Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Imron Gauthfallow

Tequila Sunrise's page

3,331 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

DM waz up? wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
DM waz up? wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
tsuruki wrote:
put me in the "i like the alignment system" concentration camp
How many of us are in there now? ;)
I have a soft spot in my heart for alignment, even if I don't think it's ever been done quite right.

The alignment system is nice, but players can't get it right

Just because your chaotic evil doesn't mean you have to be a cannibal who flays people alive in the middle of a bar in front of the city guard using only your bare hands! That isn't CE(well it really is)! CE likes killing but they aren't that crazy!!!!!

That kind of CE doesn't get to live for very long ... usually. ;)
Got that right!, my group found him revolting and decided to kill him off.

Oy, yes, I remember the friend who introduced me to tabletop gaming telling me "Chaotic Neutral is basically crazy." Of course, this was back in 2e, when CN really was described as clinically insane.

WotC really improved the definitions, but I've yet to see a happy balance between 'Alignment sticking its nose in all kinds of places it doesn't belong' (2e, 3.x) and 'Alignment is 99% fluff' (4e, 5e). Ah well, c'est la vie.


Turin the Mad wrote:
tsuruki wrote:
put me in the "i like the alignment system" concentration camp
How many of us are in there now? ;)

I have a soft spot in my heart for alignment, even if I don't think it's ever been done quite right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Hm, why not?
Variety of reasons ranging from "I doubt Paizo would change it how I like" to "I really don't need another system I won't use". But I still prefer change.

Ah, gotcha. Same here. :)

The Indescribable wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I actually might be interested in a radically changed PF. But to be honest, I'm looking for pretty particular things,
What's the list?

Top of the list is adding some kind of level-related bonus to AC instead of the traditional suite of AC-booster items, and relatively balanced MCing that doesn't require patch-on rules like xp penalties or favored class bonuses. That second one is somewhat of a holy grail for me, and would almost be enough of a draw for me to buy any game even if the rest of it were garbage.

There's also like a thousand pet peeves I have with the D&D traditionalisms that are still holding out. I'd like point buy to be standard, and to replace the 3-18 stat range with a simple range of modifiers. (Also eliminate other random elements in chargen, as you might guess.) I'd like to see all alignment restrictions dropped, except cleric-like restrictions for divine classes, if the game wanted to retain a hint of traditionalism. (Paladins would look something like this.)

And spells...well, spells are the primary reason that casters are so crazy. So I'd like to see the spell chapter gone through with a fine-tooth comb. For example, I'd like to stop beating around the bush with spells like rope trick; instead of adding cute provisos like "the rope can't be removed or hidden," just say that spell slots can't be regained in extra-dimensional spaces! 'Extra-dimensional spaces are filled with discordant energy that prevents gainful rest,' whatever. If invisibility can have an obviously metagame proviso like "ends if you attack," it's perfectly reasonable to add fluff-justified provisos to other spells in the interest of balance.

Oh, and move healing spells back into Necormancy!

Really though, I could go on and on, and still forget some of the things I'd like to see. The bottom line is that I need to finish the fantasy heartbreaker I've been working on, and then play it. ;)


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
I wish Paizo would radically change Pathfinder despite the fact that I probably still wouldn't buy it.

Hm, why not?

I actually might be interested in a radically changed PF. But to be honest, I'm looking for pretty particular things, and the odds of seeing those things in PF is virtually zero unless I were to win the lottery, buy Paizo, and then head the PF 2.0 project myself. :p


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Sure, that was EGG's intention, but I'm guessing back in those days Lava submersion without some kind of magical protection was an instant-kill?
It was 20d6 of fire damage per round.

Hm, that's odd. In the 2e DMG, I remember mention that some things are insta-kill, with a collapsing room trap mentioned as an example. But then TSR-era D&D was even more inconsistent than WotC D&D.


Morzadian wrote:
Smarmy? Chill out where is your sense of humour? I was joking.

Lol, I was joking too. Couldn't you tell?

Morzadian wrote:
Hit points is not a disassociative mechanic.

Which is why I called it a dissociative rule, which is a much older problem than some edition warrior's peculiarly selective term for rationalizing what he didn't like about 4e. Which is why gamers have been having issues with dissociative rules since day 1 of D&D.

Morzadian wrote:
Someone attacks you, you have less hit points, cure spells heal damage. Is it realistic? No, but its still a simulation, in the context of a heroic fantasy setting.

So is non-magical healing. But hey, feel free to tell yourself whatever you want.

