I mean us 'Bernie Bros' did just get a pretty huge email leak confirming that the suspicions of corruption and election rigging were true - something that would probably turn off any group of voters - but please continue to trot out the tired retread of the 'Obama Boys' pejorative.
I actually favored Hillary over Bernie. While I would prefer Hillary to be a bit more progressive on some issues, I think she can actually get a lot of what she promised done. I feel that if somehow Bernie did get the nom and then won the election, Bernie would have a much greater difficulty working with congress and wouldn't be able to follow through with a lot of his campaign platforms.
I really have no idea when this idea that the GOP was suddenly gonna greet Hillary with open arms came from, but I chuckle at it every time. She will probably get a lot more of what she wants from a Republican congress - but they aren't anything an actual progressive should be happy about.
She's going to face the same opposition to health care reforms or minimum wage legislation Bernie would, but they'll be damn happy to agree to any safety net cuts or international trade deals she is keen on.
I'm just going to answer Scott Bett's post in point by point paraphrasing because the quote tags get ridiculous with a post that long.
Point 1: Bernie endorsed Hillary enthusiastically and it makes no difference.
Enthusiasm is largely a matter of opinion, and some Hillary backers would disagree with your assessment. But the point is that leading up to the endorsement they were still battling over rules in the platform and he will continue to push her even so - he endorsed Obama in 08 and still remained a gadfly.
But ultimately, my only point is that an endorsement is not selling out - I could be wrong in my assessment of the relationship at play here, but he said he'd endorse, and he endorsed. I don't think we actually have an argument about whether that was somehow selling out, even though you seem to have backed Hillary from the beginning, anyway, so we're coming at it from very different perspectives.
Point 2: Hillary and Bernie are similarly liberal and their voting records show that.
No two candidates in the 2015/16 election cycle had a closer voting record - you know what they say about lies, damn lies, and statistics, right? You're comparing specifically SENATORS who ran for president in this election cycle - which gives us Clinton, Cruz, Sanders, Paul, Webb (kind of), and Chaffee (kind of) and Rubio. Take out the outliers - very "red" Democrats like Webb and the libertarian Paul - and you're left with 4 traditional Senators to compare.
As for her being 'hardcore liberal,' that REALLY depends on the issues. Abortion? Kind of. Intelligence/Surveillance? Definitely not. Student loans? Not surprisingly, not really. Gender equality? Surprisingly not great! But looking at the email leaks and her attitude on foreign policy it gets really stark . . . her bloodthirst for Syria and unequivocal support for Israel and its rightwing Likud party is seriously scary. What she did in Haiti and Honduras is unequivocally terrible. She's Pro-TPP, pro-fracking, takes money from private prisons (even as she promises to shut them down), takes money from banks, from defense contractors, is appealing to Bush donors, and has the admiration of Dick freaking Cheney. And that 7% difference included the vote for Iraq - which I'm going to circle back to.
Point 3: I'm going to break my rules here and quote because it calls for it:
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm going to reiterate the part you apparently glossed over because it provides important context:
...he was going to win my state either way. Which is the case for MOST of the people who are talking about voting 3rd party...
Even buying the Nader argument (I don't, obviously, but that's a discussion for another thread) no, see, never in our lifetime has a 3rd party candidate in a heavily Red or Blue state made any difference whatsoever. I live in Indiana. Trump will win here, handily. There's not even a question mark about it. You apparently did read this part, because you reference me being in a red state elsewhere in your post, but somehow conveniently left it off your retort?
People in swing states who decide to vote strategically --- look, I get it. As always, I don't agree, but I get it and I will understand why. But when you go on these long tangents against people in Indiana or New York or Wyoming or Oregon, what good does it do? Only a handful of states really will make a difference, and the candidates know this, which is why they spend all of their time there.
So the irony is that we get flamed by party loyalists who lament our dedication to purity and feeding our egos when what we do won't actually result in a victory . . . while basically arguing against people whose votes really aren't going to make a huge difference to assuage your egos and feel like the only adults in the room who can be reasonable about all this pesky 'morality' business.
EDIT: Almost forgot to circle back to Iraq!
It's not really in response to any point, but Dems like to throw around Nader as a precautionary tale about voting 3rd party and how it'll get us another Bush. But the absolute WORST piece of the Bush legacy - the Iraq War - Hillary voted for. And now she's gearing up to get us involved in another quagmire just like it. All of the WORST thing's about Bush's presidency had the seal of approval from way too many Democrats so this attitude that if we'd only elected Democrats we'd all be spared another disaster is preposterous, short sighted, and the kind of black-and-white thinking that leads to things getting progressively worse and worse as we let more slide because, "Well, the other side is just pure EVIL!"
