Finn K's page

cranewings wrote:

Liam, I tend to agree but charms poop on player agency and a lot of players can't deal with them. If I'm going to pick a fight with a player, it isn't going to be over how he rps a charm after the bad guy got away.

I use the simple rule what you do is what you do. That if Tim wouldn't kill a party member out of hand because they did something evil he shouldn't kill an enemy. If he casually violates the confidence of the BBEG he should casually violate the confidence's of his fellow adventurers.

Otherwise you get I love you, I want to marry you and have your children, but I know out of game its the result of a spell so STAB. Oh I need to justify it . . . he was evil and the only thing left for me to do was kill him for the man he used to be.

For that matter-- in a world where "charms" and other such spells exist, and people (especially experienced adventurers) are familiar with such things... you might not be able to do anything about feeling/reacting like that person is your "bestest best friend", but when your old reliable buddies start figuratively b**** slapping you with the contradictions in your sudden surge of feeling and/or resulting behavior, particularly if your new "bestest best friend" has already escaped and left the scene and isn't there to help you resolve the conflicts--

You might just recognize and be able to report that you feel like you're under a spell... even though you can't change your emotional responses.

In my game, alignment reflects the character's actions and outlook: it's a description, not a prescription.

Haladir-- all-around excellent post.

Haladir's set out and explained very well, some of the things about how to handle alignment and in-game actions that I entirely agree with. The quoted statement sums up one of the key points about how alignment is best handled in the game, at least in the ways that I like to play (YMMV/IMO, as always).

You might find one for sale in Katapesh. Also isn't there the breeze cantrip that got cut out of ultimate magic and posted on the blog.

If you've got a breeze cantrip, you can make a good swamp-cooler.

As for the "distraction" argument... no. Nobody's gonna be thinking about sex in a life-or-death battle. All that exposed skin just makes it easier to find (and strike) vital organs. Even the infamous Spartans might sometimes soil themselves in battle because it's scary. In fact, I think adrenaline (or a similar hormone released in battle situations) actually shuts a person's sex drive right off. Boobs are not going to distract someone in a battle.

Hmmm...

I wouldn't say "nobody"-- in fact, since it only takes one case to disprove a "nobody" claim, I think you're better off claiming that very very few people might actually think about sex in a life-or-death battle.

For this, even some anecdotes can dispel the "100%" nature of the claim, so lemme put it this way... I knew a few people in the military, who actually were in some really serious battles in the current stretch of wars, who claim to have thought about sex during the fighting... there's one (not exactly sane) who I'm pretty sure was actually telling the truth (or was just incredibly convincing in the tale-telling; the fact that he'd been in the firefight was backed up by a medal citation).

(not a claim I would or could make myself-- but I really have heard these claims, from persons whose account I'm not going to question)

I think the Aristocrat NPC class need a little modification, after first level, there is no reason to keep taking it, Expert got the same Hit dice, BaB and saves + got 2 more skill points level. Victim of the "Alignment" of hit dice size with BaB quality/size?

Umm.... maybe that's because there's no reason for a PC to take any of these classes, and that they're not meant to be balanced with each other, but rather to represent certain "careers" and/or "lifepaths" that NPCs may have followed before the PCs encounter him/her. And, in that light, a career Aristocrat who spends all his/her time running the estate the same way over and over again, or endlessly pursuing the social rounds in court-- will have the title, the social standing, the money, the presumed authority-- but if you take away all that artificial social stuff, should not be as competent or capable as the expert who's actually been studying and working for a living, and diligently practicing his/her skills.

James-- correct me if I'm wrong, please? Or if my comments are generally on target, but not quite?

EDIT: Ninja'd by James himself, but I suppose I'll let it stand, since I'm curious if my thought on it was also part of the equation in what each class got.

Gorbacz wrote:

My avatar is much prettier and nicer than I really am.

When my eyes go blurry that avatar looks like a full set of male genitals with a mouth.

Does no one else see this?

Thanks, Mikaze-- now I need to go get some Brain Bleach(tm)

:P

I thought the Polish had more gripes with Germany than with Russia.

Then again, being Finnish, I can relate to getting angry if someone mistakes me for a Russian.

Back to history class, Icyshadow... :P

It's something we forget quite often in the USA too... but when WW2 broke out with Germany's attack on Poland, and Britain and France declared war on Germany... it's conveniently overlooked, that in accordance with the pact signed with Germany to split Poland between the two nations, the Soviet Union moved into Poland on 17 September 1939 and took over the eastern half of the country. The Soviets were pretty brutal from day one-- lots of cold-blooded killings and mass murders; late in the war, the Soviets could have pressed into Warsaw quickly, but instead halted and waited for the Germans to completely wipe out the Polish partisans in Warsaw, and manipulated the situation leading into the post-war period-- to ensure that the "Free Polish" government supported by the USA and Great Britain wouldn't have any influence in Soviet-controlled Poland.

If someone were to check various strains of public opinion-- I would not be surprised if the Poles held more grudges against Russia... but in terms of the way both countries treated Poland... mistaking a Pole for either one is an insult.

Now, I may be wrong about Finnish history (correct me if I am), but I think the analogy would be someone mistaking someone from Finland for a Russian, or for a Swede-- both of them, I believe, have really bad histories with Finland, and are quite distinctly separate peoples.

(post-note: my "nom-de-net", in spite of similar appearance, is from the Gaelic proper name, not the Finnish nationality-- while I do have the utmost respect for Finland, especially from what I know of your nation's history and mythology; being of Scots-Irish descent myself was why I chose the name a long time ago: it started as the name I used in SCA & RenFaire circles)

And by the top levels... not being able to wear armor, having lower hit points (when you're using insta-overkill spells anyway), and having a low BAB (when your serious attacks are touch, or don't rely on BAB, and you don't waste time with mere physical weapons anyway)-- really isn't such a disability.

Also, IMO (though I realize a lot of people around here may disagree with me)-- there's enough difference in flavor and capabilities to justify keeping both Arcane and Divine magic in the game; and beyond that, I feel that you should be more worried about character concept and can you have fun with the character you've chosen, not about which character type is "more powerful". Even at that-- I think "power" has a lot more to do with how you well you play your character, than with "counting up the numbers" to try analyze the mechanics involved-- especially if your definition of "power" boils down to how effective you're able to be in game.

@cranewings It's all happening simultaniously , don't think in turns.

Except that Cranewings has a very good point-- it may supposedly be happening "simultaneously" except that that isn't the way it plays out under the rules. In Cranewing's examples, if things were happening simultaneously and accounting for a person's intentions:

the fighter would move as the monster moves, and would stay in between the monster and the princess, no matter how much the monster tries to circle the two of them. And, the archer would be frantically trying to back-pedal to get enough room to shoot without getting cut down, but the attacker keeps advancing, right on top of the archer, not letting him get away...

In 3.5, combat is a more complex, complicated open-option board game (IMO) than 4E, but CW is right-- it's still a board game, if you play by the RAW; and the effects of everyone moving, and acting, one at a time, still frequently defies belief for the thought that it's all "really happening simultaneously".

BTW, Cranewings-- nice post.

Further note to Scott Betts, et al.-- the above point is not meant to imply that 4E and 3.5 aren't roleplaying games-- it's just to state an opinion that combat in both systems is very much a board-game set-up (and perhaps, that "board games" in this sense, is not a mutually exclusive term to "roleplaying games").

