In addition to what Pupsocket said (I'd actually enter as a multiclassed Ranger/Rogue, Ranger offers some useful stuff and Rogue means the ability to take Extra Rogue Talent over and over to really pump up those favored terrain bonuses), you might want to keep the favored enemy and spellcasting. Even if the FE seems like a complete overlap and waste with Terrain Dominance, and you don't actually have enough Ranger levels to cast spells.
Having Ranger spellcasting means you don't need Use Magic Device to use Ranger spell wands. So, you can eventually buy a wand of Instant Enemy.
Having a Favored Enemy means you can actually benefit from the spell. The spell treats the target as one of your favored enemies for all purposes. Like, say...its native terrain type. You following? The terrain type you've been racking up a +20 or so bonus in, and have terrain dominance tied to (which lets you use that massive terrain bonus as a FE bonus against creatures from that terrain type)...you can declare whatever creature you use the wand on to count as being from there.
And then, curb stomping commences.
Of course, a charge from a level 3 spell wand is very expensive, so you'd want to save this for important/boss enemies. But it's a nice way to ENSURE you get your terrain dominance working when you really need it to.
I can't stand playing low int characters, so I seldom do that.
However, more than half of my characters do have Cha 8 or lower. Beyond the obvious mechanical reason of "more stat points," there are a few reasons for this:
1. It's FUN for me to play a snickety old coot, an acerbic sharp-witted insult machine, a horrific looking freak of nature, or however else I end up implementing the low charisma into my character. After spending all day holding my tongue when I think of smart ass remarks, it's utterly, gloriously liberating to get to role play someone who has no filter between brain and mouth.
2. I am not charismatic in real life. And while RPing things very different from you is great and noble and all...I've found in practice it just doesn't work out so well. Charisma, sadly, is the one stat -- to a FAAAAAAAR greater extent than any other stat -- that you're expected to supplement with player knowledge/ability. You want to break down a door, the DM doesn't make you bench press 200 pounds. But if you dare to want to gather information from some townsfolk, or talk someone down from violence...you'd best start saying something eloquent. It's really not fair. I don't mind if the DM requires you to say *something*, but it should have absolutely zero bearing on your skill check. But in nearly every case, the DM's I've had have not let me influence NPCs without saying something convincing.
It actually does kind of suck; several of the characters I'd like to and have tried to play are high charisma. But I always end up regretting trying it.
The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.
The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.
Wow. Look everybody! Someone who disagrees with me spoke to me like a human being.
And there you go again.
About the flame war: I was not even here when the insults started flying. It takes TWO sides to have a flame war. Both sides must share equal responsibility. I did not have a single post deleted last weekend and never argued with anyone except BBT about the definition of the word "clarification" and to tell him that "DM FIAT!" and "Houserule! Houserule!" more inflammatory than what I was posting. I was trying to calm people down! Not that they listened. If people had been reflecting my attitude they would have been deconstructing the FAQ from a rational standpoint instead of a reactive one (which still appears to be prevalent). The flamewar last weekend is solely the responsibility of those who participated. No more, no less.
In as much as the way that someone who pops a few rounds of machine gun fire into a crowded room then promptly runs away isn't "one of the ones that caused all the chaos" that ensued. Like this:
But I guess because you said you're not condemning anyone (even though you just did, the sentence beforehand), you really did not.
Now, as always on Sundays mornings, I must prep for my Campaign.
And I'm getting sick of this subtle, passive-aggressive dig at the rest of us. None of us announce, "well, I'm off to play my weekly game now." You do it to insinuate that while you actually play the game, we just sit around and argue about it on the internet. Of course, last time you announced you had to go prep for your game, you were back 20 minutes later favoriting posts that agreed with you...
For archetypes, I'd suggest either 2H Fighter or Lore Warden (which is just good for any fighter build).
I would drop the entire Dazzling Display line, including Shatter Defenses -- flatfooted does little for you.
I would drop cleave at level 4 when fighter lets you swap a feat. Never take it again nor get the later feats in the tree.
Vital Strike is a trap. I guess it's ok if you have nothing better to choose, but it would be very low on my totem pole. Get rid of Deadly Stroke.
