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

Trogdar's page

1,864 posts (1,867 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,864 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.

It a good thing I'm not making an analogy then. Spells and magic effects upon the nature and prevalence of evil or good changes how you look at those terms. If those effects are acknowledged(which they are. Everyone agrees that spells with the evil subtype are evil by the rules), then we need to redefine what evil means. If you need to redefine a word, then you have changed what the word means

In my opinion, that is a reasonable conclusion given the argument.

Well, you did say "analogous".

And yes, I guess we need to redefine what evil means: only to the extent we need to deal with these non-real world things. Generally in doing so, they've looked at the way cultures that believed in magic and...

Yeah, I did say analogous. I feel like the 'is not' in front of it is key.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.

It a good thing I'm not making an analogy then. Spells and magic effects upon the nature and prevalence of evil or good changes how you look at those terms. If those effects are acknowledged(which they are. Everyone agrees that spells with the evil subtype are evil by the rules), then we need to redefine what evil means. If you need to redefine a word, then you have changed what the word means

In my opinion, that is a reasonable conclusion given the argument.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.

It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.


HWalsh wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
3. Except there was no acid here. This is lava and letting some one immolate. While. You. Watch. And. Preach. To. Them. About. How. Much. They. Suck.

This isn't a Star Wars thread, but, in defense of Obi... He believed that he had dealt a fatal wound to Anakin. Also according to the novelization Padme was somehow latently Force Sensitive and was sustaining his life until the Emperor reached him, or he would have died.

The technology used to save him was also a unique secret prototype and he had a 0% chance of survival without it. So as far as Obiwan knew Anakin was already dead at that point. His friend had become a mad murderer and forced him to kill him.

So... It's understandable.

Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.

Well, evil is objective in this universe right? Demons and devil's are made of the stuff apparently. What is solid idea? How does the idea of evil become a sentient creature. What changes about an idea when it becomes something that is explicitly not an idea anymore?

Is that more clear?

Are they actually made out of evil? They are evil. They are, at least in most cases, born from mortal souls.

But more generally, whether they're actually made of evil or not, evil isn't an just an idea in the setting. There are places, lower planes, that are evil. It's not that the idea of evil becomes a physical thing and somehow changes. We get our poor understanding of evil (your idea) from that real pre-existent thing. Think Platonic ideals.

Alternately, it's not clear to me what "solid" even means in the context of the outer planes. Souls go there and can be directly interacted with - tortured for example. Souls aren't ideas, but they also aren't physical things. In the outer planes though, they seem to have physical existence. Does that mean some other body is built up out of some planar matter around the soul or is the nature of those planes and the creatures there more like souls already?

I don't think it matters what a soul is or isn't (largely because the idea of soul isn't well defined in reality, never mind pen and paper), only that a devil can be summoned to the material plane and demons and devil's don't have a dualistic nature explicitly. Because they don't have a dualistic nature, they must be made of whatever there soul is. Since a demon is more or less his soul and he is explicitly pure evil, it follows that this soul stuff is evil itself. So what are we even talking about anymore? Can we even define evil anymore with these weird interactions?

I don't know.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.

Well, evil is objective in this universe right? Demons and devil's are made of the stuff apparently. What is solid idea? How does the idea of evil become a sentient creature. What changes about an idea when it becomes something that is explicitly not an idea anymore?

Is that more clear?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, there's a pretty big difference. That said, being intentionally patronizing isn't helping anybody.

I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.


Your right, That was a poor choice of words. I got excited.

I have actually read some of the literature.

Though, reading through the dilemma and counter examples did jostle my memory regarding sovereignty, which doesn't hold with a plurality of God's.

I would love to get back into reading philosophy. My step dad just passed and his collection of books in this area are pretty extensive. We were totally at odds philosophically, but i enjoyed talking with him. I will miss it.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


I do, however, like the description Trogdar incorporated of himself: "the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness."

So a rock can make a judgement call. K.

And he digs himself deeper into his own self-description.

Does it make you feel good to insult people over and over again? You must feel so proud. It's a good thing I'm not conscious(according to you), otherwise your behaviour would be considered immoral.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.
So your argument boils down to... "No way is that true! And I'm going to be snotty about it."?
I do, however, like the description Trogdar incorporated of himself: "the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness."

So a rock can make a judgement call. K.


Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.


