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. 18,092 posts (18,897 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 18,092 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

memorax wrote:
Tinkergoth wrote:


Memorax: Regarding books going for $1000 on Amazon, that's usually a result of auto pricing algorithms going mental over something being out of print and in short supply. Often a bit of searching will find more reasonably priced copies (though still expensive).
That explains and thanks. Still even outside Amazon sellers are insane as well. Yes it's out of print. Yet in this day and age where PDF is a common format and a alternative to print. Selling something for more expensive when a PDF is cheaper. Is imo dumb. The classic Marvel TSR set sells for almost 80$. When one can go online and find all the rules at classicmarvelforever.com.

Probably selling as collectibles at this point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
the David wrote:

Because if you optimized a kobold it wouldn't be a CR1/4 anymore?

I mean, you could give it 130 gp worth of armor and 50 gp worth of weapons as described in the Creating NPC's chapter. You could give it a combat feat instead of Skill Focus (Perception), but it would alter the challenge rating. (Don't feel bad, I had to learn that the hard way.)

So yeah, you could optimize every monster in the Bestiary. That doesn't make it a good idea.

This is strictly false. A creature whose hit dice are solely a factor of class levels are always Level-1 for PC classes and level-2 for NPC classes.

Regardless of equipment, Level 1 Kobold warrior= CR 1/4, Level 1 Human warrior= CR 1/4, level 1 Goblin warrior= CR 1/4, ect.

Sure, you obviously don't want to throw every Kobold into Plate mail, but Leather armor is only 5 GP cheaper than Hide which would improve their AC by 2 and a Flail or is only 6 GP more than a Spear and would either do the same damage in a single hand or more damage as a two handed weapon.

The only reason they are listed that way in the book is so they can be slain easily by murder hobos. . . it's a hold over of earlier editions and the "Kobolds/goblins/orcs dumb/evil only exist to be slain" mentality.

Not true. With PC wealth and PC classes, they're CR=Level.

NPC Gear Adjustments wrote:
You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR. Be careful awarding NPCs this extra gear, though—especially at high levels, where you can blow out your entire adventure's treasure budget in one fell swoop!

More importantly, not everything needs to be designed most efficiently to fight PCs. Spears are hunting weapons. Hide only bumps AC by one and penalizes stealth.

Plus, as said above, they're tribal cave dwellers. Spears, slings and leather are appropriate, even if not optimal. If you're dealing with the Great Kobold Empire, they'll have better gear.


LazarX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
People need to stop focusing on what was and what will be and focus on what is, people will be a lot happier when they stop giving a s!+@ about who someone was and just appreciate them for who they are :-)
If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's not a simple matter of innocent oppressed, and evil bigots, no easy black and white that Americans love to look for. It's a complex issue and simplistic statements aren't going to help.

I think it really is that simple.

It's just not easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

From a world-building perspective, how would you recommend integrating such a form of unequal acceptance?

I'd actually done something similar for Cheliax (male/male being accepted while female/female was discouraged), since one of my players had a concept that called for it.

Honestly, I think you nailed it right there: Put it in place when a player has a concept that requires it.

Leave it fairly open otherwise.


How do you structure the game, either as a player or as the GM, so that short rests make sense?

In a wilderness kind of adventure, I can easily see being able to take an hour after nearly any encounter. In a dungeon setting, that's likely to run into all the usual problems of resting in the dungeon - unless the area is specifically broken up to allow safe places at a time of the GM's choosing. Retreating and coming back an hour later is pretty much guaranteed to cause problems in many scenarios, as is just sitting down for an hour.


Alton Underbough wrote:
Steven_Evil wrote:
So that's like four people right there who are down with it? Might be a good idea for someone to pick us up and run a season then. How many scenarios are in a season? I'm on my phone and it takes way too much work to look it up.
Quite a few. It would take several years. It would be quite a commitment for a GM to make.

Yeah. It basically adds all the hassle and complexity of running a AP PbP to the complexity of running PFS PbP.

You're going to have people drop out, permanently or for random periods.

If you want to do it, I'd suggest taking advantage of the features of PFS: Get a group together and rotate GMs, instead of putting the whole burden on one person. And accept that you're going to have people coming in and out.

Personally I like to play PFS in PbP because I know that I won't be able to commit to a long term campaign, but I can start up a scenario when I know I'll be able to commit to a month or two at most.


Crystal Frasier wrote:
If you want to go a more gonzo route, you can have her family be okay with her liking women, but insist on magically transforming her into a man and marrying well, and maybe if she sires some respectable children she can change back in a few decades

Or just marrying a man, having the required kids and then going about her life. Or not marrying, or some form of time-limited contract marriage. If the kids are taken in/raised by the clan, the marriage doesn't even have to last throughout raising the children.

