meatrace's page

Basically title.

Benghazi isn't what the Republicans need it to be.

The IRS "scandal" isn't a big deal either; the IRS audited hundreds of groups with obvious political agendas, on both ends of the political spectrum. What's scandalous to me is that all the tea party groups investigated were cleared and given their c4 status.

If the Republicans really want to make a meaningful stand, and regain some (any) respect from the American people, they should be on this DOJ AP story.

This article was shared on my Facebook feed by Zombie Orpheus Entertainment. Take a moment and read it, I'll wait.

It's certainly interesting.

First off I'd like to say that I'm extremely happy to live in an age where, both through technological advances and sophisticated narrative, videogames are capable of eliciting such a visceral response, however negative.

Then I'd like to open this up to discussion. I'll post some questions and I won't attempt to answer them, in the interest of having an open discussion.

Have you ever been 'triggered' by a game?
How about a film or television show?
Given that a videogame elicited such an emotional response, and that art is meant to provoke such a response, can we call this game a work of art?
Are games art?

Is someone justified in feeling angry at/violated by a game or its developer due to a PTSD triggered reaction?
Is it okay for a game to intentionally provoke such a response if the aim of the narrative is to provide catharsis?
What if it doesn't?
Is evoking helplessness a valid goal of a work of art?
Why/why not?

Is there anything the industry can do to prevent such a response?
Should they?
Does warning players that a game may provoke an intense emotional response due to specific stimuli 'spoil' portions of the game?

I don't mean in the sci-fi way, like intelligent life, I mean in people. What qualities do we mean exactly when we say someone is intelligent?

For me it comes down to these things:
1)Curiosity. You have to want to learn, examine, and analyze things, be it numbers or organisms or a game.
2)Critical Thinking. You have to be willing to question everything, reassess your knowledge at every step, and adjust.
3)Memory. Having a broader knowledge base from which to draw and make conclusions. Also important for 4...
4)Understanding. Being able to see the logical connections between things you've learned.
5)Application. Being able to apply your understanding of an area of expertise to a problem. This might be simply writing a term paper in your own words, or being able teach someone else, to proposing a new gravitational model.

These are smart boards, and I'm sure this will get picked apart, so have at it. Is there something I left out? Does anyone have a radically different definition of what makes someone intelligent?

I'm fairly certain RAW, but wanted to gain consensus.

If an Oracle casts Spiritual Weapon does he/she get to add his/her Charisma bonus to the attack roll? The spell specifically states Wisdom modifier, but it was copypasta from 3.5 and not designed with Cha based divine casters in mind.

I imagine that, Rules As Written, it's definitely still Wisdom, since there's no proviso (as in other spells of this nature) to allow for other key ability modifiers.

However, I'm strongly inclined to allow the Charisma bonus swap since I don't find it the least bit overpowered and see its lack of inclusion as largely an oversight. Hopefully this thread will prompt an errata or FAQ.

What do you think?

In light of some wholly unnecessary grinchiness, I felt the need to start this thread.

Look, I know I probably make more enemies on these boards than friends, but I just want to say I <3 this community and being a part of it. You're all pretty awesome, in your own way.

From the bottom of my shriveled, blackened heart, I wish you all a merry whatever the crap you're celebrating, or nothing at all if you so choose. Enjoy whatever time you can with family and friends, and I hope you all good fortune in 2012.

I'm just curious.

Just for a bit of background:

I'm embarking on a semi-conversion of Ravenloft to PF rules for a campaign I intend to run next fall. I'll be running the Grand Conjunction modules with Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

I'll be converting most stuff on the fly, as it's something that comes rather easy to me. Other than it being something I want to run, I'm doing this to reciprocate for my DM of some 7 years now who did the same thing and brought Dark Sun back to life for his players, not once but twice.

We get about 2-2 1/2 hours of real play in every week, along with probably the same amount of shenanigans and tomfoolery. We tend to be very casual and not take the game too seriously, but nonetheless most of us have a solid mind towards optimization, thus it ends up being hack and slash. This will be the first time I'll run for this group of friends. Where we play is not particularly conducive to the ambiance of Ravenloft, but c'est la vie.

