|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If we're returning it to anyone, how about the Natives?
Well the "Return to Russia" petition seems to state that Russia explored it before the Colonial Americans as a precedent for a claim, it would be hilarious if there were a petition to return the whole of North and South America to it's indigenous inhabitants.
Alaska actually has a fairly large Seccesion Movement, but they want independence, Not Putin. The economic ramifications of this sort of thing never really occur to knuckleheads that push for them.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Pardon, I meant no offense.
I'm not grouping anyone. That's for each person to decide where they fall.
Although the response is not getting at it. If you dump it do you play it? Or do you offset it with skillpoints and feats and a bunch of thematically contrasted elements? So as to make the initial dump irrelevant?
That's what the Stormwind Fallacy FAILS to refute or disprove.
An observation on this thread:
The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.
The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.
So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.
I should better elaborate.
I am not now, nor was I back then arguing that opers were pgmers or that either precluded old school role playing. The original premise was that you could do both well. In practice it's a grey area.
The " Role Players" were butt sore that the Optimizers were dumping stats but NOT playing those stats with any discernible accuracy related to the actual stat value. To them that's "cheating" or "Poor Role Playing". Whether it's a valid point is another discussion that's outside of the Fallacy being a Fallacy.
Now my borrowed example above is a strong one for 2 reasons.
Anyone can dump any stat, the RolePlayer's arguement at that time was that Not Everyone was or Could RolePlay the dumped stat. That hasn't changed either.
It's not fair to say that Optimizers can't Role Play, it is fair to ask if they are Role Playing mechanically.
That is the core element at work.
Can you make a satisfying character that is both optimized, playable and mechanically demonstrated through Role Play?
This forum is full of rules savvy members that can Role Play well. I'd really like to play with Ashiel for an example ( who is out of thread).
I have no idea however if their role playing reflects the PC's stats.
I am bolding the part where the fallacy is a fallacy.
The Stormwind Fallacy fails to account for how the roleplaying set applies the rules. It assumes that role-players have less "system mastery" than optimizers. That system mastery is in effect the road to victory.
To the role-player, the above example is tantamount to cheating. The genius tactician who dumped INT is not following the rules and is thus not that gifted in System mastery. He's no different than the wizard who dumped his STR down to something in the 5 or 6 range but never operates under a heavy load; despite his clothes, spellbook and a
The term is overused. The concept is not all encompassing. The application of it in forum threads is often knee-jerk.
I'm a better than average RPer, I am also a reasonably sound optimizer. Much like Kyrt I spend a Looong time "building" a character. I do however fall into the camp that believes you should "play your stats".
That's where the Stormwind Fallacy fails I think. It actually gets used as an excuse to only consider the 6 stats as math boosters and not as driving parameters of character design.
I'm late to this.
He ONLY thing wrong with Crane Wing, was that it's a defensive tree that paid off.
This game hates defense.
That's why DMs hate monks.
It's why Power Attack is a foregone conclusion but Combat Expertise is derided.
The ONLY thing that matters is Offensive capacity and anything that deviates gets a healthy dose of Nerfium.
Stuff like this just shows the cracks in d20 system fundamentals.
Also, when trying to "fix" a class it's useful to identify if it's the class that doesn't work, or the background rulesets.
MAD classes suffer when compared to SAD classes.
I'd rather see an adjustment to SAD classes that forces some diversity of builds.
On the monk itself, in my experience it does work, IF the player is very versed in combat rules. Especially Grappling and special actions. It's not a good class if the player isn't versed in specialized combat rules.
The point of the monk is not straight up unarmed combat, there's a fighter archetype for that. It's as a defensive class. Most optimizers aren't looking for defense, they look to maximize offensive potential.
Also the monk remains the best Dip class ever any buffs to it will just exaggerate that.
Bumping Monks to full BAB is not a good idea.
I would argue that they should get more skill points (6 per level), since they spent more time in school than everyone else.
I'd also add to Ki Pool.
Spend one point to add a +4 bonus to the next attack
Spend one point to add a +4 bonus to the save DC of a special monk attack.
Spend one point to move up to 3 squares during a Flurry of Blows attack routine.
Spend one point, as an immediate action, to convert 50% of damage from an enemies attack into nonlethal damage.
I'd let them flurry with light weapons.
A rewrite isn't necessary. Just adjust Ki Pool to let it cover the basics.
I think preppers get a bad rap.
I'm a former boy scout, farm kid, recreational hiker.
I live in a place that,most years, gets at least one hurricane. We are far enough South that 8 inches of snow shuts down everything for at least 24 hours. Twice in the last 5 years I've gone without household electricity for 5+ days.
