Elbe-el's page

Elbe-el wrote:

...unless you mean to say that the word "Craft" is the word that MUST be capitalized, in which case (assuming the Devs support your homebrew interpretation) I will now declare Pathfinder an exercise in failure and move on to DnD5e.

(Really...any game that relies on THAT level of semantic interpretation to work properly is obviously a failure to anyone who isn't playing the game to win prize money.)

Or... You're just not willing to accept the rules as they are... And condescendingly implying that anyone who disagrees with your stance is "playing the game to win prize money".

Pathfinder is a great game, but it is not perfect. Some rules are poorly designed. The devs are not infallible gods. Sometimes they make mistakes/poor choices.

Master Craftsman is an awful feat. Deal with it.

What "rules as they are" are you referring to? "Rules" are written down and clearly delineated, otherwise, they aren't "rules", they are...at best..."suggestions", and the rules regarding what constitutes a craft skill are not clearly delineated anywhere.

It is interesting to me that this community is absolutely obsessed with RAW...until the community sees something that it doesn't like and can't account for...THEN it becomes and argument about "RAI" or (in this case) "grammar" (An argument, which is to me fantastically hilarious given that the context of this discussion is based upon a game of fantasy).

You are absolutely correct on two points: 1) The devs are OBVIOUSLY not perfect (I was assuming that they are human beings...), and 2) This feat is something that needs to be fixed with errata or in a FAQ of one kind or another. (No, you didn't ACTUALLY say that last thing, but I am trying to be magnanimous here.)

...unless you mean to say that the word "Craft" is the word that MUST be capitalized, in which case (assuming the Devs support your homebrew interpretation) I will now declare Pathfinder an exercise in failure and move on to DnD5e.

(Really...any game that relies on THAT level of semantic interpretation to work properly is obviously a failure to anyone who isn't playing the game to win prize money.)

Spellcraft is capitalized....

Elbe-el, Spellcraft =/= Craft (whatever). Your suggestion is not based in the rules, nothing more to say there.

Where is the specific rule that states this? What errata or FAQ from the developers of the game that specifies this? Where is the specific definition of "craft skill" given? I've read and re-read (literally HUNDREDS of times) all of the RAW, FAQ, and errata that have been made available to me, and the only possible basis for your stated position is, "I don't want to let players do it because I don't like it."

There is literally NO other logical objection that doesn't involve you making up your own rulings based upon what you do or don't like. (Of course, there is absolutely no problem with that in your home games...you are free to do with them as you will.)

...but there is NOTHING in any of the RAW that prohibits this, as there is nothing in the RAW that states specifically that Spellcraft isn't a crafting skill, and nothing in the description of the Master Craftsman feat that states specifically that it must be tied to a feat that begins with the word "Craft".

ALL objections to this idea fail until somebody...ANYBODY...can explain how Spellcraft isn't a craft skill without specific errata from the devs (which has yet to be forthcoming, so far as I have been made aware of).

Master Craftsman is an excellent choice for any non-spell casting class to take...if they take the Cosmopolitan Trait. This allows a fighter, for instance, to take the Spellcraft skill, which he could then tie his Master Craftsman feat to and craft both weapons/armor AND wondrous items. (Yes, the Fighter still has to take both feats separately, but there isn't any rule that prohibits him from doing so if he has the prerequisites)

The only possible objection to this idea is that, "Spellcraft isn't a crafting skill.", which is only valid if there is some errata or FAQ that specifically changes the wording of the Spellcraft skill description in the Core Rulebook.

"you are skilled in the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS....."

The skill description specifically states that it is used for crafting something, there is therefore no logical or intellectually defensible basis (absent the aforementioned errata or FAQ) for stating that Spellcraft ISN'T a craft skill...as it clearly is...and NOT limited to "spell casters only".

(Interesting to note here: Spellcraft is a "Trained Only" skill, meaning that any character class could, as far as RAW is concerned, take this skill WITHOUT taking the Cosmopolitan trait...they just wouldn't get to call it a "class skill" and get the attendant +3 Skill Bonus. That's it. No other penalty, and absolutely nothing in the RAW that prevents this

I have always felt that the prevailing attitude with regard to the "magic vs. tech" dichotomy (that is, that "Ne'er the twain shall meet") points to an almost debilitating lack of insight.

Why do wizards throw fireballs? (Or cast any other spell in their repertoire?) They do it for the same reason that a gunslinger hauls out his pistol, and the same reason that Spaceman Spiff reaches for his trusty atomizer: TO EFFECT CHANGE IN THE WORLD AROUND THEM.

That is to say: Wizards and scientists are trying to do exactly the same thing, they are simply taking different paths to get there

With this insight in mind, it becomes extremely difficult to imagine any fantasy milieu where magic is a major factor NOT becoming extremely technologically advanced in a very short period of time.

Think about it: Wizards (especially those who reach the vaunted level of "Arch-Mage") are by definition extremely intelligent...and intelligence, by its very nature necessitates an innate curiosity about the world around them. It is utterly inconceivable that in a milieu like Forgotten Realms, which has more "Arch-Mages" in it than I have fingers; that there wouldn't be at least ONE of those mages who didn't have that insight.