There's a tonne of people out there who believe they can sense consciousness in rocks, so people believing in objective value isn't that surprising.


HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I'm arrogant and stupid because I point out logical inconsistency with the concept of objective morality... Really? I can certainly be arrogant as can anyone, but the topic of discussion and the nature of my responses put the lie to the second.

It's all irrelevant really, because attacking my person has no impact on my position.

I think certain things have to work a certain way because if they don't, then the defined thing becomes senseless.

"There is objective good, but no one knows or can know what that good is because no one is or can ever be objective."

So, if the above is true, what's the point in this idea of objective good/evil?

Its more the issue, I think, that you're demanding that, before you agree with a stated rule that the author must explain the full rational behind that rule AND that rational must meet your personal standards.

For example:

I've got several suits of heavy armor in real life. One is a set of scale. It was fitted to me and while wearing it I don't notice much of a decrease in agility and, in fact, can turn cartwheels while wearing it with negligible increase in difficulty.

History also says that is a fact. Armor does not impact mobility generally.

Pathfinder limits agility in armor and inflicts a penalty on top of that. The rationalization is silly, but, at the end of the day it's the rule.

The same is true with infernal healing. It's clearly healing that comes from an evil source. The spell itself is evil regardless of what you're using it for.

This isn't a plot hole. This is just something you don't like.

It's not a plot hole issue, it's a universe that contradicts itself issue. Objective good is like saying it's black white out. It makes just that much sense. There's no way to be objective and place value because to place value requires subjectivity. Let me reiterate; valuation requires consciousness, consciousness is fundamentally subjective innately, subjectivity cannot be objective ever.

All these analogies relating to armor statistics being off or some other element of the universe is at least consistent within its universe, objective value is completely inconsistent with itself and the reality it lives in.

If your whole universe would implode immediately due to the rules you place on it, then I suggest that those rules are not plot holes, they're black holes devouring your whole setting before you play.

I guess my arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. It's kind of like trying to describe how gravity isn't a force as much as a consequence of curved spacetime to a person who doesn't really get relativity.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.

No, I don't. And that's the fundamental disagreement. You have your own view of how things (in this case, the nature of evil) have to be which you are then attempting to impose upon someone else's work of fiction. Which is not only arrogant, but also stupid.

I'm arrogant and stupid because I point out logical inconsistency with the concept of objective morality... Really? I can certainly be arrogant as can anyone, but the topic of discussion and the nature of my responses put the lie to the second.

It's all irrelevant really, because attacking my person has no impact on my position.

I think certain things have to work a certain way because if they don't, then the defined thing becomes senseless.

"There is objective good, but no one knows or can know what that good is because no one is or can ever be objective."

So, if the above is true, what's the point in this idea of objective good/evil?


And how is calling things like saving lives evil, or calling turning an entire population into pillars of salt(genocide) good equivalent to spoks parentage? For God or Golarion, you have to accept that, for good to be what it says, it has to be good to do harm.

The Vulcan analogy really doesn't represent that.


The lack of reference points for the why of evil is exactly what divine command theory is about. It's good because the book says it is or its bad because the book says it is, exactly like the Bible. Your not allowed to object.


It's definitely defined as evil within the game. I guess we just have to swallow Divine command theory like good little Christians.


Maybe this good aligned with a capital G thing makes sense to the Abrahamic religions. I'm not sure they know what they're talking about though, so that is more likely where my issue is.

I mean, there is an objective good, but no one can access it, because even the gods fail the objectivity test in universe profoundly.

And really, the thought of a human pretending to be the objective arbiter of good as a GM is profoundly laughable. Talk about hubris.


For me, its a pretty crummy morality model, But if you look at it as "icky" and "fuzzy" I guess that is better, maybe? I dont know, seems like a lot of mind labor for little payout.


Ephemeral moral measuring stick... Okay, that's a tough dragon to slay. How does one get access to it? You can't reason your way out subjectivity as far as I'm aware.

Edit: just read the bottom paragraph. Belief without reason is not very convincing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, I get that the game wants objective morality, I'm just noting that morality requires subjectivity to exist at all. Something without thought cannot make judgments.

So, basically, how is objective morality not like saying I'm going to go make a square circle?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still confused as to how you end up with objective value judgments. Even the gods are subjective within the cosmology as far as I know. They are individuals.

A value judgment is subjective by its very nature, so I think it would help if someone breaks that down for me.


