|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
As a former teacher, I'd rather someone like that kid dressing outlandishly, but not in a racist/harmful versus others way (no neo-Nazis and other goofiness), than a kid bullying others.
Now that said...
As a social construct of a society, a school is always going to have standards. That is, it cannot exist in an ideal vacuum: such a thing does not exist.
Some of these standards are pretty important. Say, a kid mouthing off during class is also distracting to the other students, and to the lesson, so there are reasons for good behavior standards.
In others, these existing standards, such as expressed by this school, reflect ongoing social changes we see in society. Remember, schools are not vacuums.
Perhaps then, it is our perception of what society should allow that needs adjusted. If society changes, then schools (as part of that society) would largely follow.
Also, on a broader topic...an education is a grand thing. Individualism must have its expression, but there is a price to pay when you have the high school-only kid who never learned the full consequences of slavery in the US, but who was "smart in other ways." True story, there.
Luckily, there are many ways to get an education, and different types of school systems. An education, the fact of an education, opens our minds in ways a lack of one cannot, even with as much "free spirit" added onto it.
To put it another way: We humans live buy 60, 70 years. If knowledge is accumulated, but not passed on in that fragile number of years, it is lost. Imagine more like the kid I mentioned above, and realize just how fragile knowledge in general, is.
Therefore, if we are upset at how this kid was treated, or if we think of our education system as "slavery," work to improve it, instead.
Something you might try, which still keeps wizards and other 9-level casters in the game is to convert all spells 6th level and above to rituals. This basically allows them to be cast, but creates a longer casting time, which allows them to be interrupted more easily. I haven't worked out the details, but time to cast would increase with the level of the spell (or also the slot required to cast it, whichever is more a disadvantage to the caster).
All 2-skill point classes become 4, save for int-based casters.
Allow full BAB classes 2 attacks if taking a regular move action.
Do not allow traits/feats that reduce metamagic costs.
Do not allow rods more powerful than lesser.
There are other adaptions, but the ritualist approach can definitely add flavor to a game, and still allow access to higher level spells, but in a more controlled and flavorful manner.
I do not think anything is wrong with the fighter.
<pauses for incredulous looks>
I think it's more that the fighter is becoming an outdated concept, or has reached this point already. The design scheme these days favors more versatile PCs, and Pathfinder as a game is hurting for expanded noncombat options. The designers gave us Ultimate Campaign, which is fantastic. It does not craft diplomatic combat though, and similar areas which would require a skill revamp. I wish we'd had this foresight when PF was going through its initial revision and the developers were discussing skills--hardly anyone had feedback in comparison to the classes themselves, and skills went largely unchanged. Hindsight is 20/20, though.
What I'd like to see is fighter divided into different and more versatile classes. The tactical warlord is a strong contender for one of them. Until then, I think Da'ath's list is a good, straightforward set of updates* that bring the fighter forward and towards the new schema, and are updates which have enjoyed a lot of popular support.**
* I say updates as opposed to changes deliberately here, as I see what is going on as more of an evolution.
** Among these more versatile versions should still be a "vanilla" flavored warrior as part of the draw of the fighter IS that s/he is simple, straightforward and that's an important demographic.
Gaming at Tabletop is a social exercise. Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though threads like this become an attempt to step outside of that exercise, to call on developers to make decisions for us to either contain or sometimes enable munchkinism when we ourselves need to be the ones stepping up to do so.
I'm not claiming this thread is, mind, it's that some of, or perhaps what appears to be an abundance of, these threads make it seem that way.
Do some rules questions need addressed? Absolutely.
That does not mean all of them do, though, and does not mean that we may be relying too much on developers when what is really needed is a good thump on the head and a "knock it off."
It isn't as though travel with babies isn't something humans ourselves haven't dealt with for some time. Yes, it will be troublesome and risky, but pioneer women and families suffered during long journeys in the wilderness.