Morzadian wrote:
My OP stated that there aren't any mechanics in the Pathfinder (3.75) system that implies hit points is anything other than meat points, which is in fact true.

So you're okay with meat points because the PF rulebook tells you that that's what hp are. Cool, that's all I was looking for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
That... that looks exactly like what I was saying, though, which is why I'm surprised; I thought you were talking about hit points?

I'd rather that defensive skill be represented by some sort of by-level bonus[es], but yes, without house rules hit points are [sadly] the only candidate for representing get-better-just-for-surviving defensive skill.

Tacticslion wrote:
I think I'm missing something that you're saying... but okay.

Yeah, there's something I've been missing from every one of your posts on this topic. It's like, I understand what each of your words mean individually, but we're on different wavelengths so I can't put them together in a completely coherent message.

Tacticslion wrote:
I really do giving Blue Rose and Star Wars d20 a look, though, if only to get an idea of what they're like.

I've played the latter, but not the former. Not likely to unless I stumble upon a Blue Rose fan.


Morzadian wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
@Tequila Sunrise, you just need more feats for defence that are something more than a +1.
That's...terribly unsatisfactory IMO. If basic attack skill (BAB) is automatic, defensive skill should not require special opt-in choices. I'm glad it works for you, but for me it's terribly dissonant.
Terribly unsatisfactory?...someone get me a box of tissues.

Smarmy much? As I recall, this whole discussion originally began in the other thread with you not being able to handle non-magical healing because it's 'dissociative.' Well, cry me a river. This is D&D/PF we're talking about; I've been gaming with dissociative rules for ~20 years. Hit points are the poster boy of dissociative rules, but there are plenty more!

How you can imagine that fantasy physics works fantastically for the purpose of wounds (meat points), while being incapable of (or unwilling to) imagining healing without overt finger-wiggling magic is beyond me. But by all means, reach for those tissues.

Morzadian wrote:
In my D&D 3.5e days I used something called a Class Defense Bonus. We abandoned it when we crossed over to Pathfinder as it was too much work for the GM. And it changed too many other things in the game...the dreaded butterfly effect.
Morzadian wrote:

Tequila if you are not impressed by this may the gods of Golarion show mercy

Class Defense Bonus...

You tell me that the CDB variant is too much work, and then you go ahead and post it? Good thing I'm perfectly capable of writing a better house rule myself!


Tacticslion wrote:
... oooooorrrrrrrrrrr... make the AC scaling as part of the natural progression of the character growth instead of a function of magic items and feats.

If I were to run PF, this is exactly what I'd do. It'd probably look a lot like the house rule that you linked.

Tacticslion wrote:
I'm not saying your grasp is wrong, but rather the underlying premise that is "hit points is a skill, where's the related one" is flawed.

Not quite. My premise is "Characters ought to get better at martial defense just by surviving adventures, just as they get better at stabbing things just by surviving adventures. Thus, there ought to be a stat to represent that.”

I'll understand if you don't agree with this premise, as we've already established that we're coming from opposite directions on this issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
@OP: I don't know what thread you came from, so I'm just going with what you said in the OP of this one.

Thank you, Jiggy, this post is everything I was asking for. :)


Tacticslion wrote:

Not really, because, again, you're approaching this from the "wrong"* angle, here.

* "Wrong" being a "wrong from how its applied within the game" not from a "you're ideas are bad and should feel bad" angle.

Wait, so your posts have been trying to explain how the game works, and what different mechanics mean? Er, thanks I guess, but I've been playing for about 20 years now and I have a pretty good grasp of the assumptions and various interpretations. My purpose in this thread is to find out how you make meat points work, notably in PF and D&D.

Tacticslion wrote:

The main disconnect, I think, is not hit points, but that your BAB is tied to leveling up. This means your skill at hitting things gets better automatically, no matter who you are.

That was always a bit of a disconnect, but it's the only place where "skill" in a specific combat-related thing automatically increases in the game.

Ah, so your issue is related to mine, but coming from the opposite direction. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy being as easy to stab as a dirt farmer doesn't both you, but Bartleby the Bookworm being able to punch his way through a platoon of 1st level goons just for being a 20th level wizard does. Am I off the mark?

Tacticslion wrote:
(Point in fact, I tend to think that attacks should be skill-based, myself.)

It would certainly be more consistent, which is a big plus.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
HP is also a reflection of stamina and fatigue... Still it's too vague... That's why I like Rolemaster broken arms and legs, bleed stacks, guts spilling out. Combatants flee and surrender a few rounds into combat.

