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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 13,357 posts (14,152 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 13,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hama wrote:

Thejeff, are you saying that minorities who are targets of racism cannot be racist themselves?

And, yes, people seing racism everywhere are usually racist too.

It doesn't mean that they are not right to an extent. I'm sure that there were racist people at Gencon, after all, as much as we wouldn't want tgem to exist, they do. But to see things and immediately conclude the worst is irrational. And unfair.

No, I'm not. And I don't see how you get that out of my post.

I'm saying he's being attacked and vilified way out of proportion to anything he actually says.

As a rule of thumb when someone talks about racism being everywhere, they're not talking about all white people being like slave masters or the KKK. Especially when they then describe what they're talking about

Quote:

“The problem is that white people see racism as conscious hate, when racism is bigger than that...

Racism is an insidious cultural disease. It is so insidious that it doesn’t care if you are a white person who likes black people; it’s still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don’t look like you. Yes, racism looks like hate, but hate is just one manifestation. Privilege is another. Access is another. Ignorance is another. Apathy is another. And so on.”

You may want to argue that not all of that should be called racism, but you can't argue that author is accusing you of being a slaveowner whenever he mentions the term.

So in that sense, when someone says they see racism everywhere, they're probably including themselves. Which doesn't mean they "hate whitey".


Krensky wrote:

Wait... so we can't interpret George's statement even slightly negatively because, racism, but he gets to interpret everything in in the worst way because, racism.

Everything George says as signs that the gaming hobby is racist (or has a racial problem or has a racial problem or however you want to gussy and dog whistle it up) is pretty much completely outside the ability of the hobby to address.

There are enormous issues with racism in American society. There is a marked racial disparity in our hobby. These things are almost certainly linked. That dos not mean the hobby has racism issues. We need to recruit more people to the hobby period. Recruiting from demographics that have traditionally been underrepresented is good sense because diversity is good and the traditional demographics are getting picked over.

None of that means the convention or the hobby has the sorts of racism issues the article and some in this thread are insisting exist. But let's humor them.

How do you suggest...

Damned if I know. I haven't been to GenCon. I don't know the first thing about running a convention. I don't even agree with most of George's conclusions. As I've said again and again. But the attacks on him have been all out of proportion. Starting with Larry's.

People are accusing him of calling all attendees slave masters and of making up all the prejudice he's experienced inside his own head. He's been called a racist here.

*:
(Hey that was Hama, at least the first time. Interesting in light of:
Hama wrote:
I love when people accusing me of racism are being racist themselves.

Larry ridicules him for wanting positive images that look like him in his gaming, but that's exactly what Paizo has done with the iconics and other art. And why they've said they did it. From what little I can tell, Larry would object to that as "message fiction"

I think his reaction is justified. I think his analysis and prescription, what little there is of it, is way off.

Yes, I think there's little GenCon can do about most of this. Maybe enforce their rules on Nazi paraphernalia. There's more that gaming companies and stores and even clubs and individuals can do. Both to make the atmosphere more welcoming and to actively try to get more minorities involved. Of course this is being done by some, Paizo among others.


Naraku666 wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Undecided. I'll collect both, unsure if I'll switch to DDN. But my game isn't strictly PF, more like 3.X. A combo of 3.5, PF and house rules. I plan on picking up the final DDN rules on release. Regardless, I'll collect both. I like my reading material :)
first of all isnt it DnD not DDN?

D & D Next


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'd be shocked if feats weren't the default in the vast majority of games.
Remember, folks, at least one person each day will be discovering tabletop RPGs for the first time. They won't have our preconceptions.

I would add to this that players who enjoy D&D 3.5 and 4e are predisposed to liking feats, even seeing them as essential to the game.

I've had enough conversations with people who are critical of 3.5 and 4e to know that Feats=Good is not a uniform opinion of TTRPG players.

True. There may be experienced gamers who've developed opinions about feats in previous systems who will apply those opinions, rightly or wrongly, to 5E. I suspect most of those who don't like feats will also be making other fairly drastic changes to the system. Enough to remove them from the default category.

I continue to believe that new players will look at them and think "Oh cool, more stuff I can do" and not realize the problems with them, if there are any, until they have more experience.


meatrace wrote:

That's one of the areas that needs serious reform: where fines and taxes go to. This is a good example, why on earth would the money from traffic tickets go to the police to hand out the citations? Shouldn't it go to the state DOT? Same with criminal forfeiture. It just creates perverse incentives for police.

Another example is in education. In most states (if not all?) that I know of, public schools are financed by property taxes at a local level, meaning regions with higher property values get better schools/better equipment/higher teacher:student ratios, etc. Which is, of course, the reverse of what it should be where the poorer children need more individual attention. Even if you don't think that progressive policy is right, I can't even fathom the argument that justifies anything other than a flat $/student across an entire state.

I apologize if that derails it, but I see similarities in those policies.

It's not entirely clear, but I think the fines go to the general municipal budget. Which sounds better on the face of it, but it just pushes the incentives up to a higher scale.

I do completely agree on the school funding through property taxes issue though. Also poor towns often have to raise property taxes to keep functioning, making things even worse. (And then exempt businesses from them in hopes of attracting employers, but that's a separate rant.) There is also federal money and many (most? all? I hope it's at least many.) states do add funding as well. But it still falls most heavily on the poorer areas.


