Deep Crow

Don't go into Power Dome A's page

100 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Lame, stupid stuff like throwing bat poop or swallowing a live spider? No. Get rid of that idiocy.
That occultic pseudoscience of arcane formulae and recipes is one of the best things about the entire DxP spellcasting system

To me it feels like something included as a joke, and has only been massaged into something less over time. The original scry required you to build a simple television. It was never meant to be anything other than a gag and it's an old, lame joke which should be put out of its' misery.

There is no "occultic pseudoscience of arcane formulae" because it's all entirely nebulous and if you actually go back to the source to get more specifics on how the components are actually used it is 1000% goofball territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Character=Class isn't really a defensible concept in Pathfinder where you have "classes" like Rogue or Barbarian. Clearly these are mechanical packages and not in-setting professions or callings. Calling someone a "Barbarian" in character almost certainly doesn't mean a character with Barbarian class levels. If character=class then everyone should have mandatory NPC class levels and then advance as a Rogue while adventuring as they aren't currently practicing their profession in favor of being some variety of murder hobo grave robber.

Obviously the degree to which character=/=class varies from class to class. Any game where character=class would require some very tight world building and much narrower focus to assumed playstyle than has ever existed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:


Gary Gygax also created "elf" as the equivalent of a class, making all elfs pretty much the same: a fighter-mage user who cast a few spells but also used a sword.

However, the game has evolved since then, and now we have elves of different classes. Including Paladins. And a paladin of elven ascendancy will probably have very different roots than Charlemagne, King Arthur, and the christian templars. It will also have very different ethos, and ideals, and will fight for a very different kind of greater good.

Elves could also be Thieves. The important thing to know about OD&D is that it wasn't attempting to simulate a fantasy setting but only a particular milieu of dungeon delvers which tended towards the picaresque.

The conception of D&D was originally as more of a specialty wargame, so the suite of abilities characters had was limited so as to be suited to the scope and objectives of the game. This gameplay mode of heroic adventure basically didn't exist and the kinds of characters you could play were restricted to the kinds of characters you might find in an army and the game's objectives were centered around a fantasy version of medieval military foraging operations.

In the game Gygax was creating all of his choices make sense, it's just that most of the actual run of D&D in the early years saw a rapid expansion of the scope of the game and unleashed a lot more imagination from the playerbase than was originally dreamed of by Gygax's earliest efforts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead.

That's the popular theory / justification for bloat around here, but if that's ACTUALLY the case, then why is 5th edition, a system that has had very little rules expansion in the three years since the core books came out, beating Pathfinder so handily?

In my opinion 5e's popularity is almost entirely a product of Critical Roll and The Adventure Zone which broke tabletop gaming into a market of younger video gamers who were already on Twitch and tuned into Griffin McElroy's other work.

Not that 5e isn't without its' own merits but its' success obviously isn't simply a product of its' own mechanical innovations and great content. The lack of content is probably the one complaint I see over and over again from people who are new to the hobby and came in via 5e once they realize other game companies publish a lot more material to support their games and feel like 5e deserves more because it is their first kiss RPG.

5e doesn't even really have proper campaign setting material. In point of fact I'm pretty sure WotC could be crushing it a lot harder than they actually are if it weren't for Hasbro bean counters licking their wounds over 4e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:


Ah yes. I'm pretty sure I fell on the side of, "Yes, there is a disparity, but its a feature, not a bug." And, "The disparity isn't as big as some folks try to make it out to be, and a high level melee character can hold their own in high level play." Anecdotally, I got to see this play out twice, with my largely martial rage prophet/battle oracle that I got up to level 19 (yup Jiggy, Bbauzh is level 19 now) and with my grippli ninja that I got to level 20.

That being said, anything that creates more balance across classes but still allows for maximum differentiation (I hated that 4E made everything feel the same, just with a different
...

Martial characters have a lower floor for optimization meaning it is easier to be bad. It's counter-intuitive for the Fighter to be the most complex class in the game.

