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. 11,055 posts (11,786 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 11,055 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:

T101

Well rather that than the one 'extreme or the other you keep' you keep introducing.

I like
GM: here are some choices ( real choice, not the illusion of choice)
Players... we pick choice x, and play that out, npcs and all

To some extent any published adventure, especially long ones like APs, are going to be about the illusion of choice. If it's well done and well run, there will be meaningful choices, but still limited. There are only so many things written up as part of the AP. If you go too far off the tracks, you're not playing the AP anymore.


Marius Castille wrote:

When I played my EK, I took my first level as wizard and (for background reasons) chose Martial Weapon Proficiency (longsword) as one of my first level feats. The GM was kind enough to let me swap that feat for Weapon Focus when I took my first fighter level.

It would've been a tougher sell had I suddenly decided to play an EK after 5 levels of wizard (instead of planning it from character creation). I do understand the temptation though. Ultimate Magic came out after we'd been playing for a bit and the Magus looked really shiny . . .

Doing something like switching to EK without planning it from the start has got to be pretty rare: If nothing else you'd really want a different stat spread than a pure wizard would.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

So in other words the purpose of the GM is to roll dice, tell you the results, and in essence be your computer for the roleplaying game, sans roleplaying.

Why are you playing Pathfinder instead of a computer game again? Oh yeah. Captive audience.

Please. Let's not get too gratuitous here.

He said he wanted interaction, not to watch the GM talk to himself. In other words he wants to be part of the roleplaying, not just an audience.

Now, I don't really have a problem with a GM doing NPC-NPC interaction, as long as it's relatively short and done well. (I've seen it done really well on occasion. And I've seen it be incredibly boring, probably more often)
But you're completely misrepresenting the argument.


I'm not sure it would be as useful in battle as for splitting wood. You tend to want penetration, not prying. Might help peel armor away though.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's been widely reported.
They really should fire their russian translators.

Can you provide a link to a better translation? What did he say that was mistranslated?

Has he complained about the translation, since it's been pretty consistently reported. I'm sure he's aware of it.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Especially since Putin has admitted that the troops in question were Russian
No he didn't.

It's been widely reported.

AP wrote:

At the same time, he recognized for the first time that soldiers in unmarked uniforms -- dubbed "little green men" -- who swept Ukraine's Black Sea region of Crimea, laying the ground for its annexation by Moscow last month, were Russian troops.

Putin, who previously said the troops were part of local self-defense forces, said the Russian soldiers' presence was necessary to protect the local population from armed radicals and to ensure the holding of a referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of its residents voted for seceding from Ukraine and joining Russia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Quote:

Or use troops that are already there.

Or THREAT to use troops that are already there.
Hmm.Actually,at the very least using blockships was NOT the SDF operation.
It required veeeery specific skills,and access to the fleet reserve.
Lets be honest here, whether it can be proven in court or not, we both know that russia sent troops. There's no point in denying that with claims about "it isn't impossible they didn't" or "the proof isn't strong enough". It is strong enough for a political discussion.

Especially since Putin has admitted that the troops in question were Russian, despite denying it at the time.

Of course, he now insists Russian troops aren't involved in the uprisings in eastern Ukraine. Which may well be true, but his denials aren't particularly convincing.


Static Hamster wrote:

Don't you get bonus spells from your Bloodline?

For example: Draconic gives you Mage Armor, Resist Energy, Fly, Fear, Spell Resistance....

I thought I got those bonus spells PLUS the spell from the Spells Known Table.

You do. But look when you get them. Resist Energy at 5th, for example. It's second level. So at 4th level a normal sorcerer gets 3 2nd level slots/day, but only 1 2nd level spell known. The crossblooded sorcerer gets 1 less than that, so he still doesn't have any 2nd level spells.

At 5th level he'd normally get a second 2nd level spell, but instead gets his first. And a bloodline spell from one of her bloodlines.

The only real reason to go crossblooded is if you really want to stack two bloodline arcana for some specific purpose.

Blaster casters do particularly well with draconic (+1 damage/die in your element) and Elemental (change energy type to match your element). Sadly they generally then do better by switching to wizard to mostly negate the Cross-blooded penalties.:)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:

The difference between a character sheet and the ITS is that the sheet doesn't track what the character has had, just what he currently has.

That makes it harder to check cash acquired against cash spent.

Either

1) The character hasn't made a lot of use of consumables, so the its is 1 page, in which case, the amount of gold would be too small to notice on a reasonable audit or

2) the character has used enough consumables to be a noticable dip in their WBL, in which case their consumption habbits are going to be spread over more tracking sheets.

Or they've traded out various big ticket items making the wealth far off in a non-obvious fashion.

And a handful of tracking sheets is still simpler than dozens of CRs.


Nor does a character sheet.