Also, while there may well be commonalities, there are a lot of dwarven settlements in Golarion, many of which have been largely separated for thousands of years. Plenty of time to develop different traditions, possibly influenced by the other races they're living near.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Voadam wrote:
thejeff wrote:
A black (Garundi) pirate captain.

Dragonlance did it decades ago. ;)

Though I'm still not sure where the asians are in Dragonlance, I vaguely remember some mongol types in the other continent boxed set but nothing in the novels or modules.

And I don't recall any of their gods being portrayed directly as black either, although they had each culture picturing the gods appearing as themselves.

Yes, I'm sure they did.

But that specific post was in response to a complaint that Paizo lacked minority villains. Nothing to do with Dragonlance or Paizo being the first and only to have minority villains.
She also seems to be a pirate, but not actually a villain.

But that's OK. We've already learned that Dragonlance is the bestest, most inclusivest setting ever. Putting all of Paizo's efforts to shame even decades later. :)
Despite all the heroes of the main storylines being basic white fantasy types, except for the rather generic Native American pastiche.

Hmm.. those characters were more like Whites putting on redface... and pretty badly at it too.

It's been a long time since I've read or played any of those, so I wasn't going to be that harsh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In fairness, your earlier post said "fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying."

Which I didn't initially read as "because they'd publicly shame me if they didn't like it", but more as "It's hard to have fun unless everyone's on board with the way we're all roleplaying."

That post wasn't at all clear to me. I can see how Aranna took it that way. Your next one on the subject of course made it obvious that was wrong.


Jiggy wrote:
Pan wrote:
PFS is out of your control you have to temper expectations.
I'm not sure "putting up with public shaming and open derision of myself and others" is a reasonable form of "tempering expectations". :/

That sucks.

There's also a big difference between that and "The GM ruling on whether you're roleplaying". Or, more accurately, they're different aspects of the same thing. One just worse than the other.


_Ozy_ wrote:

No, you are inventing that rule for distraction. Nowhere does it say performing two activities at the same time is distracting, and I know from my own experience as well as the several examples in this thread that people can routinely do two things at once without significant chances of failure.

The rules define what is distracting: combat

You can call your interpretation 'reasonable' if you like, but it's house rules, and it also removes player agency. That's a bad thing to do.

The rules do not define what is distracting. They give combat as an example. If the rules just said "You can Take 10 except in combat", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voadam wrote:
thejeff wrote:
A black (Garundi) pirate captain.

Dragonlance did it decades ago. ;)

Though I'm still not sure where the asians are in Dragonlance, I vaguely remember some mongol types in the other continent boxed set but nothing in the novels or modules.

And I don't recall any of their gods being portrayed directly as black either, although they had each culture picturing the gods appearing as themselves.

Yes, I'm sure they did.

But that specific post was in response to a complaint that Paizo lacked minority villains. Nothing to do with Dragonlance or Paizo being the first and only to have minority villains.
She also seems to be a pirate, but not actually a villain.

But that's OK. We've already learned that Dragonlance is the bestest, most inclusivest setting ever. Putting all of Paizo's efforts to shame even decades later. :)
Despite all the heroes of the main storylines being basic white fantasy types, except for the rather generic Native American pastiche.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Again disagree. There is no enemy, not really. No combat, no attacks, no enemy stat block, no creature, just a penalty for failing an ability check that is fluffed as coming from some powerful outsider.

The updated spell just disallows a take ten. No nonsense about a distracting threat.

But the very FAQ answer that's causing the trouble talks about the outsider. The spell doesn't. It's been changed to just ban Take 10, with no explanation given.

So if you ignore the FAQ, there's no confusion. If you look at the FAQ, there's a reasonable explanation right in the FAQ, so again, there's no confusion. It's only when you look at the part of the FAQ and ignore the rest that the confusion comes in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.
I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.

The penalty for failing the Contact Other Planes check is getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked.

Getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked(the penalty for failure) is a significant and distracting threat.

Therefore one reasonable interpretation is that severe penalties like dying or getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked prevent taking 10 because they represent significant and distracting threats.

Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.

The other reasonable interpretation involves the actual words of the FAQ:
Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat

According to the FAQ, the stat loss is caused by enemy action, thus making it far more like combat than climbing a wall is.


glass wrote:
JCServant wrote:
The thing is, Cheapy, looking over CR 13+ mobs.
I know this is an old thread, but does anybody else find it really confusing when people refer to individual monsters as "mobs"? Or is it just me?