For folks in the US, there's the Oregon Trail: "On the Oregon Trail, one in every five women were in some stage of pregnancy. Nearly all married woman traveled with small children." (Source)
Or: "It's estimated that 40,000 of the emigrants were children, one of every five..." (Source)
...not to mention travel in other cultures at different times, especially more nomadic societies. At least in Golarion, you have your party and magic to help you.
Craft a papoose and purchase a wand of endure elements for the tyke, and a similar one of prestidigitation for the diapers. Perhaps a low-level hireling to stand off to the side and hold the child during combat.
The Catholic faith is just one of many, and the deities of Golarion and many other settings aren't Catholic, but their own thing. To echo other posters, I don't see why celibacy would be required of most of them or even be a default assumption.
There is one old faith of an ancient temple which has a pole coming down the center of it. The pole enters into a (I am not making this up, nor am I trying to be crude) er, circular area which becomes a fountain.
This ah, structure is to represent the fertilization of the earth. The pole and so one is washed with milk and honey and so on during these ceremonies by groups of (yes, clothed) villagers, who are singing and chanting together.
...the idea of celibacy as part of a priesthood, etc. is then something based on specific real-world faiths, but not only are we speaking of a fantasy realm, rl faiths on Earth are actually quite varied.
Also, there's no reason for faiths which include sex to be about zomg "holy prostitution." It can have quite a different representation, as evidenced by the above temple. ...and it's quite cool if they do, as the "holy prostitution" angle can easily be over-cliched.
Hey, there. I'm considering converting the rules for Performance Combat into something akin to Diplomatic or Influence Combat. A few of the tweaks I'm considering:
- Use the Performance Combat rules largely as written, with Diplomacy replacing Perform
So far, so good. I'm down to the section on action types, though, and victory points. Any suggestions for guidelines here?
Also, any possible speed bumps you could see, and suggestions for overcoming them? I'm looking for some brainstorming, if you're willing to share. :)
Something you might look at: In the APG, there are a set of rules for Performance Combat. With a little bit of tweaking, you could turn these into rules for Diplomatic Combat.
This would turn attempts of PCs to sway crowds and so on into an ongoing contest, with opponents able to counter-diplomance, as it were.
I would also consider letting craft and profession work in place of diplomacy with specified groups. For example, someone proficient as a swordsmith might use their known skill in this area to influence other weaponsmiths or a culture which honors them, such as dwarven ones.
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
To the OP: I can well understand the predicament this can create. Everyone is going to play a little differently, after all. A number of groups I've seen happen to employ clerics, and enjoy them. It certainly doesn't make them "playing wrong" or "enjoying wrong." Sometimes though, they can be a little overly relied on by other party members!
I agree with the MI idea. You might also take the players aside and explain that the cleric may or may not be there in future sessions. That you hope the player will be, but this isn't always possible. Let them adjust their PCs and encourage them to brainstorm on more defensive strategies. A first step is to look at the barbarian's AC or other defenses, for example. The second step is to get them talking and working together around the issue. Encourage them to think of it as similar to a puzzle in a campaign, but one they're given time out of session to address (and a little leeway with adjustments).
As for leeway, if they come up with some good ideas, I would consider letting them redistribute a little wealth or perhaps a feat. Not overly much, but enough to let them adjust for example, if someone's playing a two-handed AC 15 fighter who always rushes into the front line... etc.
Clerics can be amazingly fun, and healing is not an evil, verybad. I'd suggest though, rather than feeling this is something you need to solve more personally, present it as an opportunity for them to focus on themselves as a team and encourage them to brainstorm ways to be a little more self-sufficient.
The cleric player might appreciate it, too.
If he's riding the mount they always have shares initiative. However the normal rules as far as I know allow the rider to do an attack anywhere in the mounts movement.
For an updated version of PF mounted combat, you might look at this publication. It has a few very nice areas, such as expansions for the ride skill and some clarity on action economy...and maneuvers, specifically.