My two closest major population centers have major military installations.
I keep some basic "need that" stuff on hand. Including a serious Water filtration system. A .410 shotgun (for squirrels and raccoons in an emergency). Some more than First Aid medical supplies. I have a well as well as a city water hookup. Space blankets, MREs, portable fuel etc.
Also some seed stock that is NOT genetically modified, self replenishes and is designed for long term storage.
I'm not even remotely worried about Zombies, space invaders, Al Qaeda or the seemingly overnight collapse of the entire National, State, County and Municipal governments.
I am aware that our infrastructure is susceptible to Environmental and possibly Viral and Bacteriological events. There's not much wrong with a "just in case" plan. Much like training my kids how to get out of the house if it's on fire. I've planned how to feed my kids if groceries and water aren't moving.
Now the guys who are stockpiling weapons and dry goods in underground bunkers, well they have a hobby, an expensive hobby. Maybe they really think the fit will hit the Shan, maybe they just need an excuse for being grown men who still like to build "forts" and collect weapons. I like both of those myself, but my Paizo budget precludes an underground fortress.
Also these guys are rookies. A serious Preper would acquire either a decommissioned military or modern Luxury yacht Diesel/Electric Submarine.
I don't think Summoners are overpowered.
I also have an old 3.5 houserule where any form of summon spell is creature specific, where MSIV doesn't summon a variable critter, it summons a Bralani named Ted, Ted has a character sheet. If the summoner wants to summon something else he needs a different spell, with all the costs for a different spell, as well as slots and memorization requirements.
I allow Leadership.
I do ban the Pit spells.
I did ban Echo Spell.
No one has actually played a Gunslinger in a group I've participated in. I can't decide if I like the firearm mechanics. Touch AC is kinda odd to me since I know from a Principles of Engineering class in college that the Spaniards put that ridge along the centerline of their breastplates to deflect musket balls.
I lock out high level play by preference.
I try to encourage E8 games, but that's not always an option.
Agoraphobia is the fear of being in a wide open space.
Hating gays is not a phobia, it's a prejudice.
Gays are becoming more accepted almost daily in the Western World through exposure. Exposure breaks down prejudices, it also helps with phobias. But a true phobia is very different than a prejudice.
I think Bolka offers some significant opportunities to explore the nature of Dwarven Society.
Others have touched on it.
They are also seemingly "Traditional" or "Conservative".
Dwarves are almost universally participants in the "Clan" structure. I think the implications of that are lost somewhat on gamers that exist in a society where having 4 generations of a family under one roof is an exception rather than the norm. Neither do most of us live in neighborhoods populated by blood relatives.
For Dwarves, marriage is likely, less a social contract that promotes stability than a mechanism that generates genetic diversity. Clan structures are already incredibly stable by design yet it offers the added complication of isolationism (particularly given traditional dwarven homesteads).
Dwarves need babies, but they probably don't lack for parents. Clans can provide multiple, closely related members to mentor the younglings. It's the generation of young that is key to dwarven society. A goddess of Mariage would certainly prefer heterosexual pairings as it would facilitate future generations however pairing opposite gender homosexual members of the race could provide complex, interlinked familial ties that serve to strengthen the traditional Clan Structure as well as generate much needed genetic diversity. Moreover this structure could lead to situations where polygamy would be desirable.
The built in desire to procreate is well established in the Human species. Most of my lesbian friends feel their " biological clock's ticking ". More than a few of my gay guy friends occasionally wish for kids. A large number of both groups have gone against their basic natures to facilitate having kids. It's common among us.
It should be common among Dwarves, perhaps dwarves even having stronger inborn impulses than humans considering their low birth rates.
I'd think it interesting if Bolka encouraged more complex Marital Constructs to facilitate the continuation of the Dwarven Race. Put aside our prejudices towards sexual orientation and polygamy. Also set aside the notion of polygamy being detrimental to women.
One factor that would make this practical, it's likely that the ovulation cycle of dwarven females is measured in months, if not years. Constant cohabitation isn't necessarily needed, given their long lifespans, cohabitation could be problematic in some instances. The traditional "DwarfHold" is a very communal existence in practice. Such a system would allow for small, isolated groups to remain viable over long time periods.
It also allows for interesting familial relationships for PCs.
As an odd aside, one of the peculiar features of Golarion; the nations on the Inner Sea are very stable, at least in name. While all of them have undergone changes in leadership and political philosophy the actual borders of Andoran, Cheliax, Taldor, Ossirion and Rahadoum are relatively static. Nex, Geb and Nidal are literally millennia old and pitifully static.
I blame High Magic as a stabizational force with no real world equivalent.