Consider, for just a moment, how much easier scientific exploration would be with the aid of magic (for those of you who need a guide to your imaginations, just think about what Einstein could have figured out had he been a Diviner...). Once you roll that thought around in your head for awhile, it (logically speaking) becomes very difficult to accept a milieu that includes magic WITHOUT highly advanced technology, barring the interference of some CONTRIVED obstacle (like a coalition of divine magic users banding together, or some such). Treated organically, the dove-tailing of arcane magic into super-advanced hyper-tech is absolutely inevitable, and something that would happen in a matter of decades (yes, DECADES...NOT "centuries").

...and just because I don't care enough to read the whole thread to find out if I've been Beamo-Chopped...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Sir Arthur C. Clarke

RumpinRufus wrote:

Squirrel_Dude wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

SR does not apply to Acid Arrow etc. If it were magical damage, it would allow SR.

Dazing spell requires a target take damage from a spell, not magical damage, so what type of damage dealt to the target is irrelevant.

So you think Dazing Summon Nature's Ally is legal, then?

Yes.

Summoned creatures are spell effects (they can be dispelled and wink out in an antimagic field), that are capable of dealing damage and therefore meet the qualifications of Dazing Spell.
That being said no sane GM is going to allow a summoned monster to daze on every hit and will either allow a daze only on the first successful hit (this is how I do it) or nix it entirely.

No "sane GM" running a "PFS-legal" game is going to have any choice BUT to allow a Dazing Spell-affected Summoned creature to daze on every hit. It's RAW, with no errata (that I'm aware of), and it meets all of the requirements. This would mean, for example, that if a Dazing Summon Monster IV spell conjures 3 Small Fire Elementals, it would mean that each of those Elementals would daze an opponent upon inflicting damage...EVEN BURN DAMAGE.

Doesn't seem very logical, but then, logic was CLEARLY NEVER a design consideration (...and when dealing with a game that includes dragons, zombies, demons, and angels, WHY WOULD IT?)

...direct quote to follow...

"When a creature takes damage from this spell, they become dazed for a number of rounds equal to the original level of the spell."

...note here that NO DAMAGE TYPE, NOR SPELL TYPE IS SPECIFIED! No distinction is made between energy damage or mundane damage, and no magical school (Conjuration, Abjuration, Evocation, etc.) is specified, either. The ABSOLUTELY ONLY DISTINCTION is as follows: "Spells that do not inflict damage do not benefit from this feat."

So, no, a Cure spell cannot benefit from this feat, as they HEAL damage, rather than deal it (not even against Undead, as they are immune to the Dazed condition), but an Inflict spell can (EXCEPT against Undead, as they are HEALED rather than DAMAGED by this spell).

Likewise, a Wall of Iron spell cast to topple over onto a foe can ABSOLUTELY be affected by Dazing Spell. Pedantic arguments over WHAT, SPECIFICALLY is causing the damage fail in the face of the fact that the RAW do not make any distinctions over damage type or spell school.

Anyone trying to make an argument on the basis of LOGIC can go hide themselves (unless, that is, they can make some cogent argument that explains why Spellcraft ISN'T considered a Craft skill for the purposes of the Master Craftsman feat).

(That last bit may seem to be a bit off-topic, but I included it to illustrate how very little LOGIC seems to have played in the writing and interpretation of the rules of this game we love so much.)

*EDIT*
...and to answer the OP, yes, according to RAW, Oozes can be dazed, as long as the spell can inflict damage to the ooze in question, and is not MIND-AFFECTING."RAI" is a meaningless term until clarified by FAQ, and RAW ONLY supports that interpretation, and absolutely no other.

Yeah, sure...let's all pile on the teenagers (I have one, myself).

Just remember..."Wisdom" is old age that is willing and able to ACCURATELY and HONESTLY remember youth.

I can count on one hand the number of wise people I've met in my life.

I didn't grow up in a Golden Age, and I was very far from perfect. I watched my older brother lose all meaningful contact with his two sons because he tried to convince them that he did and was (grow up in some Golden Age, and perfect at their age). Of course, teens have amazingly refined BS detectors (at least, as far as people they have known all their lives are concerned), and they rightly figured that if he couldn't be honest with them about his own past, he probably couldn't be trusted to give them any decent advice. They both ended up in a fair amount of trouble (that they are still recovering from) because even when my brother DID have something useful to say, they wouldn't listen.

I'm not suggesting we as parents should confess every wrong we've ever done to our children, but I can promise you that hypocrisy will come back to bite you...and them...on the derriere.

Also, never forget that for better or worse, our teenagers are exactly what WE have raised them to be. Blaming TV/Video Games/Movies/That Awful Awful Dubstep/Whatever You're Too Old To Understand, is a cop-out.

FACTOTUM. FACTOTUM. FACTOTUM!

Pathfinder is STILL missing the class that doesn't actually have to pick a class...

...and I TOTALLY agree about the dedicated shapeshifter.

I'd also like to play around with the Mutant Creature template...I think the potential for an interesting and engaging character class is hiding in there, somewhere.