Krensky wrote:

People seem to be conflating the con staff and the convention center staff. GenCon LLC only has control over the former. Unless you can show evidence of people being turned away from volunteering because they're not white then the convention is not excluding them from the con staff.

As for the convention center staff, what would you have them do? Go to the Capital Improvement Board of Marion County and say "We're not coming back unless you hire more white people?"

As for encouraging more people of color to attend, how exactly should GenCon do that? Or encourage more diversity in the hobby?

Show me one example of someone being barred from the convention due to racism. One snub of a designer by the convention due to complexion.

We get that. No one here is making those kinds of accusations. Even A.A. George is only saying that if you squint and take everything in the worst possible light. Other than the part about encouraging more people of color to attend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
As much as I like the idea of a jail "sit-in", I think that tactic stopped working once we entered the tough-on-crime era. The problem is that detaining people, especially for a period of a few days, is just not that expensive. It gets even cheaper if you do a really half-assed and crappy job of running a prison. I don't think you could ask people to spend more then a day or two under those conditions. Also, I'm guessing that since 9/11, they aren't strapped for cash. If they really need the money, Homeland SSecurity would love the chance to erect some new detention facilities.

In Ferguson? Police are big business. The police write an inordinate number of minor tickets and bring in ton of money in fines. Along with a bunch of tricks to keep adding additional charges.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'd be shocked if feats weren't the default in the vast majority of games.
Remember, folks, at least one person each day will be discovering tabletop RPGs for the first time. They won't have our preconceptions.

And they'll look at the core book and go "That looks good" and allow feats. Assuming they're not strongly warned against using them in the PHB.


Tacticslion wrote:
The suggestion is there for the use of those that want it, but the baseline presumptions of the game are that it's not used.

Hmmm. I doubt that. Or at the least I think it's a foolish presumption on their part if so.

I'd be shocked if feats weren't the default in the vast majority of games. It will be interesting to see what they do in the rules for their organized play.


Caineach wrote:
He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave masters

This is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?

If some white people are going to be that sensitive, how can they ever be reached?


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Hama wrote:
I love when people accusing me of racism are being racist themselves. A fine touch of irony don't cha think?

There would be, if anybody actually called you racist.

To be absolutely sure of this, I went back through this whole post. The only person to ever outright be called racist was people saying the tor.com writer was racist. To be fair, thejeff did a couple of pages ago point out some of your arguments echoed right-wingers in the US, but nobody called you racist. Again, going back through, the only time I actually SAW the charge of racist leveled against someone, it was the tor.com writer.

I believe I actually said "echo US white racist rhetoric", but that was in service of the point that "commenting on another countries racial issues is a mine field".

Which I had hoped would make it clear enough that I wasn't calling him racist.


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

Or he knew he was Portuguese but did not know that it was legally considered Latino. Latino is usually used to refer to people of Latin American decent. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the population does not realize that people from the Iberian Peninsula are considered Latino, even people with ancestors within 1 or 2 generations from that region. I've even seen different discrimination against Portuguese people than other Latino groups in areas like Cape Cod, where Portuguese people have a significant enough presence to be a distinctly noticeable group.

Oh, I'm sure he knew he was Portuguese, or rather Portuguese-American since he was born in California, but that doesn't mean his cultural experience wasn't basically white. And now he's using his legal* Latino status as a platform to bash other Latinos for noticing discrimination that he never had to deal with, implying that they're just being overly sensitive for having trouble with racism when he's a Latino too and never had any problems.

It's a real slimeball move and drags my opinion of him a lot farther down.

I could be wrong of course.

*That's assuming that's even true. Everything I found says that Latino, at least in the American usage, is for people from Latin America, not from Europe. Hispanic includes those from Spain (and possibly Portugal) and is often used interchangeably with Latino since there's large overlap, but isn't quite the same. Both terms are broad, confusing and have varying usages.


mechaPoet wrote:

P.S.: With regards to Correia's race: I do realize that Correia identifies as Latino. However:

-I saw the picture of him on his website. He's more or less white-passing, which is another form of privilege (the first article I link to specifically uses the phrase "white skin privilege" at one point, and that seems relevant). Which isn't to say that his opinions as a non-white don't count or something, but I still think he's a huge [redacted].
-I'm a little confused about how being Portuguese makes you Latino, but it's not something I feel remotely qualified to talk about, so I'm gonna leave it alone. I got the impression from Correia's article that he was equating the two, but it's not like there aren't both Portuguese white people and Portuguese PoC, so, again, dropping it.
From one of his other articles:
Quote:
I suppose this is what I get for being a Wise Latino. (a term stolen from Sonya Sotomeyor, since that was around the same time that I was filling out some EEOC worksheets at my Military Industrial Complex job and discovered that Portuguese was legally considered Latino by the Department of Labor).

I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
This "complex bundle of problems" is essentially the underlying racist structures of America. Correia's dismissal--his ability to ignore and dismiss this--is basically the definition of racial privilege. Having privilege isn't about getting everything handed to you on a platter because you're in the right social category, or saying your accomplishments don't mean anything. It's about how you don't have to constantly deal with oppression on a daily basis, and often not even being aware of it.
Uh...did you perhaps miss that Larry Correia is, in fact, a 'person of color' (though he apparently hates that term)? He's Latino. So...this statement? This does not make as much sense as you think it does.

He's Latino, but he also mentions not being "easily identifiable" (apparently a reference to some offensive NPR program). That obviously doesn't mean he isn't Latino, but if people don't perceive him as Latino he may still pick up some of the white privilege or if you prefer, miss out on some of the discrimination aimed at minorities.

