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. 12,647 posts (13,418 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 12,647 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:

The 2-State solution is ridiculous as well. It'd be a country that can't sustain itself as it can't provide food or water, because no way Israel gives up the water rights to the river Jordan.

Let's say it happens, it's a country that can't even provide itself a subsistence level of existence. It's utterly reliant on the neighboring economy of Israel, which would now be free to impose tariffs, taxes, levies, etc on workers coming from Palestine. Now it can profit off their labor, while denying the government of Palestine the economic flow it needs to sustain itself, crippling the government and ensuring it stays weak. But Israel will have divested itself of responsibility for maintaining it and all events inside will be at the feet of the Palestinian government.

A state of perpetual poverty that absolves Israel of responsibility. That is what the 2-state solution means. Giving all the absolute worst land to the Palestinian, while retaining control of Jerusalem and all the water they can get.

The 2-state solution is already here. Formalizing it isn't going to change anything.

So you're saying there is no solution. Because obviously a one-state solution won't be acceptable to Israel either as it would be a majority Arab state.

Or do you have a better idea?


Slaunyeh wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Awww... you seem pretty fired up for someone who is wrong, Jaelithe.

If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.

Marvel can obviously do whatever the heck they want. That doesn't make it an inherently good idea. :p

It also doesn't even have to match how they've used it before.


Mark Sweetman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
They should have their own sovereign country and vote in it's elections.

While the sovereign country isn't there - Palestinians do get to vote in elections for representatives. If the agreement holds there will be an election within 6 months.

Problem was that after that agreement was signed - Israel stepped up the rhetoric and arguably agressively pushed for the conflict that's currently playing out.

True. I just didn't want to dig too deep into the details to make my point.

It's not a sovereign state. They get to vote, but that government is very limited.

Edit: Wait. You mean this wasn't purely triggered by the unprovoked killing of three Israeli teens? There could have been political considerations as well? No. It isn't possible.


Coriat wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The reason you see it as stupid is because you aren't doing it right. Consider this:

Aid Another is a Standard Action, correct? You can ready a Standard Action, including Aid Another, correct? So, couldn't I ready an Aid Another to Aid my ally's lowest attack roll to help confirm his lower hits?

No, actually, because a ready action occurs before the triggering action.

Right. So my triggering action is Bob's third iterative attack.

You can ready an action for part way through someone's move action, (when he comes around the corner, when he comes into range) why not part way through their attack sequence?

You can certainly ready an action to interrupt Bob's third iterative attack with an aid another, what you can't do is wait until Bob's third attack is over and then go back and apply your aid another bonus.

Of course not. I assumed by "lowest attack", he meant attack with the lowest iterative bonus, not actual lowest roll. Perhaps I was wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Well, voting is a legal matter. If you aren't legally part of a country, why should you vote in it?

Large portions of Iraq were controlled by the United States, should we have let them join in our elections during that time?

The comment also implied that Arab's aren't allowed to vote in Israel, which is a common misconception. Perpetuating falsehoods doesn't help anyone.

We didn't maintain that control for decades with no end in sight.

I'm not even saying they should be allowed to vote in Israeli elections. They shouldn't. They should have their own sovereign country and vote in it's elections.
The point is that pointing at a nation as a shining example of democracy when they have an entire subject population that doesn't count is hypocritical.


Coriat wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The reason you see it as stupid is because you aren't doing it right. Consider this:

Aid Another is a Standard Action, correct? You can ready a Standard Action, including Aid Another, correct? So, couldn't I ready an Aid Another to Aid my ally's lowest attack roll to help confirm his lower hits?

No, actually, because a ready action occurs before the triggering action.

Right. So my triggering action is Bob's third iterative attack.

You can ready an action for part way through someone's move action, (when he comes around the corner, when he comes into range) why not part way through their attack sequence?


Irontruth wrote:

Interesting fact, in 1967 Israel offered them citizenship.

In addition, the territories aren't recognized as part of Israel, by the people in them or the international community.

The point does stand, Arab citizens are allowed to vote and are even represented in the federal government.

And no one has argued that they aren't.

As a legal matter, the territories are not recognized as part of Israel. They are however considered by the UN to be occupied territories under Israeli control. And have been controlled by Israel for more than 40 years without their population having any representation in that government.

And if I understand correctly, in 1967 Israel offered citizenship to the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem, which it claimed to annex, not to those in the territories. That may be what you meant, but it was not what I first understood you to say.


Buri wrote:
The advancing cantrips ties in to preparing spells in higher level slots conceptually. It also takes a spells effects and creates the paradigm that who casts it matters almost as much as the spell itself. That's an awesome feature to have. I expect classes like the sorcerer to really capitalize on it and can't wait to see what the PHB has in it.

Odd. To me it seemed to counter the preparing spells in higher slots idea and to be much more akin to the AD&D/3.x way where spell effects go up with caster level.

The paradigm you're describing, and the way cantrips work, is how D&D spells have worked for decades. Having to use higher level slots to get those effects is the change, but it moves it away from "who casts it matters almost as much as the spell itself".


P.H. Dungeon wrote:

Well 2d8 or 2d10 damage for a cantrip isn't too crazy, but once they scale up to 3d8/3d10 they start to become a better option than a 1st level spell. The 4d8/4d10 cantrip will be less of an issue since it doesn't come into play until 17th level, and most people don't spend much time playing at that level. Plus at 17th level a 4d10 damage cantrip is still pretty minimal compared the other options that casters have.