Drives me insane. I still have to spend a moment every time to remember what they mean.

I know it's MMO terminology, but it just sounds wrong to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what this whole discussion really shows (again!) is that the rules for stealth and perception and surprise are really confused and inconsistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
And on the comment about the lack of non-white-male villains. You do realize if there are minority baddies then they could be also accused of being racist.

Plus, there have been - A lesbian queen. A black (Garundi) pirate captain. A witch queen. Those come to mind immediately, just from the few APs I'm familiar with. I suspect there have been others.


wraithstrike wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:

I havent read every thing closely so somebody may have said this. In my game PCs dont know when they Roll peception checks. Being about to be ambushed constitude being threathend. So i dont Think the rules allow taking 10 on the perception Roll to notice a ambush. But taking 10 is not somthing that happens inside a PC and that he Can feel it is a rule mechanic thing so the PC wont know any more than he Will know that a GM ask him"will you be taking 10 on the perception chek i am gonna make in secret for you now?"

I dont Think i would mind if some one asked me if they could take 10. But this is the rules forum and as i see it the immenent threat of the ambush would prevent it.

What do you count as imminent? What if I can see the ambush from 200 feet away by taking 10, but the potential ambusher have no way of seeing me?

If I say I am taking 10 do you not allow me to take 10, or just not tell me about the ambush even if I beat the DC to notice them hiding?

That's not a surprise round check. At least that's my take on it. The surprise round/ambush check is for close quarters encounters or otherwise combat is starting now checks. Most often when you enter a room in a dungeon or some such, where you couldn't have noticed it before.

If you spot the ambush as you're approaching, before it's ready to be sprung, or if you're just seeing if you perceive people ahead who may be hiding, but not necessarily in an ambush, then it's a different category.
More of a "You think someone's hiding in the bushes up ahead. What do you do?" than a "Roll initiative. Make perception checks to see if you can act in the surprise round." situation.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Drejk wrote:

Meh, a pair of friends and co-players (man and women) were renting a room, but their landlord give them their monthly notice after learning that she is active in local LGBT community... At the moment worst case scenario is, if they don't find anything suitable quickly enough, that they will move in to be my roommates flatmates. We'll have to speak about early details tomorrow before session.

This dreads my inner slightly apathetic nervous introvert loner, though.

Is this even legal?

Aren't there laws that they can't kick people out for reasons like that?

Depends where they are. Dresk isn't in the US, IIRC, but even here sexual orientation is only protected on a state (or sometimes local) level. This would be perfectly legal in many places, even if no excuse was used and they were told it was because of their LGBTQ connections.

They were given their monthly notice, which I assume matches the terms of the contract.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Theros Ironfeld wasn't included much in the novels as they had to trim over half of them, but he was a blacksmith that was forced into slavery after loosing his arm. It was through his dedication and mastery of hard work and the later acquisition of the Silver Arm of Ergoth that allowed to recreate the Dragonlances and present them in the time of greatest need.

Depending on your point of view, Tanis can be either a representation of bisexuality, caught between two very different worlds and not fully accepted by either, or the more common half breed. In the first, Laurana is the more feminine aspect while Kitiara is the masculine, and it also plays a great deal into how his character is least of all understood even by his closest friends. More of a read-between-the-lines case than an explicit one, as the character as presented is not bisexual.

There is also something to Tas being gay. Again, it's more read-between-the-lines, but there are a lot of comments like "when are you going to find a good Kender (Halfling) woman and settle down, start a family,. . ." and his reply is something like "I've tried. I just, well, I can't really related to other Kender anymore." The given connotation is that he has grown up, but it could also very easily be suggesting he doesn't have any attraction to females.

For the Christian part, Tracy Hickman is a devout Mormon (I believe), and he and other have included a lot of aspects in there, some as easter eggs and others as parables. For example, the Platinum Discs of Mishakal (that hold the greatest gift for mankind) is an allusion to the Joseph Smith's Golden Plates. Paladine is often presented as a carring father that wants mortals to make the right choices on their own, there are more than a few miraculous curings of the "get up and walk" style.

Both Gilthanus' and Silvara's as well as Huma's and Gwyneth are tales of interracial relationships, (as well as the more upfront Tanis and Laurana), and there is also something to be said for Raistlin being a metaphor for transgender.

Theros, I'll give you, though I don't remember him.

For the other stuff - there are half-elves (and half-orcs) throughout D&D (and thus PF) from the beginning who could play the metaphorical role you describe. Similarly for the others - you can read things into the characters if you choose to, that may or may not have been intended. In terms of inclusiveness, there's a big difference between that and actually including open non-analogy characters.