The entire Silver Mount area of Numeria is a reference to the old adventure Expedition to the Barrier Peaks , which was a vessel to sell the TSR game that would later be known as Gamma World.

Ummm....

Actually, an "appeal to authority" is itself a logical fallacy, so it isn't possible proof of anything. However, if we're going to continue this particular discussion, it's probably best we take it elsewhere.

As Steve Geddes observed-- "appeal to authority" is not always a fallacy. It is when you appeal to unqualified, irrelevant, unsupported, and/or biased authority, that makes it the fallacy of that name. Oddly enough, I've heard professors describe the issue almost exactly the same way SG did in his post. And, "proof", such as it can be determined in most arguments, is determined by preponderance of evidence (absolute, "yes"/"no" proofs are a matter for the formal questions of deductive logic, not the questions regarding informal logic issues).

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I just can't expect moral consistency from a game that is about stabbing and murder, and which by its foundations sees no contradiction in being "good" while doing that.

BUT...

It's a game where there is an ABSOLUTE good vs. evil paradigm in the world. So slaying evil in such a world would not be murder and would in fact, be considered good and the unquestionably right thing to do...

I think the "alignment and morality" horse carcass has been sufficiently beaten into paste on other threads this month. Just, suffice it to say I disagree with EL's take in the quoted post on what the game is about, and I don't play alignment or the relationship between what is good and what is evil in the way DE suggests above (whether intended as serious or sarcastic by DE, there are people who play the game that way). I also deny the idea implied in the quoted statements that there is only one way to play alignment and morality in the game.

I'm still pondering what, if any, reaction would be proper. I think the "drow-skin" armor for a Silver Dragon might be appropriate just as a shock value point made by the dragon to get people (who may wear 'dragon hide' armor) to think a little more about whether or not it should be acceptable to be doing that, without requiring the dragon to just up and "nuke" some adventurers it might be irritated with.

Beckett wrote:

Finn K wrote:

Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe

Come on, now. When has that ever been good enough. . . :)

It's a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.

Insisting that an 'appeal to authority' is the only possible proof for any claim is itself a logical fallacy.

You could have just said, "I can't back that up."

No, the point is more that I already explained in the earlier post why I thought my conclusion that piracy increased, rather than decreased, was correct. It's not the sort of thing that you're going to get out of a newspaper-- and although anecdotes, websearches, and other observations are not as good as getting someone to do a full research study for you (something that generally isn't possible except from the cop's eye view, when it comes to criminal activity-- which piracy is), they're not worthless. I think I have (and already had) adequately, albeit not 100% conclusively, backed up my point.

Although-- I don't think they've done anything to stop their piracy problems, or even lessen them. VagrantWhisper's account matches with what I remember from the time that WotC decided to stop distributing PDF files over the net... meanwhile, straight-from-the-printer quality PDFs of everything WotC's ever made, are still out there on Torrent, if you care to look... I think WotC got it completely wrong. Now, I do not personally take part in any criminal activities... but if you're at all web-smart, you can take a look and see that it's there. Any other sources I may or may not have? Sorry, think I'll plead the "5th" on that.

TriOmegaZero and Finn K wrote:

We have been in the Army too long and need to retire...

C'mon and free up some promotions fer us younglings! I've been an E-6 too long...

Heh.

Missed something in my posts, I think you did. :P

My last deployment was in 2009. I retired in 2010, and I've already cleared the way for you young whippersnappers... (plus I was an E-6 when I retired anyway-- you think you got it hard waiting for a promotion in the Regular Army-- you really have to wait for someone to die to open up a slot in Guard and Reserve units, particularly if you're in a small MOS.

Heya Finn.

I typed something about you telling us how you really felt about officer training in the US military, Finn, about four times. But it kept coming off either snarky or hateful, so I gave up.

But I hear you. :D

I had to cut and rewrite what I said 7 times in that post, otherwise it would've been a lot a snarkier... ;)

Seriously-- Most of the officers I served under were mediocre at best, there were way too many poor officers, and although I served under a few truly outstanding officers, there were too few good ones that I saw in the commissioned ranks. I don't blame the people who become officers-- most of them I'm pretty sure were (and are) basically decent human beings to start with-- but I really don't think we've got a good system for selecting, training and qualifying, mentoring, promoting and retaining officers in the United States Military, and IMO it shows in the results we have for a lot of the leadership (and the whole "0-defect" never ever take a risk, bureaucratic mastery, avoid being the one held accountable if anything can go wrong, crap I saw from my view in the ranks, is part of that system).

I'm sure a lot of people's experiences were different than mine, and YMMV-- I also mean no offense to people who happen to be (or were, if they're out now) commissioned officers, but it's kind'a hard for me not to hate officers on general principle after some of the truly abysmal leadership I had on two deployments (on one of them, yes, officer mistakes cost lives unnecessarily, and I've never forgotten or forgiven that-- I admit, that's one of my many issues I should handle better that the psych types tell me is part of the PTSD problems I have now). I do remember that the gut-reaction to hate, is my issue and not fair to the person who may be an officer, so I try to not lash out at people over it-- I apologize for not always being successful at that effort.

How long it takes to advance to platoon leader, counting from enlistment?

Since the USA is still collectively stupid enough to let someone go to college, get some pseudo-military training through ROTC (or, worse yet, go through those abysmal excuses for military preparation that are the service academies)-- then someone waves the magic wand, gives 'em their "butter bars", declares them "leaders of men"-- they go to their Basic Officer Leadership Course-- and there they are: brand new Lieutenants and Ensigns-- ready to screw everything up as platoon leaders (among other tasks). Takes getting your Bachelor's Degree, + about 5-11 months for that Officer's Basic Course, depending on which Branch the Officer was commissioned into.

Doesn't take anywhere near long enough; and none of them are required to have time in the enlisted ranks before they get commissioned. Hmmm... Actually, since we did have a couple of officers who'd barely hit 21, some of them were definitely born after I'd gone to Basic Training.

Was his birth date minus nine months close to your first leave? ;)

Well, for a few of them the timing would have been about right... :D

(seriously though-- naw, none of them line up for right place and right time; and I always use protection)

pipedreamsam wrote:

Wait, what provoked this?

A comment from Finn about not understanding why my threads can get so heated.

So now it's my fault. :D (j/k)

I have platoon leaders in my company who were in high school while I was invading Iraq. :/

I can outdo that. My last deployment-- several of the young privates I spoke with during the mission (none of them actually fell into my section), were born after I'd already completed my first 3 year tour in the Regular Army and was in my first stint with the National Guard. I believe, though I think it's really close-- but the youngest officer I know of on that deployment, was born after I started Basic Training. :P

A chainmail bikini doesn't offer protection. I would imagine it's also very uncomfortable (and that might affect mobility just like wearing lots of armour might).

Regarding comfort issues when wearing chainmail bikinis: I've been told by women who have worn them, that it depends on how well (and how well-fitted) it was made. They can be every bit as comfortable as most cloth bikinis are, say my informants, or if poorly made and/or not fitting well, they can be quite torturous.

However, the point that it offers no (significant) protection-- yeah, there is no reasonable argument that can refute that.

Finn K wrote:

Piracy increased instead of decreased since their decision to pull PDFs...

Citation, please.

Hmmm... oddly enough, pirates don't leave any specifics of their activities, and people like you conveniently miss statements already made in others' posts.