Keep in mind weapon damage will increase due to multiple attacks. An 11th level wizard might bust out a 3d8 cantrip, but that doesn't compare to a fighter making 3 attacks in a round, and chances are the wizard will almost always have higher level spells he will use instead, so cantrips will probably remain a last resort.

So although on paper it looks kind of off, I'm going to reserve judgment on that issue until I play the game for a while. I have a feeling it won't be a problem.

Not too crazy perhaps, but a big step up from 1d3.

It looks to me like it's going to be a ways behind most of the damage spells, but probably good enough to be the go to option for damage most of the time. Save the actual spells for other effects. At 2d10 (or 2d8+effect) it's certainly better than 1st level damage spells and it's free.


Irontruth wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its a lose lose for the other states. Taking in the refugees would cost money, deprive them of a weapon, and invite retaliation any time Israel decided to snag some more land.

Also, they all look the same to us, but they were already a not so popular ethnic group BEFORE this whole mess started.

It would certainly deprive them of a weapon, because once the Palestinian issue is resolved, people might realize that the only liberally-minded nation in the region was Israel. Way easier to get the world distracted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than let the world focus on the moral, economic, educational, and cultural failings of the rest of the Middle East (quick: which nation in the region is rated highest by the Human Development Index? Here's a hint: it's the only functional democracy in the region).

The sooner the Palestinians figure that out other interests need them as martyrs, the sooner a real and lasting peace will be forged.

I wouldn't exactly call a country where more than half the adult population isn't allowed to vote a "functional democracy".

If Jordan (or any other country) allowed refugees, Israel would simply use it as a pretense for invasion claiming that Country X is harboring Hamas terrorists. It has happened before.

Can you provide proof that Arab citizens aren't allowed to vote in Israel?

Arab citizens are allowed to vote, though they do face other restriction. I suspect, especially given the "more than half" bit, that he was referring to the adult population of the whole territory Israel controls. Both Israel itself and the Occupied territories.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

To a certain extent, the point of Mythic was to "break" the system and to allow mythic characters to do things that non-mythic characters cannot do. It does certainly change the game and how it's played... certainly more so than I'd anticipated with Wrath of the Righteous. But it sounds like there's plenty of folks who are enjoying how those changes work... so it's not a bad thing for everyone.

THAT SAID... an AP that has more roleplaying elements in it is something I've always wanted, and I always punch up the roleplay elements in APs I develop. I'm certainly intrigued in pushing it further... but as someone upthread mentioned... the game's core design is a combat simulator, and the further we drift from that, the further we drift into new areas that, like Mythic, will change the game and how it's played. Perhaps in ways you or I can't predict.

So... it's a tricky thing to do.

On the other hand, if it's done as more of an adventure design push, rather than a rules push, you don't have to drift the rest of the game.

If not an AP, maybe a module? Less risk, more room to explore?

Good to know you're thinking along those lines.


Kazaan wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Not only that, but the Core Rulebook actually says:

"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."

So Pathfinder's hit points actually really do represent physical health/injury (even if the author of UC's "Wounds and Vigor" system missed that memo).

"...the ability to take physical punishment and keep going..." Hit points represent your physical endurance as the ability to suffer damage but still keep fighting at optimal capacity.

"and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one". Why do people keep quoting the whole sentence and then focusing only on the first half to prove their point?

That's a rhetorical question, that is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
If 4e looks like a video game, then Pathfinder looks like a manga.

Cool. Video games are fun and some manga are awesome.


Southeast Jerome wrote:

In general, I think the concentration rules are a great idea for combating the "flying/buffing/invisible/pit-creating/hail-producing/black tentacle summoning god-wizard" phenomenon, but I agree that requiring continued concentration just to maintain basic, minor buffs like Bless is overkill. Definitely something I'll look out for when the PHB comes out.

Hmmm. Thinking along those lines: allow lower level spells than you can cast to avoid the concentration rules? Or cast a lower level spell from a higher level slot, without getting the other boosts for casting at a higher level, to not need concentration


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
When I first paged through 4e at the book store it looked to me like a video game rather than an RPG.

Completely agree. Except for the lack of a controller, display, and graphics of any kind, it was just like a video game!

Pardon the sarcasm, but this little bit of hyperbole needs to be taken out behind the chemical shed.

It's probably best to ignore it, rather than provoke a debate.

Or flag it and move on, as the moderators would say.


Tangent101 wrote:

If the "same old same old" was all it took for Paizo to keep their competitive advantage, why would we have such things as Mythic Adventures, The Advanced Class book, Ultimate Combat/Magic, and so forth? Why would we have alternating "experimental" and "traditional" APs? Paizo is seeking to find ways of improving their APs by finding out what works and what doesn't.

This resistance toward a more roleplaying-oriented AP is puzzling in this light. But then, it's the same resistance against Iron Gods and other "non-traditional" APs.

Hey, I'm all for it. I just don't think the lack of this particular shift is going to kill Paizo. Which you implied in the earlier post.

Experimentation is good. That said, this is changing the nature of the adventure, while the other experiments have been more with the setting. This is harder. And the steps they have taken in this direction haven't been too well-recieved. The NPCs in S'sS and WotR. The Romance mechanics in JR. These aren't really what you're talking about or what I'd prefer, but I think they're a clue to where Paizo would go with a roleplay heavy AP. They'd want to add mechanics to handle it.

