|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Freehold DM wrote:
Who wanted a line-by-line reading of history? People are strange.
The costumes are definitely fun.
Freehold DM wrote:
...If I didn't know you personally, I'd be judging you right now.
More seriously, what did you like about it? Oh, and we are talking about the one where Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie talk a bit near the beginning and then there are 2.5 hours of...that other guy?
captain yesterday wrote:
Isn't that what sandwich meat is designed for. Maybe make a lot of grilled whatever and cheese sandwiches.
Not in Arizona. Just a couple weeks ago I ate pepperoni pizza that I had left out, and was then sick for a day before violently vomiting it up. :/
It was mighty good cajun-seasoned turkey breast, but it wasn't worth the risk.
Ah, thanks! It's in the Time and Movement chapter.
I find that old-school GMs are much more comfortable making table rulings to keep the game moving, then looking up the actual rules later. I know that's how I roll. I'll also modify the regular rules in some circumstances to keep things cinematic.
I wonder how much of this is old school culture & rulesets, and how much is age and personality. There was a time when I was concerned about following the rules (+my house rules) 100% of the time, but I've relaxed a bit over the years. I still like to follow established rules for the sake of consistency, but if something obscure comes up that can't be referenced within say a minute, I'm happy to make a call and look up the rule later.
My penchant for table rulings and for overruling the regular rules from time-to-time is why I've never been interested in GMing for any organized play group: The requirement for play consistency cramps my GM style.
Similar problem here, but because of house rules. ;)
Hm, page 161 is full of wizard spells in my PHB.
(Also, in a more tongue-in-cheek: I generally prefer waffle fries, or seasoned fries to french fries, sooooo... ;P)
Oh, fries! I have zero interest in french fries or home fries anymore, but put a dish of waffle fries in front of me, and be sure to pull your hand out of my way or you may lose it!
That waffle-fry seasoning is another example of 'Why isn't this the standard way of preparing this food?!'
Chef Yesterday wrote:
I'm with King Gran on this one; I'll take my eggs fried and atop a good bagel, my sharp cheddar in a can of tomato soup, my bacon straight, and you can keep your peppers and the frenchman they rode in on.
Yeah, that's probably how I'd handle it, were I to DM TSR D&D again. Everyone gets an ability check, thieves get to roll their d100 as well, and if either roll succeeds the thief succeeds. Perhaps superhuman tasks -- climbing a sheer wall, pick-pocketing something from deep in a bag of holding, opening a lock with no key-hole, etc. -- allows a thief and only a thief to roll their d100 and only their d100 to attempt.
I think you start seeing a LOT of people start playing it as the thief can be the only one who can do that type of stuff and a little more restrictive imagination on what characters can or cannot do in the AD&D years where the books became far more expansive than just a framework.
I can see it, for sure, now that I've matured a whole lot and I know a bit of D&D history. ;)
Come to think of it, this is like the feats issue in that their existence implies that characters without a feat can't attempt whatever that feat does, just as the existence of thief skills imply that non-thieves can't attempt those things. The difference being that there seems to be some consensus among grognards that non-thieves can attempt thief stuff, but no consensus that unfeated characters can attempt featly stuff.
Well... that's one of the main features of those early rulesets (and also true of contemporary D&D retro-clones and "rules-light" game systems): GM rulings.
Oh, sure. Rulings aren't mutually exclusive with rules though, and even the 2e AD&D I remember is bizarrely rules-heavy in places. Admittedly most of those places involve weapons or armors, but I figure that someone somewhere somewhen at TSR may have decided to spell out the whole thief v. non-thief skill thing.
Relatively recently I ran into a retro-clone -- I forget the name, it was one of the free ones -- and I made a point to look at how it handles thief v. non-thief skills, because it was on my mind at the time. And it was just as undefined as I remember 2e being; in fact, most of the thief skills were described as entirely mundane tasks that anyone ought to be able to attempt.
