thejeff's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

R'lyeh is where Cthulhu is currently.

"ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

The problems come when your gaming choices are limited. As they always are.

And often contradictory.
I may like Bob's characterization, but find he optimizes his characters so far I can't compete without changing my style drastically and the GM has trouble finding good threats for both us.

Bob may like the crazy stunts and plans I come up with for combat, but find my builds too weak and again the GM has trouble.

Finding ways to play with people whose style is different from your own is important. And good.

And why does it have to be Bob that bends? Unless your style is centered around playing against type in self defeating ways (eg. dwarf sorcerer) he can help you build a character that is competitive. Unless he only knows how to optimize one kind of character, in which case you come here.

I didn't say it had to be Bob.

But why does it have to be me? Maybe because I don't enjoy the optimization game. Maybe because Bob builds really tweaked out combat monsters and that's not where I want to go.

Why always the assumption that the only solution to an imbalance within the party is for the players of the less optimized characters to learn how to make even more powerful characters. To get more system mastery. Why is it always assumed that more optimization will make the game better?

More optimization->harder challenges-> more optimization-harder challenges, etc.

As I said before, as you make the challenge harder and harder you rule out more an more concepts. Both in build and in roleplaying terms. If I have to play at my skill limit to survive, not only are there more character concepts that just aren't viable, but I have to optimize my character's actions too. I can't play characters that make mistakes, that have weaknesses (except the build kind that you trade off for other strengths).
I don't find that fun.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am very much opposed to the "designed encounters" movement that has plagued modern RPGs.

And by "modern RPGs", you mean at least since the mid '80s when I started playing.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also remember that Dead Shot suffers from the same problem Vital Strike does: You only add the weapon damage dice for each "shot". Criticals, magic bonuses and other static damage only apply once.

It works out being a lot less than the full attack it would replace.

And it costs grit.

If I found the iterative double-barreled shots too powerful, and I'm not sure I would, I'd probably just house rule against that, rather than changing the reload rules and affecting everything else.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also:

Darkness: Can a nonmagical light source increase the light level within the area of darkness if the light source is outside the spell's area?

No. Nonmagical light sources do not increase the light level within the spell's area, regardless of whether the light source is in the area or outside the area.

Clarifies and makes sense. Thank you.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just my stance:

I want to see optimized characters in my game, but I have no love for munchkins. I want the PCs to win, but I don't want to give it away. I want the party to be composed of heroes...and still, not every character needs to be amazing in combat...though if you can't fight at all, you probably shouldn't be a part of an adventuring party. Yes, I have a seat for the guy who wants to play a merchant, especially if he's able to defend his wares...and the scholar whose primary input is his knowledge, especially if it includes ways of defeating monsters, and some ability to do that.

They can be played right along side of the battle-hardened veteran who has a reputation of never having lost a battle, and the capability to show that he might well not...but that veteran likely understands that a wizard can break the rules...if he doesn't get to him first.

I'm far more interested in players doing clever and interesting things during the game than in even clever and interesting ways of building characters.

I also prefer somewhat easier games/combats because that allows me to use less optimized characters and to do those more interesting things in the game, rather than always making the most tactically optimal choices.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also don't forget you can only use Lightning Reload once per round. If you need to reload more than that to get your full attack sequence, you'll need to use cartridges or Rapid Reload.

I'm not at all sure how it all interacts with Advanced firearms, but I thing your tables with Lightning Reload are wrong. It does not just drop the time by one step as you have it.
Without Rapid Reload or cartridges, it drops either one or two-handed firearms to a swift action. With either it's a free action, but again only once per round.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

as long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point

You don't actually spend the grit point each time you reload. You just have to have 1 point left in your pool. Several other deeds work this way.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main issue I have with the Stormwind Fallacy is that it only goes one way. You can come up with a cool roleplaying concept for any build, however optimized.
That does not mean that any cool roleplaying concept can be turned into an equally optimized build.

You can use optimization techniques on any concept, but that won't get some concepts up to the top power levels.

The farther your game gets ramped up in difficulty, the fewer concepts can be made effective enough to survive it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Landon Winkler wrote:

Honestly, I think the answer is "don't optimize."

Shoot, instead, for a consistent power level with the other PCs so that the GM can challenge all of you with the same encounter and everyone can contribute.

