bugleyman's page

You want scandal? How about this?.

Because nothing says "freedom" quite like a government covertly assassinating its own citizens.

However, I think one of the few things 4e did right was the distinction between rituals and quick and dirty magic. It's almost like in the Dresden files, which makes it better suited for roleplaying.

I really liked the idea, but some of the implementation details didn't sit right. Like how a level 25 fighter was one feat away from being as good at rituals as a level 25 wizard was...

Is there a reason not to keep both options open? Spontaneous for those that like that, prepared for those that prefer that.

Add in some other classes that work more like the Warlock, spell points or some of the other suggestions.

OTOH, there's something to be said for magic working consistently. There aren't a lot of genres settings that have multiple magic systems.

I was going to say for simplicity's sake, but I"m not sure that's really the only (or even best) reason.

Part of the problem with Vancian casting is encounter balancing. The difficulty of an encounter can vary wildly based on whether that *one* particular spell has been prepared or not. I'm also not convinced that spells balanced against one another for Vancian purposes would remain so for spontaneous purposes. The entire sorcerer class in 3.0 seems kinda half-baked to me for this reason. Not only was there no clear conceptual niche for the class, but the balance was wonky -- almost as if the only reason it existed was to put arcane spells to better use.

As I wrote in the Pathfinder 2 thread, I think I would probably prefer spontaneous casting all around. It's just as dead simple as Vancian, but doesn't require the prep-work, or the weirdness around being able to cast a meteor swarm, but not a fireball. It seems to be the best match for most genre fiction without introducing spell points or similar. Keep zero level spells usable at will (maybe losing them if you have NO slots left), and go through and revise the spell lists with only spontaneous casters in mind. Drop extra time for metamagic. KISS. :)

Meh. Reads like another diatribe against D&D Next backsliding away from 4e by a 4e fan to me.

Maybe. But for me it has nothing to do with what 4E did or didn't do -- rather, the idea is that we should be open to whatever works best, because the essence of D&D isn't Vancian casting (or saving throws, or even hit points).

As for Vancian casting -- I think I would probably prefer spontaneous casting all around. It's just as dead simple as Vancian, but doesn't require the prep-work, or the weirdness around being able to cast a meteor swarm, but not a fireball. It seems to be the best match for most genre fiction without introducing spell points or similar. Keep zero level spells usable at will, and go through the spell lists with only spontaneous casters in mind. Drop extra time for metamagic. KISS. :)

bugleyman, you read this yet? Seems relevant to the topic.

I hadn't, but that is a great article -- thanks.

If you don’t care for Vancian casting there are a hundred other Fantasy RPG game systems out there which use spellpoints or mana or whatever. None of them come within 10% of D&D sales figures.

This bugs me for a couple of reasons.

First, your implied premise is that D&D's success was caused by Vancian casting. If you want your conclusion ("Vancian casting should be kept intact") to carry any weight, you must first demonstrate the validity of that premise. You have failed.

Second, you're suggesting that if someone doesn't share your affinity for Vancian casting, they should go find another game. Others have just as much right to express their opinion of the direction they'd like the game to take as you do. If that bothers you, perhaps you are the one that needs to go.

Probably should. I just keep wondering if I'm missing something.

You aren't. The person rolling the die doesn't matter. Any difference in probability comes from other 4E changes (spell design, etc.), which are beside the point.

How about we chalk this up to what it is -- a personl preference, rather than a meaningful probability difference -- and let it die?

This system also promotes a bit of "swinginess" in area-effect spells; since all the saves can be rolled separately (vs. a single attack roll vs. static defenses), there's no way for an NPC to roll a natural 20 and be pretty much assured of affecting the entire party (TPK City!), or for a player to roll a natural 1 and therefore automatically fail to meaningfully affect any of the 15 little monsters in the radius of his fireball.

It's been a while since I've played 4E, but I'm pretty sure you rolled to hit separately for each target.

As I mentioned on another thread, I've seen one GM who lays the dungeon map out flat and then covers it with a couple hundred black construction-paper circles. Then he brushes them aside to reveal parts of the map.

It's versatile, lets the players see parts of rooms if their light doesn't reach the far wall, and also re-covers and hides parts of the dungeon aftr the PCs move past them.

I saw that post and stole the idea, except that instead of construction paper I used thin black plastic sheets (taken from plastic Wal-Mart report folders @ $.59 a folder). All told, the material cost about eight bucks for more circles than I'll ever need at once, and the plastic is more durable.

Skills: Should remained essentially untouched. The skills system of 3.0 was it's crown jewel, and other than a little rewording to make perception, sense motive and stealth a little clearer, this should be nothing but a little tinkering.

