|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ross Byers wrote:
Yeah, I always thought those things are weird too. Especially comparing the barb's fast movement to the monk's -- one has to really earn every 5 feet of extra speed, while the other gets a lumped 10 feet right off the bat! Granted, the monk eventually becomes the Flash, but it's just so asymmetrical for no good reason.
All things told, the barb is simply an extreme case of front-loading.
Six rounds is along time, combat-wise. If you play it safe, 1st level rage is essentially an encounter-long ability.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
I'm with you here!
Making Dex the default attack stat for all melee weapons massively f&~#s with the game's balance and genre-based roles. But at the same time, the way RAW works is like some horribly-executed indie game:
Imagine a game called Painting: the Tortured Talent, in which you play a starving artist trying to make it big. Oh, and your character by default adds his Strength modifier to his Profession (painter) checks, until and if he takes a special feat to be able to paint like a normal person.
Cons are great fun -- in fact I wish I had more time and money to go to them! But because people come from all over the place, even to relatively small cons, I don't think they're the best place to scout for nearby gamers.
In addition to organized play and meetup, try Pen & Paper Games. It's a community site specifically for meeting gamers and finding games.
Philippe Perreault wrote:
That's...not how 4e works at all.
4e tells you what +X's the PCs need to keep the game running smoothly. Essentially it's 3.x's WBL guidelines -- except that the 4e guidelines tell you which particular items the game assumes that the PCs have. (+X by Y level.) And 4e provides an official variant (inherent bonuses) for groups who don't want to 'play a board game' as you say.
Oh, and while I'm debunking 4e myths, wish listing is 100% optional!
I understand if you don't feel like making a defense of your beliefs here, you certainly aren't required to, but so far the topic has evolved a bit beyond the OP's intentions... and it is a forum for discussion after all.
Irontooth, I'm with you here, but Dustin Ashe has said that he doesn't subscribe to the Kalam belief. Unless we're expecting Dustin to stand in for every theist who does subscribe to that "argument"?
Well, to be fair, American Gods ended with Shadow being strung up in a sort-of crucifixion, and everyone knows that Jesus was white.
@ Freehold: Shadow is coffee with cream.
Fake Healer wrote:
I agree. Throw backwards compatibility out the window for PF 2e, and I might get interested in PF beyond our ~yearly game nights!
Fake Healer wrote:
You sound hopeful, FH. ;)
Same here. If I get a description of a 20' by 40' by 10' hall with tapestries hanging along the two long walls without at least a sketch, somehow I'll end up imagining a 20' by 10' by 40' ovular cave with caveman drawings on the ceiling.
And it's not because I'm not listening -- I have a great attention span that I love to use. It just somehow...happens.
My approach as DM is "The first hex doesn't count." So a Large creature, for example, occupies seven hexes -- one central 'free' hex, and six adjacent hexes. Each size category adds an additional 'layer' of adjacent hexes.
And it works the same way with AoEs. A fireball, for example, has one central free hex and then four layers of concentrically adjacent hexes. (One layer per 5 ft. of radius.)
Cone AoEs are a bit quirky, but really shine on the hex map. A cone of cold, for example, is simply a triangle of hexes, with 12 hexes on each side. (One hex per 5 ft. of range.) Here's the quirk: Because of the geometry of hexagons and how combat positioning operates, I allow the caster to place the cone's origin corner in an adjacent hex or inside of his own hex. (Obviously, the caster is undamaged by a cone corner placed in his own hex.) This allows cones to retain the flexibility they have in the square-world, while benefitting from the simplicity of the hex-world.
Personally, I plan to adopt if I ever want a kid, but I believe the usual argument against "Let's not let dysfunctional people breed" is that it's a slippery slope toward "Let's not let minorities breed." Or something.
I do believe that unless humanity masters warp-speed mass space travel rather soon, we're either going to end up in a near-constant cycle of war, or we're all going to realize that we need some kind of enforced birth-rate control. 'Cause the necessity of 'Go forth and multiply' has looong since past, if it was ever a necessity at all.
Quite possibly, though I think I'd have to go back quite a few generations to find familial marriages.
After thinking about this a bit more, I'd say: Love is hard to find, so if you happen to love a family member, so be it. But if you can describe your familial relationship without consulting a written family tree...strongly consider adoption and a vasectomy!
"They also point to recent testing that placed the increased risk of spina bifida and cystic fibrosis at only 1.7% -2.8% higher than for children of unrelated parents."
Having CF myself, I don't like the idea of any extra risk there. But then my parents aren't at all related, so I guess that goes to show that it's all a crapshoot to begin with.