Depends on the creature being summoned. Good aligned creatures summoned to give aid to a just or noble cause are likely to feel alright with it, or at least not feel put out. Same story for demons summoned to do what demons like to do (demons especially like being summoned, as they can carry out their proclivities in absolute safety...getting killed is just a free ticket home for them, so why not have fun?).

Any intelligent extraplanar creature, regardless of alignment, is unlikely to appreciate being ripped from it home plane (and whatever it was doing) for trivial purposes. While the summoning magic compels the creature to obey, it does not at all preclude them asking the summoner for his name...

I didn't...and wouldn't...read 7 pages of thread, so if this has already been said, consider me Beemo-Chopped...

...but the primary source of "martial caster disparity" is PLAYER EXPERIENCE...not the level of the character being played, but the ability of the human being playing that character. I've seen beautifully optimized Transmuters fail horribly at the simplest encounters because the player had no idea what they were doing.

Concurrently, I once watched a PC with 3 levels of Expert and 3 levels of Warrior (yes, the NPC classes...she INSISTED on playing a "skilled commoner" for RP reasons) utterly destroy a CR 12 encounter by herself using nothing but a few alchemical items and her feats and skills...because she...THE PLAYER...knew exactly what to do, and exactly when to do it.

Granted, there was a tiny bit of luck on her side (she did confirm one critical hit), but that wasn't what saved the party. What saved the party was the fact that she's been playing table-top RPG's for three decades, and there was (or is) very little she hasn't seen before.

Unless the GM deliberately skews the mechanics to foil one player specifically, in contravention of the rules and spirit of the game, there is just no substitute for PLAYER EXPERIENCE. It doesn't "break" the rules (indeed, the best and most experienced players NEVER have to break the rules) or the game, but it can "twist" them in the most horrifyingly creative ways...ways that can frustrate even the most experienced and sadistic GM's.

Rogues don't need to be changed...TRAPS do. They are an incontrovertibly classic (and necessary) part of the "dungeon crawl"...and the rules for them are, simply stated, a disgrace. They are also the one thing that Rogues uniquely excel at, and the rules for them are so weak and stupid that they have rendered Rogues useless.

I have fixed this in my home-rule games...ALL traps are at +20 DC to detect for anyone who doesn't have Trapfinding, and my traps come in two flavours: Save or die, or save vs. Ability Drain (of some sort...you aren't quite so Strong when that arm has just been severed, are you?)

Which makes sense. People don't set traps around their most valued treasure/artifacts that are designed to tickle or inconvenience, they design and set those traps to KILL...or maim, at the very least (because Indiana Jones wouldn't waste his time running from a boulder that deals 2d8 crushing damage; with at least 5 Hit Dice, he would have eaten that boulder's damage and smiled about it).

"DPR" arguments are so stupid as to be an insult to both the conversation AND the hobby in general..."DPR" is obviously NOT what Rogues are meant to do. Sneak Attack exists as both a nod to flavour and a way to let them keep up with...BUT NOT SURPASS...other classes in combat. Fighters have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization; spellcasters have spells, and Rogues have Sneak Attack. Each have their place, and a skilled and intelligent gaming group understands this.

I haven't thought of a druid but that could be fun. Would you recommend melee heavy or casting heavy?

Neither. Go with a straight-up, no modifications or alternate class-features, baseline druid. At base, druids are always going to favour casting, but melee isn't a problem for a druid, either.

...and therein lies the great power of a druid: With the right selection of feats and skills, there isn't much of anything that a druid can't do...or pretend to do long enough to be useful. Melee (using Wild Shape or summons), direct damage (not as much as a wizard or sorcerer, of course, but your party has neither), healing (again, not enough to replace a cleric entirely, but utterly indispensable for a party without one).

The more I think about your party's current build, the more I think that a baseline druid is a perfect fit: Able to fill in, and more importantly, able to keep up.

Why not render the entire argument moot and simply select Spellcraft as the skill you tie Master Craftsman to? It is, after all a craft skill, and it would allow you to take both Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and armor, and to use the same skill for both, since Wondrous Items, Arms, and Armor can all be crafted with a Spellcraft check.

True, most non-spellcasters are going to need to take the Cosmopolitan feat in order to get its full potential, but that does seem a paltry price to pay for the ability to make magic items.

"Everybody knows that the dice are loaded,
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed.
Everybody knows the war is over,
Everybody knows that the good guys lost.
Everybody knows the fight was fixed,
The poor stay poor,
The rich get rich,
That's how it goes...
Everybody knows."
Leonard Cohen, "Everybody Knows"

Why are we treating any of this like some sort of revelation? Why is it that people need some D-Bag writer on a cut-rate psuedo-comedy site to tell them something that they should have already known before they were "old enough to know which side of the playpen smells the worst"? (Thank you, George Carlin)

Obviously, the game is rigged. The game has ALWAYS been rigged. If you're over the age of six, and just now figuring that out, where the frack have you been living all this time?

The spell description does not specifically state that you gain any feats possessed by the animal you're changing into, which means that you wouldn't get Multiattack, so good luck hitting anything. You also wouldn't get the poison, ink, or jet abilities, as they are not specifically listed in the abilities that Polymorph can grant.

