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

Lefty X's page

139 posts (173 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Go to Joe Wood.


I was going to ask this on Kickstarter: Is the patron saint of your book a Mr. Joe Wood of the WotC forum storyline? I will be contributing to Kickstarter because of how the Joe Wood story made me think about Commoners, by the way.


Lemartes wrote:
Generally not a fan of Wayne Renolds art.

... you wot?


Kryzbyn wrote:

... Some don't even care about the shell at all, and are focused on loving the soul...

To each their own.

"Get the shell out of here?"


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:


Genes aren't biological destiny, any more than blueprints are a house you can live in.

FYI, I will be stealing and paraphrasing this.

"You don't live in blueprints. You live in the home that is built."


Reckless wrote:
Everyone keeps talking about genital size and such, Imona hafta convert all the Iconics to F.A.T.A.L. This would require me to read F.A.T.A.L. Please don't make me read F.A.T.A.L. :P

For the uninitiated, every adult gamer deserves a skim-through to remind us what the real enemies sound like.

CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Jordan wrote:
Yeah it took me reading the comments to understand she was a trans character. It just seemed her parents were living in denial in having another daughter and just shunted her into "son" territory to try and not deal with the issue until she finally hit maturity and they couldn't avoid it anymore. I approve of the character, just did not get that it was a trans character until it was talked about in the comments.

... Holy s$*&! Robert Jordan's alive!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:


Actually, I haven't had to fight down my urge for nasty at all. People on the boards have been frustratingly polite. I'm never gonna get to lay down the smack on someone in here :(

Never call me unhelpful.

You're stupid!
And half-orcs are stupid too!!!111oneoneone

;)


I just had a vision of Crystal purposefully sleeping in late today, preparing a bunch of coffee and James ordering her a pizza. She then sits in front of her computer, loads the blog post, and readies herself to have this conversation all night long to keep it accurate, fair, and as anti-nasty as possible.


Thank you to everyone who commented on my proposal.


Ssalarn: I like suggestion 3. Please get busy on your 400 page expansion of all non-full caster classes, so I don't have to write it. ;)

Kwauss: Which suggestion? Mine?


Ssalarn: I get what you and Lorekeeper are saying, but how to change things up without adding spells to the martials?


Lorekeeper: There are feats allowing you to add conditions to your attacks, but yes, they aren't ever going to have the UTILITY of casters. That, however, probably isn't going to be fixed in a system like Pathfinder. If I am interpreting your comment correctly, a game like Earthdawn or Legend where everyone can have the magic/utiliy that they want gives you that, but I am looking at making high-level martials more on par with caster, damage output wise.

Artanthos: Look at it this way, this would remove MISSES. You might rip the elder dragon apart with your flashing sword in one round, but you probably won't hit on that last attack, maybe the second to last as well. This change would make it so martials don't feel iterative attacks are wasted because of the lower chance to hit.


Kwauss: It's based on your BAB, not your class. Everyone gets it when they hit iterative attacks at +6 BAB and beyond. When I say Martial, I mean anybody who doesn't solve problems at 17th level by winking and destroying the world. Even getting extra accurate iterative attacks wouldn't stop a cleric or wizard from casting at high level, just make those people who are swinging swords better at what they do.

Nefreet: This is a variant rules question. Doesn't it belong here?


I'm sure I'm not the first to mention this but, what if we just had the BAB of iterative attacks be based on full BAB? So, for instance, a character with +11/+6/+5 can full attack and get +11/+11/+11. Basically, you attack just as often, but are going to hit far more often on your attacks after the first?

I'm sure people are going to scream about TWF rogues who will now clearly out-DPR equivalent fighters in similar circumstances, but really, in a sensible game (they DO exist) couldn't this solve at least a little bit of the Linear Warrior/Quadratic Caster issue?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For reference on the myth.


thejeff wrote:
Lefty X wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your point, Jeff. I essentially agree with your arguments, as they are stated above. You are right, not everything covered under the OGL is mechanical, such as some monster/spell/feat names and basic descriptions. Although, I would hesitate to call what Paizo does an exception. The OGL is basically an open contract, so what Paizo and other d20 publishers do has been granted to them rather than them exploiting a grey area. However, that could be seen as being nit-picky. Good points!

