|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.
The fact that bigotry already exists and is sadly protected by law in some places is no justification for protecting it even more.
I still see no answer to my question. Only attempts to deflect it. Why is homophobia okay when so many other acts described in the bible are not?
If you really think Christians, of all people, are persecuted in the US and that criticism against obviously biggoted laws is an attempt to have "religion torn down", then, holy s$@&, you need a serious reality check!
And it'd be nice if your argument werr consistent with itself... Even assuming that Chriatians are an oppressed minority... How exactly does that justify discrimination against LGBT folk? That's like a gay man saying it's okay to be racist just because homophobia exists.
Please, don't be willfully obtuse... You know what I meant. Try actually answering my question instead.
In any case, let me rephrase it...
There are many hideous acts condoned by the bible that are deservedly considered criminal and/or abhorrent by modern society. Why should this one (bigotry) be protected by law in the name of "religious freedom" instead of condemned, as we do with all others? What is so special about hating LGBT people that justifies discriminating against them being legally allowed?
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
More importantly... Religion is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card to justify going against the law. There are all sorts of rules in the bible that are illegal. You can't, for example, stone people because they were unfaithful to their husband/wife. You can't sell people into slavery. Not even those from other "tribes". You can't kill people because they worked on Sundays either...
So why is bigotry allowed to break the law?
And what comes next? Do we write a law allowing people to deny service to customers who wear clothes of mixed fabrics? What about customers who eat shrimp?
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f!%%ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.
Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.
BTW, every piece of media influences people... But unless someone consumes it in excessive amounts (because anything in excess is harmful), blaming one or another type of media for an increase of negative behavior is foolish at best and dishonest at worse.
All my life I've seen people accuse one thing or another of causing violent or degenerare behavior... RPGs, Rock n' Roll, porn, movies, video games, comics, Harry Potter... None of those ever had anything solid to back up their claims... Millions of people enjoyed all of those and they didn't become any more violent or degenerate than people who didn't.
So, yeah... I simply don't buy the "porn leads to [random negative behavior]" argument. If anything leads to that it most certainly is ignorance, misinformation and poor socio-economical conditions.
I know it's just anedoctal evidence... But my teenager life was spent in Brazil. On my first job, I had more than a few coworkers who came from really poor backgrounds and dropped school really early, but even the teenagers among them usually joked about porn saying stuff like "Hah! Too bad those girls 'don't exist' IRL... Well at least that means I don't need a 3ft dick! LOL!". There was always a very clear understanding that what they saw onscreen is nothing like the real thing, nor is it supposed to be. I don't think any of them would say that hurt their self-esteem or confidence. They just enjoyed the fantasy-fulfilling media and then went on to live their life, completely conscious and indiferent to the fact that it doesn't match fiction... Even though they were the perfect example of people who are supposedly influenced by whatever media is being blamed for whatever behavior
I don't see anything wrong with rape fantasies. Humans fantasize about all sorts of thing that we would hate to experience IRL. Just see how many people are excited about the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I doubt any significant number of them would actually enjoy losing their families and friends to undead cannibals... Hell! We're on a forum dedicated to a game of fantasizing about getting into all sorts of violent situations... which oftrn end with the mauling and death of player characters!
That's thr thing about fantasy... It's safe. We can imagine whatever we want and make it pleasing because it has no consequences. I had a girlfriend who enjoyed roleplaying rape... It was... odd, but harmless. We had a safe word, just in case it became too real, but it was never used. She actually complained I was too nice... I guess that's a good thing. :P
Anyway, my point is that fantasy exista specifically so that we can safely experience stuff we can't live through in our lives.There is nothing wrong woth fantasizing about whatever. People only need to be aware that real life doesn't match fantasy (and most people are) and there is nothing wrong with that.
However, I don't think anyone over... I dunno... 14~15 years believes that sex is like porn (even those who never had it), in the same way that they know police work is not like they see it in Lethal Weapon movies. Most people can diferentiate reality from fiction.
And seriously... If someone has issues because fiction portrays attractive and competent characters, then that person has to grow up and learn how to deal with it, even if they will need help for that... Because what's the alternative? Have all fiction only portray characters who are completely average ot below that just so no one feels inadequate?
I've always known for a fact that I'll never be as attractive, competent, charming, smart or overall awesome as my favorite characters... Rather than make me feel bad, all that did was make me admire those characters more and do my best to be more like them in whatever aspects of life I admire in them.
Society too often decides to blame media for showing idealized characters instead of teaching people that it's okay to not be a hollywood superstar with super powers. The real solution is to educate young people, not to bash movies, games, porn or whatever for providing the escapism fantasy we want them to provide!