Cheers!
Landon

That is the most sensible reply I have read on the forms to date.

in my opinion over Optimization leads to one trick ponies and causes the party to be over powerful in one way or another (usually combat). For me its all about party balance so that everyone has an equally good time.

And if you actually enjoy the challenge of optimization, rather than just having a powerful character, you can use your skills to bring a weak class or concept up to par rather than taking a strong one into the stratosphere.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

mplindustries wrote:

Because the GM should not do that? Frankly, I don't think the GM should ever be the one picking what the PCs fight, never mind the fact that the other PCs won't have those things, necessarily, so picking enemies to face you screws them over. What you describe in your post sounds like you're playing a very different game than I am.

So if the DM doesn't pick what the party fights, who does? The party?

Fighter: That was a good combat. Let's fight more giants!
Cleric: No! It's been giants twice in a row. I want some undead.
Rogue: Undead suck! I vote for -- something weak.
Wizard: Dragons! We haven't done dragons for weeks.
Rogue: Yikes!
Fighter: But I don't own a bow. You always want to make me useless.

DM: When you guys figure it out, let me know and I'll dutifully serve up a cakewalk.

I was wondering about that too.

A pure sandbox approach can get close to PCs picking the fights, but even there the GM has a very large say. Players tend to pick between possibilities the GM has set up, based on information the GM has given out.
Even then the GM has a large influence on the actual encounter: The party may choose to go after the Orc outpost rather than the troll cave, but they don't get to decide whether the orcs are all in your face melee types or if they also have archers and shamans.

Of course, he could have just been assuming modules and that the GM shouldn't change encounters based on party makeup.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Judy Bauer wrote:

Another data point, from Catholic Online, which seems to argue that what's new is simply the emphasis that even atheism is a sin that need not, keep you from heaven provided you do good—and through doing good, subsequently turn to God:

That seems like obvious spin to me. Nothing about Francis' words suggests to me that turning to God is a requirement for salvation.....

I'm not sure anything suggests it isn't. And that would be far more in keeping with Catholic theology.

The more I look into this, the less I think it was about salvation.
The topic was "doing good", not going to heaven.

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Everyone can do good. Even those who do not believe are capable of good. That's where we can meet. Not meeting in heaven, but meeting in good works.

Not an answer to "Can atheists be saved", but "Can they be good moral people without God". Which seems obvious to me, but I've heard it seriously argued by theists.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but what was a little sexist in the past might be completely unacceptable now. What is a little sexist now might have been a ground breaking moment for equality 50 years ago.

I wouldn't phrase it as "Star Trek wasn't sexist, but it is now because of Abrams", but as "Star Trek had been becoming less sexist over its history, but has reversed that now because of Abrams."

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Although it'd be bad form to arbitrarily design encounters to exploit their self-imposed weakness, there's nothing wrong with having the baddies do just that!

If the baddies can see the party coming, or have prior knowledge somehow, then smart baddies will exploit their weaknesses.

Players do it all the time! Just ask yourself what a player party would do if they knew the target group had no melee warriors, and then do that!

This would be a believable and organic response to their foolishness, without being some kind of petty DM punishment.

One more time: The players get this. That's why in the OP, they all looked at the Cleric when asked about a blocker. That's not the problem.

The problem is none of them want to play that character, because they think it's a boring role. Killing them off won't change that opinion. It may make one of them suck it up and play the BSF in the next game, but it won't make them realize it can be a fun role.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are all Popes!

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bah, prepare, memorize, same difference.

It's not like they DO anything to prepare besides, hey, reading the spellbook or praying, as far as we know anyway.

Except the fluff not being memorization makes the "you can't remember how to pick your nose today" and "extreme senility" response pointless.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it makes MORE sense for Clerics.

At least for Clerics it's DEITIES deciding you can't remember how to pick your nose today, and not just the extreme senility the supposedly hyper intelligent Wizards all have.

You do realize that "memorization" and "forgetting" haven't been part of the fluff for prepared casting since 1E and it was arguable then.

The current rules use "prepare".

Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they work so well, why don't the games sell?

I have tried a lot of systems, and the only "spell points" system I tried that was playable (and even sold some games)' was Runequest.

Still, the magic system was what many complained about, and the game-sadly- died.