The exception I referred to is the OGL. Not an exploitation, but an intentional exception to the normal IP rules.

Much like open source copy left licenses are intentional exceptions to normal copyright.

Private corporations cannot make an "exception" to any laws. The OGL is WotC making a contract with whomever follows their rules and places a copy of the OGL in the book. Printing product that violated the OGL either by not following it as written or failing to include it in their product could (and perhaps has) result in lawsuits.

Here's a good question: Can anyone point to a C&D being sent out by WotC or any lawsuits initiated due to OGL infringement?


Thank you for clarifying your point, Jeff. I essentially agree with your arguments, as they are stated above. You are right, not everything covered under the OGL is mechanical, such as some monster/spell/feat names and basic descriptions. Although, I would hesitate to call what Paizo does an exception. The OGL is basically an open contract, so what Paizo and other d20 publishers do has been granted to them rather than them exploiting a grey area. However, that could be seen as being nit-picky. Good points!


thejeff:
"No. I get that. I understand it completely.

But it's the same argument. There's tons of stuff in the D&D intellectual property that couldn't be duplicated without the OGL, despite the inability to copyright actual game rules.
Paizo's entire business model is based on WotC's intellectual property. Philosophically, it's no different making "official" game products for someone else's game and making "official" setting products for someone else's setting.

It makes as much sense to say "With the OGL, D&D would be about 99.95% crap, bacause any moron with a computer could throw out an "official" product for D&D. D&D would have a million splatbooks, and at least a few hundred would be <insert despised concept here>)."

Obviously the details of how game mechanics and settings are covered under IP law are different, but the basic concept of protecting or releasing intellectual property and the arguments in favor or against it are quite similar."

Me:
How can stuff in D&D IP not "be duplicated without the OGL?" For instance, I can create a Beholder or Mind Flayer in GURPS or FATE Core or whatever and it would be a violation of the literary creation of those creatures without at all touching the mechanics in OGL.

Paizo's business model is not based on WotC's IP. You can't copyright game mechanics, plus the OGL basically says "Go ahead and make things as long as you don't try and take/alter certain proprietary items of ours. Create without the threat of lawsuit." It is different, to make something emulating someone's mechanics vs. something emulating someone's setting. I can't patent/copyright you rolling dice to determine the outcome of an event, because that's too broad and the origin or randomized outcomes in gaming goes back to the beginning of civilization. If I invent Drizzt Do'Urden with a very specific backstory/setting, you can't take that to sell your product because that is a unique artistic creation.

As to the 99.95% thing, I would like to point you to the d20 glut from the early 2000's. There was a HUGE amount of sub-par creations for d20. However, those creations were based on WotC's rules, not their literary creations, e.g. settings and characters.


thejeff wrote:

I find a rant on how important protecting intellectual property is on a website devoted to a game based on deliberately unprotected intellectual property kind of ironic.

Quote:
Without IP laws, all settings would be about 99.95% crap, because any moron with a computer could throw out an "official" product for that setting. Golarion would have a million modules, and at least a few hundred would be for the FATAL system.
This exact argument could be and probably was made against the OGL. Except with rules and game systems instead of settings.

What we're discussing is the setting info, not the mechanics. You're correct, the mechanics for 3.5 and Pathfinder are OGL and anyone can use them, but the specific world information in which you wrap your mechanics is protected. Please take a gander:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

EDIT: Sorry, not sure how to hyperlink. :)


Thelemic_Noun:

You said that IP lawyers would combust in a just universe. That is most certainly an aggressive stance and indicative of someone hostile to IP law.

Your point that I said Paizo was "people," instead of naming the owners/employees is purely pedantic and I believe you are aware of that. Saying that anyone wanting to protect their intellectual creations, their primary source of income mind you, are equivalent to massive music companies that can't accept the coming of he internet and try suing kids who download too many Selena Gomez albums is ludicrous. Do you honestly believe there is no grey area? That all IP protections are bad?

