|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Hungry Ghost Incense
The smoke prevents incorporeal undead from making physical contact with living creatures within the smoke. As a result, the natural weapon attacks of incorporeal undead to fail when targeted against living creatures within the smoke.
A. Did you not see the bit where I compared myself to Don Quixote ;)
B, I didn't say I wasn't being frustrated in my attempts ;)
the secret fire wrote:
As thejeff points out, within the post you are commenting on, I offer another approach, which is a variant of fail forwards.
You can also go with techniques like Three Clue Rule. It their are multiple paths to success, then failure and success, does not have to determine IF a PC is successful, but how they are successful.
To a fairly high degree, yes you can.
But you have to remember that such tweaks are often
I do not disagree with anything you have said here.
And consistency here is generally a good thing.
But the fact is, that failing that check is within the realms of possibility, and PCs falling to their death ten stories below is of limited utility to the game. As is the airship getting away without the PCs onboard, fighting the crew. This presents a problem.
Pulp stories do have characters who are less physically able. Their lack of physicality, doesn't stop them from attempting these things when the narrative puts them in that position.
What happens in such situations, is that the environment or another character saves them.
So if Reagar fails, their is good reason to, rather than calculate how far he would have made it, say "you leap out into the void, for a moment you are convince you will make it, and then the reality kicks in. You fall just short, impacting with and becoming entangled with the cargo netting hanging from the side of the airship. You do not fall to your death, but you do loose a 3rd of your hit points, and will need to free yourself and then climb on board."
That way you allow a fail forward, not punishing the player with character death for doing something awesome, and allowing progression.
In fairness, NGC, the old school movement is a really interesting area of modern games design. It is very closely linked with the DIY RPG movement. There is all sorts of stuff happening in that space:
- New games like white star, which hack early editions to allow planetary romance, space opera, and science fiction gaming.
- Oh so many zines and blogs, many of which contain really cool and useful stuff.
It is a good reason to be skeptical. But skepticism should really be your default anyway.
But it is certainly not enough to justify "any doubt in any scientific study".
It would not be enough to justify for instance, doubt the scientific position that the moon is made of rock and not cheese.
Why is that?
1. Because the position have been reached based on the work of lots of different peoples work all showing, if different ways, results that agree with the position.
2. While it is possible one scientist might fake his findings, as the size of a conspiracy grows, the chance that the conspiracy will leak information increases.
3. The work of these scientists have had their work check through the process of peer review, and both the people checking the work, and the journals to which it is being submitted stake their reputation on the strength of the study.
4. There are a great many other scientists out their who stand to personally gain by proving you wrong. A good way of getting that tasty tasty grant money is to show that someone else idea doesn't explain a thing, or that their their methodology is faulty.
And so on...
Which fortunately is rather how things work. Funding for Science as a whole, is funded by a wide range of sources.
What is true of science as a whole, is also true of climate science.
Funding comes from all sorts of sources, from charities and NGOs, to direct government funding of research, central funding of universities by government grant, funding by Quangos. There is also funding by industry and inter-governmental agencies.
Interestingly, the fossil fuel industry are responsible for a very great deal of funding of research. Some direct, and some through think tanks. This funding contributes to about 3% of climate science papers being contrarian.
However, recent work has begun to cast doubt on the quality of contrarian papers.
1. A pure science investigation which led the lead scientist to say "[t]he sunshade is no substitute for developing renewable energy, the only permanent solution. A similar massive level of technological innovation and financial investment could ensure that. But if the planet gets into an abrupt climate crisis that can only be fixed by cooling, it would be good to be ready with some shading solutions that have been worked out.", while geo-engineering journals have called such plans far fetched.
Ofcause, when you complain about the economic cost of such a project your entirely ignoring the fact that investment in a similarly vast, expensive and difficult high technology challenge is basis for a very high proportion of american economic growth in the post war years(Apollo), along side our ability to even have this discussion(DARPAnet, CERN, and Apollo). The economic gains from this kind of project would far outway the cost, as anyone familure with the economic legacy of the space race could tell you.
I have yet to find evidence of any major environmental group supporting the implimentation of such a system. In fact what i have found it BBC news reports citing opposition to a research project in atmospheric solar irradience shielding, by environmental groups.
