6 per attack. So total 6d6+4 per attack time 5 attacks = 50-200 dmg per round. It can even be higher if you add two weapon rend (1d10+1 1/2str per round). I might be wrong but i doubt any other melee class (outside a Slayer) can reach that...

Yes there are other classes that get many skills but none get that high dmg and defense. And not many get trapfinding and trapspoter.

If you account for average damage, and the % to hit, then yes, most melee classes can match that.

From the dpr olypmics threads:

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.

h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

Plug the rogues bonus to hit against a target of level+13 AC and compare that with the same result of a raging barbarian, and its no contest. The rogue rolls lots of dice, the barbarian does more damage, by a big margin.

How do you use this formula to account for the number of attacks? Examples welcome. Thanks.

Its additive. Each attack is its own plug into that equation. Obviously iterative attacks may have differnt % to hit, off hand attacks might do different damage, adjust as needed for the attack routine in question.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:

But we're talking about people not being allowed to purchase a GenCon badge or volunteer at the convention because they're not white.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

So how is GenCon racist again?

That's your definition? Anything less than that is OK? Or is maybe some other kind of bad, but not racism?

For many this is their understanding of what racism is. Racist means the dudes in the white hoods blowing up black churches. Racist means a guy with a swastika tatoed on his forhead wanting to kill Jews.

Thats not to say they are right. But that is their Connotation. We only have connotation, and denotation. Everyone has the dictionary definition of words. Connotation varies by experience, culture and numerous other factors.

And the truth is, those white males are pretty defensive about this sort of thing. Very few white males in this country fit in the church burning antisemite category. They want all people, men, women, black, white, asian, latino, to get a fair shake in life. They certainly dont feel like they have done anything to prevent that. Often, in conversations like this one, they are confused. When they hear something like white privaledge, they think of a bunch or rich men in the country club plotting to exploit the common people. And when they are told they are part of it, they think thats bs, im not in the country club, I'm a working stiff like everyone else.

Without the explanation, without the details, and without the logic, we cant communicate about something as complicated and deeply ingrained in our society as the problems we have with race and gender in this nation.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Maybe I'm angry for rational reasons, which I then articulate. They're both mentally produced, and not mutually exclusive to an argument. Stop pretending like their opposite magnetic poles. I have never seen that dichotomy used except as a way to dismiss other people's arguments. It's always: "That's not logical! Therefore I'm right." If your argument is solid, or you take issue with how someone emotionally responds to something, then address that specifically instead of putting other people down.

If you give me the articulation, I have no issue. We never got that in the torg article. If you say I am angry because of x, y and z, thats perfectly logical (assuming x, y and z are sensible reasons to be angry). But x, y and z should be related to what we are talking about.

If we are discussing the healthcare system. And you come in telling me you are angry because you cant get coverage for your childrens perscriptions, rational argument. If you tell me you are angry because you once had a doctor who was a jerk, well ok, but how does that have anything to do with healthcare other then the actions of one specific doctor? And if you just tell me you are angry...well i cant really respond can I?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

If I specifically say that privilege and structural racism exist, and specifically say that privilege is not having to deal with oppression, and you take that to mean that I'm "accusing" you of something, then I think you're not really listening.

Racism is a structural inequality. I don't care what your dictionary says, I care what the people who experience racism say, and they have pointed this out time and time again.

But yeah, you're right, we should stop slinging around the word racism so much. We wouldn't want to hurt white people's feelings when we talk about PoC being denied access to social spaces, jobs, housing, privacy, freedom, their lives, and their right to be treated like people.

You can not care what the dictionary says, but then you have to be really careful about your words. Both connotation and denotation matter when talking to someone.

The people you talk to have to understand what you are trying to communicate. If someone doesnt inherently know what you mean when you say 'white privaledge', then you have failed to initiate that conversation. If you want to talk about the shades of grey racism that is ingrained in our culture to someone who has never experienced it, just saying racism wont get your point across.

What those words mean to the people you are talking to matters as much as what they mean to the people you are talking about and what they mean to you.

We dont all share the life experience that explains what that privaledge and systemic racism means. The image those words conjure in the minds of the people that dont understand is completely different then the one you are trying to discuss. And yes, it is likely they will take offense, or simply not understand. So you have failed to start the conversation you want.

By all means I want to have the conversation. I would go as far as to say most Americans, and even most white americans want racism to be a thing of the past, and would be willing to talk about and work on how to make that happen. But they wont respond well to that conversation starting with them being blamed for what (at least in their minds) they didnt cause.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

Correia's assessment of why PoC don't play more TTRPGs in one of his paragraphs:

-"It isn't a race thing, it is a poverty and accessibility thing"
But then he immediately says:
-"Sadly poverty and accessibility go hand in hand with race in this country"
-"George is taking a big, complex bundle of problems made up of economics, education, and social issues and dumping in the lap of people who have nothing to do with it."

So he immediately contradicts himself and dismisses George by saying "welp, this has nothing to do with all the white people at GenCon."

He says this because it isnt those SPECIFIC white people at gen con that are causing this problem. And thats sort of the point here. The torg author isnt saying this is a symptom of the larger societal ills. He is saying these people, here(gencon), at this place are racist. And he offers literally nothing to support that claim other then the absense of minorities among the gamers.


This "complex bundle of problems" is essentially the underlying racist structures of America. Correia's dismissal--his ability to ignore and dismiss this--is basically the definition of racial privilege. Having privilege isn't about getting everything handed to you on a platter because you're in the right social category, or saying your accomplishments don't mean anything. It's about how you don't have to constantly deal with oppression on a daily basis, and often not even being aware of it.

The "people who have nothing to do with it" don't exist, because of racist structures that make you either oppressed or privileged. I don't care how much you "don't care what skin color someone is" or "judge people only on their merits as people," America as a country is filled with inequality baked into nearly every aspect of its construction. Paizo is committed to diversity in gaming, and I love that--it's probably the main reason I'm still interested in Pathfinder. But their drive to increase their inclusivity is an acknowledgement of the inequality that women and PoC encounter in gaming spaces and representation. So they've done some good, but they could take it further. And I'm not saying that they haven't done enough, but obviously there are still people who feel uncomfortable at large gaming conventions because of the lack of people who look like them--a lack that's based on racism and sexism as social/economic/etc structures. And Correia seems more interested in attacking than discussing this, let alone trying to address any sort of change that could be had.