Edit: Apparently this post is the worst kind of racism (worse than lynchings?). Because obviously racists discriminating against Latinos check everyone's genetic heritage before deciding which individuals to harass.


Krensky wrote:

But we're talking about people not being allowed to purchase a GenCon badge or volunteer at the convention because they're not white.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

So how is GenCon racist again?

That's your definition? Anything less than that is OK? Or is maybe some other kind of bad, but not racism?


Peter Stewart wrote:


Yeah, see, you just made my whole point. I could go on and on, ask you to explain, for instance, how you'd rationalize the tremendous rise in out of wedlock births and the break down in the nuclear family within the African American community following the Civil Rights Movement, but I don't really care. I completely tune you out the moment you start accusing me of oppression and privilege.

You instantly alienate the very people who you need to convince to act, and thus undermine your entire cause.

mechaPoet wrote:


And on a final note, y'all need to stop with this whole "rational arguments are good and the opposite of emotion, which is bad" nonsense. It's just b@&!+!~%.
Then you further undermined yourself by arguing that emotionally charged arguments are somehow as valid as logical and rational arguments. Frankly, that's demonstrably untrue. They may be better at motivating those already inclined to support your position to near-term actions, but in every other way they are demonstrably inferior to a logical and rational argument, and antithetical to the basis of western civilization as a whole.

And by the way, isn't your instant alienation an emotional response to his choice of words, rather than a logical and rational consideration of his argument?


Peter Stewart wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

This "complex bundle of problems" is essentially the underlying racist structures of America. Correia's dismissal--his ability to ignore and dismiss this--is basically the definition of racial privilege. Having privilege isn't about getting everything handed to you on a platter because you're in the right social category, or saying your accomplishments don't mean anything. It's about how you don't have to constantly deal with oppression on a daily basis, and often not even being aware of it.

The "people who have nothing to do with it" don't exist, because of racist structures that make you either oppressed or privileged. I don't care how much you "don't care what skin color someone is" or "judge people only on their merits as people," America as a country is filled with inequality baked into nearly every aspect of its construction. Paizo is committed to diversity in gaming, and I love that--it's probably the main reason I'm still interested in Pathfinder. But their drive to increase their inclusivity is an acknowledgement of the inequality that women and PoC encounter in gaming spaces and representation. So they've done some good, but they could take it further. And I'm not saying that they haven't done enough, but obviously there are still people who feel uncomfortable at large gaming conventions because of the lack of people who look like them--a lack that's based on racism and sexism as social/economic/etc structures. And Correia seems more interested in attacking than discussing this, let alone trying to address any sort of change that could be had.

Yeah, see, you just made my whole point. I could go on and on, ask you to explain, for instance, how you'd rationalize the tremendous rise in out of wedlock births and the break down in the nuclear family within the African American community following the Civil Rights Movement, but I don't really care. I completely tune you out the moment you start accusing me of oppression and privilege.

You instantly alienate the very...

Well then, is there a way to talk about these things that won't alienate you? Because these things are real and they remain a serious problem in this country. They need to be talked about. I'd be perfectly willing to drop the term privilege and maybe even racism, but I suspect that it's actually the concepts that bother people and whatever terms are used to replace them will quickly become equally problematic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
It's also worth noting that a lot of things that you can't do in Pathfinder until you take a feat to be able to do it (ie, one of your vaunted choices) are possible in 5e without the need to burn a feat. You don't have to make the choice, you automatically get it for free.
I, personally, don't consider the fact that the new system is more reliant on magic story time non-rules to be a plus. Some people would disagree with that. That's cool. As I've stated a couple times, I don't even really look at them as the same game, any more than I would consider Star Wars Saga Edition to be the same game as the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game. They do different things in different ways and appeal to different audiences for different purposes.

How the hell is "You don't need a feat to do this" the same as "magic story time non-rules"?

And of course they're not the same game. Who's made that claim?
They're related, so there are points of comparison, but they're certainly not the same. Much like 3.0 wasn't the same as 2E. Or 4E wasn't the same as 3.5.


Ssalarn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I have discussed repeatedly how the core mechanics and design philosophy (with its limited numbers of feats over 20 levels and small number of class decisions) is built around giving players far fewer choices over their adventuring career than Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e.

System A offers you two choices: a $20 coupon to Wal-Mart, or a $20 coupon to Target.

System B offers you 16 choices: a $20 coupon to Wal-Mart, or your choice of 15 guys who will punch you in the face.

Is System B automatically a better system due to offering more choices?

That's a ludicrous comparison and not at all accurate. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the messageboards have distorted the idea of "trap feats" to ridiculous levels. There are actually very few trap feats in Pathfinder, and most of the ones that truly are get fixed when the design team is made aware of them (like Prone Shooter).

There are situational feats, and I consider that a plus as Pathfinder is a robust gaming system capable of supporting all manner of playstyles. Say I want to make a heavily armored chariot driver. In 5e I could maybe take a feat that gives me Heavy Armor proficiency and a +1 to (I believe, book's not in front of me) Strength at level 4. Alternatively, I could play Pathfinder and take 1 feat to give me heavy armor proficiency, one feat to make me a better pilot/driver, a stat point to whatever stat I want, and numerous skill points to fine tune and customize my character to whatever I want him to do.