I'm certainly not defending the way Siembieda, as an example, has treated fans of his in the past, but he has a right to do so. WotC paid Baker for Eberron. It is their property. I don't remember him complaining about it. He went on to create other games using the cache created by his association with WotC to help those new products launch, and more power to him for having done so.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Lefty X wrote:
If you see something that is 3PP with copyrighted Eberron material, please link it here, because they are in violation of the law, and I'd like to see it.

1. Why bring that mess over here and possibly get Paizo involved?

2. In a just universe, IP lawyers would spontaneously combust.

1. Because I don't believe he found something that was put out by a 3PP, that was called Warforged. Just like Orthos said, I'm pretty sure he means the Forgeborn.

2. We get it you think people shouldn't have the right to defend their intellectual property in court. People like Paizo work very hard to create interesting, well-integrated worlds for us to play in. It is how they make their living and without those protections to ensure some level of income, we wouldn't have those companies.

Scott, you say he hasn't converted all the material that's been put out. Again, can you tell us exactly which books do you think are vital to your game that haven't been converted on that site? You aren't being specific. Please let us understand what you feel is missing.


Scott, like Jeraa keeps trying to tell you,Baker does not own the Eberron IP, WotC/Hasbro does. Those people NEVER get rid of an IP, which is why they are making money off of GI Joe, Transformers, and My Little Pony decades after their creation.

If you see something that is 3PP with copyrighted Eberron material, please link it here, because they are in violation of the law, and I'd like to see it.

I am not sure what your exact problem is with the site above. I think it is an excellent resource for running Eberron-Pathfinder. What precisely do you mean by "up to date?" Are there any rule issues from current errata that contradict the site or something? What is it that you need that you feel, after carefully going through that site's reams of material, you aren't getting?

Thanks, in advance, for all of your clarifications.


LazarX wrote:
The point that I'm making is that the player economic model for the game is still based on Gygaxian's Gold Rush model which was designed to separate players from their gold quickly in order to motivate them to loot the next dungeon. That focus hasn't changed in Ultimate Campaign. The economy...

Sorry, but, no one has denied your point. Also, who has said we should change it?


LazarX wrote:

Gygax flat out admitted that the game was modeled after California's Gold Rush economy that was endemic to the various gold rush boom towns in which people DID pay ounces of gold ore for basic necessities as they had no choice in the matter. He said he did it that way because he wanted the flavor of adventurers obtaining and spending gold like free flowing water. He flat out didn't care that this would cause a dissonance with anything even resembling a midieval economy.

There was a comic that lampshaded this disconnect. (Might have been Order of the Stick) You'd see the various shops which would advertise a normal midieval level of economy. Then a young boy comes running in Paul Revere style shouting "Adventurers are Coming!" Like magic the signs would flip where prices that were described in copper or silver pieces became gold instead.

This is pretty much my reply to anyone who thinks that for a second, that any incarnation of D20 from D+D to Pathfinder was rooted in economic simulation.

It was, in fact, Order of the Stick. Like I have said before, no one can look at the economics and think they are based on a real model. Gygax did say that thing about the Gold Rush style market, and he and Arneson created the basis for our hobby, but that was 40 years ago. I don't want to go to the trouble of creating a realistic economic model and maintaining it in play anymore than you do, but with all due respect, I think saying, "But, Gary Gygax said X" is a little like like saying "Sure Sammy Sosa hit a lot of home runs, but so did Babe Ruth!." Ruth did hit a lot of home runs. While playing a much more archaic form of the sport... Also, while on cocaine. ;)


Sure, and that's why in the game it's tidy little sums, like "That'll be 3 gold for the room and meals for you and your friends each night." PCs of any decent level won't even notice that kind of money leaving their purses. However, if you try and look at it from a normal person's perspective, you'll stop and think "Wait a second. This jack-wagon wants AN OUNCE OF GOLD for some meals and a roof to sleep under?"

Edited for bad math.


EWHM wrote:

Lefty X,

She works, producing value, she just probably works at your home. She probably tends his garden, cooks, washes his clothes, cares for their children, and does all the million things that made homemaking a full time job before the advent of massively labor saving devices. Most of the wages of peasants though aren't in coin, the 1sp/day is just the equivalent value of what they get.