Again, if the discussion was in that context, it would have been a different story. Everything you say I agree with. I am a white male. I have the privaledge of not worrying about cops shooting me as I walk the streets of New York City. I have the privaledge of not facing that bias in my day to day life. I am lucky. That doesnt make me racist. If I or any other gamer refused to listen to a panel by an African American rpg author because he wasn't white, or refused to play a paladin because the pathfinder iconic doesnt look like me. Thats racist. If I gave weird looks to a person who doesnt look like me at a convention that would be racist. But that didnt happen here.

Is there a serious social ill in this country? Certainly. Does it need to be discussed, worked on, fought over? Absolutely. But you dont start the conversation by insulting people. You start with the actual problem, and then try to find ways to solve it.


And on a final note, y'all need to stop with this whole "rational arguments are good and the opposite of emotion, which is bad" nonsense. It's just b#!*&!$#.

How exactly is it bs? Emotion doesnt solve problems. It creates them. Rational thinking solves problems. Emotional results can be part of rational arguments. I was uncomfortable BECAUSE x. Ok, lets look at what caused x. I was frightened because y. Lets look at y. We then have a problem to address. Emotions matter. But you cant just declare them and call it done. Then nothing is solved.

If the only thing you discuss is your feelings without looking at the root cause, you are contributing nothing to the conversation, and certainly not to the solution.

People in fergueson are upset, enraged, heartbroken, frightened, indignent. If we leave it at that...well what do we do? If we say the reasoning behind that emotion, we get to a problem of system abuse by police officers and statistics on arrests and traffic stops that are impossible to explain away.

A black man in fergueson is indignant because he is very likely to be harassed, arrested, or physically harmed by police officers for behavior that would be ignored in a white man. His emotion is important, but the logical chain of events that lead to it is what allows a problem to be identified and dealt with.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thormind wrote:

Rogue with greater two weapon fighting and/or boots of speed and/or a speed weapon has 5-6 attacks on a full round. Base weapon damage 1d6+4 when sneaking(i am using swords of dubtlety). Base sneak damage 5d6 per attack. So total 6d6+4 per attack time 5 attacks = 50-200 dmg per round. It can even be higher if you add two weapon rend (1d10+1 1/2str per round). I might be wrong but i doubt any other melee class (outside a Slayer) can reach that...

Yes there are other classes that get many skills but none get that high dmg and defense. And not many get trapfinding and trapspoter.

If you account for average damage, and the % to hit, then yes, most melee classes can match that.

From the dpr olypmics threads:

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.

h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

Plug the rogues bonus to hit against a target of level+13 AC and compare that with the same result of a raging barbarian, and its no contest. The rogue rolls lots of dice, the barbarian does more damage, by a big margin.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

As I said I don't think I'd draw the same conclusions. There are a number of reasons that can be imagined for the racial demographics of TTRPGs in general and GenCon in particular and not all of them require active racism on the part of anyone involved.

That said, it's still got be disturbing to be at an event where everyone who resembles you is picking up the garbage. As I said, I've noticed that in some places and been bothered by it and I am white.

I also don't read the A.A. George post as accusatorily as Corriera did. But then I tend to see racism as common, pervasive and a matter of degree rather than as "You are EVIL!!!"

I can understand being uncomfortable in that situation. I can also understand being uncomfortable amongst a crowd of people that are racially different then you.

But the author of the torg article went on to equate that with the gaming community being deliberately exclusionary and racist. And that is why Correia responded the way he did. If the author had been rational and discussed the issue in a broader context, it wouldnt have been as imflammatory as it was.

Correia even goes on to agree that the gaming community should do more to reach out to minorities and encourage them to game and applauded the diversity offered by paizo's iconics as an example of changing trends. If the torg article was 'I want to see more minorities in gaming, at gaming conventions and pictured in gaming products and stories' it wouldnt have been insulting, and I doubt Correia would have responded the same way.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
FireberdGNOME wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:

that´s why the Classes has diferent experience advancement in the old days from AD&D

there was 4 groups from where all the classes are attached

Rogue (Rogue, ninja, bard, assassin)
Priest (monk, cleric, druid)
Warrior (fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger, samuray
Wizard (mage, illusionist, specialist and so)

rogue 1250
priest 1500
warrior 2000
wizard 2500


Unfortunately even this example of 'balance' is misleading. I don't have the reference in front of me (in fact the only 1st Ed book I still have is the DMG) but I know that it was tough to get a Wizard to Level 2, but *easy* to gain levels once you hit about 7th. That is to say, it was hard to level and hard to survive as a baby Wizzie, but you rocket past every other class at the time that the wizard really comes into his power levels. Although, Rogues never struggled with levels ;) They were always low cost :p

There is also the fact that levels mean something different in the current system then they did in previous ones. The intent of the rules is that levels should be roughly equal in capability (hence level being the way CR is assigned, not class). But they arent. The solution to that is not to throw any math the system has out the window by keeping different classes on different levels. The answer is to finish balancing the classes so levels of different classes are roughly equivalent.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thormind wrote:
Orthos wrote:

Or the Rogue is just a plain badly-designed class and to nerf the Slayer down to its level would produce two badly-designed classes rather than one good class and one poor class.

The Slayer didn't destroy the Rogue. That was done long ago, between the Bard, the Alchemist, and the Inquisitor.

I dont understand why people keep saying the rogue is bad. At lvl 13 i have more AC than the Barbarian and Paladin in my group and i rarely lose the bonus.

I also outdamage them by a very large margin. 5 attacks doing 6d6+4 dmg each for 200dmg possible per round...

I took 3 lvl of shadowdancer for hide in plain sight and the flank partner. The only time i can't do sneak dmg is when the target is immune: rarely.

On top of very nice combat abilities rogues get many skill points to play with, just icing on the cake.

People say it because its true. If a rogue has a better ac then the paladin and is out damaging the barbarian, the rogues system mastery is way above that of the other players. Also possible damage and average damage are very different things. Those 6d6+4 damage represent 25 damage on average, so a 125 damage, not 200, and thats offset by your frequency to hit, which is less then the raging barbarian by a large margin. His 2d6+alot damage a hit means a heck of alot more when actual statistics are concerned, and he doesnt have to rely on positioning or circumstance (getting sneak attack) to do his damage, he just rages.