All the ITS is, is a separate sheet to replace the small section on the CR where everyone was always supposed to be tracking all of this information.
A character sheet only shows what you have at the moment. No record of things used or money spent.


pauljathome wrote:
Nefreet wrote:


Once you GM some more games, however, you'll start to realize how useful the ITS is when you need to do audits for a scenario (especially Seasons 4 & 5).

The most common reason I've seen is whether anyone has a Lissalan Rune or Brand. There are several scenarios where that matters, and where there are detrimental (or beneficial) effects to players that do. Auditing let's the secret remain in place until it is revealed.

How is it easier to look at the ITS than the character sheet?

Especially since these items do NOT have to be on the ITS (some aren't purchased with money and some were acquired before the ITS became mandatory)

As far as I'm concerned the ONLY definitive record of what a character has is their character sheet. Even in the ideal world where all players keep their chronicle sheets and ITS rigorously up to date that would be true. And it most certainly is true in the world that I live inn where lots of players paper work is more than a little imperfect.

The difference between a character sheet and the ITS is that the sheet doesn't track what the character has had, just what he currently has.

That makes it harder to check cash acquired against cash spent.

The ITS tracks it all, except for cheap items, on the grounds I assume that those won't add up to enough to make a real difference. Possibly a bad assumption in some cases.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It was my point, but what's that about ogres?

I haven't actually played it, but Mama Graul and her hillbilly ogre family have quite a reputation for being graphic.

Graphic how?

I never thought I'd be 'ogre-curious'. : /

Mostly violence, as I understand it. Some of it sexual, at least implied.

Deliverance has been suggested as inspiration.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It was my point, but what's that about ogres?

I haven't actually played it, but Mama Graul and her hillbilly ogre family have quite a reputation for being graphic.


Ansha wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well, if everything happens by the grace of God, then an awful lot of bad things happen by the grace of God. Not only, for example, was the tyrant king by the grace of God, but the rebellion that overthrew him also did so by the grace of God. In which case, grace of God doesn't really mean anything. It says nothing about whether something is good or bad or whether you should oppose it or not.
The expression "by the grace of God" is pretty much exclusively used of good things. Think of it as the positive aspects of a doctrine of divine providence (e.g., God hasn't allowed the Queen to die of natural causes or at the hands of a rebellion yet).

Or of things the speaker considers to be good things. If a particular Queen is a horrible tyrant, she and her supporters would still say she rules (and hasn't been killed at the hands of the rebellion) "by the grace of God".

And kingship by divine right went farther than that. Rebelling against the sovereign was rebelling against the will of God, regardless of the nature or acts of the soveriegn in question. "By the Grace of God" in a monarch's titles reflected that.

Which is quite different from most D&D cosmology. There being multiple deities changes things drastically, if nothing else. As does the more modern outlook on morality, justice and things like rulership that most players and designers bring to the game. Even religious players don't usually bring a medieval take on religion to their games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I like the idea of the warning though. They could just put it on every module: "Warning: There may be content you don't agree with." No need to specify.
Yeah, best put, " Warning: may contain nuts.", just to be on the safe side.
To me that is redundant, as the possibility of offense exists in all media. It's impossible to make an interesting product that doesn't offend some person somewhere in the world. It's up to the consumer to monitor their content and make a choice of whether a product is worth the potential offense.

Too subtle, perhaps?

That was pretty much my point. And Malachi's too I suspect.

There are cases where such warnings are warranted, but I don't think anything Paizo's produced, with possible exception of the infamous ogres, crosses the line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, if everything happens by the grace of God, then an awful lot of bad things happen by the grace of God. Not only, for example, was the tyrant king by the grace of God, but the rebellion that overthrew him also did so by the grace of God. In which case, grace of God doesn't really mean anything. It says nothing about whether something is good or bad or whether you should oppose it or not.

Taking that viewpoint "kingship by the grace of God" is largely irrelevant.

In reality, an awful lot of horrible people claimed to be ruling by the grace of God, along with some good ones. And there weren't regular miraculous signs or overthrows of those claiming to do so.

In the standard PF fantasy world, access to the Gods is far more direct and obvious. It's not a matter of sometimes there are miracles, which could be coincidence or just faked or could be actual miracles, but actual priests get actual powers from their gods. They can commune with them at high levels and summon their servants. Paladins get miraculous powers and lose them if they do evil or veer to far from law. Within the gameworld, there is object truth. The paladin is good.

On the meta level, what's "Lawful" and what's "good" are subjective, determined by the GM (and/or the players and/or the game/setting designer). Within the gam world it's not subjective.


In a home game, I'd talk about that character with the GM and any player running an orc. See what they think and how you and they want that relationship to play out.

No, you can't always avoid posting something that will be offensive to someone. You can however avoid obvious triggers. Anyone past the age of about 10 has figured out how to do this in normal life. "Don't swear in front of Grandma. She doesn't like it."

