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

Zombieneighbours's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 9 Season Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,025 posts (4,102 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,025 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Marathon Voter Season 9

I'll take a critique on the Hungry Ghost Incense.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Hungry Ghost Incense
Aura faint abjuration and conjuration; CL 3rd
Slot none; Price 150 gp; Weight —.
Description
This light grey stick of incense smells faintly like rotting flesh. When lit, it burns away rapidly, creating smoke that fills a 10-foot cube (treat the effect as a fog cloud spell, except that a moderate or stronger wind dissipates the smoke in 1 round, and it does not obscure vision or provide any form of concealment). The stick is consumed after 1 round, and the smoke dissipates naturally after 1 minute.

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.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, protection from evil, fog cloud; Cost 75 gp


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My latest dungeon map. I am currently working on a poster map version at 300dpi.

Marathon Voter Season 9

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Kellogg wrote:
Isaac V wrote:
Did anyone notice that the site didn't go down at any point? This was a triumph!
I'm making a note here: "huge success".

It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Congrats guys.


thejeff wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
I really do just enjoy going full Don Quixote on people like ThaX. It is why I am working form the ground up. i want to identify where his line of reasoning breaks.

I'm not sure there's any "line of reasoning" involved. That old saw about not being able to reason people out of opinions they didn't reason themselves into.

More relevantly, you won't succeed, because he's not engaging. He's just dropping in to spout another set of talking points. He hasn't been replying to counterarguments or responding to evidence against posts.

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 ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really do just enjoy going full Don Quixote on people like ThaX. It is why I am working form the ground up. i want to identify where his line of reasoning breaks.


Yes, i should have mention that. Even if it couldn't act as a plot block for the scenario, having the players risk the jump, is still desirable, because awesome is something we want at out table.


the secret fire wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

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.

You are quite right. Things that NEED TO HAPPEN in order to advance the plot should not be resolved by dice rolling. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a good DM should never throw the dice (or ask for the dice to be thrown) unless he is prepared to deal with the consequences of what the dice have to say, for better or worse.

The only ways I know of to avoid artificial dice rolling are:

1) Make things that must happen automatic (ie. the airship is docked when the PCs arrive or somesuch, and getting onboard is a snap)

or

2) Don't GM in a way in which any particular thing must happen in order for the game (but not necessarily the "plot", as this in some ways precludes plot-based GMing) to go on.

#1 of the above is obviously by far the easier solution of the two, but I would submit that #2 is more noble, and the sign of a better GM. I do not always live up to this standard, myself, but I try.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Arguing with a conspiracy nut is provably LESS effective than arguing with a wall. The wall might at least form a coherent response, if you're lucky.

Why are you still doing this to yourselves?

Because I gain some mild amusement from it?


Snowblind wrote:


Can't you handle this by making tweaks to the encounters to get what you want.

To a fairly high degree, yes you can.

But you have to remember that such tweaks are often

Snowblind wrote:


The airship shouldn't be too bad as written, given that Climb DCs aren't that bad for anyone who didn't dump Str and has a point+class skill bonus. Even one of them makes it risky, but worth considering. The characters who don't have either probably can play "lets bypass the encounter gimmick entirely" with Spiderclimb or Fly anyway. Acrobatics is a little trickier, but 14 dex + a couple of points in acrobatics + class skill bonus should be enough to make 10ft jumps from rigging to rigging. This encounter only becomes a problem if you tried to make a pulpy cinematic scene with PCs that are not orientated in the slightest towards being able to perform pulpy cinematic scenes (and thus have characters that are completely unsuited to the encounter's gimmick and can't use it effectively).

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.

Snowblind wrote:


Then the issue isn't consistent rulings but the fact that you are trying to stick Reagar the bookish Tower Elf wizard in a swashbuckling adventure. Hand waving it and letting Reagar and his puny 7 Str untrained ass bounce from rigging to rigging is ignoring what Reagar is - a Bookish wizard who isn't able to swing around like a Roguish type who maxed all the movement related skills.

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.

- a huge number of cartography hobbyists (myself included). Perhaps most notably Dyson Logos.

- Oh so many zines and blogs, many of which contain really cool and useful stuff.


ThaX, lets try this again. Do you accept that co2 is opaque to infrared radiation?


Wrath wrote:

Science costs money.

To get money, scientists have to lobby for cash.

Those who pay the cash have a vested interest in the results.

All of those are enough to justify any doubt in any scientific study on its own.

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...

Wrath wrote:


That's why studies need to be done by many folks from many sources. The trouble with this issue is that there are many studies, but the sources for the funding are surprisingly limited.

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.


Also, not one of those articles provides evidence that the people it is talking about are saying no to investment in nuclear energy.


