|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
A thing to consider: how does first-level rebuild interact with quests? If it becomes well-known that Journey #2 is talk-heavy and #3 is a crawl through the cellar of mindless undead, will we have a lot of PCs suddenly showing completely new builds?
How did/does it interact with things like First Steps and the Confirmation?
No. Esoteric Magic lets you pick spells from other classes spell lists. The Alchemist has a formula list, not a spell list. It doesn't qualify.
Nor does the Extract class feature say what you said it does. The closest it comes is "In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form" and "the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based". OTOH, not all alchemist formulae are based on spells - like Alchemical Allocation.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yeah, I watched Ace Ventura too, back in the day. (I might have been working in a theater.) God, that was drek. I never got Jim Carey.Airplane! was brilliant. Caddyshack was funny, but didn't hit me the same way.
As the Scotsman said, "It's good thing we all have different tastes or there wouldn't be enough haggis to go round."
I'm tempted by this. I've been wanting to try Dungeon World out for awhile. Not going to be able to think much about a character until this weekend though.
I'm also curious about how long you expect the campaign to run. As an experiment with a new system for me, I don't want to either make an indefinite commitment or run out and leave the game in the lurch if it's not to my tastes. Less of a problem if reasonable exit points can be arranged, but something to think about.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
My attention span is longer than that, but I still found it slow and never really found any attachment to the characters.
I still liked it, but it took a long time to read and never really hooked me. Interesting and good, but it didn't blow me away.
Honestly, most of the Vance I've read is the same way.
I think, in general they do, but not quite for those things that directly duplicate spells - wands and scrolls in this case, since potions have an explicit exception. The ones where you can't just handwave the spell requirement like you can (with -5 penalty) for most items.
I do agree that there are a lot of blanks in how extracts work. Particularly infusions.
Hmm, if souls are assigned at conception, then I'd guess that if a fetus dies the soul that never got any chance to do anything should be reassigned into the birth queue. At least, hats how I'd have Pharasma do it. It makes things nice and tidy wihot the question of how to judge a fetus soul and send it to the afterlife.
That's not a bad way to handle it and I was thinking of something similar.
It doesn't really match with Pharasma's stated position though:
she believes killing a child in the womb is an abomination, for it sends the infant soul to the afterlife before it has a chance to fulfill its destiny
Not exactly fast-moving, but definitely worth it.
I'm not familiar enough with the psychic spells to comment, but I thought the main point of Still and Silent metamagic was to let you cast when you couldn't gesture or speak - Silenced, gagged, tied up, grappled, etc.
You could just start with book 5, where it supposedly gets good. Go back and read the others later once you're hooked.
But yeah, "You need to commit to watching 2 full seasons before deciding if you like it" is a bit much. "It really gets good around season 3" otoh, is more reasonable.
Oh, abortions and rules for tabletop wargaming! So, if a Paladin smites a woman with a LE fetus inside of her, does he get to add bonuses to attack and damage?
If a paladin kills an evil woman with an innocent fetus inside of her, does he fall?
Philosophy doesn't treat induction as unreliable and unfounded. It treats it as fallible and not absolute. Which it is.
There's a whole slew of errors that arise from induction. Generally from generalizing to broadly or from insufficient data. It's certainly useful, but you need to be very careful about it.
Philosophy is being judged on the same basis as science because it claims to do the same thing as science: find the truth. Different disciplines would get judged on different criteria: basket weaving wouldn't be judged on the ability to find the truth it would be judged on its ability to make baskets.
Ah. So that's where we disagree.
Even if we agreed that science and philosophy were both trying to find the truth, rather than science looking for useful models and more accurate predictions, they're looking for very different kinds of truth. They operate best in different domains. Science is pretty lousy about a lot of questions. Those tend to be the domain of philosophy. Philosophy is pretty lousy at answering questions about the physical world. "How does lightning work" is a dumb question to ask a philosopher. "What is true happiness?" is a dumb question to ask a scientist. At least the philosopher might have a framework to talk about it.
He's not going to come up with an empirically proven answer. Because the subject domain isn't empirical.
Which circles back to "How do we know that, other than we've observed it for a very short while (on a universal timescale) and those observations we can make of deep time, either far away in space or in traces they've left don't appear to contradict the theory."
In other words, induction.
It also circles back to the earlier bit about science producing working models, not Absolute Truth. We don't know that this holds absolutely, but it produces useful and accurate predictions for now. If that changes, we'll revise the model.