And finally - breaking my no quote rule again, but it's thejeff this time so I'm going to officially pardon myself:
That'll unfortunately still be a hard sell. The Indiana Democratic Party is an enormous mess that was running a proven loser even before they knew Pence was going to be leaving and when I voted in the primaries for my district, most of the Dem candidates didn't even bother creating websites or publishing a platform. The Dems have been hanging by a thread at the state and congressional level for a while now and the 2014 midterms were pretty much the death knell. Unless we get another implosion like Richard Mourdock, it's hard for me to see the Dems winning anything here.
Sorry, I know I'm late to this particular party and the thread has moved on, but as a flag-wavin' member of the #NeverHillary crowd, I just really want to weigh in that Bernie didn't sell out.
Firstly, he endorsed - which is exactly what he said he would do at the beginning. I don't think it could rightly be called selling out to do exactly what you said you would do before you became a household name.
I know a lot of others will argue with me that he shouldn't be held to that word since the primaries were often unfair and there was certainly a rewriting of rules to favor Clinton when her delegates couldn't be bothered to show up. (Nevada still infuriates me.) But what could he do? It was pretty well established the DNC was firmly in Clinton's camp and it was obvious he wouldn't get a fair shake in the media. So he could make a ruckus, placate a few fans, and be banned from the convention and have all of his delegates forfeited to Hillary.
Which brings us back to the endorsement - he endorsed, he didn't concede. That's a small but important distinction. By not conceding he keeps his delegates and will have them at the Convention next week. And it allowed him to keep his delegates while drafting the platform (who, it should be noted, are the ones responsible for the $15 minimum wage and got narrowly voted down on fracking and TPP). If he'd conceded, I'd grant you he sold out. But he endorsed - like he said - and, while he's definitely out of the running for president, is using what leverage he does have to push the Democratic candidate on policy.
Will it be enough for me to vote for Hillary? Probably not. But as much as my refusal to vote for Hillary will be lambasted as an obsession with 'purity,' I never thought Bernie was perfect. But he was a candidate close enough that I could, in fairly good conscience, vote for him - even if that conscience had to wrestle with the use of drones and refusal to use the word 'apartheid' no matter how much the treatment of Palestinians calls for it. But Hillary has just done too much and falls far too short. (BTW, you can stop with the 'Voted the same 93% of the time' statistic. Most votes are symbolic or roll call votes - they're utterly meaningless. Ideologically speaking, they're pretty far apart as a neoliberal and a Social Democrat, even if they're nearer than Trump and Sanders.)
But it doesn't matter, anyway - it seems highly unlikely that Trump will win, and even if he does, he was going to win my state either way. Which is the case for MOST of the people who are talking about voting 3rd party so typically your moralizing about how they're going to wreck the country by not voting for the candidate you prefer is - well, it's kind of ironic, all things considered.
One of our players is a grognard who cut his teeth on the Kill-It-and-Loot-the-Body dungeon crawl type of game. This is a constant issue with him; though I can't say it isn't amusing when he calls our rogue player "the thief," and she constantly corrects him that she has never stolen anything.
Do not marry yourself to a class. My first PF character was a Monk, but - especially in 2010 -there was nothing it offered that couldn't have been better achieved by another class.
Conversely, Bards have a unique shtick they do better than anyone. The jack of all trades stereotype is just nonsense that leads a lot of people to (falsely!) conclude they aren't really worth playing.
A simple, oft tread story told well is vastly superior to a complicated, original story too dense to convey easily. "Save the townsfolk" sounds dull, but it's one line of many potential chapters.
Doing the most damage is generally the most useful, but it's rarely the most fun.
Strong, silent types can work - but they probably won't.
Yeah but didn't Luke actually yearn for more even before everything went down? He wanted to be a pilot for the Empire at first I thought? I think there's enough motivation to make it feasible, even if his desires changed halfway through.
Rey is definitely a good example though. Even after a chance to be Han's protégé and meet "THE" Luke Skywalker, she's still like, "Nah, I have to go back to the crapsack planet my parents dumped me on and serve the dude that just tried to kill me. Sure would be cool to save the galaxy, but unless someone captures and drags me into space I'm just going to eat sand for another 20 years."
So we have largely switched to 5E at my table, but Pathfinder is still my first love and I would like to get at it again someday. That being said, there are some things I will definitely be instituting in any future games:
SNEAK ATTACK - I have mentioned elsewhere how much better 5E sneak attack is. I'll definitely be ditching 30 ft limits, the flanking complications, and will double dice on a crit. (Undecided on whether to limit it to once per turn with the changes? Open to suggestions.)