Because D&D is the dominant brand. It was the first. It's the only one with any name recognition outside the hobby. It's the common denominator. Among gamers, the vast majority started playing D&D. It may not be their favorite, but it's usually acceptable. I was a fan of GURPS for awhile, my buddy really like Hero, even for fantasy. I couldn't stand Hero, he didn't like GURPS, but we were both happy playing D&D.

I'd really hesitate to say D&D is dominant because it has a Vancian magic system.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff, I don't really care about Mother's day in school or out. It falls into the category I call "Hallmark Holidays" that were literally lobbied for by the greeting card industry.

However, this does fit into the general realm of the tyranny of good intentions. Which is what political correctness is all about. Which is why it's on topic to post that quote.

Or possibly just good intentions without the tyranny. It is possible, you know.

The quote claims that tyranny with good intentions is the most dangerous kind. It does not claim that good intentions are bad. You've still got to show me the tyranny.

Or is it just that anything done for the good of a minority group is "political correctness", which means it's always bad?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

Daethor wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.

Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.

It doesn't matter to me who rolls or which direction the numbers go, but IIRC the part of that change that bothered me was that it became more ubiquitous. Every attack spell worked the same way: roll vs defense. As opposed to 3.x and earlier where some had saving throws, some always worked, some were touch attacks,etc.

Note: I only played one test campaign of 4E early on, so that may have changed.

Looking at it it looks a lot different, in practice it is cosmetic. Most classic spells still do half damage on a miss etc. True some don't always hit but some are still always damaging.

Thinking about it a little more: I think I like casting having a fundamentally different mechanic than physical combat. It gives a different feel to the two things if they work differently.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, I kind of get that's the theory, I just can't see how it works. At least without some metagame assumption that you won't use random encounters if they keep pushing on long enough to make you happy.

Except the whole 15 minute work day is already a metagame concept. No one in any story ever has walked through the woods for 10 minutes, got into a fight with a bear and then some wolves, and then said Oh...well...time to rest... Yes you are countering metagame with metagame but it works, so long as you know, you talk to your players.

Quote:

Is the thought process really supposed to be: We fought a couple of fights, were low on spells, so rested and got smeared by some randoms in the night. Obviously we need to use up less in each fight, but then do more

Random encounters dont have to just happen in the night. They could for instance be waiting for you in the next room that you already fought in yesterday. But again, the thought process is 'yea if we stop after 2 hours of adventuring our dm may very well drop another owl bear on our heads. Maybe we should keep going and see what we can get done today.'

As long as it's openly metagame, I'm more cool with it.

Still, I'm not really sure resting after a serious fight is all that metagame. It doesn't usually happen in real life but that's more because we don't get per day abilities. If I get in a fight with a bear in the woods, I'm not going to rest there over night. I'm going to get out of the woods and to a hospital. Or lie there and call for help. :)
More seriously, when soldiers on patrol get in a fire fight or hit a trap/IED, they don't conserve resources and carry on. They call in air support and back up and evac. Same thing with police. Of course, that may be because they've got backup and evac available.

"2 hours of adventuring"? The problem with the 15-minute adventuring day is that it's pretty much built in to the game. You can't run an 8 hour adventuring day unless most of it is travel time. You might spend that time travelling to the dungeon, exploring it and going back. You're not going to spend it exploring any reasonable dungeon. Not without resting. Even 2 hours is 1200 rounds. If you play through 5-6 combat encounters with a few minutes of searching and bandaging between them, you probably haven't taken an hour and you're probably running low on resources. If the combats are easier, you'll get through a few more, but you'll probably do it faster.

I really can't imagine an 8 hour adventuring day, unless it's 95% unadventful travel. How many sessions would it take to play out?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not every random encounter has to be a fight. Especially those way out of CR range ones.

If you roll up a dragon for a low level party, they can just see him flying overhead. They don't even have to run away, just don't try to draw it's attention.

They get a bit of "There's dangerous stuff out there", without taking up much time or resources.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And there's a big difference between the government banning you painting your house flamingo pink and your neighbors shunning you (and maybe your business) if you paint your house flamingo pink.

Or, to go back to the business at hand, between the government forcing Rush Limbaugh off the air because he's an offensive a!*%&@$ and people complaining to his advertisers and him losing revenue because he's an offensive a$+~$%*.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean like we had 3 tiers before? Scenarios, modules and APs?