I don't know if it was a good or bad idea, but the implementation has led to a lot of problems. It may just have been hastily done and the fallout from trying to fix it now would just be too much.
Four Dollar Dungeons wrote:
To that extent and on that scale, it works well. Though I don't have any problem with module writers making assumptions about how the PCs will approach the site and write text that way, as long as it's relatively easy to adjust. In fact, I'd like to see suggestions for what happens with alternate approaches more often and especially how the inhabitants react to various approaches - what happens when an alarm is raised, what happens if the PCs retreat and return later, etc.
My philosophical riddles are not philosophical riddles!
That's basically it. If it can't be evaluated by empirical evidence and the scientific method, it's worthless. And if it can be, you should be using science, not whatever else you're talking about.
Anything other than science is worthless because it isn't science.
The "don't prep plot" thing works well for homebrew adventures, since you can prep the new places and situations as the players make choices. It can even work for small scale published adventures, as long as the bad guys are relatively limited in scope, though you basically wind up with a basic location based adventure. You just prep everything they could reasonably do and since the scope is limited, the PCs won't likely windup outside of it and will probably get to see most of it. If nothing else, you're prepping enough plot to get the PCs into the module's dungeon, since if you don't they're not actually playing this module.
Something on the scale of Paizo's APs or the 64-page modules, you really do have to prep plot if you want any and railroad the PCs to some extent. That's what you're selling. A prepared adventure. If you want to have prewritten stuff for the PCs to encounter, you've basically got to decide where they're going to go and roughly when.
Even on the encounter level, it's not a bad thing to make assumptions and write out how the monsters react if the assumptions bear out.
Your light reveals three large spiders, which turn towards the door as it creaks open.
That's the default assumption: You're coming through the door, with a light. If you don't have a light and can see anyway, you'll just need to rephrase (and figure out if the critters see in the dark. If you chase a goblin in, you'll need to change more drastically. If you come in the back way, through the secret trap door, that's different again. But it's a baseline, covering the most likely case and fairly easily adapted to circumstance.
I would actually like to see, on the slightly larger than encounter scale, more descriptions of how inhabitants will likely respond to the PCs. Especially for things like what they'll try to do if an alarm is raised or if the PCs withdraw and return on a later day.
All of which is sort of prepping plot, but trying to do so versatilely, rather than in a "This will happen" fashion.
It would actually make more sense than the current rules. Being on the other side of a wall is only +10 per foot of thickness. (I don't know if that rounds up or down, assuming it was a standard couple of inches or less interior wall.)Being invisible on the other side of the wall would add another +20. Even though you couldn't have seen them anyway.
Edit: This all makes a little more sense if you remember it's caused by a merging of the Spot & Listen (or the Move Silently and Hide) skills. In 3.x, you couldn't Spot the person on the other side of the wall, but you might hear them, with a +10 to the DC for foot of thickness. The invisibility wouldn't have mattered to the Listen roll and you couldn't Spot them anyway, so there was no weirdness with an invisible person on the other side of a wall being harder to detect than a visible one.
But we're a long way from Cover now.
Cool. While I like in theory listing all the checks separately (that someone else suggested upthread) I think that does add wordiness and space-taking issues. As bold text is used for other purposes, another color (or perhaps font--e.g., gothic if the running text is roman--if you're publishing in B&W only) is the easiest option I could think of.
Don't forget though, that even if you're publishing in color, if you're doing PDFs many people will print in B&W, so they'll lose color anyway. I'd hate to rely on color text for that reason.
Leaving aside readied actions and time travel, I do actually understand your argument, I just think it's wrong. Nor do I think that neon signs are required.
Can we clear up one thing that I'm not sure of? When you talk about visual cues or components are you talking about effects or about something being visible between the start of the casting and the actual effect. The two examples given blur the line since both describe a sort of intermediate effect.
Under your interpretation of the rules, you obviously couldn't identify Charm, but what about the other two?
Are you saying you could identify them by their effects and then counterspell them before the effects actually happen?
Personally, I like the descriptive stuff and want the read aloud text, possibly including such monster actions, even if I have to adjust it on the fly. If you're going to include any verbatim description at all, it might need to be modified, so I don't think the monster actions stand out particularly. If the room description included those webs that prompted the pre-emptive fireball, they're not likely to be there afterwards and the room description should contain more words like "smoky", "charred" and "smoldering".
The visual cue for fireball is "A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit". The text does not say "a glowing bead starts to form around the finger, giving you time to counterspell, before it streaks towards the target." Suggesting it does is just a much a house rule as anything.