And yes the rogue gets lots of skills. But so do lots of other classes, who get significantly more in the area of other class abilities then the rogue does.

I am not saying rogues are worthless, or that people shouldnt play them. But particularly in the area of their combat ability, they dont hold up under equal amounts of optimization to any of the other martial classes. So they shouldnt be the yardstick by which new classes are judged.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

In fairness, in the article it wasn't racism just because the convention hall staff were minorities, but because of the contrast between the majority minority facilities staff and what he perceived as the overwhelmingly white attendees.

Now, I wasn't there so I can't comment on his perception of the attendees and I don't think I'd draw the same conclusions, but it's not quite the same as "it's racist that the staff was minority". I've seen that kind of thing in other circumstances and once you notice it, it is disturbing. And I can imagine how much more so it must be when your appearance matches the staff, not the guests.

But that's a distinction that Correia slid right over.

Mind you if anything, it's not racism on Gencon's part or even on the convention center's part, but just a reflection of the racism in society that traps some in situations where such jobs are the best they can get.

Its perfectly fine to see the a bunch of minorities working as janitors/food servers/security guards etc and a bunch of white people with enough disposable cash to fly to indianapolis for 4 days to indulge their hobbies and see a reflection of a biased and racially unfair society.

Its fine to comment on that fact.

Its not ok to say that those people at that convention and the community they are involved in are themselves racist because of it.

If the article had framed it the way you did, it wouldnt have gotten th reaction. He assigned societie's racial bias specifically to gencon, when gencons lack of diversity is more a symptom of the greater ill then anything else. And in the process, he insulted alot of people, including Correia.

Is it a bad thing that many minorities cant do better then minimum wage jobs despite genuine effort to make their and their families lives better? Yes, it is. Does that make someone racist for picking up a burger at McDonalds? No.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are a fair amount of people who buy paizo adventures and setting products but dont play pathfinder itself, either with 3.x or 4.0 or something more exotic. Its a good setting with rich ideas. And their adventures are excellent. Not sure why you loath the volume they put out each year, seems like then its more likely they would touch on a product you like. If they only produced 1 adventure path per year for instance, it would still probably be a long time before iron gods came out.

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Given that the rogue is the weakest class in the game, this is a good thing. Essentially the components of the rogue concept have been seperated into different classes. Want to be a stealthy assasin, play a ninja, want to be an int based sherklock holmes type, play an investigator. Want to be the dashing fencer, play a swashbuckler, and if you want to be a back alley murderer, play a slayer. All of these classes hold up better against the rest of the game then the rogue does. The rogue being the least effective class in the game, shouldnt be the yardstick by which all skilled characters are judged.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I game with my primary circle of friends. We socialize in all sorts of gaming (not just rpgs) and non-gaming situations, I definately think it affects our games. I look forward to seeing these people, and when we hang out away from the game, we often talk about recent sessions, and prod eachother about the next session of so and so's campaign, or so and so's character. Sort of creates a continuity of thought, so that games stay fresh in our minds.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A single spell list would create more problems for the bard then it solves. He has some traditionally divine spells on his list, he also gets a few spells early, as opposed to sorc/wizards to account for his slower spell progression. The summoner likewise wouldnt be able to buff his eidolon very well without the natury buffs mixed in with his mostly arcane list.

While sometimes their are outliers that seem odd to be left out, the individual spell lists is a good thing for most classes.

The lists also exist to establish theme. Bards, thematically arent conjurers, they are buffers and enchanters. If bards had the whole arcane list at their disposal it would change the nature of the class, and you would likely lose some of that theme. Same thing for the summoner, ranger, paladin etc. Their spell lists are tailored to a percieved theme.

And gravity bow, though useful for specific bard builds, doesnt reside within the traditional bard theme (buffer, jack of all trades, skilled, enchanter).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

So to your first question, yes a sylvan sorceror can cast enlarge person on his animal companion.

As for your second question. I would say not. Casting a spell and activating a spell trigger item are different actions. So at least to my reading of the rules you arent casting a spell, so the share spells ability doesnt apply. That is by raw at least. At my table i'd probably allow it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dazz wrote:

The players I've always had never really cared about a character mysteriously popping in and out of existence, just the occasional joke of "Hey, where'd that guy with the shiny purple gloves go this time?" Of course, the players I run with tend to be goofy types, so most of them didn't feel a huge need to have everything make total sense in-game.

Realistically, you'll rarely (if ever) be able to seamlessly fit a player's attendance record into the game world--someone has to leave due to their master's commands halfway down a dungeon and comes back (one missed session later) after the group's done three fights and solved the deadly puzzle trap, which may have only taken an hour or two in-game. "Yep turns out he just wanted me to put this scrying mark on a tree outside. And no, it couldn't have waited three hours for us to finish what we were doing." However, if your group really gets into that kind of immersion, it can become a practice in creativity--explaining why and where they're gone while leaving it open how long they could be absent.

In highschool my dm used to say it was just a random no save teleport trap, and that the player happened to hit another one when he came back the next session.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
StarMartyr365 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, selling out of hardcovers isn't normal either. This Gen Con was... quite good.

Thank you for all of the hard work that you and the rest of the Paizo crew have put into making Pathfinder awesome. For the first time since I started gaming in the 80s (Original Red Box represent!) I now have the necessary tools to play just about any game that I could ever want to without spending most what little game time I have on reinventing the wheel instead of actually gaming. The only problem I'm having right now is choosing between a Fading Suns campaign or a Space Opera Wars campaign. I'll probably end up doing both!

Thanks again!


I need a couple more things, but we are certainly getting close. The whole golarion kitchen sink thing is kind of nice in that respect. I just want the stats for the spaceships to use within the vehicle combat rules, and rules for navies in kingdom building/mass combat.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For me I am ok with a quick handwave for situations like this. If people have legitimate reasons for missing games (IE being at college, work, taking care of family) and inform me ahead of time, I generally dont have a problem writing them in and out of the adventure. Usually its sort of ham handed, IE 'you get split up in the chaos of that fight that ended last session, but you know she will meet you at the end of the city' or something like that. Not great for immersion, but honestly, there are things more important then immersion, like making your friend feel welcome at a social event.

Again its different if someone is flaking out constantly, or showing up late, or whatever. But in cases of family, work, school concerns, I am always willing to make the concession.