I've played a lot of 4e, and this is most definitely a viable option. Some people are bothered by the square fireballs, but every mapping/movement solution has its downsides.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Tolkien is an amateur compared to Iain Banks world building. :P
Not sure I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment, but Banks certainly is a brilliant world-builder and novelist! (I think his Culture is rather idealistic, even for a far-future utopia.) I'm just sad that I discovered him only a year before he died. :(
I have a double-sided mat too, and vastly prefer the hex side. No 1-2-1 movement or OoA oddities, and everything feels a bit more organic!
Drawing square shapes on a hex grid is disorienting at first, because the square-drawing technique we learned for traditional D&D maps doesn't really work with hexes: When drawing on a square grid, you draw walls atop the border between squares. But on a hex map, you want to avoid those borders. In this way, you can draw even square rooms and such on a hex map and completely avoid ambiguity: each hex is 90% on one side of a wall, or 90% on the other. If a character has access to 90% of a hex, it's usable; if not, it's not.
Ooh, I do love marshmallows! Does Gozer want his followers to partake of His sweet flesh, or is eating His earthly and delicious manifestations profane?
Every breath you take is a sin!
So saith Azha, who demands holy war to cleanse the Second World of you and your heretical ilk!
...So that's how sectarian violence begins. Hm.
Sounds like you cribbed some notes off of the gnostic kid.
Nothing is original. :p
Even when you think of something totally independently of others, someone somewhere is sure to have thought of it first!
I do see how you made the comparison with Gnosticism though. ;)
Okay... Azha also wants us to serve him, and make things better. Rex Mundi wants to rule us, and make things worse.
As the founder and first High Priest of Azhaism, I must correct you. Doing good deeds and making this world a better place pleases Azha, but Azha has no need of worship, so ritualistic 'service' to Azha is secondary to service to earthly life. (And to extraterrestrial life, when we encounter those!)
It's tempting to think that Rex Mundi is some kind of intentionally malicious demon-god, plotting to dominate the world. But the truth is that Rex Mundi's evil, like most evil in his flawed World, is incidental. Rex Mundi is simply careless of His creation, the Second World; he allowed natural evils like disease, madness, and natural disasters to exist from the start. Rex Mundi left us flawed on the genetic level, and placed us in a world often lacking in the very basic necessities of life. At worst, all the world's evils are a sort of perverse drama which amuses Rex Mundi, the way that a tragic tale amuses the bard and his audience.
This is important to remember because few evils are of the overtly RAWR I'M EVIL sort. No evil exists without cause, and fighting it requires wisdom and restraint more often than a torch and pitchfork.
Now that I have corrected your heresy, go forth and make this world a little more like the First World, as Azha wishes.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wow, I hadn't considered this because it seems to me it'd be relatively easy to come up with a consistent and coherent faith. I mean the reason that established religions are so schizophrenic is because each one is a compilation of stories from hundreds of years and thousands of people, right? I suppose there may be exceptions like Islam, but I think this calls for a thought experiment!
I declare myself an initiate of Azha, the God of the First World, which is perfect and exists upon a different plane of existence from our own. The world we live in is the Second World, which is a fundamentally flawed echo of the First World due to the lax care of Rex Mundi, the Corruptor. Though Azha is powerless in the Second World, Azha's power is absolute in the First World -- which, fortunately for us, is where our souls are bound after death.
I could go further, but I'm starting simple.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
That's what it seems like I'm doing, apparently. I certainly feel alone.
I admit I lost interest in the whole "Let's prove Wrong John Silver wrong" back-and-forth almost as soon as it began, so you may have mentioned a personal belief that puts you way out in left field, but I don't think you're alone at all. Lots of people abstain from personal belief in the supernatural, while admitting the possibility that any given religion might be true.
As I mentioned a few dozen posts ago, this is called agnosticism, and it's about as [un]common as strict atheism.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Any or all of the above. Most of us are, after all, herd animals at heart.
There are people who create their own beliefs -- my mother did, for example -- but those folks tend not to get as much press as the many followers of organized religions, for obvious reasons.
See also earlier in the thread, where we discussed what RT was originally intended for, and how unproblematic it was. (Arguably even UP.) Nowadays, its best and one OP use is short-circuiting the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm that the game is nominally balanced upon.
And as a side note, I just love how this thread has become a RT debate rather than a 'Let's fix broken spells' discussion. Let's partay like it's 2000!
Yeah, all the paladin article demonstrates is that JJ had an off day. Which is no wonder, if he was writing eight additional special-snowflake paladin archetypes, complete with CoCs. One or two were bound to end up forced and I-don't-play-well-with-others-ish. The solution is simple, of course: drop the special snowflake CoCs!
Funny how nobody ever complains that clerics of whatever persuasion don't play well with others. Well, except when it's an evil-cleric-in-a-good-party situation, in which case his class is tangential. But of course "Just drop the paladin's alignment restriction, the CoC, and make these minor rule tweaks" doesn't take up much word count, or sound very writer-y.
