|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
1) This isn't actually true. Casters, particularly magic-users, started off slow (when they were very weak), but caught up and passed fighters until very high levels. By 7th wizards were actually ahead and didn't fall behind again until something like 16th.
2) Saves were a big part of the difference, but it wasn't so much the difference between good and bad saves, but that saves went up and DCs didn't. It was actually easier to resist spells at high level, even level appropriate spells.
While there's certainly truth in that, turn it around. The Palestinians feel like they are occupied and oppressed while the Israelis continue to take their land. The only way to get them to stop striking back is for Israel to lessen the occupation and the oppression and begin to remove the settlements.In all honesty, the Palestinians are in far worse shape and have far less options. Why must it be up to them to make the first move to make their occupier FEEL better?
Lord Snow wrote:
No, obviously if the land goes back to Palestine, the settlers leave. I just don't believe that deal will happen, unless Israel is practically forced into it. '
As near as I can tell, much of Israel's political maneuvering over the past couple decades and several administrations has been dedicated to avoiding any real peace deal while looking like they're seeking one. It's actually pretty impressive.
As you say, Israel is not among the countries who suffered from WWII. As I said, Israel did not exist during WWII.
What Andrew said was "Israel learned from it's peoples suffering in WW2". Many of the people of Isreal, particularly in the early years, had lived through, fled from and/or lost relatives to the Holocaust. To suggest that the people of of Israel did not suffer in WWII is beyond nonsense.
That some of them may have learned the wrong lesson from that suffering is a tragedy of it's own.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
That I'd agree with. Despite what some may think from my posts here, I'm not at all "pro-Hamas". I do think they're more pragmatic and willing to deal than people give them credit for - despite the evil crap in their Charter.They've been willing to deal with Fatah and even offer long term peace deals to Israel, as well as shown themselves able to keep the shorter term ones.
In a way, I suspect they're trapped. They've got enough hardliners that if they moderate too much without getting anything out of it, they'll fracture, or create openings for Islamic Jihad and other even more extreme groups. And they may be more useful to Israel as the bad guy than in any kind of deal, so they can't actually get any concessions.
No error. He's describing the West Bank, not Gaza. He's doing so as an illustration of the peaceful solution that Gazans could expect if they forsook Hamas and violence and elected moderate leaders.
Besides, the whole idea that "Take out the casters" is a valid response to Aux's concern's with the system is ridiculous. Magic and casting classes are a huge part of the feel of D&D and have been from the very start. As far as I can tell, Aux wants a lower powered, grittier version of D&D, not one with huge chunks ripped out and thrown away. Being able to play lower powered casters is part of the appeal.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Only nation states can be parties to the Convention. That's what it is. It's a treaty between states. Hamas is not a state. Nor is Palestine. Neither of them can sign the Convention. That does not mean any signatory has a free hand in dealing with non-state actors.I suggest you read the terms, particularly the sections on Occupations and on Resistance movements.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
And this, not the pro-Russian propoganda is why Vlad creeps me out: Battle is not GLORIOUS. Battle is real people dying and being crippled.
I almost wish I'd seen more of it. I was playing a lot of Call of Cthulhu in the later 80s. It would have been amusing to have fundies tell me that was ok, as long as it wasn't D&D.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
No. Of course not. The UN, HRW and Amnesty are however.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
It's hard evidence of rocket fire, of course. It's not hard evidence that they're shooting from schools, hospitals or other protected areas. Which is what is disputed.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Yes, the part you left unsnipped is an overly simplistic approach.Nonetheless, you're correct that terrorists shouldn't launch rockets at Israel, but Israel's approach is counterproductive if what they want is to reduce rocket fire. In addition to causing high civilian casualties, they've also drawn far more rocket fire by ending the truce than they'd seen total in the months preceding the current conflict. And set back any progress towards moderation.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
A) The point of the first part of the argument was to differentiate it from the direct analogy of a guy shooting at the soldier from behind a civilian, where the soldier is in direct threat. Given the effectiveness of the rocket attacks, maybe teh rockets are closer to a militant shooting a rifle at a tank from behind a civilian.Beyond that, these are accusations by the IDF. Which is not exactly an impartial 3rd party. The UN claims the weapons found in a vacant school recently were the first time. There is little to no hard evidence supporting the IDF's claims, other than that there is rocket fire from within Gaza. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have investigated and not been able to confirm. Despite this Israel has been bombing protected sites for years. There is actually a process for handling these situations under the Geneva Conventions and it has not been followed.