And yeah, as xavier c said, nearly every fantasy setting includes Christian references at that level.


Even conceding the silly idea, it still wouldn't help. In play it would just go:
GM: Roll your juggle this round. Also, roll a Perception check.
Juggling Player: I fail the juggle roll, dropping a ball, and I fail the perception check. Still I know we're in danger because otherwise I wouldn't have had to roll.
Other player: Made the perception check!
GM: You see the dozen goblins hidden in the bushes as they leap to attack! You can act in the surprise round. Sorry juggler, as you realize something's up and are looking around to see what it is, they attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
thejeff wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Earlier versions of D&D like Greyhawk has black gods (Touv pantheon) but has far less inclusion than Pathfinder, as Pathfinder has positive black characters, like Quinn the Investigator iconic.

Huh???

Pathfinder is very far from inclusive. They might be more inclusive in some specific cases, namely gender and orientation, that's also about it in. But even for just those two, they are pretty far behind the curve, (considering thing like the WoD, oddly Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and many other similar settings). Don't get me wrong, they do a pretty good job in that sense, but there are a lot of groups out there that Pathfinder/Paizo have not touched or outright decided they will not.

I'm sure there are lots of groups Paizo hasn't touched and maybe even some they've declared they won't touch, but "far from inclusive" and "pretty far behind the curve" are very strong statements and I'll need some evidence. At least examples so I know what you're talking about.

Well, if you count yourself as an "internet expert" than WoD basically goes without saying. So, lets just look at Dragonalance.

Dragonlance, in much the same way as the X-Men movie are an analogy for homosexuality, is an analogy for, well inclusion. It has a multitude of very important characters, ranging from black to white to asian to "green" and "purple". It presented strong and independent women, and men, and a broad range of motivations and personalities. Unlike Pathfinder, it didn't shriek in fear at including everyone, so there are things like Judeo-Christianity in there, or atheism, native americans, blacks, interracialism, heroes (and villains) of all sorts.

And the fact that it's over 30 years old says something. It also says a lot that Dragonlance's war cry I "We need each other to stand strong" while Pathfinders is more along the lines of "OH, pick me, I have a _____ as an Iconic. See how progressive I am. I must be the first one to do it."...

Well, I don't count myself an "internet expert", but I'm willing to concede WoD, with the caveat that as LazarX, it's our world with twists rather than a new creation. That said, it was also pretty Eurocentric and bits of their treatment of other cultures and groups made me cringe at the time - often being more US/European pop-culture takes than anything else.

For Dragonlance, I only read the original novels (maybe 2 series?) and a couple modules and haven't done so in decades. They did have women as major characters, though I can't really comment on their roles at this point. I don't recall (and a quick internet search doesn't help) much racial diversity - though I guess Riverwind(?) & Goldmoon(?) were basically Native American?
I may be forgetting or they may have come in later, but I don't remember any black or asian characters.

I have no idea what you mean to imply by "analogy for inclusion". You can also present an analogy for something without actually including it. In fact that's how you usually do it. The original X-Men were an analogy for racism and were all white. Then it became more homosexuality, but it was still a long time before there was a homosexual character. You could have a strong theme of "We need each other to stand strong", but just not include people of different races or give them narrow stereotyped roles.

And really, "Judeo-Christianity"? In Dragonlance? As an analogy or actual Jews and Christians? Cause that's hard to fit in.

I'm also not sure why you think Paizo shrieks in fear at including everyone. They don't have Judeo-Christianity, for what I think are obvious reasons. They haven't done much if anything with Native Americans, though there is a place in the world for them and there's been some talk of it. They do have atheism, blacks, interraciallism and heroes and villains of all sorts. So, near as I can tell, you're way off base there.


Arachnofiend wrote:
You're talking to an alt with the name "Devil's Advocate".

There is that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Earlier versions of D&D like Greyhawk has black gods (Touv pantheon) but has far less inclusion than Pathfinder, as Pathfinder has positive black characters, like Quinn the Investigator iconic.

Huh???

Pathfinder is very far from inclusive. They might be more inclusive in some specific cases, namely gender and orientation, that's also about it in. But even for just those two, they are pretty far behind the curve, (considering thing like the WoD, oddly Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and many other similar settings). Don't get me wrong, they do a pretty good job in that sense, but there are a lot of groups out there that Pathfinder/Paizo have not touched or outright decided they will not.

I'm sure there are lots of groups Paizo hasn't touched and maybe even some they've declared they won't touch, but "far from inclusive" and "pretty far behind the curve" are very strong statements and I'll need some evidence. At least examples so I know what you're talking about.