I think monks are great.
I think PCs should occasionally die. Mine do, sometimes in spectacular fashion.
I think that the multitude of anamorphic PC races is stupid and distracting.
I feel that if you play a Wizard, expect to do some serious accounting.
I steal spellbooks, sunder component pouches and target animal companions.
I think games should start at level 1, advance leveling is for weak players who lack SKILLZ.
I don't believe that 5 new weird monsters are as good as the sorely neglected old beast that has been forgotten.
I like rolling for stats.
I think that SAD classes + point buy is incredibly poor game design.
I think PC paladins are completely justified in killing other PCs that are obsessed with making them fall.
I believe most people on the interwebz who argue that casters rule and Martians drool, fail to adequately follow rules for Line of Sight/Effect and somehow don't comprehend that everyform of PC flight is slow their AC is subpar and that most opponents should have ranged weapons. Also few "dungeons" have 30 foot high ceilings.
One thing that hasn't come up in a month of debate is the ROLE of spellcasters in these fantasy armies.
A great many assumptions are being made as to spellcasters as support troops or artillery. Perhaps as communications and logistics.
More likely they would be in charge.
The magical arms race would have far more drastic ramifications on a campaign world than the complexity of the military.
Nex and Geb, in Golarion went to war. They used Golems and Undead and permanently damaged the ecology of the world along their border.
In Greyhawk, the Invoked Devastation and the Rain of Colorless Fire left a huge chunk of the Continent uninhabitable.
Historically, spellcasters are aware of what happens when spell battles reach the scale of military engagements. It's bad for all involved. In 4 of the most popular game worlds, arcane magic breaks down. Divine magic, has a far more dangerous consequence. Direct intervention of the divine. Proxy wars are fine but once the Flamestrikes start it's a worse scenario when Iomedae and Gorum get personally invested.
These are literary cop-outs maybe; but nations that can field large contingents of spellcasters are going to have large groups of spellcasters that know their history. I'm not saying that militaristic mages are unlikely, just hat they are unlikely under some mundane King. Also there would be divisions between Divine and Arcane casters that are politically complex once the egos of 5th level plus casters come into play.
Magical Detent. it's an obvious outcome.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Not at all.That list isn't bad, in context.
This featless system would somewhat hinder TWF in nearly all classes, even fighter as most TWFighter builds are using more than just bonus feats to pursue that path.
Mages would suffer. Improved Inititive is gone, so is Dodge. Crafting is a serious deliberation now.
This would be a different game. Feats are that integral.
TWF would be Monk/Ranger territory.
Going first, largely the Rogue/Ranger.
I'd wager PCs crafting would Vanish. Beyond Potions and Scrolls anyway.
I think the Scorpion Whip was originally just a feat tax added to the regular Whip to allow lethal damage.
That tax was totally worth paying.
You lost 5' of reach though.
Whips are like spears in that weapon size is kinda meaningless if you think about it.
It's never come up but I'd houserule whips to not be usable with Power Attack. And to take a to hit penalty for 2 handed use. I'd just kill the strength bonus on damage all together.
Given equal skill; a whip wielded by a 9 year old girl would do the same damage as Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime. It's about speed and precision not strength.
Yes I know, I'm of no help to you here. 8)
I'd be willing to play this game.
I think fighters, rogues (talents are feats) and monks would be better comparatively.
Barbs, pallys are gonna hurt.
Druids get acceptably powereddown.
Clerics and mages have to start making some tough decisions.
This is not a horrible idea for an experiment.
A LOT of stuff will all but disappear though.
That never happens at tables IMObservafion.
Players tend to expect a certain social standing. Even if they are seedy adventurerers, they expect to be treated like dangerous exotic animals, and get cranky when they get politicked by the faceless masses.
You do point out an aspect of the game that is intriguing, one where being a spell aster has a significant downside in social settings. But that's gm fiat on flavor. Players don't usually like being the pariah. Unless it's a moody, emo, dark elf pariah, then it's cool.
As a house rule try this;
Allow CE to be reversed.
I guarantee people would use it.
Not that it's needed. The secret to CE is that it stacks. It works in under water combat. While squeezing etc.
One of the things I see in low level games is that people PUMP AC early on. They do it with magic, armor all kinds of stuff but the defensive stack on CE, def Fighting and Crane is silly effective.
You can trip, disarm, dirty trick or whatever WithOut taking taking Combat Exp.
You're just better if you take CE.
Ever try to disarm someone for real? It's dangerous. The ability to buff up your defensive fighting abilities is invaluable in that situation. Thats CE.
The game over favors attack, since some twerp with a CLW spell/wand is always standing behind you.