Maybe there was more somewhere else in the pdf, or maybe the author is simply carrying on Gary's tradition of vaguery in this area of the rules. ;)
The chances of success for non thieves are in the books, but they are pretty spread out, and easily missed... Non-thieves have a base 15% chance to hear something, and a base 40% to climb something for example.
Really? Can you provide a page number off the top of your head? I could search thru my old books, but if you've got it on the tip of your tongue I'd rather not spend the time. :D
I was gonna say, I've heard that all characters are supposed to be capable of some degree of things that thieves can do [depending on the DM], that thieves can take those things to extraordinary degrees [again depending on the DM], and that Gary simply did a terrible job of explaining all this in the books. Which admittedly makes more sense than my perception as a young 2e AD&D gamer that the classes are basically Diablo characters. (Thieves and only thieves can climb, move silently, etc..)
Were there ever printed rules to describe how thieves vs. non-thieves interacted with tasks that appear on the thief skill list, like the one you mention? 'Cause I can see DMs ruling them several different ways...I wonder how the mechanics worked for DrDeth's thief(s)?
So my boss asked me to stay late tonight so that I could train two contractors who need to make emergency repairs onsite...and then he hijacked the training before it began, leaving me sitting on my hands for an hour. Then at 6:30 he says "Hey TS, would you whip up some last minute paperwork before you leave?"
WHY DIDN'T YOU ASK ME THIS AN HOUR AGO I COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND GONE BY NOW?!
And then I came home and broke a knife on cheese. Velveeta cheese. All kinds of first world problems for me today!
I think it's still very tempting to imagine LG as the goodest good, the wisest good, and to think that good ought to work with good to fight evil. So of course LG would get along better with CG than LE!
But as a great character once said: "We can only see two things about people: what they show us, and what we want to see." Being lawful doesn't free one of ethical/moral blind-spots, nor does it grant any special wisdom. Neither does it free one from internal conflicts of priority, which can easily result in the wrong judgments and choices being made.
We need only watch current world affairs to see LG people excusing and even supporting LE people, against CG and even NG people. All in defense of lawful values.
The only rattlesnake I've ever encountered on a trail had its mouth full of mouse at the time, and was therefore unable to threaten me. It moved on, I moved on, and we were both the happier for it.
Yah. My boss asked me what I did with the snake -- I encountered it at work -- and my reply was "Left it the hell alone!"
captain yesterday wrote:
Dam, CY, what did those golf balls ever do to you?
Freehold DM wrote:
Damn. Just got turned down for a job I really, really wanted.
That sucks, FH. May you roll a nat 20 on your next high-hopes interview!
Loved D2, I beat hell difficulty with the sorceress before they patched in all those immunities for regular monsters. But yeah, it's clearly a digital descendant of D&D. Sooo uneven in so many ways!
I loved kicking monster mob butt and taking names as a necro...and then I cried when I got to a boss. Didn't even try fighting act bosses without a friend to take the heat.
And the sorceress...ah, the game's one class with the infinite mana skill! (Once you jacked it up, at least.) Like other classes, the skills are all over the place in power: One allows her to enchant her own (and only her own) weapon to deal a bit of fire damage -- because gish? -- and another allows her to freeze or annihilate everything on screen. ><(
Yeah, definitely D&D-style broken. I really ought to get around to D3 tho. I've owned it for about five years already...
EDIT: Oh, and what was with Duriel? Sooo much harder than Big D! It's like the devs were playing an old school D&D dungeon and said "You know what would make this featureless 10 by 10 room fun? An enormous slug-blade boss that freezes the PCs!!!"
I know this is a necroed thread, but...
This is such a strange topic! I read the title, and immediately thought "Wait, they can't be?"
I'm sure that if birds had language like we do, they'd have a word for knocking a wing into something during flight, trying to take off before fully releasing a perch from a talon, and the bird equivalent of tripping over an uneven paving stone -- "Ugh, I woke up on the wrong side of the nest this morning and <worded> over a bubble of cold air on my flight to work!" And surely losing one's balance or getting knocked off-kilter during flight is much more dangerous than doing so on the ground.