One of the ways this fantasy world doesn't have to be like the real world is that LBGTQ people in it can just be part of everyday life, not a discriminated against minority. Much like women can play a more equal role in this fantasy world than in real historical equivalents. Some people find that an enjoyable difference from their real life. Others would prefer a fantasy world where women knew their place or LGBTQ people didn't exist. That's not what Paizo is going for though.

Nothing will make the playing experience better for everyone, at least on the publishing level of "everyone". People like different things. People are bothered by different things. Removing everything that anyone won't like just leaves a bland, boring game.

I like the idea of the warning though. They could just put it on every module: "Warning: There may be content you don't agree with." No need to specify.


Ansha wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

Don't care what mythology, modern media, anime, or anyone else says. Don't care who else has questionable motives, or engages in questionable means. Don't care if the standard is too rigorous.

Don't let them bring you down. Hold yourself higher.

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." --William F. Buckley, Jr., Mission Statement of National Review

Yeah, the problematic thing about that quote is that it applies to anyone who's stubborn and sure of themselves. Not all of them are paladins. Some of them are monsters.

The difference of course is that the paladins are right. If they aren't, they stop being paladins.


savokk wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Krinn, I addressed your Trap Spotter talent issue in my original post.

Scenario 1:
Player makes a perception check with a trap 30feet away. He fails to detect the trap due to distance penalty. He then moves 30feet and triggers the trap.

Player with Trap Spotter moves 30 feet at which point the GM rolls his perception check with no distance penalty. He notices the trap.

Scenario 2:
Player is in combat when he trips a trap. He was not looking for them.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trap Spotter, also in combat, detected the trap and avoided it.

Regarding your 'size of room' question: yes, they take the same time (one action). However, you are only checking what you can see and there are still the distance penalties.

Regarding the sift cantrip, you can detect things you cannot see that are in that 10' cube. Perhaps the trap is underneath a rug.

The key here is that while you can use sight to detect traps from a distance sight has limitations. Not all traps are visible.

If someone with trap spotter is looking for traps at range (with associated penalties) do they get another check (by DM) once within range of trap spotter?

Yes. There's nothing in the Trapspotter text about not getting a check because you've already looked.

Searching as you go, even though you have Trapspotting is a common technique in heavily trap infested areas. Take 10 on the search as you go and have the GM roll the Trapspotting. Minimize rolls, have a floor for what you'll find and a chance at finding anything harder than that.


Jaelithe wrote:
I wager that Natasha Romanova would follow Steve Rogers into Hell itself if he told her it was right ... and that, now, she'd follow him over just about anyone else.

Well, of course. That's Cap's real super-power.

One of my favorite Cap bits is narrative from Miller's Born Again Daredevil series.
"It is a voice that could command a god ... and does." - Cut to Thor.


Jaelithe wrote:
(Interesting that you should mention Captain America, who makes fairly clear in The Avengers that he's likely either a Catholic or Anglican Christian with a comment about Thor and Loki: "There's only One God, ma'am ... and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that." [So awesome.])

At the risk of a (further) derail, any reason that implies Catholic or Anglican to you? Rather than Christian in general?

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Christians would agree with that statement. Not to mention Muslims and Jews.
Being the All-American poster boy that he is, Cap is certainly Christian, despite being created by Jews. :) And at least at that time Catholic wouldn't have been acceptable. Barely more than Jewish.

And it was a great line.


Krinn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Krinn wrote:
For me, verisimilitude is paramount. I barely accept the hit point system for simplicity sake for example. But finding well-hidden traps while walking at moderate speed and not cautiously breaks it for me and I see no reason to let it happen, for both my and my players' immersion.

But a rogue (or other class?) with the trapspotter ability noticing traps without even looking for them doesn't break your verisimilitude? He can be hustling (or even running) down the hall and still see the well-hidden trap.

He can do that, but anyone else seeing a trap without individually searching each 5'x5' square is too much?

Different strokes, I guess. It's definitely a house rule though.

For me, trap spotter is very acceptable as a rogue feature as his sixth sense warns him of impending danger coming from a certain location nearby, it's just like dwarven stonecunning or the find traps clerical spell. But it's limited to a single class, a single spell or a single race, not every single adventurer and their mother with ranks in perception should be allowed to have rogue-like sixth sense regarding traps, just like no wizard should be allowed to have the same melee prowess of a fighter, unless they are specifically built for it.

Searching each 5'x5' is how it used to be, and it made sense back then, with take 10. I recall there being a feat that allowed a thing similar to trap spotter in 3.5, but dungeons are meant to be dangerous, not a cakewalk you can walk through casually.

Incidentally, if a rogue was "running" down the hall (not merely hustling) and noticed a trap just ahead, I'd ask for a DC 15 acrobatics check (modified by rubble/grease/etc.) to suddenly stop his movement and not step into that trap, or make a different check to jump if feasible.

EDIT: about interaction with monsters, yes that's an intended feature of traps imho. As you said, zombies in a tomb would be pretty static, intelligent foes in a citadel would not and traps are there...