From one of my previous posts:

"Go do a torrent search: you'll be able to find any D&D book you want, so long as you don't care that you're blatantly violating copyright laws getting them that way (note: I'm not advocating that anyone should engage in such piracy-- just pointing out that it's out there). Meanwhile, there's a lot less piracy of Pathfinder files... because a sizable portion of people are willing to buy the PDFs from Paizo and support the company, since the PDFs are legally available for a reasonably inexpensive price."

Now-- if you care to look (I think if you just look, but don't download, you're not breaking the law-- yet)-- lot more D&D books available (all over the place) now that they're no longer released on PDF legally (and yes, you can find everything WotC's done for 4E out there on the net... and still not nearly so much Pathfinder stuff on pirate sites and file sharing services.

Seems like evidence enough to me as I'm not blind and I can draw conclusions that seem reasonably backed up by what I can observe; and that is what I have to rely on, since it's not the sort of material that's openly reported anymore than corporations release public sales figures for everything. Now if that's not good enough for you to make the observation that it's growing, guess there's nothing I can do to help you, since citations from proper academic journals as to whether piracy is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same don't appear to be out there-- at least when one is specifically looking at WotC and Paizo game books. I think major media sources are still incredibly concerned with piracy, but I'm not interested in wading through all the lawyerese to get the major record label's take on all of it.

So, let me rephrase the original question:

The group you play with, right now, cancel the next session since most of the people are sick or out of town. DM still wants to throw something together, and asks you to roll up a lvl 1 character. He doesn't know who'll come yet, nor what he'll be throwing at you, and neither do you.

(I specifically wanted to avoid this set up to negate any presumptions you might have about allowed sources and group preferences, etc).

Or, to make it even more simple:
Roll up a lvl 1 character, without knowing what you'll face.

(which I wanted to avoid because it's -too- open in a way, and I wanted to present points you might want to considerate).

Also, it's not a question about wether or not you'd play or not, it's a question of what you'd roll up IF you did play.

The reason behind the topic is that I'm curious about what people would roll up (obviously). Would you go for a solid team player? A flexible survivalist? Would you have a solid build ready, or would you present just a class/race combo?

This is, I know, still not what you're really looking for-- but some of us (or, just one of us, if I'm a minority of one again)-- have to make the decision that I actually want to play with a particular group first, then get some impression of what the adventure is going to be, what the world is, background and all that... and then I start thinking about characters.

Unfortunately, at this stage o' life and gaming.... I just don't do random characters for unknown situations, unless, say-- I was playing paranoia or something. If it's that open-ended a "1 shot" setup, my response is likely going to be to tell the GM "make a few pre-gens, and I'll do some fine tuning on mine after the other players are selected, but before the game starts". Which, actually, is an answer in and of itself to "What kind of character..." questions.

Another side point: my current group-- if we're missing too many players to proceed with the regular game, we have several back-up plans more or less in place... two of which are: spend a relaxing afternoon on card-and/or-dice games ("Red Dragon Inn" has been a recent favorite), or just kick back and spend an evening chatting and discussing campaign ideas (for when the current adventure/campaign eventually winds to a close)-- occasionally we "play-test" a one-shot idea someone has, that's usually been brought up as a back-up for the next time we don't have a full gaming quorum, well before the day that happens.

One of the biggest problems for me is, that I do not start with numbers, solid builds, game mechanics, etc. Haven't done that in any game, any system, for a long time. I start with a concept, an idea, come up with a character I'd enjoy playing... from the standpoint of personality, background, attitudes, ideas, generally all the details you'd want for a character in a fantasy story... and then I figure out the mechanics to make that character work in game terms (and sometimes do some fine-tuning/minor alterations to concept so that the character will be more effective mechanically and mesh better with the game system-- because raw concepts do not necessarily take into account that things in the game world do not work in pure narrative fashion-- such modification is never done, by me anyway, in such a way that it radically alters the original concept). To some extent, I have been inspired by the fluff text from some of the game books (including class/race fluff text and story points)-- but I don't get inspiration from "wow, nifty mechanics/that'd be a powerful build!" anymore.

IMO-- that approach to the game doesn't work with such a test as you propose (and I'm here posting anyway-- not to be a troll, but rather to point out that that sort of information-gap really interferes with the character creation process for me-- and possibly for others out there who approach things the same way I do).

Super-survivor who can handle things without much help; or team-player? To answer that question-- I'd really want to know how many team-mates I'm going to have. And I really hate making characters who turn out to be "fish out of water" in the situation/adventure the GM is presenting. I guess the thing I would do, if I had to do a total sight-unseen creation, is make several characters, and then inform the GM that the character I'm going to play in his/her game, is the one who'd most likely say "yes" to the pitch at the beginning of the adventure (as opposed to running the other f***ing way, the moment the situation's presented and shown to really not be a good fit).

I think they're mostly relatively new authors. SF/Fantasy for the ones I've heard of and I would assume the rest from the nature of the Con.

Scott Lynch wrote a really fun fantasy caper novel, The Lies of Locke Lamora and has a sequel out that I haven't read yet. Bear's written a bunch of stuff over the last 5-6 years, from near future cyberpunk (the Jenny Casey series) to a post-Ragnarok sage (The Edda of Burdens). Her latest is Range of Ghosts, epic fantasy in a Mongolian setting. Good stuff all.

I recognize some of the other names, but don't think I've read anything.

They're not big-name in the NYT-bestsellers sense, but in the small pond of the SF/fantasy world, they're pretty big frogs.

TY for the info. I'll keep an eye out for them, maybe do a hunt or two on the borg's, oops, I mean Amazon's, website once my current term of classes is over.

Kelsey--

Serious answer:

I don't think it's so much most of the people on the boards having a problem with you, as it is you having a problem with yourself. Personally, so far I only know you through these boards-- but I usually enjoy your posts and threads, and I usually appreciate what you have to say-- even when I disagree with your opinion. If I were to set up a list of people on these boards that I ought to sit back in a pub and have a drink with someday (the sort of list I hear TOZ keeps :) ), you'd probably be on it.

So, what you can do, to help yourself on these boards? Much easier said than done, I know, but--

Basically, what'cha need to do (IMO): develop a "thicker skin", build up some self-esteem, gain some self-confidence... and do not build your self-worth around others' approval of you and your ideas. It's kind of hard to see yourself as worthwhile or comprehend/make an honest assessment of how other people see you, if you hate yourself (I know from personal experience how difficult that can be, since that was a problem I had when I was much younger, and it took me years to get over it).

Yes, there are some people on these boards who don't like you and/or don't like any of your posts. I'm not one of them. I do tend to be a little bit confrontational in debating style when I'm pursuing an argument and presenting counter-points to positions I disagree with, even with people I like (something I'm working on, about making sure that my strong opinions and legitimate oratorical attacks on someone's position in an argument do not stray across the line into personal attacks, as personal attacks are not acceptable as a general rule of being a civilized reasonable individual, not just as a rule of posting on these boards)-- so, if you perceive some of my counter-arguments to posts you've made as attacks on you, they're not. The ones who hate you for being who you are-- ignore them. It's also okay, if you're feeling a little pressed and attacked on these boards, to take a break from the computer and do something else for a little bit-- then return after you've calmed down.