I've never played RM or any hit-location kind of game, so I can't comment on how much I like it, but I absolutely respect game designers who have the cajones to deviate from traditional D&Disms.


Morzadian wrote:
@Tequila Sunrise, you just need more feats for defence that are something more than a +1.

That's...terribly unsatisfactory IMO. If basic attack skill (BAB) is automatic, defensive skill should not require special opt-in choices. I'm glad it works for you, but for me it's terribly dissonant.


wraithstrike wrote:
Hit Points are a life meter just like in video games which is what I said in the other thread.

I suspect that if video games were more of a thing in '74(?), Gygax would have made the same comparison. As I understand it, he didn't even think that hp needed an explanation until players started asking him "But what do they mean?!" Like AC, hp were a mechanic ported over from naval wargames, and Gygax didn't care what it all meant in the game world. If you had hp, you could keep adventuring; if you didn't have hp, you were dead.

Though I personally don't give a hoot what Gygax thought about this sort of thing, he made a comment in the 1e DMG that meat points are 'preposterous.'

wraithstrike wrote:
It is actually better off left vague so each GM can flavor it however they want.

I can't flavor hp however I want though -- at least not satisfactorily. If I flavor them consistently as luck/skill/whatever, the terminology becomes really inconsistent and all kinds of situations make it even weirder. If I flavor them consistently as meat, there's a big gaping hole in the rules --> game world translation.

The only real options that the game leaves me are 1) flavor depending on each particular instance of hp loss, or 2) just don't think about it. And I find both of these woefully unsatisfactory.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my own games, characters get a scaling bonus to AC relative to their level [Natural Armor] and BAB [Dodge].

Hey, great minds think alike! By the end of my 3.5 years, I had written up one of those 'innate bonus' variants for the same reasons.


I decided to branch this off of a different discussion to avoid derailment. I asked:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).

To clarify, I really want PF as well as D&D to support a definitively meat point interpretation. One of my earliest threads on this very message board was a meat pointy-kind of explanation. But I can't really buy into it anymore, outside of one particular edition. So let's talk about this!

kyrt-ryder wrote:
As an aside, HP have worked GREAT for Meat Points in my games for as long as I've been running them [something like 6 years now.]

That’s great! How do you represent the general parry and dodge skill that every adventurer accumulates during the course of his or her dangerous adventures? (I.e., the other side of the BAB coin.) Or does the lack of such representation not bother you?

Tacticslion wrote:
I find this question relatively odd, because there is no points associated in the game with dodging and parrying, unlike with hit "points".

Thus my confusion; there are no 'parry points,' no counterpart to BAB to reflect gradually increasing defensive skill. There are AC-boosting options, but they either don't improve with level (full defense, fighting defensively) or are siloed away as feats or PrCs. Which would make sense in a level-less point buy game; but in PF and similar games, it's very inconsistent. Characters get gradually better at hitting things (BAB) just by surviving adventures -- heck, even NPC wizards who spend their lives studying in isolated towers become better at stabbing things than most of the world's martial-types after a few levels! -- but nobody gains any dodge/parry skill just by surviving adventures. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy could be as easy to stab as a dirt farmer, barring armor and magical bling. Does this not bother you?

“Tacticslion" wrote:
Either 3rd or PF (I don't recall which) did away with the "it is about luck, as much as actual damage" part of the definition for simplicity and consistency.

Must have been PF; I distinctly remember a hand-wavey explanation for hp in the 3e PHB. It involved a paladin and 'divine favor.'

I'm not replying to the rest of what you posted in response to my question because I don't think we're even conversationally on the same page yet. Also, I don't want this OP to be a mile long. ;)

TriOmegaZero wrote:
As your BAB goes up, you get better at hitting people while fighting defensively.

But you never get better at defense, barring specialty options. But maybe this doesn’t bother you?

Morzadian wrote:
The idea that hit points is something other than health and vitality is purely fluff. There is no evidence (within the game mechanics) to suggest otherwise.

The terminology absolutely backs up the meat point interpretation, but the lack of a counterpart to BAB painfully undercuts a definitive one. If that doesn't count as a 'dissociated [non-]mechanic,' I ought to coin a term for it!


If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).


Morzadian wrote:
i think its fair to say if you introduce 'bounded accuracy' into the Pathfinder system, Pathfinder is no longer Pathfinder.

