Hoplophobia's page

Organized Play Member. 102 posts (263 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Akerlof wrote:

Well, the professional way to do something like that (reverse the FAQ to make room for a replacement) would be to announce the change, explain how it's necessary in order to clear the road for a better fix, and time it to make the least impact on the player base.

Instead, they made an unannounced change to the FAQ on a Wednesday afternoon, there was one vague comment from an individual developer buried in a player created thread that isn't even in the Rules forum, and the only product I can see this change clearing the road for is two months out (and doesn't mention anything about prestige classes.) You've also got the creative director on the record as hating the previous rule and taking credit for creating a prestige class almost a year after the ruling was created with requirements that can be met for early entry despite the fact that he is vehemently against it.

Paizo's treatment of this specific situation does not inspire confidence in me that they will address our concerns at any time in the future. Much less do so soon.

Best post in the whole thread. I can't favorite this enough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a really bad idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played a Wizard. Divination Specialty. I had to hold back constantly to keep from obviating whole encounters, especially as levels went on. I designed the character to be a noble pompous person who disliked doing any real effort, so mostly my character barely ever cast spells to keep me from utterly dominating the game.

I concentrated primarily on buff and utility spells while keeping a few of the encounter enders around. Crafted for the party, etc.

My cue to action was whenever the fighter or the rogue went down to start tossing out the power and save the day and end the encounter within a turn or two. Occasionally I would summon if I knew it would be a difficult fight and have them guard me to have a flexible force later to hold back enemies and drag the rogue/fighter away from danger.

I purposefully kept from using spells that would obviate whole plots or alter the narrative.

The judgement after the game was "Wizards really are not that powerful."

I had to stop myself from rolling my eyes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading this thread is like chewing glass. Like...isn't this game supposed to be fun, or something? So let's try to be constructive.

The Kingmaker Kingdom in my game is ruled by a tough, no-nonsense but fair druid. Protects their people, and negotiates treaties and builds consensus within a multi-species kingdom.

Also the Druid is female, as is her player. That's never come up once.

There is a whole lot of squick factor coming out with stuff like this. Some of the depictions of monsters and creatures weird me out. Can we just stop with the Bioware 'romance' paths and sexual monsters of all types? Like that one monster in the mythic bestiary that almost made me loose my lunch. Cripes guys!

Sexual mores are so highly specific that when and how to introduce these things should not be the province of a monster manual or an AP but rather it's own, separate book that advises the GM on how to integrate these topics into their games. It's so easy to make a mistake and mishandle something and accidentally deeply offend my mixed race, gender and sexual orientation group, or creep somebody out accidentally.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible, or that it can't be done. What I am saying is that having the explanation for how to handle stuff like this buried in the statblock of a monster or in the sidebar about a relationship subsystem is not the place for it.

Instead help me and others as a GM make these people seem realistic without being stereotypes and caricatures. Get some actual real authors who are of these differing backgrounds and have them give me some real material to work with. Right now it's just something I won't touch with a ten foot pole.

Here is how I solve this problem

1) For any art that is too highly sexualized I go and find replacement art for that character/monster. If it a part of a monster's dealings I replace it with a different temptation mechanic (Power...Money..Respect, etc.)

2) NPC sexuality is if brought up, only done so in passing and without comment. Nobody in the world cares who you sleep with. (within some reason.)

3) PC sexuality is also virtually a non-factor. Monsters and NPC's react to people just about the same except in very rare cases. Both sexes and others if they are in a society that permits/encourages it dress provocatively and act as such.

4) I would be interested in reading and learning more, and being given tips on how to implement certain different themes well into my games in long form explanations written by people with good knowledge of the subject. I want to hear how best to handle a transgender character from the members of that community, etc. (EDIT: That is also a player or GM, obviously)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ivan Rûski wrote:
I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about all of Oklahoma. Though I'm not from Oklahoma myself, I am from Texas, the D/FW area to be more specific. My grandfather is from Tulsa, and my cousin went to OU. Obviously some places and people are better than others. You obviously have mostly dealt with rational people, and that's good. But there are a bunch of religious nuts from there who get nuttier when a camera or microphone gets stuck in their face.