To lend some sense of danger or dread to the game, I won't award experience so no one feels they have to fight an encounter to progress in an adventure. Furthermore I'll keep track of hit points and simply describe the action, so at the very least the players fear for their characters lives.

I'm wondering if the Inquisitor class is just simply TOO good for a Ravenloft game. I fear it might dominate combat, roleplaying, and investigative challenges with its abilities. Any thoughts?

Also, any other advice about conversion or running Ravenloft, specifically in Pathfinder? Any other core class pitfalls I should avoid?

This has probably been asked and answered I just want to make sure I'm on the same page.

Ok, so I officially think it's dumb that you can't use 2H weapons with spell combat, even with spells with no somatic components.

Be that as it may, you CAN use 1H weapons. Is there anything keeping you from two-handing them to get extra str and PA damage once you've cast the spell?

It would seem Scimitar would be the best weapon for a Magus in this case, no?

I'm having a disagreement with my DM about the craft DCs and Caster Level requirements for Wondrous Items. I think I'm on the right, the side of the official FAQ and SKR's comments in a long thread from a little while back.

Where we disagree is that he believes the CL listed in a magic item's description is the hard-line, minimum level you need to be to create this item. I tried to point out where he was mistaken with the above cited sources, and he has come up with the following "compromise": the craft DC is still set by the CL listed at the top of the magic item, but if you don't meet that requirement the craft DC increases by 2 for every level you are short of it. Furthermore if you are more than 2 CLs from that "requirement" it is another +5 to the craft DC, so a 5th level wizard trying to craft a belt of strength +2 would have to roll against DC DC. No problem right? Oh but you can't take 10.

What do you think of these rules, and where might I find hard-fast evidence to the contrary if he won't accept the FAQ or developer's official answer as kosher? Was it ever stated by someone other than SKR in a thread how this is supposed to work?

Congratulations! This is now a class I would play.

So I've been playing in games run by this one fellow off and on for 8 years or so. I generally enjoy his style, but his "interpretation" of the rules has always been a point of frustration with him, eventually leading me to leave his game years ago. I'm playing with him DMing again, largely because of the rest of the group who are all close friends, and because he is running a published adventure (Shackled City) for once which he has said he'd never do, and I thought it would reign in his tendencies to not play by the rules.

We have had disagreements in the past in regards to the melee/caster divide (which I don't want this thread to devolve into btw) because he thinks casters are underpowered and melee are gods, and prefers to play casters. I took up the challenge of playing a caster in this game to show him just how absurdly powerful spells can be.

Every week so far he has made oddball rulings on the fly that flew in the face of my understanding of the rules. 1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap. Why nerf fun? It's a mild utility use of a friggin cantrip right? He says once you cast light on the coin it is a magic item and you can't use presto. Forgetting that there is no such provision in prestidigitation, that's Mage Hand, a coin with a spell on it is not a magic item. 2)Myself and a fighter had held actions to cast a spell/attack respectively a target that came into sight. I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously. 3)Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.

And last night, the big one, 4)he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic with the exception of one or two spells which would be indicated in the monster writeup. I suggested he was thinking of Golems, and even then that only countered spells that allowed spell resistance which Glitterdust does not. My Grease failed for the same reason. After trying to point out the rules he just gets sort of defensive if not angry.

This is sort of his way, he just gets defensive when you try to challenge him on the rules. I consider myself a bit of a rules lawyer, I'll admit, but equal opportunity. I'll point out that a spell doesn't do what my teammate thinks it does, remind them that they were stunned this round, or correct infractions in action economy. Which he doesn't seem to mind, but when his "interpretations" (I use the quotes because he is just flat, pulling stuff out of his backside, wrong on some stuff) of the rules nullify every spell I cast it makes me think he is only trying to prove how "weak" magic is.

I fear that confronting him on his rules indiscretions will only make him stomp off and leave the group, or force me to leave. It may yet come to that, but does anyone have any advice for me before I burn my bridges?