Honestly, people will complain and have complained about every AP, even the traditional ones. This is the internet. I don't think it's any special resistance to non-traditional APs. Different subsets of people for each of course.


Kthulhu wrote:
Concentration is still going to be a hell of a lot easier to maintain than in 0e, 1e, 2e, B/X, BCMI, or RC.

But it's a completely different thing than it was, so the comparison doesn't really apply.

In the good old days Concentration was just for casting spells, right? At least for most spells. The Bless didn't go away if the cleric got hit after casting it?
There weren't as many buff spells then, but most of them still didn't preclude casting another one and have a good chance of going away if you got hit.


captain yesterday wrote:

There quite a few APs out there with tons of RP potential and ways around combat, RotRl, CotCT, Kingmaker, Serpent's Skull, Jade Regent, Council of Thieves, Shattered Star, Carrion Crown, Reign of Winter, Mummy's Mask and especially my favorite Skull & Shackles, seems like they aren't doing too bad:)

another thing to consider, how many levels are you willing to give up for it?
Council of Thieves tops out at 13th level and to this day they still get crap for it, a lot of people won't be happy their characters only get up to 12-13th level after a long ass campaign, if you do that too much you will lose your customer base

By my standards, all of those that I've looked at, (RoRL, KM, S'sS, S&S, SS, RoW) are far more combat heavy than I'd like. Full of somewhat pointless dungeon grinds, admittedly with some very cool sections.

As for XP, roleplaying and story experience awards are a thing.


JoeJ wrote:

Just so we're all clear on what we're talking about: in 1st edition AD&D, 0 level spell slots did not exist. However, a magic user or illusionist could use 4 cantrips to fill a 1st level slot. There were no cantrips at all in the PHB; they were introduced in Unearthed Arcana.

In 2e, Cantrip was a 1st level Wizard spell that allowed the caster to perform minor tricks for 1 hour/level.

Cantrips and orisons as 0 level spells were introduced in 3e, and they had limited uses per day just like any other spell.

Despite the name, I think the proper comparison for the attack cantrips is 4E's At Will spell powers.

The non-attack cantrips, seem to be running about the same power level as in PF.


Tangent101 wrote:

I just want an AP that is designed that does not presume the players are "murder-hobos" and are crafted in such a way to encourage roleplaying and innovative methods of overcoming encounters. That de-emphasizes die-rolling when it's not needed. And I believe such an AP would be good for Paizo. Because despite what was said by Paizo employees, an AP is ultimately a Campaign. You start playing it, you run the game for months if not years... what is this if it's not a campaign? An extra-long module?

No. APs are campaigns. They are used as campaigns by GMs who doesn't want to try to hobble together a campaign... and you have players running the same characters through the entire game until they either wipe out, grow disinterested, or prevail. And if Paizo doesn't realize this and take advantage of this, someone else will, and that will be money Paizo loses out on.

Let's encourage Paizo to keep their competitive advantage, shall we?

I'm not sure what it being a Campaign has to do with not presuming "murder-hobos" or encouraging roleplaying and innovative methods of overcoming encounters. Or de-emphasizes die-rolling when it's not needed.

Those seem to be completely orthogonal to me.

It's also not entirely clear to me that Paizo would lose its competitive advantge by sticking to its current AP design. That's a large part of what brought it to where it is now. There are a lot of gamers who like the heavy focus on combat and die-rolling and think that the roleplaying is sufficient as is or can be expanded as desired by GMs. A lot of gamers like the current product. Changing the AP line in the direction you suggest might pick up enough new players to counter the loss of those who like the current version. Or it might not.

My suspicion is that it wouldn't. Pathfinder is a combat/mechanics heavy game, by design, as was 3.x. It stands to reason that those that play it over more rules light or narrative focused game do so because they prefer that style. An AP that plays against the strengths of the system might not interest them so much, while the system will continue to discourage others who might like the adventure, but not the heavy system it's based on.

Mind you, my sympathies are in your direction. I'd love to see a less combat heavy AP with more roleplay challenges. It might get me to start buying APs again. The homebrew games I usually run or play in almost always have a much higher talking to fighting ratio than anything I've seen in mainstream published modules. AP or otherwise.

So as an experimental AP, I think it would be great. Even as a module, which is much less of a risk, that kind of approach would be very cool.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
All the classes in Ultimate Psionics. Of course Ultimate Psionics exist, so I guess I am not really missing them.
I see no reason why you couldn't reflavor many of the existing spellcasting classes into psionic concepts and call it a day.

Because it's the mechanics I like?

That and the Aegis, soulkife and 8 other classes in that book offer things that Paizo PF doesn't.

I'm more inclined to reflavor the psions as magic casters and call it a day.

From what Paizo has said, if/when they do psionics it will be closer to a psychic mage system than Dreamscarred's point based version.


No company is going to pay a billion dollars up front for land in a small village to build on.

And if you're going for the rural village feel, the four acre megatowers are going to clash. They're also going to need more than those narrow lanes.


CraziFuzzy wrote:

The brain doesn't really develop much past a VERY young age. What develops are the connections created as memories are stored (experience and learning). Think about the learning capacity of a child to that of a middle aged person. The child can learn every bit as fast, if not faster, than the middle aged person. To me that is evident that a young character's brain is fully developed, just not fully loaded.