I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".
Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
I'm so f*+&ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!
And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.
Some Guy again wrote:
You see... The thing is... Fighter and Rogues are very limited and underpowered classes. My advice to you is... Stop using them as a standard to what any class should be capable of. Otherwise, you're condemned to think everything is overpowered.
Some Guy again wrote:
I do apologize I am heavily biased against the slayer because it is every martial players wet dream.
The Slayer is not even in the top 10 classes when it comes to power. Hell! It's not even in the top 3 martial classes! The Slayer is a Fighter/Rogue that works. That's it.
Barbarians, Bloodragers, Paladins and Rangers are considerably more effective! Swashbuckler and Brawler are up there too.
Some Guy again wrote:
Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.
Some Guy again wrote:
Uh... You do realize you're agreeing with yourself, right?
I don't love the class. But I like it.
It's a good mix of martial and skills. A solid class who can contribute meaningfully in a variety of ways without ever being overpowered. It has decent options both in and out of combat, but will never break the game like a caster can do...
As far as mundane classes go, Slayer is probably the best balanced one (assuming you aren't counting Barbarians as mundane). It doesn't have the awful weaknesses of Rogues or the extreme narrow-mindedness of Fighters.
Quark Blast wrote:
A healthy risk is one that, if the gamble fails, situation = status quo.
That's not a risk. A risk, by definition, includes the possibility of a negative consequence. If there is nothing to be lost, there is no risk.
A healthy risk is one where the possible gains outweigh the possible negatives. I believe instructing young people and making them feel comfortable talking about sex is a good thing. And a far more effective way to protect them from the possible negative consequences of sex than trying to pressure them into not having it.
However, the very taboo that keeps sex as "marriage-only" thing also turns it into a thorny topic, which prevents meaningful conversation about the topic.
Finances aren't such a touchy subject. It requires math and equations to understand how it affects you and your partner. Sex is not so easily calculated.
In the real world, all attempts to stop people from having sex inevitably failled one way or another. Social pressure simply can't change a core aspect of human bodies.
If sex can only be had after marriage, then people will marry just to have sex. Or they will do it in secret and never talk about it for fear of being punished/ostracized for their deed... Which perpetuates the culture of ignorance and misinformation about sex, making it more dangerous and harmful, rather than safer and more enjoyable.
I don't see anything wrong with consenting adults having sex as often as they like however they like. Meaningful relationship or not... If they are happy being nothing more than "f~~+ buddies", then so be it. If they want to have sex only after married, then so be it. If they want to never have sex or have lots of casual sex with complete strangers... So be it.
As long as it's between consenting adults, no one else shoudl care. It's not like they are harming anyone. Some of those lifestyles might be healthier or riskier... And bring more ore less happiness to each individual... But that's their choice. It should be an informed choice, rather than a mandate.
I simply don't see any real reason to impose restrictions on things that don't affect anyone else. Don't want to have causal sex? Don't. Don't want to wait? Don't.
BTW, I don't think thread derails are necessarilly bad... They can be problematic if they are too hostile or toxic (but that goes for every conversation) or if they are interrupting or poisoning a different conversation... But I have no problem with derails such as this, where it's a natural evolution from a different subject and remains civil and polite.
I think the idea is also innately harmful because even a couple who sincerely believes in it and follows it completely informed might end up finding out they aren't sexually compatible, which might lead to an unhappy life for the couple. Obviously, sex isn't all that matters, but it's a big part of a couple's relationship...
The decision of whether they can or cannot live with their incompatibility should be an informed one. Hoping for the best and only finding out after you made an emotional and legal commitment is a dangerously foolish idea to say the least.
I'm not saying it's wrong to wait... It isn't. Everyone has the right of waiting for as long as they want... I'm just pointing out that making auch a huge commitment without knowing such an important part of the relationshio is rarely a good idea...
There is a difference between believing you're correct and trying to impose your view on others... If you think your deity of choice doesn't want you to eat hamburgers, then don't eat hamburgers. You can even talk about it with others and try to convince them to not eat hamburgers either... Just don't try to forcefully forbid others from doing it.
Marco Polaris wrote:
There will always be those who are willing to impose their beliefs on othera and act as if their beliefs (and only theirs) should be free of criticism.
I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.
No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.
You, of all people, making those accusations about anyone else is actually pretty funny.
No, but the setting assumes the magic chapter's rules work, doesn't it? Which means, among many, many other things, that more powerful spells require more experience to cast. Someone with no experience casting meteor swarms would be expressly against these rules. See how that works? The magic system is predictable, and there is no magic involved that allows for a thousand attacks per second. Saying that because there is magic, nobody ever should complain about someone making a thousand attacks per second, that's just bull.