There are very few actual trap feats in the sense of feats that are completely useless. There are an awful lot of feats that are really only useful as part of a specific build designed to take advantage of them. But often they require you to spot the hidden combination that makes them actually useful. If you don't, they either look pointless, which isn't too bad or they look generally useful at first glance, so newbies take them because they fit the concept but don't realize how much better other options or specific combinations are.

And then there are the feat taxes and the chains. In many cases you get trapped if you don't plan your build out from the start and take feats that aren't very attractive, except that they let you take other good feats later.

Pathfinder has a great build game. For those that are into it, that's wonderful. For those who are more interested in actual game play than in character design, it's not quite so wonderful.

Personally, I'd rather have a robust gaming system that let's me play all sorts of characters without necessarily so much mechanical differentiation, rather than one that requires different complex builds for every concept. I'm also amused at the common claim that PF is so robust you can build anything you want contrasted with the joy at the concepts that can be made with each new rulebook.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

From 3E onward, multi-classing for a martial was fine and even advantageous. Multiclassing for a full caster was insane before they thought of the '+1 to spellcasting level' for PrCs, and still limited after that. PF nerfed even that option by denying learning new spells as part of that '+1 level' mechanic.

Meanwhile, 5E has finalyy tackled multiclassing casters in a way that previous editions never even attempted. It is better, because there is no competing mechanic to be better than!

How effective the 5E multiclass mechanic for casters will be in the long run, I don't know yet, but I'm confident that it will be better than nothing.

How do they handle multiclassing for casters? I've only seen the basic rules so far.


Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Now, I wasn't there so I can't comment on his perception of the attendees and I don't think I'd draw the same conclusions, but it's not quite the same as "it's racist that the staff was minority". I've seen that kind of thing in other circumstances and once you notice it, it is disturbing. And I can imagine how much more so it must be when your appearance matches the staff, not the guests.

Correia's argument, that the overwhelming white majority is a result of momentum from the early days of the game's existence, is a pretty strong answer for that. I doubt that anyone will prevent anyone from joining the stuff because of their ethnicity, and I doubt that most people of ethnicity fell they wouldn't be welcome because of their skin color.

Just for comparison, imagine a man arriving to, I don't know, a knitting convention or something, and discovering that the place is predominantly populated by women. Would be pretty funny of him to accuse those women of hidden sexism, I think. There's nothing about knitting that makes it into a hobby males should be excluded from except for social norms - exactly like roleplaying games and ethnic people.

If his issue is that the social norm is for white people to play roleplaying games, then he is complaining to the wrong crowed. If he somehow blames roleplayers for not being inclusive enough, I think he is being unfair and irrational. Either way, it's hard to take him very seriously.

As I said I don't think I'd draw the same conclusions. There are a number of reasons that can be imagined for the racial demographics of TTRPGs in general and GenCon in particular and not all of them require active racism on the part of anyone involved.

That said, it's still got be disturbing to be at an event where everyone who resembles you is picking up the garbage. As I said, I've noticed that in some places and been bothered by it and I am white.

I also don't read the A.A. George post as accusatorily as Corriera did. But then I tend to see racism as common, pervasive and a matter of degree rather than as "You are EVIL!!!"


Kolokotroni wrote:
thejeff wrote:

In fairness, in the tor.com article it wasn't racism just because the convention hall staff were minorities, but because of the contrast between the majority minority facilities staff and what he perceived as the overwhelmingly white attendees.

Now, I wasn't there so I can't comment on his perception of the attendees and I don't think I'd draw the same conclusions, but it's not quite the same as "it's racist that the staff was minority". I've seen that kind of thing in other circumstances and once you notice it, it is disturbing. And I can imagine how much more so it must be when your appearance matches the staff, not the guests.

But that's a distinction that Correia slid right over.

Mind you if anything, it's not racism on Gencon's part or even on the convention center's part, but just a reflection of the racism in society that traps some in situations where such jobs are the best they can get.

Its perfectly fine to see the a bunch of minorities working as janitors/food servers/security guards etc and a bunch of white people with enough disposable cash to fly to indianapolis for 4 days to indulge their hobbies and see a reflection of a biased and racially unfair society.

Its fine to comment on that fact.

Its not ok to say that those people at that convention and the community they are involved in are themselves racist because of it.

If the article had framed it the way you did, it wouldnt have gotten th reaction. He assigned societie's racial bias specifically to gencon, when gencons lack of diversity is more a symptom of the greater ill then anything else. And in the process, he insulted alot of people, including Correia.

Is it a bad thing that many minorities cant do better then minimum wage jobs despite genuine effort to make their and their families lives better? Yes, it is. Does that make someone racist for picking up a burger at McDonalds? No.

Agreed, but my point was that Correia ignored that contrast, split it into two separate parts and went off on how stupid it was to be surprised that the staff was mostly minority.


In fairness, in the tor.com article it wasn't racism just because the convention hall staff were minorities, but because of the contrast between the majority minority facilities staff and what he perceived as the overwhelmingly white attendees.
Now, I wasn't there so I can't comment on his perception of the attendees and I don't think I'd draw the same conclusions, but it's not quite the same as "it's racist that the staff was minority". I've seen that kind of thing in other circumstances and once you notice it, it is disturbing. And I can imagine how much more so it must be when your appearance matches the staff, not the guests.

But that's a distinction that Correia slid right over.