I think I'd like to see just a little more consolidation. I'm not sure the knowledge/craft split is really worth keeping around, for example. Alternatively, all class should get 2 more skill points. :)

Also, while I appreciate the downsides and limitations of CAPTHCAs, I was surprised to learn that Paizo doesn't use them.

There should be law specifically forbidding repeating the same spam over and over...

Would it matter? I think an utter disregard for the law (and courtesy) is pretty much the hallmark of spammers.

What kills me is that some people, somewhere continue to reply to spam. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?! :P

FYI I've submitted BMIQ to the patent office. ;-)

We're drifting dangerous close to both irrelevance and edition warring, so I'm going to be very careful here.

IN MY OPINION, 4E's mechanics were a big improvement over 3.5/Pathfinder's. But I play Pathfinder in spite of this because of the support, the network, and the way WotC operated during the 4E run.

I would love to see pathfinder get a good streamlining. I would also love to see 5E come out and be very successful. Either of those outcomes would be preferable to the current situation, which (again, in my opinion) is a chronic case of Pathfinder rules bloat, as exemplified by the forthcoming Mythic rules.

YMMV.

Then your analogy makes even less sense, though it stays amusing.

Because that's what the study is claiming. They're not "completely redefining the trait being measured", they're using something known to correlate with the trait.

Abstract wrote:

Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence (g) and are considered elementary measures of cognition.

And they're doing so, I assume, because we have reaction studies from the Victorian period, but not worthwhile intelligence ones.

I deliberately picked a terrible analogy -- in fact, that was kinda the point. But my amazing BMIQ(tm) has allowed me to infer that you might be taking this more seriously than I am...

And if you can show that BMI correlates to intelligence, then it might be worth using it as a proxy for intelligence, since it's so much easier to measure. Without that, it's worthless of course.

I'd like to point out that I'm didn't say that BMI is a proxy for intelligence, or that it correclates. It is a direct measure. Fat = smart. What can I say? My reflexes suck.

No thanks. Look, D&D is the single most popular and longed lived RP game out there. It out sold avery other game by 10X. No other game even came close. And Vancian Spellcasting has been part of it always. Yes, there were experiments- The early Psionic's with points, the Warlock, etc. But neither was very popular (most outright banned psionic).

In indeed, other spellcasting systems were so popular- why hasn't Fantasy Hero or Runequest or any of a hundred other Fantasy RPGs' supplanted D&D?

We like Vancian spell casting.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be passing off correlation as causation. If you wanted to finish the argument you started, you'd have to demonstrate that D&D is successful specifically because of Vancian spellcasting.

Also, what's us with the "we"? If you've been authorized to speak on behalf of D&D players, I didn't get the memo.

Possible to convert a 3E campaign, yes. Not possible to convert HIS 3E campaign.

Ah...I missed that he was using "us" in the "our specific campaign" sense, rather than as "we D&D players."

So...completely redefining the trait being measured changes the outcome? You'd have to be less intelligent that the average Victorian for that to be surprising.

I'm going to release a study* in which BMI is used to measure intelligence. Hey look, I'm a genius! :P

* apology to studies everywhere.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the House voted on and even passed articles of impeachment, if they can get any traction with any of these charges. And not just the stupid ones. It's a political calculation. If they did hold such a vote, many Republicans who voted against it would face primary challengers attacking them for it. There's been so much energy invested in painting Obama as illegitimate, corrupt and un-American that a good chunk of the Base wouldn't accept anything else.

Exactly. Many people are far too invested in Obama being a train wreck of a president -- if not an out-right traitor -- that failing to vote for impeachment would essentially be a resignation.

If Obama left office tomorrow, I think his legacy would be a mixed bag, probably putting him somewhere in the forgettable middle of the pack as presidents go. Hell, he'd probably fare better than Carter simply for having gotten a 2nd term. To me he'd be most memorable for (1) being black, and (2) failing to live up to expectations (though in fairness, could anyone)?

The shift to 3e from 2e didn't allow us to be nearly as seamless, yet conversions from 2e to 3e worked reasonably well. We could't really even do that with 4e so there was no chance of taking the 20+ year old campaign and characters to the new system.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't agree with this last part. I'm pretty sure it was possible to convert a 3E campaign to a 4E one -- I know people that did it.

Please help me to understand this thread.

Our premise is, "the OP has exactly the game he wants. Paizo could also make a new game that other people would prefer -- one that the OP would be in no way obligated to switch to (except for some sort of neurological compulsion that could easily be cleared up with a session or two of therapy)."

The response is, "No! If I have the game I want, no one else is allowed to have theirs, if the same company produces it! (If a different company produces it I guess it's OK.)"

Help me. I'm at a loss.

From my point of view, it's a network thing. Ongoing support, a healthy organized play environment, and local player activity, etc.

Personally, I can scarcely imaging having "exactly" the game I want. Even if I thought the mechanics of Pathfinder were absolutely perfect, the Core Rulebook is in desperate need of a re-write.

