|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
Darth Yesterday wrote:
Seth's is the only version of SW that I own or have watched more than once.
Ayup, I've been this DM. I thought that starting at 20th level would be fun, had no idea how broken the game is, said "Anything official goes!," angry words were had, it happens.
If I were Alzrius, I'd swallow my frustration with having the rug pulled out from under me for the time being. Re/make a simpler and lower-powered PC, show up, have fun, show that I'm a sport. Then after everyone has had a blast with the second session and has realized that I'm not out to tank their fun, apologize and explain things just like Alzrius has done here. Assuming I'm cool about it and the group is halfway reasonable, they should understand and may even apologize.
You might be looking at poor examples, Tequila Sunrise.
Entirely possible. I bow to the community's greater knowledge of there's-a-feat-for-that feats. :)
OP have you considered trying 5E? Do you find the same pitfalls in that system?
I'm unlikely to try 5e anytime soon. Recently I've been feeling very ambivalent about D&D, and am honestly more interested in tinkering with my fantasy heartbreaker than playing.
“I hate feats, because they implicitly exclude PCs from doing things that they’d otherwise be able to do without feats.” It’s been a complaint since 2000, and I can understand it. For example, the Call Truce feat sets up a specific mechanic for parleying with enemies. If you take the feat and abide by its circumstantial restrictions, you can make a Diplomacy check to temporarily cease combat. For a core example, Power Attack sets up a specific mechanic for taking a wild but powerful swing.
This is the internet so I’m sure someone will disagree with me, but I think that most of us can agree that attempting parley and taking wild swings are both things that any character ought to be able to do. (We’ll have different opinions about which situations exclude the possibility of parley, and which if any mechanics ought to be used for it, but we can agree that parley ought to be possible in at least some situations with or without a feat.)
That said, I don’t remember this ever being an issue. I’ve never played in a campaign where a Call Truce type feat excluded the possibility of anyone attempting parley. (Or at least, I wasn’t aware if there was.) And I’ve never heard a player without Power Attack say “I want to swing wild and powerful. Can I get modifiers to reflect that?” (Admittedly, players may have assumed that the existence of PA would shut them down, and so not bothered to ask.)
If this sort of thing has been an issue for you, how did you deal with it?
As a DM, it occurs to me that these sort of feats can be used as guidelines for universally-accessible house rules. For example, if a PC without PA takes a wild swing, I might rule that she gains all the penalties but only half the bonuses described in the PA text. If a PC without Call Truce tries to parley, I could rule that it works as described in CT except that it takes two turns instead of one to attempt. Or that trying to parley without CT increases the DC by 5. Or that CT simply allows parley attempts in situations which I would otherwise tell a player “Parley is clearly futile here, you have no chance of success.”
Of course, if I’ve been handling a certain action with my own house rule, and then discover that ‘there’s a feat for that,’ the feat may create a prickly dilemma. If my house rule uses a different mechanic than the feat, do I change my house rule to mirror the feat, or vice versa? If my house rule is better than the feat, do I buff the feat or nerf my house rule? But it is hypothetically doable.
Perhaps all there’s-a-feat-for-that feats ought to be accompanied by an official universally-accessible rule? Much like Combat Expertise is accompanied by the fighting-defensively rule, and the total defense rule.
So, ideas? Experiences? Snarky comments?
Yes, the title is click-bait. I’m looking forward to the pitchfork-mob replies from folks who reply without reading the OP. ;)
Thanks for your perspective! I wonder how many gamers know that alignment is meant to be descriptive rather than proscriptive, but nevertheless feel obligated to live up to the label?
Judging by every alignment debate ever, probably more than a few.
Klara Meison wrote:
For example, what do you think about the allignment effects of each of the possible actions in this situation?