Regardless the caster-martial disparity debate didn't start over combat effectiveness but "Narrative Control" and I feel it has been derailed for years into a question of combat which has never really been an issue for martials outside of the more general issue of needing a good deal of system mastery to build one. The problem allegedly goes all the way back to OD&D, B/X, AD&D et cetera where Fighters were godlike beings who hewed down everything in their path with no system mastery required.

The problem, as it actually exists is much harder to fix because Wizards et al are going to have more "Narrative Control" ie agency without fundamentally altering the assumptions of what a game session entails. The Vigilante is an example of a very high agency martial, however he's a poor fit for most adventuring parties. He's high agency in a game focused around vigilantism. Likewise if you played the game like Gary Gygax kingdom building becomes a major part of the game and the Fighter's retinue as a class feature becomes a high agency trump card.

The Wizard Problem in a heroic fantasy adventure game is akin to the problem with deckers in the Shadowrun going off into their own Matrix mini-game while the rest of the players who can't hack sit around waiting for the this lower risk method of conflict resolution to play out before resorting to gunplay. The Wizard eventually attains a huge suite of options to resolve conflicts (which isn't strictly combat) before the rest of the party need get involved, which in some situations will feel like the other party members are another card in the Wizard's deck which he pulls out after spellcasting options have been exhausted. Even on the level of face-time with the DM a good player of a Wizard character will be spending a lot more time seeking adjudication for all of his abilities and spending a lot more time controlling the overall narrative of events than other player's characters will.

In part this is a social problem at the table but unlike many other social problems it is one which is positively reinforced with mechanics. It's never been about combat and "Cast glitterdust and win" has always been a dumb meme.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charisma would be fine as it is if this 3e idea of tying it into classes core mechanics would have died by now. It doesn't need to be 'equal' with other stats if there aren't classes that key a bunch of their stuff off of Charisma for no reason related to what Charisma represents. As it stands most of the classes which do key their stuff off of Charisma don't have any reason to. The Charisma-Sorcerer link was always contrived and the Charisma-Solarion link is non-existent. It's just stated but not explained. Why do Solarions key off of Charisma?

"Your Charisma lets you channel your connection to the cosmos". How? Why?

"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." Nothing about cosmic channeling or awareness here.

"Dexterity measures agility, balance, and reflexes." It's intuitively powerful because these things are all important in games focusing around action and adventure. Charisma and Dexterity shouldn't be equal in power. Charisma should just do what Charisma should do intuitively which is listed above, and nothing else.

It's only a problem when your Charisma is shoehorned into being the stat which governs connection to the cosmos. It wouldn't be a problem if the only classes which keyed off of Charisma were classes that were meant to be charismatic as part of the class fantasy.

Arguably the Solarion should be uncharismatic as part of the class fantasy. I'm told by proponents of how good the class is as written that the Solarion gets to be a 'face', but its' not actually a choice mechanically. No, I'm not going to play a 'face' because I didn't pick Solarion to help me roleplay a diplomat or swaggering caudillo. There is a better argument for every other stat being related to the Solarion lore and broader tropes it is based on over Charisma.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


snip

The problem with Solarion CC is you giving up your Standard or Full actions to cause enemies to take minor penalties or lose lesser actions, which is a bad trade off. This is an underlying problem with the d20 3.x chassis which has never really been addressed. Notably Save or Suck spells are typically also ones which lock down entire areas or hit multiple targets over multiple rounds. Glitterdust, Black Tentacles, et cetera would be terrible if they were single target and took actions to maintain. Which is basically the default for Solarion CC.

3. Gravity Hold doesn't stop an enemy from taking anything but actions to move in most instances. It is something that appeals in the abstract to people who do not understand the importance of action economy. Like so many Solarion abilities it is situational, and as a worse offender it is most useful against opponents most likely to succeed a Fort save.