It may be an intended feature for the monsters, but it's a feature that usually seems to be ignored. At least in module writeups and the like. Sure it slows the party down, but that has no real efefct, other then maybe removing buffs.

I have a hard enough time finding excuses not to bring the entire allied population of the area down on the party's heads as soon they make one loud noise or let an enemy last long enough to yell, without adding more delays on top of it.
I'd rather have the adventure proceed like a commando raid, relying on stealth to start and speed once you lose the stealth than stopping to search every 5' as you go.

Also I see Trapspotter more as "Lots of experience dealing with traps, so I notice the signs even when not specifically looking" than as some near-magical danger sense.


Gauss wrote:

Regarding Plate Mail swimming, there has been a migration away from penalizing it in even 3.X. Back in 3.0 you were penalized for every 5lbs of weight. Then in 3.5 they reduced that to double ACP. Finally in Pathfinder they just said to heck with it and made it straight ACP. It is clearly a case of simplicity over verisimilitude.

Regarding costing minutes/hours, IC times do change OOC times. If you are burning extra resources (spell durations) because of trapfinding then you wind up resting more often to regain those resources. That takes OOC time, often considerable time as people debate how to set up camp.

It's not just buffs, but also interactions with monsters. If you're taking minutes (or hours!) in each room or hallway, anyone who might have been alerted by the first fights will have plenty of time to gather their forces and get ready for you. If your dungeon is static, with each encounter separate and waiting in its area to be met, that won't make a difference. (And some should be that way. Mindless undead in a tomb, for example.)

In a more dynamic setting, you're likely to kill the guards at the gate, then 5 minutes later find an ambush by the entire tribe fully armed and buffed. If nothing else, they'll get to make a lot more perception checks to hear you coming down the hall, 5' a round.

In many situations, I'd probably just not search and eat the traps. It'll take less time to cure any damage you take than to find the traps. Of course, instant death traps or traps that split the party up for attackers would be a problem.
Traps work best as part of a combat encounter anyway. And then there's no time to search for them.


Krinn wrote:
For me, verisimilitude is paramount. I barely accept the hit point system for simplicity sake for example. But finding well-hidden traps while walking at moderate speed and not cautiously breaks it for me and I see no reason to let it happen, for both my and my players' immersion.

But a rogue (or other class?) with the trapspotter ability noticing traps without even looking for them doesn't break your verisimilitude? He can be hustling (or even running) down the hall and still see the well-hidden trap.

He can do that, but anyone else seeing a trap without individually searching each 5'x5' square is too much?

Different strokes, I guess. It's definitely a house rule though.


Krinn wrote:

You don't normally double move while not in combat. Double moving is effectively "hustling" out of combat.

Exploring, you move at full speed (30 ft per round for a human) while doing nothing else, or you are considered hustling. Alternating move actions to also look for traps would mean 15 ft per round on average.

OK. Call it "hustling" if you want. Doesn't change the effect.

You can search and "Hustle" 30' every round.

Besides, any time you're dealing in feet/round or dealing with actions on this time scale, you're effectively in tactical mode anyway.


Krinn wrote:

Well, since actual time at the table doesn't increase, it's not any much boring than stating beforehand at which speed the characters in game advance, whether by taking 10, 20 or no checks at all.

It's not boring if you take 1 hour, 1 minute or 1 round to walk a corridor, OoC time is still the same, so I fail to see the issue about IC time spent exploring.

If my player is correct, then what about the issues in my reasoning?
- Does searching a corridor and searching a circular room that is 30 times bigger require the same time?
- Why bother with the trap spotter talent or dwarven stonecunning if all it takes is a move action every now and then and you don't even get slowed down since you can move and make the check in the same round?

You really can't move the same speed. If you're not searching, you can double move and do 60'/round. Searching you move 30' as a move action and search as a standard (or vice versa). Nor is it really "once in a while", unless you're really cocky. Even in a long straight well lit corridor, even taking a move action every other round nets you a -9 penalty on the last bit you'll walk through before looking again. Search, move 30', move 30', move 30', search, etc

If the corridor isn't lit or turns, you'll need to search more often.

Gauss wrote:


Scenario 1:
Player makes a perception check with a trap 30feet away. He fails to detect the trap due to distance penalty. He then moves 30feet and triggers the trap.

Player with Trap Spotter moves 30 feet at which point the GM rolls his perception check with no distance penalty. He notices the trap.

I wouldn't be that harsh. If you're moving 30' and searching I'll let you search the whole way, essentially taking your move and standard actions together. If you just make the roll not counting the distance penalty, you'll spot the trap at 10'. A better roll and you'll see it sooner.

This also handles corners and dark areas more cleanly. No "I search, then move 10' to the corner and wait until my next turn because I couldn't see that area when I searched."

As I said, I consider the benefit from Trapspotter is being able to double move or to notice traps in combat or while doing other things.