_Ozy_ wrote:

The surprise round hasn't started until _after_ the perception check. The perception check is to determine whether the PCs can participate in the surprise round or not, whether they actually are 'surprised'.

Not being able to take 10 is representative of _being distracted_ by threats. If the PCs have not detected the threat yet, then they can't be distracted by that threat that they haven't detected.

I seriously have no idea where some of you guys are getting your rules from.

It is also explicitly representative of being in danger.

Or distracted. Not necessarily both.


LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Lazar nobody said you could take 10 on perception rolls in combat. I specifically said you could not. I am saying that before combat starts a perception check would need to be made to determine who can participate in the surprise round if combat does start. That roll is still out of combat, and there is no rule saying you can not take 10 on it.

If you have a rule to support your post on out of combat checks then quote it. So far your last quote only concerns in combat checks.

The rule I quoted is the one that supports my position. Where are fundamental disagreement is that I rule that combat starts when the ambush does. When you are making that perception check, the suprise round has ALREADY started. The check simply dictates whether you get to act in it or not, and since that check is being made during the surprise round, you can not take ten on that or any other check barring special mechanical exceptions. And for obvious reasons you can't take 10 on when material calls upon the Judge to make secret Perception checks.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that argument, though I don't think it's as clear as you do and would rather it be stated before it comes up in game.

I'm not happy with "because you don't have a full round" or because "you're not in a position to make a choice about handling your perception".

As for your obvious last point - would you accept a request from a player to have all secret Perception checks to be done as Take 10 if possible? Or am I reading the obvious reasons wrong?


LazarX wrote:

Lets try this one last time.

These are the rules on taking 10. Note the bolded parts


Take 10

When a character or creature is not in immediate danger or distracted, it may choose to take 10 on some rolls (specifically, skill checks). Instead of rolling 1d20 for the check, calculate the result as if the die had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

You can choose to take 10 on a task you're focusing on, such as climbing a rope, it means you know that you're making the check and making decisions on how to use the skill.

You also can not take 10 when you are distracted or threathened. Threathened being defined as a dangerous situation. Combat phases count as being in a dangerous situation.

So you can't take 10 in a suprise round for two very good reasons. 1. your'e not in a position to make a choice about handling your perception, and 2. You're in combat whether you realize it or not, so you're not in a position to take 10, unless you have special mechanics that give you an exception.

We've talked about the danger part and I concede that's possible for surprise perception checks, though I'll point out that you're not in combat phases yet at the point you roll perception.

But that's irrelevant to the other point I think. If I read you rightly you're claiming that you can't Take 10 on any reactive check because you're not choosing to make that roll. Based on the bolded "may choose to take 10 on some rolls" phrasing, correct?

I don't think that's what is meant. You're not choosing to make the check, but choosing how to do so isn't the same as choosing to make the check in the first place. You're making a check. You're choosing to Take 10 instead of roll. That doesn't violate the text.

Edit: You've also changed your reasoning for why you can't take 10. I assume you're dropping the argument that it's because you don't have a complete turn.


xavier c wrote:

We are not talking about real life we are talking a game. In pathfinder all gods have a default appearance and race.

Why do only garundi and mwangi people have to make Iomedae or Abadar look like there race and the people the Avistan don't have to?

I think we do need some garundi and mwangi looking gods in pathfinder.

I'm not sure that's true. The Ascended Gods do and it would have been nice to have one or more.

I don't think there's anything definitive saying the other gods specifically default to one appearance, ethnicity or race. We've seen the "white" version because that's how they were presented to us in the first releases of the setting. There's no reason they couldn't be seen differently in different parts of the world and not have any of those be their default appearance.


Jiggy wrote:
Aranna wrote:
a GM for example can rule it not to be role play
I think you and I are playing very different games. Since when is roleplaying something that the GM needs to "rule" on?

Experience for roleplay maybe?

Though generally it's still only given for good roleplay, not just a binary yes or no. And Good is still subjective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Lady Kamari Ipeq wrote:

Where does it say what the gods' skin color is?

Different artists will picture gods differently, its not like the gods sit down for a portrait.

So the people in the Mwangi Expanse probably picture gods very differently from how the people on Northern Astivan picture the very same gods.

Kind of like how those Europeans show Jesus as a white dude?

Certainly true, but it also matters how it's presented to us the players. If all the actual pictures are of whites, but theres a note somewhere that other cultures portray them differently that still presents to us a very white set of gods.