But seriously? The ability to perform a combat trip in a defensive fashion shouldn't require the ability to just do combat in a defensive fashion? That's counterintuitive.
Combat Maneuvers are harder than just hitting something with a stick.
The only issue I've ever had with CE is the Int. Req. It should have a prereq that's kinda doable across classes regardless of the available point buy. Maybe allow a Dex sub or Wisdom?
Or just pick, or write up, an archetype that gives up something for a free feat.
Feat Tax/ n.
Combat Exp is a good feat. Just because you never use it is not an indicator of it being lame. It represents a characters ability to do more than just club stuff to death in battle. To use style and finesse to alter combat. Much like tripping or disarming. It's also awesome in those rare instances where you get ambushed in the middle of the night and all you have on is smallclothes. Unless you sleep in armor (which requires a feat).
Improved Inititive is one of the 5 best feats ever. It isn't strictly necessary ever, but who doesn't take it eventually?
Weapon Finesse is a solid feat but can be completely ignored if you like. Folding it into a weapon is ok I guess but it's also power creep. Look at Dervish Dance and it's near ubiquity in certain optimizer threads. I understand the urge to have all combat abilities be ruled by a single stat but it's bad design.
Now an actual feat tax is needing to take Skill Focus; diplomacy to enter a PrClass. It's there to deliberately stall entry past 3rd level or some such but it usually fits in thematically so it's "tax" value is questionable. Actually it's only questionable if you think skills are dumb and useless.
I think the term is overused and wildly inaccurate.
Sorry but 90% of all of the mechanics are combat focused. In most RPGS actually.
The other stuff doesn't need rules.
It's near heresy to say so but you can play twice a week for 20 years with just the CRB and scratch paper if you're good at the "other stuff".
I do like your post above about green sprites, I may steal that.
I'm not a huge fan of Vancian Magic, yet I think it is a necessary "evil".
One of the great killers of spell point/mana systems is that there are no fundamental rules for magic beyond Spells Known/Slots per day. Anything is possible via magic in D&D. Scaling power levels are also "off" as some splashy abilities are available at relatively low levels.
Death/Gravity/the Vacuum of Space heck even the basic laws of Matter and Energy are only minor inconveniences in the face of a D&D spellcaster. That lack of limitations leads to an assumption that no barrier could be imposed and you get "Rocket Tag".
Spell Points/Mana systems just exacerbate relative power inequities in the system. There can be no balance between classes when you have characters that can just go nuts at every encounter. Up thread someone pointed out that in Dying Earth, Vance's spells were "auto wins"; this is true of D&D in most circumstances.
The Spells are to Powerful.
Most systems with a point system recognize this and power down the magic. Sadly these systems fail to capture the wider player base because they want the potency of D&D magic. It's just that some also want the handicap that goes with them to vanish. The true God Wizard.
I've played lots of variant systems. Some good, some not so great. Over and over I find that balanced systems where the Mage just spams "magic bolt" for 1d6 damage fails to capture the players sense of the dramatic nature of spells. very few of these systems have spell lists even 10% of the size of the standard d20 system, much less the add ons.
On the other end of the spectrum; Allowing players to spam Lord Voldemort's Death Curse or "Sectum Sempre" is a terrible idea in a game that requires some degree of challenge to keep players engaged.
I've yet to see a game where spamming spells is a good thing, story wise. The CLW Wand is a possible exception, yet without it, the "15 minute" adventuring day would be just the adventuring day. Everyone would be beat up enough in most campaigns to call it for a few days of rest. Rememorizing would be a non issue.
"The Blade is Faster than the Spell"
With the current action economy, most fights are over pretty quick. Would the spellcasters be satisfied only getting off 1 or 2 spells in a typical encounter and likey doing nothing but casting a spell for the first 3 rounds? If so great you can ditch the Vancian system and spontaneous casting all together. Everybody knows everything. The spellcaster auto wins and the rest of the party just blocks until he gets off his Wish or whatever. The other players become very important and melee is fundamental to most encounters which become capture the flag (enemy spellcaster).
None of my players want to be the wizard in that scenario. they want to "do something" every round. That's the essence of D&D, which is where the Spell Slinger comes from I think. Sure we have some literary battle mages but most of the rapid fire spellcasters are post D&D fantasy.
Just one old guys opinion but given the Standard Action casting time and Vancian Magic system D&D is sorta stuck. You can't ditch one without the other unless you want a game that's all spellcasters, players and monsters.
Callous Jack wrote:
I've said this before regarding other applications........
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS brand name is only worth a nickle outside of the gaming hobby. In truth, I feel that putting D&D into the final title of any live action film is a bad decision on a studio's part.