Now, I can also say, there are people on Paizo's boards whose posts I generally don't like, whose opinions I do not find well-reasoned, and whom I don't terribly enjoy discussing things with-- I often find myself getting into discussions that they also happen to be involved in anyway-- then again, there's all kinds of people on these boards (although that should not be taken to represent my opinion on some folks-- there are some people here that I have initially gotten into really serious arguments and misunderstandings with, that resulted in mutual explosions-- whose presence I still very much appreciate on these boards and whom I rather like, now that the misunderstandings have been cleared up)... you are not going to please everyone, you're probably not going to like everyone, and you're very unlikely to get along with everyone-- I wouldn't worry about that, if I were you, because that's part of the human condition.

And, beyond the people one merely dislikes-- there are a (very) few posters on Paizo's boards whom I would block (if there were such an option), whom I really dislike, if not outright hate, and whom I genuinely consider to be "oxygen thieves". Most (if not all) of those are because of things said, opinions rendered, stances taken, on RL issues that really offend me-- I'm not going to get that worked up over a game with anyone here. You will have to recognize that there are people out there, who will utterly hate you, just for being who you are-- and whose views, attitudes, etc., will never mesh with your own. Don't let it get to you-- that's another part of the human condition that is unavoidable. As far as I can tell, only saints and fools love everyone... the rest of us 'know' too much about our fellow human's flaws, and do not have the fortitude that "saints" have to love everyone anyway, no how bad a person a particular individual may be.

Most of all-- learn to accept yourself for who you are, and be yourself. And if there are people who can't handle the real you, tell 'em to f*** off while you get on with your life.

I also wan't arguing it's a good thing (it's one of the main reasons I'm likely to be disappointed by D&D:Next), but it does seem to me that people who arent DDI subscribers are not always aware of just how much material is made available via PDF.

I'll keep that in mind. It does sound like DDI has changed a lot, probably for the better, since my subscription lapsed a couple'a years ago (2010).

I suppose I'm just bad-- but you said "big name authors", and I haven't heard of any of these people.

What have they written? What genres, what sort of work-- where's it been released?

Heh, nice so far. Don't get tangled into the fluff in the beginning, rather, tell me (and the rest of us) what kind of a character you'd roll ^.^

The problem is, as written, I wouldn't bite at all. I'm not joining a game or group, sight unseen, without more information. What Mark Norfolk posted, definitely goes for me as well.

Put additionally, IMO-- there is no one best character I could make-- it really depends on the game, the group, campaign, play-styles and everything else.

WoTC produce more PDF material than printed material. For $10 you can download thousands of pages, they just won't store it for you.

According to Digitalelf's link above, pulling the PDFs was 15 months after the release of 4E.

And to keep bugleyman happy - I would speculate that D&D:Next is going to follow the same digital-heavy approach. The DDI seems to me to be a cornerstone of their approach at the moment.

Steve--

When I still had a DDI subscription, right after WotC pulled PDFs from general sale everywhere, I saw very little PDF material and just about everything on DDI was online only, must be logged in to read... sure, you could copy/paste a lot of stuff, and maybe download a few things-- but most of it was not in download format, apparently intentionally (so that you'd have to keep paying for your subscription to retain access to the rules and other materials).

If that's changed, and now you can download all the rules and stuff... great! But it doesn't seem to fit their business model.

Finn K wrote:

I think the evidence is almost undeniable that either WotC's real motive in pulling PDFs was to try to cut off access to previous editions of the game, or that WotC committed an action bordering on the criminally-stupid in failing to understand how their stance would be taken

I think its maybe a little of both, but given the fact that they also pulled their 4e PDFs and it coincided with a big lawsuit re D&D books being pirated I speculate it was more to do with the piracy fear(however stupid their reaction was).

You're probably right-- thus the "criminally stupid" comment in my post, regarding their decision... Piracy increased instead of decreased since their decision to pull PDFs, and WotC is no longer seeing any money for PDF sales.

Poor choice of words on my part, so apologies for that. What I meant was that I didn't want to turn this thread into a debate on compatibility - which is what I was starting to do by responding to those who commented on my posts. Basically I was trying to avoid the discussion going completely off topic (apologies bugleyman!)

My use of the compatibility issue was an example to try to illustrate my point, not the point of my message itself.

Apology accepted. (I know I've been guilty myself of "poor choice of words" more than a few times on Paizo's boards, so I will not hold that against you or make a grudge out of it :) ).

I see what'cha mean about not wanting to derail the thread, but the compatibility issue-- what it means, what it doesn't mean-- what the consensus/compromise and-or irreconcilable positions answer(s) is(are)-- is (IMO) one of the most interesting questions brought up on this thread (and is, IMO, relevant indirectly to the 5E discussion-- since there's already large questions about 5E/Next's "compatibility" with material from prior editions). Fortunately or unfortunately-- and I've seen it in other people's posts and other threads already-- sometimes the most interesting, debate-worthy, potentially controversial issue one brings up, is precisely the comment/thought that the post's author considered a "throw-away example" or tangential issue that wasn't going to draw so much attention.

If anyone does want to pursue a discussion on what compatibility means to them and others please feel free to start a new thread and PM me the link (yay for PMs!) and I will happily join in the debate there. I imagine my interpretation of compatibility will be in the minority though :)

Gimme about a week-- I'm dropping on threads right now to read and comment while taking short breaks from the massive loads of essays I have to write this week. Next week-- 1 set of classes will be done, and I'll be in the 1st week of a new term (and therefore will probably have more time), so if I remember, I'll see about starting such a thread and dropping you a line on where it is. Alternately, if someone else starts the thread sooner-- I'll lean in on my breaks from essay construction. :)

I honestly do not recall 4E PDF products at all. I am pretty certain the PDF thing happen just before 4E even came out, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty certain it did actually happen before 4E, as I vaguely remember those 4E article books (4E presents?).

WotC's decision to pull all legal PDFs from the net, dealers, distributors, etc-- and to stop releasing any material in PDF format...

Happened right around the time that WotC released the 2nd 4E Player's Handbook. I remember since that was during the time when I was still playing 4E (with the gaming group I quit about 4-5 months later, because of my distaste for 4E)-- and I was rather annoyed, since I overwhelmingly prefer PDF files over physical books for my game materials (easier to carry around a laptop, than a backpack full of books-- especially on deployments, since this WotC decision occurred before I retired).

Taking this issue to a broader scope, game companies like Paizo and WotC need to acknowledge that if enough people interpret an action in a way that leads to a negative attitude toward the company - irrespective of if the intent of the action was completely different than was perceived - the company needs to address that.

If many, many more people felt as I do that the 3.5 Compatible logo is false advertising and it was adversely affecting their purchase decisionsx and Paizo wanted to win over that group they may wish to remove the logo from future products and future printings of existing products.

So far-- you're the only person I've seen who has this issue with Paizo's use of the "3.5 compatible" logo. So, I don't know that there are many other people who feel the same way that you do (although I acknowledge that there may be many more, and I simply haven't noticed them yet). I think however, from what I've seen, that Paizo has been sensitive to customer's concerns (certainly to a much greater extent than I've seen from WotC-- btw, the correct interpretation of my opinion, re: Paizo's use of the "3.5-OGL compatible" logo is indifference. IMO-- it's simply part of a clear statement that PF is a "3.5 - OGL" based game).

Maybe WotC need to realise that, even if their motive to pull PDFs was solely to combat piracy, some people interpretted it as a way to try to take away the previous editions in a cynical attempt to get everyone to play 4e. Maybe if they want to earn back some goodwill and try to get some people back on board to try out D&D Next they should ironically put the previous edition PDFs back up for sale.

