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

1,754 posts (1,757 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,754 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Wow... That's awful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is a hurricane evil because it kills people? Is an earthquake?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wearing a pointy hat doesn't naturally lead to being able to summon Angel's, what's your point?


ALL DAY!

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.


HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.

Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.

The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.

Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.

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:
Trogdar wrote:
Why does this multiple spells a round nonsense keep popping up. The rules are very clear on the number of spells a round you can cast, so please refrain from muddying the water.
If you can convert a move action to a swift then you can do a quickened spell as a move. Thus getting you three spells in a round. Do you have a rule that limits this somehow assuming converting your move to a swift is allowed?

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.


Why does this multiple spells a round nonsense keep popping up. The rules are very clear on the number of spells a round you can cast, so please refrain from muddying the water.


Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.


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.


Meh, getting a reliable way to keep your hit points topped up covers one of a half dozen defences. If a pc is op because its very hard to take out in one specific way, then superstitious barbarians and paladins are super op.

Just to be explicit, I don't think it's op.


This is kind of neat. Fast healing is usually not worth pursuing for players.


Greater invisibility and fiery shuriken would be pretty impressive.


Berinor wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Berinor wrote:


Violent resistance pretty much always makes things worse before it sometimes makes them better.
Without getting political, I would point out that resistance is almost never successful without violence, the threat of violence, or severe economic consequences. While the success of movements if often attributed to the non-violent aspects, the truth is that those in power don't care about protest and resistance unless they are forced to. Often these things can be ugly because those in power, especially governments, usually have an edge, if not a monopoly on violence.
I'm not saying violent resistance can't be worthwhile. Just that poking the bear is a dangerous idea and you shouldn't do it unless you have a plan to deal with the angry bear.

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.


MeanMutton wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

You are the one going out of your way to make it silly. Your story was the definition of hyperbole.

You think it's silly. Which is fine.

I don't think it's silly. Mainly since i can still do all of those actions just at a slower pace than normal.

I've been nauseated a fair number of times over the course of my college life, and I can guarantee you, 100%, that opening your hand doesn't actually take any more effort or time than when you are in perfect health.
I'm willing to bet that you've never suffered the abstracted nauseated condition caused by magical spell or super-natural ability.

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'.


Is anyone really worried about the class most likely to save in the first place using a class feature with an option designed to deal with nausea?

I feel like this is kind of a storm in a tea cup.


MichaelCullen wrote:

A +10 bonus to a skill is generally considered to be worth 10,000 gold. (bonus squared times 100). This is the standard price for an item.

I count 19 Wisdom and Intelligence based skills (counting profession as one and craft as one but knowledges separately).

At level 15+ This spell is granting the whole party 190,000 gp worth of bonuses for 10 min/lvl.

(partially ninja'd by void eternal)

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.


How? Even if you change the actions available, you still can't cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kind of makes skill monkeys that don't have this spell look like a bad idea. :/


alexd1976 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
"CWheezy[/QUOTE wrote:

It provokes, so it kinda sucks, since dropping it is easier and more natural and doesn't provoke, so it's weird that we have a rule/FAQ that shows that we can slowly and deliberately and with conscious thought and effort bend over, reach down, and set our sword gently on the ground and then open our hand to let go of it, at peril to our health - but we cannot quickly and naturally open our hand and let it fall safely to the ground.

Either way we must open our hand to let go of it, but we're only allowed to let go of it after we make the decision to set it gently down, then bend over, reach down, set it on the ground, and FINALLY open our hand.

But no, we can't just skip all those early steps and open our hand where we are with less effort and less risk. That's somehow impossible.

Very, very counter-intuitive.

Perhaps, but it isn't a buff, it's a negative status effect.

Could be worse, you could have been KILLED when you failed that Fort save, at least the GM only hit you with something that caused Nausea.

It could be worse? That's really your argument?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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".


It's a good thing rules don't have to make sense.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of 3PP to begin with (quality control issues)
I think that's a bit unfair, though.

Well, I think you're an -----. Now we've both called each other names..... if you think that insulting me is going to make me start liking 3PP material in general, you're simply wrong. If anything, my opinion of 3PP material just went down a fraction from your comment.

I am indeed informed that there are some 3PP authors whose work compares well to Paizo's. One of the issues, though, is that the people who inform me of that rarely point to anything that I consider of comparable quality -- off-hand, I can only think of one third-party published product that's worth the cover price (the Way of the Wicked adventure path). A number of 3PP authors/publishers have contacted me and said "well, how about <X>?" --- and without naming names, I will say that literally nothing else suggested to me has made the cut. If you want to suggest a particular product, feel free to post or to PM me, but don't get your hopes up.