2. Not being done by environmentalist, but by sky resorts doing it out of thier own pockets to remain in business.
3. Lone wing nut.
When you say these guy to describe environmentalism as a whole, your engaging in an "Affirming the consequent" fallacy.
You are ineffect saying:
It is an extra-ordinary claim. I won't accept it to be true on your say so, and I hope no-one else here will either.
If life it to short to be providing the evidence to support your claim (which I can entirely understand, honestly it isn't how I would want to spend my evening either), then don't do it. I don't think anyone will hold it against you.
But please don't get indignant with me for asking you to back up your claim.
I've nearly never heard such projects being discussed even by rabid anti-nuclear activists.
About the only place you see this stuff getting talked about with any kind of seriousness is in extropy circles, and there it has nothing to do with environmentalism.
I seriously doubt you will be able to provide one individual who is seriously advocating near term global scale geo-engineering efforts, and who are opposed to atomic energy, let alone provide a large enough sample to support the statement that this is the a representative view of the environmental lobbies's plans.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. It gets even worse when you start moving into subject such a genetic engineering and synthetic biology.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Micro generation also reduces our overall usage, because you cut down the amount of waste through long distance transmission.
I wouldn't want those two scenes in the same campaign, at least not with those kinds of attitudes.
What? That's like saying you don't like diehard!!!!1!!!1!!!111! You monster.
Joking aside, that is fine, but you can understand that if say a group playing an episodic campaign, where the feel of individual adventures might be fairly different, such a situation might be desirable.
Hell, for some groups it will be very happy if the rules work differently while the action is rising and during the climax of a single adventure's dramatic arc.
I have never been entirely convinced that consistency across sessions is always even desirable.
For instance, lets looks at falling and falling damage:
-On week one, the characters are fighting a tense skirmish, on a narrow path on a cliff face. Here you may want the emphasis to be on making sensible decisions about how to behave, based on the dangers of falling during the fighting.
-On week two, the characters are presented with a pulpy cinematic scene, with an enemy on an airship. It may well be desirable for the threat of falling to be reduced under these cicumstances, so they are willing to make a running jump onto the deck, or to jump onto the netting hanging from it.
Consistency means that they'll treat the risk of falling from the cliff as trivial, or might not risk the jump.
Adam Daigle wrote:
Some of this advice is good, some is more questionable. First off, sketching and getting together your ideas are a good way of spending time on prepping for round 2 if your a hopeful.
But worrying about the technical details is also important. Maps that depend on fine details to make sense, for instance, are going to be a poor choice if the image is low resolution.
I am not advocating the primere per say, and on almost everything, that isn't the subject of story games, the Justine Alexander is the man.
However, I do think that the primere is ver y useful in understanding the describes old school movement.
Casual Viking wrote:
No, those are ALSO solutions. One does not preclude the other from being.
Casual Viking wrote:
You and your wizard appear to have failed their Knowledge engineering check.
A couple of inchs of stone can be punched through with sledges in minutes. The stresses involved in a failing dam exceed that, by a significant amount, and also tend to be forces that attack strengths which the stone is even less able to take, such as shearing.
But lets assume that our 11th level wizard uses one of his most powerful spells in the day to help in the most effective way he can with it(of the top of my head, that would mean making a strut rather than a sheet) we are talking about something that the community, with leadership can do multiple of in an hour. The wizard substantially reduces his combat effectiveness doing it while the example fighter is still ready to go.
Edit: the more I think about it, about the only thing your example is any good for in this, is providing a temporary rest bite on a serious failure.
I suppose on a relatively small dam, it could be used to "weld" a single crack, but that assumes that the wizard knows the exact shape of the crack and that that crack is the only failure.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Sounds like the wizard and fighter are both pretty dumb in this instance, why isn't the fighter lifting the portcullis for the parties escape while the wizard and cleric engage that vampire that they seem to know if following them.
It would be even more awesome if the Fighter was able to contribute to the next part: Retrieving the tome of forbidden secrets from the house full of haunts and undead
Oh, s~@$ son! I appear to be be wrestling this clearly poisoned, floating knife that is trying to stab up the wizard, thank the gods the rogue is doing so well at picking the lock on that safe, while the cleric deals with the ghosts of the dead family that haunt this place.
Casual Viking wrote:
Or dealing with the dam that's threating to burst and flood the valley.