Mind you if anything, it's not racism on Gencon's part or even on the convention center's part, but just a reflection of the racism in society that traps some in situations where such jobs are the best they can get.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

My comment relates only to Adams assumption that Hama is white so that auto = privilege.

Ask the Japanese about their privilege over the Anu or resident Koreans, or any non Han Chinese or the Hutu and Tutsi, or Fijians and Indians, or Brahmin and Dalit.

Yeah, I get that, though it was actually EntrerisShadow, I think.

Race and privilege plays out differently in different cultures. And Americans do tend to be blind to that and to assume that it is all about them.

OTOH, the original articles are both talking about race in a specifically US context. And some of Hama's comments echo US white racist rhetoric. I guess the lesson might be that commenting on another countries racial issues is a mine field?


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

This is a problem Americans tend to assign their cultural and racial baggage, to the rest of the world. There is an attitude what happens in the US applys everywhere else.

When you accuse a Serb or a Hungarian, or a Croat or a Greek of being privileged because of their skin colour you are being very ignorant of thousands of years of occupation and oppression and slavery. But hey they are white and everything must be easy and good for them because that's how it is in the US.

OTOH, when they're commenting on racial attitudes within the US and dismissing the struggles of oppressed groups in the US, maybe they should take the same advice.

And even within the US, white privilege doesn't mean everything must be easy and good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

I'm a Serb. Trust me I know something about discrimination. And yes, I'm white.

Refusing to accept that you are inferior, or that you should be ashamed of a geographic accident or melanine content in your skin and a bit different skull structure is not pride. It's common sense.

People who think they are better because they are of a certain skin color and facial features are entitled pricks.

When an entire society has been structured for centuries to reinforce your inferiority, it's not common sense to refuse to accept it, it's a radical notion.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
The fear is allowing dex to damage with two weapon fighting, clearly.
I agree, though apparently they forgot about Saw Tooth Sabers...this REALLY makes me want to play a red mantis assassin!

This is the part that bothers me most about it: It's already open that you can do 2WF with DEX to damage if you're jump through the right hoops and use the right toys, you just can't do it with many of the flavors people want to use.

The power gamers won't care, they'll just use it if it's worthwhile. Those who care about the flavor will be screwed, but they weren't the ones going to abuse it anyway.


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Since they're being killed at about 500 times the rate, thousands of palastinians are also flee.. oh wait they can't!
Bet they wish they'd use those building materials building bunkers rather than tunnels.

The building materials used for the attack tunnels wouldn't shelter a fraction of the Palestinian population.

And they wouldn't be needed if Israel wouldn't bomb clearly identified UN shelters.

Of course that's OK because rockets were found in some other UN facilities that weren't being used as shelters and besides some suspected militants were riding by on a motorcycle.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Putin is an imperialist
Well,OBVIOUSLY!Because you are either that or commie.

Apparently it's called something other than "imperialist" when commies do it. Cause I suspect it looks much the same to the pawns.

And there are other options. Is Sweden Imperialist? Just to pick a random example.


Irontruth wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Some have criticized Russia, claiming they have regional aims beyond their own borders. To that, to the west, I say: f+*+ you. Yes, f#$+ you for daring to have the gall to criticize Russia for having a foreign policy that protects them in their own region of the globe. F$+@ you for not once raising questions regarding Washington's global aims - policies and actions designed to keep a very few rich and everyone else broken, divided, exploited. Russia could have rolled over the Ukrainian border a dozen times already, declared a no-fly zone, annihilated the already-weak Ukrainian and neo-nazi forces attacking the ethnic Russian populations - that they haven't is a sign that Putin is more statesman than warmonger. I understand that this is hard for Americans who like to kick ass and kill sand-ni@@ers and commies to get.
See, I'm with you on pointing out the evil things that the US does around the world. But don't pretend that Putin is some how "saving" people. That just makes you sound naive at best.
Meh. Who cares how you think it makes me sound. Putin has acted as peacemaker far more often than a certain President promising change has done. He negotiated an agreement with Syria regarding their chemical arms last year that totally deflated Obama's desire to strike at them. He's helped Iran get back to the bargaining table re: their peaceful nuclear energy program, stymieing America's desire for war. He's resisted the temptation to use military force in Ukraine. He's no angel, but the m!%~@$#$~*!$ is a statesman and a strategist.
He also negotiated a rest in peace agreement with 100,000 to 200,000 Chechen civilians.

See? He brings peace.


Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:

@ thejeff

Golarion is regarded as a rather dark setting by many people when all its components are gathered together. All miscarriages being the unfortunate and premature end of a mortal soul worth the consideration of at least one deity seems to match up rather well. We are talking about a world where there is literally a nation of devil-worshippers that the rest of all the Inner Sea nations have tolerated the existence of for a long time. To say nothing of voluntary worshippers of Rovagug, vivisectionists surgically uplifting animals, expendable peasantry, and afflictions that can turn people evil (vampirism, lycanthropy, various curses/spells although these all have an element of GM fiat involved)

People doing horrible things, or even in a fantasy world, evil deities doing horrible things is to be expected. Something like 20%-30% of all souls not actually being born and thus being "wasted potential, destroying a worthy soul's opportunity to fulfill its destiny", seems a bit harsh as the natural way things work.

Of course that's assuming real world estimates hold and you could blame it on some Golarion equivalent of Original Sin, perhaps Rovagug's influence on the world.

It also seems a bit odd to consider such a common "death" as losing the ability to fulfill destiny. Seems a pretty weak destiny if it's that easy to thwart. Maybe dying before birth was destiny.