This hypothetical individual, however, WOULD be fully loaded.

There are an awful lot of changes that occur in adolesence. Particularly in things like impulse control, delayed gratification, attention span. Current theory has it that development doesn't really finish until the early 20s.

You're correct about learning capacity. Kids can definitely learn many things more quickly than older people. But that's not the whole story.

That's partly why the Youth template only penalizes Wisdom and why I followed that model.


CraziFuzzy wrote:

mechanically, I'd agree with the use of the Young modifier for physical stat, and the Venerable modifier for mental stats. You've been around long enough for the wisdom, int and cha to improve. This would be an effective:

STR -2 (young)
DEX +2 (young)
CON -2 (young)
INT +3 (venerable)
WIS +3 (venerable)
CHA +3 (venerable)
modifier from your base rolls.

As mentioned above, though, it would be hard to swallow this as a 1st level character. Can't imaging living, even as a child, for 70+ years and not picking up some serious life skills. And by comparison to the magics listed in the game, it takes a 7th level spell to ignore the effects of venerable age for just a single day, or a mythic tier (Longevity). This curse you speak of would have to be from some mythic/deitic source to fit into the world power level.

The mental stats may depend on whether you think those come from just experience or whether there's a handicap from the still undeveloped nature of the brain.

I'd be tempted to apply both: The -2 penalty to Wisdom for youth and the +3 from age, for a net +1. :)


Lord Snow wrote:


2) Holding Israel to a larger piece of the responsibility pie is reasonable, but one should note that Israel IS, at least in it's military operations, being much more responsible and careful than Hamas. One can argue (and be correct, in my opinion) that as a country Israel is doing wrong by not finding a peaceful solution, but when it actually comes to a war, like now, the military does do whatever one could ask for to avoid casualties while still obtaining it's objectives.

But that's my point. The IDF cando far more than Hamas to avoid casualties while still obtaining its objectives.

Obvious example: Hamas can't set up military bases outside of civilian areas. Any attempt to do so would just be destroyed. It has to hide among the civilian population. But that means they're using "human shields".

Hamas has far less options than Israel does.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
When people cannot resist openly following the laws of war, they find other ways. It's not just. It's not moral and it's not right

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If you were in say, a polish ghetto during world war II I don't see any reason to keep ANY of the gloves on.

Blow up random German civilians, if you find the military (or even war effort related civilian infrastructure) to hard to target?

Of course that assumes you can get into Germany to do so.


I like at will cantrips. I'm undecided on at will attack spells that scale up to 4d10 in a way that other spells don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Sweetman wrote:

On the topic of inequitable warfare... there was a time back during the second world war where a minority group carried out an armed insurgency against the occupying force. Hotels were bombed, ambassadors were assassinated and blatantly terrorist tactics were used. A tidbit of that: In 1948 the Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte in Jerusalem. Yitzak Shamir, future prime minister of Israel was one of the conspirators.

The occupying force in that case was Britain... and it was jewish extremists carrying out the terrorism.

I'm not posting that to demonize the resistance fighters / terrorists of that time, but more to show that in desperate times people tend to take desperate actions.

Exactly. When people cannot resist openly following the laws of war, they find other ways. It's not just. It's not moral and it's not right, but it is what happens.

We should be very careful about demonizing those who do so and excusing their opponents, not working under the same restrictions, who do not.

I hold Israel to a higher standard militarily, not because Jews should be better than Arabs or because Israel is closer to a Western democracy or any of the other nonsense, but because Israel is the dominant military power in the conflict. They have more options.


Alan_Beven wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I understand your change. The reason I say it relies on it is that if the cantrip is unlimited, as it is without the houserule, it'll almost always be a better choice than the sword. Ranged, much better damage for someone not melee focused, etc.

And my understanding is that attack rolls with spells used your spellcasting modifier. For most casters, that's not going to be relying on DEX, but his main stat. So, an even better chance to hit than with the sword, even if they're proficient. (Somehow I suspect you won't like that rule either :)

No you are right, it would be off the casting stat, not Dex.

That just makes feel more justified in the houserule of limiting use of cantrips.

I don't have a problem with using the casting stat to hit - makes sense and it isn't going to add to damage. I do have a problem of adding casting stat to hit, 1d10 damage at range, and can do it all day every day.

The bolded part is where the casters need to take a hard hit in the shorts. If the system prevents me from delivering that solid, well placed boot stomp then I need to walk away from the system.

The sword thing is a non-issue. Bounded accuracy means that even a weakling wizard with no DEX or STR still has a chance to hit with that sword for 1d8 - the issues start to pop up of what happens when he gets hit back because he is standing where the hitters stand. Bounded accuracy doesn't help if the Wizard has the worst AC in the game. Nor does the wizard have built in class abilities that will help him get through the encounter (2nd wind), it's all prepped and cast spells at that point.

From 4 sessions of actual play with this exact same scenario, it makes next to no difference to the game. The wizard still needs to make a hit roll, with around similar chance that the Martials have, and 1d10 without any modifiers is not exceptional. It's less damage than most longbow wielders do since most have a decent dex.

Spammable damage cantrips are...