I'm not a fan of the Critical feats; at least hold off on committing to them until BAB +14 or even +17, when you can get the real winners -- Stunning Critical and Tiring Critical.
I would take Lunge right at level 6 or close to it -- It's very useful.
Other feats to consider (and min. level you can get it):
Step Up (1): This messes up archers and reach weapon users pretty hardcore. It mildly inconveniences spellcasters.
Cornugon Smash (6): You should always be power attacking, so this gives you a free demoralize debuff if they survive.
Dreadful Carnage (11): THIS is what area demoralize should look like! Consider swapping Cornugon Smash out at 12 for this. Sadly, requires Furious Focus, which is a mediocre feat.
Pin Down (11): Awesome fighter-only feat to deny the safety of 5 ft steps.
Dazing Assault (12): Words cannot describe how awesome this one is. GET IT. Works best on an AoO build, but still good in general.
Stunning Assault (16): Honestly, I think this is redundant w/ Dazing Assault, but if you have the space for it...why not? I'd keep Dazing over this if picking one; daze is less severe than stunned but unlike stunned, practically nothing is immune to dazing, plus there's no such thing as "Dazing Critical."
Teleport Tactician (10): This feat itself is awesome. You get to disrupt teleporting in/out of your threatened area! But it requires two EXTREMELY terrible feats to acquire and the benefit, while great, is situational. Probably not worth it, but I felt I should mention it.
Whirlwind Attack (supposedly 4; good luck w/ that): This feat has a giant list of absolutely horrid pre-reqs and generally isn't worth it. However, at higher levels when combined with Lunge and Dazing Assault, this can be a pretty nice area debuff. Works better with a reach weapon, though.
I'd rather FAQ a post not so heavily biased against having all the words hitting one target. Because having to hit 10 different creatures, each with a ranged touch for a piddly 1d8 + cha damage and a save for half (on top of having to hit) *and* it's subject to damage reduction is godawfulhorrible.
If you'd just like them to clarify that a creature always rolls 1 save for half damage regardless of whether it's hit once or 8 times or whatever to speed up the game, I'm fine with that.
Panther is a really bad style.
Not only do you have to give up full attacking.
Not only do you have to hope enemies actually take the bait and choose to attack you.
Not only does it have onerous requirements and isn't really worth using until you have all 3 of its feats.
The rules also restrict a creature to one AoO for movement of yours that provokes. So even if enemies had combat reflexes, and would willingly keep attacking you... You can only use it once per enemy per turn...ever, basically. And if you want to make a mook killer, there are far FAR better ways to go.
Friends don't let friends invest in Panther Style.
Metamagic rods only require you to be able to hold them, that's well within what the basic tail allows. It doesn't require you to point the rod at the target, or wave it around, or anything. Just hold it.
In any case, this is ONLY an issue for the Magus, so while I agree primary casters are quite powerful and don't mind harsh rules readings to nerf them... Wizards don't care about this tail nonsense anyway. Their hands are totally free between the mithral buckler strapped to their arm and the complete lack of need for a weapon. Trying to come down against using the tail for rods doesn't actually hurt the powerful casters. It would just hurt the Magus, which is a perfectly middle tier, reasonably balanced fighter/mage hybrid class.
LazarX is correct. If you wanted to "5 ft step" in and full attack, you would have to roll the fly check before doing so, to see if you can actually keep aloft to do so.
Ditto for if you're already in melee reach and simply want to full attack. You would make the Fly check first to see if your character is actually capable of hovering there to do so.
Needing to move forward a certain distance *is* a consequence, and if you are unable/unwilling to, you fall anyway.
Put another way:
It's an optional check. You do not need to hover in order to fly. The penalty for failing it is...having to fly the normal way.
...they say "it's purely self-interest, so it's neutral, not evil."
PF Core Rules wrote:
Yeah, that's complete bs. Ethical Egoism, being out solely for your own gain without any care/consideration for others is the textbook definition of Neutral Evil.
I find myself in an odd position. I completely agree with Marthkus logically, and I have often griped about how STUPID the Agile Maneuvers feat is. It makes absolutely no sense that you're not considered to be using unarmed when making a bull rush, grapple (hand strikes can also include palm strikes, chops, backhands, nerve pinches... it's not just "punching"), etc... It SHOULD work.