The modules are just longer now. They were always bigger than scenarios.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One amusing thing about the AP scandal. Back when the leak occured Republicans were screaming for an investigation. Now they're screaming about the investigation.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the difference there is that Nixon's enemies list was a real thing, that he used to attack his political enemies. Not suspected terrorists, justly or not, but domestic politicians, reporters and activists.

Obama has a kill list, which I think is a bad thing. But it's not political rivals, it's been used solely on people affiliated with terrorists. Very loosely in some cases. With bad intelligence in others. Again, I think it's a very bad thing. But not something Darryl Issa needs to worry about, no matter how many investigations into Obama scandals he cranks up.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature over there somewhere. It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).

That's interesting. It needs a little work: How does it interact with creatures who can't make Stealth checks, for example.

The difficulty to Notice is lower, only the -4 to Perception, but that's not a bad thing really. Sneaking by someone without alerting them would rely on Stealth even if you're invisible.

The interesting thing from the POV of this discussion is that almost the same language is used as the invisibility section we're talking about: "locate" instead of "notice", "over there somewhere", "almost impossible to pinpoint" and the same +20 DC modifier to pinpoint, but here they make it clear that the Pinpoint is +20 to the Locate Perception check.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

The black raven wrote:

I wonder if heterosexual cisgendered white males are allowed to be angry at being insulted in any way by any member of any other group or if they have things so good for them in life (due to what they are) that they have absolutely zero right to be offended :-P

Several people, including me, have already brought up examples like "redneck" or "cracker", which would apply to the appropriate subgroup of heterosexual cisgendered white males.

And of course, insults not relating to race, gender or sexuality could be offensive to anyone.

Actually, any insult should be offensive to anyone ;-)

IIRC, you wrote that people that could be categorized as "rednecks" could use redneck in a non-derogative way to speak of themselves (similar to the N-word being used by black people).

My question was more what if a non-redneck person uses the redneck epithet ? And what about using it as an insult ?

I think I specifically used it as a parallel, where it could be used in-group without offense, but was insulting used by outsiders.

It's the same with many things. Any insult should be offensive to anyone, but words in and of themselves are not insults. It's all about context. Back in my high school days, my friends and I might refer to each other as geeks in a complimentary way. If one of the jocks called us that, he meant it as an insult and we took it that way. Jock probably works the same way from the other side, though the power dynamic was different.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

And apparently that CIA team was 4 guys with 9mm sidearms and not much else. Not a crack counterinsurgent combat team.

Sure, they wanted to go, but that doesn't mean sending them would have been a good tactical decision.

Except that they were KEY in scraping together the Libyans. Arriving on site, tapping into the Predator Drone that showed the arrival of another assault force and then decided to use the vehicles they brought along with the Libyans to fight their way out rather than wait and be overwhelmed.

Their rapid reaction and decision making saved the day, despite the muddling and foot dragging from superiors.

Wait. The team that wasn't allowed to go did this?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the problem here is we're working on two different meanings of "sexual reference", due to confusion up-thread.

Set was talking about text that confirmed or implied a sexuality, which includes the existence of children, marriage and any people described as "attractive".
You are talking only about text relating in some way to the act of having sex.

Along with some kind of weird implication that anything relating to homosexuality has to be the second kind. Never explicitly stated, but obviously there in all the posts that say something like "We don't deal with homosexuality in our games because we don't go into sex. It's just fade to black."

Not carmachu or anyone in particular, but it keeps coming up.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion wrote:

That's one reason I like rogues and ninjas both, and that I like inherently lawful good paladins and so on. Having those inherent restrictions and those additional options actually creates solid stories because of those restrictions and additional options.

I like creating my own story thanks. Removing options removes story. Its only convenient if its your own of course.

<Takes all rulebooks, throws them away>

No restrictions left. All the options you could possibly want. Let's make up characters and start playing.

All the rules are restrictions. But without them there isn't a game. At best there's a story. At worst there's two kids on the playground yelling "I hit you!" "No, you missed!"

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me give you an example of how it could work :

You have a corridor.

With a perception roll, you can notice easily traces of dried blood and crushed bones. (Dc 15).

So you know there is a trap, you do not know exactly what it does.
Now, it is not too hard really to figure that the walls are going to close on you, and crush you to death.

Further roll could allow you to also learn that the doors on both side are going to close on you.