The paladin gets all the press because it's the poster-boy of unnecessary restrictions. But yes, the monk's restriction is equally unnecessary.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Yah, the playtests where specifically very limited, so those are not really any sort of gauge on what to expect. There is a lot of talk about how much it went back to the 3E style for many things, but it's got some noticeable 4E/2E/1E in there, too. The playtest is a very simplistic game, but I think you will find a lot of opinions on it relate very heavily on 2 things. Which version of the playtest is being referred to, as each focused on different things, and the persons feelings about the previous editions, particularly 3E and 4E, with 2E a distant third, but I'm sure there will be different views on even that.
Indeed. 3.x fans see too much 4e in 5e, and 4e fans see too much 3.x in it. And the OSR crowd sees nothing but new school garbage in 5e.
I'm sure that 5e will attract its share of fans...but it sure ain't gonna unite D&Ders under one edition.
But the Paladin isn't more powerful than many, many classes with no code of conduct and no alignment restriction.
Logic? In a paladin debate? You fool! All traditionalists understand is "This is the way it's always been!" Personally, I could suggest pointing out how 4e and soon 5e have created a new generation of D&Ders for whom rp freedom is "How it's always been," and alignment restrictions are alien and un-D&D.
But the traditionalists would argue that, for some nonsensical reason, 4e and 5e don't count. The No True Scottsman Fallacy would probably be used. So I simply write off the traditionalist opinions. I just can't respect an opinion in which one's fun requires that others not have fun, due to petty intolerance over semantics.
Maybe PF 2.0 will have a better paladin class; until then, I have other games.
I still contend that 4e did a lot to innovate D&D, even though a lot of it's negative points were difficult to overlook. However, much like the American election system, Pathfinder was influenced too much in the 3.5 direction, in its beta phase, much like party primaries tend to choose candidates farther to the left or right of the political spectrum (depending on the party). This left a choice between 4e and Pathfinder that left people like me, who like parts of both 4e and 3.5, but despise other parts with a fiery passion, a bit stranded. Were Pathfinder not created in the immediate aftermath of 4e, perhaps this would be different, as the response would be a little more tempered, allowing some sacred cows to be dropped, and there would be less of a "4e sucks, we shouldn't be like them!" sentiment, and more of a "Well, 4e had some good goals, but massively failed at a lot of it's execution; how can we prevent this?" feeling. I feel like I'd like Pathfinder a lot more, if the latter had a greater impact on the design of the system.
Yup, I've seen anti-4e knee-jerks entirely too often amongst Paizo fans. Which is sad, because I don't think you're the only fan who'd be happier if PF were a little more like 4e.
In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments, or would it have to remain the same due to licenses and such?
Paladins remaining exclusively LG is perhaps the clearest example of why PF never became my game of choice.
With a few small tweaks that a monkey could have made within ten minutes, the Paizo team could have opened this class up to eight more archetypes and uncounted rp opportunities. There's no backwards-compatibility issue with the change, as LG paladins could have simply stayed LG. Instead, the Paizo team kept the same old alignment exclusions that have been causing debate and restricting rp options since Gary made some stuff up he thought'd be fun. And then told people to make some stuff up they think'd be fun.
Exclusively LG paladins probably isn't the biggest problem I have with PF, but it does clearly demonstrate why I left Paizo's agonizingly slow march toward progress for a more forward-thinking game.
Wrong John Silver, I'd call yourself an agnostic the next time someone asks, and leave it at that. There's always a bit of gray area when it comes to philosophy and religion, but from what you've posted here, you're about as close to textbook agnosticism as someone can be. Both in your attitude and your refusal to take a concrete position. :)
In very related news, Ireland passed laws some time ago that made it illegal, punishable by fines up to 150.000 euros (I think), to publish anything that was blasphemous.
You have made me an atheist for the day.
That's the most bizarre reaction to a personal statement I've heard all week. I don't think I could help myself from laughing, if this were to happen to me. I mean really, how do they figure...?
Remy Balster wrote:
I have no idea what yall mean by 5 minute work day. Or how rope trick helps make one possible.
In general, a 5MWD is when the PCs -- for whatever reason -- have just one encounter during one adventuring ('work') day. This allows clever casters to blow their best spells during those brief few moments, steamroll the encounter, rest up to regain their spells, and then do it all over again. Sometimes it happens 'naturally' due to the nature of the adventure; many DMs find it difficult to justify multiple encounters within one day while the party is traveling through, say, an expanse of wilderness.
And sometimes the players get clever, and realize they can create easy 5MWDs with Rope Trick. And again, there are stopgap solutions the DM can use to prevent this, but it requires him to always be at the top of his game. Not every adventure is time-sensitive, after all.