But, RAW, it does not. It's utterly wrong and infuriating and insulting and unnatural and illogical that it does not. But RAW, it does not. SKR re-stating rule 0 doesn't really change anything.
I find myself caught between enforcing paizo's idiotic rules or whitewashing how bad monks have it in an actual PF game w/o a DM willing to houserule things intelligently.
It's a very uncomfortable feeling.
Whether it's cleaner rules or something that helps close the gap between martials and casters, give me your list.
Uh... it'd be a far shorter and much easier to compile list if I just mentioned the things I *wouldn't* port over. Of course, in reality I'd be playing 3E with a few good PF changes (like the half- races having a purpose and the Paladin class) because I like most of 3E and dislike most of PF's changes to it.
But in any case, I would NOT port over to PF the following from 3E:
- Basically anything that buffs casters, like divine metamagic and other feats, many prestige classes such as Planar Shepherd, many of the spells such as Celerity and Power Word Pain, magic items like Night Sticks, etc... The newer caster classes like Warmage and Wu Jen are fine, though, they're actually more balanced than the core casters by a long shot. Except Archivist and Artificer... those would totally not be ported over.
- Savage Species. The entire book is just an atrocity. Ridiculously unbalanced.
- Complete Psion. The entire book is an atrocity, for the exact opposite reason SS is.
And...that's about it. I'd probably port over just about everything else. Including the core rules mechanics in favor of Pathfinder's in pretty much every instance, whether it be tumble DCs, class skill rules, combat maneuvers, etc... This is a very generic posting, though, because I don't feel like delving through dozens of books and writing a thesis on this, going over every little minute broken thing. There are other things I'd avoid porting that are too obscure to even talk about, like the super-poorly thought out "Lucid Dreaming" skill. But in general, this post about sums it up.
Bracers of Falcon's Aim, makes any bow or crossbow a 19-20/x3 weapon (doesn't stack w/ keen).
Boots of Feather Stepping: Cheap footwear to ignore difficult terrain.
Quickrunner's Shirt: IIRC, is 1000 gp and 1/day lets you move as a swift action. Buy whole set to change in/out of between fights.
Adaptive property: Can add to any composite bow for a flat 1000 gp cost to auto-adjust to the user's strength.
Boots of Friendly Terrain: Gives a +2 favored terrain or increases an existing one by +2. Indispensable for the price to any Horizon Walker.
Ring of Ferocious Action: ~3000 gp, so a bit above what you wanted. But being able to take a full round of actions 5 times/day when otherwise limited to a standard can be very handy.
+5 skill items are 2500 gp and totally worth it sometimes, especially +5 perception.
OP, what you seem to be looking for are Alternate Class Features. They're something 3E did a lot of, and PF has avoided like the plague, much to my dismay. While the ACF's weren't always balanced trades, they at least tried to be 1-for-1 and were supposed to be. Sometimes all you want is to get one specific ability, or to get rid of a specific class feature you don't like or doesn't fit your theme. ACF's let you do that. Archetypes largely...do not.
It's especially frustrating because it seems like a lot of times, paizo tacks on additional little swaps gaining and/or losing little insignificant crap you don't care about, just so it DOESN'T end up being a single major swap and effectively becoming an ACF. And then of course, tons of archetypes will use the same little class features to fill out their word count, and then you can't combine them because they both give up your 18th level +2 to will saves or whatever. I mean, a lot of archetypes could easily be pared down into the ACF's they yearn to be. Look at Wild Rager and Urban Barbarian. They both get rage variants, both seem roughly balanced swaps (well, the uncontrolled rage is godawfulhorrible for Barb 20 but excellent for Barb dippers)...why can't they just be ACF's for any barbarian to choose from if he wants a differently flavored rage? Does anyone seriously give a s**t about having +1 AC when fighting in a crowd? It's such blatant filler.
And it's just bad design. So many archetpyes are so blatantly not fair trades early on, either too good or too awful (some -- like various alchemist archetypes that remove low level class features and reduce bomb damage -- may make you give up stuff early and not even provide any benefit at all until level 5 or so!), because they figure "we'll make up for it later." Guess what, geniuses? A lot of players may never get to play in the campaign long enough to reach that "later on!" Others will start at high levels and get the cool possibly overly sweet higher level toys without having to suffer the disproportionate loss at lower levels. It's just...it's infuriating.