Zhayne wrote:
Are wrote:

I don't really see what healing between encounters has to do with the "15-minute adventuring day". That concept comes from groups who expend all their primary resources (high-level spells, x/day class abilities) within the first few encounters, and don't wish to continue since they no longer have access to their most powerful spells/abilities.

Since between-encounter healing is typically performed using plentiful low-level resources anyway, I don't see how this could do anything with that particular problem.

Correct. HP are the one resource the 15 minute workday generally does not expend, since the party uses their big guns right off the bat.

And even when they do, there are always Wand of CLW.

As I said above, all this change would really do is save you the cash for happy sticks.

And pretty much require a character with Cure Minor Wounds in every party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because women fought for decades for that to be accepted. Men haven't done that yet.

If you want to change it, go out in public wearing women's clothing. Not because you're transitioning or for sexual thrills or to pass as a woman. Just as a bloke in a dress.

You'll be harassed. You might be fired or kicked out of school or beaten up. But you might make it a little easier for the next one.
That's essentially what women did. Over generations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And your mind is open to change?

If presented with rational thought and discourse, yes. That isn't the case with this thread. Discussing anything in this thread is a "sky-is-yellow/sky-is-blue" style of debate - with you being part of the yellow sky crowd.

thejeff wrote:
Of course, I can't really figure out what you object to. Since you flail back and forth between ranting about controversy and agendas and claiming those aren't the problem at all.

More later, but for now: Thank you for clarifying. As I said, I really couldn't figure out what you were objecting to. From my perspective it seemed to be all over the place and changing with every post.

I see where you're coming from better now, though I still don't agree about the APs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
You should invest in a mirror, or go back and read some of your posts.

Such as? I'll admit I've been a bit acerbic the last couple of posts before this one. Condescension does that to me.

Aside from that, I'd be pleased to listen to which precisely of my posts you felt were condescending, and to who. That certainly wasn't my intent.

On more than one occasion you deflected any issue, concern or problem away from the AP (and pushing NPCs) on to the DM. AKA - blame the victim (which is the DM and players, if they don't have a good session).

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is pretty much just not the way WotR is written. Like at all. There's some built-in babysitting early on...but none of the other things you list are remotely appropriate or suggested by the AP. So...bad GMing, not an AP issue per se.

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
APs all involve at least a little railroading...but the NPCs in WotR aren't a particularly big part of it, for the most part. That was your GM's doing, not the AP's.

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's...a sign of bad GMing, not bad adventure design. If a GM doesn't know that, definitionally, the PCs are the most important characters in the game, things aren't gonna go well no matter how much or little there is in the way of character descriptions and backgrounds.

------

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's clearly not what he meant. His intent was to note that other GMs do not behave like yours does (and from your description his behavior sounds like bullying)...thus making generalizing your experience based on said GM's playstyle a bit less than useful for people with GMs who don't do that kind of thing.

------

Does that cover it?
I may have missed a few quips back there (you're doing it all wrong, can't read, running the module wrong, etc).

When lots of people are playing the module and not having these problems and others read it and don't see the problem there, but one (or possibly a few) person has the problem, isn't it just possible that the problem isn't with the AP, but with the GM running it?

Is it not possible for a GM to "Mary Sue" NPCs that weren't written that way and use them to railroad players when the AP doesn't require it?


LazarX wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
anthonydido wrote:
Just my opinion here but the problem probably stems more from the fact that it's online. I personally don't care for online play because I don't feel as involved or interested as when playing in person. There are too many possible distractions as well
This. I don't really agree with the idea of online games except out of necessity like if you live in a town of 100 people in the middle of nowhere. Many people, especially if they're under 30 are used to doing at least 3 things at once on a computer. They're likely playing the game as just another thing to do while watching tv or playing a game. There's also the issue of losing social interaction but that's a whole other discussion. I've considered giving onlinr/pbb a chance but haven't felt a strong pull to find one yet.

There's nothing inherently wrong with online play. We've switched from face to face to using Roll20/Google Hangout because everyone in our group lives so far apart. It's given us much more flexibility in setting meeting times and saves us all a good deal of expense in travel.

Online play is exactly the same as face to face, aside from the initial technical difficulties, the bulk of the problems are what people bring to the virtual table, not inherent in the form itself.

I wouldn't go so far as "exactly the same", though it does rely on what people bring to the table.

I'd draw an analogy to the differences between face-to-face conversations and online ones. People do tend to behave differently when not there in person. That's going to affect how they behave in game. You miss a lot of non-verbal social cues. There's less tendency to empathize with people who aren't actually there.

All of this less so if you're playing with people you knew in person, but more so if the only contact is the online game. And probably even more so in a more remote PbP kind of game than a real-time online one.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I mean, I asked for precisely that politely, what's a guy gotta do?
Maybe if you were an ally NPC?

Yes, because that's a polite way to respond to someone asking you for basic information.

And a great way to bring people around to your way of thinking! I mean, condescension is always such a wonderful way to win friends and influence people.