Don't worry yourself none. I wasn't taken offense, more just making a statement of fact. Heck I'd rather people keep looking at us that way simply so they won't bother us here. Too many east and west coasters coming out here these days for my tastes. Soccer Moms with their macrobiotic nut loaves and whatnot.

I swear she was trying to poison us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Dwarf Ranger is a good choice. Even have a good picture of a Dwarvish Mountaineer to be their guide into the northern reaches. It's a good mix of combat ability and skills with a definite weakness in playing nice with others.

I'll just keep my Paladin on hand for a more traditional AP perhaps. Thanks for the input everybody!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

That article is outdated. The employer mandate was delayed by a year this past July. Your article is from December of last year.

And no one is talking about the "last possible moment". We're talking about businesses cutting employee hours a year ahead of the point they are supposed to start tracking them.

You can make excuses for the company you work for all you like.

Because they already had a plan in place to meet the original mandate time frame. Why wait for a year and not go ahead with the cuts if you have already identified ways to do them and know that within a year you will have to do it anyways, and can experiment with temporary and part time workers to fill your labor needs instead of expensive full time employees?

And still have plenty of time to deal with the inevitable bits that don't go right at your own pace. So that you can then take the hours cuts national. At the lower end of the workspace there are far more people than there are jobs. There will be even more people now cut back to 20/30 hrs a week that you can choose from other employers to fit your business's needs.

Scott Betts wrote:

By your own admission you make so little that you should pay very little in taxes. Someone making $15,000 annually (same as in the example above) has an estimated total annual federal tax liability of $110. Less than 1% of your income. I also don't know what state you're from, but where I live someone making $15,000 annually faces an annual state tax liability of about $225, or about 1.5% of your income.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

That is the thing, it's a stealth tax. I work less hours and make less actual income already BECAUSE of this. It's a 25% loss of income (More because now overtime is strictly verboten) for which I either have to get a second job to make up for, with the increased transport costs and other costs (uniform, loss of flexibility to attend school, etc) eating up yet more of that income, or simply cut my spending.

I'm not into making excuses. The primary motivation of a business is not to take care of employees, it is to make money. And if within the new parameters of the law the best way to make money is to use as few full time workers as possible and only use part time and seasonal workers for high demand then they will do that, and still reap the benefits of their employees having health insurance. Because they no longer have to offer it to appear as competitive to other jobs providers in the market.

Because Obamacare does not actually "tax" me does not mean that it does not have a negative effect on my income, and many people like me. It makes people like me who work hard to try and get ahead take another step back, and end up even more dependent on the federal/state government for basic services that before I was able to get by the sweat of my own brow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
If your employer is doing this any time soon, it is not in response to the employer mandate. That mandate has been delayed and will not go into effect until 2015. He'll have to find some other excuse to blame denying you hours and insurance on.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/30/health-care-law- jobs/1785641/

" But to determine whether employees work enough hours on average to receive benefits, employers must track their schedules for three to 12 months prior to 2014 — meaning many are restructuring payrolls now or will do so early next year."

It couldn't be businesses trying to adapt early to the looming penalties, could it? No, businesses are stupid and wait until the last possible moment to shake up your entire workforce. Instead you do a piece at a time, small amounts first to figure out how to do it. Then you do a company wide cut.

Scott Betts wrote:

Without knowing where you're from, a typical American making $15,000 annually can expect to pay $300 a year (a whopping 2% of your income) for health insurance on an ACA exchange. The subsidy will cover the other 90% of your premium costs. If your state expands Medicaid to the 138%-of-poverty-level cap, you will instead be covered by Medicaid, and will only pay the relatively minor out-of-pocket costs associated with that program.

Note that this is not the pricing for basic coverage. This is the pricing for mid-range, "Silver" tier coverage. Basic coverage will be less expensive, and highly comprehensive coverage will be more expensive.

Please, tell us again about how the average Joe will be left holding the bag.

Because as we all know, dollars magically appear out of nowhere to pay for everything. It's all free stuff that I will never have to pay for in taxes levied in another manner to make up for the massive budget shortfall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:


What part of "unmodified, unadulterated Full-Attack" is not getting through to people here? How can you, with a straight face, claim that an unmodified Full Attack includes the bonus attack when modified by Haste?