Im not sure magic item costs are a great way to tell how, or even if, an item is over powered. Pricing has always been pretty nonsensical and if you split certain spells up to try and price each advantage separately you end up with million gold items that no one in the history of ever would purchase because some bonuses are exponentially more expensive than others.

I guess it makes people feel better when magic items are very weak and don't affect versatility in any way.

If a druid can do this with little effort and no items in the early levels, then surely it should cost a million gold for a fighter do the same. I mean, it's not as though you can't get fighter BAB with one spell or anything. Oh wait.


Subjective experience and the discomfort associated with Evil being a force unto itself rather than a severe breach of one of a subset of social taboo's I would think. I could be way off base though. :P


A Dawnflower dervish bards inspiration is twice as strong, and there is nothing preventing the use of a two handed weapon like a curve blade or falchion.

That would cover everything I think. No need to multiclass.


Does a warlock not manufacture their mystic bolt? I think to produce and manufacture are synonymous right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

shrunken lava.


BadBird wrote:
Avoron wrote:
If the ability score you must have in order to select or use the feat has changed, then the prerequisite has changed as well, because that's literally the definition of a prerequisite.
The issue is universal vs. situational. If you flip through the CRB, TWF still says "15 DEX". Artful Dodge arguably just gives you the option of using your intelligence score to meet what is still a dexterity prerequisite. If Artful Dodge said something like "you replace the dexterity prerequisite of all combat feats with an intelligence prerequisite" then it would be clear cut. As it is, the argument against it working is that you can't use 15 charisma to meet a "15DEX" prerequisite just because you have two prerequisite loophole abilities that apply to other things.

You could say no, but Im not sure why you would. The game won't explode. There is a clear line of reasoning that leads to the replacement. Just doesn't seem worth making a stink over.


Kryzbyn wrote:

By limiting stats you can end up limiting player RP options.

Granted, strong but physically ill characters never made sense to me, but they are there, and this option would remove them as an option.

A smart but socially inept mage wouldn't work anymore as a concept, because all the stats are rolled into one score. Same with a wise but non book smart character, or a person with a powerful personality, but lacks common sense.

How do you do you allow for RP of these concepts when the stats counter it?

You could potentially create a series of negative traits that give you a penalty in that skill or set of skills to emulate the deficiency. Negative traits could then give you a positive trait to improve some skills that do represent your character better.

You could also just make that part of the build process. If you take penalties in four skills, you can then get a bonus in four other skills that better suit your character.

Maybe?
Edit: I would say that you can't take a penalty higher than your modifier in the governing ability score to keep it from getting too nuts.


The point that is being made is that an ability that is statistically likely over three rounds or so is not as useful as one that is on demand but limited in number. This is the fundamental conceit of the d20 system.


I'd rather play video games than sit through another tired Lord of the rings clone with "realism" and a complete absence of agency. In fact, I think I'd rather stop gaming.

Maybe I've just been unlucky.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

+1

Thanks Tacticslion, I do enjoy reading your perspective on the issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Its pretty clear that if you play fast and loose with the rule set, then the rule set becomes less relevant as to whether the table is fair and enjoyable. Im not sure that its a ringing endorsement for the viability of the rules though.


Voss wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Nohwear wrote:
At the risk of starting a major tangent, I think that an equal problem, that I think goes hand in hand with this, is people reacting with hostility or with some sort of trying to win mentality. When combined, we really get a lot of Gotcha posts.
I can sort of see that. I kind of feel like some think winning is something that applies to everything, which is odd. I imagine its got something to do with capital based ideology.
Isn't imagining why someone believes something you think is wrong the very root of arguing in bad faith?

I didn't say anything was wrong, just odd. I also didn't mention who I was talking about because no one group is guilty of the winning argument. I just noticed recently that a number of people I've talked to recently try to rearrange my arguments into winning/losing paradigms. The capital ideology correlation is really just a hypothesis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arguing in good faith simply refers to being charitable with your reading of a position you don't hold. If someone is being a jerk, then you don't need to take it because of this.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that really messes me up about the anti balance crowd is that, more often than not, they play in the E8 threshold of the game. When people talk about adding features to martial characters, they tend to be talking about the 10-20 level bracket.

It's actually possible for both parties to get what they want, but we still fight like cats and dogs about if it's even an issue with levels one party doesn't even like.