The reasons to make it a strong fighting style are...
1. This is a FANTASY game. Lots of impractical and impossible things happen, and you don't blow a gasket about them
2. It's a game, and is supposed to be FUN. Stop trying to punish people for doing something you think is "unrealistic" and lighten the f*** up.
Initiative shouldn't be rolled until at least one creature is attempting to do something hostile. Possibly also if a creature is stealthing/stalking and is noticed, at the instance it's noticed. While that doesn't always mean close up (if you see harpies dive bombing at you from 1000 ft up or a horde of mounted knights lowering their lances and barreling across a half-mile long barren field towards you, then yeah, combat's starting far away), but in most cases given the environments you often explore in (dungeons, urban, etc...), it will be fairly close.
What you DM is doing is way too far, and actively ****s over a rogue or other sneak attacker in the party, if any. Round 1, before the enemies have acted, is basically the ONLY time you're for-sure going to be able to get in a sneak attack and a full attack one, at that potentially (especially for ranged rogues). By being so trigger-happy with calling init, he's effectively nerfing the bejesus out of sneak attackers. The game assumes a rogue who scores good initiative is going to land some hefty alpha-strike damage at the start of the fight.
One of my current DMs has had a nasty habit of calling for initiative every time we perception/notice creatures' presence, even if we aren't sure what they are or where exactly. Like, aquatic monsters swimming up to the surface in a lake we've walked up to.
I was a bit more polite in the actual back and forth, though I would've rather been blunt. In case you're wondering, the CORRECT way to have adjudicated that situation would have been perception checks, as he asked for, but have the reaction/initiative happen just as the monsters were breaking the surface of the water. We don't notice them, they get a surprise round; we do and then it's a scramble for initiative to see who reacts fastest and actually strikes first.
Doesn't do everything you say, but then again it's also unfinished b/c I'm super lazy. :D
Also, as I've said before...
Being the trap finder is a horrible role. It really, really sucks. It's the fast food job of Pathfinder.
Being the designated trap finder means the party stands back a safe distance while you, the guy (I'm assuming Rogue for this) with the worst saves in the party, poor AC, and low hit points. Against a monstrosity intentionally lowballed for CR because "if it doesn't kill or long term maim, it just gets healed away before the next encounter anyway." Merely investing full ranks into the skills isn't enough to have auto success or close to it; it still needs to present a "risk," you see. So, you with your squishy ass self nervously approaches the apparatus of death, *maybe* disarm it or maybe the camera cuts to the other PCs wincing and saying "oooh...that's gotta hurt..." -- all decided with a single die roll so of course it's fun and exciting -- and then the entire party gets the xp for overcoming it and an equal share any treasure that the trap was protecting, and moves on until the next time you get to play craps with your life for little to no appreciation.
Trap finding freaking SUCKS! Being a class designated to do it shouldn't be considered a benefit; it should be considered a drawback that's compensated for in other ways!
And yes, that has been my consistent, never-varying experience with how trap finding has been handled, for 15 years of playing now.
And I thought it was bad that rogue's purpose had been reduced to trap monkey.
But it's even more pigeon-holed than that. It's, "guy who doesn't have to actively search for traps to find them."
What a theme to build an entire PC class around!
You do not need trap spotter. No one does, I wouldn't take it even if it was an option. You're right, if you search EVERYWHERE, the game grinds to a halt. But if the DM punishes the party w/ bs traps because they didn't search everywhere like paranoid asylum patients, guess what they end up doing? Fortunately, the extremes are not the only answers. IME, every single DM...ever... has some sort of established protocol with the party. Maybe they just say they're taking 10 as they walk forward. Maybe the DM doesn't throw a trap at them as long as they're being moderately careful, checking doors, chests, chokepoints, etc... Because no party wants to keep getting hammered with traps, and no DM or party wants to spend five hours (not counting any fights) exploring a 6 room dungeon.
I guess you're from the "old school" style of play, DrDeth. There's a reason that's become the very rare minority of groups today.