Often too, I ask the player to do something extra, like write up a journal about their experience while the party was doing its thing, as like 'makeup xp' if I am using xp for that campaign. Because I also dont believe in penalyzing players for having a life (having them be behind in level for missing sessions).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yea unfortunately shooting something out of the sky is shockingly difficult. The dc 10 fly check is pretty much a joke.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
I've encountered quite a few SJW. One lambasted her social circle at college and ended up quitting the school because hir friends argued that the NY legislature taking a few extra days to hammer out details on marriage equality to prevent lawsuits was a good thing (requirements that specify religious groups cannot be forced to perform marriages). Ze has now joined a likeminded group in the Boston area who all are equally rediculous in their views. One I've actually argued with that there are no physical differences between men and women.

Wait, no physical differences? I assume this was in regards to muscle mass and height and not... other things right?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
The best point correia makes is that gaming in general, is an upper middle class activity. Gaming costs money, a lot of money. Gen con in particular represents a cross section of gamers who not only have the resources to game, but also the disposable income and time to take a flight, buy a hotel and spend 4-5 days on their hobby. Sure some people pinch pennies and save all year to make it to gen con, but most families arent going to prioritize such things if they have trouble making rent.

Gaming costs pocket change compared to many other leisure activities. Like going to the movies for example. :)

You can play for hundreds of hours off a couple of moderately expensive books - and split the costs among the players. Or you can be a completist and spend thousands of dollars a year on gaming books, miniatures and other gear. These days you can even play just off the SRD and buy nothing at all. (You'll need internet access, but that can't be counted as a gaming only expense.)

You can travel to conventions or just play at home. Now obviously attendance at Gencon will skew towards the higher income, but if that's the main factor you'd expect to see a higher percentage of minority gamers at local conventions. Which in my very limited experience isn't true. Anecdotal, of course, but I don't think anyone has done actual research.

I'd love to see actual research. I doubt we will any time soon but certainly it would be interesting to see actual numbers. Things like diversity of race and income levels at local and big conventions and in the gaming community in general.

And its true that there are ways to game without spending tons of money. However, I dont think I am making some sort of great leap to say most gamers spend way more then a low income household could on a leisure activity. In addition gaming also represent a high level of education. Mostly because it is a leisure activity that in general involves lots of critical thinking and reading. I dont think anyone would have to look very hard to find studies that show kids in poor neighborhoods read less, or not at all.

I went to school in what were poor, primarily minority schools. I am white. I integrated well enough, I've always been an athlete. I was the white kid that played on the big basketball court in gymclass or in the school yard. I made many friends in those schools, many of which I still have today. I was never able to convince any of my minority friends to play magic the gathering or dnd with me and those I played with at school. Obviously this was some time ago, and its an anequedote, but I certainly had the impression that even those of my peers who were intelligent and probably would have enjoyed playing with the nerdy white kids, there was severe social pressure not to. The very idea of a leisure activity that was literally reading based was frowned on.

Even kids who had disposable income, either from jobs or from their families, chose to spend that money in other areas. It was a social pressure thing, the new jordans were more important then 'nerdy books' or whatever gaming material my primarily white gaming friends picked up from our local comic book shop (which by the way was a 40 minute bus ride away from our school in a primarily white neighborhood).

This is ofcourse just one persons experience, in one neightborhood. But the apparent narrative is similar in every example I've become aware of. And whether its accurate or not, the narrative in our cultural conciousness influences what we see and what we expect.

If you raise the income and education levels of minority families, I truly believe much of that would change. It wouldnt be an issue for a kid to go buy the new dnd redbox or its equivalent, or blow some money on magic cards. And it wouldnt be an odd thing to see a kid in a minority neighborhood with his nose in not just a gaming book, but the host of fantasy, sci fy novels and comic books that inpire us.

With more minority gamers, more of them will become designers, authors and artists in the industry, and you would see better diversity both in the industry as whole and at specific events. And probably most importantly, flgs or whatever ends up being the avenue of hte future for gaming purchases would thrive in minority neighborhoods. Because I think for most our friendly local gaming store or comic book store is where we got our real entry in the gaming world. And those stores definately depend on people spending more then pocket change on gaming material.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:

Both of the articles in question are terrible.

George's article is an exercise in purposefully shallow thinking, and while I can forgive Correia being dismissive of George's eminently dismissible argument, the fact that he decided to respond in the first place is awful. George is making some really horrible allegations about the con and the gaming community at large with literally nothing to back it up. No one is stopping him from feeling marginalized, but it's on him to identify why he feels marginalized, and is not incumbent on the rest of the gaming community to figure that out for him, because that's simply not possible.

George's article could have said meaningful things about gaming and race, but it didn't. Correia's response starts a "dialogue" that is really just bringing the level of discourse surrounding the topic down to the level of bickering.

I think when you insult an entire community of people and call them racist without real evidence or logical thinking, you deserve to be dismissed the way Correia did.

The truth is, there is an absence of minorities in the gaming community. But its less about the fact that gamers or gaming is racist, and more about the fact that the larger issues of racism, race, and inequality have lead to it.

The best point correia makes is that gaming in general, is an upper middle class activity. Gaming costs money, a lot of money. Gen con in particular represents a cross section of gamers who not only have the resources to game, but also the disposable income and time to take a flight, buy a hotel and spend 4-5 days on their hobby. Sure some people pinch pennies and save all year to make it to gen con, but most families arent going to prioritize such things if they have trouble making rent.

Most upper middle class and wealthy people in this country are white. Until relatively recently, that really meant white male. The demographics are shifting, slowly, but there are still lots of problems in that area, and many of them are about race and racism. Those need to be solved.

Obviously its just my opinion, but if we eliminated the wealth gap, you would see alot more minorities at things like gencon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

The latter, Larry Correia.

As far as I can tell, his "arguments" are mostly "well I don't feel the same way as you about racial issues, so you're WRONG!"

He seems very angry about how one person wrote an article about feeling underrepresented in their hobby. He's dismissive and inflammatory. Also, as a rule, I don't trust anyone who argues with "dictionary definitions" (especially with complicated and nuanced issues like race and racism), and unironically uses the term "Social Justice Warrior."