That's weird.


hiiamtom wrote:
I swore the 3.5 DMG recommends following RAW and not using houserules.

This is an example of why I'm Leary of anecdote. Memory is just a bastard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlaskaRPGer wrote:
Jodokai wrote:


I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no. Even if a player brings a a perfectly rules legal character to the table, you can tell that player "That's not going to work for my game". You have that control as the GM. The players either accept that you're doing it so everyone enjoys the game more, or they don't, in which case, find better players that will trust you as a GM.
Is that really contentious here? it's part of the "social agreement" that's implied when gaming, is it not?

I don't think it's contentious at all. I do think that there are some non zero value of gamers who consider the rules to be as important as the theater element. These people might value consistent application of rules in addition to a system that is internally consistent. These people might find highly variable character power disturbing because all classes don't exist in every game, causing concerns about whether a given group will have the means to properly overcome challenges despite being above the supposed benchmark for the challenge. Some of those things may have an impact on said non zero value of the player base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

Trying to invalidate other people's experiences happens a lot as well. As in someone says "I've noticed a problem with x, so I don't allow x anymore in my games."

Then someone else will come along and say "x? Are you kidding me? x is not a problem."

Where a better answer would be "Interesting, I've never encountered a problem with x at my table."

This definitely happens and we could all learn to be nicer about how we word things. That said, it's tough to go very far with anecdotal evidence unless it's from a truly huge group of people for manifold reasons. You just can't verify personal accounts because memory is awful.


Nohwear wrote:
At the risk of starting a major tangent, I think that an equal problem, that I think goes hand in hand with this, is people reacting with hostility or with some sort of trying to win mentality. When combined, we really get a lot of Gotcha posts.

I can sort of see that. I kind of feel like some think winning is something that applies to everything, which is odd. I imagine its got something to do with capital based ideology. Anyway, you can't win an argument by not participating in it. You can totally derail an argument to the detriment of everyone by arguing in bad faith.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

And I agree with you, but that is a fairly cut and dry example.

My suspicion is that there are times when people aren't arguing in bad faith, but there has instead been a miscommunication.

In addition, the longer a thread gets, the less likely that it remains coherent. Several posters are going off on tangents and then people reply to the tangents without making it clear that they are doing so, which in turn causes another person to think they're commenting on the original topic of the thread.

Rinse/repeat.

Thankfully, a fair number of offenders will quote the text they are misrepresenting, which is helpful.


Well, I'm not going to quote anything because that would put somebody on the spot, but I will put a simple example down.

Me: "Apples are great and full of fiber. Best not to eat too many in a day though, because of the sugar content."

Other: "Why do you hate apples!?"

See how the reply doesn't really deal with the content of the opening comment? That's arguing in bad faith.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

One of the big differences between posters in a rules argument is exegesis vs Eisegesis.

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. ie, reading into the text

Exegesis is getting a reading out of the text.

Many posters consider exegesis of the rules in order to read it in a more advantageous manner and are confused by the more RAI methods of eisegesis.

I think I fixed that for you. You repeated the same term in the last paragraph.

Yeah, I can see that. I think I have trouble with reading into the text because I don't trust myself enough. I really am not super interested in introducing my biases. I already know what they are. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

@Kobold - lol

@ Badbird - exactly

The sad thing is that most people don't realize that, if you argue in bad faith, your not actually arguing at all and essentially handing the argument to the opponent.

And yet people argue in bad faith all the time and often do quite well by it.

People disguise their real motives and their real opinions in order to achieve things they couldn't if they were honest about their motives.
In many cases figuring out what nastiness is behind a person's apparently pleasant words is a social survival skill.

Even in internet debate on gaming boards, some people really are just trolling. Past a certain point, interpreting what they say in the best possible light is just adding to the train wreck.

I dont know how missrepresenting an argument could get at a real motive honestly. I just dont know how that would work objectively. Your just leading a conversation astray if one party or the other too badly distorts the message. At least, if the end is to achieve something through discourse, then it serves both parties to argue in good faith. That is probably the most accurate way to say it.

There is a difference between "missrepresenting an argument" and not representing "your opponent's position in the best possible light".

As I said, "the best possible light" might be as much of a distortion as anything. You want to respond to your opponent's actual meaning, not a rosy version of it.
To the extent that the other person is arguing in good faith, you're certainly right. It's when the other person is not, when they're arguing emotionally or otherwise manipulating the discussion, then bending over backwards to put their argument in the best light just plays into their hands.