But by that logic, the only reason to complain about a character making 1000 attacks is the rules saying they can't. It has nothing to do with realism or whether or not its good or bad for the game.
The problem with realism in Pathfinder is that it's inconsistent and nearly always used to limit or nerf the weakest options in the game. It often gets in the way of balance, playability and fun.
e.g.: People complaining because Gunslingers don't take 30~60 seconds to reload their weapons, not caring about the fact that if that were the case, those weapons (and a whole freaking class) would be f!!%ing useless!
Just remove the free Double Slice clause. There is really no need to demand more prerequisites (specially weapon-specific ones, for the reason stated by BWO. All you do is effectivelly force your players to sell Excalibur ao that they can upgrade their generic +1 rapier).
I honestly don't see the point in forcing character to slug through 4 levela just sp that they can finally be effective combatanta at 5th level.
I can't stress thia enough: You cannot and should not balance anything by making it more annoying to use.
Because Jason didn't like 3.5's trip builds... So he nerfed tripping (and maneuvers in general) as much as he could. Feats, weapons, AoOs, the maneuver themselves... It all got a huge beating from the nerf bat.
It's one of the reasons why some people mock Pathfinder by calling it D&D 3.5 - Caster Edition.
The idea that a company would use that as a design principle.
Oh, it's not a design principle (at least I don't think it is)... It's just a consequence of a series of other design principles...
Like chaining even high-level martial classes to realism while allowing magic to do everything possible. Or the idea that that anything that can be used at will must be very limited in power because otherwise it would be unbalanced... Or maybe the idea that just because a character can deal lots of damage, he should have little to no usefulness out of combat.
And so on...
Pfff... You WoW players care only about optimization, DPR and rollplaying!
Back in my day players roleplayed so well that Robert DeNiro, Marlon Brando and Al Paccino would be jealous of our players' performance! And our storylines were so deep, emotionally involving and thought-provoking that they put Citizen Kane, To Kill a Mocking Bird and Casablanca to shame!
Oh, yeah... We had roleplay-heavy games! Like Tomb of Horrors... And great freedom and focus on character customization... With our random rolled stats and attribute prerequisites for base classes...
With a 10 wisdom and iron will, even a low will class should be passing basically all will saves on a 16 or higher. The only exception is if they multi-class like crazy with low will classes or have some other source of penalty.
"Pass on a 16" is hardly satisfactory. Failing 75% of your savea (particularly Fort and Will) means your character will be dead or useless most of the time. Saves are really freaking important. They aren't just minor weakneaaes like having lower than average AC... They can make or break your character.
If you need more than an 11 to make the average Fort/Will save... You are going to have a bad time.
1- The numbers I mentioned are completely arbitrary. I have no idea how many books Paizo sells or how many they have in stock. I was merely illustrating a point.
2- I have read the book. Multiple times. And I found it extremely lacking... And I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so. I doubt it's onky "a handful of forum posters". I personally know 3 guys who returned the book for store credit and many others who simply decided to not buy the book after seeing it. None of them post in these boards.
3- Like I said, they are free to do as they please with their errata policies... And I'm free to do as I please with my money. And I surely won't spend it on a subpar product. If Paizo prefers to have a subpar product rather than get my money, I'm totally okay with that. Pathfinder isn't exactly a basic necessity.
The fear is that a consumer, knowing there are errata (available) may decline to buy an in-stock book from a FLGS expecting that there's a second printing coming soon.
And the alternative os having the consumer get screwed by buying a faulty product and not gettin an errata any time soon?
"We know we screwed 6000 of you with a faulty product we could easily release an errata for, but we printed 10000 books, so unless we screw another 4000 of you, you're all screwed forever. No, we don't care that the book is a mess! We printed it and we WILL make a profit... Or hold your errata hostage forever and ever."
I have a honest question... I get why they wouldn't want to release the errta'd print copies while they still have the faulty ones... But why not release the digital errata and update the .pdfs? What reason there is other than forcing fans to buy a poorly made product?
If they released the digital errata, buying the faulty copy wouldn't be that bad... But the fact that Paizo refuses to release even that before they run out of their current print edition makes it seem like they really don't give a damn if their fans got a bad product, after all, they already have their money.
I do. Just like I appreciate the fact that they aren't entitled to my money.
It's Paizo choice to not errata the ACG. If they don't care that their customers got a faulty product, it's their right to not fix it. All I'm saying is that I won't be giving them any money for it. I didn't buy the ACG, and I surely won't buy it before it gets its errata. If that means I'll never buy it because Paizo doesn't care enough to do it, then so be it.