Spells can be identified as they are being cast, as long as you can see them being cast. That's RAW. House ruling it to only apply to those relatively few spells that have specific visual cues in the text is fine, but a house rule. House ruling all spells to have flashy neon effects that can't be missed by any one nearby is also fine, but also a house rule. House ruling it so that spellcraft works just off the verbal/somatic/material components and thus can't be done if it lacks those is still fine, but still a house rule.
I don't understand the "zero time" argument. The spell takes time to cast (barring immediate action spells). As I understand it the spell takes effect when the casting is complete, but you can interrupt while it is being cast. I'd read the "glowing pea streaking away from the digit" to be the spell is complete and it's too late to be interrupted. Much like, by analogy, the arrow streaking away from a bow being too late to spoil the archer's aim by hitting him.
Both the "visual cues" examples you used I see as more visual effects. Magic Missile's effect is an arrow that shoots out and hits a target. That's like a Summon spell has a visual effect: A creature appears, but not a described visual cue.
I don't recall it being unlimited in the video games. Which makes it a couple of hit points at best.Which might still be the best usage, most of them became pointless pretty quickly.
And in the video games, your best bet for healing was almost always just to back off a bit and sleep. However much that broke my immersion.
(I only really played NWN, though)
Still those I mentioned before.
Trees and Injection are both good. Along with some other Ellis & Morrison stuff.
Matt Wagner's been doing pulp heroes for Dynamite for quite awhile now. Currently a Spirit series. Always good stuff.
I've never run multiple games at the same time. I've played various different games at the same time or in quick succession without trouble.
I suspect it actually helps if they're very different systems. 5E & The One Ring are very different. It sounds like Ryuutama is as well, though I don't know much about it. There's less rules overlap and thus less likelihood of confusing rules from one to another.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The "I am a god" analogy, or the more common reference to therians/Otherkin, doesn't really hold up. There's an awful lot of evidence that there really is something physical going on with gender dysphoria and that presenting as the appropriate gender, hormone treatment and to a lesser extent surgery are effective treatments. There are even fairly solid theories about the causes.
As far as I know, there's nothing similar for Otherkin or for your god analogy. In theory, I'm open to seeing such evidence, but I don't really expect it.
Jeff Harris 982 wrote:
I dunno man. I'm a straight cis white male, myself and I've never been dumped into "cis scum", so I don't know why you are. Or at least I've never taken offense when someone makes a general statement about cis people.Any more than I get all upset when one of my female friends complains about Men.
More generally, though you've tried to distinguish in some posts, you've also often blurred the line between just "cis" and "cis scum", suggesting that you do consider both equivalent. You've also shown that you really don't understand "cis", most obviously by saying it was an ancronym, but even still in this post by saying you're labeled as cis scum because you're a white man. (or earlier a straight white man). Being white, male or even straight has nothing to so with being cis or trans, as I said before.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This is such a tiresome issue. Why is it important enough to need it "put to bed"? It seems like a perfectly fine gray area to encourage GM ruling. I would absolutely allow someone to use Stealth while using Silent Spell and Still Spell—can anyone seriously try to tell me that's an overpowered combo?
I don't know about stealth, but is it completely impossible to use spellcraft to id spells that don't have somatic components? Either because they just don't or because you're using still spell?
Do verbal components matter, since Spellcraft only requires you to see them, hearing is irrelevant?
My personal take is that you could cast while using stealth. If it's a verbal spell, that's likely to break stealth. Or at least prompt perception checks at significant penalties, since they'll hear you and know someone is there. If you're hidden or invisible, no one can identify the spells, since they can't see you.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
But we still have the other words and use them when we want to distinguish. Most of the time you won't need to, but when you're specifically talking about trans people, it's good to have a term for the rest of us. When you're specifically talking about "straight razors", it's good to still use "safety razors" to be more clear.
Milo v3 wrote:
Thing is, it only says you need to see the spell being cast. Not that you need to see magical effects swirling around. So, if your looking at someone when they happen to cast a spell, you are seeing a spell being cast, because a person is casting a spell in your line of sight. There done.
Yeah, that's my understanding of the RAW approach.
The questions come in when you try to make that make sense. Especially in cases where there are no somatic or material components. (And apparently the Verbal ones don't matter because you have to actually see them, hearing isn't relevant.)
What are you actually looking at when using Spellcraft to identify a still spell?
captain yesterday wrote:
Now all I want is to go birding with Jawa (which could be a show on some outdoors network)
As opposed to birding with Jawas, which is entirely different.