You might not use all of the rules, but it is something you and your DM might review together.
Its writer has experience with jousting competitions, and horses in general--which is evident by some of the templates and write-ups.
I can run with this, though.
MC Templar wrote:
This is my concern with this interpretation: by this definition, all ongoing spells would cease to function which had been cast by the now-paralyzed character.
This is where beliefs diverge, very much. I've been told that because I follow a largely non-theistic faith that it is not a real faith.
I believe it to be a lack of understanding on the part of the speaker--that is, simply not having been exposed to a nontheistic faith in full, and perhaps unable to comprehend how one would work...or even how it /could/ be a faith at all.
Education and understanding is key. I felt I should point out what appeared to be an assumption, however. You may believe your faith's teachings were meant for me.
...and I would be free to suggest that mine were meant for you.
I don't say this combatively, merely an expression and hope for the future that the talking, and understanding continues...not just for faith, but for LGBTQ and many other areas, instead.
On a similar topic, (or perhaps tangent, so please bear with me) NPR covered wonderful program the other day--they're doing a series on tribalism. The idea of who belongs and 'what we believe' is strong among tribal peoples because it's also equated with safety. That is, everyone would have the same tattoo, or the same rites of passage which then come to identify an 'us.' Anyone outside that 'us' (without the tattoo, or rites) was likely a raider or other, threatening individual.
I'd propose that to some degree--wanting others to conform to our views is also a kickback towards safety, /wanting/ things to be similar, or to provoke a similar worldview. That, wanting everyone to share a similar faith, outlook, or tattoo--could be a measure of that tribal circle of safety.
Again, I am not meaning to insult. This is more academic wandering, and I'll tie it back into LGBTQ in a moment. :)
At our tribal level, what we don't 'know' becomes defined as 'other' and 'other' becomes 'threat.' I do not think this invalidates the studies Jessica and others mentioned--I believe it adds to them because if a person possesses these tendencies (a liking for men where their culture declares gay to be evil) then they fight not only themselves but their fear of becoming a nonmember of their culture. An outsider, and something they've long been accustomed to viewing as 'evil.'
This would imply that those who cannot 'put a face' to someone who is LGBTQ and see how these 'other' peacefully fit into their lives fall into a pattern of fear/hate/etc. The same is for different faiths, outlooks...it's at its basis, and perhaps more crudely said, 'they who do not possess the same tattoo are different and a threat to my tribe and my way of life.'
It's possibly why talking and education breaks down those barriers, because it expands the 'tribal circle.' The 'other' becomes a 'possible us.' ...and why certain hate groups are so against a broader education to begin with.
For example, I once had a deacon level his finger at me and declare, in thunder and lighting, that because I'd taken the time to experience other, Protestant, faiths that my own was then 'weakened' and I risked going to hell.
He feared 'other' becoming 'us.' (And I say this not to condemn a faith--my Catholic friends were a little shocked, too).
I recall this ruling as well. I believe there's a blog post somewhere. It ended up limiting the LoH ability of a certain familiar, for example.
There is a book on Mounted Combat specifically which might help. It also offers some alternate rules to make mounted combat better/smoother.
I went and snapped this up (haha) and have to say. I love their idea for the optional, simplified rule for treating a mounted character and mount as a "template" that confers a certain set of bonuses, as well as a specific list of feats which mounts/riders can share.
While this would be too much of a "rules rewrite" at this point, as a simplification of existing rules it's a novel idea.
As a side note, the product appears written by someone with at least some knowledge of horses, which is a plus.
I saw a pair of comments here that summed it up for me rather well...
...bolding added by me. A CEO is a public face, a powerful position. I would not wish to be an employee underneath this guy.
I would echo this, as well as the negative social culture it (much like anything else) can create when let go to extremes. I believe there was a post a few months back that was a sort of a social guide, a list of do's and do not's.