What I *am* saying is that it's wrong for someone to say you HAVE to do that to be a meaningful part of a game, or that it's BADWRONGFUN to just play the character you want to play without regard for anything but the numbers.
See, the flip side to that is that if you're incompetent or useless, you're just being a burden on the rest of the party.
A 3E game I'm in now has gone on for a long time, years before I even joined 2 years ago. One guy that used to be in the party had the ONLY character that had survived since the very beginning of the campaign, while as other characters seemed to die off after a while and get replaced (I'm on my 2nd character, myself). What sort of uber badass must he have been to survive so long, you ask?
A dwarven defender. Whose highest stat is Con, and who can barely hit anything let alone damage it if it has any DR at all. I think, even at level 18, he only had 16 strength, after magic items. He had over 300 hp and decent DR himself and AC in the upper 40's...but he wasn't a threat at all. One time it even took him THREE ROUNDS to defeat a single barbazu devil (the 6 HD guys), trading full attacks each of those 3 rounds (while as we were busy fighting off the devil's 15 other friends, several of whom were not nearly so...lowly).
It really started to annoy me how his decision to make such a weak character was getting the rest of us killed.
You don't have to make an extremely optimized character, no. But the other extreme is bad, too. It's a party game. If you're seriously not pulling your weight, it's abusing the relationship between yourself and the other players, knowing they can't just boot your PC from the group.
Now, a rogue doesn't have to be worthless. Hardcore optimizing can make just about anything decent. But it does take a lot more effort, and the party would still do just as fine with a different PC instead.
Play the character you want to play. Have fun. It's a game, not a calculus problem.
Well, the characters I want to play are largely monks and rogues, thematically. But they suck terribly, so I can't just... play a rogue or monk. Not being competent makes it hard to have fun. If I'm supposed to be a martial arts master but a vanilla fighter can out damage me with punching...
Or if I want to play a skirmisher character. Tumbling is suicide, and rogue is squishy and doesn't hit hard enough to justify a one attack per round set up. Conversely, I could play a magus, a class with absolutely ZERO fluff related to being skilled at hit and run, and Spell Combat with Bladed Dash to full attack, attack some more, and move away without provoking automatically so they can't retaliate in kind.
Contrary to what you think, the rules and game balance does actually matter. There are classes better than monk at unarmed and especially combat maneuvers and if you're willing to re-fluff natural attacks as kung fu, the better replacements become nearly limitless. And there are literally at least half a dozen classes that do a rogue's job better than she does.
I've thankfully been spared from anything too rough, though I was just cashiering at a convenience store on campus at college. I only had a few people scream at or berate me, so it was tolerable. (Every single one, without exception, was a middle aged white woman, btw. All the actual college students were very polite and well mannered. And the employees at all the other stores in the vicinity experienced the same demographic of douchy-ness.)
It was still awful, having to stand there for hours with unending lines of people and having to sometimes wait a long time for someone to cover to get even a bathroom break.
I did it for over 5 years through college and a while afterwards, I don't think I could ever do retail again, and my job was pretty low stress compared to other retail jobs.
Since I have nothing juicy to share, I'll instead contribute by leaving this post about horrible customers that I've had favorite for years.
I make sure to never yell at or mistreat people in customer service, and I have a pretty short temper so that's quite the accomplishment for me. Over half the stuff you might get mad about is the result of people much higher up and better paid who will never have to face your wrath, and the mistakes the customer service person makes are seldom a big deal at all and understandable given all the stress (in work, and out of work from the crap pay) they take.
The only way to ever break the two party system is to change the voting laws so that you can vote for as many people as you want, and the one w/ the most votes wins (this also almost certainly requires destroying the electoral college so the electors don't just disregard the will of the voters and elect an R or a D anyway). Suddenly, it's no longer a question of picking the lesser or two evils, you can give your vote to the 3rd party guy you actually like and still vote for the one you can sort of tolerate that "actually has a chance to win." The system would cause the most moderate candidates to float to the top over time, as they would be able to garner the most amount of voters who could stomach them... Though I suppose misinformation in the media and voter apathy could keep that from happening, considering how much of it there is now.