Then, there are those who claim that the presence of 3 sources of a Haste bonus available to a Magus means that they must be able to use Haste in conjunction with Spell Combat. That predicates on the idea that Magus is and ought to be played as a one-trick pony. Does that mean that Magus should have nothing but Touch Spells as well so that all his spells work with Spellstrike? Does that mean that a Sorcerer with the Efreeti bloodline must only learn Fire spells? Does that mean that a Monk should gain Pounce so that he can combine Fast Movement with Flurry of Blows? Does that mean that a 2-h Fighter is not permitted to take TWF feats and be a "switch hitter" between 2-h and dual-wielded weapons? A Magus also gets increased move speed from Haste... I guess that means Spell Combat should be made a Standard Action so the Magus can also benefit from enhanced Move Speed when he uses SC. After all, Magus is prohibited from making a normal Full-Attack. See my confusion?

No. But I can see your condescension.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It was, quite frankly, clear enough before, and it's crystal clear now. The only logical reason I can find for people competent enough to operate a computer well enough to post these questions and statements claiming the issue is "confusing" and "unclear" and "contradictory" is that they are doing it deliberately in an attempt to exploit features in the rules to their benefit.

Spell Combat allows you to make as many attacks with your designated weapon as you could make with a single weapon in an unmodified, unadulterated full-attack. Haste is a non-issue. If you cast Bladed Dash, the spell specifically gives its own attack (or several attacks in the case of Greater Bladed Dash) and that is its own issue. But regarding the normal allowance of attacks, it goes by the normal, un-fooled-around-with full-attack. Not rocket science. Not brain surgery. Simple.

First of all. I'm a GM. I have never played a Magus. Secondly, assuming that my confusion about how a class works comes from some nefarious place about exploiting the rules is pretty insulting.

Dosn't Haste give an extra attack specifically when you use the Full Attack Action? So if Spell Combat is a "unmodified" Full Attack then you should get the extra attack from Haste, right? But the Devs are saying no. See the confusion?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I implemented this rule:

Quote:
If you wish to play a non-core race you must roll a d 20. 1-12 you must play a core race. 13-17 you may play a featured race or a core race. 18-20 you may play an uncommon race, featured race, or core race. This die roll must be made in front of me.
This is to keep players in line with predominant races of Golarion. It offers a chance to play a race that is more rare without having everyone play a rare race.

I just don't understand this. At all.

"On a 1-10, you can play a core class, on a 11-17, you can play a base class, on an 18-20 you can play an alternate class. Sure hope none of you were planning on being a Ninja! Also, roll for your stats, starting gold, race, background, religion, favorite color and food, height, weight...wait, guys...why are you leaving? .......Guys?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Not really. What I do is I decide which area I want, choose available races based on that, and decide which splatbooks I want to apply for my campaign. Works wonderfully. Other campaign settings are far worse about this.
Why can't you modify slightly the list of available races to include what your players want to play? I mean, you don't need the region to have catfolk and gripplis and strix and samsarans and vishkanya and vanara etc. You just need the region to have catfolk.
And if one wants to play a catfolk, one a grippli, one a strix, one a samsaran, one a vishkanya, and one a vanara?

Say "Fantastic!" and you can't wait for how they build a fun an entertaining story together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
So, if I were to play in your campaign, dear "exotic PC races ftw" gang, would you let me play a psionic elf were catgirl cyberninja? Or a tinker gnome or kender in Dark Heresy? Or doesn't your tolerance go quite that far?
Assuming rules exist and are reasonably balanced for the race in question, I don't see a problem. I'd allow it.

Agreed. Especially the psionic elf catgirl cyberninja. Explaining that sweet cyberarm to mom and dad in Kyonin is worth the price of admission alone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? If I sat down at a table and somebody said "HUMANS ONLY" I'd just smile and say it wasn't the game for me and pick up and leave, regardless if I was going to play a human or not.

These opinions fascinate me that the very same people will allow Wizards to bend the universe, a Magus to lift impossible loads with his prehensile beard and have the Summoner's Eidolon manifest out of nothing...