I literally loled when I read that, thanks. I like the author’s sense of humor. :D
Personally I call these sort of catch-22’s morally neutral. That is, you can’t win, so your decision has no effect on your alignment. Unless of course you instigate a bidding war between Leftie and Jones, with the winner getting to live. ;)
Of course if I force your character into a catch-22 and then change his/her alignment no matter what, I shouldn’t be using alignment ‘cause I clearly have a dysfunctional perception of it. Or maybe I shouldn’t be DMing in the first place. :p
There is an old dragon magazine article in Dragon 173 called Get Your Priorities Straight by Royce Wicks, that to this day I still think is the best take on the alignment system I'd ever seen. It basically argued that each alignment can be broken down into a mix of seven priorities, factoring in that you might be most loyal to your race, your deity, your liege, or even your family. Being chaotic didn't mean you had no loyalties, you just valued a much less.
Hm, how do the 7 priorities work? Are the same 7 priorities arranged in a different order across the L-N-C spectrum, or does each alignment have different priorities? Does a chaotic person have weaker/fewer loyalties, or different loyalties? Assuming you can remember properly. ;)
It is not-quite the hottest hour of the day here, and it is 42C (107F), with a breeze whispering directly from the gates of hell.
How's Saturday? Drop me a PM, I'd love to chat with another Paizonian. :)
Owl Pacino, Vrock Star wrote:
My boss here in Phoenix has told me homicidal horror stories that I never heard the likes of back in the northeast. I'm convinced that the climate plays a part in pushing people over the edge.
captain yesterday wrote:
I don't get having 1d3 weapon damage, there is no three sided dice! "Just ignore the four" they say. Four is the best number on a four sided dice, do you know how frustrating it can be to roll four after four after four, and then they say "Oh, well, that's a three" It's clearly a four!
Who says that? That is objectively false.
A d3 gives even odds of getting a 1, a 2, and a 3. "Roll 1d4, treat 4s as 3s" gives 50% odds of getting a 3 and 25% odds of getting 1 and 2.
Though I never had much objection to d3s, it seems enough people share your objection that 4e eliminated them. :)
Freehold DM wrote:
The best solutions usually are. :)
I like it too. It's great drama, and also a great demonstration of why NG is the goodest good. A NG hero doesn't have to compromise the protection of innocents with honor.
"I promised I'd let you go, but that was before I knew you were a scum-of-the-earth villain. So that's why I killed you immediately and without hesitation, before setting you loose on who-knows-how-many innocents." Much less dramatic than your player's solution, but also much Gooder. ;)
He must bring really good snacks...
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Lol, I wasn't even aware of the different formats until years after I had quit playing.
I totally get the $ == win objection too, and sadly I don't think that there's any way around it, at least if WotC wants Magic to remain popular and profitable. Maybe they don't have to be quite so money-grubby -- Hearthstone is playable for free, and seems to be doing very well -- but there does need to be some incentive for players to keep spending money. Or a competitor will likely take over.
I remember reading a YA novel back when I was on the cusp of puberty, and then talking about the characters with my mother. I said something like "I really like how character X does horrible things, but isn't outright evil. He has reasons for doing horrible things." "Why do you think bad people do bad things?" was her response.
*Light bulb on*
Do some people here feel some spells need to be on the spell lists of other classes? Like Mage Armor and / or Endure Elements?
I feel that a really good D&D edition/descendant ought to decide, and then stick to its decision: Are spells special snowflake options each tied to a different class, or are spells universal options that different classes access differently?
'Cause the problem with this issue has always been that some game writers work under one assumption, and others work under the other. In an ideal world, many gamers and game writers alike would go with the first decision. But I don't think it's happenstance or laziness that so many spells are shared between so many spell lists: Spell lists are the most time-consuming part of class creation, and each shared spell is one less spell that must be created per caster class beyond the first.
Nor do I think that different classes accessing the same spells differently is the less-preferable option. There are and always have been ways to make different classes different even if they were to share all the same spells. There are differing avenues of spell access, alternative casting mechanics, basic class stats, and other class features which can and are used to differentiate casters. And as Set points out, some spells are simply staples that can create a sucky 'choice' when only one or two classes have access.