...also, in the interest of common sense, I would rule at my table that if the form you assume does not normally possess lungs, neither would you, sub-types notwithstanding. How many druids have you seen Wild Shape into some sort of fish to avoid drowning?

I didn't read the whole thread, so I am almost certainly ninja'd here, but: Paizo is a BUSINESS. They produce a PRODUCT...that they then sell, in order to make money. "Bloat" is a meaningless term; it implies that Paizo could somehow sell the same 3-4 products without change, forever, and somehow NOT saturate their market and subsequently go out of business.

Paizo is going to put out new products: New books, new rules, new adventure paths, new sourcebooks, new etc. They will do this for as long as they can turn a profit selling them...just like WoTC did with 3.5, and for exactly the same reason: so they can stay in business. There are, in point of fact, very few games, RPG or otherwise, that do not experience some form of this...how many different versions of Monopoly are there?

That's the practical end of it. On the other (artistic/storytelling/gaming) end of it: why would anyone want fewer options? They can't possibly be THAT confusing. As a long time (30+ years) DM, it has been my experience that players have more fun when they are playing the character they want to play, rather than the one they settled for. More options make that easier. Cognizance of these simple facts can pay enormous dividends at the gaming table; and usually outweigh the minor difficulty of a few mechanical adjustments...to either the encounters or a character's class features, as needed. It just really isn't that hard to adapt.

A pyromaniac mite Cave Druid with the fire domain, exiled from his clan because, "...dem got tired of me burnin all da pretty bugs and kick me da $@!# out!"

(Translated from Japanese)
"The two hundred ryo you paid for my life was a real bargain."

"Your Samurai brawls are crazy fun!"

"I thought samurai would be fun...but you bore me. You're useless, even more useless in great numbers!"

"Ruling is convenient...but only for rulers. The people must live to serve."

"The caveat is that you have to play a master summoner responsibly. You want to have 1 minute turns."

In other words, "The player should do their homework". EXACTLY! Combat doesn't take that long if everyone does a little prep-work. It isn't that hard, doesn't eat up too much of your free time (And so what if it does? The whole point of a good hobby is to take up time you would otherwise be using for...whatever, anyway), and it makes things so much easier (and therefore, fun) for the whole table.

Don't misunderstand...I love Druids, I love to play them and I love to see them played at my tables. I think they're a great class, versatile, balanced, and when well played, nearly unstoppable.

...just like Summoners. Even (especially) the Synthesist. The Synthesist is not a difficult class to run, play or understand. The Synthesist should NEVER cause any problems for a DM who knows what they're doing. Paizo did not fail in design with the Synthesist or the Master Summoner. Paizo failed in design with the Cavalier, Bard (a class that shouldn't even exist as a PC class...the Bard should be an NPC class, like the Noble or Commoner), Samurai, Ninja, Gunslinger, and absolutely every class in the Advanced Class Guide.

"BTW, who cares about cure spells like they're some big deal anyway? Summoners get Haste!"

...and every single spell casting class gets Dispel Magic, which, BTW, works quite well not only against buffs, but against those summoned monsters that everyone says causes so much trouble. The spell caster who is ABLE to prepare that spell at least once and hasn't every day (good guy or bad guy) is quite simply WRONG, period. (That's right, my fellow DM's, your party's BEST techniques can be undone by a 3rd level spell...how did you all forget that?)

(My personal favourite? Three Rogues...you know, the ones that everyone say are useless...with tricked out Stealth, tricked out UMD, and a wand of Dispel Magic in one hand and a wand of Greater Invisibility in the other. Come on Wizard/Summoner/Druid/Cleric...let's play! No he won't kill everyone by himself, but he will certainly make it easier for the Golems, Dread Wraiths and Shadows to do so. And yes, Golems of any kind and multiple Dispel Magic castings every turn should ALWAYS be paired with incorporeal undead...or Liches. How is it any kind of challenge any other way?)

Bocephus was a mixed ranged attacker/charge fighter. He would throw javelins from atop Slink to start, then dismount and attack with paired katar in coordination with Slink when he felt he had the advantage...or when he thought he had a clever line to deliver. He never stopped talking in combat, and EVERYTHING he said was an attempt at one kind of joke or another. Think Deadpool, but with MUCH WORSE manners and speech patterns.

WAAYYY back when we were playing 1st Edition AD&D, I played Bocephus Stinkeye, the Kobold Ranger, who rode his dire weasel companion, Slink. I broke that campaign (or made it a smashing success, you decide because I still can't) without even trying because the DM and other players couldn't stop laughing long enough for us to get anything done...some of them still tell me it was the best D&D they've ever played.

The only time a Summoner is really a problem at my table is when the player hasn't done his homework. That is to say, that whole, "...constantly thumbing through the Bestiary..." shouldn't be an issue. If you have a player who wants to play a Summoner, INSIST that they have all their potential summons statted out BEFORE sitting down to the table (yes, the Summoner has a large list...but no larger than a Conjurer or Druid does, and nearly all of the time they will resort to summoning the same creatures over and over again...elementals seem to be a favourite due to their versatility). If they plan on relying on their eidolon, go over it with them carefully and make sure it's legal.