I think the evidence is almost undeniable that either WotC's real motive in pulling PDFs was to try to cut off access to previous editions of the game, or that WotC committed an action bordering on the criminally-stupid in failing to understand how their stance would be taken... since the only effect on "piracy" of WotC's pulling legal access to PDF files, has been to greatly increase the prevalence of pirated D&D books on PDF (and other) formats. Go do a torrent search: you'll be able to find any D&D book you want, so long as you don't care that you're blatantly violating copyright laws getting them that way (note: I'm not advocating that anyone should engage in such piracy-- just pointing out that it's out there). Meanwhile, there's a lot less piracy of Pathfinder files... because a sizable portion of people are willing to buy the PDFs from Paizo and support the company, since the PDFs are legally available for a reasonably inexpensive price.

This is the point I am trying to make, I am not trying to debate what compatible means, or whether WotC intentionally insulted their players etc - those are just examples. What I am trying to get across is that people have different interpretations of the same events and that can colour their feelings - and games companies need to acknowledge that and if necessary act on that if they want to try to win over those people.

You say you're "not trying to debate what compatible means"-- I'd advise that if you don't want responses to, discussion of, disagreement and agreement with, comments on, critiquing of, to start debates over, et cetera, the opinions, examples, discussion topics and subjects you post here-- then don't post them.

I agree with you that people have different interpretations of different events, and that that can color their feelings of those events-- and that game companies should acknowledge that if they are to be respectful to and win over their customers (not sure that "need" is the right word).

However, I don't think it's entirely acceptable for you to bring up "compatibility", make a clear statement about your opinion of what "compatibility" means-- and then apparently expect that your opinion of what compatible means shouldn't be challenged and discussed (which is how I read that "I'm not trying to debate..." line).

"Freedom of Speech" (and freedom to write), does not mean "Freedom from Replies" when you post in a public forum.

Ballig wrote:

Why can't NPCs surrender? I've accepted the surrender of NPCs before, and so have my players. And there are often unconscious NPCs at the end of combat that are revived instead of executed. Am I missing a rule here that says an NPC can't surrender?

Because I have only once seen players take prisoners, and that was when I reminded the paladin that if he whacked the guy who had dropped his sword and fallen to his knees that it wouldn't exactly jive with being a paladin. My players almost always just tear through the NPCs, never consider talking things through. As for thieves not being murderers today, well, we aren't talking about today. In the medieval era (which pathfinder is based on), the most common punishment for crimes was hanging, or an extensive period in a jail which would likely kill you. Theft by murder was far more common then. Besides, if the players are over matched, they should have run away. If not...they'll be knocked senseless and robbed blind.

Are the Players also claiming their characters are "good" (of any stripe-- LG, NG, or CG)? because the two things-- absolutely no mercy, no matter what the situation, and even the Paladin has to be reminded not to be a bloodthirsty slaughterer, and the Good alignments-- do not go together.

In the medieval era, many thieves and brigands still were not cold-blooded murderers, unless they absolutely had to be. And many people probably still failed to slit the throats when it would have been in their best interest to do so. Murder was more common, but still not the modus operandi of all, or even most, common thieves. Knocked senseless and robbed blind? Now that sounds quite likely, and not too harsh for PCs who made a complete tactical failure against foes who do not necessarily have motivation to kill.

Although-- I'm a little surprised by the frequent accounts I see on these boards that show a lot of players carrying on in the thoughtless, harsh "violence is always the answer" mode that your players appear to use (by your account of them, anyway).

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

That definition gets tossed out the window the moment there is a slight edition change. 100% is impossible the moment any changes are made.

Exactly, so Paizo should have not IMHO attempted to brand their PF products as 3.5 compatible if that is not possible due to changes made. The core rulebook should have simply had some blurb on the back and in the introduction stating that the Pathfinder RPG was designed to be largely compatible with the 3rd edition of the world's (2nd) most popular fantasy roleplaying game, and that players should be able to use their 3.0 and 3.5 material with only minor conversion (or words to that effect).

The marketing buzz was making it clear that PF RPG was becoming an alternative 4e or 3.75 if you will. That should have been enough IMHO.

Anything more, i.e. claiming 3.5 compatibility is to me false advertising.

Here's where I disagree with you, and agree with Jason. What you want in order to call something "compatible" is for the new product to be identical. And PF, while it is clearly derived from 3.5, is not identical to 3.5. As far as I'm concerned, 3.5 material is still compatible with PF (at least to my standards for using the word "compatible")-- I don't have any problem using 3.5 material in PF games, if I should want to.

Now-- taking PF material and trying to make it "backwards" compatible, into 3.5 games? probably not so much (haven't tried it yet). But it's kind'a like new Operating Systems-- depending on the OS, I expect to be able to run software from older versions on the new system (most of the time-- there are exceptions and/or software that's just too many versions back), but running software specifically written for the new system on an older version? Usually doesn't work. If it's as easy or easier to use 3.5 material in PF, than it is to get Windows XP software to run on Windows 7 (and in my experience, it is)-- I consider the 3.5 material "compatible". I'm not trying to run it on an identical system-- I expect adjustments to be needed (same as I, a "skilled computer user" type but not a programmer, can still go into the settings and change a few to make the software I'm trying to run play nice in Win 7), but minor adjustments do not amount to an incompatible product.

One of the things that always amuses me is how much uproar there is over "chainmail bikinis" but virtually every male barbarian is garbed in little more than a leather loincloth and nobody ever seems to care.

Maybe it's just people being upset that all of the art follows American views on public nudity and obscenity, instead of European standards for that sort of thing... :P

Fighting over controversial things is unbeatably fun for the first five minutes. Then it's just emotionally exhausting. Also, most of the time, I don't intend to be as confrontational and controversial as I am. I'm REALLY bad at judging how what I say looks to other people and how other people feel. Something I post may be obvious flamebait to you or to the mods, but it isn't to me.

Actually, I don't think your threads are such flamebait that they should have drawn the negative attention that has erupted on many of them. So-- not sure what to tell ya about why those threads keep getting torched (I was joking about enjoying the controversies). I was (and am) quite serious about not letting people get you down. I don't agree with everything you write, but do I enjoy reading a lot of your posts.

However-- yes, I understand the working on other priorities thing though. :)

Interesting question... TY for posting this, Mikaze.

I'm going to have to think about for a while though.

Any setting that contains chainmail bikinis but lacks chainmail shorts would severely stretch my limits of verisimilitude.

Does it have to be chainmail shorts? Or will chainmail speedos, loincloths, and jockstraps be a good enough substitute? :P

This. I'm tired of not being able to discuss issues of Paladins, Fighters, Spontaneous casters, or alignment without getting a third degree ass reaming for it. Especially Paladins.

You mean you don't enjoy starting controversial threads and watching all the fireworks that your posts inspire? ;) (j/k)

Seriously-- don't let people get you down, ignore the ones who are too intent on flaming you to discuss the issues, and don't stop raising interesting questions... someone's gotta keep the intellectual stimulation going around here. :D

If you can clear out enough space to seal off a room, post a guard, and get some sleep in a dungeon... you can do the same thing to make some space for your wizard to sit back and prepare some spells.

Not rocket science. Yes, you can do it in a dungeon. Yes, you run the risk that something is going to come along and interrupt the process, and your wizard will have to start over until he/she gets an uninterrupted 15 minute space to get the job done (or 1 hour space at the start of the day...). Yes, there are going to be occasions where the dungeon denizens are not going to leave the party alone long enough for the wizard to do that at all.... but there are limits to how long the party itself can handle that, before your adventurers start dropping off from fatigue anyway-- so it's hardly something that's only going to affect the wizard.