At 8th level it's 2d10. Cantrips, unlike other spells, scale automatically.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


An embargo so restrictive as to exclude home depot prevents tunnels, but at the staggering cost of stiffing economic development and standards of living. The cost/risk/benefit ratio behind that line of thinking seems simply inhuman. How many Palestinians have to die or live in squalor because of it? How many Israeli lives does it save?

Forget "stiffing economic development and standards of living", think "rebuilding bombed homes".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Its a lose lose for the other states. Taking in the refugees would cost money, deprive them of a weapon, and invite retaliation any time Israel decided to snag some more land.

Also, they all look the same to us, but they were already a not so popular ethnic group BEFORE this whole mess started.

It would certainly deprive them of a weapon, because once the Palestinian issue is resolved, people might realize that the only liberally-minded nation in the region was Israel. Way easier to get the world distracted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than let the world focus on the moral, economic, educational, and cultural failings of the rest of the Middle East (quick: which nation in the region is rated highest by the Human Development Index? Here's a hint: it's the only functional democracy in the region).

The sooner the Palestinians figure that out other interests need them as martyrs, the sooner a real and lasting peace will be forged.

Once the Palestinian issue is resolved? How does taking in refugees do that? Other than by eventually emptying Palestine of Palestinians and giving it all to Israel?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


Believe you me, they know this. They are acutely aware of the fact that nobody has the magical combination of both wanting to help them and being able to. Most of them are sick of Israel, of Hamas, of Egypt, of everyone.

Sadly, it only takes some of them to continue the violence and condemn them all to a pretty miserable existence.

Out of curiousity, is there a Palestinian organzation that recognizes that working with Israel is a better option?

Is working with Israel a better option?


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Wizard's AC and hp would be a bigger concern than being able to hit and add to the hit point damage of the bad guys.

Of course, this entire thing is mostly moot unless someone is playing with your houserule limiting cantrips.

Other possibilities:

1) Say my mage has Shocking Grasp as my main damaging cantrip. Usually it is good enough to do what I need when I run low on bigger spells. Then I run into something lightning resistant - suddenly, being capable of contributing in another fashion seems like a good thing.

2) Even better - what if I don't want to take a damaging cantrip? A Mage gets 3-5 cantrips over their career. I could easily see someone wanting to fill up on some of the more useful utility ones, especially if they can feel like they will be good enough at swinging a weapon to still contribute when needed, as opposed to swinging that weapon being completely pointless once past the first few levels.

3) Here's one from experience - the opportunity attack. The scene: The party has nearly finished off a powerful adversary, who is down to the last few hitpoints. On his turn... he flees out the door, with the wizard the only one nearby that can take a swing on him. The wizard swings his weapon, he needs a 20 to hit, the villain escapes. Having at least a chance to hit would make that scene a much more interesting one.

As I said, mostly moot. There will be edge cases.

For case 1&2) You're still better off with a ranged weapon - for the not standing toe to toe with the monsters when you're a squishy.

Though obviously there will be times when they get in your face, but most of the time you'll be better off not going toe to toe anyway.

3 is really an edge case. Obviously it can happen.


Auxmaulous wrote:

I wasn't planning on reducing the raw power (damage) of the cantrips, the houserule works more on frequency use in a day which leads to factoring how many encounters they have between breaks and how hard the day is.

So I want all the limits of a 15 minute workday (limited spells/resources/hp), while NOT letting them play (nor have I ever allowed) an 15 minute workday. I want one of the challenges of my game to be resources and resource management - at all levels. Players should make choices beyond using X spell for A problem. It should always be "should I use X spell for problem A, when I sill may have B, C, D problems down the road.

5e is expressly against that in it's most basic document and at it's most base level - overnight healing, spammable decent attack, short rest healing/recharges. If this is their design consideration as a foundation, then I may not be switching after all as this will NOT emulate the feel and game play philosophy of 1st/2nd ed games.

And while my houserule limits cantrip use, it doesn't change a core game assumption - no touch AC. So unless that wizard has a high DEX - he still may only be using his base proficiency to hit with that SLA fireburst. So long range, decent damage (no bonus) but with a success rate on par with using their sword they are proficient with.

I understand your change. The reason I say it relies on it is that if the cantrip is unlimited, as it is without the houserule, it'll almost always be a better choice than the sword. Ranged, much better damage for someone not melee focused, etc.

And my understanding is that attack rolls with spells used your spellcasting modifier. For most casters, that's not going to be relying on DEX, but his main stat. So, an even better chance to hit than with the sword, even if they're proficient. (Somehow I suspect you won't like that rule either :)


Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
And would those refugees be allowed to move to the Occupied Territories? Would any refugees who fled now be allowed to return? Israel controls the borders to the West Bank and most of Gaza and has agreements with Egypt about that border.
They would not be allowed to return until a peaceful solution is found, of course, but their lives would be considerably better meanwhile. In general, during the 20th century uncounted millions of people across the world were uprooted from their homes and forced to flee somewhere else. Of them, I never heard of any that are quite as tenacious about reclaiming those lands as the Palestinians are. Honestly by this point it's not even their lands, it's the lands where their father's fathers used to live for the first half of their lives.

So that would just add incentives to continue to make the conditions worse and drive more Palestinians away while avoiding a peaceful solution until Israel can simply take the land. At this point allowing/helping refugees is enabling ethnic cleansing.

I'm not speaking so much of the refugees from 1948/67, but Doug's Workshop's question as to why neighboring countries don't open their borders to refugees.