Did you actually read his arguments? His arguments had signficant bits of logic in there to back them up more then his beliefs and feelings. Lots of the torg authors points dont stand up to logical scrutiny, since his argument basically boils down to 'There are relatively few minorities at gencon, thus racism'.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Step 1: Ask your Girlfriend if you can play a gestalt character. If you dont know what gestalt is, google it it was from 3.5 unearthed arcana. Assuming She says yes,

Play a 25-30pt buy Druid/Summoner(normal summoner not master summoner). Make sure your eidolon can handle a few key skills you cant (skilled evolution is 1pt and you can choose several of its class skills) and is a solid melee combatant. Pick the big cat animal companion, give it the light armor proficiency and give it barding. Make sure you have good buff and control spells ready from both druid and summoner, and a few healing spells. In a pinch, summon monsters and animals.

Once you get wildshape, use it, dont forget natural spell.

Its distinctly possible you could now solo ANY adventure path.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Soooo no news?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
silvermage wrote:

I will try bringing that up with him. As much as he wants to be loose and lenient on the rules, I don't think he would just flat-out make a new rule that hurts the party, on purpose.

Just make sure its a discussion on conceptual changes between 3rd edition dnd and pathfinder, and not during an argument. No one is particularly open to persuasion during an argument.

In 3rd edition for instance, as I mentioned, people who are a level behind the party gain extra xp to 'catch up'. Since pathfinder removed the concept of level loss, and made it relatively easy to recover 'level drain' and 'negative levels' they removed this component to make xp calculations easier.

Explain this to him, not from a you are wrong perspective, but from 'I found out this thing thats different between pathfinder and previous editions of dnd'. And maybe he still wants level loss to be punative. Thats also ok, there are lots of groups with that kind of style, but then talk to him about ways the player can eventually recover, and what his views are on eventually replacing the wealth that was lost to the ressurcetion.

He may also not be aware that the wealth a party has factors into the power assumption the game makes about how strong characters are of x level. Many games in previous editions had very low wealth standards. Pathfinder very much worked to unify things like Save DCs, Attack bonuses, and Armor class around challenge ratings. So if you are missing levels, and magic items that assist in these things that the game expects, the lethality of encounters goes up dramatically.

So talk to him about it. Ask if theres a way he could put in a side task to recover some of the wealth spent on the resurrection over time, and a way for the player to regain those levels over time. He may want the party to work to recover from this loss to make it 'felt' instead of being a passing thing. But I assume from what he has said that he isnt trying to hurt the party. So talk to him about it, but dont argue.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
silvermage wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
silvermage wrote:

Edit: YES your summary was spot-on, all except for the negative level bit. We leveled up after she died, so everyone else went to level 6, and when we brought her back, he told her that she had just enough XP to be level 5. Just so she didn't have to change anything on her character sheet and go back down to level 4, which is probably what he would have preferred, but he was "being lenient."

If he talks to you about this again, stop using the word You. Never start a sentance with you. Talk about how you feel, talk about your views. "I think its important to know what the rules are ahead of time, I think its important to ensure balance in level and wealth among the players and among the wealth by level assumptions pathfinder makes. I am concerned that a player that is lower level will end up struggling even more later on, possibly dying again. Especially since pathfinder has no 'catchup' mechanic like 3.5 did where lower level characters get additional xp. What do you think?'

When you start sentances with You do this, or You dont do that, you automatically put him on the defensive, and reduce the chances of a productive conversation.

You are right. I actually forgot about that, maybe because I just woke up to his text and responded while still half asleep lol ... Probably should stop doing that. Maybe it is a good thing that I will have to repeat all of this to him later lol. I don't know how I forgot that. I'm a psychology major for the love of...

Psychology majors are not immune to psychological effects. But if its a habit thats common, it probably goes a long way to explain why he's so hostile to your point of view if he feels attacked.

I can say there are positions in my life in which I get extremely defensive under criticism. First is when I am gming, not because I think i am gods gift to the game or anything, but I am juggling a lot of things, and have put alot of work into doing this thing in the hopes my friends and I will have fun. So when i am doing it, I genuinely feel vulnerable and am looking for approval and positive results. Criticism DURING the game, is tough to swallow regardless if its warrented or not. And almost nothing is going to put me on the defensive faster.

Except the other thing. Criticism from a significant other. I am vulnerable to the people I love. Particularly the person I choose to love (my significant other as opposed to my family). Criticism from them is harder to swallow because of how much their views matter to me. Not that they shouldnt criticize me if I do something wrong, hurtful, stupid etc. But its never an easy moment.

I am obviously speaking for myself here. But something tells me that your boyfriend has similar vulnerabilities. And when one feels vulnerable and iscriticized, one gets defensive, and often hostile. You know him better then any of us could. This is important to both of you. Treat it as such. Talk about it the way you would talk about other important differences or conflicts.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
'Sani wrote:

Drop him as a DM. Drop him as a boyfriend. Drop him like a bad habit.

There are other games, other GMs, and much, MUCH better boyfriends.

Seriously? This is your advice? After reading some posts on a message board? Seriously? I would be very careful to give that sort of advice to a friend I knew well, and interacted with in person regularly with regards to a relationship that has lasted 4 years. You know absolutely nothing about thier actual relationship and only know part of the story about this gaming situation. Think before you speak. Possibly, think and then dont speak.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
silvermage wrote:

Edit: YES your summary was spot-on, all except for the negative level bit. We leveled up after she died, so everyone else went to level 6, and when we brought her back, he told her that she had just enough XP to be level 5. Just so she didn't have to change anything on her character sheet and go back down to level 4, which is probably what he would have preferred, but he was "being lenient."

He just responded to me suggesting that I leave his RotRl game.
"I think the problem comes from me just being a loose gm, i pretty often change prices on the fly, cause i dont think the CRB prices are high enough for some things. Also, i dont feel like my choices as GM are being respected. I always have to fight with you when you rules laywer me, when pathfinder isnt a competitive game. You never do that to any other gm, im sure. And it makes me really sad, cause i wanted pathfinder to be our thing, that we can take casually, but you clearly take it more seriously than that. And you clearly prefer other games. So honestly, i cant stop you from leaving my campaigns, even if i want you to stay."

To which I responded:
"Well I fight you on things because you change them to suit yourself and don't realize the impact it will have on the entire adventure...
For example, yes we spent 15,000gp. That is redic and should have bought back the negative level. It should have been a Raise Dead with two Restorations. You could at least make up for it by not forcing her character to become weaker; also, Paizo's rules on losing a level are not "you literally lose an entire level." It's supposed to be able to be bought back. And using your price guide of DOUBLE THE PRICE, which btw will make it really impossible for anyone else to ever get brought back now and will ruin your story continuity because everyone will probably die at some point...ahem. Your double the price. Which is really harsh. Would be raise dead: 10,000. Restorations: 2,000 each. Total: 14,000. But then she gains back all levels lost and levels up... i really can't...