TWO HANDED POWER ATTACK - I am ditching the STR+1/2 and bonus PA damage for two handed weapons. I never realized how much it locks players in until I played without it.
Any of you bringing some rules back to your PF games?
I have a friend who always plays reckless-but-good-at-heart characters. His last attempt at playing against type was a cowardly rogue.....who happened to be cursed to have to rush headfirst into heroism.
I have another who always plays an amoral, in it for himself loner. It's not as bad as it sounds; the player always serves the party even if it is only about loot and glory for the character.
One always likes to play a wide eyed innocent. She is currently playing a young teenage monk in our ongoing game.
One guy always ends up being the group's butt monkey - but only because the player just makes bizarre decisions that are amusing for the players but would definitely be a huge pain in an actual adventuring party.
I like to play basic concepts but against type. A Lawful Good Necromancer with a big heart, a chaotic evil sorcerer who is super friendly, a bard that wields a Falchion and mixes it up in combat. (I forget the Archetype now, but it's about the only Bard I ever want to play again.)
Derek Dalton wrote:
The range limit of 30 feet makes sense. Consider the description of what a sneak attack entails. You are studying for a weak spot to inflict the most damage. Even military snipers without a scope would have some difficulty doing that after thirty feet.
I disagree with "It should make real-world sense," on principle but it especially does not hold up here because:
1. Legendary heroes have senses far more extraordinary than what is actually possible. Legolas, for instance, definitely performed feats of extraordinary sight far more impressive than spotting a crease in a dude's armor from less than 1/3rd of a football field away.
2. Strength fighters can already, without the aid of magic items, begin play with the STR equivalent of a freaking brown bear and only go up from there. So obviously realism was not the design goal of the development team to begin with.
The 30 ft limit was an obvious design choice made for balance that - like the devs ALWAYS do - vastly overestimates the relative power of the sneak attack ability.
Sneak attack is not so busted that it needed that many restrictions. Favored Enemy is miles stronger and got a BOOST instead of a nerf. Sneak attack will still require the baddies be in melee or surprised - that's enough of a limitation in of itself without all of the additional flanked and within movement range nonsense.
Game of Thrones . . . Just, Gane of Thrones.
Bonus if some, but not all, of the players have read the books. Guaranteed long monologues about the numerous differences and how THEY @!&#ING RUINED DORNE!!!!
As others have said, D&D is about a group of heroes banding together to slay monsters using an abstract combat system. I can't think of a single version of the game where someone could replicate a modern military sniper accurately, just because of the way AC and HPs work, but 5E actually comes closer than previous editions because an Assassin Rogue with Sharpshooter actually has a good chance of hitting and killing most things they get the drop on (and they should get it often if they're sniping with a longbow from 100s of feet away.)
Easily one of my favorite things about 5E is how they fixed sneak attack. If I ever run a Pathfinder game again, I am sticking with 5E's sneak attack rules. That 30ft requirement was nonsense, rogues should have their sneak attack get stronger instead of choosing from combat abilities far more clearly suited to fighters, and should have TWF be a reasonable choice instead of the only sensible one.
I can see the argument there, but it's versatility that makes it key. Most of those bonuses are REALLY AWESOME for a Monk (or really a Rogue) - less so for a Wizard. Almost completely wasted on a 2-Handed Champion Fighter.
The sleep immunity I'll grant is great always, as is the half-time long rest and darkvision. But Charm is a joke in 5E. And that racial language is Elven, period. It may come up rarely, or never. If you're in a dungeon crawl bonus languages are likely no bonus at all.
The bonus skill and feat makes ANY character concept stronger; sometimes in a way that, if not gamebreaking, is frustrating for DM's who are playing a game where the power curve is not expecting a Feat before Level 4.
I'll split the difference with you, though - part of why the variant looks so cheesy is that the Non-Variant Human is utter crap. It's a waste of print because nobody in their right mind would take it. The only possible use I can see for it is to encourage players at a table to branch out and try more unusual races. But I still think that +1 to two attributes, a Bonus Skill, and any feat you want is just a tad too strong.
To say it's 'finally' worthwhile may be a bit of a stretch, but I've been playing with a core group for around 6 years now - I was introduced in 3.5 and cut my teeth on Pathfinder. It may be fair to say "Finally worthwhile AGAIN," but I've only heard second hand how much more powerful fighters were in old editions. 4E may have been around, but honestly, as much luck as I ever had finding tables that ran it it may as well not have been.