It's a good guideline for both optimizers and roleplayers, which basically boils down to: don't be a jerk. Also: work with your gaming group.
It's largely a social issue as well as a clash of playstyles.
I spent the better part of a pair of days listening to something very similar to this. In the end, the difference was I think, they were focusing on a very narrow area: to suffer one's job based on personal actions. Those against saw the man's donation to hate groups as a right, and those for saw the social harm and violence attached to the act, as well as the opportunity not taken for apology.
The debate isn't winnable--more, I think, it's a reflection of ideologies.
I will give perhaps a slightly different answer. The rogue:
- Possesses mechanics which suggest it is a fighter/combatant (SA) when in reality it is squishy and more of a striker. This is misleading to beginner players who think: sexy, light fighter.
The first can be overcome with experience. However, the second almost seems to be a function of the class. The rogue is a class that works well when the DM arranges solo adventures, information-gathering sessions and so on. It's almost like running two different campaigns...one where the rogue shines, and one where the combat-oriented classes shine.
The bard, by contrast, possesses the ability to enable other party members, work with them, and fulfill intel roles.
In a party-based game, that is often more desirable.
Kickstarting is serious business. It takes time to craft one and then run it successfully, and then coordinate the follow-up...not in terms of a month or two, but a year or two.
Most gamers are not managers, or trained in business. ...it's a big leap between running a gaming table towards business management.
Many of the old MUDs and so on back in the day floundered or exploded because of this difference. Same is true for gaming publishers. "Hey, I love playing with my friends...why not make something everyone can enjoy?" Or, "Hey, I can design xyz better than...why not make some money doing what I love?"
So I wish the owners of Frog the best, and suggest there's a growing market out there for how to run and manage a successful Kickstarter from the gaming angle. Or better than that...courses and classwork combined, and it's never bad to hire the occasional consultant.
There was a some point a discussion clarifying that you could not vital strike on a charge, I believe. If that is the case, then allowing the mount to charge but the rider not, yet the rider still gaining the benefits of a charge and none of the restrictions sounds more and more like an unintentional loophole.
They are being very careful. Their products would require the user to purchase the original product (you have to have the card before applying a sleeve or sticker, and so on), and they would cease production of an item if a publisher made an accessible version of that item.
One of the owners has worked at the national level with several blind organizations, and is very active in the community. It is very cool. :3
Please pass it on! I have my fingers crossed for them, and hope your friends enjoy it.
Victor Zajic wrote:
I'd enjoy seeing more faith-based PrCs and so on which were much less closely tied to Judeo-Christian or Eastern/Japanese mythology.
The stigmata is blatant, to be sure.
It does bring to mind if perhaps a second setting, aside from Golarion, could be developed for or if it already is.
Then again, if there was a 3PP who explored a settings with classes drawn from alternate faith and myth systems aside from Judeo-Christian and Eastern/Japanese, it would be wonderful. There may already be one.
In upcoming publications, the release of the PF shaman is nice, but the title is misleading.
While a great class, it isn't as truly "shaman" as much as a combination of classes that nods its head thematically to popular geek tropes (not a bad thing). The devs stated it shouldn't be compared to or draw from expectations of real world inspirations, iirc.
Anyhow, I'm derailing. :)
There are all forms of creativity. I've been trying to reconcile the old Rules of the Game article with PF and back and forth. It was the most comprehensive guide I've seen yet, though there are parts of PF it doesn't work with and vice versa.
One of the parts I enjoyed with 3.5 is that when you performed a maneuver when mounted, the rider and mount counted as a unit. You used the mount's size and strength bonus, for example. OTOH, it seemed for the trade-off that the both of you only received the one action (in addition to movement).
I doubt that interpretation will make it into PF, even though it felt "right" from a creative standpoint.
We all play differently. I'm grateful for a roundtable discussion amongst Paizo devs, rather than posts by one or two people here and there. These rules deserve that attention.