I wouldn't mistake your particular PF comfort zone with 'this is what PF is.' It's true, PF fans tend to skew conservative when it comes to anything but incremental game changes -- many of you folks are 3.5 holdouts, after all -- but there are PF fans with much wider 'what PF is' comfort zones. Not to mention a world of non-fans who're just looking for good rpgs, and don't give a fig what PF currently looks like. Heck, to many a non-forum-crawling gamer buying games off the shelf, anything with 'Pathfinder' on the cover is PF, no questions asked.

Mind you, I don't care for the idea of BA, and I'm not a 5e fan. Haven't even played it, so I have no horse in this race. But I don't believe in holding oneself hostage to narrow definitions of what a particular game is or is not.

Jester David wrote:
Because good ideas are good ideas.

QFT. Good ideas can vary from gamer to gamer, but I'd rather try a potentially good idea than stick to an old idea just because it'd 'homogenize' the game I'm playing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1, 2, 3 Miyazaki: Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, and Howl’s Moving Castle are my big three. I still occasionally have dreams about the scene where Sheeta and Pazu say the magic word together...*shiver* Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Kiki’s Delivery Service, and Princess Mononoke get honorable mentions.

4 Psycho Pass: Takes place in a futuristic Japan, where crime has been virtually eliminated by an omniscient system that monitors the 'psycho pass' of each citizen to prevent violent impulses. I can't express how dark, compelling, but ultimately hopeful this show is. Can't wait for season 2 to appear on Netflix!

5 Darker Than Black: Another futuristic anime in which mysterious and 'soulless' people known as contractors cause terror and death. Dark and action-packed, this one is on my list to catch up on once I have more of a disposable income. (The first season appeared on Netflix a while back, then disappeared.)

6 Death Note: Hey, I mentioned that I'm into dark animes right?

7 Sword Art Online: A young gamer gets trapped in a new virtual reality MMORPG along with many others in this heroic drama. The premise sounds ridiculous so I neglected watching it for a long time, but I was sooo happy when I finally did!

8 Knights of Sidonia: A young man becomes the rising star and great hope of possibly the last remnant of humanity drifting through space, many years after Earth was annihilated by incomprehensible aliens. Can't wait for season 2!

9 and 10 Ghost in the Shell: A classic anime film. Ghost in the Shell: Arise is great too.

11 East of Eden: Outside of Miyazaki films, this is the only 'sweet' anime that I've ever fallen in love with. Romance and mystery conspire to create an amazing story in this more-or-less modern world drama.

12 Arpeggio of Blue Steel: A young sea captain and his crew struggle to give humanity a fighting chance against the mysterious 'fleet of fog' which obliterated all human sea-power more than a decade ago. Somewhat surprisingly, the most defined and dramatic characters are the human-like avatars of the Fleet of Fog's ships, who help and hinder the young captain. Action-packed and fast paced, the first season is very promising.

13 Angel Beats!: Dead teens live and adventure together in an afterlife with explicitly video-game physics. Again, it's an absurd-sounding plot, but it's strangely compelling; and unlike many drama-focused animes, it has a very satisfying conclusion!

14 Fate/Zero: Summoned heroes from various mythologies duke it out to win the Holy Grail, a relic capable of granting the victor's master any one wish.

15 High School of the Dead: A group of high schoolers fight to survive a zombie apocalypse and its aftermath. There's a ridiculous amount of fanservice, but if you can get past that, it's a really fun show.

16 Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood: Much better than the other FMA: the Painfully Slow One. I probably just POed every fan of the original comic, but hey, I need action! Netflix has season 1 and 2, but not the others for some reason. This is another one to catch up on later.

17 Ninja Scroll: Sooo did not expect this to be rated R, given its title! Good stuff though, and a classic.

18 Moribito: A heroic tale of adventure and redemption in a land of swords and magic. Beautiful animation, a strong heroine, a bit of action, and a satisfying ending make this one an instant recommendation for pretty much anyone.

19 Cowboy Bebop: I liked the film, though I don't remember much about it.

20 Blood: the Last Vampire: A short and bloody film involving a high school Halloween party, vampires, and a girl with a sword. And that's pretty much all ya need to know. :) Not to be confused with the series of similar title and same protagonist, which is much more drama-oriented and slow-paced.

21 RWBY: I'm still not quite sure why I like this one became an instant favorite of mine -- it's not my usual fare. Teenage drama with monster-hunters-in-training at a magical school doesn't sound very appealing, but it's an amazing show all the same. It's got gonzo action scenes, great characterization, a compelling plot, and a solid pace that makes the second-rate cgi come vibrantly alive. I'm sooooo bummed that the creator died after season 2!