Doesn't seem to me like this question has to be so f***ing hard that you all are so intent on fighting over it.

There is no Concentration skill.

Concentration, however, is defined in the game several times and is critical to dealing with magic. You must be able to concentrate to cast a spell, and you must be able to concentrate to maintain a spell. Likewise, you must have an environment that allows for proper concentration to prepare spells. Distracting effects (anything that could threaten to break your Concentration) ruin this.

EDIT: So yeah. Your wizard can prepare spells in the woods, on his horse while riding at a simple pace, in the rain if desired. No problems. If nothing is threatening his concentration (which is defined in the game) then he is fine to prepare his spells. The biggest issue he has is coming from resting, which you have to rest 8 hours before recovering your spell slots and such. Fortunately, the rules for preparing on the go say that you do not need to rest before preparing individual slots, but you cannot abandon spells you have not cast or recover spells cast without resting beforehand.

If a wizard wanted to, he could rest for 8 hours (or 2 with a ring of sustenance) leaving all his slots free, and then prepare them in 15 or 1 minute increments throughout the day.

I see from other posts you already gave on the issue of being able to prepare spells while riding a horse. Seriously-- riding a horse is right out, because no matter how well-trained or good the horse is... I dunno about you, but I wouldn't be able to just keep my eyes on my spellbooks and never look at where the horse is going-- plus there's all that rocking motion as the horse moves....

But now the second part-- the game doesn't supply mechanics and specifics for everything. But-- have you ever tried to go out in the rain, and then sat down in it and so much as tried to read a book while it's raining directly on you? Or really tried to concentrate on anything else, while you're being rained on? It's kind of like being under 'Chinese Water Torture' -- drip, drip, drip, drip.... on your head. Personal experience tells me that doesn't work too well...

You know, if the wizard can set up a tent for quick shelter-- yeah, he can study in that while it's raining outside the tent. But, if it doesn't already apply as a 'distracting condition' under reasonable interpretations of the rules, being out in the rain, even a soft and gentle rain, should be counted as a distracting condition that will prevent preparing spells (or anything else that requires that very high level of concentration for such an extended period).

Nah seriously. Tell me what they're good for. Show me a good Oracle. You can look at a bard and tell it's not a wizard. Show me how you think an Oracle is built to succeed in the game. EDIT: In other words, show me what the oracle is "meant to give".

Ashiel--

I sincerely doubt I can do this to your satisfaction, since (no offense meant, but) you seem very fixated on mechanical advantage and which is better by the numbers when fully optimized.

All I can tell ya, is I'm playing Oracles in both PF games I'm in right now, and I'm having lots of fun with them, and I'm not having any trouble with being effective. In parties which, in both games, also have Clerics. One of the keys seems to be relying a little more on your Mystery powers. And in the case of one of my Oracles, since 'Mystery of Flame' was the choice, I'm doing pretty well alongside the Alchemist and Magus for covering the blasting needs of the party. Seems to me though, that, if you're gonna play an Oracle and enjoy it-- it has to be about more than the mechanics for you. And it's a matter of personal taste... I get that you don't like Oracles-- that doesn't mean they're useless or can't be effectively played.

All that "people tend to prefer" that you will get around here are the feelings of the super posters that choke out every thread with their same opinions. It isn't totally meaningless, but it doesn't represent any kind of universal consensus.

I see a lot of variation in people's opinions on here, so I'm not sure that the "super posters" are really choking out all discussion.

All of the crap that people on these boards talk about being important, like fair CR, access to magic item shops, GMs being kept inline with the rules, even player agency, are all totally against how at least half of all the gamers I've ever played with like it.

With due respect... why are you here if you think what "people on these boards" are discussing is crap?

They all HATE any aspect of magic item stores because they don't fit with a classic story, don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story, enjoy have DMPCs along in the group because it gives them a consistent character to RP with, like strong DMPCs because they are "cool", expect that the GM came up with a good story, complete with an ending before the game start and want to play through it without anyone messing it up with their own input.

Hmmm... the gamers you play with, and their opinions, are your experience of the game-- it does not match my experiences with it, though there is one point where my opinion does match a lot of the people you've gamed with (although, truthfully-- I have seen some players who were like this in my many years of gaming).

Some specifics from my anecdotal collection: Magic Item Stores? Depends on the campaign. Some campaigns, actually having magic item stores is a good fit (Eberron, for instance-- when you've got Artificers and Magewrights all over the place, you think they wouldn't set up shop and sell?)-- other campaigns, they violate the setting/flavor/etc. and really don't fit (and then I'd be one of the people objecting to their presence-- games where magic and wizards aren't common, magic may be illegal or otherwise a hidden art, etc.). Don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story? This one I agree with, more or less-- I don't consider the dice unimportant in a game with strong mechanics, but I do believe that storytelling is more important than strict adherence to die rolling results. DMPCs? Often useful, cover up gaps in capabilities that maybe the PCs haven't covered themselves, good minor steering agents so long as the DM doesn't over do it (I really hate DMPCs taking over the party's direction a lot)-- however, I do not consider DMPCs desirable or undesirable for consistent RPing-- IMO, that's what my fellow PCs are for (and/or any recurring NPC we meet and interact with wherever we go-- not so much for the DMPC inside the party, although I don't ignore them). Like strong DMPCs? No. IMO, DMPCs should not outshine the PCs-- and "strong" DMPC is usually a code-word for "God's character who can do no wrong" (and this definitely reflects the opinion of most of the people I game with, whereas it's more of a mixed bag exactly who'd agree with or disagree with some of my other opinions expressed here)-- although, any NPC/DMPC who accompanies the party had better be useful, otherwise why are we taking him/her along?

And your last point? Not for me thanks-- if I want to follow along, step by step, a story someone else wrote and be very careful to not mess anything up with my own input-- I'll go read a good novel, not play a game where my character's actions are supposed to have some effect on the situations he/she is in. I do expect that the GM has come up with a good story, but understands that it's "collective storytelling", not the GM tells a story and everyone else follows along-- therefore the beginning, middle, and ending have to be at least a little malleable and reflect the idea that the PCs are going to take action and that that will modify and alter the course of the "story" (and plan) that the GM has laid out (this is another point, where most of the people I game with-- if not all-- hold similar positions to mine).

That kind of game is treated as badwrongfun by gamers on this board, but it is popular and it is a common way of playing Pathfinder.

I think "differences of opinion", "differences in play styles", "different approaches to the game" (most of which is what is being discussed here and elsewhere on the boards)-- doesn't make any person's positions on the game 'badwrongfun'. It just means that different people have different expectations and are looking for different things in the game. That different people prefer different approaches and different styles of gameplay. That none of these is inherently wrong (or inherently right, for that matter)-- but that, given the different styles, approaches, expectations-- your approach to gaming isn't going to work for a lot of people around here, and at least some of them are going to express a differing opinion. My approach to the game, I'm quite sure, does not work for a lot of people on these boards (many of them have told me so). That general idea applies to everyone here who posts a statement/opinion/whatever.

I have no idea whether you're correct in believing the style you appear to champion is popular and common or not-- it's not a style I'd like to play, but it isn't wrong-- I'm not sure which people are apparently telling you it must be 'badwrongfun' because you don't play the game the same way they do, but this still seems like a bit of an over-reaction to me.