It does need some discussion. My hope is for small realignments or clarifications that make it work more smoothly. I'm okay with the new FAQ; I'm also grateful they've discussed it and hope to see more brought to the table, as it were.
It matters for my players and while I'm okay with crafting more general guidelines as to how the rules are interpreted, I'd love it if there could be something more official, instead.
The most delicate areas I'm concerned with:
So in the end, not too much at all, but who possesses and uses the feats are stumping, as it were. I suspect a hard line would be difficult to construct, given the wording of a number of feats. Developer intent/guidance really would be enough.
If their rulings can't be trusted unless they're in a FAQ, and their FAQs can't be relied upon because they're subject to change, there's nowhere to go for reliable rulings.
...this and previous posts more read to me as though you've a horse in the race (haha) and have gotten a little focused on it to the point where not just "one" thing seems wrong but...the whole system now is. Stepping away from this for the rest of the weekend would not be a bad move.
I don't mean to be insulting, Ss. I mean that more, from this keyboard, the posts seem to be spiraling and beginning to sound...like a break might be a good idea.
And the PRD isn't perfect either. They still haven't sorted out the Crane Wing errata, and that was pointed out on the day it happened, how long ago?
My understanding is that there's a central sort of documentations source in XML containing most of the PRD, Rulebooks, and so on that's maintained in InDesign. To update the PRD, they have to go back to the source, and then follow through the entire publication cycle once again.
This republication then spiders off in several directions from the single source. In theory.
In theory, XML publication is easy. In practice, there are quirks--most likely seen when we saw the titled updated to 'Playtest' not too long ago.
This also suggests that there's an established documentation team as well as a series of teams surrounding that. I'm not too surprised the error hasn't been fixed yet.
That said, the person who probably needs asked about it isn't a developer, but one of the documentation managers. I'm not sure if they've been updated or not, or what their republication schedule/cycle is.
I would echo this and appreciate it. I'd also love to see the ride skill supersede the handle animal skill officially when working mounted. I believe this would add some clarity as well as general streamlining to mounted combat.
As a side note, I sympathize with you both.
This part would seem to make a certain amount of sense. Most animals aren't going to want to charge head-long towards an enemy (you can easily spook a horse with a flapping plastic bag) and will tend to spook. Being able to have the animal do so seems as though it would logically fit underneath combat training and be a benefit thereof.
I'm still trying to sort through this ruling, myself.
It's my understanding that:
...is that about where we're at?
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
From my own queries (and starting some threads on the matter, as well as studying them) a great number of players would prefer that PF 2.0, should there ever be one, be a streamlined version of existing PF.
Streamlining in this case would mean better rules presentation as well as streamlined rules and rules sets.
This does not mean reducing the number of classes or options--merely cleaning up the underneath, as it were.
Anyhow, back to the thread. :) As a side note, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has seen this, and I'm curious how others might see the fighter class develop, for example.
Hey, there! Some of you may have heard of this, some not. Some friends of mine just launched their first Kickstarter, which is aimed at making board games accessible to the blind...enabling both the blind and sighted to play together.
It is pretty damn awesome.
The company is run by a teacher for the blind, and a guy who designs board games. They're a pretty cool pair.
I'm really excited for them; they've worked long and hard to get here.
Part of my belief is that should this be a trend, that classes like the rogue fall out of place. That is, rogue as it exists is both too general a concept as well as dedicated too firmly towards a specific mechanical role.
The same goes for fighter--too specific a mechanical role, while at the same time being too general of a concept.
Under the trend I'm imagining exists, there would be no fighter or rogue class. There would be investigator and thief, for example, or warden and arcane swordslinger...and so on, with a broader set of skill points, supernatural abilities, and broader mechanical role.
Does that make sense?
I understand the ideas you are expressing but I am struggling to understand the question(s).
Fair enough. I tend to get wordy from time to time.