22 Berserk: Blood and action, yes please!

Honorable Mention: Mushi-Shi: Not a riveting series, IMO, but this one is uniquely beautiful. It follows the wanderings of Ginko, a man who can see the mushi; spirit-things that abound in nature, and can sometimes cause problems. The very best soundtrack of any anime I've ever heard, bar none. Also, it's the only anime I've ever impressed a date by knowing. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How old are A and T, btw?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saw Berserk 1, and wow! Was not expecting a feature-length experience, and I was not expecting rated R material.

I'm not complaining though, and I hope Netflix gets more episodes soon!


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Finally watched the 1st season of Psycho-Pass. Loved it. Can't wait to start the second season.

I will declare a personal holiday when it does.

Sorta Spoiler:

Spoiler:
I love how the last scene of S1 plays off of the first. A bit trite maybe, but it keeps the show on the gray side of black.


Hama wrote:
Rewatched Bleach. Pretty decent without the fillers. Fights are awesome.

How do you avoid the fillers? Is there a list of filler episodes somewhere?

I enjoyed season 1, and was psyched for season 2 by the time I got around to watching it. But the way that season 2 starts everything back at square one -- both in terms of characters losing most or all of their butt-kicking power, and in terms of being utterly clueless and powerless against the next big threat (bounts) -- killed my interest after five or so episodes.

Kind of like playing through a very tough 1-10 campaign with a hard-won victory at the climax, and then the DM saying "Does everyone have their old 1st-level CSs? Good! Trash your current ones, and bring the old ones next weekend..."


Vincent Takeda wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?

A 2e warrior starts out horrible against breath weapons, but ends up being the most resistant to them... because he starts out less educated than a mage or a priest or a thief probably would be about the nature of them... but they learn fast and they learn the hard way and by the time they cap out, they have a better ability to not let that horrible thing happen to them than any other class.

Rogues start out pretty good against poisons and paralysis because sure... They probably use a lot of it... But they dont every get much better at it over time because you're resistance to poison is more of a 'better at avoiding it' kind of way where a warrior starts out worse at it but at the end of the day is way better at resisting it because he's a badass and has more body control and just fights through it by physical superiority...

So every thing you could save against has its own 'personality'...

Wow, you gleaned all of that from a bunch of numbers in a game book? People really do think about things fundamentally differently!

Thank you for your thoughts. :)


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?
I prefer 2e saves, and how brilliant some classes were in certain areas, and absolutely abysmal in others.

Aren't the fort, ref, and will progressions part of what makes modern classes brilliant/abysmal in various areas?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey James,

Do you have an opinion on healing spells as conjurations vs. as necromancies? It's one of the 3.0 changes that still has me scratching my head, not least of all because 3.5, PF, and 5e have all stuck with it.

Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I learned to play rpgs with 2e during the 90s, but there're only three things that I miss from that era:

1. Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, which I didn't begin appreciating until Planescape.
2. All of the amazing campaign settings, particularly Planescape.
3. Healing magic being part of the necromancy school, where it belongs!

Pretty much every other change has been a positive in my book, or at worst neutral, although I do now have a better understanding of why a lot of old school stuff is the way it is, and why many older D&Ders have stuck with pre-2000 editions or switched to retroclones.

I was a 'mayfly' until last year, but am now a happy 4e grognard. ;)

Vincent Takeda wrote:
I prefer the old older more narrow saving throws of 2e as well though.

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer 2e saves?


ElterAgo wrote:

This group (GM and all but one of the players) was absolutely stuck in the old strength Fighter, dex Rogue, Arcane Caster (blaster), and Cleric (healbot) as the only role possibilities. The guy they apparently usually talked into running the healbot refused to do so again (good for him) and no one else wanted to do it.

I tried to explain how it really wasn’t needed and most groups don’t do that anymore. Especially at the low level they were playing. I offered to make a cleric that would be capable of using the wands and stuff to heal out of combat, but wouldn’t usually be healing during a fight. I am obviously an idiot, since that would be “just be a waste of everyone’s time. It is completely impossible to play without a healer. Everyone knows that if they have any experience playing at all.”

I also offered to make a ranger scout to handle the stealth, perception, and disabling activities. At their low levels magical traps are nearly nonexistent. But if they seem likely, there is an archtype that gives them the trap finding to deal with magical traps. Again… “We don’t need that. Everyone already wants to play a fighter type. We need a rogue or cleric for healing.”