Part of the reason, I think, is that while Paizo's writers may not be any better than the top of the 3PP market, I think their editors are substantially better. (I don't know, does Paizo employ a full-time editorial staff? Most 3PP's don't and can't afford to. That might be part of the explanation.)

I also think you may overestimate the value of D20PFSRD.com. I don't see any support for Spheres of Power there, for example. And if it's there but buried, that doesn't really help me much -- free information that I can't find isn't really information.

So, that's a rather roundabout way of saying that I stand by my statement -- and if you (or the opening poster) think that telling a potential customer "you're being unfair" will make additional sales,.... think again.

Saying that making a generalization is unfair is not a personal attack. Something to keep in mind for the future.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think mindless creatures being evil undermines what evil actually is. It's like a cartoony caricature of itself.


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.


How is a personality evil? A person's thoughts don't cause evil, only their actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
The Sword wrote:

blackwaltz, so you are using the example of a fighter being very good at something to criticise a situation why it can't do something.

You need to have more imagination - the lucky Orc punches his fist through the creatures eye up to the arm and rips out its brain stem.

However unless the Orc has legs like a flea, gravity will stop him raising his feet an entire storey off the ground.

The fighter ducks and rolls from the blast of acid. HPs are an abstraction of taking the knocks and rolling with the punches as well as actual wounds. The point is that the fighter hasn't taken the breath weapon full on it scorched him but left him alive.

Just give the Orc magic boots and you can do your jumping. Or lure/force the wizard to 10'ft from the ground by taking cover or using a net/harpoon and then make the 5 ft jump into the air which is just as cool and heroic - but possible with a DC 20 check.

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.

You see the Dragon's breath begin to build up in the back of it's throat. You, thinking quickly, grab the creature's tongue and roll beneath it, letting the majority of the fire go over you. You are scorched, but alright.

(Sorry man, you won't win the descriptive argument the way you are trying it.)

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:

It's an abstraction Trogdar. As I said.

That said I would imagine most unsaved dragon breath plush Bite damage would either kill or bring most characters pretty close to death without magical protection.

I'm sure there will be other examples that push the boundaries but my essential point remains.

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:

blackwaltz, so you are using the example of a fighter being very good at something to criticise a situation why it can't do something.

You need to have more imagination - the lucky Orc punches his fist through the creatures eye up to the arm and rips out its brain stem.

However unless the Orc has legs like a flea, gravity will stop him raising his feet an entire storey off the ground.

The fighter ducks and rolls from the blast of acid. HPs are an abstraction of taking the knocks and rolling with the punches as well as actual wounds. The point is that the fighter hasn't taken the breath weapon full on it scorched him but left him alive.

Just give the Orc magic boots and you can do your jumping. Or lure/force the wizard to 10'ft from the ground by taking cover or using a net/harpoon and then make the 5 ft jump into the air which is just as cool and heroic - but possible with a DC 20 check.

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.


At this point, mechanically, forced alignment shift better models prejudice than good or evil.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Actually, I think the npc route is the only feasible one if alignment determines action. In fact, all players are essentially npc characters in this scenario.

What is roleplaying tossed out the window?

Alignment determines actions just as much as actions determine Alignment.

If your character is forced into a new alignment either by magical means or undeath why wouldn't their new alignment factor into how they act?

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.

Do you even understand what forced means?

Denying that a Mace of Blood changes a players actions is the same thing as denying any other rule that imposes a penalty upon a player.

Alignment gets changed. Deny it.

Fireball got you down. Deny it.

That sword hitting you. Just Deny it.

Wow this game sure got alot easier once i started saying no to forced effects upon my character.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Actually, I think the npc route is the only feasible one if alignment determines action. In fact, all players are essentially npc characters in this scenario.

What is roleplaying tossed out the window?

Alignment determines actions just as much as actions determine Alignment.

If your character is forced into a new alignment either by magical means or undeath why wouldn't their new alignment factor into how they act?

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I think the npc route is the only feasible one if alignment determines action. In fact, all players are essentially npc characters in this scenario.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

BTW, I love people using the RAW as gospels when they believe it strengthens their case and casually disregarding it when it does not. Such as the Bestiary entries on most undead saying that they are Evil.

I just cannot fathom how one can use part of the RAW to try and disprove another part of the RAW.

People point out logical contradictions in the raw. I don't know how that isn't clear by way of the posts thus far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Berinor wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.

Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.

No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.

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.

I think a lot of this confusion/disagreement comes from a difference in timing.