What I have found at my tables is that Summoners tend to go one way or the other for RP reasons: Either focusing on their ediolon and buff spells, or ignoring the eidolon in favour of summoning creatures and buff spells. I'm not saying, "That's how it always goes.", I'm saying, "That's been my experience."

In truth, I'm having a hard time figuring out why Summoners get this particular brand of "complicated and over-powered" hate while Druids don't. They both have a multitude of class features that have to be kept track of (combat involving a Wild-Shaping Druid who hasn't bothered to pre-stat himself in his alternate shapes is just as time-consuming and frustrating as a Summoner who hasn't done his homework...try it sometime)...and a Summoner can't even Wild Shape into a fire elemental when he's been grappled. The animal companion isn't as powerful as an eidolon in combat, true, but a carefully selected and well-played animal companion can add just as much (if not more) versatility to the build, and the Druid has a MUCH better spell list (Cure spells and fire, anyone?).

In closing, why do Summoners do Summoners get all that hate? Because they're new...and that's about it, really. (In my opinion, anyway.)

Master Summoner...Imagine the gold and favours you could rake in summoning Succubi to entertain bored and decadent nobility! (Just in case you didn't realize HOW evil and depraved a campaign can get...)

...seriously, though. If you are willing to do the "homework" (that is, making sure you have stats for all your summoned creatures BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN TO THE GAMING TABLE), a Master Summoner can not only carry an evil party through almost anything, they stand a pretty reasonable chance of cowing the rest of the party into submission through simple fear. Who wants to oppose that guy who seems to have the whole of Hell (or the Abyss, take your pick) at his beck and call?

If you want an excellent baseline for statting deities, you might give a gander at Super Genius's Guides to the Godling, Mystic Godling, and the Godling Ascendent.

Of course, they won't give stats for the "Golarion" deities themselves, but it might be a useful starting point for figuring out HOW to stat the "Golarion" gods in a manner that would allow them to be used in a combat against PC's.

-EDIT-

As for your original question, you CAN'T stat the gods without house-ruling or 3rd party involvement. Paizo does not publish, or even indirectly infer, any stats for deities. Paizo regards them as story elements or background fluff, not as encounters players could actually have.

I came to this thread late, and please forgive me if what I have to say was already mentioned in the 17+ pages of thread that I have absolutely no interest in reading...

...that being said, there are two distinct lines of reasoning that have to be explored here, interestingly enough, neither have to be explored very far.

The question is whether or not the OP is referring to "Organized Play" or "Actual Table-Top Role-Playing". (And the two are not only "different", but they are "diametrically opposed"...you absolutely cannot do one if you are doing the other. This statement is beyond logical contravention.)

If we are talking about "Organized Play", then of course the Rogue will never work, because Organized Play itself does not work. I have never understood why Organized Play is even a thing in the 21st century, what with all the MMO's that exist...why do something with dice and pencils that World of Warcraft has done so much better with computers and actual graphics?

If we are talking about "Actual Table-Top Role-Playing", then the Rogue works just fine, and it isn't at all a question of mechanics, it's a question of artistry, imagination, and story-building. A good Rogue player understands how to play a Rogue, and a good DM knows how to challenge (and how NOT to challenge) a Rogue...and if they are BOTH really role-playing, they will be constantly exploring new ways of overcoming those constraints through imagination and creativity.

-Edit-
Obviously this answer isn't "helpful", because I didn't include a list of numbers and abbreviations...but then, it wasn't meant to be "helpful", it was meant to be "edifying" (look it up). I have no doubt that I failed, but for the sake of a (dying) art, I had to try.

Try adding some templates to incorporeal undead...Advanced, Giant shadows are a favourite of mine. (That synth won't doing nearly as much damage with his STR nerfed all to crap.)

Dread Wraiths are another good one.

Ghosts are particularly useful, because they can't really be defeated by straight combat...your players will actually think and plan rather than hack and slash.

Bad guys fight dirty, so fight dirty. Try attacking them outside of "combat scenarios"...for instance, next time the players are relaxing at a tavern, have that master assassin pose as one of the serving girls and spike their ale with theliver paste or dragon bile (and add 5 or 10 to the save DC).

The party doesn't seem to have much in the way of magical defenses...have enemy wizards scry on them to discover their plans and weaknesses...enemy summoners with Rings of Invisibility and metamagic rods of Silent Spell can drop horrible monstrosities on them continuously with little chance of detection ("Where do all of these fire elementals keep coming from?").

Druids can be evil, too, and can be horrific opponents in groups of 4-5.

In the 3.5 book "Stormwrack", the entry given for the "Pinnace" (yeah, go ahead and pronounce the word and insert your jokes) approximates the dimensions given for the Folding Boat closely enough that GM's who aren't anal-retentive jerkwads should have no problem accepting that they are basically (close enough for fun gaming purposes, anyway) the same.

