|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Why do you care about all day when all you need is on demand? All day powers are as effective as on demand powers if, and only if the situation that is applicable to said power is very frequent. Being able to breathe under water all the time is about as useful as having one water breathing spell prepared for the day.
If the code, the most restrictive rules element placed on a class, factored into the balance of the class, then why is the paladin not far and away the strongest class? It's not even in contention in its current form.
Chess Pwn wrote:
This is wrong. There's no provision within the rules for converting actions that countermands the restriction on the number of swift actions allowed in a turn.
What is the problem with free and swift actions being available again? Just want it to be made explicit why lay on hands and stuff shouldn't work. It's certainly not a balance issue. If anything, nauseated condition is now one of the more broken conditions to cause.
I guess we could try and see if we could create a caster that just causes this condition on everything.
The thing that makes me laugh while reading this and the other thread is that I have yet to read anything broken or even remotely worrisome about allowing free or swifts when nauseated.
A few references to supernatural abilities and lay on hands, which personally, I think makes perfect sense to use in this instance.
Still a storm in a tea cup.
If you want to be successful, show up with a thosand times the numbers and fight until the troops run out of ammo. Its bloody, but it works.
I must assume that, because you put the word magic in the front, it must be stronger than regular nausea then?
How about we just change 'Wizard' into 'You win at DnD'.
Yes and no. I guess if all those nineteen skills were applicable during the casting time, then yes it would be worth that for a few hours. I don't think that's likely mind.
BTW, I'm not saying the spell isn't too strong, I'm just pointing out that what you're saying is true on paper but rarely in practice.
The Raven Black wrote:
Just a question going back to an earlier part of the debate. If you can choose your acts freely even when turned into an Evil undead, how come that so many sentient undead are still Evil after all this time ? Or are undead mostly created from Evil mortals ?
I think the official paizo stance is "because".
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Saying that making a generalization is unfair is not a personal attack. Something to keep in mind for the future.
I love how people keep reiterating the rules as though the people who find them stupid somehow missed how they work. :/
My alignment gets changed to EVIL by magic. It changes my soul into some kind of something or other EVIL(twirls mustache)! We get it. It's still stupid and made for children's stories.
Wow, lots to read there.
Regarding intent; I want to at least explain why, for me, intent is not really important or even good to look at when talking about alignment.
The problem with intent is bias. Ultimately, your going to have people doing things that help many for selfish reasons and others who harm many for 'the greater good'. People don't think their actions are wrong by and large, but people do wrong all the time.
Also, look at all the claims of evil in this thread that don't actually fulfill the requirements of an evil action. Cultural bias is an issue as well. Look at the claims about cannibalism being evil. The only reason that was given was burial rights, as if not getting your body buried in a hole in the grounds constitutes evil.
It's just an argument waiting to destroy games that are meant to be fun.
The problem is that, if you say that intent is important, then what happens when you look at the majority of people who do evil. Most of them don't see themselves as evil, and no one is actually looking at their thoughts from moment to moment, so who decides when you are thinking evily?
Not to mention the whole thought police, lack of free will concern this keeps raising for me.
Yeah, that's kind of the down side to having your alignment shift dramatically with no internal motivator. I dunno, be Eeevil whilst twisting your mustache and take as many opportunities to monologue as possible? That probably makes as much sense as anything else.
I kind of think it's a trope you really only see in tongue in cheek style games because its pretty stupid if you look at it too hard.
Sure, I guess you could say that for full breath attacks that you can't avoid, but it seems like the description is pretty weak to me. I would certainly raise an eyebrow at the table that happened at.
The Sword wrote:
That hit point damage is an abstraction? Everyone knows that already. It doesn't alter the fact that characters are not bound by any sort of appreciable realism until someone gets something retconned because it bothers their delicate grognard sensibility's.
The Sword wrote:
Some dragons have mechanics that allow them to breathe on you after your in their mouth with no save. You can't tumble out if the way. It's like sticking your face in the sun.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, ask for clarification instead of talking about stuff that has nothing to do with what I said please.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
You can roleplay an automaton just as well as anything else I suppose.
A forced alignment shift without any causal link with the person in questions actual actions is a colossal misunderstanding of the ideas of good and evil. The fact that it's a legacy of the system is unfortunate, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to ignore the reality that it's pure nonsense.
The Raven Black wrote:
People point out logical contradictions in the raw. I don't know how that isn't clear by way of the posts thus far.
So the universe is deterministic. The DM is God for all intents and purposes, and players don't have the freedom to exert their Will. That's not for me man.
To be fair, I think our friend Mr Walsh is accustomed to telling people what they think.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand.If alignment is deterministic, then the freedom to exercise Will doesn't exist and alignment ceases to have any meaning whatever.
This isn't super complicated.
Also, if the thing that gets up isn't you, then it has no effect on your alignment.
As evil is a value judgment, you would really need to explain how and why all people who ever saw this circumstance (rising again after death) would automatically determine that this is evil without any other factors. Your instantly evil, how does that happen?
Does this mean that your alignment has nothing to do with you? I assume that those inclined towards evil would simply go about killing good people and raising them to be evil so that they would be sent to hell or whatever. You don't have control of your actions anymore, so I would guess your not sentient even if you can think... These are some of the problems I think about.
No will of your own or the freedom to exercise it. Lots of problems come out of alignment determining action.
I think, ultimately, that this discussion misses a huge issue that arises from objective alignment; that it's fundamentally impossible.
Evil is a value judgment. There is no way to make a value judgment objectively because applying value is subjective. There's no way around this as there is no God that can make a claim to objectivity in any of the published works that I'm aware of.
Basically, evil and good require subjective evaluation to mean anything.
Chess Pwn wrote:
but we have a rule that says all effective druid levels stack for animal companions. We also have a rule that stacks things don't stack unless they say they do. So we have an issue. Does effectively being something allow me to benefit as if I was that something.
What's the point in saying you're effectively something if it has no bearing on any mechanics that effect said thing? Seems like a pretty questionable rules issue to have.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Fundamentalists can be pleased? When did this happen? Maybe they just haven't figured out how to make it a sin yet.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Your teacher telling you something isn't an argument from authority, its an argument from expertise.
This could work if you compressed combat and skill feats so that combat and skill classes were not as badly impacted by the reduced number of feats available.
I would also take feats like power attached k and add them to the base combat mechanics rather than making them required feats.