This is one of the okay-ish CC abilities of the Solarion in that it can in theory one-shot or fully lock down a single enemy depending on terrain by using both your move and standard action on the first round of activation and standard action there after. In a standard hallway/small room fight in an AP however it's probably entirely useless to pick someone up and move them 15 feet as a full round.

4. Crush is the other ability which is a possible 1:1 trade off in terms of actions in that maintaining is only a move action. If you spend the Resolve to Stun you lose a Standard for their Full Round on a failed save, and maintain as a Move for them to lose either a Move or Standard (no full attacks from either party).

Again we need multiple failed saves, and I'd hold a 1:1 trade off in action economy is bad unless you are fighting an opponent whose actions are clearly superior (and without spending the Resolve this is downgraded from situational to objectively bad) which makes the ability suboptimal except in niche fights versus 'boss' type enemies.

A comparable example was spamming disarms with my Brawler (something the class is designed to be able to do well out of the box) in Iron Gods versus the chainsaw wielding Orc. Worth my actions in that 1 fight and no other due to the potentiality of suffering chainsaw crits. Now about halfway through book 4 and just duking it out is basically always better because there isn't an obvious and deadly disparity in offenses. Of course Crush is probably a suboptimal choice when disarm is an option, if the enemy is using a disarmable weapon.

I see Crush having a similar problem in usefulness, in that it is yet again situational. This time on the basis of fighting a high CR, high DPR solo enemy designed to potentially one-round player characters. Which is less of a factor in Starfinder than it was in Pathfinder by default.

5. Gravity Surge is a Full Round Action. It's only advantage is as a ranged maneuver. The free psuedo-feat is negated by not relying on your primary attack stat. For a melee Solarion a full-round trip against a target you aren't currently in melee with is a bad move. You are better off just buying the maneuver feat and rolling trips with your Str. If you are using Solar Weapon you can even have a free hand for a Taclash. This could have some utility combined with Crush against powerful enemies.

As a disarm, it only gets good at high levels when there is a large damage disparity between humanoid opponent's primary and secondary weapons. To fully disarm them of ranged weapons would require using 2 full-round actions and hitting on both.

This ability again seems clearly very situational, and again suffers from the action economy problem. A full round action buys you an enemy losing a move action to stand or a move action to draw another weapon. A bad trade. I have to wonder if some earlier version of the Solarion was like the Swashbuckler/Gunslinger which got all Revelations by default which would make many of its' only situationally useful abilities make more sense.

Hypnotic Glow is good as CC since it can fully take a target out of a fight for Solarion level rounds with a single failed save. There is a language barrier for use of the ability and it is highly interpretive. In my own personal experience in actual play Charm Person is basically useless for how most DMs handle the spell. A literal reading of the spell would cause the charmed target to continue attacking your allies while you spend 10 rounds using Diplomacy to alter his attitude toward the rest of the party. Virtually every Charm Person command can be interpreted as obviously suicidal. The Command spell function could still be used to good if lesser effect, and better than any other Solarion CC as it uses your Standard Action to potentially eat the target's whole round. Which should be the default assumption for any single target CC.

Of course on the other hand for some groups this will be an amazing ability, and it is still good OOC regardless.

Overall my perception of the problem with Solarion from a design standpoint is they seem to have been designed to be 'neat' or 'cool' aesthetically rather than actually having an effective suite of supernatural abilities which allows them to fulfill any particular mechanical role outside of damage dealing. The class and its' abilities having been designed intuitively around its' core premise whereas most of the other classes were designed around filling a pre-existing mechanical niche.

Shuffling people about a handful of squares isn't really a role at all, but what else does a 'gravity powers' based class do? This never should have been the basis of what the class does though. No other class really gives up anything to fulfill some high concept which doesn't mesh with the game's mechanics. They are all built around fulfilling a mechanical role first with a veneer of fluff on top to justify those abilities (with perhaps the Envoy being an exception fulfilling an aesthetic niche before a mechanical one, which is also notably the next most criticized class).