Forcing candidates to public financing or a set limit on campaign funds so they're all on an even footing (and getting rid of Citizen-United enabled Super PACs, if not all PACs) also wouldn't hurt.
The greatsword + unarmed guy is *also* investing in unarmed strike. There's no extra burden the shield guy has that the greatsword guy does not.
Why can you use your off-hand for a shield bonus and still TWF, but you can't wield a 2H weapon and TWF? You're saying you can do the former but not the latter. Why?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As a 1st level character with TWF, he gets two attacks on a full attack. They could be sword + sword, sword + unarmed, unarmed +sword, or unarmed + unarmed.
He can't make 3 attacks, barring haste or something else. He only has two. That's the bottom line. You have x many attacks. That's the limit.
A 1st level guy with a greatsword, TWF, and a way to safely attack unarmed (IUS; some metal boot, I don't know, whatever) would also get two attacks. Since the greatsword is clearly not a light or 1H weapon, at best he can only make his first attack with it, but if he attacks with greatsword + unarmed, he is STILL only making his two allotted attacks.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
The old armor spikes ruling in 3.5 was a bad ruling, it made no logical sense and it broke basic concepts in the game design.
I eagerly await the horror stories of games where a guy TWF with a 2H weapon and unarmed or armor spikes turned every encounter into a joke and the poor DM felt powerless to challenge the party because of "that broken fighter with the greatsword and kick combo." Eagerly.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
None of us like that it works that way, but that's how the rules fit together.
Well, my friends and I all quite like it a lot!
The only aspect we don't like so much is the more general problem that casters can get pounce far more easily and/or earlier than the martial classes can. Pouncing while slowed on its face would seem like an awesome "FU!" from martials to casters, but in practice... the message is most likely being sent from one caster to another.
Coincidentally, how do the people you refer to as "us" feel about the actual broken crap casters get? Like Mystic Past Life. Or using Paragon Surge for a spont. caster to cherry pick from their entire spell lists on the spot via Expanded Arcana (and Oracles from the Sorc/Wiz list as well via Improved Eldritch Heritage [Arcane])? Or the limitless combos possible with Dazing Spell, such as geysermancer? Or how a Wizard with an Elemental specialization can end up with no prohibited school at all at 10th level with Opposition Research (even though the fact you can only take it once presumably means the devs didn't want the drawback to go away entirely)?
We only ever seem to see you weighing in on martial rules "exploits" and how much you hate them. Even though said exploits seldom if ever actually break the game. Like...any of the examples I posted above do.
So, new FAQ is needed, then?
Question: Do you need a free hand to attack with armor spikes?
Follow-up question: If yes, WHY?! Why the **** would you need a hand to attack with ARMOR SPIKES?!! What's wrong with you people?!
What's going on? PF Design Team's making really horrible rulings today... They're usually pretty good, today is just...wtf? Especially this one, it utterly defies RAW. Armor Spikes don't need a hand to be used.
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
He did follow him home. Trayvon was going home. George followed him. Ergo, he was following him home. He was shot 100 yards from his home, again.
And I know if *I* was being stalked at night by some guy, the last thing I'd want to do if he's still pursuing me as I near my house is actually SHOW HIM exactly where I live. I dunno...seems like a bad idea.
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Following a person is not illegal.
Mead Gregorisson, less than an hour earlier wrote:
I also don't concealed carry.. I open carry. If they see that and decide to follow me home, they deserve to get shot. Hispanic, White, Black or Gray.
Just...I... No words... There are no words I can produce that...wow...
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
I also don't concealed carry.. I open carry. If they see that and decide to follow me home, they deserve to get shot. Hispanic, White, Black or Gray.
Right. They follow you home, so you shoot them, defending yourself. But if they follow you home, get in a fist fight with you, take your gun and shoot you with it, they were defending themselves. Or if you had no gun at all and they had it all along, followed you, got into a fist fight with you, and shot you...they're still "defending themselves." Basically, whoever has the gun and shoots the other person is the one "defending himself." Eh?
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
So much character assassination of the guy who got shot and killed and was the victim. Well, I guess it's easier to bad mouth someone when they're not around to defend themselves. I'm glad I live no where near the Mead Gregorisson's of this country. How could I ever feel safe being around those people? They feel justified to stalk random bystanders that they think are "suspicious" (irony!) and only feel safe themselves because of all the guns they own. Holy crap, am I glad I don't live near those people!