So how are you going to solve it :

1) USe a fly spell, don't touch the ground, and don't activate the trap ?
2) make it so the doors can't close, and run for it ?
3 ) Use an immovable rod to prevent the walls from closing on you ?
or
4) Just a stupid die roll ?

I know which one I'd prefer.

All of which, without more information, translates to guess what the GM (or module writer) was thinking.

1) Oops, wasn't ground pressure trigger, but magical motion sensor. Splat!
2) How do you wedge the far door without getting to it? Splat!
3) Alright, that might work. If you've got one.

Or maybe it wasn't crushing walls at all, but something else that left the blood and bones.

I don't like playing "Outthink the GM". It's not as bad for disarming as for finding traps, since you don't have to apply your whole list of trap finding measures every step of the way. But it's still a game in which I can't use my characters abilities, just my own.
Do character abilities never play into it? Can anyone who thinks of it wedge the walls or jam the mechanism or whatever just as well?

Personally, I'd rather just have less traps. I've never really enjoyed them. I've never played Tomb of Horrors, but I've read it. Even reading through it, I can't tell how you're supposed to figure out half the traps.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This whole thread is a trap and I failed my save.

But you did make the Perception check. Did you Take 20?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's put it another way then: Explicit or otherwise "adult" material is an entirely separate issue from having characters who are homosexual or otherwise diverse in sexual preference.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Scott Betts.

Glad to hear I haven't used any bigoted words.

Just to be clear - I'm not opposed to including a gay iconic - my position is a preference for no sexual references. I'm happy that the materiel was silent on the matter - I can add what fits my campaign world.

So you're equally opposed to things like

(but not before he'd sampled a few of the joys of married life)

who sought only the joy of exploration (and maybe a pretty, worldly girl or three to regale with his stories)
Valeros will only say that he was positive their leader had been crushed under that cave-in, or else he never would have touched the man's wife.
And if some of those companions happen to be pretty women, such as a certain Varisian sorcereror or elven rogue, all the better.

Sex and romance are major motivators for people, both in fiction and in real life. Not referring to them in the game materials would be very weird.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

thejeff wrote:

The trouble is, it doesn't work that way. Working more than 40 hours won't be voluntary. At least not in anything other than the "You can quit" sense of voluntary. Even with overtime it's often not voluntary.

I don't even understand what "voluntary" would mean in either case? How is a voluntary minimum wage or voluntary overtime rules different from not having any?

I suppose there would be no difference at all. Maybe companies that produce goods could advertise that "we pay minimum wage", or "we pay overtime". You could choose to work at those companies, or buy their services. We disagree on labor laws, I'm just thinking of ways we could both be happy.

"Get rid of labor laws" is not a compromise between "Get rid of labor laws" and "Strengthen labor laws"

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There is something I don't get...I'll remind you I am all for characters of variety of sexual orientation and other areas of diversity....

Why does it matter that your role models...or people who you look up to have to be exactly like you? Personaly I look up to people in history or literature because of who they are and what they did...not who they love or the color of their skin, etc. I am not saying you are wrong...just trying to understand it.

Also...the only thing I don't like about having the Iconics sexuality defined at all is because there GMs who use them as pre gens for new players...and I rather have that new player definer that character. Though I don't mind them exploring these characters more in the comics book and giving them depth.

It's not so much that all your role models have to be exactly like you, it's when there aren't any that it becomes hard.

To take it to the extreme, if all the postive role-models available, everyone who's held up as a success, as someone to emulate, are straight white men, it's much harder for the gay black female to see herself having a chance at reaching that goal. While that's an extreme example, it isn't that long ago it was fairly accurate, at least for women who didn't want a traditional female role.

So it's not so much, all my heros have to be gay, for example, but it's nice if there's an example showing that gays can be heros.

When you're a straight white male, as I am, you're so surrounded by examples of people like you that it's easy to take to role models who don't match you, because you're overwhelmed with those that do.
Now imagine growing up gay and never reading a book, never seeing a movie or TV show with a gay hero.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

eventually, it is either going to be, experiment with new classes and races, or make a new edition.

and since third edition survived 8 or 9 years due to splatbook life support, PF i'd guestimate, has been out 4 years, and is about anywhere from 3-7 years away from a new edition based on how much new crunch they churn out and how often they release it.

a new hardcover supplement with say 8-12 new base classes, a handful of feats and new spells, new archetypes for the new classes, 8-12 new races with alternate racials and favored class bonuses for each, and new gear, could, if released every year, over a 3 year span buy them a total of 7 years worth of system life support with hardcore fans playing the old system after the new one is released. the big seller being the new and possibly experimental base classes.