Can't change the mind of fan-atics so why waste my time?

Your mind was already made up going into this - why maintain the charade? So that it looks like we are having meaningful discourse and an exchange of ideas?

That's a good one.

And your mind is open to change?

Of course, I can't really figure out what you object to. Since you flail back and forth between ranting about controversy and agendas and claiming those aren't the problem at all.

I can tell you don't like the current APs. That you don't like romance options in your RP. That you want APs to be more challenging, by which I assume you mean more and harder combat/trap encounters. That you want more space and time and effort devoted to adventure, again essentially combat encounters, and less to characterization and other fluff.

I'll say again that I want just about the opposite. Less combat, though not necesarily easier, just less. More characterization. More fluff. More roleplay. Even romance.

Which I suppose makes me a fanatic.

The only difference is that I'm not saying the APs are lousy, just that they don't really match my style. Which is fine.


Zhayne wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
The Beardinator wrote:
That's the reason it was removed for Pathfinder. The same reason that Prestidigitation was powered down. With the unlimited usage of orisons/cantrips, you have to put restrictions to balance the new benefits.
Just add same limitation as daze? Remember daze while unlimited doesn't affect same target twice in same battle.

Using it in battle isn't the issue.

It's using it OUT of battle, where, if you've the time, you can perform infinite healing at zero cost.

And do it in a stupid, annoying and immersion breaking fashion. If you want full heals between battles, just house rule them in. Don't require someone with orisons and the silliness of casting the same minor spell potentially hundreds of times in quick succession.

Bringing it back with the hex-like limitation of once per day/person wouldn't be a problem. But it also wouldn't be useful, except maybe instead of stabilize or for bleed damage.


In fairness, finding a set of good, compatible online players either requires good luck or a good selection process.

It may just be the latter he hasn't mastered. Which may be his problem, but not in the implied way.

And sort of an interesting question: How do you find good compatible players online?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

You can have tons of plot and mystery (and in many cases more) if you devote more to plot options and puzzles rather than a two to four page write up on an NPC and their history which most PC's won't ever see or use anyways unless it becomes a GMPC.

I don't know if you noticed by now, but both your style of play and the style of your GM (as you described them) are very different from those of many others. Most GMs don't use NPCs to bully the PCs around, for one.

So maybe the player isn't interested in a long talk about the NPCs background. Maybe the fact that Bob the Smith was raised as a salve in a far off land will never actually be discussed. BUT - the GM knows that Bob used to be a slave, and that helps the GM act out Bob in a more interesting way. Perhaps the burly smith will have a surprising soft spot for abused children, for example. Perhaps he will refuse to make chains for the PCs even if they are his friends.
The background is there because in some groups (most of the groups I heard of in this forum for example), both the players and the GM care about such things. Those 2 - 4 page writeups are not only interesting, they provide unique gaming moments that another

Thank you for the insult.

What in the heck is different about my style of play? Are you insinuating that we deserve to be bullied!? WTH!? I find that incredibly...I don't know what to say...

Let me express my outrage that you would say such comments.

However, let me elaborate in a more calm manner, despite your lash out.

As far as playing, unless the GM forces the issue, I have very little interest in an NPC suddenly telling me their lifestory (or equivalent of 2 pages of text) for absolutely no reason...especially if we didn't ask.

In your example above, if they guy won't make chains...say he won't make chains...but if he's not going to share his life story with us as to why he won't...why is it pertinent. If he breaks down and tells me two pages of text as to why he won't without us even asking about something that in depth...eventually if all the major NPC's feel they have to vent to us...someone's going to go chaotic evil on them most likely.

Since you mentioned GM...as a GM I find the NPC's incredibly interesting to read about and one of the drivers for reading an AP. I find it is a big reason to read the AP and gives it characterization on a read through that most modules and adventures not by PAIZO do not. As a player, their back histories and motivations many times don't even come into play.

IF I had to guess, in my opinion, the NPC backstories are there more for the GM's enjoyment rather than the players...but even though the GM drives the game, the players normally are the majority.

1) He didn't say anything about how you GM. He said
Quote:
the style of your GM (as you described them)

Without looking back, weren't you complaining earlier about the NPCs being used as GMPCs and ordering the PCs around? That's a problem with the GM running them, not so much with the AP itself, as many people have said.

2) It doesn't matter whether the NPC tells you his lifestory or not. The GM knows it and uses it to determine how the NPC acts and responds to the PCs. If the PCs pursue it, it may come out. Otherwise it remains in the background. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect the game. That's what background information is for.
In that example, it's not just "Won't make chains" with no explanation. IF that's all the GM was given, then then GM a) wouldn't have an explanation if the players asked b) might well agree to have him make/do other things for slavers. Knowing why rather than just what, lets the NPCs be more like real people.

Edit: You edited?
As for your "Style of play", I thought that part was obvious. No you don'd deserve to be bullied. I don't know where that came from.