But Lizardfolk? NOT IN MY GAME!

Seems foolish to me. Unless it's like...Warhammer Fantasy level of restrictions (In that case, why are you playing Pathfinder?) it's a High Fantasy world.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I currently run a Kingmaker game that has not a single human in the party.

And you know what? It's INCREDIBLE. Every new situation keeps me on my toes because they try unconventional things. They forge alliances with unlikely allies, negotiate in good faith with "monsters"...

It's the best time I've had GMing in years because they are not like "A monster! Let's kill it and take it's treasure!" Instead it's a careful weighing of if it can be negotiated with, what benefit is their to be had, are they justified in killing it....

Monster Kingdom FTW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cassidy Werner wrote:
Adam Daigle wrote:
Cassidy Werner wrote:
There may or may not have been a directive on the project management whiteboard to BRING BOOZE on Tuesday... FOR FREEDOM! FOR HUMANKIND!

And yet, there was no booze.

And I was disappointed.

Maybe if you'd take your intern to Gen Con, she would have been so grateful she'd have brought some.

I am pretty sure alcohol of any kind never makes it back from Gen Con.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay. Here is my best (rambling) advice, and one that has held the most true through my years and years of running games. As much as players scream about railroading, they want direction and prodding. Too much however, and they feel like they don't have "agency" and their choices do not matter.

In reality, what is needed is a "Stealth Railroad" where the tracks are not visible so players are convinced their choices are radically affecting the outcome even if in certain circumstances they are not. Carefully written plots and timetables will crumble at the first PC. Your Stealth Railroad must be flexible, having an overarching plot but being less like a written story and more like a series of 3x5 notecards with a quick bit about what happens but keeping the details rather loose. Details firm up the closer they are to that plot point, but the further off it is the less detail and work you should put into it because more often than not that detail and work will end up being wasted because of what the PC's did a dozen story points ago. Be able to switch out notecards and write new ones and change the order.

Second is to ensure the players and their characters are invested in some way. Insist on a page of character background, with at least two NPC's (who are STILL ALIVE) no, not everybody you know can be dead. Even Batman had Alfred. Play them up as important and helpful, not just shackles they have to drag along so when you threaten them the players actually care. Speed is not important, player investment is. Sometimes the most rewarding stories are not battles Against The Ancient Evil Which Has Arisen (tm) but rather stories about a small village. Encourage the players to build their own stores and domiciles and shops. If the players show interest in a certain bit, or NPC, go with it and hold on with both hands and figure out how to weave that into your overarching plot later to get them back on the "Stealth Railroad"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cassidy Werner wrote:

Not cave raptors, but the creeping crud. I didn't even go to Gen Con!

Behold the result of our scheming.

Nice!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vyranos wrote:

My campaign, "Roar of Rovagug", is still under construction simply because I just don't know which path I want to take. Therefore, I think that I need some help-from a GM who knows the fundamentals of a decent (if not good) campaign. Any GMs who want to help, just simply PM me.

Thank you

Okay. Here is my best (rambling) advice, and one that has held the most true through my years and years of running games. As much as players scream about railroading, they want direction and prodding. Too much however, and they feel like they don't have "agency" and their choices do not matter.

In reality, what is needed is a "Stealth Railroad" where the tracks are not visible so players are convinced their choices are radically affecting the outcome even if in certain circumstances they are not. Carefully written plots and timetables will crumble at the first PC. Your Stealth Railroad must be flexible, having an overarching plot but being less like a written story and more like a series of 3x5 notecards with a quick bit about what happens but keeping the details rather loose. Details firm up the closer they are to that plot point, but the further off it is the less detail and work you should put into it because more often than not that detail and work will end up being wasted because of what the PC's did a dozen story points ago. Be able to switch out notecards and write new ones and change the order.