More damning Solarion is actually good enough in melee that doing anything else comes at a significant opportunity cost effectively pigeonholing the class into that role while its' theoretical design aesthetic which doesn't translate into any mechanical role will be used as a justification for the class's mechanically non-intuitive clunkiness. Comparatively a Mystic's action choices will almost always preference spellcasting and they have an impressive suite of CC (and other) abilities, including access to the Solarion's best CC trick at level 1. The Mystic is also clearly built around an underlying game mechanic and filled out with a lot of pre-existing spells and its' aesthetic premise or class fantasy doesn't get in the way of that mechanical niche.

If the Mystic had been designed around an aesthetic premise of being a woo-based New Age crystal merchant and had an entirely new set of abilities which extend from that premise it would also probably be problematic because selling merchandise to aging hippies isn't a game mechanical niche which can be filled in a way which would contribute to the game's assumed primary mode of conflict resolution. Or more appropriately if the 'mental and biological systems too complex to be understood' translated into spending your rounds fiddling with insight bonuses instead of spellcasting and filling the game's divine spellcaster role the class would probably be terrible mechanically but would still appeal to many people on being 'neat' or 'cool' in more accurately reflecting that bit of fluff text.

4e also had a problem of a lot of classes having compulsory movement abilities which had no real impact on the outcome of combat, and even though they were just riders still became obnoxious in dragging out combats as they increased time in re-analyzing the board after each round. If they had been abilities which were used in place of doing damage they simply would have never been selected by players. We are going to almost never see these Solarion powers in use in actual play over time as we see with many never used feats, spells et cetera in Pathfinder, however unlike those options we will continue to see ardent defenders of the abysmal Solarion options because of the non-mechanical fulfillment of the class fantasy, which will never be the case for Elephant Stomp. The class feels like it should be able to fling people about and perform high-flying acrobatic stunts. But at the actual game table on a 1"x1" grid using tactical combat rules, AC, HP and saving throws to resolve conflicts those abilities don't really amount to much. Shuffling miniatures a few squares this way or that isn't usually a good use of actions. Trading your Standard+ for their Move isn't a good use of actions no matter how right it may feel to some people.

This isn't a Cooperative Storytelling game, which is what the Solarion feels like it was designed for and what people are arguing for. We aren't narrating the Solarion's round and then rolling Fate dice to determine degrees of success. What the Solarion can theoretically do is not the same thing as what it is likely to actually do in play. You can declare you do X, Y or Z but what percentage of the time will these be able to be pulled off? You get 1 Revelation every other level. At level 12, at the end of Dead Suns you will have 6. How many rounds of combat will you be in over the course of that AP? How many rounds will you spend maintaining Crush? How many of those rounds will it have had any effect? What is the significance of that effect when it does occur? What alternative action is it being compared to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder archetypes filled a particular niche in character customization which Starfinder archetypes do not and currently nothing else does. They just fundamentally are not the same thing and do not serve the same purpose.

Some classes in particular like the Solarion have a very specific and narrowly focused 'class fantasy' which Starfinder archetypes do not alter and so people who currently do not find the class appealing probably never will. Which is definitely not the case with Pathfinder archetypes, many of which create wholly different 'class fantasy' experiences.

This is not a problem of elegant or efficient game mechanics but one of psychological appeal. Those classes which are the best able to make benefit of Starfinder archetypes are also the ones which least sacrifice essential parts of their 'class fantasy' package. Which is a huge consideration because it is unlikely that any class-independent archetype will ever alter the 'class fantasy' experience which means you are usually going to be trading something for nothing, excepting those cases where an archetype will dovetail so neatly so as to be class specific without literally being so. Which will make these even more like Prestige Classes in that regard.

Phrenic Adept doesn't make your character into a psychic, although a Pathfinder style archetype could have made any of the 7 classes into a psychic by trading out some element of that classes core mechanics for something different. The Starfinder archetype will always have to be something packaged to be in line with half of a Soldier's bonus feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of the aliens in First Contact with stats for PCs have +1/-1 ability score adjustments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hitpoints are an abstract system, so taking damage from a weapon isn't necessarily even being 'hit'. The HP system doesn't model the lethality of medieval melee combat well either. Ultimately you can't have a highly lethal combat system as you'd run out of PCs.