And yes, Israel has prosecuted it's own soldiers. Twice, after a good deal of publicity. And, as I said, it's given them a slap on the wrist.
Israel can't be at war with Hamas. Not legally. That's the point. They can fight them, but they can't be at war with them. Legally that matters. They have obligations and responsibilities that they are ignoring and violating.
Frankly, what they should do is not conduct military operations in a dense urban environment unless seriously threatened. Not use attempt to provoke Hamas into open conflict for political advantage. Not use the excuse of looking for kidnapped teens they already know are dead to rampage through the West Bank. Not try to assassinate Hamas agents and kill a dozen civilians when you screw up (that was before the current mess, btw). Not do all of this as Hamas and Fatah are working on a reconciliation and unity government, while Hamas is doing it's best to hold to the last peace agreement and is likely to moderate even further as well as play an overall lesser role in the new government. Because what it looks like they're doing is trying to stop that.
Shooting at the dragon that might just be passing by also gets the town burned down.
Even if it is evil, it's probably worth trying to avoid a fight. Or try to set the fight up on your terms. Probably worth casting defensive buffs while you wait to see if it's going to attack the town, though. And start getting the non-combatants undercover. And bucket teams.
Actually, what Good heroes do is nothing to attract it's attention while it's flying above their town. If it attacks, kill it. If it flies by, track it and get a force ready to deal with it, outside of town, away from civilians and property damage. Send for help, if you can. If it's willing to talk, talk, unless you're sure it's a threat (even to others) and sure you can handle it.
That's because Good isn't stupid.
captain yesterday wrote:
it isn't evil to kill Drow on sight..... if its Drizzt Do'Urden that guy's time has gotta be up right?
That's the best argument yet. Actually, Drizzt's alright, but it's worth killing any other ones just on the off chance they're Drizzt clones.
When humans go into an hobgoblin village to loot and pillage, that's 'evil'.When humans go into an hobgoblin village to stop the hobgoblins who've attacked the human village , that's 'heroic'. If they loot and pillage while they're there, that's part of the game.
I can't remember the last time I played a game that involved sacking humanoid villages for the fun of it. Probably something like Keep on the Borderlands, back in middle school. The vast majority of modules I see today make sure there's a suitably heroic motivation to back up the desire for loot and xp.
Hell, I even played one homebrew game awhile back where we rescued the lizardman village from the evil elven slavers.
Lord Snow wrote:
Of course much of the worst of this isn't done by "unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform", especially ones in imminent danger from Hamas operatives being shielded by civilians, it's being done by airstrikes and missiles and artillery, generally from a nice safe distance. The kids on the ground aren't so much the problem. Though there were some nasty incidents in previous operations and I'm sure more will come to light in the aftermath of this one.
Nonetheless, it's not the soldiers I blame, it's the leaders - political and military. They set the objectives. They know how the operation will go. They know that any military operation in this kind of urban setting will have a high civilian toll, even without human shields. They also know that it's futile, militarily. Mowing the lawn, as it's been called. Even assuming this was about the rockets, peace deals slow the rockets to a trickle, offensives bring far more. Of course, that's not the point, just an excuse.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
Hell, you can do the same with the automatically evil ones too. Maybe not the tug of war, but you probably can't do that with a patrol from a nation you're at war with either.
You may be justified in automatically killing them because they're evil, that doesn't mean it's always the best strategic or tactical choice. Maybe you want to question them. Maybe you want to disguise yourselves and infiltrate. Maybe you want to follow them back. Maybe they can be bribed - evil certainly isn't immune to corruption. Maybe they can be tricked into fighting another group.
If you think the only thing possible to do with evil monsters is just kill them on sight, you're sorely limited.
But not in English usage, correct? Certainly not in modern English common use.
Besides, demons were in the game long before the category "outsider" was invented.
And by "never" you mean "always in the English language", just not in the root languages it comes from.
Yeah, pretty much this: "Why are you killing the funny looking elf?"
OTOH, if you are aware of what Drow are and don't want to take any chances: Attack first, kill if you can't take them alive. Then use Speak with Dead to find out what's going on and then Raise them and apologize if you made a mistake.
Wizards is in this game to make money. So is Paizo. You don't run a company any other way because rent needs to be paid, and people have to eat. Even Paizo answers to people who hold stock in the company and expect a return on investment. That's the American way. it's also been the way since we stopped expecting hunter gatherers to feed only themselves, and we entered into a goods and services exchange.