See, a more cynical man (an actual cynical Arab told me this) would say that Palestinians are more useful for the Arabs as refugees, fighting the century old Zionist enemy, then they are alive and well and integrated into their neighboring countries. You see the Arab world is VERY fractured, as recent events in Syria prove well, and one of the best ways to keep the Sunni and the Shia from each other's throat is to present a more tempting throat to the both - namely, Israel.

I'm not saying that's true, I'm just suggesting that each and every Arab country has it's own reasons for not taking in Palestinian refugees, and most of them are probably more about inner politics and power struggles than they are about some noble higher notion of stopping an ethnic...

I don't think they're idealists. I suspect you're right about then focusing anger on Israel. I also think that encouraging an exodus from the territories rather than trying to help the Palestinians in place is abetting ethnic cleansing.

Of course, given the amount of actual help they get and the effect it's had, it might still be a better option.
I also suspect most of them don't dare try to absorb the Palestinian population at this point. Too much instability. Too much radicalism to take in.


Kryzbyn wrote:
A property/casualty insurance company does. Dunno if it translates as well to health insurance.

Of course they do. That's what insurance does. But they do it for their benefit, not ours. If we let them.

The more they can predict what each customer will cost them, the worse it is for us. In order for the individual market to work, you need to allow people with pre-existing conditions to buy in at reasonable rates, even if those rates are below, sometimes far below, what they will definitely cost the insurance company. Otherwise you get very sick people who can't afford insurance or care. Insurance companies have a strong incentive not to cover expensive patients.
Once you allow people with existing conditions to buy in, you also need some kind of mandate to keep people from only paying when they actually get sick. The pool needs to include healthy people to spread the cost out.

Divorcing care from employment but still making them towards coverage for each employee would kind of work, but you'd need all the trappings of the ACA anyway.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Being able to hit - even for a small amount of damage is different than "don't bother trying" to hit.

In an optimized (players and DM) game of PF, I've had 2nd tier fighters (Rogue and Cleric) sit out melee combat and not even try to hit the monster due to AC (arms race with me and Fighter player). Even with inflated hp in PF, landing a hit can still help - if you have a remote chance of landing the hit, otherwise you are wasting your time.

In 5e, AC ranges will be tighter, so even a wizard with no STR bonus to hit can still contribute (if he's out of spells or just playing conservatively). With lower hps for monsters across the board (if they go that route) and a decent chance of hitting it would turn out to be a very viable back-up option. Better than anything in 3rd, and due to bounded accuracy probably better than anything in 1st/2nd ed.

So with a
- Fixed level based to-hit (all classes the same): game assumption/design
- Fixed range armor classes: game assumption/design
- Reduced monster hp (not 50% bonus hp due to high CON)

...I can see this working.

Not for the big baddies - you need to use your limited resources (spells) for that, but for fights where the PCs have some superiority or as a method to attack 2nd string foes/flanking help - it can work - better than 3rd eds crossbow trick or PFs 1d3 cold spam solution. Will probably feel less forced also.

The Wizard's AC and hp would be a bigger concern than being able to hit and add to the hit point damage of the bad guys.

Of course, this entire thing is mostly moot unless someone is playing with your houserule limiting cantrips.


Charlie D. wrote:
Pan wrote:
Is using string and rulers really easier or better than a grid?
It stops the feel of moving a piece on a board. My players just say what they are going to do (move and/or attack etc.) and I quickly measure. No counting spaces and moving a pawn around makes the game faster and is less distracting to me.

It also makes it more natural to just eyeball most things, rather than count out squares.


Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
And would those refugees be allowed to move to the Occupied Territories? Would any refugees who fled now be allowed to return? Israel controls the borders to the West Bank and most of Gaza and has agreements with Egypt about that border.
They would not be allowed to return until a peaceful solution is found, of course, but their lives would be considerably better meanwhile. In general, during the 20th century uncounted millions of people across the world were uprooted from their homes and forced to flee somewhere else. Of them, I never heard of any that are quite as tenacious about reclaiming those lands as the Palestinians are. Honestly by this point it's not even their lands, it's the lands where their father's fathers used to live for the first half of their lives.

So that would just add incentives to continue to make the conditions worse and drive more Palestinians away while avoiding a peaceful solution until Israel can simply take the land. At this point allowing/helping refugees is enabling ethnic cleansing.

I'm not speaking so much of the refugees from 1948/67, but Doug's Workshop's question as to why neighboring countries don't open their borders to refugees.


lordzack wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Also by doing things this way we already have a tie in to her background in the form of the old Thor. So an existing character with an established back story the readers probably care about will feature prominently in her story. That is way more mileage than they would have gotten from a brand new character with her own version of Thor like powers.
But doesn't the mere fact we're having this conversation in the first place disprove that? Trying to connect this character to an existing one isn't helping any it's making things worse!

Only because it's still secret. I think much of this discussion will become moot, once we actually see the story.