You are being really acusatory here when he was trying to be open and voice his views. I realize you are probably upset, but you need to take a deep breath and a step back. There isnt a right and wrong here. Understand that your view is not the only view, and that what is 'harsh' or 'unfair' in a game like pathfinder is entirely subjective. There is no objective truth here.

Believe me, I completely understand your views here. I get the whole concern about things snowballing, and about wanting to know what changes are made ahead of time. But that is a PLAYSTYLE. It really is. There are groups out there that enjoy the style of play your boyfriend seems to favor. He isnt being a jerk here. Its a different preference. Not everyone thinks about or even cares about the kind of reprecutions you are worried about.

If he talks to you about this again, stop using the word You. Never start a sentance with you. Talk about how you feel, talk about your views. "I think its important to know what the rules are ahead of time, I think its important to ensure balance in level and wealth among the players and among the wealth by level assumptions pathfinder makes. I am concerned that a player that is lower level will end up struggling even more later on, possibly dying again. Especially since pathfinder has no 'catchup' mechanic like 3.5 did where lower level characters get additional xp. What do you think?'

When you start sentances with You do this, or You dont do that, you automatically put him on the defensive, and reduce the chances of a productive conversation.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Metalsymphony wrote:

First You don't have to be a straight up support. and here is how.

Evanglist cleric can start a performance as a standard action...@7 a move action and @ 12 as a swift action.

Low levels you will start your perfomance and position yourself. 2nd round if your melee is on something then cast Command and tell them to Drop or Approach. The drop or approch will provoke AoO from your melee guys who are beefed up by your performance. those 2 extra attack could kill it outright without causing more harm to the group.

Mid levels 7-11 Performancee is your move action leaving your standard to buff more, lay downn the right mitagation (deathward, resist energy), or summon (boosted by performance)
Round 2 your free to go back to command or suggestion tactic...or you can cast Spiritual weapon (which benefits from your Performance)

High levels- Performance as your move, Quicken spiritual weapon or low level buff/mitigation, standard- summon or Blade barrier/wall spell to CC the battle field. You using Divine Interference to force rerolls of any critical threats negating criticals. (much better action then healing)

other then performing your not doing much "full supporting"
Your actually providing more damage just in other forms. And your getting the most out of your spells for the day. It feels like your contributing more then just Buff and look for something to heal.

Ahhh I see what you mean now. Yeah, that sounds a lot more appealing. I'm still in the process of elimination for classes I want to play but I've been crazy busy the last two days. But I've been soaking up all the pathfinder information I can in the meantime. I'm the kind of guy who does a ton of research on something before I jump into it :P.

You mentioned the warpriest. How is that as a class? I haven't checked out the book yet, but it aounds akin to what I originally wanted to play.

And Blave, you've convinced me add inquisitor back to the list because you make it sound like a ton of fun lol.

Warpriest is probably alot of what you are looking for. They are like a fightier less casty cleric. They are amazing at self buffing, but with the cleric spell list they still buff everyone just fine. Also depending on the blessings you choose, buffing others can also come from there.

They will also have access to all the required condition removing and healing spells a party 'needs'. Keep in mind the witch will also have access to alot of that. Talk to the witch player and coordinate. If that player takes the healing hex early on, it will go a long way toward maintaining the 'divine caster' need. You would be more on the hook for things like lesser restoration and remove blindness that the witch may or may not have access to, in terms of divine casting.

The warpriest however is a little light on skills, soe while you could just put his 2 skillpoints into diplomacy and sense motive and be a good enough face, it wont leave you with much else since you need physical stats for fighting and wisdom for your casting and abilities.

The inquisitor is about as good as it gets for filling in what your party is missing. Its far less effective as a support class, but in terms of ranged divine casters with good skills, there isnt anything better.

Remember that in pathfinder you dont need trapfinding to find traps, and only magical traps require it. So an inquisitor with a good perception and disable device (easy to do with their 6 skill points a level) will be a great 'trap guy'. There is also a trait somewhere that grants trapfinding if your dm is using traits and willing to allow it. There are a few nasty traps in areas of this campaign so it is worth having the ability to deal with it. Plus perception and disable device are always useful.

In terms of face, inquisitors are EXCELLENT faces. They have bonuses to intimidate and sense motive, good skill points, all the social skills on their list and are wisdom based for that old sense motive.

Also keep in mind they also have all the important healy divine spells on their list. And with all the in class self buffs you get, you can often focus on those sorts of things with your spells without hurting your ability to contribute in combat.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Things get a little foggy in the rules, but in general, you dont necessarily need to 'retrain' an animal companion to be able to be mounted.

'Training for a general purpose' doesnt represent something seperate from teaching an animal tricks, it just saves you time and effort by grouping tricks together.

Basically training an animal for a purpose teaches them a whole bunch of tricks at once. If they have the capacity you can also train them for additional tricks.

Your tiger starts with an int 2, and 1 bonus trick. That means at 1st level he can know up to 7 tricks. You can and should 'combat train' your tiger immediately, so he is comfortable in a fight. Combat training is DC 20 and grants the following tricks:

attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel

That is six tricks. Since he has a bonus trick to work with, you can later teach him another trick of your choosing. At 7th level he will have 2 more tricks to learn since he has 3 bonus tricks at that point. But remember he is already combat trained which means he is "An animal trained to bear a rider into combat". You dont need to retrain anything at 7th level. Just have him properly combat trained at 1st level. Honestly, your dm should allow you to do so at character creation, and it shouldnt require in game time to get those initial 7 tricks. Either way, this should be done asap.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
silvermage wrote:

Haaa so unfortunately I also live at home and commute to college... And our whole group goes to the same school, and we will be gaming after school once a week during the school year...

Basically, my options are:
1. Quit ruleslawyering altogether. Give in to his god complex. Don't care about my character or the other characters. Play by his rules. See if anyone else starts double checking him maybe...
2. Quit the game.
3. Try to talk to him, get him to fess up to what he did, and give us our gold back. Have him do his actual job and look up the rules when he needs to... Lol notgonnahappen.