Okay, but taking that one step further, and assuming something ridiculous, like 1SP for a sweater she knits. Her efforts haven't probably produced an actual SP. It has produced an SP worth of goods that the family values, like eggs for a fortnight, or something. Either way, those commoners don't actually have more money, they have more subsistence goods.


EWHM wrote:

Lefty X,

A poor family is probably making 6 gp/month if you assume both parents work at 1 sp/day (unskilled) and that their children have no economic contribution. So their tithes are closer to the order of 7.2 gp per year, not far from 'list price' on CLW.
If they're a middle class family (skilled), they might be making 33 gp or so a month (assumes one is skilled and the other is making unskilled wages,) or even 60 gp/month. Tithes on them might range from 36-72 gp per year.

In a pseudo-middle ages society, they won't both work. The wife might have a side cottage industry, but might not. I am not talking about middle class, I mean peasants, i.e. most of the populace. 1SP/day is what the PCs are expected to pay for unskilled labor, not necessarily what a farmer or day laborer makes if you take his yearly income and divide by 365. I know we are arguing semantics and real vs. fantastical really, but I don't visualize most commoners walking around with a lot of clink in their pocket. The prices for food, board, and services in the books is, again in my opinion, what people charge wealthy middle class chump adventurers, not what the average person might get. If we are talking the cost of a low-average quality meal, for instance, coins of precious metal shouldn't even be in the mix. Let's say you go to nice restaurant and pay $50.00 for your meal. That would be high quality (presumably.) That might cost a GP in most Pathfinder games. One Pathfinder GP today is worth $428.00 U.S. (1/3 of an ounce at $1285.00 per ounce.)

TL:DR, The game economy is pretty borked if you look too hard.


lemeres wrote:
I think part of the problem of a more realistic system for healing is that even with just HP, there is about 2 hp difference between "I'm beat up, but I'll sleep it off" and "I am bleeding to death in the next two minutes." When I hear about death in premodern medicine, there are times where it often took days for people to actually pass on. Even Abraham Lincoln, who was shot in the head at point blank range, took about 9 hours to die. That could be 32 miles covered to get to a cleric in game.

"High Priest Frank, here is the Curative Twig." the acolyte blurted as he ran up to the alter, nimbly dodging around the moaning forms, evidence of last nights terrible gnoll assault.

Frank quickly grabbed the offered item and used a charge to bind together a vicious sword gash along a young lady's right rib line. She might need two, but he didn't want to be wasteful. This was the last wand.

"How many did that group of sell-swords need after I left you at the vestibule?" he asked his assistant.

"36 charges." the acolyte replied promptly.

"... What do you mean 36 charges?!?" Frank demanded. "How badly could they have been hurt?"

"Mostly scratches." the student priest replied. "But, the fighter also said he wasn't "nearly as tired or unable to continu combat, anymore."

Oh, well, thought Frank. I can always pawn off some of the candelabra and head into Greyberg next month for the components to build a replacement.


Whale_Cancer wrote:


This is a huge problem in the system, as I agree with you. But, you know, why wouldn't the good aligned temples just provide free healing (and other curative effects) to the PCs when the PCs are fighting against evil? Why wouldn't they provide similar free healing to their fellow clergy, paladins, inquisitors, etc.,?

What prevents a caster from undercutting the normal spellcasting rates to beat his competition, since casting requires so little effort?

Magical healing does require a huge suspension of disbelief.

The system was not designed with the whole world in mind, as you well know. It was designed around the idea of the personal power of 4-6 people taking on far greater power than their own, with little help from the "supporting cast" of typical NPCs. Both the magic system and economy shatter if you try and make them "real." Which is a reason why I like Eberron. That world makes those two aspects a little closer to believable while still remaining playable.

If the PCs are openly battling evil, heck yeah the local churches should be supporting them with free spellcasting, if available. Forcing them to pay a casting tax of a few paltry gold (not counting component heavy spells) when it makes more plot since to make it free during their crusade seems silly.

Nothing prevents them from undercutting. But setting up shop for day-in, day-out patching and mending the locals is not why your PC got into adventuring.


Weirdo wrote:


And what if a powerful healer (say, a PC) walks into a small settlement and starts healing people all over the place? How significant an effect might they have?