Agreed...

I find it amusing when people play the "Freedom of Speech" card (and therefore think they can say anything and oft-times everything they want without repercussions) on a privately owned and operated web site...

Oh, there will always be repercussions... "Freedom of Speech" has never included "Freedom from Responses" (to what you've written or said...) ...or "Freedom from Responsibility" for what you say, write and do...

Personally, I'm very much hoping D&D:Next continues down the more narrative style (I'm really hoping battlemats are going to be optional, although the relaunch of the miniature line and the increased output of battlemat products is somewhat disheartening). In my view, PF, rolemaster, GURPS (plus a whole bunch more I dont know about) do a good job of providing simulationist games. I dont think there are so many 'non-simulationist' options for vanilla fantasy and I think more diversity is an unequivocally good thing - even if one doesnt actually like playing lots of different games. At least there's a greater chance of finding one you do like.

Steve--

I agree with you totally on the 'more diversity, the better it is for all of us' issue.

If a game's going to be simulationist at all, I prefer games that are more realistic (GURPS, for instance) and where they draw in fantasy elements (such as magic), internally consistent and "realistic" within the explanations for magic and strange powers in the setting. However, speaking of 'narrative' games... did I mention before that one of my favorite RPGs is Amber (diceless roleplaying, based on the world/universe in Roger Zelazny's 'Amber' novels)? That's all narrative, low to no mechanics... (really gotta have the right GM and player group for that though). I do really like narrative systems too, as a general idea anyway. :)

Finn I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I would be happy enough if he could do all the combat manuevers from the Paizo core book without having to take feats and suffer AOOs. A fighter imo should be able to do combat manuevers with impunity. Allow everyone else th ability to do the same manuevers exceoet they are either less effective miss more often or require a feat. As I said more then just I swing and hit over and over again. Or he attempts a combat manuever yet suffer an AOO. I'm not saying give the Fighte everything just something that makes him stand iut beyond something other then "being able to hit really damn good really often".

Memorax--

I'm not so sure we disagree (or at least, not entirely, not on this point)... :)

I agree with you that a fighter should be able to do more than just swing, and swing, and swing again. I don't know about being able to do all combat maneuvers with total impunity (especially against another fighter who is also well-trained and highly experienced), but with a lot more impunity than they currently get-- yes. And yes, I'd say a fighter should be good enough to attempt to disarm someone without leaving himself open to an immediate counter-attack or vulnerable to an equally capable free disarm attempt from his foe if he failed to actually disarm the opponent... same goes for a lot of the other maneuvers-- a fighter pulling off good moves in combat ("combat maneuvers") shouldn't draw AoOs every time he tries one of those moves-- except that another fighter might be able to develop some ability to counter the maneuvers of another fighter (not an automatic counter, just as the first fighter doesn't get an automatic success). And, IMO, the fighter should get lots of 'maneuvers' as part of being a fighter.

I would prefer to see the Fighter's abilities (beyond just swing away) be more like maneuvers in PF-- use, and use, and use again, rather than once a day or once an encounter (and the ones that depend on dirty tricks will get steadily increasing penalties the more times you try them on someone who's seen you trying it before-- this, btw-- is my response to Jason's justification for powers being limited to once an encounter-- it's less likely to succeed, IMO-- NOT impossible to try again because the power's been expended...). I'd also prefer to see the fighter's additional skills/abilities/maneuvers be more in keeping (flavor, fluff, and explanation/rationale for the ability) with the talents expected of a truly capable warrior than give off the super-duper "ki power" moves of certain anime shows and extreme kung fu movies.

I'm not trying to change your mind, as such, but just to provide another possible explanation for you (since this bugged us as well intially):
.
My approach is not to think these are some kind of stunt which can only be performed once per day or once per encounter. To me, the key to understanding 4E was to stop trying to play it as the simulationist style of 3.5/PF - the powers 'make sense' if they're understood in a much more narrative context. Daily and encounter powers is a game-system way to assign some portion of narrative control to the player.

(more good stuff - cut for space)

The way I recall the powers working, the way they're described, the special effects attached... it's just too much of a stretch for me to see them that way. Thinking of them as simply being 'narrative context' to me is like assembling a story out of pre-determined text blocks, and still both horribly limits (once a day/once an encounter) and yet in some ways expands (powers that allow "no f***ing way" moves, without explanation for how other than-- because... or the 'it's ki powers' explanation I attach to it) what an exceptional, experienced, well-trained warrior-type should be capable of (IMO).

I find it much easier to accept the 'ki powers' explanation, than the narrative explanation you use... but I do appreciate your illustrating some alternatives that do work for other people.

Regarding playing 4E though-- there's way too many other things that bother me about that system, besides the 'powers' issues, so I'm unlikely to resume playing it (among which are 4E's apparent attempt to be simulationist, use a tactical map, and all that jazz, and yet-- what is it trying to simulate?). We'll see what 5E looks like when it gets released.

Can't imagine that sweet opening an enemy has just granted you, that only comes around every so often? Perhaps the last few jabs you've made have really just been setting your enemy up for this one grand finishing blow?

Nope. Not once a day, but never occurs more often than that. Also, too many of the special effects given smack of special powers, not simply great skill. Furthermore, if you're good enough to set an enemy up for the grand finishing blow, which is usually how sword fights end up in reality anyway-- if your foe is competent he's not just going to leave an opening for you, you have to make one-- you're good enough to keep doing it, or at least trying to do it, opponent after opponent. The arbitrary way 4E sets up abilities for "once a day" and "once an encounter", does not work for me-- not as representations of skill rather than 'ki powers'.

I will go so far as to say that (IMO), if it works for you-- then my gut-reaction (and apologies if my reaction is wrong) is that you just don't care about any 'realistic details' and don't want the in-game "non-magical" aspects of combat to resemble real weapons usage at all while you're playing (when you play 4E, anyway)-- I'd prefer to think it's that you don't care for any realism in your 4E play, than that you really think 4E's powers can represent realistic swordsmanship. I realize full well that PF isn't realistic either, but 4E IMO takes it so far that my "suspension of disbelief" is thoroughly broken when I try to apply it to 4E 'martial powers' and don't use the "ki power" excuse. This is not a statement that 4E is 'badwrongfun'-- just a statement that it really doesn't work so well for me.

Also fighter dailys have very different effects to Wizaed dailys, let's not pretend they are the same.

I didn't pretend that they were "the same"-- I believe the phrase I wrote was: "well, it's mystical ki power magic, rather than arcane magic"-- Now, if this statement of yours was a response to my post, as it appears to be-- perhaps you need to read what I wrote again, because you missed something the first time around. Unless you really think that describing something as "mystical ki power magic" is the same as describing something as "arcane magic"-- seems like different words, and definitely different connotations in the sense they've been used in D&D/PF all along. Now, I could understand someone who doesn't play RPGs missing the fact that the two concepts do have distinct differences-- but not someone who's been playing 4E, and PF, and possibly other RPGs.

Currently playing in two PF campaigns (since one group was playing other RPGs, and the other group was still playing 3.5 until quite recently-- this is my PF experience so far as well).

I'm playing Oracles in both campaigns, and I'm having a lot of fun with them (one is Human, has the Waves Mystery; the other is Aasimar, has the Flames Mystery; both have the 'Haunted' curse). In both campaigns there's also a Cleric in the party-- the Cleric generally outdoes me in healing, but I'm more effective in all other aspects of combat, and in both campaigns I'm definitely the party 'face' character.