Showing us white and black gods (and all the other hues!) and still adding notes that different cultures portray them differently gets the same point across, but also lets everyone see it viscerally. More so if they actually portray the same god in different ways. A picture is worth a thousand words, they say.


thorin001 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
If the monsters are using Stealth for an ambush, and the PCs are using Perception to determine if they are surprised or not, I could rationalize the monsters taking 10. The PCs will have more fun rolling anyways. I used to really dig opposed checks, but nowadays I don't always see the need for applying two randomizing factors into the same outcome.

I am fond of the "Let the PCs roll" approach.

Though if the PCs are in the habit of relying on Take 10, I'd probably roll for the bad guys. :)

And by your own standards cheating. It doesn't get any more meta than that.

GM follows different rules :)

Nearly everything the GM does is metagaming.

Big difference between that and having characters react to out of game information.


DM_Blake wrote:
Prawn wrote:

I am just saying that Canthin's example is of a guard doing guard duty.

A guard should be guarding, so that's taking 10.

Not necessarily. Maybe he's actively looking around, scanning the area for trouble. That's not taking-10, that's rolling. He could be doing either one. It's up to him.

If you're going to deny a PC (or any other character/monster) the opportunity to use a rule, then support it. Don't just say "Well, you weren't paying enough attention." - that will be a problem.

Was there a legitimate distraction? Is the tavern across the street on fire? Then sure, don't let the PC take-10 when the bad guy jumps out of the alley. Is it danger? Obviously there is a difference of opinion even right here on this thread about whether being ambushed is dangerous or not, but if you think it is, then there's your support for denying the PC who wants to take-10.

But don't just arbitrarily rule that he can't follow a rule in the book because, well, just because so there. (I know you weren't doing that, but I disagree with your initial ruling that the surprise was distracting so he had to roll, not take-10, and suggest you find a better reason for denying the take-10 or you should allow it).

You can also just House Rule things if you think it makes for a better game. That has the advantage, if stated up front, of avoiding confusion in the heat of the moment about what you can actually do.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
If the monsters are using Stealth for an ambush, and the PCs are using Perception to determine if they are surprised or not, I could rationalize the monsters taking 10. The PCs will have more fun rolling anyways. I used to really dig opposed checks, but nowadays I don't always see the need for applying two randomizing factors into the same outcome.

I am fond of the "Let the PCs roll" approach.

Though if the PCs are in the habit of relying on Take 10, I'd probably roll for the bad guys. :)


Prawn wrote:

I am just saying that Canthin's example is of a guard doing guard duty.

A guard should be guarding, so that's taking 10.

Actually, if the guard's really being vigilant, he should be getting a Take 10 as a reactive check and actively looking as a move action - taking a roll on that one. Then using his standard action to walk his beat. If he's stationary, use that as another Perception check.

Luckily for infiltrators everywhere, it's not really humanly possible to maintain that level of vigilance long.


Prawn wrote:

If a guard's job is guarding, he would be doing it on purpose, so that's what taking 10 is about.

If a PC is walking down a road, he might not be on guard when something jumps out at him.

Then he shouldn't get a check at all. If he gets one, it that's not a reason for it not being Take 10.


Aranna wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
But you could be sitting around as a group discussing plans and everyone saying something like 'my character would suggest this course to take' and it would be roleplaying, right? or am I wrong in this?
Yes that is indeed role play. No prequalifiers. The only true judge of your character's internal motivation IS you. By suggesting this would only be role play if "they were basing the suggestions on their character's persona" creates a scenario where a GM for example can rule it not to be role play regardless of your own input. It makes others into authorities over not just how you play your character but whether you are playing him at all. And personally I feel that authority belongs only to the player. Others should only react to your persona not dictate it.

I'll just reiterate that when I talk about this, I'm not talking about the GM enforcing or dictating anything. I suppose the GM could rule it not roleplay, but that doesn't need to have any effect.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

No the OP wanted to know why people insisted on 'acting out the scene' in their roleplay.

I guess the real question is "Do they?"

Or were they talking about something else that you interpreted as "acting out the scene"? None of the examples you gave specified that and could be read as any of the other uses of roleplay we've been talking about here. Generally it might just mean "something other than just rolling dice in combat".

My original post was badly worded and had missing words and mis-spelled words.

This is just my impression of things. Alot of people equate 'acting out the scene' as the only way to roleplay.

Is sitting around having a inter-group in-character discussion 'acting out a scene' or is it roleplay? Most likely its both to one extent or another.

But you could be sitting around as a group discussing plans and everyone saying something like 'my character would suggest this course to take' and it would be roleplaying, right? or am I wrong in this?

As you should be able to guess if you've been following the discussion - some would say definitely yes, others definitely not.