But you would have to be joking to say that 5E isn't a damn sight simpler than its crunchier predecessors. Skills? Way simpler than 3E or Pathfinder. Level up? Simpler. Combat? Way simpler. The one area that is still fairly daunting is Spells, but those can be avoided while learning the ropes by playing a non-spellcaster class. 5E is still not the simplest possible system out there (I played a game once where the rules were 1 page long and only used d6's - that takes the cake) but it is the most well known, relies heavily on standard tropes most people are already familiar with, and not difficult to pick up enough to play and play correctly. I definitely have 3 new players who will attest they gave up on Pathfinder because the rules and all the different things you had to keep up with were so intimidating but came in and had 5E's basics down by the 2nd session.
As for building characters that don't do what you want, eh, I don't know. That's not really been my experience so far. Fighters get more attacks than any other class in the game can come close to managing, Sneak Attack is the best burst damage and isn't limited by Spell Slots, 'scribe scroll' and other Spells-Per-Day-Is-Really-Just-a-Suggestion options are gone . . . it's not perfect (Circle of the Moon Druid is busted at low levels and the Rogue is still outshined by the Bard in its schtick around midlevels, and Beastmaster Ranger is perhaps the suckiest suck to ever suck) but I've definitely not had a character yet that didn't do what the player wanted it to do.
Fighter makes sense to me. Fighters are newbie friendly, and 5E is the most newbie friendly system. Plus fighters are FINALLY worthwhile. (For what it's worth, I always struggle not to dip Rogue when I play - expertise is AWESOME.)
I am certain the human variant is inflating that poll. It's cheese and should be changed immediately so there's good reason not to take the variant. A feat is easily worth every other racial bonus humans get COMBINED.
I have to say the two FLGS' I frequent are nothing like this. The owners and staff are right there for the customers as soon as they walk in the door. The other two that I know of but haven't visited have the same level of customer service from what I've been told by friends who patronize them. I guess we just got lucky in that department.
Sadly I had a friend who ran a gaming shop this way - though replace tabletop game with "Minecraft." Ironically he was so lazy some days he'd let his roommate run it (1PM is just TOO early for some people I guess) and those were typically the only days anything was sold.
Was very sad to see it go as none of us, at the time, had a very good setup for hosting games.
I am finally taking the 5E Barbarian for a test run, and with the 2nd rung of the Bear Totem and a caster kind enough to prepare Enlarge/Reduce regularly I can rock a carrying capacity of 600 lbs (1200 when enlarged) which gives me a Lift overhead of 1200/2400 lbs!
Now I am faced with a very important dilemma - what ridiculous common large objects should I use this ability on in combat? Some items that have occurred to me so far:
-Cannon ~1000 lbs(Ship/battlefield)
Yeah it's a fairly short list unfortunately. Which is why I am hoping some of the more creative and/or ridiculous posters here can drum up some ideas for Barbarian shenanigans.
When I played an almost exclusively Enchantment focused sorcerer (don't laugh - it worked!) Dominate Person served really only one major purpose: making someone hold still for the 10 minutes it took to cast Geas.
It was a powerful but not game breaking combination considering we were 12th level+ by that time. But a big part of that I understand is that the philosophy at our table is that at high levels there should only be a direct confrontation at the very end between you and whatever power is controlling the other side.
I know it's a classic fantasy trope that the Big Bad is the Chessmaster and the 'honorable' hero is working to encounter them face to face on the battlefield, but it is actually a REALLY stupid method of trying to defeat a vastly superior force lead by someone more powerful than you. Our games are a lot more plotting and intrigue than direct battle.
Forgive the brevity of this post - trying to do this on my smart phone, which does not make it easy.
But just out of curiosity, since 5E removed the "evil/good" descriptions from spells and one of the major Wizard schools' abilities are seriously gimped by banning undead, I am just curious how other DM's handle Necromancy in their games.
Do you still tag it as always evil even though it's not mandated in the mechanics any longer? Do you allow players to roll up necromancers in nonevil games? Do you slam down raising undead?
If you're referring to the scene I am thinking (at the very end...ahem) I definitely did not find it sexy at all. I think Aronofsky intended for it to be disturbing and not arousing... but in fairness, it's a hard thing to include and not still push a lot of people's buttons.
Sleep is still hugely problematic - especially now that there's no saving throw. Unless you want to have Elves as the exclusive bad guys of your campaign it can trivialize a lot of low level encounters. (Our Sorcerer single handedly ended a goblin encounter in the AP that came in the Basic set.)
Also not the spell itself, but the combination of Eldritch Blast with Eldritch Spear and Agonizing Blast can get really annoying for a DM. Suddenly a lot of fights take place in cramped hallways.