The frump is strong in this group.

I would've been tempted to stick around too, just to see what happened if they couldn't convince anyone to play what they wanted. Would they eventually stomp out in a huff, or eventually sit down to play and possibly have fun in spite of themselves?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alynthar42 wrote:
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.

Hi, Divinitus! You're absolutely right that there's no philosophical reason that raising the dead is automatically Evil; it's just one of those legacies that's been inherited from 3e D&D. A lot of DMs either invent a good reason for undead and undead creation to be Evil, or rule this legacy away.

(The smarmy reactions you're getting are because this is a perennial hot-button topic that invariably ends in flame-wars.)

deusvult wrote:
I still say writers got it wrong to change them to "conjuration".

Yep, this is one of the things that TSR got 100% right.


GypsyMischief wrote:

@Glass, Fighters at least slowly amassed multiple attacks per round back in the day (Pre WOTC)

So, the answer to my question is yes, iterative attacks are part of what a large amount of people expected when they picked up Pathfinder for the first time and would have been missed dearly had the game been written without them.

I think at this point there'd be some carping about removing iteratives, but assuming they were replaced by something reasonable, most fans would get over it.


GypsyMischief wrote:


I don't know, man, total half baked thought, but has anyone else thought about this? I have no desire to like...re-write Pathfinder without iterative attacks, they seem like a sacred cow that we could let go of.

People have been talking about this since...well, probably since 3e came out in 2000. So you're not alone. :)

I think the 3e-style Star Wars rpg granted bonus damage based on BAB rather than iterative attacks, so if you're into house ruling you could do something like that. (I'd suggest bonus weapon dice every few levels rather than static damage bonuses, but that's a detail.) Couple this with Scythia's elimination of the full-round attack action, and I think you're onto something!

Alternatively, if you don't want to deal with the ripple effects of removing iterative attacks, there's 4e as Opuk0 mentioned. And contrary to what some would have you think, 4e has a lot of other perks!


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

I've noticed that a lot of people who like to think themselves superior to others pretend that their position is the result of pure logic, while their opponents is that of invalid emotional reasoning.

Which is nonsense, of course. Conservative positions are based on emotions just as much as liberal ones are. Emotions are what we humans use to make decisions. We don't generally use logic. Only in some very limited realms is logic used, and even then it's used to make logical inferences based on premises chosen by means other than logic (such as 'human life has inherent value', 'causing harm to others is wrong', 'freedom has inherent value', 'god exists', etc.)

Yup, everyone's the hero of their own story.

And the rationalist of their own story.

And the honorably-emotional-when-conventionally-appropriate character of their own story.


LazarX wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
The problem with Carlin's idea is that then literally anything you say is perfectly okay as long as you mean it in jest. Considering words have actual meanings and some people attach great significance to those meanings, he is fundamentally incorrect. Words are used as a form of communication. If you communicate something hurtful, even on accident, you are still being hurtful and should change.

It's important to remember thqt Carlin was a comedian, not a philosopher, or a social scientist, and a lot of what he says, we can accept because he was saying it on stage and most importantly... had the talent to be funny while doing it.

Using George Carlin's standup routine as a blunt force model for one's social interactions can prove very hazardous to your standing in society.

QFT. Like many performers, there are different ways to interpret Carlin's acts:

1. We can take everything he said at face value, and thus come to the conclusion that he was a nutcase.

2. We can take everything he said as total BS, and thus reason that he only said it because people think it's funny and were willing to pay to hear it.

3. We can take everything he said with a grain of salt, and look for an underlying message. Which in Carlin's case is "Question everything."


Freehold DM wrote:
I like Carlin in limited doses.

That's fair. His routines are pretty intense.

Carlin began one of his later-life bits with: "I like people. But I like them in short bursts."

Being an introvert, I really relate to that. :D


Tacticslion wrote:
The problem with Carlin's idea is that then literally anything you say is perfectly okay as long as you mean it in jest. Considering words have actual meanings and some people attach great significance to those meanings, he is fundamentally incorrect. Words are used as a form of communication. If you communicate something hurtful, even on accident, you are still being hurtful and should change.

There is absolutely something to be said of being considerate of others. Some people have personal reasons to be sensitive to certain words, such as LazarX; and some words have been used against entire groups of people, thus truly warranting consideration as 'bad words.'