I'd say it depended on whether they were basing the suggestions on their character's persona or on other criteria.


Joesi wrote:
johhov wrote:
This combined with the fact that alchemists are 6th level "casters" and as such have more expensive potions past level 1 realy clashes with the theme of alchemists as "potion masters".

Except alchemists aren't called "potion masters" anywhere as far as I know. They just have brew potion, meaning they're adept at creating an using potions, unlike most other spellcasters in the world.

Are you referring to the fact that potions can technically be made only at the caster level that the character is at? Either there's something hidden that says otherwise, or else most people house rule that a person can choose to craft the potion at a lower CL.
Am I crazy to say that? I don't think anyone forces people to craft items or potions at their CL and not lower. I'm pretty sure RAI is to allow it as well.

Cost is based on spell level * caster level. Since they're 6th level casters they have to be higher level to use a given level of formula.

An alchemist can use a 3rd level extract at 7th level, not 5th as a wizard would for a 3rd level spell - so the base is 21, not 15.


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So the question is, does being ambushed count as "immediate danger"?

The rules are not making a bulleted list in which "in immediate danger" and "distracted" are separate, discreet, unrelated points. Rather, "in immediate danger or distracted" is a single phrase (using the syntax of a sentence, not a list) which, as a whole, is trying to describe a single notion of when you can't take 10.

Danger that you're not remotely aware of does not prohibit T10.

It's not a bulleted list, but generally an "or" means that either condition is sufficient. You seem to be arguing that danger only counts if it's also distracting, correct?

Does that apply in reverse? Only dangerous distractions count?

I can't actual derive either of those from the language.

A or B. Either Danger or Distraction are sufficient.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Danger that you're not remotely aware of does not prohibit T10.
Think of what a marvelous early-warning system that would be. My high-Dexterity character starts juggling, taking 10 to do so. When he drops a ball, that means that he is no longer able to take 10, so he must be in danger.

Not really an early warning system. He drops the ball the same time he gets the reactive perception check for the surprise round. If he fails the check, by the time he realizes what the dropping ball means, the surprise round is over and he's rolling initiative for his first action.

More seriously - Take 10 is a metagame call. You can't base actions on whether you can do it or not without cheating.


Draco Bahamut wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Draco Bahamut wrote:
So, what you are saying is that Paizo don´t want money from black people ? I am ok with that.

Now I'm almost certain that you're trolling.

Such a statement is like saying that Marvel doesn't want whites to enjoy Black Panther.
It's saying that you can only enjoy something if you have a direct relationship with the thing.
I can tell you now, that idea is a false one.

Yes, I am a strait white male. But when I play Pathfinder I don't have to be.
I can be a strong minded Asian woman who has developed control issues due to living in her sister's shadow.
I can be a asexual white man with a god complex.
I can be an elderly dwarven woman who believes in the duality of nature.
I can be an aged bisexual male half orc who thinks that everything has a right to freedom.

I don't play Pathfinder to be who I am, I play to to be someone I'm not.

No, i am not. I am really ok with that. It´s just that in my city, "black" is not a minority, and many people refuse to play fantasy RPG games from USA because there so minor role for the black people. I am the local Venture-captain and i try hard to make more people experiment the game, and that work would be easier if there is more black cultural elements. If that is not Paizo intention, than i can rest and quit to try to sell this game as inclusive for our needs. But i well aware that my city culture is VERY away from what a "american" game should worry.

I don´t know very well about USA black people (beyond movies), but i guess they would play more if there were more divine significance in being black than just a barbaric people that have to learn the civilized way so they can go to heaven.

Did you see Erik Mona's statement earlier?

I certainly don't think that's Paizo's intention. I guess the question might be more "How high of a priority is it?"
Other than deities, do you think they're do a bad job?


Jiggy wrote:
Your gut is uninformed, and is unskilled as an arbiter of rules. Better to ask your head. And your head, upon reading the rules, will discover that T10 is intended for EVERY skill unless a specific exception is given (such as UMD).

But that just means it's intended for Perception in some circumstances.

According to the Take 10 rule, that's "When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted".

So the question is, does being ambushed count as "immediate danger"? I think it's pretty clear it doesn't count as "distracted", since it hasn't actually happened yet.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Prawn wrote:

As a DM, I ruled last night that perception checks for surprise had to be rolled, reasoning that surprise was a distraction.

[....]

What do you guys think?

Why are you hostile to the idea that a game should run smoothly and quickly?

That's all that the take 10 rules do; they reduce the number of unnecessary dice. If a player doesn't want to roll dice, then let him not roll dice.

