Take the example of a thieves' guild. That's a group of people who have united to work together to act non-lawfully. They - like all good organized crime - will no doubt have their own internal rules. Things like "the first rule of Fight Club is... don't talk about Fight Club." You don't rat out your fellows. You split the take when a job is complete precisely the way it was agreed to. You don't get jiggy with the guildmaster's daughter or wife. Unless (s)he tells you to.
If my rogue was a part of this guild, and for his entire life he paid his dues on time - even felt guilty when they were hours late, gladly followed all of the rules, never bucked authority, never strived "to get out from under the thumb of the leader" (from the underlings point of view), and never plotted, schemed, or even daydreamed of doing anything close to skirting the rules...
You would declare this character non-Lawful simply because the guild is acting un-lawfully?
I mean, really really?
Azoun the Sage, the more you post about the situation, the more I feel the Fighter's (character, not necessarily player) actions were correct, and the more likely I am to question the Paladin's.
Azoun The Sage wrote:
The orcs are different than the standard, add fiendish template, as they are from a lower plane and were gated in. The concept is when a Demon came through at the calling of a vile mage to attack this place he brought forth the orcs for adding muscle and to establish a new domain on the prime material plane. The orc that was set free; well they learned through discussion he has died once and is eager to return to that battlefield since now he is much stronger than he was in life. And that battle they've learned is far off and are pretty certain is long since been over.
Your orcs (at least the ones the group is facing for this scenario) are otherworldly - and from a fiendish plane no less?
And the Paladin (character) was considering going to blows to defend them?
Did they show any hint of being redeemable - at all?
Azoun The Sage wrote:
In the end I went with drunken sailor with one too many bar fights, had to leave town because no other captain would take him on. He left going through the mountain pass to get to the neighboring port to see if he could get onto a ship there before word of his deeds spread.
Now you have me baffled.
You have a problem with this players last character not getting along well with the group, and you have developed his new characters backstory as he was blacklisted by sailors (not the most ruly bunch, traditionally) for being to unruly for them?
This should all end very well... :-/
And if all PC D did, from beginning to end, was conform to what PCs A, B, and C agreed on, they would be Lawful.
PC D has (voluntarily) given up their own personal freedoms to follow the mandates of others. That is not Chaotic at all.
If you choose to take that as meaning "PC D has to defecate on the doorstep of the church of Pelor," then you are the one being a jerk and an idiot.
Potential alignment argument threadjack:
Well... To me "ends justify the means" implies heavily the willingness to ignore authority, law, rules, contracts, group charters, etc., in order to accomplish your goals. That would put it far from Lawful.
I do acknowledge that it could just as easily be applied to traditionally evil goals and ideals as it could traditionally good goals and ideals. So I will concede to the Good / Evil axis.
So, just to clarify, you insist that all characters be Lawful at your table? Because all a Chaotic character that follows the "groupthink" is, is Lawful.
Azoun The Sage wrote:
I do not see where there was a ruling for the readers to pass judgement on. If it is about alignment, see #3.
Azoun The Sage wrote:
2. Would you have done it differently?
Azoun The Sage wrote:
Alignment is truly tricky. Unless two people "grew up" gaming together (started together, and always gamed together), it is nearly impossible to find two people who have identical viewpoints on what alignments mean.
As for the Fighters actions and Chaotic Good Alignment: They could be correct. A one phrase description of Chaotic Good could be "the ends justify the means." And by that, one less orc - no matter how it came about - is good for the world.
That doesn't mean that should be the case in your game. It just means it is possible.
Darvon: I believe the OP asked for cleric strategies and help, not how much clerics suck. I feel your comments are unwarranted and unhelpful for this topic.
And yet, no chastisement of the posters that question, prod, or poke Darvon about his/her initial attempt at advice - thus encouraging, if not creating, the unhelpful and unwarranted comments (as determined by you)?
How kind of you to give the majority a pass...
At the time of posting, I was. :-P
You are correct, I unit shifted. All mention of Mb should be Kb, and any mention of Gb should be Mb.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Short answer: One of the features (currently - I can see this getting cut) of IPv6 is multicasting. At least that is what it was called last I looked. Anyway, it allows transferring the hub of traffic to another system, presumably with better bandwidth.