I think there are several things at work here that I am not sure I have seen touched on. First off is the effect your personal relationship can have on this sort of situation.

Gaming in a home game is personal. I joked with a person that is currently joining my gaming group that our introduction meeting (we game in our homes so if someone joins we meet them elsewhere first) was like a date. Because it very much is. You will be sharing something that matters to everyone, committing time, probably money and definately emotional energy to a joint activity. That is a relationship.

You already have a (I assume) good relationship with this person in a different context. And often that fact can obscure or divert the nature of the gaming relationship. I have gamed with significant others before. Sometimes it has gone well, other times it has not. If we have different play styles (and you and your dm do have different style preferences) there is an extra bit of friction there because you are already close. You have the power to intimiately affect your boyfriend, he has the power to affect you, thats how intimate relationships work. That power is a wonderful thing, you can bring happiness to eachother like no one else can. But when negative feelings come in, they are already under all the defenses we normally have.

If a random person at a random table in a convention called you are ruleslawyer, you could get up, leave, never see that person again. If a random player at a random table questioned the gm's rulings he wouldnt care either. But thats not what is going on. This is personal. You care for eachother (I assume) a lot. So that challenge, that criticism matters, alot more, and it means more. It hurts more.

Thats perfectly normal. And the truth is, so is how you both feel.

You are both incorrectly categorizing eachother. There is a difference in playstyle here.

Many groups, heck whole game systems exist where the rules really are subject to gm whim. Technically, the gm does have the right to change any rule any time to suit the narrative he wants to tell. He may very well have not 'made a mistake' but intentionally changed a rule, or even if he was mistaken, the mistake skewed towards the narrative he wanted. This sort of playstyle supports the story above all else and is primarily there to enforce GM agency. To ensure the gm has the ability to shape the story as he envisioned. That is perfectly ok, and a legitimate stlye of play. Often the rules as written can intefere with a well crafted story, or at times intefere with play. Many gms out there will do this sort of thing. Its not necessarily about spite, or antagonism with the players. Sometimes it is, sometimes its not. Assuming the gm is a mature and kind person (seems you have that opinion of him) he isnt trying to spite you. He just wants the option to change the rules as he see's fit to fit his story.

This style however is not YOUR style of play.

You seem closer to my own style. I like to know what the rules are, so I can make informed choices. Even if a gm wants to create houserules, I am fine with that so long as they arent on the fly, and are consistent. That style of play supports player agency. It gives the players more power to influence the story and the narrative as a whole, because the gm cannot and willnot make on the fly changes to control the shape of the narrative. The most important part of the story is not the world, its what the players choose. That is player agency. And again, its a perfectly acceptable style of play.

This is not however, HIS style of play.

You sayin he has a God complex, or he calling you a rules lawyer, is not going to help the situation. Both of you need to sit down and understand eachother's point of view. Its possible a compromise can be reached, its also possible it cant be. Not all couples do everything together. Maybe you need to game seperately.

Pull back from the situation. DONT ask him again about this specific instance. Ask him about his desires for the game. Ask him about why he is so adament about never being 'wrong'. Explain your own point of view, and how you think your two gaming styles, and emphasis on gm agency vs player agency are clashing. Ask him what his thoughts (IN GENERAL) are. Other then getting mad at eachother instead of communicating, neither of you did anything wrong here. Even if you both think the other did do something wrong. Dont use words like 'god complex', 'giving in', 'fess up' or 'actual job'. This is not a court case. This is your boyfriend, and you hopefully sharing a fun social event.

Say something like 'I like to know what the rules are ahead of time because it makes me feel empowered to make good choices. What are your thoughts on the nature of the game rules and their consistency? I think maybe you prefer to have the option to change them as needed to fit the story, is that right?' I think you both have strong opinions on 'the right way' to play. And the truth is, there isnt one. Start a conversation in an attempt to try and understand both of those views.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Would the player be penalyzed for making a new character? If not, just go with that instead. There are certainly gms out there that dont like how easy resurrection/raise dead is. Thats all well and good, so long as the dead character can be replaced by a new one.

On a more personal note, you should be able to bring concerns to the gm regardless of your personal relationship, just make sure its in a 'I'd like to know how things are in your game' way more then a 'but the rule book says different kind of way'. In this case I'd say something like 'it seems like your charging extra here for that ressurction spell, is there some in game reason for it? Or do you simply want to make it less available? I'd like to know because it would affect our future attempts at such activity."

In the end, you cant 'beat' the gm. He's not obligate to follow the rules in the book any more then he wants to. So finding out what his reasoning is, and going with that is better then trying to point it out as if its an error.

Obviously its hard to get alot of impressions from just a description in the forum, but I certainly hope you can talk rationally with your boyfriend and at least create an understanding between you two on how to make sure the game is fun for everyone. Express your concerns about the wealth level of the party, see what he has in mind. Maybe as mentioned he is planning for a weaker party, maybe he wants a deadlier more difficult game. There are groups where one or more character dies every session and everyone has fun with it. If thats what he is going for, low wealth and difficult ressurection is a way to go about it. Understanding what he is going for will be very valuable in having fun within the game he is running.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Azten wrote:
Level to all damage rolls with their weapons of choice(one-handed/light piercing). That's pretty big.

Its their weapon of choice, but its also inferior to every other kind of fighting. The fact is that level to MOST (not all) damage rolls puts them in the running with 2handed fighting, and even two wepon fighting, and especially archery. Their weapon does half as much damage, they lose out on 50% of their strenght bonus (assuming the 2hander is using high strength vs the swashbuckler using dex to damage), and power attack yields a greater amount of damage that scales as you get higher in level, if the swashbuckler even takes power attack. With a 15 point buy have a 13 strength to qualify for power attack will be difficult for a fontline, dex and charisma based skilled character with a poor will save. With just taking very basic choices (power attack, weapon focus, weapon spec) the 2handed fighter will outdamage the swashbuckler assuming similar stats. And thats just the fighter.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Virellius wrote:

Right. I have the books, I know the abilities, but they seem pretty jumbled and not very intuitive. Like, you get spells like a Cleric with decent BAB and an animal companion but also Wild Shape and like... what are you supposed to DO in combat situations? Literally EVERY other class has pretty defined strengths and weaknesses or some sort of feature (Bloodline, Mystery) which influences their style and Druids are just like 'I get a bunch of clashing abilities and an animal which will probably be a liability!'