Practically speaking, I'd actually rather not have everyone Take 10 for surprise checks all the time. Not because I don't want the game to run smoothly and quickly, but because it means the same people are always going to be surprised - or not surprised depending on how you look at it.

Rather than it just tending to go that way due to better skills - the low perception PC will never be the one to spot the ambush. If he sees it, everyone else will too.


kestral287 wrote:

No. The danger of falling is not a distraction, it's part of what requires the skill. This goes back to the thrown ball analogy.

There is a possibility that if I throw a ball at you, it will hit you in the face. Are you distracted? No, because the ball is the thing you're focused on.

The official rule is "in danger or distracted".

I agree and would run it as you suggest, but the language is certainly open to "Can't Take 10 if you're in danger" whether it's related to the task at hand or even whether you're aware of the danger.


DM_Blake wrote:
SRD, Skills, Take 10 wrote:
Taking 10When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

OK, assuming you're not distracted by something else, then you're not distracted at all.

But you are in danger. Immediate danger. This should be the reason to not use Take-10 here. "Threats make it impossible for a character to take 10." A guy jumping out of an alley to attack you is a threat; it's impossible to take-10.

So, by that argument, you could Take 10 on reactive perception checks other than surprise round checks - to notice the guy sneaking towards your camp, but not openly attacking, for example.

Still, I think that falls in the same category of question as "You shouldn't be able to Take 10 climbing because of the danger of falling". If the danger in question is tied to the skill, is it still a problem?


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
To a large extent though, video game RPGs take the form of table top RPGs, but not the actual roleplaying part.

This is where there's a big difference between western RPGs and JRPGs.

In western RPGs, the protagonist is usually little more than an avatar for the player, an outlet through which the player can express themselves. In a sense, there isn't actually a character there for you to make decisions for, it's just the player. In these types of situations, roleplaying (in the sense I've talked about) would require the player to invent a personhood (much like in tabletop, but without any of the mechanics pushing you toward doing so).

In JRPGs, however, the protagonist (or group of protagonists) is a character who already exists in the narrative with their own motivations and quirks. At most, you get to pick their name, but the rest is already determined because it's part of an existing narrative.

The two styles are different enough that they really shouldn't even be considered the same genre.

There's definitely overlap though. Plenty of modern western CRPGs put a good deal of personality and narrative into the main character.

Those closest to TTRPGS tend to leave it more open to the player. These also tend to be the ones with more complex character creation mechanics or in fact character creation mechanics at all.


The Green Tea Gamer wrote:

Roleplaying videogames have been around for dozens of years, and I'll be damned if I ever once did anything more than press buttons when playing them.

I guess hundreds of titles over dozens of years plate by millions of gamers were wrong, all this time...

Did you take actions, choose dialogue or different paths in the game based on how you thought the character would behave? I'd call that roleplaying.

To a large extent though, video game RPGs take the form of table top RPGs, but not the actual roleplaying part.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

So according to some of us, you have to roleplay in order to roleplay, but according to the dictionary, you just have to play a role-playing game in order to roleplay. And the original poster wanted to know why so many people insisted on RP in their RPGs.

You know what a recursive definitions is? It's a definition that's recursive...

No the OP wanted to know why people insisted on 'acting out the scene' in their roleplay.

I guess the real question is "Do they?"

Or were they talking about something else that you interpreted as "acting out the scene"? None of the examples you gave specified that and could be read as any of the other uses of roleplay we've been talking about here. Generally it might just mean "something other than just rolling dice in combat".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
If we did in real life what we do in Pathfinder we'd attack a faith we didn't like or approve of and poop on their altars. *tries to shove the train back on track*

Cause that's never happened in real life.

Edit: Nor is it something I often do in game, for that matter. Barring the kinds of faith that are sacrificing captives or some such. Those altars get desecrated after stopping the sacrificing and killing the murderers. Usually not desecrated by so crude a method though.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

Sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people are wrong, and that isn't just limited to those outside of religion, Sissyl. Much evil has been done by large organizations, particularly religious, but much good has too. To lump it all together is no better than any other form of sweeping group based prejudice.

But that's okay, right? Because it's okay to judge a groups as long as they are not the minority, right?

There's a difference between voluntary organizations and racial/ethnic or other groups you are part of whether you like it or not. You can leave a church if you don't like its behavior. You can't decide not to be white anymore if you decide white people do too many bad things.

Churches also, as you say, do good things along with bad ones. And they can also change. It's up to the individual to decide whether the good outweighs the bad or whether it's worth staying and working to change the organization.

But people will still judge you by it. Both for good and bad.

1 to 50 of 18,092 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.