For example, a mumble server needs to handle peek bandwidth of about 400 Mb / sec / user at the lowest quality setting. Less for normal usage. Putting it well out of the range of nearly all residential US internet packages since they rarely have more than 1 Gb / sec upstream.
The draw-ups for the WotC VTT vastly exceed anything MapTool can show, hell the built-in VoiP itself is huge.
Huge is a good word for it...
As someone who was trying to handle the MapTool server for our group AND look into a more stable VoIP solution than Skype, I can tell you that VTT + VoIP requires pretty big bandwidth (especially on the server end of things). [Example: 2 MapTool clients + 2 Skype clients can overload low end connections at a single location.)
I would warn people to not count on quality VTT + VoIP solutions without investing in high end Internet connections - at least until IPv6 becomes widely accepted.
Another example of security interfering with legitimate customers, and being a trivial deterrent (if not a complete non-issue) for those with the intent of illegal activities...
I wanted to export all the plants / fey to one pdf so i could easily use it on my ipad.
I do not know what OS you are using, and I know little about Mac OSs, but look for an option to "Print to File / PDF."
Linux (at least Ubuntu) has it built in. When printing, select "Print to File," and you can select .pdf or .ps. (I haven't tried the default .ps [Post Script]. It might be superior, but I've always wanted the PDF format for some reason.)
In Windows, you can find a couple of free programs that allow you to add this option.
Lord Snow wrote:
I admit that I am guessing without clear understanding of what you have, or haven't done...
But I believe what you are missing is you have to actually checkout with your order. At least I did.
Yeah, it is kind of unintuitive... And I think it might be an unintended change because I do not remember having to do that before...
But give that a try.
Gary Teter wrote:
If you're seeing 5-10 second load times, as you've surmised those problems are apparently downstream of our servers and out of our direct control.
It is nice to see your numbers.
I only have a very rudimentary understanding of how internet traffic works, but since I moved out of Northern East Coast over a year ago things like this have tempted me to learn more so that I might figure out a way to "force" packet routing to improve some speeds.
For those curious, from Northern East Coast I didn't see any problems with the Paizo servers. Even when others were complaining of severe speed issues, my experience was fine. Rare, occasional hiccups to maybe 3 second page loads during those "worst case" times.
Since I have moved to the Southern Mid America, I see pathetic performance from West Coast based sites. When others I have known have complained about performance, it routinely is someone in Mid America, or Southern East Coast, trying to connect with a West Coast site. (Usually California based, but some in Washington and Colorado.)
And as I've mentioned a couple of times on these forums, there is at least one server on the path from my location to the West Coast that doesn't even handle ping requests properly - so any trace route requests I do die there.
So, if you know your path cuts from Mid America / Southern East Coast to the Paizo servers, that is the source of your performance issues. Even if you suspect it might travel that route, the odds are good that your issues are not the fault of Paizo, their code, or their hardware. (But occasionally, it is. ;-) )
The slowness might be because of location (Norway). I'm not knocking Norway, at all. But if your traffic comes through the East coast of America, that can be a sign it is location.
Here is why:
The Paizo site is very slow for me, usually. Without stopwatch timing, it appears to take as much as 3x as long as (most) other sites to load. And then there are the extra slow times that squash that multiplier.
I can't blame this on Paizo, because I always have difficulties with West Coast sites. So, I am pretty sure there is an infrastructure problem between the West Coast, and the Mid America somewhere that just intensifies any problems with the site.
Common first load times for the Paizo website for me are around 5 to 10 seconds. Once that connection is made, average page loads are between 1.5 and 3 seconds to load. With occasional spikes back up to 5 to 10 seconds. And if it is the Download of the Month time (or one of those days where the servers get cranky), it isn't even worth visiting the site - unless I pack a lunch.
So in that case, what would Intimidate be based on?
If one wanted a more "realistic" approach, it probably should have two values / systems.
First is the "passive" value. This is probably best as a Will save by the "target / victim" based on Hit Dice / Level.
The second is an "active" attempt at intimidating, and that should be based off of Wisdom. That is because someone actually trying to scare someone works off of what they know of the person and reading them. (Sort of a pseudo-psychology.)
But I feel that makes things needlessly complex. Either / or should be fine on their own.
First thing that comes to mind is Ranger / Wizard. (Especially if the DM allows the dragon to be a companion AND familiar at the same time.)