Second is to ensure the players and their characters are invested in some way. Insist on a page of character background, with at least two NPC's (who are STILL ALIVE) no, not everybody you know can be dead. Even Batman had Alfred. Play them up as important and helpful, not just shackles they have to drag along so when you threaten them the players actually care. Speed is not important, player investment is. Sometimes the most rewarding stories are not battles Against The Ancient Evil Which Has Arisen (tm) but rather stories about a small village. Encourage the players to build their own stores and domiciles and shops. If the players show interest in a certain bit, or NPC, go with it and hold on with both hands and figure out how to weave that into your overarching plot later to get them back on the "Stealth Railroad"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the tips. Part of it was I was going to do a little vignette with each player. Each has done a page background with connections to Korvosa, and I fully intend to play upon them for good and ill. Many of them also have attachments to religious institutions in the city (Paladin of Sarenrae, Inquisitor of Pharasma, Cleric of Sarenrae ) a Wizard graduate of the Theumenuexes College, A thief who may be in with the Ceruleans and a Kobold Detective who has roots in the town.

So hopefully that will be some strong ties to the city. I hope it's enough to keep their interest. Has anybody found any particularly good theme music for Korvosa, with it's Chelish/Varisian/Shoanti mix thing going on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:

I'm sorta bummed to see yet more forms and stuff popping up because if things went the other way and stuff was more streamlined? Then I might consider it.

*** I can't help but feel however, that there are a lot of people like me who enjoy the idea of it but are put off by the burdensome requirements.

When I look at this dispassionately, I believe it will streamline the game. I think the 25gp bar for items may cause some consternation, but an objective look at this seems like it's an improvement in the bookkeeping requirements that a lot of us were doing already.

Now, if a player wasn't keeping any records whatsoever, then yeah...

Maybe, I guess? I don't know, I'm speaking from an outsider's perspective, and what I see vs what an experienced person sees are vastly different. I see simply another sheet to fill out.

For instance to a pro, tax forms probably seem easy, and a new form might be a quicker way of collecting and submitting the proper information. But to an outsider it's yet another form or hurdle they have to have in order to get to the fun stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EvilMinion wrote:

Thoughts from someone who's playing it.

** spoiler omitted **...

Thanks for the input of a player! That really helps me look at things from a new direction and consider how some things play out. I've got several new players in my group, so seeing how they react to some of these situations will be important and being able to build on the fly to them.

Responding to said spoiler:
Part of me is starting to agree on Blackjack. But another part of me worries that if the execution goes through I'm not sure how some of the new players may react. It's already kind of a shock the things they are going to get thrown at them that are vastly different from the usual MMO fare. I guess I will have to play it by ear when I get there.

Also, somebody already did a complete pathfinderized monsters for each book of Cotct on the PFSRD. So I can easily print out the monster's sheet and have it available. Mwahaha!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi there! I've been combing over the forums for this AP for a week or so, and was just wondering if anybody had any tips or tricks or things they wish they had known/seen before running CotCT. Pitfalls to look out for, story bits to play up, etc. Still got a couple of weeks before I am in line to run it, so just seeing if there were any ideas or thoughts I may of missed!

Thanks in advance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is going bad places. Time to punch out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:

Well, I think the reaction to this thread has proved my point.

This thread was SUPPOSED to be about the AP Leak-gate scandal, and how honorable people throughout the political spectrum ought to be able to agree on how wrong it is.

Instead we have a page of conservatives screaming about the singular non-scandal of Obama's presidency: Benghazi, and defending the clearly partisan witch-hunt surrounding it.

You definitively stated Benghazi was not a scandal in the title of the thread. That is still open to debate as we do not have all the facts in this situation as recent testimony has shown. Apparently anybody who disagrees with you is a "conservative" who is "screaming" about the "singular" "non-scandal" of Obama's Presidency and calling for a "clearly partisan witch-hunt".

Who is the political hack again?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
if asking your opinion on similar attacks that have occurred is moving goalposts, then we have little to discuss.

It's pretty clear what was going on there. What were you expecting me to say? "No, the attacks don't matter because they came under beloved El Presidente Bush, the greatest leader America has ever known?"

The point is that the attacks took place under vastly different circumstances and treating them all as if they were the same is foolish at best, dishonest at worst.

What makes this different is the sequence of events, their relative length and the statements made from those involved in them. Evidence matters, not partisan sniping. Again, come to me with something with similar evidence of poor handling of an ongoing attack of which it was clear those in the chain of command were aware and I will happily have a look at it.