As a player I hate pretty much every Enchantment spell that isn't sleep. The odds of most of them sticking in the first place are roughly 50/50, so they're already a terrible gamble and then allow a saving throw every round on top of that. This is a good thing when enemies or NPC's try it on party members, but it makes the entire school a complete non-starter as a PC.
Watch Requiem for a Dream. The only thing Connelly (or Leto for that matter) will ever arouse in you ever again is severe existential dread.
The Hyenas from Lion King.
Maybe stretching the 'fantasy' criteria, but I 100% support Scar and The Hyenas. The animals' great society is a brutal caste system that functions on the backs of an ostracized and brutalized minority. Scar is not the leader the Lions may want, but he sure as hell is the one they deserve. Scar turned their own gluttony back on them and forced everyone to live in the world they created for the hyenas. Frankly the end of that movie pisses me off still - the fascists are returned to power, having learned nothing. Hooray?
Loki - Thor was a stupid, drunken lout. Odin has a perfectly good, though adopted, son to claim rulership but instead selfishly just held onto power. I don't blame the guy at all for snapping. But that is honestly the least of my problems with the movie Thor.
It is not just the free feat though - it's the free feat, and free skill, and two floating +1's. (6 +1's is an ENORMOUS waste when everything caps at 20 anyway.) Darkvision is typically the big thing other races get, but the biggest benefit can be had with a feat that will also give a human other goodies too.
Plus since you get to choose the feat it synergizes way better than other racial goodies. A 1st level human Paladin with "Bless" up and a great sword can get a LOT of mileage out of Great Weapon Master. (Ditto a human archery style fighter with Sharpshooter.) And they'll always be 1 Feat ahead of the general power curve.
In fairness I could probably make a Brawler as a Monk/Fighter and Cavalier with a Paladin/Fighter and the "Find Steed" spell even though mounted combat isn't really as exciting as Pathfinder. But Oracle and Alchemist are so unique in their mechanics it's very hard to recreate. (SmiloDan's valiant effort notwithstanding.)
What you're missing in that equation is that, barring certain legendary magical items, ALL ability scores in 5E are capped at 20.
So let's say I have a fighter with 16 STR to start the game - for my 4th and 6th level ability score improvement I could do the +2, but come 8th level I'd either need to take a feat or put the improvement somewhere else. And if that feat offered a +1 to STR, my character simply wouldn't gain that benefit.
Also, in contrast to 3.PF, most items that change ability scores will simply overwrite them rather than offer a flat bonus. (eg 5E Gauntlets of Ogre Strength set your STR score to 19 instead of giving you +2. If your Str is already 19 or over there is no effect.)
The +1 to all stats isn't really that good when you actually break it down and I've never bothered playing a human in a game that didn't offer the human variant - which is ironically too good by giving you +1 to two stats which is what most classes are typically interested in, AND a feat which are wayyy more powerful in this edition, and a Skill. (We basically house rule the variant to be a Feat only, or +1 to two ability scores and an additional skill.
So I'm making a Rogue 1/Barbarian 5 to replace a fallen character in a friend's game. They have a Ranger and Rogue who both dish out pretty good damage and a Druid with the Magic Initiate Feat who fills the caster role pretty nicely, so I figured they could use a good tank/controller.
Here's how he's looking so far - I rolled REALLY well:
Rogue 1/Barbarian 5
Class Features: Reckless Attack, Rage, Sneak Attack +1d6 with range or finesse weapon, Expertise (Athletics, Intimidate), Bear Totem (Resistance to all damage except Psychic when raging), Unarmored Defense
FEAT: (Level 1 Human Alternate) Tough (+2 HP/level)
Melee: Greatsword +7/+7 2d6+4 (Not really the style I'm going for - but it's an inherited magical weapon from the fallen character and magical weapons in this game are rare and sort of mythic, so I'm not going to drop or sell it.)
The thought behind the character is to be a grapple machine who wades in unarmored and soaks damage - hence the Tough feat and Bear totem - while repositioning foes where his allies can do the most damage. (This will be especially good for the Rogue.) So the Barbarian's advantage on Athletics coupled with the Rogue's expertise should make him pretty good at it . . . but, just two questions regarding the 4th level Feat choices:
1. There's a Grappler Feat in the PHB that seems to do . . . well, nothing? Besides grant advantage on attacks when you're grappling, but I plan on reckless attacking all the time anyway, so-yeah. Is there any reason at all to take this feat? Especially when I'm more impressed by -
2. Tavern Brawler, which seems pretty good, but is it good enough to forego the +2 STR at Level 4 and get the +5?
Are there any other feats that I should be considering that maybe I glossed over? And is there any other good advice beyond the obvious to make a strong grappler in 5E? Another class dip I should consider perhaps?