You get good fighting ability, with great ability against a few select types, and great magic ability. (Ability to use most "healing" [curative, and otherwise] wands and scrolls without UMD, and the best variety of spell selections on the Arcane side of things.)
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Except you're adding flavor to a rule mechanic that isn't there, and using it to justify your position. In fact, your flavor is exactly the opposite of what the feat is about: "You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength."
Don't make me point out all the places in Pathfinder Rules where the description doesn't accurately describe what the mechanics are representing.
And before anyone suggest "errata those areas," Power Attack could be errata-ed too.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And it's not really incorporating why you need Str 13+ in order to make called shots.
Sure it does.
All neatly tied in using d20 based rules and explanations.
*Note: I am not claiming it is necessarily correct. Just pointing out it easy to do with the material at hand.
I was going to write a counter to your post using the most reasonable situation for 3.X power attack, and the most unreasonable situation for WOP spellcasting to offset your most unreasonable situation for 3.X power attack and most reasonable situation for WOP spellcasting...
In short, if I am reading your posts correctly:
Only some players will meta-game the heck out of it?
It is impossible for every player to meta-game the heck out of it?
What is the real distinction here. Will there ever be enough WOP meta-gamers for you to accept that it is no better than 3.X power attack? And that it might just be worse?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I don't think you understand what "metagaming" means.
Believe it or not, I do.
As for 3.X power attack, my old group and I played as "called shots."
Harder to hit areas were more vulnerable to damage.
"I am aiming for his groin, I'll reduce my attack by 4 and if I hit I'll add 4 damage."
"That was too simple, so I'll go for his temple. I'll reduce my attack by 8 and if I hit I'll add 8 damage."
As opposed to:
"We're going to face Thoquas? I'll prep cold spells then."
They are both equally metagaming, or not.
It all depends on how the individual game is played.
But it seems like you feel your way is the best, and/or only way it should be played.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Just like the ability to formulate spells on the fly with Words of Power doesn't involve metagaming and "adds so much to the experience of playing a, ahem, roleplaying game."
It is very odd that the Paizo staff in general defend taking the possibility of formulaic combat out of the hands of martial characters, and yet go out of their way to give it to spellcaster characters (arguably the slowest playing classes).
Don't worry about promising to play nice...
Those that pride themselves on reading the playtest documents "objectively" (at least in their own eyes) have a lot of ground to make up since "those that only gush at everything Paizo releases" (again in those specific eyes) have a very big head start on them having been given an "unfair advantage" at seeing the documents days earlier.
I don't expect things to be nice very long.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Also, althoug I can't quite put my finger on what it is, we only played one game of 3.5 before pathfinder and in some, hard-to-articulate way I suspect ties in with the backwards compatibility, it sometimes feels that the rules are assuming some prior knowledge about 'how things used to be'.
That is far too true.
There is too much that was changed, mashed with things that weren't changed, or changed ever so slightly, that anyone who is familiar with 3.5 is left scratching their head wondering 'how "rule XYZ" was intended to be interpreted, because it appears that "rule STU" was changed and "XYZ" was left alone... Was that on purpose? Overlooked? What?'
And, as of yet, getting an easy to find response from those that developed Pathfinder is difficult at best. (And woe to the person that should DARE to ask for the developers to answer their unworthy questions on these forums!)
All due respect but that's all kind of silly.
I don't agree.
Not to mention that do not agree that the effects of Belier's Bite overlap in the way you claim it does.
(And there is at least on other multi page thread I can't find quickly, where the majority of posters were adamant that the effect is only a single d4 rolled every round, no matter how many times a character with this feat struck a target.)
In the end, I don't care. I haven't argued for or against anything.
All I am is the guy standing outside the house pointing to the crack in the sidewalk saying "people are going to trip over this." If the sidewalk gets fixed or not doesn't effect me. Just other people can't afterword claim "people keeping tripping over my sidewalk, and I do not have any idea why!"
The language, no matter how clear it appears to any readers of this post, is not clear enough. As the threads that are going to keep popping up about once every month or two will prove.
Gallard Stormeye wrote:
Bleed attacks don't do damage initially. I don't know where anyone got that idea from.
That's easy. It comes from the wording of the feat, Belier's Bite.
Belier's Bite wrote:
Benefit: When you damage an opponent with an unarmed strike, you deal an extra 1d4 bleed damage.