I'd say that's more to do with your apparent lack of interest in the NPCs. That's different from, for example, my style of play. I like to get to know NPCs. To learn more about them. You apparently don't. Different styles of play. Not better, not worse. One is better served by more NPC background than the other.


RDM42 wrote:
I'd say one first priority would be to get anyone who knows anything to record that 'how to' somewhere.

First priority, until people start getting cold and hungry.

And then they start killing each other for food and shelter.


As far as dealing with the 15-minute day, it seems like this would increase the split between martials and casters. Martials would always be healed up and ready to go from the clerics orison, while the casters would still run out of useful spells.

And honestly, just for thematic reasons, I'd rather something like a "Full Heal" spell with a several minute casting time than have to cast Cure minor wounds 100 times to get someone back to full.

Spoiler:
Actually, the only real effect it would have is that no one would bother buying wands of CLWs, since those accomplish essentially the same purpose at the cost of some cash


Jacob Saltband wrote:

Like I said before....I'm not good at putting the ideas in my head into words.

** spoiler omitted **

Now I just have to start on the survival and building parts.

Spoiler:
Inspired by some of Feist's backstory in Magician?

I'd say you're talking generations. You're going to lose damn near everything just trying to survive those first few years. Even most farmer/hunter/gatherer types aren't going to be able to adapt too quickly to a new world with no supplies, different creatures/plants to find, unknown climate/weather patterns, unknown pests. It's likely that's going to be the only priority for years. While the tools wear out and you hope the guys who know how to work metal live long enough to be able to take time from basic survival to find ores and bootstrap a whole mining/smelting/forging process.
Magic and any survivors from long-lived races will help. As will any Refugees from stone-age cultures, since they'll have the most useful skills to help make it through the first few years and start the bootstrap process.


Jaelithe wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I remember a brilliant Captain America/Conan crossover!

Conan got shunted into Cap's reality (modern day 616) and survived he best he could. He became a pimp! Dressed the part, even had a cheetah on a leash!

When he fought Cap, he was surprised by a shield being thrown! Still, he wounded Cap enough that if they continued Cap would die, so Conan spared the brave and skilful Cap.

Is was better than I make it sound. : )

That's the problem when you're fighting someone who's perfectly willing to kill and wielding a bladed weapon if you don't completely outclass them ... and while Cap is faster, stronger, possesses equal fighting spirit and is more skilled in martial arts than Conan, he's not so much better in any of those categories that he can try and subdue him without causing permanent harm all while the Cimmerian is attempting to cleave him in twain. I daresay that in bladed combat, you'd have to expect a result favoring Conan far more often than not—on the order of, say, seven or eight times out of ten. Hand-to-hand, though, with all weapons set aside, Cap drops Conan nine times out of ten, if not more. (Batman does the same almost as often.)

Not sure I remember that story, but ... it's something Conan would actually do, in my opinion, in that he'd never intentionally harm a woman that didn't deserve it, would see nothing wrong with prostitution so long as the girls were treated respectfully and well paid for their services, and would guard them with his life, feeling that they were under his protection. As a matter of fact, I shudder to say ...

... Conan would be a very good pimp, in most senses of the word.

It was interesting, mostly in the relationship between the two. Conan assumes that this strange new world he's come to works just like he's used to and that Cap is just head thug for whoever's in charge, like the guards in the world he's used to. So he moves into the local criminal scene and takes over a gang, like he did many times in Hyboria. (I'm not sure he actually became a pimp, though he did dress in full hollywood pimp style to impress a girl. Which didn't work of course.)

After their last confrontation, it ends with Conan wondering if Cap was right and IIRC considering his offer to join the Avengers. That's a What If? sequel I'd have loved to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I remember a brilliant Captain America/Conan crossover!

Conan got shunted into Cap's reality (modern day 616) and survived he best he could. He became a pimp! Dressed the part, even had a cheetah on a leash!

When he fought Cap, he was surprised by a shield being thrown! Still, he wounded Cap enough that if they continued Cap would die, so Conan spared the brave and skilful Cap.

Is was better than I make it sound. :

I remember that one. It was one of the better What Ifs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
You can have tons of plot and mystery (and in many cases more) if you devote more to plot options and puzzles rather than a two to four page write up on an NPC and their history which most PC's won't ever see or use anyways unless it becomes a GMPC.

Except more background info on the NPC gives the GM more to base his characterization on and more knowledge of how they fit into what's going on. I'd guess roughly half the 2-page write ups are the villains anyway.

Even if the players never actually learn all the history, that doesn't mean the background doesn't affect the game. That's what background is for.


This is one reason I've taken to just playing short PFS scenarios PbP.
Game death or losing my one interest in a game that makes very slow progress over a long time.

Even with scenarios, there's player attrition and sometimes GM loss, but the investment is less. Even if I lose enthusiasm, I can get through it since the end is in sight and not ruin the game for others.