It carries connotations of high cheese and pre- pubescent silliness. We may hold the name D&D dear, but we are a TINY minority.
It was a good deal, at the time, for TSR to let Soloman have a continual license to make films branded as D&D. In context; the company was failing, the hobby was flooded and the former player base were writing their own stories only slightly influenced by the game. Those stories were just as likely, even more likely to be turned into celluloid. There was a real chance for the brand name to be circulated and recirculated in a different medium at NO COST to the company other than having their brand name attached to yet another bad "B" film.
No, Hasbro would never allow such a deal. Which is why Hasbro still hasn't made a film or allowed a film to be cut of any serious work. They slacked off on Dragons of Autumn Twilight, which Should have been a money maker, they've yet to do a Drizzt movie or adapt a single one of their enormously successful novels into a feature film.
Prior to LotR (which is a D&D movie, since D&D is a LotR ripoff at it's core). The idea of a well produced, Oscar caliber, sword &sorcery film was a pipe dream. Now with the insane success of Jackson and Columbus with the Harry Potter films and Martin with GoT, the studios will greenlight anything for preproduction just to have something that could be a hit.
A film based on D&D is silly, since D&D has mined (or robbed) everything. I'm not sure that you couldn't make any generic fantasy film and use most of the basic elements without stepping on any legal toes. A film based on The Icewind Dale trilogy or Dragonlance maybe has merit though DL is probably too big in scope.
If Hasbro/Universal wants to make a movie let them. If WB/Soloman wants to make a movie, let them. Heck if Paramount wants to make a Blackmoor game movie let them. Let them all vet realeased at the same time ( like Armageddon/Deep Impact, Mars/Red Planet, or the 2 Snow White movies). No film is going to be good unless they take it seriously and the D&D name pretty much GUARANTEES that it won't get taken seriously, not even by Hasbro. Who hasn't learned from their mistakes and seems to think that their IP covers everything, it doesn't.
Ahhhh, another meme I've managed to cut out.
It's hardly a tax. Most of the BSF's skill points would otherwise go to either Perception or Intimidate? They still do, it doesn't take max ranks to mend chain mesh. A single point investment in either Craft (arms and armor) or Profession (Soldier) will do.
And yes there are benefits for the wizard in harvesting body parts Knowledge (biology) or Heal.
Not being able to buy "cool stuff" in an equal manner is already written into the core rules with the default crafting system and the wizards free bonus item crafting feats. The cost of the feat is far less of a hit for a caster, who's real class feature is spellcasting, than a fighter whose class feature is combat feats. Rogues are even worse off, though they could steal magic items for free I guess, but that'll blow the WBL guidelines out of the water pretty quick.
Except, in practice, this seldom seems to happen.
Perhaps because the Fort Saves have a better chance of outright killing a character where will save just make them suck.
Thats not quite fair.
Also not everyone is convinced that the component rules are "flavor text". They are mechanically grounded rules. That the M is handwaived but the S is not is part of the reason for the thread. With each edition of the game the spellcasters get more powerful. But how much of it is a lack of system balance and how much of it is player base laziness?
If players disagree with a relative magic level they are welcome to do so, but if they aren't volunteering to run games as a GM then they can only complain so far. I play with a guy who outright bans spellcasters in any form. I like wizards but I still play with him because his games are fun.
I'd actually agree with the availability of odd items issue.
I also practice a theory that spell components are one of the best impetuses to an unforeseen adventure. After years of it it's pretty rare that the fighter doesn't opt to tag along with the wizard as he scrapes poo off rocks:
The Spell Component Pouch is a glaring Achilles Heel for the prepped caster. I don't think it's a douche move to target it as such. It's not considered a douche move when you hit the fighter with Will Save Effects every other encounter (which happens in every game I play in as a pickup).
I'm not the OP, but I'll answer.To a certain degree, yes I do. It encourages Skill Usage. Specifically Craft, Profession which are kinda ignored in some games. My players tend to take them and I ensure that there are benefits beyond just not having gear degrade. In the end my goal is not to punish players but to leave them with more well rounded characters. *
I do use a variant magic item crafting system, that doesn't require spellcasting and also offers some non magical masterwork mechanical advantages. So there are strong reasons for non casters to take craft skills without getting feat taxed into obsolescence. .
I'd actually suggest dipping some kind of monk if the zen archer is too close to your no supernatural clause.
3 levels of base monk gives you the save bonuses that replicate all 3 save feats.
Grappling, casters suck at grappling. Even Druids who might, might be ok at it will be at a disadvantage if you focus on it. Defensive Casting is not hard to pull off, but doing it grappled is near impossible.