Paizo's privately held, isn't it? Is it venture capital or actually owned by Lisa (and the other founders?).If it's just them, it's a very different setup with different responsibilities than WtoC.
Obviously, as I said before, they need to bring in enough to pay the bills, but that's very different than being focused only on the quarterly profit statements.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Trust? I don't trust any company. Companies (with very few exceptions) exist for one singular reason, to make a profit. Any ethics they exhibit usually exist only due to limitations of law.
That's more and more true the farther up the corporate food chain you go. All businesses need to make enough revenue to stay afloat, pay their workers and the owners, that's certainly true.But for many small businesses, especially in what's esentially a niche hobby market, profit is far from the only driver. Even many brick and mortar mom & pop businesses are more in it for the love of doing what they're doing rather than to drag every last possible penny out of it. As long as they make enough to keep doing it, that's enough.
Paizo is still a private company. They're not responsible to shareholders and driven by quarterly earnings reports. Obviously, they want to make money, but they're still at a scale where it's possible to have ethics, rather than just business decisions. Their treatment of LGBTQ issues in the game is an example of this. I don't believe that's a cold money motivated business decision (though they might well have backed off if the initial tentative moves had obviously hurt them), but a reflection of the personal beliefs of the owner and management.
WotC is not in that position. They're owned by a large corporate company who can't care beyond the profit numbers. That's the way it is.
As I understand it, Drivethru had permission to sell the PDFs. If they did not, that would be an entirely different story. WotC pulled with less than a full day's notice permission to sell PDFs from all it's online resellers along with their right to distribute even to those who had already purchased them. There was no mess other than the standard panic about people sharing/pirating digital content.
But you're right, I don't have any real expectations of getting them to behave. All I can do is patronize companies that treat me better.
And when a business screws me over, even if it's in a perfectly legal fashion, I reserve the right to be upset about and not give them my business anymore. That, even more than the letter of the law, is how you get businesses to behave well.
There's certainly a temptation to shift because of the current lack of "bloat", but it will be a shortlived change.
I'm not even saying that it's that bad, just that looking at classes isn't where the bloat/power creep is in PF. It's almost unavoidable, not because new options are more powerful, but because just adding more options and more combinations of options makes for more powerful characters.
You keep talking about 'rules bloat', but what about that is so off-putting to you? Why specifically is it more advantageous in your opinion to have less options? And as far as OP combos are concerned, what is your definition of OP? Outside of the Summoner, all of the additional rules Paizo has released feel solidly balanced (at least to me). In fact, it has kind of been disappointing to me overall that Paizo hasn't released MORE unique base classes and useful prestige classes, but I understand it's in the interest of maintaining balance and staving off power creep. And the fact that Paizo devs prefer archetypes to prestige classes.
Personally I think the bloat and power creep in PF isn't really in classes, but in feats and spells and even equipment. An example would be all the ways for a sorcerer to get more spells (favored class bonuses, pages of spell knowledge, Paragon Surge (even the nerfed version)).
As I said before, it was perfectly within WotC's legal rights.
It was still a jerk move and it's understandable that people were (and still are) upset about it.
We're not talking about keeping things for decades. We're talking about something you could have bought yesterday not being in the companies download library tomorrow.Hope you got the warning email.
The funny thing about the 3.5 gaming crowd, which makes up the vast majority of Pathfinder player base, is that they, for the most part, embraced the vast sea of options. Pathfinder isn't the only RPG out there, it even isn't the only iteration of D&D out there, and I can pretty much bet that all those people who prefer lite gaming hardly ever touched 3.5, let alone Pathfinder, and are out there happily playing OSR retroclones or whatanot.
A lot may have dropped 3.5 then picked up again when PF started and didn't have a vast sea of options. And then got turned off again as it expanded. That's essentially what I've done.
Lack of splat bloat and "lite gaming" aren't really the same thing. I doubt anyone who really prefers lite systems goes for the retroclones. D&D's always been a rules heavy system. Older versions just had some rules gaps and didn't have the character building mini-game. In many ways AD&D was a more complex, rules heavy game than PF, when it came to actually playing the game.
Steve Geddes wrote:
There's also a difference between "guaranteeing the downloads would be available in perpetuity" and "You won't be able to get them tomorrow".
Nathanael Love wrote:
I think you sort of contradict yourself there. I suspect the average group really is on the same power level as the average AP. I suspect the average group is closer to middle of the road level optimization than to power gamers.
Possibly not the average gamer who hangs out here and posts about APs, but there are a lot who don't.