Ettin Werewolf.
Big, larg-sized, two-headed giant werewolf with two bite+trip attacks and two flails. CR 7.

What do you think?

So I have a few questions about the Invulnerable Rager archetype and its interactions with other new rage abilities/certain feats. I feel I have a fair grasp on the rules, but this seems rather strong to me.

Invulnerable Rager+Diehard+Guarded Life. Awesome, guy stays up forever. His DR is doubled against nonlethal damage. With Guarded Life, whenever he is reduced below 0 an amount of lethal damage equal to his level is converted to nonlethal. The question is, does this continue to happen if he is below 0 and conscious?

If so, being at -1 makes you near invulnerable. Say you're level 6 and you take take 10 points of damage. You shave 3 off the top for your DR/-, and then 6 of the rest gets converted to nonlethal, which is then...negated because you have DR 6/- against nonlethal? Does this really let you triple dip on DR when near death? Has the damage already been reduced by DR so when it's converted it doesn't pass through the "DR filter" again, OR does the damage get converted to nonlethal BEFORE DR is applied? Or, third option, does your DR shave off 3 points of lethal and turn the rest into nonlethal sneaking by your nifty DR 6/- against nonlethal? How does nonlethal interact with Diehard anyway?

My guess is, for balance's sake, that it would be one or the other, but order of operations is not so clearly defined as it would need to be in a computer game.

I've always liked this campaign setting, as a world, and am beginning to brainstorm on reworking the concepts for pathfinder, whether they be used in Cerilia or Golarion in the end I'm unsure. I am not very fond of what Birthright.net has come up with for a 3.0/3.5 conversion. For one they introduce a 7th ability score for blood which is rolled, and their rules still contain random tables for bloodline abilities.

This seems antithetical to the feel of 3.x, and making everything about choice. In fact it feels an awful lot more like the 2e psionic wild talent system, where one guy could get Psionic Disintegrate at 1st level and make his DM cry like a baby. However people feel about XPH psionics (that's not what this topic is about, so let's leave the endless debate and flame out) they shoehorned a previously alien and unbalanced system into the form of 3.5 to mimic the progression of the Wizard.

My current concept is to make a Scion class with choosable abilities, similar to Rogue Talents or Barbarian Rage Abilities. There would be a Blooded Scion feat available to anyone, much like Wild Talent/Hidden Talent, to represent a more tainted bloodline. Lesser Blood Abilities choosable between levels 1-8, Major 9-14, Great 16-20. In order to get some greaters you would have to have the lesser, similar to Rage/Talents that require the same.

It's just a rough idea at this point, and I haven't started doing the actual bookwork. I would also like to point out that at this point I have no desire to change/update the Doman level rules, as my purposes would be to have adventures in Cerilia not necessarily run a PBP wargame as awesome as that would be. I just want a more coherent, elegant, and compatable system for people of noble/divine blood, hopefully something general enough that one would be able to use the concept of blood abilities in another setting.

What do you think?

Basically just that. What do people think about, for a PF conversion of 3.5 psionics, making mental combat separate from powers again OR adding a separate subsystem of mental combat using the template of CMB/CMD? CMB=Manifester Level+Int modifier (or manifesting stat) and CMD=10+Manifester Level+Wis and Cha.

I guess I always assumed the answer was yes, but it seems RAW a wizard in a prestige class (say Loremaster) doesn't in fact get any free spells added to his spellbook at each new level. Doesn't seem right, what do you guys think?

Is there a FAQ or something that spells out exactly how this works? The usage that states "Identify spell effect that is in place." Do you need to have Detect Magic up? Do you just know the name of the spell or do you know all the particulars like in the spell listing?

Can anyone enlighten me?

OK so I have a bit of a situation. I allowed a player in a game I am running to play a Warlock in a Pathfinder game. I looked over the class for the first time since Complete Arcane came out way back when, and thought to myself this shouldn't be a problem. The class gets 12 abilities to choose from over 20 levels, some of which I agree can be abusive, but I know the player and he just wants to blast every round with eldritch blast.