It is the "extra" thrown in there.
I'd hazard the guess that the feat was initially intended to add a d4 extra damage of <some> type, and somewhere during editing someone either didn't like the type, or realized it was untyped, and tacked the Bleed type to the end there without verifying the feat still read clearly, concisely, and consistent with the bleed rules.
This doesn't even take into account the "proper" way to handle multiple successful unarmed strikes with the feat.
Sure, they do not stack. But they probably should overlap. Much like if a character received a second Aid spell, they wouldn't get a second d8 of temporary hit points, but the general concensus is that a second d8 would be rolled - and if it was better the character would get the second result instead of the first.
Starting with the simplest stuff left first:
Try defragging your hard drive. I know, it doesn't sound like it would help - and it shouldn't. But sometimes that does the trick. If you are unfamiliar with this:
If you haven't done this in the last week or two, it can take a LLOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG time. I suggest setting it up to run while you sleep - assuming you do not shut down your computer overnight.
Run full scans with you anti-virus / anti-malware programs. These too can take a great deal of time depending on your computer.
If neither of these work, AND you have the install disks for Windows XP, you can try verifying the integrity of your system files.
- Open up a command prompt: Start > Accessories > Command Prompt
As with the others, this can take a severe amount of time if things are screwy. If your system is still pristine, it should be very quick.
If that fails... I have one other suggestion that might work. But I will hold off on that a while because it is a bit more drastic.
For what it is worth, and I suspect very little, I despise signing up for websites. Especially for a website with so little purpose as Phazzle has described his/hers.
The reason is, over the past two to three decades I have signed up for dozens, if not hundreds, of different websites because this group or that group of friends use it and/or think it is fun/cool/whatever. And invariably, these sites die, or that group of friends and I grow apart.
And here I have these numerous breadcrumbs spread throughout the internet... And that goes against my basic philosophy of "leave no trace of your passing." I clean up after myself, particularly outdoors, in the real world... And I would like to be able to do so in cyberspace. And then, if that wasn't enough, there is the security paranoid side of me that hates signing up for websites as well...
In the end, if it came down to an ultimatum of signing up for a website, or not playing in the game - I would quit the game in a heart beat. And here is the kicker. I am the most tech savvy of my group. I have set up a MapTool server for my group, and am constantly working on coding as much rules as possible into MapTool.
So, I am 100% behind the player that doesn't choose to use the website.
And with my opinion out of the way, here is a little technical tidbit that others might find useful in situations similar to this:
How to use email to send SMS to people. After you set up your contacts, you can easily email a short text to every one of your players.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
In James' personal Q&A thread, he said that the aggressiveness of posters in the playtest may be enough to make Paizo consider abandoning the playtest
I realize what I am about to post runs against the grain of what you intend this thread for, so I will put it in spoiler tags to keep the general flow of the thread pristine.
The playtest could be abandoned? That is likely the best thing possible.
It is apparent that Paizo can't handle playtests. That isn't to say they aren't capable. Just that they do not have the manpower, if not the temperament, to weight the feedback - good and bad.
The overall impression is that they ignore the feedback, at best, or select feedback of their own criteria at worst. Either way, it clearly isn't based on quantity of opinions, or quality of suggestions.
And if my little, tiny, corner of the hobby is any indication, they would do better going with their first drafts over playtest encouraged changes anyway. (We use the Beta RPG rules, and if we use anything from the APG, it is likely to be Beta as well.)
All in all, that kind of shake up might be what is needed to turn around the opinion of Paizo that I get from people who aren't regulars on these forums.
Robert Miller 55 wrote:
I agree this is an awesome idea, but why do people buy these rather than buy a cheap bundle of hangars at Wal Mart and use a pair of pliers?
For the same reason some people change their own oil in the car, and some people don't.
It is a matter over weighing the time over cost with your own set of priorities.
Some people, cost is most important and your suggestion will be enjoyed. Others the time investment wins out, and they would rather purchase. ((I have found in my own personal life, the more disposable cash I have, the more likely I'd rather just purchase/pay someone else to do it...))
Lots of TVs have VGA-in. Most call it "PC Input", which I admit might confuse Mac users, but it's a VGA jack.
I didn't trust this statement, so I looked into it. And there are, indeed, televisions with the D-Sub/VGA/PC Input.