4e had their mook system with 1 HP monsters that had level appropriate offensive capabilities that could model a more fast and furious playstyle that facilitates mowing down large numbers of opponents with single shots.

Star Wars Saga edition allowed autofire weapons to target a block of squares for unmissable partial damage, allowing massive numbers of even the weakest enemies to be a threat and tax the parties resources but could still be cut down like stormtroopers by mid-level PCs.

Ultimately whatever model is used to mimic a cinematic style where you have one shot = one kill high lethality gunplay but the heroes consistently come out alive is going to have to be handled on the back end mechanically like SW Saga or 4e and not by just making guns highly lethal by themselves.

Scaling damage by player level is obviously another way to go as someone else above suggested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:


Well, both are remedied by taking Combat Casting and Uncanny Concentration.

Not really. This honestly seems like an oversight. Mindblade also loses Improved and Greater Spell combat.

A 10th level Mindblade has to hit a DC 33 concentration check to cast a 4th level spell on the defensive. With 16 Int and both feats he's going to have a +19 concentration check giving him a 35% chance to get the spell off, or a mere 50% chance by taking an additional -3 to hit (which is in reality -5 with your 3/4 BAB class since you are using Spell Combat; assuming Spell Combat and TWC penalties don't stack).

It's only a 10% chance increase for each lower spell level you can cast, which is still terrible. The playstyle would be spamming spell slots into the nether hoping something goes off. The class can no longer tactically use it's spells via Spell Combat. They become like procs. You swing and swing and something extra is added into the attack routine every once in a while.

By comparison a 10th level Magus has to hit a DC 23 and with neither feat will have +15 concentration check, giving him a 60% chance of getting the same spell off defensively, and a 75% chance by taking that -3 to hit. With both feats that's a 90% chance to get off your 4th level spell, and a 100% chance for everything lower with no additional penalty to hit.

A level 20 magus with 20 Int can auto-succeed at casting 6th level spells defensively with neither feat and no additional penalty to hit. A 20 mindblade with both feats cannot auto-succeed at casting 4th level spells defensively. The mindblade is not an effective gish, and being able to TWC/2h with Spell Combat is frankly irrelevant if you can't actually choose to cast spells when you want to with any reasonable chance of success. The regular Magus can already TWC/2h and not Spell Combat, and has other advantages such as a potential wider repetoire of spells than the Mindblade.

It's hard to imagine that this was playtested or the disparity in playstyles between the base class and the archetype was intended. It neither gains nor loses features that fundamentally alter the way the class plays. It's a mere mathematical quirk that makes the class's primary, defining class feature not really work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
I ban Bane.

Was getting banned part of your plan?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

There's such a thing as suspension of disbelief.

There is, but yours is arbitrary. The difference between a tiny bird and a medium humanoid is the same as the difference between a medium humanoid and a huge dragon. Yet medium humanoids can do more damage than huge dragons.

"Getting smaller" isn't any different than being smaller. Your house rule doesn't work. You'd necessarily have to have creatures do a set damage based on the size of the creature they are attacking that is a percentile of that creatures damage output.

A medium human attacking a troll should be capped at doing 80-90% of the trolls damage potential. Otherwise you are left with a situation wherein a creature "gets smaller" yet does more damage by means that are mostly unrelated to its' size.

Quote:


stacks with strength, and accurately reflects the additional skill needed to do damage with an inferior combat style.

In real life strength has diminishing returns in combat, and in terms of general athleticism having too much muscle has its' own negative effect on overall fitness and endurance. Putting on as much muscle as possible is an inferior combat style, which is why you don't see body builders as soldiers, boxers, or dominating MMA competitions.