Wow, that sounds like Truenamer kind of broken, but on a campaign-scale.
(Broken, as in 'Great fluff, just straight-up doesn't work as intended.')
captain yesterday wrote:
...Was I the only one who thought that 'chainsaw' was a humorous euphemism for 'magical weapon of unimportant-for-forum-discussion specifics'?
You have my attention. Please continue...
Because, y'know, actually understanding what you're voting on is overrated.
Just last month we voted on prop 123 here in AZ. The governor (Rep) and the state congress (Rep-dominated) advertised it as the long-awaited funding that AZ schools desperately need. In fact, it's a fiscally-irresponsible half-measure that'll simply cause another funding crisis in another ten years or so.
And of course is passed, thus allowing the state government to weasel out of its lawful obligation to simply keep school funding in line with inflation.
Thanks for your thoughts. :)
I find corporations and their influence on politics very concerning as well, and I hadn't really considered that aspect of Hillary. I just figured she's more or less as married to big business donations as the next Dem. (Which is to say, slightly less than the next Rep.) I have Open Secrets open in another tab, and...bleh! Like anything to do with politics, educating myself looks like a downright Herculean task! What does all this stuff mean...
I would agree, if primaries weren't funded with public money. If they were entirely, 100%, absolutely no public money involved whatsoever, yeah, but as long as the government funds it with taxes taken from everyone, everyone should have a right to vote in the primaries.
Did not know, thanks. :)
This crap would never happen in a parliamentary system.
Recently I've found myself wondering how exactly politics differs across the pond. The simplicity of voting directly for who you want to see in office, not seeing a redundant house of congress slow things even further*, and avoiding these longer-by-the-term primary seasons is getting more and more appealing.
But there is the "Primaries give oddball candidates a chance to prove their potential" argument. Not sure how well this has been borne out by history though.
*The UK does have the House of Lords, but I think most parliaments just have the one house.
I'd love to see Bernie in the White House, with a democratic congress to not just stonewall everything he wants to do. He's definitely the two-steps forward candidate.
I do however note that Hillary attempted healthcare reform long before we ever heard the name Barrack Obama. She probably won't get America the universal healthcare that we deserve, but she'll also veto any dogmatic Rep attempts to repeal Obamacare. (Who will then either forget all about healthcare reform, or replace it with an even bigger hand-out to the insurance industry.) Sadly, I think that two-steps-forward-one-step-back is our best viable option.
I do wish that third parties were viable here in the U.S., though I'm not nearly so pessimistic about Hillary. Worst case scenario I can imagine with her is that some scandal blows up in her face two years into her first and only term, and our first female president leaves a bad taste in America's mouth.
Worst case I can imagine with Trump is that he spends eight years mucking things up, and then installing himself as Grand Chief in Commander indefinitely after conning his fanatical marks into thinking that "I just need one more term to repair America and start winning again..." And then eventually declaring himself the United States of Trump's Grand Capitalista, thus finally dropping the charade of democracy. All the while building walls both figurative and literal, oppressing minorities, and starting all sorts of wars, while simultaneously telling his Christian majority supporters that the world and their own government is persecuting them. (Except for him of course.)
(I know that many Christians do not support Trump. I mentioned the ones who do, because they epitomize the sheer bald-faced lies and hypocrisy that Trump is able to get away with by telling people what they want to hear.)
All that said, I haven't looked into all the Hillary scandals so maybe I should be as afraid of her. What scares you most about her?
Were you aware that the ancestors of the current religious majorities politicked, tyrannized, conquered, and murdered the former religious majorities out of existence?
I like to think that the merits of treating religious belief as what it is outweighs the merits of treating it as a popularity contest.
Gaming is the only context I know of where wisdom is defined as common sense, willpower, intuition, and such. In every other context that I know of, wisdom is a synonym for knowledge, skill, savvy, etc.. Basically, a combination of stuff we call Int, skills, and certain feats in rpgs.
So...yeah. Best not to equate literary, mythological, or historical wisdom with rpg wisdom. :)