I guess fans can quibble over whether that <word> ought to be properly translated as 'trip,' and whether it's worth noting how bird-tripping works in the official rules. But PF is the only ttrpg with a separate skill for flying and only for flying, that I'm aware of. So surely, wondering why birds can't trip is a reasonable point of curiosity?
captain yesterday wrote:
I feel as if I am the only gamer to have never played Minecraft.
Or am I being silly?
captain yesterday wrote:
My best friend is a huge Alanis fan, and I have witnessed the Beyond. The pettiness and grand standing of internet music fans is the thing of nightmares.
For shame, for their graven images and sordid descriptions are inscribed within the very Monstrous Manual of 2e!
The 3.5 versions were amazing and the single most terrifying creatures printed: namely because it was retconned that, in addition to normal dragon stuff (including sorcerer caster thingies), they were psions of their discipline-type with a manifester level equal to their hit dice.
...Seriously? How did I miss this?
Cap Yesterday, Mister Mom Dude wrote:
The district that I went to school in is so small that the elementary, middle, and high schools are all on the same campus. It was a surprise when I eventually learned that this is unusual, and every time I'm reminded of this it still feels weird.
That's what those clothing comments are about? I just thought that some FAWLTies had a weird thing about broadcasting their dress status.
This is very true, though some couples seem to make even that work. I'm an atheist dating a Wiccan. We've been together for eight months, and are planning to move in together in another two. *knocks on wood* I have an irreligious uncle who married a Christian, and they've been together for 40+ years.
I suspect that for some people, it's very very important to share the same ir/religion with their partner, and for other people other things are more important. Values, politics, personality, etc..
There is probably an underlying theme to people who really really need to be with someone of the same faith and even denomination, and people who don't; but speculating on those themes would be straying even further into all kinds of verboten topics.
Edit: Y'know, Ash was right, this is pretty off topic.
I've personally had enough of blurry rogues and near-sighted fisticuffs, but I'm also curious to see which bizarre direction my thread next takes.
What about precision damage + brilliant energy weapons vs. the greater fortitude armor enchantment? Has PF resolved that debate one way or another, or can my thread possibly go down this dark rabbit hole?
captain yesterday wrote:
I work in a desert. I would pay to get to paid to work with pants on for only 10-15 hours a week. ;)
Freehold DM wrote:
...Also, I belatedly realized that there is a double meaning in my response.
Oh well, happy accidents. :D
Can we get synthetic teeth implants already or better bloodstream full-body-repair-and-maintenance nanies already, so we don't have to bother with such trivial details in our lives?
Why is it that sharks have the gift of continual tooth-regrowth, but we don't? Get on with the crispring already, I'm ready for my pointy teeth!
I have a root canal scheduled for Monday. :(
Captain Yesterday, Brut Squad wrote:
I'm about to have a veeery long night at work.
Oh well, at least OT pay...
My gf has introduced me to Oregano's Pizza Bistro, and their amazing cookie dessert -- a big half-baked cookie with ice cream on top. I am not a cookie guy, not at all. There are a thousand things I would prefer to most cookies. But oh my gawd, these things are amazing!
What I want to know is: Why is this not the standard way of eating cookies!?
If it hasn't been mentioned yet, those concerned with candidate honesty -- or the honesty of any popular figure -- should check out PolitiFact.com. PolitiFact fact-checks all kinds of claims made by politicians and pundits, and includes sources with their judgments in case you want to look into things yourself. Not only that, they have honesty scorecards for many public figures, where you can see how many true v. false claims that figure has made. It's pretty damn convenient.
While Hillary's scorecard doesn't quite compare with Bernie's, she's had a whole lot more scrutiny than he has. We voters should absolutely be holding our politicians accountable for their beliefs and claims, and pulling them toward honesty rather than convenient lies and half-truths. But there are degrees of honesty, and Hillary comes out miles ahead of Drumpf. Frankly, it's the difference between a somewhat-more-honest-than-average politician and a compulsive liar.