Also that statement does not use the term pregnancy or define when the soul is present. It could be at conception. It could be at implantation. It could be at the more traditional quickening. Or even later.


LazarX wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Crisischild wrote:
People don't appreciate that board games/tabletop games/TCG's of all types are incredibly expensive, reducing their possible market by quite a bit. What was the ACG with standard shipping, 48$? And you wouldn't be able to play Pathfinder with just the ACG.
This is an important point. It's difficult to be a "casual" RPG player and pay full price(or LGS equivalent) meaningfully for the hobby. Whereas CCG players can pick up a couple of booster packs, some card sleeves, buy some decent singles, etc for half of what a RPG book alone costs.
Actually the cheapest way to be a casual RPG player is web based games right now. You've even got web based MMO's like Wartune and Marvel Heroes, as well as the Hidden Item and store management genre. And you can play the bulk of them with no cash outlay at all.

Or join a home game where you can use other people's book until you decide you want to shell out for your own or learn about the SRD.

You really don't have to pay anything.

Even if you buy the CRB, you don't have to keep up with all the other product.


Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
I think Paizo made a mistake when they said that pregnant characters can't use the elixir, because that opens up the incredibly divisive question of when pregnancy begins, and in a fantasy context where souls exist, that question is a lot harder to answer scientifically. Mature game groups will be able to steer around this issue but it would probably be better to solve the core problem.

Uh...'pregnant' is a medical term. It has nothing to do with when there's a soul or a human life involved (which is the subject of the debate you refer to). It's purely a matter of conception having happened.

This paragraph and all that follows thus make no sense.

Pregnancy means that implantation has happened. If a fertilized egg fails to implant and is flushed out of the body, there was never a pregnancy.
Okay, you're right...the point still stands that it's a purely medical definition having nothing to do with abortion arguments, though.

Pathfinder Chronicles, Gods and Magic, the entry on Pharasma on page 30, second paragraph:

"... Those who die before or during birth are wasted potential, destroying a worthy soul's opportunity to fulfill its destiny (and thus while she has no opinion on contraception, she opposes the killing of the unborn)..."

Looks to be that Pharasma, the goddess of birth, death, fate and prophecy views the death of an unborn as the death of a creature with a soul and fate. And seeing as birth and death and fate *are* her spheres of influence, the gods in Golarion are demonstrably real, and that they're unmitigated experts in their portfolio... abortion is killing something with a soul in Golarion.

Which is really kind of disturbing when you think about the percentage of pregnancies that naturally end in early miscarriages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
The best point correia makes is that gaming in general, is an upper middle class activity. Gaming costs money, a lot of money. Gen con in particular represents a cross section of gamers who not only have the resources to game, but also the disposable income and time to take a flight, buy a hotel and spend 4-5 days on their hobby. Sure some people pinch pennies and save all year to make it to gen con, but most families arent going to prioritize such things if they have trouble making rent.

Gaming costs pocket change compared to many other leisure activities. Like going to the movies for example. :)

You can play for hundreds of hours off a couple of moderately expensive books - and split the costs among the players. Or you can be a completist and spend thousands of dollars a year on gaming books, miniatures and other gear. These days you can even play just off the SRD and buy nothing at all. (You'll need internet access, but that can't be counted as a gaming only expense.)

You can travel to conventions or just play at home. Now obviously attendance at Gencon will skew towards the higher income, but if that's the main factor you'd expect to see a higher percentage of minority gamers at local conventions. Which in my very limited experience isn't true. Anecdotal, of course, but I don't think anyone has done actual research.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Putin is a brilliant statesman, saving the world from the war-mongering imperialist US

Oh,but it is mostly true.Except he is not doing it for free,and only some parts of the world.

Do you care about intentions or results?

I think it's more like Obama really had no desire to get into a war in/with either Syria or Iran, so I'm not prepared to give Putin much credit for stopping him.


Hama wrote:

When I say that I don't see race, by that I mean that I honestly don't care what someone's skin color is, and I treat everyone equally well.

Personality matters, demeanor matters, behavior matters.

As for culture, I refuse to accept any culture I personally deem bad.

So, while I may accept someone on their own merits, if the culturevthey hail from.is bad, I'll never accept it.

The problem with "I don't see race" isn't so much on the personal level. If you don't see race in your interactions with others that's great.

It's when it's extended from that to "I don't see race, so I'm going to dismiss what you say about how you are treated because of your race."
Which I don't think you're doing, but Correia might well be.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
That said spells scaling with level does sound like a pretty strong change.

Spells scaling is not the right word for it. Many spells you can cast using a higher level spell slot and get a greater effect. The two best examples of this is cure wounds and magic missile. Cure wounds, if you cast it as a 1st level spell from a 20th level cleric, it heals the same amount of damage as a 1st level cleric. Compare that with Pathfinder where you heal 1 more point of damage as a 2nd level caster as opposed to a 1st level cleric. And the damage healed keeps going up until you hit 5th level. In 5e, however, you have the option of using one of your higher level spell slots. So if you want to heal more damage, you have to use a 2nd or 3rd or higher level spell slot.

Magic missile is another example. In pathfinder you automatically get additional missiles as you increase in level. In 5e, if you cast it as a 1st level spell from a 1st level wizard or a 20th level wizard, you deal the same amount of damage. However, you have the option of using a higher level spell slot to get additional missiles.