But four-letter words that society has arbitrarily categorized as 'bad words' for the sake of having bad words? Those are just society-imposed emotional pressure-points. Which I get; I was sensitive to cuss words when I was a kid. But then I went to college, met new people, discovered comedians, and realized that life is better after being desensitized to harmless words.

And it's not like I cuss a blue-streak now, or can't access my 'clean language mode' for an interview or whatever. I'm just not shocked when someone drops a "F#%* yeah, nat 20!" anymore, and I base my language use on my own judgment rather than which words my mother doesn't like.

This is why I support everyone making friends with a 'sailor' or two, or watching a few colorful comedian routines. For those who don't like GC, there have been plenty more since his career took off. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On Cuss Words

Spoiler:

"There are no bad words; only bad thoughts and bad intentions."

-- George Carlin

On Topic

Spoiler:

"I drank your milkshake. I drank it up!!!

--Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood


Shisumo wrote:
Would it surprise you, then, to learn that there's a transgender channeler in the series? This shocks the hell out of everyone who realizes it when it happens, and the implications aren't explored nearly as much as I would've liked, but it's definitely a thing.

I remember nothing of this...I've got to reread this series!


Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:

This is speculation on my part, but I suspect the whole duality theme turns some people off because it plays on and emphasizes those traditional gender themes -- WoT has a variety of characters, but in many respects it's about men being good ol' fashioned men and women being good ol' fashioned women. The way that saidin and saidar act fundamentally differently, and how channelers live or die depending on their attitude toward their half of the One Power, for example.

I do love the series, but it can easily be read as an oversimplified metaphor for gender and a glorification of traditional gender norms. If I fit a bit less neatly into my traditional gender box, I might have been too turned off to get past the first book.

You know all of these things from reading the series - the constant bickering between men and women is really annoying in it - but just from hearing the concept of channeling according to the born sex? It seems a bit far fetched to denounce a story on something as simple as that...

*shrug*

Maybe the gender-based channeling concept is enough of a red flag for Scythia -- or maybe I'm completely wrong about Scythia's reasons for avoiding WoT. If Scythia replies again, maybe we'll find out.


Lord Snow wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Xzaral wrote:
The source is split into two gender based halves, Saidar and Saidin. Men draw on Saidin while woman draw upon Saidar. The Dark One managed to taint the male half of the source Saidin during his battle with Lews Therin Telamon. This in turn causes people who draw upon it to go crazy. The more you draw the faster it is, but it's inevitable.
Thanks. Jokes about padding aside, this makes me feel even better about deciding to skip the series.
Why? what do you find so objectionable about the idea?

This is speculation on my part, but I suspect the whole duality theme turns some people off because it plays on and emphasizes those traditional gender themes -- WoT has a variety of characters, but in many respects it's about men being good ol' fashioned men and women being good ol' fashioned women. The way that saidin and saidar act fundamentally differently, and how channelers live or die depending on their attitude toward their half of the One Power, for example.

I do love the series, but it can easily be read as an oversimplified metaphor for gender and a glorification of traditional gender norms. If I fit a bit less neatly into my traditional gender box, I might have been too turned off to get past the first book.


Xzaral wrote:
Reading through the comments here makes me wonder who besides myself actually finished the entire series.

*raises hand*

And someday I'm going to read them all again, consecutively this time...or possibly listen to the audio books. I've forgotten a lot, and so many books do tend to blend together. :)


Tels wrote:
On RWBY and Nora...

I realize that I'm late to the RWBY party, but I just have to comment on how much I love it!

It's rare that such a cutesy show grabs my attention, but RWBY has managed to be just the right mix of gonzo action, character development, fantastical physics, steady plot, allegories to messy real-life issues, music, and yes, gunblades!

There are of course the obligatory too-skimpy-for-school skirts and blouses, but there's also a bit of beefcake and a girl-on-boy ass-slap.

Apparently the creator died this very month though, which is a huge shame. :(


Aranna wrote:
So will you share who you identify with?

Hm, that's a good question, and I can't think of a clear answer. I don't think there's ever been an anime character who I felt a strong connection with; I guess I watch anime more for the fantastical physics and strange settings than the characters.


Freehold DM wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Has anyone seen a cgi movie called Harlock: Space Pirate?

Yes, it's every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, and I'm still not quite sure what I think about it after watching it twice. It's a lot like some fan of Final Fantasy and Pirates of the Caribbean was given free reign and a huge cgi budget. The phrase 'so bad that it's good' comes to mind, and there's something about it that's planted itself in my head...

Indeed, it is a remake/update of the original series. Watch it with the fact that it was made in the 70s in mind.