A more apt example would be Greek antiquity and their pejorative view of their equivalent of body builders because they were useless as soldiers and therefore weren't pulling their weight in the most important of collective endeavors a citizen could engage in.

I'm also assuming you don't require your player's characters to maintain a lifestyle necessary to maintain their inordinate muscle mass. There is absolutely nothing "realistic" about a 20 strength barbarian marching all day, every day, getting his only exercise in the occasional combat, eating trail rations, and sleeping hard on the road.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:
But you don't get the loot, so you are almost always worse off for resolving encounters outside of combat. The benefit is the diminished risk of losing a party member from death. The more encounters you sneak/diplomacy past the further you fall behind WBL and gear is probably overall a more important part of your statblock than class abilities. Especially for classes like the Alchemist and Investigator that are expected to rely on melee combat to some degree.
This is, generally speaking, deeply untrue. You can get all sorts of rewards from talking (and especially sneaking) your way through things. Besides, almost all APs assume you'll miss some treasure and include extra stuff above WBL in case you miss some. And Investigators make you much less likely to miss hidden treasure and similar things...

I've read almost every installment of almost every AP. It is absolutely deeply true (find me 5 examples where the pacifist option rewards you with equivalent loot from the combat encounter you bypassed out of >80 AP installments).

If you don't kill the enemies, you don't get their stuff, and there is no alternative reward for choosing a non-combat route. As far as being over WBL, not really. Paizo makes this claim, but the amount you are over, and when and where you go over is not reliable at all.

This also assumes that every single piece of loot is going to be usable, and isn't going to be hocked for 1/2 price.

Quote:
Not in melee at level 4 and above, it's not.

Yes, in melee an Alchemist built for melee at any level is better than an Investigator built and played by the same player.

Quote:
What resources? Power Attack, maybe another...

You won't be doing any appreciable damage in comparison to another melee character without a custom enchanted weapon and a Talent that isn't available until level 9. The class is feat starved, and MAD without any real way of getting around it.

Quote:
Inspiration? Maybe, but not the ability to easily use it in combat

Use it in combat twice per day at level 4. This is not a good ability. It does not bring you up to parity with a Mr. Hyde, who is superior in melee, in addition to not being far behind in skills, and having the same extracts. A Mad Bomber is even better in the skills department than the Mr. Hyde, still better at damage than the Investigator and he's a ranged, AoE focused combatant.

I don't need the ability to add ~d6 to Knowledge checks an infinite number of times per day because I'm simply not going to be making that many knowledge checks. If I wanted to I could make an Alchemist that gets his Int to Knowledge skills twice, and then buff my Int with a Cognatogen which directly impacts my combat effectiveness with bombs. What the Investigator gets for that Int is a few extra Inspiration per day, which is unimpressive without investing at least two talents, and a custom built magic weapon into it. Like an Alchemist you are still taxed for Infusion. You've got 1 'free' Talent between levels 1-9 just to be an effective party member. That will probably be Mutagen anyway.

Studied Combat and Inspiration does not make up for Mutagen, and Bombs, which the Alchemist gets for free and at 1st level, in addition to getting their first Discovery a level earlier. The proposed, vague Investigator requires special equipment and doesn't come online until level 9. Either Alchemist comes online at level 1. I can pump resources into jacking skill checks and still be effective with what I get for free out of the class. The Investigator will be chasing after the Alchemist in exchange for their "skillmonkey" role, which really also isn't very good unless you grab Talents for that as well since you'll be burning combat resource to make skill checks. But you aren't getting those skillmonkey talents until level 11.

Regardless, this sidesteps the OP which is talking about levels 1-3. You hit level 4 at the end of the first installment of an AP for most of them. Is the Investigator's suite of abilities "fun" at level 1-3? No, because the classes primary combat ability should be available at level 2 at the latest. Inspiration which you can use for 2 rounds per day in combat is really, totally meaningless, and so is infinite small bonuses to Spellcraft checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a gazetteer of Alkenstar in Wardens of the Reborn Forge module. Other than that I don't know.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
prototype00 wrote:
Eigengrau wrote:
prototype00 wrote:

15-20 crit chance with improved critical/keen for the katana, damage based entirely off dex. I'm sure thats not terrible.

prototype00

You're absolutely right, that's perfect for the class features. Does it fit the flavor? Not really for the European Swashbuckling type.