I get WoW druids. I don't get DnD/Pathfinder Druids. Never have.

I see. Ok, so lets start off with some basics:

Thematically, druids are nature themed shamans. They have potent spell casting, magical abilities and they get a bond with nature either via domain or an animal companion. Some druids prefer to turn into a bear and eat your face, other druids will call lightning, entangle you in vines and summon a bear to eat your face.

Now, mechanically.

Druids dont really have weakness, just strengths, and parts that are only good and not amazing.

Lets break it down shall we:

3/4 bab d8 hit die and medium armor proficiency. This is actually pretty descent, and sure at first you are limited to leather and hide armor (no metal) but thats not aweful and you eventually can get ironwood or dragonscale armor instead of metal, to get stuff like breastplate.

Spells. Druids are 9 level spellcasters, their spell list is full of useful buffs for animals (which they can both summon and turn into, plus the animal companion) and some control spells (entangle shows up right away and pretty much is good anywhere it can be used), and then some very specific nature themed spells that will rarely be usable (charm animals and such). Focus on control spells if you are a casty druid, buff spells if you are fighty druid. You do get some descent damage spells, particuarly with the right domain, but thats not a strength of the druid list.

Spontaneous summon natures all. Mind you SNA is not an all powerful spell, even at higher levels. But what it is, is a universally useful spell. Any combat is better with a critor full attacking/flanking the bad guy with your fighter buddy or your animal companion. Also remember these are animals, boost your handle animal and you can 'push' them to do specific tricks (get an animal to do a trick it doesnt know). Learn the tricks that are possible, its surprising how useful this can be. Need to sneak into somewhere? Summon a rat and have it run across the floor as a distraction. Not fight anyone, just run around.

Animal Companion: This certainly doesnt need to be a liability if you both choose well and equip it well. The big cat and the dinosaur that can pounce are pretty much the best options for combat. Pouncing is really really potent. Just remember to buff them/equip them with magic items AND remember to give them armor proficiency and buy them barding. Barding will stack with their natural armor bonuses. A wolf in chainshirt barding is a really effective tank. If you arent as worried about combat, pick a bird, make sure you prep speak with animals and use it for scouting. Make sure to teach it lots of useful tricks too.

Wildshape: This is by far the most useful single ability in the game besides spellcasting in general. Great for sneaking (turn into something tiny), mobility (turn into something with a climb, fly, burrow, swim speed) or combat (turn into a thing with lots of claws and teeth). Just remember a combat druid still needs to have descent physical ability scores to be competant.

Everything else: Crazily enough the above isnt everything the druid gets. It gets lots of other stuff mostly for flavor purposes that you can make use of or not, doesnt really matter. The previous abilities pretty much lay out everything you could possibly remember. Just remember, you should choose either casty druid, or fighty druid and make choices occordingly. Not that a druid cant to both, but he will have to focus on one to excel.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
zapbib wrote:

You know, I'm not an expert in biblical matter but I have a certain familiarity with it. The whole "people who wanna play paladin" vs "Paladin must be idiotic a~~*$~+s" mentality remind me a lot about the Jesus stories versus the pharisees.

Jesus go heal someone on a sabbath, pharisees are like "OMG you cant do that its sabbath".
Jesus go through a field and is disciple pick some food on sabbath, pharisees are like "You're a monster"
Jesus eat with some sinner, "This is horrible he is with sinners!"

And yet for most cultures (judeo christian and muslim at the very least) Jesus (whether you believe in him or not) is a kind of example of a lawful good person.

So humm, yeah, this debate happened at least a couple millennia ago, probably more. Would it really kill people to shut their useless piehole and let the paladin make a little lie if it mean protecting an orphanage or something? Intent is what matter, that's it.

Actually, if lawful has to do with respecting tradition, custom and law, Jesus would likely have been chaotic good in his time. He did in fact buck tradition, and law. He did things he wasnt supposed to. Mind you, years later, as those who followed him became a dominant political and societal force, those behaviors became the tradition, custom and law, but at the time he lived, they were not.

The whole thing is arguable, not unlike alignment in general.

To the OP, talk to your player, work out a complete Paladins code for the order or diety the paladin follows. Include things like whether a lie to protect or save lives is acceptable or not. Whether its more important to protect the innocent or smite evil. All sorts of questions like that should be things the paladin learned in his training and upbringing. So work it out with your player.

Look to the pathfinder companion product faiths of purity for ideas on what kinds of things to put in a code. It should be more detailed and specific then 'be honorable'. Remember paladins serve different deities, not just Iomede/Herioneous, do you think a chaotic good trickster god would punish a paladin for lieing about the location of a vunlerable little girl to a monster? Probably not. Work out a code for the specific faith.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Feral wrote:

Yes. Swashbuckler is overpowered.

The problem with these comparisons is that they’re always made against the most optimized example possible. A swashbuckler built with a moderate amount of system mastery when paired side by side against any other martial class is going to blow them out of the water. No, he’s not without his weaknesses but it’s still far too powerful.

I suggest you ban swashbuckler until your group gets a bit more experience under their belt.

How on earth is taking power attack and having a high strength the most optimized example? Because thats what we are talking about. Maybe weapon focus and weapon specialization too. These are pretty common and simple choices for a fighter that wants to do damage. If the fighter doesnt choose these things, then obviously his focus isnt doing where is the issue?

Yes the swashbuckler gets to add his dexterity, and his level to damage. The fighter gets to add 1.5x his strength (which should be roughly 1.5x the swashbucklers dex), has a higher damage weapon. and power attack.

If the only thing the fighter takes is a greatsword, power attack and has the same strength the swashbuckler has dex, lets say of 18, thats 2 extra damage for 1.5x strength. At 6th level thats 6 damage for power attack and 3.5 damage for the 2d6 weapon over a 1d6 weapon.

That is 11.5 damage, where as the swashbuckler is adding 6 for precise strike. This isnt some kind of hyper optimized mega build, this is a fighter with a high strength, a great sword and power attack thats it. Add in other weapon focused feats and the fighter pulls WAY ahead in the amount of damage he can do. Precise strike just makes the swashbuckler workable, it doesnt make it better then even the lowly fighter, let alone a raging barbarian or a smiting paladin.

1 to 50 of 8,137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.