I suspect real campaigns through PbP work better among players who know each other, but can't meet for FtF, or at least have played together before and have an idea of each other's seriousness and playstyle. Essentially random pick-up games on the site are a crapshoot.


knightnday wrote:

If I remember correctly, there were a number of alignment variable paladins done in the Dragon, perhaps several times. 3.5 may contain some 3PP for them as well, and there might even be some for Pathfinder although the small child gnawing on my leg is making me forget. Any or all of those might be what you are looking for and can be easily modified for Pathfinder.

I mention them because I'd wager that the needs of a different alignment -- or even a different god or outlook -- might change the power set and general idea of the class.

Agreed. That's part of my problem with the "Just file the alignment restrictions off and call it a day" approach. The paladin is built around protecting, healing and inspiring.

As well as smiting evil. :)

Swift self-healing may be useful to everyone, but healing others isn't really the evil version's thing. negative energy would be more appropriate for evil ones. Same with other abilities. Less focused on helping allies and more on hurting enemies.

Different spell lists would really be needed. Or at least an expanded one with restrictions on who could take what.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tirisfal wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I wouldn't mind a list of glossed over npcs - one or two lines of info (to be expanded by the DM), but when these write-ups are fighting for the same space as the adventure it's a let down on all levels.

This is where the GM-juggling comes in; the GM always needs to season the adventure to taste.

For every person who states this view (and I think that your opinion here is a perfectly reasonable view, Auxy), there're three other people who complain that "the AP should hold their hands the entire way, because the point of the adventure path is to do all the work for the GM".

I'm not saying that either opinion is wrong, but the latter does tend to show up on the boards quite a bit more often, from what I've seen.

Or perhaps some who want more plot and more NPCs and less space devoted to encounter write-ups since they're going to tweak those for their group anyway?

It's not necessarily about "holding their hands" or "doing all the work for the GM", it's about what parts you want detailed and emphasized. As I understand it Aux wants more challenge and more space for encounters. I'd rather have less space devoted to combat and encounters and more for roleplaying stuff:NPCs, plot, mystery, etc.


Krensky wrote:

Yeah, I read the article.

Did the act happen in California or Hawaii. I couldn't find any info on it in that article or a cursory search.

Age of consent in the former is 18, in the later its 16.

The Collins-Rector Estate where the first alleged events took place is in Encino, thus California. The kid was 17 and I assume Singer was more than 3 years older at the time, so he would have been open to felony charges.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I agree that the behavioral restrictions aren't a good way to balance the class, I like the concept of the class as it is and don't think it needs drastic changes.

If a group wants to travel with a paladin, but don't want to deal with a paladin's restrictions then they don't actually want to travel with a paladin. Much like someone who wants to play a paladin but doesn't want to be lawful good - they don't actually want to play a paladin.

And frankly, while I'm not fond of the "trapping a paladin into falling" thing, a paladin who willingly went along with the "go stand over there while we torture the prisoners" game wouldn't last long.
But then I'm not much on the evil party thing anyway. Certainly not an
evil party + paladin.

Work out a group that can actually work together. Whether that means don't play the paladin or don't play the torturers, either way works.


nosig wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
nosig wrote:
the problem is not the creation of the ITS - it is in the maintaining it.
I have yet to face such a problem. YMMV though.

have none of your PCs bought anything sense you created your ITS? or used anything listed on it?

That's what maintaining it is all about. marking out all the wand charges used, marking all Alchemist Fires used with the correct CR number, adding any new upgrades to armor paid for, etc.

Well that's my question: Do you have to mark wand charges used with the correct CR number? The official sheet doesn't really have space to do so.

Why can't multiple consumables be treated the same way?


Jaelithe wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I also hope it never happens, but see no need for the paladin to be made more powerful.

Though I do see a need, I think it's a moot point. Likely ain't gonna happen in the modern gaming environment, where that kind of virtue ain't kewl.

Quote:
If you like playing paladins with the restrictions, play them. No need to make them more powerful to tempt people who don't like the restrictions to play them.

Avoiding something because it might be abused by the undisciplined and/or unscrupulous is insufficient reason to not enhance the class. It simply becomes the DM's job to enforce alignment properly.

I suppose I'd settle for paladins having their Protection from Evil aura returned to them. They never should have lost it, in my opinion.

Not so much "because it might be abused" as "Why encourage people who don't want to play paladins to play paladins"? That will just make more people want less restricted paladins. And more arguments about why they should be allowed.

If you think they're actually underpowered in comparison to other classes, that's a different story.


Thus "alleged". :)

But I'd also like to not prejudge the accuser's motives.


Given that the "accuser" was underage when this allegedly happened, I don't particularly care what his motives were.

OTOH, given that the alleged events occurred 16 years ago, evidence is going to be hard to come by. Also, the statute of limitations has apparently expired for criminal charges.

1 to 50 of 11,055 << 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.