Man, I must watch entirely different movies than you people. Nobody's gotten either of mine, and I've hardly known any of anyone else's.
Same here, bar a few movies that everyone's seen.
Let's try something non-fantasy non-scifi:
Michael O'Sullivan was my great friend, but I don't ever remember telling him that.
And something subtitled:
Because of my decision today, many people will die, and your majesty will go on living. A dead man begs you to never forget the warrior's highest ideal.
Remy Balster wrote:
What is wrong with Rope Trick? I'm not sure I've seen this abused. It can help provide a safer environment to rest? But... why is that bad?
It's bad when the caster gets to 8th level -- or sooner if he extends the duration -- because it creates yet another opportunity for the 5 minute workday to happen. If the DM is always at the top of his game, there are stopgap solutions to prevent this problem...but it's yet another detail for the DM to keep track of.
Also note that there are other spells which create the same problem; RT is just the poster boy of its kind because it's the lowest-level.
Wait, banning things is finicky? Or do you mean duration-nerfing?
Sorry, I meant your 'I'll just invoke RT's hazard clause if the party takes their bag of holding inside the RT' solution. I think it's finicky because it simply encourages players to get more creative in their effort to break the 4-encounter-day paradigm. (As do all "I'll just come up with various reasons why my PCs shouldn't rest in RT" solutions.)
Apparently it works for other DMs, but it's too finicky for me.
Others have suggested the same fix; I personally don't, for two reasons. First, I think it makes RT a little too circumstantial -- I mean what are the chances that the party notices a wandering enemy, concocts a hide or spy plan involving RT, the wizard casts it, and then the enemy wanders by before the duration ends, dumping the party directly into the lap of said enemies? Despite the overall balance problems that resulted from 3e, I think the 3e team was right to boost spell durations like RT.
Also, without the 'cannot gainfully rest' stipulation, I'd expect savvy players to look for exploits involving duration-buffs. I don't know if PF does, but 3.5 had a metamagic feat for increasing durations to 24 hours.
Ha, that's funny. 'Finicky' is exactly how I think of your RT solution. Anyway, as a definitive answer to your teleport question, I'd personally rule it thus: Any structure covered by material at all angles, give or take a few normal sized windows and doors, blocks teleportation. Basically, if old cell phones might lose bars in it, teleport's got no bars either.
So gazebos and forests are a go, but castles and dwarven strongholds are safe. A wizard might be able to teleport past the first 10-meter-high door of a giant's stronghold, but no further. When in doubt, I'd let the wizard have his teleport trick, because nobody in the game world who wants to block teleportation is going to take any chances with ambiguous architecture; they're going to build walls and ceilings around everywhere of importance!
If something drastic enough were to happen to cause me to change my beliefs, I'd either drop them completely or go for something like Discordianism where what you do really doesn't matter. (And Discordianism is funny, what can I say.)
Wow, it's all or nothing for Orthos!
...Not a criticism, by the way; you're getting into your character. ;)
No. I don't figure I'll become religious anytime soon. If I were to find a religion that respected the human intellect, freedom as a vital concept in human interrelations, did not try to impose their morality on others, and was okay with not saying lots of humbug every week, I could consider joining it on non-religious grounds. It would be a bit difficult, perhaps, to call it a religion at that point, however.
There are people who are part of religious communities, without really troubling with the other stuff, so for the purpose of this thread I'd say we can call your hypothetical thing a religion. :) Besides, even the theologians have a hard time agreeing on what exactly religion means.
This sounds like a story from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, a very not-children's book that I grew up with. Like the one about making the sound of one hand clapping -- I still don't really understand that one, but great stuff!
That said, if I were starting a campaign now, I'd ban rope trick outright. I admit there are modifications of it that would make it balanced — yours possibly among them (I haven't thought about it hard enough to make up my mind) — but unless it becomes clear to me what value the spell has other than a place to rest safely, I would simply avoid the work of balancing it, and just toss it.
I personally see nothing wrong with simply banning RT, and similiar spells, but for the purpose of this thread I'm going with williamoak's wishes.
As to what value RT has beyond breaking the game's already shaky balance -- it was originally merely another of the wizard's tricks, which may or may not have proven useful on any given day. It lasted mere minutes, so it could be a temporary escape from threats that didn't know the party's exact location, or as a means to spy on monsters who wandered by the invisible door, or even as a means to reach otherwise unreachable ledges and surfaces.
Yes, yes, yes, and...er, gazebos are by definition open on all sides, so I don't know how to answer that last one. I'm being imprecise here because I've never actually used this house rule; if you did, presumably you'd be more precise. The point is to create a world where people know how to build fortifications in such a way as to block teleportation. And a campaign in which you, the DM, don't have to worry about the PCs teleporting directly into the BBEG's throne room.