Furthermore, I think the fact we're having this conversation proves it's working. "Marvel announces new title that stars a female character" wouldn't provoke any debate, much less this much attention.


sunshadow21 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, AFAIK, we still don't know who the character is, if she's new or an existing character and how much of her own backstory and identity she already has.
Backstory and a normal identity yes, possibly, but a superhero identity with defined and at least somewhat unique powers, not so much. Doing a female with Thor like powers isn't going to get them far once Thor gets his hammer back, which means they will need to sow the seeds for her own source of power that doesn't seem like a direct ripoff of Thor. This is true regardless of whether they use an already established minor character or a new one. The one exception I could think of would be Sif, where all that work for being an indepedent character has already been done. Similarly, I suppose they could pull out one of the other female heroes they have tried to use and just have not got the traction they wanted. In the end though, for this to work, the character wielding his hammer has to be able to stand on her own eventually. Starting the spotlight with her having Thor's hammer is not going to let Marvel avoid that step, and depending on how they handle it, could make that eventual step harder.

Not necessarily. Though I wouldn't actually recommend it, they could go the route they went with Eric Masterton/Thunderstrike - after Thor returns, give him his own hammer and new name. His book lasted awhile, though it wasn't that well received.

As for other possibilities, Angela's already been mentioned (and shot down:)
Valkyrie would be another obvious choice, though I really doubt it would be her. I haven't paid enough attention to the current run of Thor to know if there's anyone they've been grooming for the role.


Lord Snow wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:


Note in this case that 'neighbouring countries' = Egypt... that's it. They are the only other country with a shared border with any Palestinian controlled territory. You'd think that Jordan would border Palestine... but Israel have claimed a strip of land that prevents that.

And Jordan could still announce a policy of accepting refugees . . . but doesn't.

Actually, historically Jordan is the country that accepted the most Palestinian refugees after 1948 and 1967, the two times when huge amounts of Palestinians were become fresh refugees. Remember, the western strip used to actually BE a part of Jordan. Syria took a handful of refugees, too. It is noteworthy that in both cases, the Palestinians remained with refugee status, and were never granted citizenship.

Also, part of the reason many Palestinians did not choose to become refugees is their foolish obsession with the lands they used to own - I find that obsession to be equally stupid to that of the religious Jews who want to conquer the entirety of the lands promised by the bible.

I agree that in general most Arabic countries do not appear to be very honest with their concern for Palestinians, and have been focusing more on hating Israel than aiding Palestinians throughout the last 100 years or so (before 1948, it was about hating the Zionists).

And would those refugees be allowed to move to the Occupied Territories? Would any refugees who fled now be allowed to return? Israel controls the borders to the West Bank and most of Gaza and has agreements with Egypt about that border.


Itchy wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Is there some sort of psychic information transfer going on, where Elan is seeing Durkon's memory during the feeding? Could this be how Durkon calls out for help? Will one of the two dwarven songs mentioned in that flashback be the hint Elan needs to figure out what's going on? After all, between his performing talent and bardic knowledge, he might just recognize them, or possibly just want to go look them up to learn new songs.

That is an interesting thought. Andostre makes a good observation.

I found the flashback to be a bit out of place, which means that it is important. I'm guessing that the song about how the Dwarves gave Freya her necklace is the relevant one. I have no idea what the "necklace" is, but I'm sure all will be illuminated in the future.

Well the necklace would be BrĂ­singamen, but I've got no idea what the significance here is.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Lets get to the meat of the matter then... what do you want opaque?

I think I already posted the two examples of where it might be handy to have opacity.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Obviously, from a story standpoint, it's cool to be able to include stuff like "You're not sure how Bob is being controlled. Your detect magic isn't pinging, but your Sense Motive check tells you for sure his mind has been clouded." That's a way to re-introduce mysteries into a game that usually doesn't allow them past a certain point.

Getting Bob loose of his psionic fog might be interesting, too, if they can't just chuck a dispel magic on they guy. Maybe they need to put him in protective custody in a jail cell until he eventually makes the save? Or maybe they need to find another psion to remove the effect?

Depends. If the game is revolving around new mysterious psionic powers that no one knows anything about, then this is a good way to go.

If it's old hat in the setting, even if rare, then the response to "You're not sure how Bob is being controlled. Your detect magic isn't pinging, but your Sense Motive check tells you for sure his mind has been clouded." is just: "Well we'd better go check with a psion."

Probably means you need one in the party. Or the world needs to have developed spells specifically to interact with psionics. Which means you'll need to have them ready to use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Hamas chose to make those cities targets. If you're launching missles at a foe from a building, that building is not a civilian target anymore.

Israel is launching settlers that take their land from israel. Therefore israel isn't a civilian target anymore.

This logic is horrible. Launching a missile from granmas roof does not turn grandma into a legitimate target. The west bank is one of the most dreadfully overcrowded areas on the planet: there's nowhere to shoot from that ISN"T next to civilians.

And so far in this conflict Hamas has a better combatant to civilian ratio than Israel. (probably more to incompetence than will but still...)

Hamas (and by extension any Palestinian group) literally cannot fight against Israel in any way that falls under the normal laws of war. The power disparity is too for that. An attempt to do would result in the immediate destruction of amy such force, leaving only the less scrupulous militants alive. Their alternatives are to simply give up any armed resistance, die, or take up terrorism. That's the nature of asymetric warfare. Even if they managed to only attack Israeli military targets (which their rockets don't have the targetting ability to do.), they'd still have to do so from "behind human shields".

The Israeli military on the other hand, since they're operating from an area they control, that the enemy can't simply obliterate as soon as they find it, can do things like establish military bases away from civilians. They have the capability be more selective in their choice of targets.