In Lunar the most precious diamonds in the world...are dragon s*@@. The way dragon ecology has traditionally been would support this theory as well (the offical lore was that dragons - at least true dragons - can eat almost anything with their bodies being like powerful blast furnaces that can digest stuff).

Dragon crap? That's crazy. I swear some people will believe anything. ;-)

Wrong. Everyone knows diamonds are formed when Superman squeezes coal.

Duh.

I just realized I take exception to the title. CEOs don't earn 354 times more than the average worker -- they're just paid that. That's really the point.

Only when used in pairs...but then again, you are a goblin, after all. Also, since we're being pedantic, no one was "speaking." Oh hey, look -- quotation marks used correctly.

In hindsight, that was a bit of an overreaction. My bad.

Yeah just saw that Royal bank of Scotland after awarding there higher ups 100 million pound (Thats about $152,315,459.25) In bonuses 48 hours later firing 700 staff because there not making enough money. Tell me again how top brass arent getting overpaid?

Well it's not like the ~200k per person would have been enough to...oh wait.

No, that would be Jonathan Franklin. In case you didn't know, quotation marks (" ") indicate that somebody other than the writer is speaking.

Only when used in pairs...but then again, you are a goblin, after all. Also, since we're being pedantic, no one was "speaking." Oh hey, look -- quotation marks used correctly.

One amusing thing about the AP scandal. Back when the leak occured Republicans were screaming for an investigation. Now they're screaming about the investigation.

lol...so true.

The folks on Obama’s enemies list are not saying that, in fact they are not saying anything because most of them are dead.

Are you suggesting that Obama has been executing his political rivals?

CBS reports Cliff's Notes don't match exact text from books.

SCANDAL!

Nice try, but no.

There is a substantial difference between a summary and a quotation. And even an inaccurate summary would in fact be news.

On the bright side, if you want to enjoy baseless cries of scandal, there is plenty to go around...

Back to the original topic ...

If this is true, then things are already going south for the GOP.

That's just the liberal media closing ranks to protect a socialist. ;-)

So...no?

I didn't know you had to be convicted to be a criminal.

They are posing as apolitical social welfare groups.
They are completely political groups, defrauding the American people of tax dollars, not to mention throwing a wrench in the campaign finance process.

What's not to get?

No one said you had to be convicted to be a criminal, but as the person asserting someone's guilt, you have the burden of proof. That's how logic (and our courts) work.

So I ask again: Do you have any evidence?

bugleyman wrote:

Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?

Fraud.

Were the groups in question convicted of fraud? Or even charged?

Linkage?

Try this: Imagine groups applying for tax exempt status are more closely scrutinized if they contain the word "progressive." This additional level of scrutiny is based on someone's belief that "all progressives are the same" and are "up to no good." Even after the increased scrutiny, the groups are vindicated and granted the status requested. Yet the screening continues.

How is anyone OK with this?

Edit: Once again, this is coming from someone who thinks the typical member of the "tea party" is being played harder than an XBox.

Andrew R. wrote:

especially when the IRS has it in there own documents that the groups were targeted solely by conservative leaning names alone. Not the content. not the goals of the group. the names alone.

Again, if you're going to break the law and use the exact same name as everyone else breaking the law don't be surprised when you get caught.

If all it takes to flag your crime to the folks policing the situation to google your name you obviously didn't hide it well enough. They deserve to be caught for their stupidity, instead they got off scott free. They're whining because the cops even stopped them.

These groups were targeted based solely on name. That was Not Okay. Even after being subjected to an increased level of scrutiny, they were still deemed in compliance with the requirements and granted the status requested. Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?

Also, please don't make me agree with Andrew R again. I feel so...funky.

Hmm.

See, I had heard he was having his way with a bald eagle at the ground zero mosque.

That's what you get for trusting the liberal media.

It's kind of sad that of all the scandals "rocking" the Obama administration, one of them isn't the 100-f&+!ing-day hunger strike by a bunch of dudes who appear to have been, in my humble opinion, locked away for 11 years for no apparent reason

No kidding.

Though I suspect it would be too easy for that one to backfire on Congress.

Also, if we want another fact to debate the deep political, no one in the media knows where Obama was for 5 hours, during which the consulate was attacked.

I know where he was. Obama was coordinating the attack on the consulate while lounging in his golden bathtub (filled with the tears of True Americans(tm)) whilst plotting with the acting directory of the CIA to oppress Tea Party Patriots and with Eric Holder to target the AP. Shortly thereafter, he drove his solar-powered, tax-advantaged limo to Arlington and met up with his Muslim brothers to piss on the graves of U.S. Servicemen.

Of course.

The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.

Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.