In one of these campaigns, among the other PCs are an Alchemist/Gunslinger and a Magus. So far, everyone's having fun-- are we as maximally effective as we could be? Probably not, but it's a very flexible and adaptable team of characters.

Robb--
I tried building an Inquisitor for one of these games, but haven't had a chance to play him since I went with an Oracle instead. However, with the various 'Inquisitions' instead of ordinary 'domains' that UM and UC have made available.... Those make a big difference in the number of stats you have to be good in, to be effective. The 'Conversion' Inquisition meant I could still be quite good at the Cha skills I was planning on using, without needing an above average Charisma.

hmmm...

Interesting thread so far.

IMO, both spontaneous and prepared casters have their place in the game. Both of them have relative strengths and relative weaknesses compared to the others. Only Sorcerers and Wizards, and Oracles and Clerics, form pairs that use the same spell list anyway-- the other casting classes have their own strengths and weaknesses, and can fill different roles, but IMO do not lend themselves well to this sort of side-by-side comparison. Now, within each of these two pairs, I really don't care which one allegedly has the 'mechanical' edge over the other-- I really think it depends more on who's playing the character than on which class the character is, and again each of them has their own strengths. Specifically regarding the Oracle (which some people appear to have claimed to be worthless), I'm finding that the Oracle's revelations and other talents (such as base 4 sp's instead of 2 per level) can and do make up quite a bit for whatever weaknesses they may have relative to the Cleric (a lot also depends on which mystery you take, and how well that applies in the campaign).

Personally, I prefer playing spontaneous casters over prepared casters-- but not because of optimization concerns, perceived mechanical advantages, or ability to optimize one over the other. The spontaneous casters simply fit the character concepts I've come up with and my aesthetic feeling regarding how my characters should use magic (I like the "it's in the blood"/"it comes naturally to me" more than the "I spent a lot of time hitting the books"-- most of my characters are reasonably intelligent and do study various skills, but it's not what makes them 'magic'). And I'm (so far), having no trouble with being effective in game play.

And I still feel there's a place for both types in the game-- my personal preference for which variety to play is not any sort of statement of objection to other people's preference for playing prepared casters. :D But, IMO it's not (and should not be) all about what's most effective according to the rules and numbers.

memorax wrote:

That is imo the difference between yourself and some other 4E fans. You bought the game you tried it and it's not for you. Sometimes you see others in the hobby posting or talking negatives about 4E and it's obvious they never played let alone read 4E. Or no matter what Wotc does they will despise them until the day Wotc ceases to be. No offence if I was selling a product I'm really not interested in hearing from a person who mind has been made up and has no interest in listening to anything I have to say. Just seems like a waste of time. Better to focus on someone who at least is willing to listen to what oyu have to say.

I disagree. One of my biggest issues with the whole thing is that WotC pulled all of D&D's prior games from the market, specifically the PDF's which I had paid for under the assumption that I can redownload them whenever I needed. The notice that WotC disallowed other companies from A.) continueign to sell B.) continuing to allow future downloads of things I HAD ALREADY BAUGHT, and C.) treating me both like a criminal and basically givine me as a loyal and longtime customer the finger whilst D.) trying to hide their intentions of promoting 4E exclusively behind this "we want to protect the brick and mortors".

(Oh yah, what was that argument about DDI material again. . .!!!)

No, to me the hate for 4E and WotC is perfectly valid, especially in the sense of the appearance of trying to change the way those people that where screwed over view the next (ha ha pun) edition. It's the people that want to hide that dirt under the rug that are the fanatics with tunnel-vision in need of doing some actual research on the subject.

As Kryzbyn said, the "Fool me once/Fool me twice" situation is exactly right.

QFT. TY, Beckett-- it needed to be said. :)

What Beckett said, both in this post, and the one before it, covers my opinions on 4E, WotC, and 5E pretty well also. And, I did play 4E, for over a year, before finally trashing all my 4E books because yes, I really did dislike the system-- but it's not because I didn't give it a chance. And, like Beckett's stated opinion, I am going to give 5E a chance, rather than just reject it out of hand.

I thought it was pretty easy to suspend disbelief for Fighter dailies. In a world where Dragons can ruin cities, the dead walk, elves live in trees, and mighty spells are thrown around...it's not hard to imagine a guy wielding a huge weapon and, with one swing, fells a giant Ogre. I'd think doing it multiple times would be tremendously difficult to pull off and can see it only happening once in a while. *shrugs*.

As for options, if a Fighter can use Martial maneuvers and stances the better class he'll be. Like I said eariler, if he can be made to resemble the Warblade from the Tome of Battle, but with more focus on a role (if desired) then it'll be a win. And I don't think Fighters need to sling fireballs, fly, disable traps, or the like to remain useful. I do think they need to add conditions onto their hits at higher levels to stay useful. A high-level fighter doesn't get by with high DPR alone. No, he'll need to bring something else by that point where magic makes up for mundane methods for just about everything. A Fighter should be able to daze, knock prone, disarm, etc. a lot of targets by the later levels and NOT make it ridiculously hard to do so.

Diffan (and Jason and Memorax)--

I don't even buy "encounter" powers for fighters. "Daily powers" on a fighter, really does make it seem like "mages with swords"-- it's like every character class in 4E that's not obviously Arcane, Psionic, or Divine (or Shadow, or Primal perhaps)-- well, the martial classes anyway-- are straight out of some 'Dragonball Z' type universe where everyone has really potent 'Ki' powers and a limited reservoir of 'Ki energy' to power them with... Now, set up that way, that can be kind of cool... but it was the only explanation I ever found that made any kind of sense for many of the 4E 'martial' powers, particularly when they're powers that you can only use once an encounter, or once a day (btw-- that's clearly IMO, and YMMV-- was my impression of the game, not the only impression possible).

If what the fighter is doing is really just based on skill and really knowing how to use a weapon effectively... I don't see any reasonable explanation for a fighter knowing how to attack in a particular way with a sword, but only being able to make that attack once per day (unless, y'know, he's only got one sword that day, and the attack destroys the sword he's using... and even then, that's presuming he can't get another sword the same day)-- even, only once an encounter is a real stretch... if he knows how to pull off a particular strike or trick, he can keep doing it all day long (well, fatigue might play a role in slowing him down and wearing him out-- but that would affect more than just that one attack)-- if it's based on trickery and deceit, trying it on people who have already seen you try it a few times, it might be less effective on subsequent attempts-- but it's not going to be something that's right out for the rest of the fight or the day (particularly if you break that trick out against a new opponent who didn't see what you did before).

Even 'Tome of Battle' was crossing that line for me between really skilled but not magic, and "mystical ki powers" (although 'Tome of Battle' was doing so intentionally, and did it well, so I was okay with having it in the game). Now, I agree with you that a good fighter, especially at high levels, should have a lot of tricks up his sleeve (like being able to trip, daze, and disarm his foes rather than just kill them). But if you go much beyond that-- well, it's mystical ki power magic, rather than arcane magic, but it's still fighters as a sort of mage, IMO... now if that's the game you want, go for it. If I know that's the background and intent of the game, and I don't find lots of other things that really bother me in play, I might join ya. But IMO, don't call it something it isn't... i.e., just really talented warriors, when they're exhibiting all sorts of 'impossible' mystic/ki/magical powers.