I would not say it was "so bad it was good", I would say it was faithful to the original. I'm glad they didn't try to "update" it with ideas that make sense to modern sensibilities and continued with the rather outrageous 70's ideas.

Greylurker wrote:


if you want to watch the original they have it over at Crunchyroll

Oh wow, that's old school!

Maybe the original will explain the Mimay...


Alzrius wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
And no, I'm not up for dissecting all these post-fragments with you; I'm back at school and don't have the time or the energy.
So you want to respond, but don't have the time or the energy to engage in the actual debate that's going on. That's fine, but it makes it rather hard to discuss the issue with you when you don't want to have the give-and-take that's at the core of a conversation.

I was rather naively hoping that, despite your vociferous criticism of the other side of the fanservice issue, you might be willing to put yourself in another’s shoes to at least understand why others see a problem.

Sorry for the mistake; it won’t happen again.


Lemmy wrote:
There was talk that fanservice make men see women as nothing but sex toys...

So no talk of banning then, which means all this reaction against banning is just so much shouting at strawmen.

Lemmy wrote:
And I doubt any of the people complaining about fanservice were protesting the amount of pointless shirtless scenes in Twilight (you know... that series of books/movies that made an incredible amount of money despite its terrible story and bland protagonist).

*shrug* I can empathize with chicks without watching chick flicks.


Has anyone seen a cgi movie called Harlock: Space Pirate?

Yes, it's every bit as ridiculous as it sounds, and I'm still not quite sure what I think about it after watching it twice. It's a lot like some fan of Final Fantasy and Pirates of the Caribbean was given free reign and a huge cgi budget. The phrase 'so bad that it's good' comes to mind, and there's something about it that's planted itself in my head...


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

*If you're not convinced of the general overreaction, take a look at Sissyl's comment about these supposed pro-ban fans getting orgasms from taking fun away from others. Lol, talk about throwing stones from glass houses! I might as well speculate that fanservice lovers want fanservice to be mandatory, because they get their jollies from knowing that their softcore [often child-]porn actively undercuts self-respect and cultural improvement.

Freehold DM wrote:
oh come now, tequila. Softcore child porn? I fought through those accusations enough in the 90s.

Crazy, right? And yet nobody seems to bat an eye at Sissyl's equally vapid speculation about, from what I can tell, is a strawman position.


Alzrius wrote:
...

I understand a lot more than you think I do, and I think if you let yourself cool off a bit and consider the progression of this sub-topic, you'll see a different picture. And no, I'm not up for dissecting all these post-fragments with you; I'm back at school and don't have the time or the energy.

Although I suspect that you're too preoccupied with being right to try this, I'll again suggest that you put on your roleplayer hat the next time you watch a fanservice-heavy show and try to look at the wider picture, rather than focussing on all these little debate points.

...After you cool off for a while. Human empathy really benefits from a clear head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
But don't try to stop others from doing it if they want. And yes, censorship is exactly what some people are advocating here.

Citation needed. And let's keep our goalposts firmly in place; 'censorship' is a wider term than 'ban,' and might cover sentiments beyond the supposed ban-desires that you and others are reacting against.

Keep in mind that this whole sub-topic began with cmastah recommending a show, mentioning that it has no fanservice, and then Freehold replying with 'Sounds cool, but no fanservice = no Freehold.'

Link

Afterward, Aranna said that she often finds that fanservice detracts from an anime, and that social awareness can and has led to improved entertainment. Before Alzrius badgered him into leaving the thread, Tels said that he doesn't mind fanservice in general but doesn't like watermelon boobs. And I followed up with my opinion that the world will be a better place when anime learns the meaning of 'everything in moderation.' No mention of bannings that I remember.

And then the thread exploded with a lot of overreactions* and [intentional?] misreading of posts. But hey, I could have missed these pro-ban comments, so feel free to link them. Because for the record, I do not support fanservice bans; what I do support is a bit of human empathy and social awareness.

*If you're not convinced of the general overreaction, take a look at Sissyl's comment about these supposed pro-ban fans getting orgasms from taking fun away from others. Lol, talk about throwing stones from glass houses! I might as well speculate that fanservice lovers want fanservice to be mandatory, because they get their jollies from knowing that their softcore [often child-]porn actively undercuts self-respect and cultural improvement.


Lemmy wrote:
Ban ban BAN ban baaaaaaan!

Is all this talk of banning in reference to my posts, or someone else's?

1 to 50 of 3,331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.