Using that as a basis, then yes, the largest mode of a Folding Boat is a sea-worthy vessel that can carry 15 Medium-sized creatures and 30 tons of cargo.

Certainly not enough to recreate the Black Pearl, but more than sufficient to have some good ole' privateerin' fun...

"Surprises"? I'm not surprised...that was the intent.

The ACA is nothing more than a brilliantly packaged handout to Big Business.

Corporations that utilize mostly low wage workers now have a perfect excuse for doing what they have always wanted to do: slashing payrolls (by cutting workers and forcing less people to do more work) and permanently eliminating the spectre of overtime by using this law to prevent low wage workers from even coming close to the 40 hours a week that they absolutely need to even come close to meeting their financial obligations (not that 80 hours a week at minimum wage could do that, anyway).

Those businesses that do currently provide benefits will have the perfect excuse to drop them, and place the burden of meeting those needs (and make no mistake, health insurance of some kind is an incontrovertibly absolute need...especially if you are supporting children in this society) squarely upon the worker.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies (who saw a massive upsurge in stock sales to Congressmen...both Democratic and Republican...before this law was passed) have just gained 30-40 million new customers who have no choice at all in the matter: they either pay the insurance companies, or they pay the government (which subsidizes the insurance companies).

It's a win for everybody...except We, The People.

I was pleasantly surprised, given that ABC's last foray into the super-hero genre was such a wet, steaming turd. The acting hasn't been spectacular, but it's been my experience that unless the entire cast are experienced veterans, the acting in the first few episodes of a new show rarely is. It wasn't dreadful, and actors often need a little time to "get into" their roles, rather like breaking in a new pair of shoes.

Of course the science is dreadful, it's a comic book show. I sincerely hope you aren't watching TV to see real science...no matter HOW educated you are, that would make you look rather silly. (Actually, I tend to laugh at anyone who complains that a TV show or a movie doesn't reflect "real life". If you want "real life", turn off the electronic device and go live real life.)

I think I have a slightly different take on this: The campaigns I run tend to exclude "standard" tropes in favour of forcing players into "snowflake" roles...For example, I once ran a campaign where both Elves and Druids were banned. I did this because I couldn't remember the last game that I played in or ran that didn't include at least two Elven or Half-Elven characters (and change is good); and because Druids are one of the ultimate "toolbox" classes, and I just didn't want one in the party saving everyone's butts when they did something stupid (as well-played Druids are wont to do...but the Halfling Witch that one player chose as a result of that was both fun to watch in play and frustrating because Witches are an excellent "toolboxes", as well).

I actually love a well-reasoned "snowflake"...for a good DM, it's a Christmas/Birthday present on a silver platter. "Oh, you're a Celestial Half-Drow? Nice...do you have any idea how may different factions want to make an example of you and/or something decorative from your skin?" Those oddities give a DM an excuse to unleash...whatever against the party, and then blame it on the guy (or gal) who wanted to be SO different. (You can't be different without standing out...)

For a seasoned GM, "Snowflakes" are an opportunity, not a problem. Try to think about how the real world reacts to things that are different, and then multiply that by pointed ears, horns, and wings.

DMing is not just dice-rolling and mechanics...we build worlds, and the more varied and unpredictable those worlds, the better.

First thing: Don't try to specialize in any one thing. Druids are the ultimate generalists, and they work best when they are exploiting that. There is very little that a well-played druid cannot do (or pretend to do for at least a few rounds).

Abuse Wild Shape...it isn't just for combat (in fact, when you first gain Wild Shape, it isn't really useful for combat at all...but it's absolutely magnificent for everything else. How do you keep things away from a character who can fly, swim, earth-glide, or bathe in lava? True, a lower level druid can't do all of those things at once, or any of them for very long, but the fact that they can do them for any length of time at all is a powerful advantage at low levels, and it only gets better...)

Don't specialize in summoning, but never forget that a druid and his allies never have to fight alone. You don't need Wild Shape to support a fighter on the front line, and your party's rouge will (or should) kiss you when you can conjure up some distractions to help him with his or her flanking.

You aren't on par with a Cleric when it comes to healing, but you can heal some. You can't sling nearly as much damage as a Wizard or Sorcerer, but you can throw some fire (or lightning) when you need to.

As far as magic items and equipment go, a druid functions best when they're on their feet and fighting...so focus on things that keep you alive. Necklace of Adaptation, Ring of Sustenance, Bracers of Armor, Amulet of Natural Armor...you get the idea. Your inability to use metal armor hinders you a bit, but only a bit. Wondrous items are far more useful to you than weapons (actually, with your abilities, you don't really need to worry about weapons at all...you ARE a weapon when you know what you're doing).

Regarding feats, have fun. Surprisingly, it's hard for a generalist to pick a bad feat, but it can be done. I would recommend sticking to generally useful feats like Improved Initiative, Toughness, and feats that improve your druid abilities (Extra Wild Shape and the like).

In short, your best bet is a baseline, Core Rulebook, no-changes druid. Don't "tool up" for any one thing, and you should find that once you gain a few levels, you're able to do anything.

There were NINE nazghul...only NINE.