So while D&D requires less spells for the caster, I'd say it is balanced with the casters having less spells prepared. A 20th level wizard can have a maximum of 25 spells prepared, the same number as a 15th level pathfinder wizard. Mind you, that is before pathfinder adds in extra spells from school specialization and ability score bonuses. When you factor those in (using the absolute minimum ability score needed) a pathfinder wizard at 11th level can prepare more spells than a 5e D&D 20th level wizard. So pathfinder wizards win in overall versatility.

Then there's the fact that 6th level spells and beyond can only really be used once per day. The exception to this is levels 19 and 20 where a wizard can cast a 6th level spell a second time per day and at 20th level where a wizard can cast a 7th level spell a second time per day. Compare it to the 17th level pathfinder...

As usual, it's not quite that simple. Wizards get Arcance Recovery, letting them recover half their level in slot levels once a day, which gets them a little bit back.

The slots are more also flexible than either a PF spontaneous or prepared caster.

Much of your out of combat casting can be done with ritual magic, so you don't need to waste either prepared slots or casting slots on a lot of utility spells.

And then there's the wild card of having actual effective combat cantrips that you can use indefinitely and that do scale with your level. So you don't need to use up spell slots just to be effective in combat.

Overall it's a nerf, but not as blatantly as it appears at first glance. I do think they'll play very differently.


GeneticDrift wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I haven't read the guide for 5th yet, but making spells "precious and special" sounds awful for casters. Forcing concentration on buffing spells or require multiround casting, means wizards have to sit around all battle after taking a single casting action; that sounds amazingly boring to me.

That said spells scaling with level does sound like a pretty strong change.

That is not how concentration works in 5th. You just can't have two spells that require concentration at once.

Also cantrips scale and spells in general are really strong.

Well that and you can lose it when you take damage. Which seems mostly a problem for gish types, including melee clerics and maybe even half-casters like paladins and rangers?


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:
Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats
You lost me with this. What are you talking about? Feats are rare since you have to choose between an ability bump or a feat. Sure you can take all feats, but do you really want your primary state to be a 15? If you're a spellcaster that means your DCs are 12. That's pretty low and easy to make the save (granted, not when you roll like me, but still).

I think he's saying you get things for free that would be feats in PF, but I'm not sure.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

I haven't read the guide for 5th yet, but making spells "precious and special" sounds awful for casters. Forcing concentration on buffing spells or require multiround casting, means wizards have to sit around all battle after taking a single casting action; that sounds amazingly boring to me.

That said spells scaling with level does sound like a pretty strong change.

You can still cast while concentrating, just not another concentration spell. I'm not sure there's much multiround casting. It seems the intent is to push casters towards blasting.

Spells scaling with level is more of a nerf than anything, though it depends on the spell. For many spells it mostly means you need to use a higher slot to get the effects that used to scale with caster level.
OTOH, it lets them do things like let the cleric prepare only one cure wounds spell and have it scale as needed based on the slot you use.

It's interesting and different and will take different tactics than 3.x casting.


Suichimo wrote:


I personally liked 4e, but I can't really see any of it here.

The non-magic healing seems derived from 4E. Heal completely overnight and roll up to your HD/day to heal on short rests.

The offensive cantrips are basically at will attack powers.

Ritual spells.

Those were the things that most jumped out at me on first read. There are others. They seem to have drawn from most of the past systems.


JohnLocke wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Some have criticized Russia, claiming they have regional aims beyond their own borders. To that, to the west, I say: f+*+ you. Yes, f#$+ you for daring to have the gall to criticize Russia for having a foreign policy that protects them in their own region of the globe. F$+@ you for not once raising questions regarding Washington's global aims - policies and actions designed to keep a very few rich and everyone else broken, divided, exploited. Russia could have rolled over the Ukrainian border a dozen times already, declared a no-fly zone, annihilated the already-weak Ukrainian and neo-nazi forces attacking the ethnic Russian populations - that they haven't is a sign that Putin is more statesman than warmonger. I understand that this is hard for Americans who like to kick ass and kill sand-ni@@ers and commies to get.
See, I'm with you on pointing out the evil things that the US does around the world. But don't pretend that Putin is some how "saving" people. That just makes you sound naive at best.
Meh. Who cares how you think it makes me sound. Putin has acted as peacemaker far more often than a certain President promising change has done. He negotiated an agreement with Syria regarding their chemical arms last year that totally deflated Obama's desire to strike at them. He's helped Iran get back to the bargaining table re: their peaceful nuclear energy program, stymieing America's desire for war. He's resisted the temptation to use military force in Ukraine. He's no angel, but the m$##*+~&@*#~ is a statesman and a strategist.

I love this idea that Obama has been slavering for war with Syria and Iran and practically everywhere else there's been any trouble. For someone so determined for war, he's done a horrible job of starting them. I suppose you can argue that he was just looking for an excuse to attack Syria and Putin managed to stop him, but it's just as easy to read it as the threat of American military intervention achieving his stated goals without actually having to attack.

Similarly with Iran, except the chances of Obama launching a war there without some serious provocation were never significant. Honestly, despite McCain's rhetoric, I don't think even a Republican adminstration was very likely to attack Iran.

That said, I still think America relies far too heavily on military force and the threat of it and also too much on military aid propping up some pretty ugly regimes. But this fantasy that somehow Putin is a brilliant statesman, saving the world from the war-mongering imperialist US is nonsense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Lightminder wrote:
Only Islam successfully invaded it and stayed for any length of time.