Maybe, I don't know. I would assume that if someone is manipulating the conversation with arguments from ethos, then the best possible light would be to take it that way because there really isn't a lot of ways to do otherwise.

Edit for clarity: I think that an argument that rests on nothing substantial like reasonable premises, even when taken the best way, can be discarded. So, from my perspective, there is no issue with using good faith because good faith won't fix a non argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

@Kobold - lol

@ Badbird - exactly

The sad thing is that most people don't realize that, if you argue in bad faith, your not actually arguing at all and essentially handing the argument to the opponent.

And yet people argue in bad faith all the time and often do quite well by it.

People disguise their real motives and their real opinions in order to achieve things they couldn't if they were honest about their motives.
In many cases figuring out what nastiness is behind a person's apparently pleasant words is a social survival skill.

Even in internet debate on gaming boards, some people really are just trolling. Past a certain point, interpreting what they say in the best possible light is just adding to the train wreck.

I dont know how missrepresenting an argument could get at a real motive honestly. I just dont know how that would work objectively. Your just leading a conversation astray if one party or the other too badly distorts the message. At least, if the end is to achieve something through discourse, then it serves both parties to argue in good faith. That is probably the most accurate way to say it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Kobold - lol
@ Badbird - exactly

The sad thing is that most people don't realize that, if you argue in bad faith, your not actually arguing at all and essentially handing the argument to the opponent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marvin Ghey wrote:

Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.

Does Unchained help matters any? I've heard people rave about the rogue especially in that book, but I never have picked it up.

You can work anything out through discourse, but if you need large quantities of the rare metal handwavium, then why have rules at all?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:


Arguing from bad faith.

Honestly do not know what you mean by that or are getting at.

i sated how i read his post so that if i did misinterpret what he said i want him to correct me.

either add something to the discussion or don't comment.

The first paragraph of your last post is preposterous on its face. Literally no one on these forums would come to that conclusion because to get there, you have to know nothing about the games mechanics.

You can't missenterpret on that scale by accident. Therefore, your arguing in bad faith.

Quite the opposite, i got there quite logically, He said non-spell DPR i took that to mean the wizard is casting no spells at all to increase or deal damage. i stated what i thought he meant clearly and voiced my thoughts on the matter, when presented with an alternative to what he said i then also voiced my thoughts on that matter.

When you argue in good faith, you interpret arguments in the best possible light. You already know that a wizard can't fight in melee without using spells. If you are arguing in good faith, then you discard that interpretation and move to the actual argument being made.

Just trying to keep the rhetoric on track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:


Arguing from bad faith.

Honestly do not know what you mean by that or are getting at.

i sated how i read his post so that if i did misinterpret what he said i want him to correct me.

either add something to the discussion or don't comment.

The first paragraph of your last post is preposterous on its face. Literally no one on these forums would come to that conclusion because to get there, you have to know nothing about the games mechanics.

You can't missenterpret on that scale by accident. Therefore, your arguing in bad faith.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't. The fighter has a few skills and hits things. That's it, from lv1 to lv20, those are the fighter's options. The wizard can do both of those at all levels as well. And if you're wanting to compare pure DPR, my money is that a wizard built to do non-spell DPR would beat the fighter at it as well.

Correct me if im wrong but are you trying to tell me you believe a sword wielding wizard not using spells is going to out DPR a sword wielding fighter.

While i disagree with you on the fundamental level of that statement i will agree and said this in my last post, the wizard does out match the fighter in almost every way, but the fighter will still be able to do things the wizard can not. For instance, pit a fighter and a wizard against a golem, the fighter has a significantly easier time fighting the golem.

The fighter also can continue to fight at full capacity well after the wizard has cast all his spells. the wizard is only as powerful as his spell list is prepared to be, and after a dozen or so spells, 12 rounds or 2 minutes of casting, the wizard is significantly weaker and has less options to accomplish his goal while a fighter can keep going at full strength for 8 hours without issue, that's 4,800 rounds, the wizard would run out of spells well before that if casting spells every round, he would have about 45-50 spells in total which the vast majority of them being level 1-4 spells which at high levels are almost useless in combat situations

Arguing from bad faith.

1 to 50 of 1,864 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.