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.


Sissyl wrote:

So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.

But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?

And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?

When you say these guy to describe environmentalism as a whole, your engaging in an "Affirming the consequent" fallacy.

You are ineffect saying:
1. People who believe in global scale, geo-engineering are environmentalists.
2. Bob is an environmentalist.
3.Therefore; bob believes in global scale, geo-engineering.


Sissyl wrote:

So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?

Get over yourself.

Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.

Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?

It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".

Primitive reasoning.

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.


Caineach wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?

Get over yourself.

Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.

Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?

It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".

Primitive reasoning.

Personally, I have never heard any of these things advocated by any environmental lobby, other than opposition to nuclear.

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.


Sissyl wrote:

So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.

But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?

And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?

[CitationNeeded]

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.

Marathon Voter Season 9

The reason for the delay, is that paizo has been caught up in Operation: Ice Pick.


Caineach wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.
The extent to which this last bit is true, is very hard to over state.
A friend of mine worked for the Green party doing canvasing. He said that at least half the people there supported nuclear power, but because they wanted to actually accomplish something and needed to present a unified front to get anything at all, as a whole they advertised as anti-nuclear. The division was very strongly linked to whether people had a background in a technical field or not.

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:
Sissyl wrote:
This calculation looks a lot like the completely correct claim that solar power could give us ALL the energy we could ever need. Oh, yes. All we would have to do is build a Dyson sphere to catch it all.

That's a substantial exaggeration.

Ecoworld.com wrote:
In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.

12.2 terawatts-hours per year per square mile. So a patch of ground 120 miles by 120 miles would, if paved in solar panels, cover human energy consumption.

Impractical? Perhaps, but nowhere near Dyson sphere levels.

Micro generation also reduces our overall usage, because you cut down the amount of waste through long distance transmission.


thejeff wrote:
Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.

The extent to which this last bit is true, is very hard to over state.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Having said that, I intended that post to be conceding the point - I didn't really understand what you meant initially, but agree that consistency across sessions of the same campaign is desirable, even if it wouldn't bother me if it lapsed.
Okay, that makes sense, even if it isn't my cup of tea. Being 100% consistent isn't really feasible, naturally, as we're all human.

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.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Adam Daigle wrote:

Right now, don't sweat the technical aspects. I hate to say it, but many of the people worrying about it right now won't have to. For now, folks should, if they want to get ahead of the game, be thinking about cool encounter maps, making a bunch of sketches, and coming up with ideas. Make sure your idea is exciting, clear, and hopefully unique. Those elements have been the strongest criteria for previous map rounds.

If you make it into the top 32+alts, then you need to start worrying about DPI and whatnot. (And I'm sure you can get a lot of advice once that happens. Those technical changes are super fast... clever ideas take much longer.)

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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
This pretty much sums up my feelings on old school
I feel the need to offer this counterpoint every time I see this linked.

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.


Gaberlunzie wrote:

Climate denier lawyer who's been hassling scientists was on Alpha coal company's payroll together with various right-wing think-tanks.

Surprised?

Not even a little bit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on old school

It is definately an asethetic and a play style.


thaX do you accept that co2 is opaque to infrared radiation?


Casual Viking wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Leading townspeople to repair a dam IS a solution. I can't think of a reason it isn't.
Think harder, then. I even pointed out one of the relevant spells by name.

No, those are ALSO solutions. One does not preclude the other from being.

Casual Viking wrote:


How many man-days of work does it take to replicate "This spell creates a wall of rock that merges into adjoining rock surfaces. A wall of stone is 2 inches thick and composed of up to nine 5-foot squares"?

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:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

This is simply not true.

Without having to give it any serious thought, I can list other things they [fighters] are able to do.

-They can hold choke points fairly well.
-crit fishing for debuffs.
-use environmental elements as weapons, such as using strength to push a wall onto the enemy.

"Use environmental effects as a weapon". They have precisely zero class abilities to do this. That means when you're pushing that wall down on your enemies, you're either:

*Doing something not very effective, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.
*Being allowed to do something effective, out of GM pity, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.
*Pushing a button the GM put in the scene beforehand for any of the PCs to push. It's a good thing you are the one to do it, because it seems like you've got nothing useful to contribute.

A fighting caster can hold the chokepoint almost as well (low levels) or a lot better (medium levels) or "what are chokepoints?" (high level).

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."

So the fighter is as useful as a Summon Monster spell...

And heck, the fighter is not even good at that..

Wizard: Ok BSF,,, i mean... bill go block off the chokehold

Fighter: SURE!!!

DM: fighter make a will save....

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:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

This is simply not true.

Without having to give it any serious thought, I can list other things they [fighters] are able to do.