In both of those cases, using the described visual cues ("A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit" and "A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip ") you could only identify the spell once it was complete and as it was taking effect. Bringing us back to the:<spellcraft roll> "It's a <BOOM> fireball."
You're supposed to be able to use Spellcraft to counterspell, which doesn't really make sense if the missile is already on its way.
That tends to be the pattern for the spells with described visual cues. The visible thing is the effect, not a cue during the casting.
So, is there any indication in the actual rules which spells have visual cues?Or is the GM completely free to handwave spellcraft not being able to identify any given spell?
You don't need to spend any of your time identifying your "normalities". In general, 'cis' isn't brought up unless it's needed for some reason. Much like 'trans'. Or 'gay'. Or 'straight'.
Except of course in discussions about gender identity, where it does tend to be needed. Avoid these conversations and you'll probably never hear the term.
But you don't have to do anything. You can just think of yourself as "normal" and even describe yourself that way and the worst that's likely to happen is a few insults on the internet. You still get far worse for letting anyone know you're trans, no matter how polite and non-confrontational you are about it.
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works. You don't mention a 4 legged dog, or a furred bear, or apples with seeds. Yes, that comes with the implication that cis is normal and everything else isn't, but why does not normal have to be not good? Have you met normal people? They're boring.
Like having words like "heterosexual" or "straight". We could ditch those too and just use "normal"."Cissexual" exists for exactly the same reasons. It's just more recent.
According to Dictionary.com, both words seem to have originated in the 1892 edition of the Psychopathia Sexualis, a forensic reference book. So the idea that heterosexual was coined to contrast with homosexual probably isn't wrong - if you're going to describe something that's "different" than any kind of measure, it makes sense to also have a word to describe that measure.
And "homosexual" was coined earlier, in the eighteen-sixties.
I wonder if there was as much grar about it as about cissexual? Probably not. Homosexuality was still illegal most places, not out and demanding rights.
I think most folks who use terms such as cis simply because they don't want to call someone normal. Calling someone different to yourself makes you abnormal, and they get enough of that crap from other places that they don't want to have to to do it themselves.
Pretty much that.
Along the same lines, near as I can tell, "heterosexual" was coined to contrast with "homosexual", which came first, though I don't know if it started with gays. "Straight" was originally gay slang though.
While both Gandhi and MLK strove for non-violence, both also used very aggressive strategies. Just not violent ones. They demanded equality and rights and asserted them, often against both the law and violent opposition. Non-violence, if it is too work, cannot be passive.And both were intensely hated and demonized by their opposition. It's only after MLK was safely dead that he became a revered figure in much of the US.
Name calling and insults are not violence. From what I've seen, both the gay rights movement as a whole and the trans movement we've seen lately have been overwhelmingly non-violent. Violence has been directed against them, of course, but there has been little in return. I don't see the point in raising the example of non-violent protest as if that wasn't the approach that's been used. Or of contrasting non-violence with insults.
Jeff Harris 982 wrote:
"Cis Scum" is obviously offensive and derogatory. I'd happily flag any post here using it, other than in obvious jest or a reference like this one."Cis" by itself is not intended to be derogatory, though obviously like any other label it can be used as such.
Note as well that "Cis" has nothing to do with "straight", "white" or "male". One can, for example, be a cis black female lesbian. Or a trans straight white man.
I don't understand what you mean by "obligated to fulfill a requirement".
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
The only "requirement" is that you must be able to clearly see the spell and that seems to refer to normal Perception check stuff.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Oh, I'd missed the supreme leader having one.
But it still changed by 3.0. By which time gish were any multiclass, not just f/mu, and the psionic emphasis grew as well.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
And when someone drinks more than they meant to and winds up having sex? What do we call that? Especially when the seducer has been pouring the drinks and she doesn't even know what's in them.Not necessarily rape, it could certainly be played either way depending on the performance, but the lyrics on their own are definitely creepy.
Also, what wasn't intended to be seen as rape in the 40s, might well look very different today.
At least originally, "advanced gish" were known as captains or supreme leaders, not gish. Gish were specifically the 4/4 NCOs.
And I assume the silver swords were intentionally tied to the anti-paladins.
It does look like it all changed, probably in 3.0, maybe earlier, with gish becoming a more generic multiclass term and silver swords being common to any higher level warrior types.
Yeah, that's what I've been referencing. I had to look it up too.
Gish aren't the rank and file as I see it, but low level officers, on the same scale as the sergeants and warlocks.