When I'm creating a character, my idea of what's important to that character determines what I assign as their alignment. This is true whether I'm making a PC or an NPC. Sometimes I want a certain alignment and sometimes I have a personality in mind and that dictates an alignment. After that, it's possible that at some point I'll decide the character's alignment doesn't match what's on their sheet. This could either be because I incorrectly assigned it from the beginning or their personality changed from what I was imagining before. It's possible this is just a shift in priorities or the character succumbed to temptation rather than resisting. But the only reason why alignment would prevent this kind of personality->alignment character from behaving a certain way is if (1) the character is aware of alignment as a concept and it's important to them or (2) there are other restrictions because of campaign rules like "don't be evil".

When I'm picking up a character that I don't have a preconceived personality for, alignment serves as a

...

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Calling those who disagree with you idiots does not help actually. But it is admittedly easier than trying to understand why they have this differing opinion

This is true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.

Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.

No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.

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.

C'mon, Trogdar! Don't be silly!

I mean... How would you know your own reasoning better than HWalsh?

To be fair, I think our friend Mr Walsh is accustomed to telling people what they think.


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

I think the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.

Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.

No. You don't have a better understanding of ethical systems. You simply disagree with the simple system that's been used since the 70's and want alignment gone entirely because, usually, you find your actions would be considered evil and that bothers you.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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 the reason a lot of us balk at alignment determining action rather than the reverse is because we have a better understanding of ethical systems.

Changing alignment without the context of personal agency is nonsensical. It's an idea that is as old as dirt, but its never been anything other than nonsense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Athiests, or rather, the athiests I know are generally talking about big g God when they say that they are certain that it doesn't exist.

As far as the op's question, I would think that Atheism is not an ideal or a god, which are the choices on offer regarding clerics.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Corbynsonn wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Corbynsonn wrote:

It's always fun to see the lads and lasses rush out to claim, in rotation, the old trope of Atheism not being a belief.

Whether it's a belief or not isn't really the issue. It's just a concept that gets rather sketchy when you ask questions like . "Who do you pray to in order to get spells each day?" What are you channeling the power of when you heal your comrades or scorch the undead?" And anyone who tries to bring up Thomas Covenant is going to get smacked with the Rolled Up Newspaper of Justice.

There's already precedent for Clerics receiving power from certain ideals, the lack of belief in godhood may not itself grant the Cleric power, but perhaps the Cleric would be granted said power from other groups interested in arguing against the existence of gods?

Isn't there also an Evil outsider group who hold that the gods are either inferior to themselves or downright not actual gods? Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to argue a Cleric receiving powers from those groups.

It's more of a rules precedent put in 3rd edition in a vain attempt to please Christian Fundamentalist mothers.. In actual game worlds like Greyhawk, Golarion,and the Realms, divine power still only is something granted by divine beings. And there certainly is no mandate from game related fiction.

And I don't quite understand how to parse your second paragraph, so I can't reply to it.

Fundamentalists can be pleased? When did this happen? Maybe they just haven't figured out how to make it a sin yet.


Well, given the rules weirdness around multi armed two weapon fighting and the hard limits on attacks based on 'metaphorical hands', I would guess it has something to do with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

You're free to play your games however you like, but the system you're playing isn't 5e and telling people how great 5e is while describing something totally different isn't honest or helpful (wallets are at stake here!). It's mind caulked together with 5e as the title, but you are not playing the game that's for sale.

EDIT: The limits on undead are how many spell slots you want to dedicate to it. I did say hundreds not infinite. And I said nothing about buffs, though that's another black mark against martials; casters are strongly encouraged not to waste their time making them stronger with spells anymore.

For reference, a 15th level necromancer, using only one cycle of 8 hours, can maintain 90 undead with their spell slots, and can have infinite captured undead from other sources due to Command Undead.

Have you had this happen in a game? Or are you just theorycrafting?
"Have you ever seen an iron ball and a wooden ball fall at the same speed when dropped from the same height? Or are you just theorycrafting?"
When I went through high school in Australia in the 1980s everybody did this experiment as part of science class. It is important to experience things for yourself and not just accept word from authority.

Your teacher telling you something isn't an argument from authority, its an argument from expertise.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^And with that, I would certainly be up for having base class abilities be available more a-la-carte. Think unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants and Masterminds. Awful lot of initial investment work, though.

Short of that, Mythic could work as a sort of very vague example of achievement/prestige-based advancement. Once you get beyond the vagueness, though, it really needs to be put together better than actual Mythic Rules, though -- even just looking at those things, I could see that they are broken, especially when comparing Mythic PC abilities to what the few examples of (even quite high level) Mythic monsters that I looked at (with the exceptions being built like PCs instead of traditional monsters).

Another idea I have been toying with is Prestige Feat Chains -- sort of like the existing Variant Multiclassing, but starting a bit later and preferably made more like the good examples of Variant Multiclassing (Fighter, Magus, Wizard) than the bad examples (Gunslinger, Monk, Witch).

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.

1 to 50 of 1,754 << 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.