-They can hold choke points fairly well.
-crit fishing for debuffs.
-use environmental elements as weapons, such as using strength to push a wall onto the enemy.

"Use environmental effects as a weapon". They have precisely zero class abilities to do this. That means when you're pushing that wall down on your enemies, you're either:

*Doing something not very effective, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.
*Being allowed to do something effective, out of GM pity, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.
*Pushing a button the GM put in the scene beforehand for any of the PCs to push. It's a good thing you are the one to do it, because it seems like you've got nothing useful to contribute.

A fighting caster can hold the chokepoint almost as well (low levels) or a lot better (medium levels) or "what are chokepoints?" (high level).

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:

I don't think the problem with concepts in 3.P is so much false choice as it is forced choice.

By that I mean, I have NEVER seen a character with the Alertness feat. Even when the only book allowed is CRB.
I have also not seen a dwarf in a charisma-heavy class, an elf in a strength-centered build, someone (other than me) take ranks in Profession (without backgrounds) etc.

What I have seen is people taking Power Attack/Deadly Aim, building elven archers/duelists/mages, dwarven priests/barbarians/monks, pumping Perception whenever they can (me too, of course), etc.

And do you know why they do this?

Because, whether a concept is fun or not doesn't fit into the math of 3.P.

Monsters will not suddenly become less of a threat because you thought it would be cool to take every "trap" feat, build a merchant character, or play a pure sword and board fighter.

Mind you, this hasn't stopped some folks from making fun and/or memorable characters. But they certainly built solely to the strengths of the class they played and deviated very little because they are forced, via the math, into certain builds.

I mean, the whole reason for the "sky blue" guides is because those are what works well in defeating the mathematical challenges presented in the system.

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.


"jumping of buildings".

You know climb above, jump down onto, or horizontal jump distance.


el cuervo wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:

** spoiler omitted **...

one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.
At level 18, surely someone in the party can grant the brawler the ability to fly?

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.


Rhedyn wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.

From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.

Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.

I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.

Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.

So do you feel able to play every character concept that you can possibly come up with, with those groups?

I find Pathfinder not groups limiting. The gm should be able to throw apl+2 encounters at the party without everyone dieing. It's not the GMs fault if someone's basket weaver peasant is a worthless adventurer

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

If you priorities optimisation greatly over other decision making aspects, the game does exhibit this quality.

The situation is a result of a play style, not an innate truth of the system.

only for the bad classes.

Every fullcaster is bursting with valid builds.

Some half casters are very diverse like hunters, bards, investigators, alchemists, etc. The occult classes have plenty of build diversity.

The bad classes lack diversity. Witch is the exception, people tend to play her for her unique mechanics but they really don't have too to contribute to the party meaningfully.

Not sure their is a single class in PF that can honestly be said to lack diversity.

Could you give an example of a class that you believe does?

Fighters have very few builds that actually work. One or two at the most and they still shouldn't be playing with tier one classes.

Barbarians have one true build with two variants. Magi have two builds. Chained monks have 2-3 builds depending on who you ask.

Chained rogues are bad. No build is vaible. Unchained rogues do far better but will still have three builds.

Warpriest is pretty cookie cutter.

All archers have a severe feat tax problem.

Post errata swashbucklers have one build.

Now if you think slight skill point changes or a different feat or two counts as a different build then no classes fit that, but when it comes to general builds many classes are limited.

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.


Snowblind wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.

From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.

Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.

I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.

Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.

To add to why using the term "power gamer" as an pejorative term upsets people, it basically comes of as you saying that those who enjoy the mechanical aspect of the game are having badwrongfun and are terrible people when at the table because of it. Shockingly enough, that sort of attitude isn't exactly going to make friends. I don't know if you actually have that attitude, but it's sure how your posts read.

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.


BigDTBone wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.

From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.

Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.

I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.

Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.

So do you feel able to play every character concept that you can possibly come up with, with those groups?


This is simply not true.

Without having to give it any serious thought, I can list other things they are able to do.

-They can hold choke points fairly well.
-crit fishing for debuffs.
-use environmental elements as weapons, such as using strength to push a wall onto the enemy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.

From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

For instance:

- 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.

Marathon Voter Season 9

Yes!!!! Still in!

Marathon Voter Season 9

Wow...72dpi...that is a very low resolution map. Looks like my work so far is totally obsolete given it is a 24x30 inch map at 300dpi.

Marathon Voter Season 9

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.

Edit:

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.

Marathon Voter Season 9

I also just realised that the map I had been working on, is almost certainly not appropreate. I had read encounter location as adventure location. As a result Ive done a small dungeon, rather than a location for a single encounter.

1 to 50 of 4,025 << 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.