Well, thank god I and the rogue are members of this party, because frankly, without my knowledge of engineering and their gift of the gab, we never would have gathered the towns folk, and led them in repairing the dam. What were the wizard and the cleric doing you ask? Well they were lending they were desperately trying to research the weakness of Zarvan the terrible, before the next wave of his attack on the walls.
Casual Viking wrote:
Isn't it luck that this is a collaborative game, and that the fighter and the wizard are not in competition.
Isn't it awesome that you can play a fighter, and hold a choke point, and the wizard can say, "dude that it awesome, the way that your totally holding that narrow bridge against the oncoming horde while I use my turn to translate the runes on this magically sealed door, and the rogue counter snipes the hordes boss, and the cleric calls on his god's power to protect you from harm or give you strength."
While I'm here, those are an awful lot of strange names for "a DM rewarding imaginative, improvisation with an effective reward for an attribute test."
James Langley wrote:
This would be true, except that the encounters faced by the characters are decided by the DM. Not all encounters of the same APL are equal, while the same enounter may be more challanging for group A, and less challenging for group b.
At the right table, with the right encounters, everyone can play a sub-optimal combination of class and race, and the threats can be overcome.
el cuervo wrote:
Moreover, why isn't the brawler jumping of buildings, riding the creature to the ground with a thunderous storm of punches ;)
It was a weird arse, shadow monster. It had tenticles and a long reach, I remember that. Genuinely can't remember what it was called. It was hiding in the roof of the lift we were in.
The rest of the group where all hyper specialists, and as memory serves, they as a group had had an oversight that meant they were going to be pretty bad at killing it.
I was playing a bard, so I cast light on a coin, and threw it up through the hole. Because of what it was, it had to retreat from light, it had nowhere to go, and it's right up meant it took damage from light.
It wouldn't have occur to them, I don't think, to do that, because their focus was so on increasing DPR or getting the best crowd control spell, rather than, what interesting way can I defeat this encounter with the resources I have.
I don't need a high DPR in a game, because slicing the rope bridge, and riding it over the gorge, while half the bad guys fall their doom is just so much more fun.
And yet I can throw an APL+2 encounter at a party that the basket weaving peasant can beat that the equal level wizard can't.
The system has deep complexity, with a fairly high level of randomness added on top. The idea that what your describing is possible is just straight up wrong.
Let me put it this way. A while back I played in an encounter that would have wiped the party, of 5th level, highly optimised characters I was playing with.
I pulled the parties bum out of the fire.
I could have solo'ed that encounter with a level 1 commoner, with High dex, improved initative and a sunrod, and a two good rolls.
None of those classes lack diversity, in a non-heavily optimised game.
In fact, rogues have a huge range of possible builds in a low optimization game.
The mistake your making is assuming that because a class doesn't work well with your chosen style of play, that it is a bad class.
I understand why it does.
I avoid using it where ever I can.
I'd love an alternative term, because frankly, dancing around the term, while describing the sub-group of players to whom it applies, is kind boring.
So do you feel able to play every character concept that you can possibly come up with, with those groups?
False choices is a fallacy.
All choices are valid, but some forfil certain criteria's poorly.
A player may choose an option for one of may different reasons.
These loosely break down into three classes of priority.
-optimisation based: be it optimising for DPR, to reduce opponents efficacy, or to become better at non-combat encounters.
-concept based: decisions made to support a theme or concept of a character.
-fun based:Decisions based on other elements, such as ensuring a good social enviroment.
They are allin principle equally valid.
They can interact with each other in all sorts of interesting ways.
- I flat out consider wizard to be the best class in the game, but it doesn't matter how optimal it might be to play a wizard, if what I want to play in an upcoming game is a fighter, I am going to play a fighter.
-I might be totally sold on the idea of a needle throwing monk poisoner, but if the build is not going to make the assumed power level of the campaign, I may need to put it on hold, because I have agreed to that power-level.
-I might think that the spider themed druid I am building is amazing, but if I have an aracnophobe in the group, i'll probably not be playing them in this game.
and so on.
Oh, I am not dismissing it by any means. It is just not fit for this purpose, if I am understanding Owen's statements in this thread correctly.
It is hardly wasted work.I have a mapping patreon and a blog it can make good content for.
It just means that unless there is a clarification that says "no something along the lines of the crypt of the ever flame flip mat is totally fine, I am better of putting it on the back burner.