In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)

The depth of mechanics in real life and fantasy are so innumerable that Paizo's attempts to quantify and enable all of it in a game is but a drop in comparison to the ocean of concepts out there. Even at the Height of 3.5 they never came close to providing satisfactory mechanics to cover every concept out there.

Just recently a friend of mine tried to make an air-bender in pathfinder and failed miserably at making it work or be effective.

Keep the splat books coming I say. If you don't like the rules don't use them. (Although don't say the summoner is OP, I will fight you! :P)

Have you considered -- and I don't mean this at all in a snarky way -- something like the Hero system? If want a rich, deep set of highly customizable mechanics that can model just about anything well, you might find Hero ideal.

Possibly, but possibly the result of a fullcaster with a pet like the eidolon could've been a real monster. Or it could feel tacked on like the anti-paladin's divine bond. Giving it a focus, rather than making it an archetype, makes it easier to handle sometimes. Archetypes certainly aren't the answer to everything. Even implementing archetypes runs into problems. They don't have support a class will, they sometimes remove things they don't have to and that means RAW they don't mix with others. Crowd control and armor proficiencies on Urban Barbarian for example. It could've just been a variant rage, but instead they made it incompatible with other archetypes by adding additional baggage.

Hmm...it seems like we're talking past each other. I'll try once more.

In my opinion, even a class-based system that strives for a high degree of mechanical differentiation among characters should avoid the introduction of conceptually redundant classes. Failing to do so undermines one of the chief benefits of being class-based in the first place.

Mechanics are rather important. They help breath life into a concept in play. For example the magus does a far better job of blending magic and swordplay than a fighter/wizard. The Eldritch Knight prestige doesn't do much to help the two combine beyond BAB. The magus however is capable of flying around the battlefield delivering touch spells through his blade and casting utility spells.

A cleric/fighter might do some casting, but most of it is going to be awful probably. He might do some fighting, but I'm not sure if it will be good at killing anything depending on how he goes about it. The Inquisitor on the other hand will do more skillmonkeying than that combo will ever do, has okay spellcasting, and has the power to buff himself and give himself a target in combat.

Mechanics are of importance. Concepts vary, and how you define them will vary, and the subject nature of these variables will change the view greatly. I say a cavalier is not a paladin, other people say a paladin is a cavalier. YMMV.

I guess part of my dislike is the number of mechanics Pathfinder employs to realize character concepts. Base classes. Archetypes. Prestige classes. Feats. Alternative class features. Combat styles. Even if one digs a wide variety of mechanics (which I happen not to), there has to be a cleaner way to do it.

Again, in my opinion a game should have enough mechanics to do a job, but not more. For me, APG's base classes feel into the "more."

...I do think "buffer with a pet" was still a concept that's different...

Conceded. Although I would have preferred that niche to be handled in some other way. Paizo seems found of Archetypes...I think a wizard archetype could have done the trick (though again, not with the mechanical detail of the summoner).

On top of that (and this is purely an opinionative* difference) I find that the mechanics are what make the game fun. The game itself not the time spent playing it and yadda yadda. So having fresh and new class features and such are going to be more fun than using the same old thing for everything.

Oh, I completely get that. Some (most?) people seem to dig differentiation by new mechanics. I tend not to, but either way, that's a matter of opinion.

My response was intended to reflect my preferences, not as an unassailable bastion of absolute truth.

Yes, because conjurer wizards get a pet. Cavaliers certainly don't have an order, scaling mount, or class features to boost their teamwork feats. Wizards/sorcs get hexes right? Fighter/Cleric is viable and has a ton of skill points and wisdom synergy. Oh and class features.

You can argue by giving choices to these classes you took them away from the others, but don't argue that the classes that already exist can do the same thing. Its hard to replicate Magus's Spell strike/combat with any other class(if at all.) similarly inquisitor has 6+ skill points and does much skillmonkeying around.

You're confusing mechanical distinction for conceptual distinction.

I would prefer conceptually distinct classes with flexible mechanics to maximize the niches that can be well covered -- again, something like D20 modern. But we're getting beyond the scope of the original question. Someone asked, I answered. No one's honor requires defending. ;-)

Edit: I also thought True20's adept-expert-warrior split was inspired.

I disagree that the game has too many mechanics.

Ok. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

Conceptually, every class except Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue are redundant. They can fill every role you could care to make up.

Excellent point. I'm not a fan of classes like the barbarian, either. But this thread is specifically about the APG classes, so I commented on those.

But mechanics are important.

Agree

Having to muscle the same 4 classes into every possible unique role is going to get old very quickly.

Disagree. Or at least, disagree that an ever-expanding suite of classes is the answer. One of the strengths of a class-based design is the conceptual distinctness filled by each class. I'm sure I could have a unique, mechanically interesting left-handed, red-headed, glave fighter class...but why?