I'm not demanding the errata. I'm just saying that I won't buy the ACG if it doesn't get errata'd. And I will advise others to do the same, because I don't think companies should be rewarded for selling a bad product and adopting a consumer-unfriendly policy.
Well... Considering that's by far the worst edited and most rushed hardcover book yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it took some time for it to run out of copies.... Hopefully it will take long enough to encourage Paizo to step up and bring their qualily standards back to what we are used to.
I'm sad to say it, but I certainly won't contribute to the errata release. As far as I'm concerned, every ACG copy can gather dust in a damp cellar. Paizo's "no errata 'til the reprint" reprint rule is still one their few policies that I despise... I might be misinformed but it sounds like "We don't care if my customers got a faulty product, if it doesn't sell enough, we are not fixing it.".
I never expected to be this disappointed with a Paizo product. Some books may not have been as good as others, but only the ACG reaches the point where I'm really freaking glad I didn't buy it. That book alone made me decide to never pre-order anything Paizo ever again. Ever. Cancelling my preorder felt like dodging a bullet laced with cyanide and Joker toxin.
Pretty sure that special ability is a waste of ink, as you can't wield something that's not in your hands. The designers have stated that wielding requires you to attack with the tool in question to be considered wielding.
The designers have stated a number of things about wielding weapons... Many of which are contradictory and/or nonsensical.
All we know for a fact is that they really don't want to give a definitive answer for what is considered "wielding an weapon".
Yes, you should. There is nothing overpowered with Dex to damage. Absolutelu nothing. The character is spending 2 feats still be considerably less damaging that a Str-based warrior who spent ZERO feats.
People keep mentioning the Magus, but that a poor argument:
1-Magi use Dex because they are forced into dueling, an underpowered combat style that simply doesn't benefit much from Str.
The Human Diversion wrote:
You're missed the point of the thread.
The discussion is not abou "bashing" any class (it's just a sad reality that Fighters are so dependent on gear that they can easily be defeated by characters 10 levels below him if he happens to lose his stuff), nor is it about literally being assault during bath time.
The "X is taking a bath" line is just a funny way of saying "how gear-dependent is this classs?"
Unassuming Local Guy wrote:
I think Fighters with no gear lose more than any other class with no gear...
Sure, Rogues will have worse defenses and offense, but they at least have enough skill points to try and escape the battle or something.
Fighters? Not so much... Having only 2 skill points per level and zero out-of-combat class features pretty much limits them to fight-or-flight response... Except they are not very good at fleeing, and without gear, not very good at fighting either, since they have very high bonuses (most of which were stripped away) but little in-combat versatility.
I kind of assumed a 'naked' fighter would have his amulets and rings on, at the very least.
I think the point is more about a character being caught with no gear, rather than literally being ambushed while bathing (since in that case, any half-sane character would have at very least his rings and amulets... And probably an weapon nearby too).
Seriously, once you get a silversheen weapon (which cost a whooping 400gp more than normal ones and are completely immune to rust) why would you ever not have at least on weapon with you at all times? You don't survive to 20th level by being careless.
I think Diplomacy wouldn't even work... Not only Fighters are horrible at social skills other than Intimidate (few skill points, no class skills, no incentive to raise Cha, etc), there is also the fact that the rules explicitly state that Diplomacy is more often than not, ineffective against creatures that intend to do you harm in the immediate future.
Well... Honestly, there is no reason why a caster wouldn't have his spells prepared. Why would he even do anything in the morning before preparing spells?
Fighter might reach 20th level by being unbelievably tough. Rogues do it by being incredibly cunning, Paladins do it by being fiercely devout.
Wizards? Wizards do it by being extremely paranoid! At 20th level it is perfectly natural for a Wizard to (completely in character!) never leave his room before preparing his spells and then raising half a dozen magical protections around himself!
Having the right spells is a bit more difficult, but by 20th level, they are so many and do so much... That it's actually rather difficult to not have at least a few who can own the 10th level opponents.
Besides, the Wizard gear is unlikely to help the opponent as much as the Fighter gear does. "Oh, you now got a +6 to Int? Nice... All I have is spells 5 levels higher... A few of which are still on effect. And then, there is my Contingency... And this army of newly-created undead/constructs/whatever..."
As usual... Gear dependency is not nearly as much of a problem for casters as it is for martials. Because having the most powerful effects at your disposal is not enough... You gotta have every little bit of advantage at your favor too!
- Martials need weapons and armor? All you need is a headband... And you can craft it at half price without having to pay two feats for the benefits of less than one.
Sorry... Rant sneaked its way in... ><'
How do you kill a wizard with 2 obsolete sound systems?