Scott Betts wrote:
WotC was well within their legal rights to do so. That's not in dispute.
WotC was a jerk to do so, especially they way they did. I suppose that could be in dispute, but you don't seem to be disputing it, just trying to deflect blame.
Scott Betts wrote:
And they did it with something like a days notice, which was sleazy.
If they'd still pulled it, but had given a couple of weeks or a month, I bet it would have blown over.
Red Velvet Tiger wrote:
The aforementioned edition-changing was nothing but a blatant money-grab, which I tend to despise. If a company is going for a money-grab, make an exciting NEW book for an EXISTING ruleset people love, don't discard an old one and expect people to but a new one (The books of which are a bit thinner in most cases but cost just as much or more... WUT?!)
If only they'd never gone to 2nd Edition and just kept putting out exciting new books for AD&D!!Oh wait. If only they'd never put out AD&D (or BECMI) and kept putting out exciting new books for the original Chainmail version.
I think the trust issues come more from things like dropping the OGL and cutting online access to PDF libraries than from actual game mechanics.
Putting out good game mechanics won't help with those issues.
Let's not go too far. If Israel really wanted genocide, they'd have it.My best guess is that Israel (or rather the Israeli government) would prefer ethnic cleansing to genocide, but is basically happy with the status quo of a divided hostile Palestinian enemy. It's good for domestic politics. As long as some groups of Palestinians act like terrorists, Israel can do pretty much as it pleases without losing to much international credibility (or essentially US support). Rocket fire can be tolerated, it's not doing any real damage and it keeps the population scared and angry.
The real threat is a united Palestine getting too much international support.
Now that's nonsense.
When Hamas wants rocket attacks you see hundreds per day. When Hamas doesn't you see dozens per month. They do something to stop it. Even Israel agreed they were doing their best during the truce.
Yes, they continued to rearm during the truce. They don't trust Israel either.
It was probably removed along with the post it referred to and the one that referred to.
The whole sequence got tossed at once.
While I agree they could stop digging tunnels and smuggling weapons, are they actually still paying the families of suicide bombers? In fact when was the last Palestinian suicide bombing?If you're only talking about families of past suicide bombers, I doubt that would have any effect on current conflicts, as long as they aren't generating more.
Stop fighting back. Disarm. Stop protesting, even nonviolently.
The last is only necessary if you consider Border Guards shooting teens "fighting".
Of course, they would have to crackdown very hard on other factions within PAlestine to pull this off.
None of this would end the occupation, get Palestine a state of there own or stop the expansion of the settlements. It's likely it wouldn't even stop Israel from arresting (or even assassinating) Palestinian "terrorists". At least not for years to come.
Of course, the flip side of that is "In order to end the fighting, the Israeli government can ______________"
As far as I can see there's little they can do that will stop the rocket attacks in the short run.
DC's had it's own string of wacky decisions particularly since the New 52. And most of their criticism has been after the actual events, not just based on the announcements.
They've also lost several high profile creators to Marvel over some of their editorial decisions.
F#** legitimizing one side or the other. I don't care. I don't care that there's never been a Palestinian State.How about "design a peace agreement that doesn't leave the Palestinians living in a non-viable land that Israel keeps taking more of".
You know the actual Palestinians living there now. Can we worry about them? Yes, and the Israelis too. But not who stole land from who decades or centuries or millenia ago. What happens to the actual real live people there now?
Yeah. I get it. Basic feud logic.Of course, it's not just that, but the situation Palestinians have to live under in the name of Israeli security and the slow but constant growth of settlements and the web of roads and other support structures that seem designed to ensure that Palestine is not viable.
As for borders, I agree than nothing is ideal. By pointing at the 67 borders, I'm not trying to say "This violence was legitimate and this violence wasn't." Just that that is a set of borders that might make a viable Palestinian state. The current ones certainly don't, as you have said. The alternatives are to start from a previous set, make up something entirely new, not based on current status or history, or just accept that Palestine is not viable and will have to remain occupied and controlled by Israel indefinitely. That seems to be your preference. Arguing about what's legitimized by any particular set of borders is little more than a distraction from the position that Palestine cannot be viable because Israel refuses to let it be so, not because of anything inherent to Palestine or the Palestinians.
And yet there is no other way to peace.
And that's the point. It doesn't really matter how they're made or how many there are. You want enough of something that will roll to make a 10' square difficult to walk through and you want the cost low enough that people will use it.
It's not a medieval economy simulator. It's a role playing adventure game.