Well, you're not Inigo Montoya then, you're Sasaki Kojiro Ganryu, I see them both as the panache-y fencing types (as opposed to Musashi, who was a real Kill You Dead Samurai and/or Ranger type).

prototype00

But what if I want to be Inigo Montoya?

Why would you do that to your father?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In regards to theater of the mind play I regularly find that people have no conception of distance or scope. A 30' square room is actually very, very large by the standards of humans. A 30' square marquee tent can fit 90 chairs and a stage pretty comfortably.

By Pathfinder standards for an interior environment it obviously isn't that large. It's about standard for a dungeon 'room'. Some are smaller, few are larger. Whenever I play with a theater of the mind group every structure is cyclopean in a way that there are no comparable structures on Earth or ever will be.

An example in this thread is countering sleep by not having enemies bunch up. Sleep targets a 10' radius, which is extraordinarily large area of any internal structure. Being able to "spread out" so that no significant numbers of people will not be in a 10' radius burst in a room built for humanoid creatures is not even remotely realistic most of the time.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimate Campaign has rules for actually playing children. I say skip the faux child, make an 8 year old orphaned girl with abandonment issues. A gravewalker witch that carries around her dolly everywhere, sniffs out other children and collects a cadre of immortal playmates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:


This isn't war. Don't use that comparison, it's not valid.

Of course it's valid. You can't simultaneously have this universal, objective morality and then compartmentalize the world into neat boxes where this kind of killing is good, and that kind of killing is evil.

A war isn't a special kind of fighting where you get to suspend the normal rules that imperil your soul when breaking them for this particular event.

Quote:
The barbarian could have knocked the horse and paladin unconscious rather than use lethal force. Just because it's not convenient to attempt run away doesn't mean killing is justified. Look at what the PRD says again: " kill without qualms if doing so is convenient".

There is always another option and the argument you are constructing is that killing is always wrong no matter what, you just don't want to admit that this is what you are doing.

You want to let many instances of killing go, but over analyze ones that strike your emotions. There is always another option, and your own life is not more valuable than another's. There is no justification even in saving your own life, if it requires taking another's.

Generally, in real life, for those people that actually believe in universal morality, there is no special self-defense clause (especially for the people who actually know what they are talking about like theologians, rather than yokels).

These kinds of caveats you wish to go on about are a matter of social contract, which is by definition subjective.

Quote:
The guards being willing to use legal force to arrest him doesn't mean he is justified in killing them. They use force when people will not willingly comply with the law

"Legal force" isn't some special category of force. You want this to be an exception to a general rule. If you have exceptions to rules you no longer have an objective definition of good and evil (at least not one that is universal, which is clearly what is written in the rules).

Quote:


the law has no means of enforcing it's policies when people refuse to comply with the law.

The law (usually) has nothing to do with good and evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to call shenanigans. The Gish doesn't use a bow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules are written plain as day, and this just looks like stonewalling. FAQing this is unnecessary.

Quote:
There's a trend towards "This feat/item/spell/abilty can be read in two ways. One of those ways makes the thing work, the other way makes the thing not work. I can't figure out which way to read it!".

Except it really can't be read in two ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So do people ITT really think that your Thunder and Fang character should be forced to use his earth breaker with two-hands if his klar gets sundered?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Glendwyr wrote:


I see "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others," not "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing the innocent." The inference seems pretty obvious. YMMV.

If that were the case then killing anyone would always be evil, every time, no matter what, which is clearly not the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

Arise chicken arise.

Is there any feats etc anyone knows of to get this on sorc list now?

The only way I'm aware of is the Samsaran alternate racial trait Mystic Past Life.