|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
...in that order, unless you already have plenty of character type minis, then Bestiary 2 Box comes second.
Alternatively, if you don't really care about having exactly the correct pawn, consider two copies of the Bestiary Box. Between them you should have decent proxies for just about anything. I also suggest converting some of the duplicates of lesser-used huge monsters into huge elementals, as those come up often (and -- puzzlingly -- are not included).
And if science IS such a good tool for figuring out things...
We've made more progress in understanding the world in the 400 years since Galileo than in the 40,000 years before before him (granted, Galileo as the father of the scientific method could be debated, but if anything, the advent of the scientific method is even more recent than 400 years).
So yeah, science is useful for "figuring out things." :P
Except for the fact that the people with the most disposable money are those with a vested interest in disproving global warming, and the only people they can find to publish refutations also worked on tobacco studies for cigarette companies.
Now that is what I'd call an inconvenient truth. ;-)
For goodness sake, it's not like the initiative rules stand up to the level of scrutiny being employed here anyway.
The rules state that:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).
Fair enough. However, note that "initiative count" is not defined.
Next, regarding ties:
If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first).
Great! Not that nothing is said about changing the actual initiative check result; only the order of action is specified. And again, nothing about "initiative count."
Now look at effects ongoing effects:
When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.
What is an "initiative count?"
Is it a synonym for "initiative check result?" If so, then multiple people can go on the same initiative count (because ties do not result in changing the initiative check result). So if you have two combatants with the same check result, but with different initiative modifiers, they go on the same count in order of initiative modifier. Imagine a monk (initiative check 20, modifier 5) goes after an enemy bard (initiative check 20, modifier 6) and stuns him for 1 round, by the RAW the stun ends "just before" initiative count 20 in the next round, meaning the bard recovers before his turn and suffers no ill effects from the stun.
On the other hand, if initiative count isn't a synonym for "initiative check result," what is it? How does it work? The rules don't say.
TLDR; If you try to treat the rules of a game like a legal contract, you're asking for trouble.
So to be clear, then, you don't think that:
* Rogue 1 moves up and readies for the flank
...is against the rules, correct?
Just want to be sure we're on the same page. :)
"When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions."
A strict reading of that sentence precludes any use of the ready action. As the ready action exists, I think we can reasonably infer that that wasn't the intent.
Personally, if the monsters are clever and practiced at working together -- say, a group of rogues -- I'll have one move up and ready an attack until the target is flanked. Mindless skeletons, however, I won't.
In either case, I don't allow the readying creature a full attack; that seems obviously illegal. The readying alternative, however, is perfectly legal, and applying a label ("interleaving") doesn't make it any less so. Besides, doesn't this game have more than enough terminology already? :-)
That is some grade-A FUD.
bugleyman - Ceaser Slaad wasn't the one who started the left-wing / right-wing stuff. If you're going to call someone out, call out the correct person....captain yesterday.
Except opposition to transgender rights is clearly a right wing problem.
However, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness, at least for me. Maybe next time emotions will have cooled sufficiently to allow for rational discussion.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Ahem. The "right wing" has no problem with levity. We laugh at the "left wing" all the time. :-)
Because this thread wasn't contentious enough? :/
In the interest of getting back on track...yes, when I saw the picture of Caitlyn Jenner I immediately thought of Jessica Lange; in my opinion they look quite similar.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
And as every trans woman on the internet has been saying : Rachel Dolezal co-opting trans language and sympathy to try and justify her racist crap is incredibly transphobic.
I've literally paid no attention to anything the woman has said or written. I actually came up with the comparison on my own, and it honestly doesn't strike me as necessarily terribly different -- which is why I asked.
Consider the question withdrawn, and please accept my apology for any offense.
So, at the risk of going way, way off topic, I had a thought the other night that I'd be interested in hearing people's take on.
If we accept that someone's identify transcends the physical in the case of gender (transgender), should we also accept that someone's identify is transcends the physical in the case of race (transracial)?
Yes, I'm thinking of Rachel Dolezal.
I hadn't even considered that the folded-up size was wrong (duh!). I expect you're right; it's still 3x3, but folds to 9x13 instead of 8x10. But I hope not.
I'll just go on record as saying a 4x4 map that folded out to 32x40 -- but still folded down to 8x10 -- would have been much preferred. The smaller folded size is just too handy to give up. Heck, even one that was 4x3 and folded out to 32x30 would have been preferable to increasing the folded size (assuming that is what they did). 32x30 may not seem like much of an improvement over 30x24, but you'd might be surprised how many things would fit in the former, but not the latter (*cough* Blackros *cough*).