And lest anyone think that PolitiFact is part of some insidious 'liberal media' that Drumpf and many conservatives like to winge about, PolitiFact nailed Hillary to the wall for her email claims, and the scorecards for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not flattering at all.
We're incredibly lucky here in the USA to have a say in who governs us, and it kills me that so many people seem to buy into the sh!t-flinging, say "Well they're all liars and crooks," and then throw up their hands.
For a country that prides itself on being the world's Shining Bastion of Democracy/Republic, it oughtta be a crime that voting isn't an all-business mandatory holiday. Paid day off for everyone, unless you provide some essential service like power generation. In which case, employees can take shifts so that everyone has the true freedom to vote.
You know I think the worst part about bringing up 4e is that it's not even that well balanced.
Before 2010 the balance issue was "Pick one of 3 simple math hole fixes sometime before 11th level." But as soon as Mearls took the wheel and tried to go retro with 4e, yeah, the quality really tanked on the PC side.
Also, so glad to see that my undead thread has been hijacked by 4e complaints.
These justifications feel a bit like evil excuses to me...
People are frighteningly good at excusing convention without even realizing it.
Golem-making and -commanding have no moral consequences because 1) unlike the D&D golem, the mythological golem is a benevolent protector ensouled by wise rabbis, and 2) golems are not icky or scary like undead are. And as JJ says below, nobody with their name on the inside cover of a MM has thought much about it.
Philosophically, making and commanding golems in D&D probably ought to be evil, given the default fluff about binding earth spirits who occasionally go berserk.
James Jacobs wrote:
Wait, haven't JJ & Co in fact been the designers of a new edition? Or was this comment written pre-PF?
Why is it so difficult to determine what has Lawful and / or Chaotic alignments, but so easy to determine Good and Evil alignments?
It's because the Law vs. Chaos axis isn't really an ethical spectrum; it's a collection of personality traits. Whereas many cultural and philosophical beliefs can be projected onto the Good vs. Evil axis, Law and Chaos are collections of personality traits*. And because personality traits are not at all mutually exclusive, determining what's Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful can be nigh-impossible unless a creature falls neatly into one of those three boxes.
For example, I keep my word and largely tell the truth. When I'm on a team, I play for the team and can be relied upon to do at least my share. I can also be slow to react to new situations. However, I also strongly believe in personal freedom and don't particularly like being part of a team in the first place. I have a facile mind and imagination, and understand new concepts quickly. I don't believe in change for the sake of change, but nor do I believe in continuity for the sake of continuity. I have near-endless patience for putting things in order, but almost none for things that I consider trivial or politicking.
Am I Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? I think you can see the problem.
*2e Law and Chaos are more philosophical/ethical, but the only vestige of this in 3.x is the "dedicated to balance" option for True Neutrals.
Yeah, no doubt we'll all look back on this election with 20/20 hindsight and say "How could it have been any other way?" But I'm not at all confident that Hillary is the one with the election already in the bag, as half the country seems to think. We are after all talking about a con man brazen enough to blame his tax audits on religious persecution -- yes, of him, as a "strong Christian" -- and a whole lot of marks who want so desperately to believe they're being persecuted just like their savior that they eat it up and ask for more. Trump is a genius at telling people exactly what they want to hear in order to get whatever he wants.
Anyhow, I'm writing Bernie a letter to thank him for running and for endorsing Hillary. There may have been a time when I too would have wanted him to go down in a brilliant explosion of liberal glory, but now I think that playing the hand he was dealt is the best way to fight the good fight.
Dave Justus wrote:
It seems particularly weird because there's little/no mention of the powers of Chaos and/or Evil. It's not about the many and sundry ways that other classes are powered. It's about consistency, because inconsistency is weird for some of us.
I say this as a fan of cosmic ethical forces.
TS's response to GM's question "Is there anything you want to do before the other PCs arrive?" during the first scene of TS's first Rifts scenario:
"Er...I hide my stash of blow, and wait for everyone to show up."
In my defense, I probably wouldn't have chosen the cyber-knight, had I known that that pregen had the Dudley Do-Right alignment.