I'm not sure "lots" is accurate... But that isn't important.
What is important is that it isn't standard, and it isn't always easy to track down if a set has it or not prior to purchase. And from my (extremely) brief research on the subject, it appears that it is primarily on the sets outside of the "bang for the buck" range. Meaning that the more likely it is you bought your set on a budget, the less likely it is it will have it.
And in related news, the price of these sets have dropped drastically. 60" for under $2000? I didn't imagine I would see the day.
the ipad supports video out to your big screen. if you have lots of cash to spare you can even lay it down horizontally even more gamemattiness.
Depending on your big screen, this can be problematic.
Apple only supplies a Dock that has VGA output. So if your big screen doesn't have that input (and I haven't seen any that do) you have to find a VGA to <whatever> converter as well.
Now, if you meant projectors... There is a better assortment that have VGA inputs. But again, check what you have before planning on this route.
Ahhh.... But you are assuming that use of a word - "broken" in this case - that is very common parlance in nearly every venue of gaming (video games, rpgs - tabletop and larp, wargames, etc.) is know to incite flamewars.
Yes, I am sure some of the people that use it on these forums know exactly what it will do to the blood pressure of the more conservative of regulars.
But you can never assume that everyone who uses it is going for the reaction.
And I find it very funny that those the seem to support Paizo, and their goals of friendly and welcoming forums, expect others to know exactly how to change their common speech patterns to appease those that feel this forum is theirs, and theirs alone.
"Broken" is commonly thrown around to refer to anything that does not work as intended. Just like if your TV needs to be turned on and off at least 3 times before it works - even if it works perfectly fine after it does start - is considered "broken."
WTF, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, What The Hell, and many other more inflamatory phrases are in common usage in many circles.
But they aren't allowed here because some posters can't give the user the benefit of the doubt.
Evil Genius Prime wrote:
So, do we have any idea when I compiled PDF of the errata will be available? Or when they plan to do a second printing(my guess, is when the first run sells out).
The answer to these questions are tied together.
You won't get the errata as a separate file until the second printing is available for sale. And there won't be a second printing until the stock of first printing is (nearly) exhausted.
Until that time, the best you can hope for is a post or three spread out in the forums somewhere. Either from a staff member, a contributor, or a forum regular that has a reasonable guess on what was intended.
And be careful how you pose questions about it in the forums. Too many readers expect everyone to be fully versed on all threads. You may get one or two who will be kind enough to link you to the post that answers your questions.
Speak for yourselves. shall I spam other threads I don't like or is there a double standard in effect?
The Paizo forums are only welcoming, and friendly towards those that are deemed "acceptable." Otherwise it is a fairly hostile place.
And no, I am not referencing anything involving me. I make this statement based on watching how others are treated.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
More specifically, this post.
Link to Post Trick:))
Click on the time/date stamp after the users' name on the post heading. The browser reloads with the url of that post.
I have found that it gets a little weird in product discussion threads that go one past a page though.
It is a fairly common occurrence.
Posters get tired of reading what they take as "OMG! Gamebreaking! Don't ever do that in my product again!"
So they go in the thread and post "OMG! Forumbreaking! Don't ever post that on my forums again!"
It is kind of sad when style is so much more important that content, as it helps breed us to be more easily conned. (Reciprocity is a BIG part of social engineering.)
It could be that subdomains are listed under Cleric options? Not divine magic/domain options? After all, you wouldn't expect a cleric to be able to use Druid options (even if the trade off was for abilities the Cleric had).
Emphasis is mine.
As well as:
Off Topic Forum wrote:
Advanced Player's Gonzo Journalism, or Let's Read the APG (Moved to Paizo Products)
I see you're on the ball.
Just to point out...
That is a common theme around these forums. Too many people being "thought police." If you watch carefully, you will see multiple examples of "unknown poster A" posting almost the same thing as "known Paizonian B", and getting jumped for it because it is believed the intention was not pure. Which can be reversed as saying it is because "known Paizonian B" intentions are believed to be pure.
My Inquisitor concept formed while reading Kingmaker.
An Inquisitor of Abadar who clears the land so that civilization might be established. S/he doesn't much care for the how as long as the "vermin/monsters/undesirables" are removed from the planned progress.
In more broad terms, sort of a "ranger-ish paladin."