Of course, 1st edition also survived about 10 years with only a handful of new classes and less new crunch than 3.x.

Similarly 2E lasted 11 years with few new base classes, though it started the splatbook explosion and introduced kits.
The vast explosion of classes and prestige classes in 3.x only kept it going for 7 years, with a reboot in the middle, allowing them to rerelease all the old material tweaked.
4th also had plenty of new classes and only lasted about 5 years.

I'm not sure the evidence shows that it's new classes (or even new mechanics) that keep editions going.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

..and the last said - re: money...I WANT them to keep cranking out material...you see, I WANT them to stay in business. What I don't really want is Pathfinder 2.0...2.5...3.0...ad absurdem.

For the business model to work, they need to keep giving us options.

Personally, I hope their business model can survive on more fluff and less crunch. More APs and modules and setting books and the like. Less new classes and feats and spells and such.

The more options and combinations of options you have the harder it is to keep it all coherent and vaguely balanced. Feature bloat is a bad thing

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gorbacz wrote:

What "focus"? The only "focus" I can see is that recently we found out who is the homosexual iconic. That's about as much "focus" as that we recently found out what the real fate of Baba Yaga's daughters is. Or where the Elves really come from. Or what's the next AP.

Count the pages of "homosexuality in golarion" now how many treads combined talk about any other major facet of character like race or religion. do the combined THREADS compare well to the PAGES on gay characters?

Are we talking about Paizo's use of homosexuals?

Or about players having flame wars about controversial issues?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kahn Zordlon wrote:

thejeff wrote:

And that doesn't count the conditions offshore where most of the cool gadgets are actually made. Or where the rare mineral are mined.

I think that a large deposit of lithium was found in one of the middle eastern contries (forget which). The country is poor and mining there will help the country. The offshore conditions are probably similar to the industrial revolution the US went through, and is a necessary evolutionary stage of the economy.

Or the companies that are going to mine the lithium could set up safe mines and pay their workers reasonable rates, creating massive advancement in the country that would allow their ecconmy to grow. But since the company will likely be foreign, it wont care and will pay just enough to get people to want a position there over whatever other backbreaking work they could get, provide crappy housing for the people, but then make it too expensive for the people to leave so that they are stuck working there. Kinda like what happened to coal towns in the US.

Likely they'll bribe the ruling class of the country to look the other way for violations of any labor laws that do exist. Or even human rights violations.

There's some pretty good evidence that resource extraction is bad for poor countries in everything but the very short run.
The vast majority of the profits leaves the country or goes to the existing, probably oppresive, power structure. The jobs created are low-end, require little education and don't lead anywhere.
The money flowing into the upper class of the country means there's little incentive to develop an educated workforce and develop any kind of a diverse economy.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

We've tried this before. It sucked. It empirically doesn't work. A few people amass an enormous amount of wealth and then collude to keep as much profit for themselves as possible, while using a small portion of the vast wealth they're gathering to neuter any government efforts to stop them from colluding.

I think you're talking about the robber-barrons from the industrial revolution? I'm unsure when capitolism didn't work. Are you talking about monopolies? The enormous wealth developed by standard oil "monopoly" cut the price of lamp oil by about 90%. Carnige Steel similarly slashed the price of steel.

Capitalism works fine for the rich. It even works, in some senses, for the economy as a whole. Without some counter balance, it also keeps the vast majority of the population in abject poverty, working and dying in horrendous conditions.

Then we changed that and the middle class ballooned. People worked less hours, educated their children, lived longer, were able to retire. We became a consumer society because more than just a tiny minority had leisure and money for things beyond the bare necessities. And the rich didn't really suffer. They stayed rich. It was a little harder to get good servants, but they got all sorts of technological gadgets to make up for it.

Now some have forgotten how much of that change was the result of union struggles and the resulting government regulation. They just assume it's the natural result of a free market and will continue and expand if we just stop using the government (or worse, unions) to interfere.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hama wrote:

I don't particularly care about money.

That's probably why he's in the business and you're not, tbh. Among other reasons.