1. Is this a trend anyone else is noticing?
I'm glad you like it. I've started a thread--it's an area I would love to see get more discussion and input.
Hey, there. I'd wanted to see if anyone else was well, noticing this and if so what your thoughts were regarding it. That is, I think Pathfinder's style is changing.
In the older era, classes like the fighter worked well with 2 skill points, because their primary focus was on combat. Likewise, the rogue or thief had their focus on sneaking and other, more out of combat utility. Each had their own, separate roles that they could fulfill.
In the newer era, the ideal seems to be: "every class has a way to contribute to every part of the game, just in different ways." In this era, the desire is that every class be a "fighter," though in different ways (an example here is the Investigator or the War Priest, who each have their own way to challenge their lower BAB). Each class should also possess more "out of combat utility," as well, which newer classes such as the witch and inquisitor possess.
Has anyone else noticed it, and if so--would its result be more for the design of more and different classes than your fighter and rogue, rather than revising them?
This doesn't ask if either of these classes are favorites, or if the classes themselves are good, or bad. It more asks if say, this era/style change IS a thing, and if classes which are too role-specialized in one area need to be broken up and diversified in order to fit the new era.
Summary: RPGs and RPG styles evolve. We have only to look at the era surrounding Nobilis, oWoD, and contrast it with times when crunchier games were the norm. Are we looking at one, now, within Pathfinder? What does that mean for older classes, which are more singularly roled?
It's partly an era issue. I believe we're running into a "gotcha" to where we're expecting more well-rounded classes and characters. This newer expectation runs heads-on versus the old system, where 2 skill points per level was, previously, fairly acceptable because it wasn't a fighter's role. ...likewise, your rogue wasn't a nerfwhingyterribadawful (according to the forums), because they had their own role.
In the new and more generalized style, the class with 2 skill points per level has no place. The fighter as a /concept/ has even less place, because, going with the idea of "everyone has a way to contribute, just differently," every class should have a combat advantage and capability--just a different one.
Likewise, under the new style which has been emerging, the rogue as its concept exists has no place.
The inquisitor, witch, and similar classes personify this new style and new era. They're flexible in a multitude of areas. I imagine were Paizo able to rewrite the core classes, many of them would take on more robust, "new style" flavors.
This is in addition to points other posters have made. It is fairly easy to get a skill boost. When it comes down to it, a skill is just a number, which makes the idea that 15 ranks equals an epic level of discipline harder to swallow.
If we wanted skills to have a greater impact, they would need to be more robust, and bonuses to skill rolls would need to be more limited and controlled.
Finally, we would also need to re-adjust older classes, to bring them to the design preference of the newer era.
I would mind the Dex to Damage debate less if they offered a more complete swap. Meaning, you could pick which ability handled:
Init, AC, Ref saves
...and select which attribute you wanted to handle each group. Perhaps strength helps you spring/jump out of the way more completely, for example.
This would be more even across the board, but I don't think anyone would take me up on it.
Name it the Martial Maneuvers pool, and I imagine you'll get quite a few converts.
I wouldn't focus on damage as much as options. For example:
- Spend a point to gain extra movement
Matt Thomason wrote:
Yep, yep. :) That's my bad. I suppose the correct term is "embedded text" or "preserved text." I can never recall offhand.
I did a little more digging, and ran across this nice PDF on how to make a document accessible from InDesign, also.
It sounds as though there might be at least a small market for a how-to document aimed at making gaming publications accessible.
For example, although a number of these tutorials mention creating a tagged PDF and how to enable it, they provide fewer guidelines for tagging (part of what makes a document accessible) methodology.
I imagine most game systems (say, a core rule book) could have similar expectations for tags and content flow. That's one of the reasons this could be a potential publication market. Provide an easy guide and a concise, clear set of standards (and maybe an example InDesign, etc. document or two) and make it both easier and aimed at gaming pubs.
I'm not certain, but it seems like a possibility.