If this wasn't true, I have no doubts that the remnants of the Israeli forces would behave the same way as Hamas. Hide among the civilian population. Attack soft targets of opportunity. Not because they're evil, but because those are only avenues left to them. Because it's what you do when your land is occupied and oppressed by a foreign power.


LazarX wrote:

This is the relevant text for the matter.

Combining Psionic And Magical Effects

The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.

Psionics-Magic Transparency
Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics.

When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications.

Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.)

All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa.

The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).

Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.

Without transparency, monsters and characters that rely on SR or saving throw bonuses vs magic or spells for defenses become full targets for psi powers that don't allow saves such as Energy Ray and the whatnot. Simmilarly dispel magic has no effect on running psionic effects. nor can those effects be detected with detect magic. Psions also walk blithely with no concerns in otherwise magic-dead areas. Eliminating transparency has major impact on a psionic entering a magic dominant world.

So you get saving throws, you just don't get any bonuses that are specifically versus magic or spells.

That's fine. That makes sense.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
137ben wrote:
[...]Rowling[...] said in an interview once that she doesn't read her own work out loud until after it is published, [...]
You know that's complete BS right? who is she? some omniscient god-like being who's above reading her own stuff before hitting the send button? you know who doesn't need to read their own stuff before sending it for print? god-like beings and s$@#ty writers. Oh wait...

"out loud"

and

"what sounds good on paper is different from what sounds good when an actor says it"

Obviously a book should be written for what's good on paper, not for how it will sound in a potential movie.


LazarX wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's the problem: without transparency, defenses against psionics become non existent. But I'm sure you realize that.

I guess I don't realize that, or at least not fully. As far as defenses against spells, we have saving throws; regardless of transparency, they apply to both spells and psionics, so they still exist. Likewise for disruption of concentration with held attacks or ongoing damage; it's equally a thing for both magic and psionics, again regardless of transparency. Those are the main two defenses I usually deal with.

I could sort of understand SR being an issue for DMs, but in my experience it's never been hard for spellcasters to overcome anyway -- put that one down as "transparency might apply here."

After those, what other "defenses against psionics" are we looking for? I've never had anyone counterspell in a game, ever, so that's out. Likewise for any player actually antimagic field. Dispel magic for existing effects, sure, but why not have dispel psionics, too?

More details would be helpful.

Saving throws apply to psionics only if transparency is in place. Without transparency there are no magical defenses against psionics or vice versa.

That may be the rule, but that's silly. There's no way of avoiding psionic effets, unless they're being treated as magic?

Hmmm. Looking at the psionic/magic transparency section I don't see anything that says that. Powers are listed with saving throws and no mention of "only if transparency is in place".

Do you have a source for that?


sunshadow21 wrote:
Aranna wrote:
And I would be totally fine if they spin her into her own title later on and keep her as a major face in that universe... I would also be massively let down if they return Thor's hammer later and simply treat her as a discardable character; THAT would be unforgivable, and would prove every neigh sayer right about them.

That honestly is my biggest concern with this whole thing. if they can successfully use this as a launchpad with a plan already in place of where to take this new character, it could work, and work fine, but they are not giving themselves a lot of wiggle room, seeing that initially she is going to be borrowing everything from Thor save the back story. If they have a plan and are able to work in elements that can eventually be built upon to give her her own identity later, great, but otherwise, they are setting themselves back by creating a weak persona with little to no individual identity. It's a major risk that lacks certainty. By starting with a new character from scratch, they could at least identify where challenges would be and plan and adjust accordingly as things develop; with this approach, they basically have to have everything planned out ahead of time and hope the plan holds up. That is my problem with this approach; once the plan is put in motion, there is not a lot of wiggle room if things need to change, especially if they need to change drastically. It's not what they are doing, but how they are doing it; the goal is fine, the methods are dangerously close to be a ill advised shortcut.

EDIT: In short, a new character may be a harder path, but it is also a clearer one. This method may be easier in the short term, but in the long run may prove to be more difficult due to the the development of unexpected expectations and story lines.

Actually, AFAIK, we still don't know who the character is, if she's new or an existing character and how much of her own backstory and identity she already has.

You're making assumptions, due to the lack of data in a couple of press releases. If that's all still true when the change actually happens, you'll have more of a point.


JoeJ wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I suspect by level 10 (and probably well before), the wizard with a martial proficiency is going to essentially non-functional in melee. He might hit almost as well, due to bounded accuracy, but he'll attack less often, do less damage, do less criticals and probably many other things I'm not even thinking of. As well as die much quicker on the front lines. He'll still be fighting a bit worse than a 1st level fighter. Which is going to be basically useless at 10th level. Especially if you compare it to even the free scaling attack cantrips.

It appears different because combat scales differently. Rather than scaling the to hit, it's scaling by attacks and damage and other features. So the to hit stays in the same range and the wizard looks passable, if you just look at that, but none of the other stuff scales up.

Against a single tough monster that may well be the case, but against something like a horde or orcs the wizard with a sword should be able to do all right. Even if she isn't killing as many per round as the fighter, she's still whittling down their numbers. And my understanding of Bounded Accuracy is that this scenario - a 10th level party against a horde of orcs - can happen and be a reasonable challenge, which it can't in 3.5/PF.

Except that the wizard won't survive long, in the front line with a horde of orcs. Since they'll be able to hit her.

And swinging with a sword will be so much worse than her other options

1 to 50 of 12,647 << 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.