Not being insulting, just stating the facts. If that's your mindset - and I sympathize, it's mine as well - then going into the movie business, or really any business, is not a good path for you to take.

The people who spend the time and effort making movies are typically in it for a profit, and will tend to do whatever attracts the biggest crowds. Unfortunately for those of us who want something more, the majority of moviegoers - at least, if latest trends are any indication - seem to prefer something to go see and veg out for a while on rather than a deep or thought-provoking storyline behind a movie. Hence why summer blockbuster action movies still make a ton of money despite being as shallow as a fishbowl pothole.

Not necessarily true of art or even of movies in general, but it's going to be hard to make a D&D movie, which is by definition a special effects laden action-adventure movie, without spending a lot of money on it.

If you plan to spend a lot of money without convincing your financiers you care about making a lot of money, you're not going to get your movie off the ground.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The_Big_Dog wrote:

No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine.

I agree.

I also believe this is exactly relevant to Stealth vs. Perception. They sneaker and the observer each make one check for the entire action. There are conditions such as cover and being behind a wall that might apply at the beginning of the check, but if the sneaker moves to a place where those conditions don't apply, the same two checks earlier are still in play, but the modifiers are removed.

In other words, if the sneaker beats the DC while having cover and a wall then he is stealthy behind the wall's cover but not in front of it. If he beats the DC for both, then he can be stealthy behind the wall and in front of it.

And therefore, once he's left the cover of the wall, he not only loses the modifier for being behind the wall, but if nothing else grants the ability to use stealth, he can't use it.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or you can apply common sense and realize "observable stimuli" matches "stepping out from behind the wall" better than "starting to move quietly out of sight".

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blur = Stealth in plain sight

Blur wrote:

The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).

Yes. Though it's been argued that it's not intended.

Part of the reason it's kind of silly to be so adamant about "Oh no! you can't possibly sneak up on someone in the light. It would break everything. Unless you use a second level spell to do it, then it's fine."

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kalshane wrote:

Why? Why is Golarian (or whatever world you're playing) somehow populated with super-observant beings that never fail to notice things?

Noticing stuff that moves is one of the main things our visual system is optimized for ... of course it doesn't work too well on stuff outside of our limited FoV, but you can't reasonably rely on being able to find time windows where that happens all the time.

That's why you need facing/scanning rules, so you can reasonably decide whether the opportunity exists or whether the guard is just looking straight down a long corridor with bugger all chance for reasonable stealth checks ... now of course you can use "common sense" but if you're consistent as a DM doing that repeatedly tends to result in house rules.

Of course, you could argue that one part of the Stealth skill is timing your movements to match the observer glancing away.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, for those saying "There's nothing wrong with rules":
How do you run it?
Can you leave cover and sneak attack if you can reach the target in a round?
Can you cross between two areas of cover without losing stealth?

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meatrace wrote:

I think you're confusing the way it ought to be and the way it is.

Yes, investment is a risk and it should be rewarded. No one is arguing otherwise. The question is of proportion. If you create a company and you work 3 times as hard as your employees, but it's your money or startup investment on the line (which is so very seldom the case, as I remarked above, but nonetheless) what portion do you feel is owed you? If you have a company that makes 10 million in profits before paying employees, and you have 100 employees including yourself, what do you each get paid?

Socialism would dictate everyone takes home $100k. A fair distribution might be the owner/operator makes 25% and everyone else makes makes $75k. Our current system has the owner take home everything but $1.5 million, enough to pay his 99 workers minimum wage.

It isn't a question of working hard. 3x the diligence and thoughfulness of mopping a floor or washing dishes is just improving society enough to pay them more than a fraction of a person who employs 100 people making beer or running a restaurant chain. Any decision on who gets paid what would be a bureaucratic nightmare for a planned economy, besides taking away incentives. I think I answered your question of what do you each get paid?, by saying whatever the market will bear. Also smart money invests, if the workers were payed according to profits, what's left to expand the company, or save for a downturn?

Thing is, we know where "Whatever the market will bear" leads us, in the absence of government regulation and union pressure. We saw it during the early industrial age. We see it today in factories in the 3rd world.

Sweatshops. Wages that are barely enough to keep workers alive. Horrendous working conditions. Fire escapes & windows locked to keep workers from sneaking breaks. Exposure to toxic chemicals and wastes. Child labor.