|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Does anyone feel like going back through the last couple of Season 2 episodes to figure out who was in the room with it when it turned liquid before?
No. It's really really not.
It's an argument for recognizing that the system is more than the individual acts of the current government or sitting justices. That the system, however flawed and imperfect it is or can be made to be, still remains just about the best version of a government we as a species have managed to put together - and that to try to toss it aside because one instance of it did something you don't approve of is to be fundamentally, even treasonously un-American.
In the short term, American republican democracy can be volatile, can be petty and cruel and deeply unfair. But in the long term, it has repeatedly proven itself capable of recognizing and addressing those flaws, as well as trying to build in safeguards against them happening again. But that only works if you give it time to work, for the consensus to build against those flaws. Once it does, though, it sticks... and we're generally a better people for it.
Toss that aside, and we lose the system. The real reason the American system of government survived the Revolution without becoming, say, 1790s France was that we had a rather miraculous collection of elites who believed in the system long enough to let it work, for the consensus to build around the system itself. Without that, you get guillotines. Or Ft Sumter.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
The SCOTUS made an admittedly unpopular decision, but that's their job, and one of the basic principles for the past two hundred years in the United States is that when a court, especially the SCOTUS, makes a decision you disagree with, the decision is still made and still binding.
See also: Bush vs Gore, Citizens United vs FEC.
Everyone remember the armed mob that stormed the White House to throw Bush out after the SCOTUS overreach in 2000? No?
Two issues here:
First of all, assuming she did in fact take the oath of office as described in the Kentucky constitution (a fun read - makes you wonder why everyone was busy shooting one another back then), she has already violated an oath she swore to God - i.e., to faithfully execute her office "according to law." Her "Heaven or Hell" choice has already passed.
Second of all, the paperwork she's supposed to sign does not endorse or even permit any marriage to take place. It merely certifies that the couple in question has met the legal requirements of Kentucky law to become married. So her "religious freedom" is not being burdened - she is not required to endorse the marriage in any way. It's not compelled speech, and she's not saying she likes it; she's checking a box that basically says, "old enough, not already married, paid the fee." That's it. The reason her First Amendment defenses keep getting shot down is that they simply don't apply here.
I'm trying to figure out how to say this gently, Rynjin.
Weapon cords now offer precisely the effect they were originally intended to at a cost that is in line with the benefit they offer.
I get that you don't like that. It's still a fact.
[EDIT: And no, this is not me kissing Paizo's ass. I've actually thought it was the right call for awhile.]
The same logic that requires only things called out as ranged "weapons" would mean that we literally cannot calculate the attack bonus for any ranged attack that is not labeled as a ranged "weapon," because the rule for calculating that attack bonus uses the same language:
The PRD wrote:
So I think we're over-parsing here as far as distinctions between what is and is not a a ranged weapon.
You're right, those sorts of scenes should be built at the table level, where the GM knows his/her group and knows what they've come to do. For some groups, "I have a broadsword and a serious beef with the patriarchy" is exactly the escapism they're looking for; for others, it's more like "I have to put up with this **** all day in my 9-to-5, the last thing I want to deal with is the same thing in my fantasy." YMMV.
Mr. Bubbles wrote:
...she's not. That would involve saying something like, "Adventuring is not a male-dominated profession."
One of my friends and I were discussing whether there needed to be a PC-level "noble" class, sort of an upgraded aristocrat. My position was no, because we already had one. Charismatic, widely educated on many topics, capable of giving inspiring speeches to his allies, trained in swordplay, and with a smattering of useful magics he learned at the well-heeled academy he attended? Yeah, we can do that. Just cross out the word "bard" at the top of the page, write "noble" in its place, and bingo! All done.
Flame Effigy wrote:
Two new patrons: ethereal and mind. There's also a "voodoo doll" type magic item called a ganji doll that's got a very witch-y feel to it.
Flame Effigy wrote:
Are there any new options for familiars/intelligent magical items for old classes?
Not that I have seen.
While I don't mean to distract the topic from Nefreet's excellent work here, I'd like to note that, as the guy who made those pregens, to the best of my knowledge they did not and do not include anything not PFS legal, and did have the Community Use boilerplate on the title page. They may well have had a few other issues - I've found a couple math errors over the years - but by and large there shouldn't be any reason those characters can't be used or distributed in the manner LazarX suggested. (They aren't pregens in the PFS sense of the term, though, as Mike notes, and are not presented as such in the document.)
Vic Wertz wrote:
I don't suppose he's actually a multiclassed Medium rare commoner/medium?
Watch it, my friend. There are limits.
Having to rewrite the fluff of a system to make it work with the story you want to tell is basically indistinguishable from "it doesn't work with the story I want to tell" for my purposes.
As a guy playing someone with a masked identity (masked avenger swashbuckler) in Iron Gods right now, I can say with some authority that it neither requires taking over the campaign nor foisting an alternate identity on the rest of the group. It requires a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the player and some thought beforehand on why the PC would be interested in traveling with the rest of the party, but that's a good thing to do with any character, so I don't feel like it's demanding too much.
Legend lore tells us that characters of level 11 or above are "legendary," which is generally the point at which I start allowing Knowledge (local) rolls to know "specifics" of character's build (class, approximate level, noteworthy class abilities); this requires a roll against a DC of 15 ("particularly rare" creature) + CR, which is usually class level for PCs and class level -1 for NPCs, with better rolls granting more info as usual. Characters below that level can be recognized in their home communities with a Knowledge (local) roll, DC 15 + the community's Society modifier, but success grants only a name and a basic rep, nothing more.