At the Battle of Five Armies, one of those ARMIES was the EAGLES...yes, an ARMY OF EAGLES. An entire ARMY of giant, flying Cuisinarts. The point that darkwarriorkarg got from a Cracked video still stands: There is no viable reason whatsoever for any of the events in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy to have taken place...except that Gandalf, Elron, Boromir, Aragorn, and that Cate Blanchett elf-chick were all abominably stupid.

No great struggle, no "journey of heroes"...just stupid decisions by stupid people. That's your "epic".

Way to dodge the essential question, James.

"Is it canon for PFS games or not?"

"Um, well, harumph...we printed it, but it's optional according to the fully set in stone rules that are always flexible...." Whatever.

That being said, this forum long ago decided on a hard and fast standard of power creep whether any of you want to admit/remember it or not.

AM BARBARIAN. Can it one-shot AM BARBARIAN? If not, it is totally NOT overpowered. If so, it is PFS legal, but only for AM BARBARIAN.

Wow...the current stream of conversation has flowed right past me, so I will just comment on the original poster's topic.

Nothing is going to collapse, or break down or fly out of control. That isn't to say there aren't significant changes coming down the pipe, but how those changes are going be perceived will depend largely on your demographic. For certain demographics, things will look largely as they do now. For others, it will be...different. Different, but under no circumstances, "out of control".

I could go on, but there is no need for me to. The American Government produced a very interesting document known as, "The Age of Transitions". The United Kingdom's MOD produces an equally fascinating (and, I believe, currently ongoing) publication known as, "Strategic Trends". For those of you worthy enough to reject the idea of "Too Long Didn't Read", there is some extremely edifying material in those two sources. Enjoy!

Hmm human with the extra feat seems better. As for opposition schools thinking enchantment( too many monsters have resist or immune) and between divination and abjuration as the other.

Dump Abjuration? And hamper your ability to Dispel or Greater Dispel? Negative! Dump Necromancy...sure, there are some nice blasts and debuffs, but Divination is too universally useful to let go of, and Abjuration is too important to your survival (and your party's) to hamper. Your second opposition school? Evocation...and that should be a no-brainer.

Whats broken about the MI creation rules?

Absolutely nothing. The rules are clear, concise, easily understood, easily utilized and easily adjudicated. As many times as I have read and re-read those rules, I have yet to see anything unbalancing or overpowered. The few difficulties that may arise from the over-enthusiastic use of mental gymnastics to contrive far-fetched scenarios don't actually make the rules unusable...actually, the fact that people are going that extremely far out of their way to find a problem shows how strong the rules really are.

Paizo did get a few things wrong (and a couple of things REALLY wrong-like guns, for instance-), but the MI creation rules wasn't one of them.

Are you an Oligarch? Do you have your finger on the pulse of civilization? Of course not..how would any of you even know what the the f&%@ "stabilizing interference" even means...let alone what our masters have planned (Jesus, I hope I got all this right....if I miss the mark, we're all dead...our masters don't allow redo's")

Big Norse Wolf...where does the issue of CONTROL (over power usage, consumption, gradation and billing) come into play?

Elbe-el wrote:

meatrace wrote:

*facepalm*

What evidence are you speaking of?
Define free. Free of government? Is tribal leadership a form of government? Free of tyranny? Isn't everyone else's absolute freedom to kill you with impunity tyranny?

*yawn*

absolute personal freedom never existed

that it doesn't exist now isn't a big deal

You can provide evidence of this? You have documentary evidence that clearly and irrefutably shows that the human race never had individual freedom?

Since the preponderance of historical evidence shows clearly that this is not the case, you might want to consider educating yourself before making blanket statements.

For the record, I haven't been a boy in decades. Seen the sun rise on six continents and a lot of ocean in between. I'm sure you've been in places I couldn't find or pronounce and I'm know I've done the same. So don't patronize me.

Fair enough. If you are as traveled and experienced as you claim, you must necessarily know what I'm talking about. You must have walked the streets of any city in Japan at 3:30 A.M. (and that isn't a challenge...I'm accepting you at your word and going from there) and learned what true personal freedom actually means.

That being the case, you know to an absolute certainty (assuming you're telling the truth about your experiences) that personal freedom no longer exists in the United States in any real sense.

If you really are telling the truth about where you have been and what you have seen, thank you for supporting me.

'To smoke one hermit'...no. Of course not. Our corporate masters (you keeps saying "government" as though the elected officials were in charge or make decisions...I can forgive you that fallacy in the face of the propaganda you are confronted with) are much smarter than that. They won't use nukes against one, but they would incontrovertibly use them against one thousand...or one hundred, or even ten...if that's what it took to restore Imperial control to the Oligarchs.

They won't "wonder" why I no longer want to be a part of society (And let there be no mistake...I TOTALLY WANT to be a part of society, no matter what it demands of me...I am fully ready to serve)...I will simply be held in completely innocuous, non-torturing government facilities for an unspecified period of time...but OF COURSE under no circumstances will I be interrogated, NEVER tortured, and OF COURSE I'll have a lawyer and a representative from Amnesty International at all times present while I am questioned for my disloyalty...