That PC would wreck any selfishly motivated healer price-fixing going on and would be targeted to be dealt with either by conversion, threat, or violence.


EWHM wrote:

Lefty X,

If you're a congregation member in good standing (this is to say, you tithe your income to your particular church or equivalent thereof), a lot of faiths will heal you without charge for a lot of things, if they're within the ability of their local talent. If not, you'll probably have to pay full retail.

Sure, presuming a tithing of 10% and an income of around 1GP per month, you are kicking 1.2GP back to the church every year. CLW from a 1st level caster is 10GP. Your family's tithe for 8.5 years to pay for 1 CLW? I agree and reiterate, a local priest casting spells with no expensive components would heal free of charge unless they were unscrupulous, or they had some other motivating factor to charge their patients, like they really needed to fund a civic project and the recipients appeared flush with cash, and/or were jerks.


Magical medical care is just one of those things you either have to hand-wave, or work around. Your local priest, if a spellcaster, gets 3-4 cures per day. In a village of 100-200 people, how many potentially fatal accidents are there wherein the victim is not killed instantly and the priest has time to get to them? Not super frequently. Therefore anytime someone is injured, but not instantly killed, there is a very good chance the healer will get to them, or they will get to the healer, in time. As for the old school answer of charging for healing, I find it hard to conceive of a priest not healing citizens in good standing while their relatives frantically running around trying to scrape up the cash. The priest has to live in that village too.


I agree Morgen. I am thinking of rewriting these as special feats for the Merciful Healer. I picture the Merciful Healer as being the most common of magically active priests. You know the local cureall who helps out those in need because they are touched by the light, etc.


Vamptastic wrote:


That's actually an interesting idea.

I get one right every now and again. ;)


For personalized racial redesigns, I think the easiest thing is to just have everyone roll as a human and make everything about their race be fluff. Think of Usagi Yojimbo. Why make races for every single kind of animal? "You're a rabbit samurai? Okay, you probably want to put the floating +2 into Dex. You're a rhino bounty hunter? Maybe +2 Str and take Toughness as the free feat?"

There is literally no reason not to do this with any race you want. For really funky ones, likes those with flight abilities, or non-Medium sized, you would have to tweak. Don't make too much work for yourself.


I have looked all over this site for these. They seem like an automatic money maker. They would make running them game so much smoother.


Damn it, someone hacked Betts' account, again.


I play on Molten and am pretty pleased, but for one detail.
I really want to play PvE. I don't like being ganked and have no interest in ganking return. Do any of the fly-a$$ mofos here on paizo.com know of a quality private PvE server for WoW?

Thank you in advance!


Ninja'd!


+3/+3 sounds correct to me. Why take the trait? As a monk, aren't you already proficient with all weapons with the "monk" quality?


Making your own adventures is a breeze. Start at the end I the movie and work backwards. Flip through the monsters. Pick a tough one and make them your bad guy. Pick a set of minions for that bad guy, and maybe a chief henchman, who is often an up-leveled minion, like an Orc warrior with a few fighter levels. Decide what the bad guy's scheme is. This is usually Destroy/Kill, Item/Person X. Why are they doing it? How can you get the players onto their trail before they succeed. Then there's a Goblin attack during the town festival and your ready to go.


Ha!


Forget that noise, HerosBackpack. We need more Joe Wood!


Mystic Twin:
+2 to all saves. Anytime you make a saving throw by 2 or less,
Your twin suffers half the effect, regardless of their location.


Twinned:
When in combat, with your twin as an ally, both of you receive a
+1 bonus to initiative. In addition, whenever you and your twin
flank an opponent, you each receive an additional +1 bonus to hit.


Aaaaand, pres man for the win.


None of the deities created by TSR or WotC are Open Content, correct? Specifically, Taiia and Elishtar.


I know the AP write-ups aren't SRD, but I think that would be a cool thing for them to put up for free. ALL of the iconics' 1st level stats in one big PDF. Especially considering we aren't getting anymore base classes anytime soon.


So has anyone taken the level 1 versions from the AP and put them online, or posted them? I'm not trying to bypass buying them, but it would be a silly investment for 2 pages of stats.

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.