The only reason you have information you have about Benghazi is because 1) The Obama administration is hundreds of times more open with the press than Bush was. 2) Because there have now been 3 hearings about it. The information you have was unearthed through those hearings. The hearings were only launched because of partisan politics.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if similar investigations had taken place around any of the other attacks, similar malfeasance would have come to light. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So we're back to partisan sniping about what administration X under party X rather than talking about the evidence at hand and wondering why those responsible have not been brought to task and why there are so many unanswered questions about that night and the following morning?

Somehow, the Democratic party is this meek thing that never raised it head if there was a hint of scandal in one of these attacks, it would just let it go by?

This sounds less like a respectful debate and more like political spin. It's disgusting how "B-but THEY DO IT TOO!" finger pointing is now substituted for justice and accepting responsibility for your mistakes. Mistakes by your predecessor in whatever office you serve be it SecDef or Secretary of State or even the President's does not somehow excuse you from culpability. Bush's multitude of mistakes are not excused by Clinton's, and so on down the line.

Beltway people wonder why more and more Americans are fed up with Congress, and every other branch of government. Nobody can admit they made a mistake anymore, and fire or reprimand those responsible even if they are close political allies. Mistakes were made, people died, heads should roll. I don't care if they are Democrats or Republicans that loose their job/suffer reprimands for this failure.

Senior Chief Tyrone Woods, Petty Officer First Class Glen Doherty, Information Manager Sean Smith and Ambassador Christopher Stephens. Their memories and family demand the truth, the unvarnished true from whatever dark hole it may emerge from.

This isn't even counting the events and spin after the fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Wait. The team that wasn't allowed to go did this?

My understanding was that you were speaking of the CIA/JSOC team in Tripoli that was waiting for a way to get to Benghazi that eventually had to commandeer a Leerjet to fly down there. I was unaware of the armaments, but I do not believe they received orders, but rather made the decision on their own to take the jet and fly to Benghazi, and later paid the pilots 30,000 bucks for their trouble.

The CIA Embassy Security team in the Annex was armed with M4 Carbines and other munitions. So, I naturally assumed you were talking about the CIA/JSOC team. Please inform me if there was another team you were referring to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:


You'll have to help me remember the other 49.

Here's some (including some you mentioned) after a quick google search.

Most of these failed to penetrate the inner Embassy. Almost all of those killed were those outside of Embassy security. Each one did not occur over hours, involve constant gun battles with drone surveillance in Washington that decided to provide no combat support to them despite a clear and present need.

What is presented here are quick strikes by small groups that almost all end with the perpetrators killed immediately. We're still rather short of that 54 number. Where did that come from, by the way?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


And do you fault people for making a decision with the information they had in the fog of war or do you fault people for not having the information you have with the benefit of hindsight?

At the time they had A) The live camera feed of the Predator drone on site showing an armed, organized attack against the CIA Annex. The had B) Reports from on site, begging for assistance that never came from the Ambassador and the CIA Annex. C) An understanding that Libya was a dangerous, unstable place.

That was the information they had on hand at the time. It is that with which I raise concerns about their decision making.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

What exactly do you want a CIA team to do to stop a riot?

We also don't exactly like admitting we have CIA teams in hostile foreign countries. You have to consider the possibility of leading the locals back to the CIA compound too, getting everyone there killed as well.

Rioters tend not to bring mortars and employ bracketing tactics to drop them right onto the roof of the CIA Annex. Just saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a little fuzzy on where you are getting 54 attacks on embassies during that term. The ones I remember off of the top of my head was the '02 bombing of the consulate in Karachi, the '04 attack on the consulate in Jeddah that ended with all the attackers killed before they breached the inner compound, The '06 attack in Syria which largely failed with all the attackers killed. I think there was an attack in '08 the failed in Turkey, as well as one in Yemen that failed.

You'll have to help me remember the other 49.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Force states to clean up their tax code law.