I often make a point of not avoiding them, if the opponent in question has no reason to know how the PC fights. I think it adds to the verisimilitude, if bad guys waste actions or attacks sometimes, the same way PCs sometimes do. (And do they ever... I remember once running a game for several players I didn't know very well. They were ambushed by two sorcerers, one of whom was an elf. One of the PCs, playing a slumber witch, announced she would use her hex on the elf. I stared, then finally asked, "Are you sure?" And she said yes, and the elf of course ignored the hex because it was an elf. Players, man, I tell ya...) If PCs sometimes get overconfident, make mistakes or simply take reasonable-seeming actions that turn out to be bad ideas because of things they couldn't know, I don't see why NPCs wouldn't do the same things sometimes.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
That's a completely different issue. If the monsters start to move and there's a delaying player, then ignoring that player's desire to step in is definitely a problem - but not one caused by grouping monsters together. That's a GM who's not paying attention to her players, and has nothing to do with the initiative issue; it'd be a problem regardless.
I think Barachiel is saying that it gets harder for others to ID you, not for you to hide.
Chess Pwn's got it. We're making sure we can't break (brake?) the combat side of the class, so they've only given us the combat pieces to work on.
That said, I think it would incredibly cool if each talent choice actually gave you two talent choices - one social, one vigilante - that switch off as you swap personas. There's no sign of that in the playtest at the moment (and why would there be, since we have no social talents to playtest) but I think that might make the identity make a great deal more impact on the character.
...which is why it's in the social campaign sourcebook.
-The campaign to be primarily set in a single city.
Not in the slightest. In the worst case scenario - a highly-mobile campaign, where the PCs rarely stop anywhere for more than a day or two - he loses one of his class features. Otherwise, when he's got time, he can move his renown around while the wizard is crafting.
-The campaign to almost never have social situations devolve into...anything else.
...because he's suddenly without his martial weapon proficiency and BAB? His light or medium armor?
Are fighters not allowed to get ambushed at night unless they have a way to sleep in armor?
Setting aside the issue that "social encounters" tend to be solo encounters for the party face regardless, how the party handles their vigilante companion is likely to vary significantly from vigilante to vigilante; it's certainly not something that the game forces on us. Even beyond the false dilemma, the idea that the vigilante persona and the social persona know each other and associate with the same set of people is actually incredibly common in the source material (is Seoni in love with Miles Castle, the wealthy patron of the party, or with the dashing avenger Whiplash who leads their dungeon explorations? Oh, if only she knew they were the same man!), so I don't really understand why "the partying [hanging] around the vigilante's social persona" is such a terrible thing.
...Not so far, no.
The concept I came up with from the instant I saw the playtest uses that exact trope, in fact.
For all that I am enjoying the vigilante so far, I really do think that the renown sizes are too small. It's especially weird that the sizes only really seem to matter for the social persona - "within miles equal to level" on the Intimidate side means you'll encompass an entire metropolis by 3rd or 4th level, while your social is still limited to something like a single city block.
It occurs to me that Indiana Jones/Dr Henry Jones, Jr might well qualify as a vigilante - and in so doing provide a possible archetype for what an "adventuring" vigilante might do in a traditional Pathfinder game. Just as the mild-mannered and somewhat soft-spoken archeology professor occasionally wanders off and saves the world from spirit-nuke-possessing Nazis (using a pseudonym to do it, even!), the adventuring vigilante might simply be someone who doesn't adventure "full time" for some reason, but nonetheless can grab his towel and be prepared for trouble when he needs to...
Mark Seifter wrote:
Well, I'm going to answer that from a PS4 gamer's perspective, but yes, I think so. Obviously, Mass Effect Andromeda is going to be awesome; likewise, Fallout 4 is coming out and looks pretty sweet. Uncharted 4, too, although I'd always recommend the first three first, if you can. The "what the **** is that?!" dark horse, though, would have to be Horizon Zero Dawn, which almost could be a Numeria campaign from what little we've seen so far, and was easily the only preview that made my jaw just hit the floor when the trailer played.
Scott Betts wrote:
Which, since I'm still playing the game, isn't over yet.
I don't have to understand any such thing. I may not own the entire Mass Effect universe, but I do own my particular permutation of it.
Scott Betts wrote:
The canon-pedant in me requires that I point out you've got the Destroy ending exactly backwards. It doesn't prevent the cycle from restarting, it guarantees it. And the changes are fundamentally galaxy-altering, not universe-altering, which is almost certainly why the story is taking us to a different galaxy.
Scott Betts wrote:
These are enormous changes, any of which by themselves could define the flavor of an entire fictional universe. It isn't reasonable to try to write and produce the same video game story set in all three of these. It certainly isn't reasonable to act like it's owed to you.
I appreciate your assessment of my rationality, Scott, but to be perfectly blunt, hogwash. I could write around the differences in the endings in probably dozens of different ways, depending on what kind of story I wanted to tell. An example:
Our hero, Commander Vaquero, is exploring his/her ship during the game's intro sequence. He/she encounters the ship's engineer, Lt. Techie, in the engineering room.
Cmdr. Vaquero: Tell me about the Transit Drive, Techie.
The synthesis physical changes require, at most, an extra set of skins be designed for the character models, and that only if they don't handwave it away with a line about how "the physical appearance changes were a temportary aftereffect of the Synthesis Wave" or something.
If this is a problem I can solve in 30 seconds, I'm pretty sure Bioware can manage it too.
Scott Betts wrote:
Of course, none of this may end up mattering if the "Backup Plan" theory holds up. If the game is told from the standpoint of someone who left before the Crucible was turned on, and if Andromeda was immune to its effects, they could choose to simply ignore the endings entirely.
And frankly, that would be spiffy-keen with me. I'm not demanding that they include my choices; I want them to avoid invalidating them. That's seriously not that hard a task.