Because innocent anarchists, the OWS people, or even the Wobblies were NEVER at all politically persecuted in the US...That would be Anti-American...

Elbe-el wrote:

My point, btw, was that an individual has no choice about being a part of our society, whether he wants to or not. Yes, yes, we are all "social animals"...does that genetic predisposition preclude individual choice? In other words, the question is: Am I obligated to something that I fundamentally disagree with by dint of the fact that I exist? Is it morally and ethically correct that society has offered me only two choices: Conform ("conform", in this case, has nothing to do with dress or appearance or skin colour or even religious or socio-economic creed..."conform", in this instance, means, "accept that the current socio-economic paradigm is the only model that is allowed to exist without being met by lethal force"), or die?

Because those are my choices. Changing the socio-economic paradigm isn't even an option, for reasons that I should not have to discuss here.

It doesn't really matter whether it's morally or ethically correct. It is.

You've probably got more real choice here and now as a Westerner in the 21st century than the vast majority of people in the world today or throughout history. I'm sorry if that isn't enough for you. You are rich by world standards. You could travel pretty much anywhere in the world. Many of those places would let you settle, though you'd then have to conform to their local rules and of course they're effected by the that same socio-economioc paradigm. If you really wanted to there are places in the US where you could disappear into the wilderness and live off the land as you suggested. It might well be illegal and you wouldn't "own" it, but most likely no one would ever come hunting you for doing so.
But no, you'll post on a gaming forum about how hard it is to be forced to conform. Do you not see the irony here?

I've seen the sun rise on five continents, boy. I've seen (and lived) poverty you can't imagine in places you couldn't pronounce or find on a map. I wasn't talking about the world (although I could have been, my earlier comments are just as valid internationally as they are to the continental US), I was talking about the US...and while some of what you said might have been valid, you deliberately overlooked (because it was injurious to your argument) the issues of LEGALITY and CHOICE...yes, it might be true that I CAN do the things I mentioned, my point was that SOCIETY DOES NOT LEGALLY ALLOW for what I was talking about, and that there is no limit to the violent force (up to and including the wide-scale use of thermonuclear weapons) that our oligarchs will use to prevent the kind of society I was talking about.

So now we're going to trade meaningless quotes? OK:

"The best trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world He didn't exist." (The more draconian among us might argue that that was God's greatest test of faith, but I digress..."digress" meaning to tarry overlong on an insignificant subject.)

My point, btw, was that an individual has no choice about being a part of our society, whether he wants to or not. Yes, yes, we are all "social animals"...does that genetic predisposition preclude individual choice? In other words, the question is: Am I obligated to something that I fundamentally disagree with by dint of the fact that I exist? Is it morally and ethically correct that society has offered me only two choices: Conform ("conform", in this case, has nothing to do with dress or appearance or skin colour or even religious or socio-economic creed..."conform", in this instance, means, "accept that the current socio-economic paradigm is the only model that is allowed to exist without being met by lethal force"), or die?

Because those are my choices. Changing the socio-economic paradigm isn't even an option, for reasons that I should not have to discuss here.

I wish I lived in my own little world where everything was a conspiracy.

I wish I lived in your world, where conspiracy didn't exist.

Man, it would be nice if these people could withdraw completely from society and leave the rest of us alone. Hell, I'd be satisfied with completely withdrawing myself from society, and leaving the rest of you alone. It's a pity that neither of us (nor any of you) have that option.

Get 20 acres of wooded land, build a small shack in the middle of it (with no external utilities at all) and live entirely off of what you can forage, and, have no contact whatsoever with any other human being ever again...sounds nice, doesn't it? It's only a shame that it is absolutely impossible in the United States, and there is absolutely no truthful iteration of the facts that allows for any human being living in the United States to legally do this.

Let's start with the 20 acres. I can't "own" it, since vast majority of the population is not allowed to own land (You have paid off your mortgage? You haven't owed the bank a single red cent in more than a decade? Don't pay your property taxes for a couple of years...see what happens to you. Regardless of the language you want to use, you pay someone else a periodic stipend of money for the privilege of using that land...that's RENT. If you "rent" something, you can't possibly "own"...the two are kind of mutually exclusive). Since I can't personally own the land, maybe I can live on some federal land...that's supposed to belong to everybody, right? Except for pages upon pages of federal law that prevent "squatting".

Then there's the issue of feeding myself. I'm not buying any food whatsoever (in this hypothetical example)...I don't need to. If I'm in the wild, all I have to do is reach out about a foot in any direction, and there's food. I can forage for everything I need, and enjoy a healthier diet than most of you...except now I owe income tax. If I pick acorns up off the ground, eat nothing else but grass and roadkill...that's "income", according to the IRS. According to the IRS, if I am alive, it is because I have procured and/or consumed something that they have a right to tax. (Don't believe me? Read the IRS tax code sometime, or even better, just do some research on Joe Louis.)

There's a word for this situation, when a human being is inescapably trapped in a working situation he has no choice about, surrounded by armed people who will impede (with lethal force) his every attempt to change his situation, or even remove himself from it...what is it called again, when working relationships are entirely coercive?