That's because it is not - contrary to popular opinion, and much like communism - a system of government.

"You want me to pay what? And work for who? Sure. But first, let's play a game of hide and seek..."

Well... I always thought the Quran was pretty clear on how the government should work. YMMV.

We can tell that's true by how all the Muslim countries have the same form of government.

Mind you, even if it was true, that would be like saying "only Democracy successfully invaded it and stayed for any length of time." It's not that Islam isn't a system of government, it's that Islam isn't a foreign country.


sunshadow21 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Maybe I've just been lucky or maybe it's something about my approach to gaming, but I've never had a GM I wanted to play with that I needed rules to protect me from. I've certainly played with GMs that screwed me over despite the rules. Just not for long.
You've been lucky and you've apparently had your choice of GMs, so another bit of luck. A lot of people are stuck in places where the available DMs and fellow gamers aren't numerous enough to have that choice. Success with DM oriented systems becomes a lot more hit or miss in those circumstances.

But that was only part of my point: I've played with lousy GMs. I've never played with a lousy GM that a non-DM-oriented system could turn into a good one. Even in the strictest system, the GM has far too much power to screw you over if he tries to, even unintentionally.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Quote:
Sorry those "Social Justice Warriors" bother you. How dare those jerks ruin your good time by trying to make things better for minorities or women? Dastardly!
That's not precisely how the people who use that term (and I've never used it and never would, for several reasons) necessarily use it. It has more to do with the way that some people fight for those things than the actual fighting being done (EDIT: Hama probably defined what a lot of people mean by it even better.).
Hama wrote:

Ok, i should have clarified. I despise people who go around looking for things to get offended by. Looking very hard.

They are not helping anyone. Especially not the minorities they think they are helping.

I'm really not sure what that means unless it's: "Is offended by things I don't think he should be offended by."

Unless maybe when you're talking about someone you've observed through multiple offenses.
For the person at tor.com, that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact he's mostly talking about his own experiences, not jumping in unasked to defend some minority.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Getting casual gamers was tough before 3rd edition when other entertainment options were limited. 5E goes back to the system where it's entirely DM dependent and that may not work all that well when players can go any number of other places and get exactly what they want when they want like they can now.

Unless of course want they want is a system where they can get what they want without hours digging through feats and special cases and rules interpretations that they have to ask their GM about anyway.

It's all GM dependent in the end. With a good GM the lighter build system will be flexible enough to allow anything and with a bad GM you won't be able to do it in a heavy build system anyway. Once it turns into "I can do this by the rules even though the GM doesn't want me to", the game is pretty much toast.

Maybe I've just been lucky or maybe it's something about my approach to gaming, but I've never had a GM I wanted to play with that I needed rules to protect me from. I've certainly played with GMs that screwed me over despite the rules. Just not for long.


The great part is you get to define them as "Social Justice Warriors", since no one actually uses the term non-ironically to describe themselves, and then dismiss them for being SJWs.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:


Where did I say anything about controlling a border? I was commenting on your claim that the US could not know anything about Russian military movements on the Russian-Ukraine border.

US could know only what they are allowed to know.It's not their home ground.It's not even Iraq of Afghanistan.Russians are very adept in misdirection,and their chief weapons are fear and surprise.And misdirection.

You can shuffle forces,you can deploy decoys,and you can spread misinformation.
And in times of war,you do exactly that.
And then we have Pentagon release photos confirming current russian build-up...dated three or four months old.
Some can argue that this is also attempt at misdirection.It could be.
I fail to see why looking impotent can be of any benefit to US military intelligence,but,then,i wear glasses.

Well Russia could do any number of things to make it look like a military buildup in preparation for an invasion, but it's much harder to do an actual military buildup without making it look like preparation.

So either Russia is building up or it wants us to think so.


cnetarian wrote:

Grippi can use their tongue to hold a pistol while reloading (might want to wipe it off though).

Glove of storing works because switching hands is a free action per a FAQ, although I cannot remember which one.

The argument with the glove is that while you can switch a gun from one hand to the other as a free action, you shouldn't be able to do that when you already have a gun in each hand. You need someplace to put one of them. If you walk through the process one step at a time, you wind up with 2 guns in one hand.

Unless there's a FAQ somewhere specifically saying you can swap 2 weapons as a free action, I wouldn't consider it RAW.

Edit: The tongue is awesome. I may have to play a grippli gunslinger, just for that. I was thinking Vanara, but the tongue.
Edit2: It's a feat, which makes it slightly less attractive. Hmmm.


Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Mixing up the terms prejudice and racism.

Happens every damn time.
What distinction do you draw? (Other than the obvious one that someone can be prejudiced about things other than race.)

Racism is prejudice against a person's race codified.

Any given person can be, and usually is prejudiced about something. This either comes from too many coincidences/life experience, or BS prejudices passed on from others that you accept at face value because the source was trusted.

When it's a group of people in power that share a specific prejudice passing laws against a specific race, that's racism.

I could be wrong, but this is the difference to me.

Is it only "passing laws"? Or can a prejudice supported by a sufficiently large number of people in a less formal fashion still be racism? To take an extreme example, much of the activity of the Klan at various times was illegal, just socially acceptable. Lynchings weren't legal.

Redlining is far more than a personal prejudice, but wasn't legally enforced. And in various forms persisted at least up until the housing market collapse.

1 to 50 of 13,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.