Can we please get official confirmation on the folded size?
Yes, because clearly heathens who play 5E should be banished. They couldn't possibly have interest in other Paizo products, or friends here, or anything like that.
Edit: And your post has garnered several favorites. Score another one for petty human tribalism. :-/
Sir Awesomesauce McSnazzlepants wrote:
I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive (by a number of years, in fact)! So YOU get off MY lawn, boy!
Bill Dunn wrote:
Yeah, sorry about that. Probably a low-grade personality disorder at work.
...though the wife might say it isn't so low-grade. ;)
Steve Geddes wrote:
The thing is, D&D is literally the only modern RPG that I can't get as some sort of e-book (I understand that this is the case with the Star Wars stuff as well, but being licensed, that's understandable). Further, WotC's stated reason for no electronic availability -- piracy -- is completely nonsensical to the point of being insulting. In fairness, I'm probably blowing the issue out of proportion, but I just have no patience left for dealing with Hasbro/WotC's shenanigans after watching them completely botch 4E (which I really liked). It probably also doesn't help that I feel like I've seen this show before, having watched the slow car accident that was the music industry's response to MP3s...
Steve Geddes wrote:
I've read (and run the beginning of) Lost Mine of Phandelver (not bad, but wholly inferior to, say, Burnt Offerings) and Hoard of the Dragon Queen (just terrible). I haven't read further, because I refuse to patronize a company which offers no eBook support in 2015. However, even if the (two?) adventures released since were great, there are still far too few.
5E would have been a wonderful opportunity to revive Dungeon (in PDF, of course), but for whatever reason they completely missed the boat. Frankly, some of their missteps have been so egregious that they strain credulity, especially after the 4E debacle; sometimes it feels like I'm watching the Keystone Cops of the RPG world. At first it was funny, but now it's just...sad. I wish they'd just sell D&D already, because they clearly see the RPG itself as the red-headed stepchild of the brand. :/
Stefan Hill wrote:
Whomever is making decisions like:
* PDFs are bad, mmmmkay?
Which I assume is WotC mgmt, but could be Hasbro.
In any event, I think the designers came up with a good product; I just think they're being hamstrung by very poor (and very obviously poor) management.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rather, the OP is discussing things like "No blacks or women in my fantasy, that's not historically accurate" and "No guns alongside my rapiers and nunchuks, that's not historically accurate."
Perhaps...then again, ignoring the implications of introducing things like guns can be jarring, and history is pretty much the best guide we have when it comes to the effects of new technology.
Guns replaced bows. They're smaller, easier to use, more convenient, etc. You could have a setting with semi-automatic firearms existing alongside bows, but you'd really need to explain why bows are still in common use. It's OK for the hero to use a bow; he's special. But if half the armies of the world use bows, and half use guns, you'd better have a really good explanation as to why that is the case. "Because fantasy" is going to rub some people the wrong way.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that verisimilitude matters, irrespective of genre.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
MUDs also have their own strengths and weaknesses. The specifics of that are not in dispute, but one of the key advantages of TTRPGs is that a human can judge the action, therefore any player can attempt any action he can imagine, and the DM can judge it. Games limited by computer programs can only allow the actions programmed into it.
Until we can program a judge, of course. ;-)
Stefan Hill wrote:
If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D...
I'm not aware of anyone who is suggesting they want to sink D&D; only that they may do so inadvertently.
If I had to bet, I'd guess that 5E will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them. Their management team certainly seems to be circa 1990 or so.
But the truth is that we'll never know how 5E would have gone under different circumstances, because it isn't possible to go back and test it. All I know right now is:
1. 5E seems to be successful so far; and
I've heard that such a separate character-building game did manifest in 2E in a more limited form, particularly towards the end of its run.
Quite possibly. I had moved on to other systems by that point. Ironically, I was mostly playing Hero -- pretty much the ultimate in build-a-character games -- which I preferred for it's internal consistency. Of course, at the time I still thought simulation was a thing; now I wouldn't touch Hero with a 10ft pole.
Just goes to show how tastes change, I guess.
I'd rather the game not be mechanically complex enough to necessitate a term. I certainly never heard of "builds" before 3E. What amounts to a separate character-building game simply doesn't appeal to me.