The greatest irony? This post is going to get removed for being personally insulting when MG is right here and able to insult me right back; yet his post insulting an innocent dead guy won't be touched.
Andrew R wrote:
So, the entire thread once again calls you out on your bs, and your response is, "b-but... the media...librals...E-leet... wah wah wah!"
Even if "the media" did as you said, that doesn't make you any less guilty of being a liar. You posted a pic that was NOT Trayvon to make him look bigger and scarier than he actually was. You're full of s**t.
Sure, he used that, but it's still bs. Tailing someone who isn't actually a threat to you, then chasing after him when he runs, is NOT self defense. The only way it could possibly be justified is with Florida's horrible Stand Your Ground law. If he had stayed within the bounds of "trying to defend himself," he would've stayed the F away and never would have felt "in fear for his safety" at all.
Stand Your Ground means that as long as you make sure to murder all the witnesses, it's your word against nobody's, so you walk free. This case also demonstrated that just to be sure, you can give yourself a black eye or bruising to "prove" that there were "signs of a struggle." Not saying there wasn't one here, but the fact that they saw his injuries, he said, "Trayvon did it," and they just believed the killer...just...wtf?
I rather liked this CNN opinion article, What About Martin's Right to 'stand his ground'?. Zimmerman is justified to shoot and kill him because he felt endangered, but yet Martin gets disparaged when he's not even alive to defend his actions for being a "thug" and assaulting Zimmerman. The hypocrisy is freaking unbelievable.
Zimmerman got off for a lot of reasons, but major ones include no other living witnesses and the local police being extremely uncooperative and helpful, from the chief outright saying he doesn't think Zimmerman should go to jail to their mishandling of the evidence and not actually charging Zimmerman until a nation wide protest forced them to. Usually, the police aren't so blatantly antagonistic of the prosecution.
Uh... a game many years ago, the very first session I used enlarge person on the dwarf fighter and declared, "Make my dwarf grow!" and threw my staff down.
Flash forward further instances of this and it became a running gag. When he'd grow large we'd play the power rangers theme (we played background music as it was already), and then when we got to the dwarven lands we found an "ancient dwarven artifact" -- a belt that could be activated as per the power rangers transformation sequence to gain enlarge person and a bunch of other buffs and gain the Blue Ranger suit (the player's favorite ranger...mine, too) and officially become a "Mighty Dwarven Power Ranger." DM was considering giving all of us belts so we could be an entire sentai team, but we decided it'd be better if it was unique to the one player, and that way our characters could still think of it as just some sort of "weird dwarf thing."
Later still after that, we acquired a construct Triceratops that the player named Yost.
Being huge, it often blocked charges, ray spells, etc.. in dungeons, leading the DM to often have to remind us to re-think our stated combat action because, "there's a Triceratops in the way." Which in turn became an even bigger running gag/in-joke for all games that DM or any of the players ever ran from then on, where placing a Triceratops in the way of some path meant, "I'm not going to outright say you can't go that way, but oh man is it a BAAAAAAD idea..." No one's ever dared try to get a Triceratops out of the way...there's a lot of templates out there you can apply to a monster... :D
What initially was just a one-off joke on my part became a campaign-long, and in some ways, multiple campaign-long gimmick. Not that any of us were complaining, it was awesome.
I think it should also be stated that the players are not freaking mind readers. Just because TO YOU, the DM, it is obvious in a given circumstance that that players should be acting more or less cautious or aggressively in moving through an area or whatever... it is probably not to them.
So again, I would be very careful with punishing bravery, because people don't like "random" bad stuff to happen to their characters, and once they rush ahead and get hit by traps... it's quickly going to condition them to be very cautious about ever doing it. Even if you then make the dungeons a playground of padded safety. Because again, they're not mind readers. For all they know, it's all just to lull them into a false sense of security before *BAM!* they get hit with some nasty trap yet again.
And I've sat through way too many paranoid check every square / debate for HOURS what is the best course of action type parties. It is mind-freaking-numbingly boring.