Now there's another player that is sort of passive agressively complaining about me allowing warlock because it is OMG SO BROKEN and overpowered etc etc. I just don't see it. I mean there are some things that don't mechanically fit with PF and I am tweaking them as we go along.

What should I watch out for? What is there at the level range we are playing (right now about 4th, in this part of the campaign about to level 7 or 8 before we go on hiatus). The big thing the other player is complaining about is the ability to make magic items without knowing the prerequisite at level 12. This was intended so that a warlock could make, say, a staff of healing without knowing healing spells and then use it. Given an infinite amount of downtime yeah it could be problematic. The way I'm pathfinderizing it is they use their UMD ranks as caster level, and can create spell trigger items without having the spell memorized (normally impossible) by increasing the UMD/craft DC by 5.

So what is OP in the class as written, what should I watch out for, and how might I tweak the class to let player A have fun but keep player B off my back.

Before you say it, yes I have read Treantmonk's Bard guide, and it was immensely helpful. However, I don't desire to play any of the builds he offered. My concept has me more caster heavy and wielding wands in combat (largely via UMD). Possibly dual wielding wands, if my DM allows it.

At the moment I'm torn between Human, Halfing and Half-Elf. Human certainly helps with skills, I'm finding even 8/level (with 14 int) limiting to the more rogue-like bard I desire to play. Halfling has great stat adjustments, and a +1 to hit which helps with ray wands. Half-Elf would have Skill Focus: UMD and no stat penalties.

The array I'm working from is as follows(before racial adjustments): Str-10, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 9, Cha 14.

Thoughts?

So, if in PF Bards can be lawful now, why couldn't they just change Paladins so they don't have to be?

I hate to dredge this old argument up, but I can't seem to find an answer. There was a lengthy thread not long ago about how Displacement doesn't prevent sneak attack since it isn't proper concealment (though blur would) what about Blind Fight?

Whether it is genuinely concealment or not, it makes sense to me that if you aren't precisely where you seem to be Blind Fight would help you figure that out. If nothing else, a fighter could close his eyes and gain the benefit of Blind Fight against a monster with full concealment, same 50% miss chance really.

Also, with Shield Master where it says you do not suffer any attack rolls made with a shield does that remove the TWF -2 penalty?

This is a Feat idea that would be a pretty decent bandaid fix to what many of us see as a shortfall in the d20 system as a whole as it pertains to the mechanical enmeshing of both arcane and martial power in a cohesive character concept.

As we have discovered on these boards the past few days there are about as many opinions as to how a Fighter/Mage multiclass character should be built, what should be his focus and modus operandi. A number uf us, off the top of my head Benn Brue, A Man In Black and myself seem to have the concept pegged in the fashion of someone who *ahem* "stabs dudes magically". In other words uses magic in melee combat, if not spells themselves, to augment their damage and combat potential.

The problem, as I see it, is this. A warrior, or full base attack bonus character, gains more attacks per round as his BAB increases but he requires outside dynamics (power attack and other feats, ever purse-draining reliance on better and bigger weapons, other magical augmentations) for his damage to scale. A caster, from level 1-20 can only cast one spell per round, there is no "full casting action" allowing a 20th level wizard to cast spells at progressively lower caster level but their spells ostensibly scale in damage and utility.

A Ftr 6/Wiz 5/EK 3 can either make 3 attacks or a single spell, whether they are sitting in the back casting or in the thick of the fight.

The solution is a feat like this, which will as many of us see it let us cast and fight at the same time.

Improved Arcane Strike
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +6, Arcane Caster level 3+, Arcane Strike
Benefit: As a swift action you may sacrifice an attack (usually one at your lowest attack bonus) to cast a spell in combat, channeling it into your melee strike. You may only cast a spell in this manner which has a range of Touch. This spell provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If successfully cast the target of your your next successful attack is affected by that spell as if you had touched him.

Maybe I haven't worded it perfectly, but you get the idea. Alternately make something more akin to the CW arcane strike where you give up a spell slot but do extra dice of damage, only make it an elemental typed damage.