Sure. That will be the day.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only person who thinks...who cares? A character's sexuality is pretty low on the list of things that concern or entertain me. Kyra is not interesting because of her orientation, but rather struggling to balance serving her goddess and her personal aims of serving herself,in finding love. The internal conflict and struggle to relate to others that provokes with those who cannot possibly understand the deepness of her faith in a world where I imagine many people habitually worship multiple gods and see no problem with casual love. (See: A certain roguish elf) Which would pretty much be just the same as if she were straight.

That is why I like the way it is handled so much in the comics. It feels organic to the character and the setting and not for a cheap shock or controversy type thing as it often dealt with in...other certain comics and media. I would urge pumping the brakes a bit before just bringing in all sorts of different characters and their sexuality as meaningful parts of the story of those characters.

For instance, the OP brought up the possibility of Harsk being gay. Which is interesting, but only if handled in the right manner. For example, Harsk dealing with Dwarven society as a clear allegory for the modern gay-rights struggle for social recognition would be at best ham handed and at worst downright horrible. However, we take that same situation and instead make Harsk's rejection from Dwarven society not because he is homosexual, but because he breaks with sacred Dwarven Tradition of doing what must be done to carry on the clan, and not just because he is homosexual, but rather that it upsets the clearly defined roles of Dwarven society? Now that is super interesting.

The Dwarves see their traditions as what keeps them Dwarvish, the family and clan and race and anybody that breaks those traditions for whatever reason are threats that must be exiled, less they start unraveling the fabric of dwarvish society. That I would be fascinated to read about, that conflict and how it is dealt with.

I hope that this long winded bit gets my point across clearly enough. A little bit is a good thing. Too much and it all gets bland and muddled. Hence the pumping the brakes bit above. I want Kyra's arc somewhat resolved first before we plunge headlong into another one. Also because I'm somewhat selfish and want these reveals to be done in comics/books and not just as an announcement. Too many interesting story possibilities and moments would be missed, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lochmonster wrote:

I doubt we will be able to agree on why it is we can't agree.

Wouldn't you agree?

I disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:
"Ultimate Village"! A book about a few different villages that have not been touched on in other works in different parts of Golarion. Going real in depth on each on, with NPC's, some plot hooks , some stats here and there, a few monsters...but mostly about what it is like to be born, live in, and die there.

Try some of the following:

What I don't get is the "too much rules" crowd here keeps claiming that Paizo should not be publishing rules, and instead publishing... things that they have published. ??? Are you paying attention?

Apparently, some people are not. Paying attention, that is.

All I simply stated was that perhaps a slight trimming back on the stream of new rules and replacing that 5 or 10 percent with fluff or artwork, not for Paizo to never ever publish a new rule. Then offered a suggestion that perhaps a rules light but fluff heavy book to follow along a bit behind Ultimate Campaign would be something like Ultimate Village, which I pointed out was just an off the top of my head suggestion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Despite how much I love the River Kingdoms (and let me tell you, I DO), IMO, the Guide to the River Kingdoms falls short of what I wanted it to be. Why, because I want more. I don't want 1 page on Hymbria. I want 10-15. I don't want 3 pages on Gralton, I want 30. I wanted to pour over pages and pages of the raiding groups similar to the Stag Lord. I wanted to details on nomadic towns that moved around from place to place when raiders or monsters came. I wanted more than a paragraph on the hamlet of Saad or two sentences on the Nameless Secret society of Gralton. I know I am being unrealistically greedy in my desire for RK material, but that book just gives me a taste. I don't want a taste. I want a 7-course meal.

I had a freelancer working on something similar to these for Shadowsfall but the freelancer went quiet about 4 months ago.

I have to mostly agree here, and with the OP in general. Development of new classes, feats and spells seems to occur at an almost breakneck speed to keep up with the demand for new content. I understand that and that it keeps Paizo in business and making money, which is perfectly fine.

The problem is coming out with full books of good rules content becomes harder and harder with each new book. Mistakes and unforeseen combinations that break the rules in unanticipated ways increase. Bloat can and does creep in.

I think it would be most helpful to perhaps, incrementally trim back the amount of new rules content needed in a book. Or in a year in general and replace it with a bit more fluff. Not to say Paizo needs to stop printing new rules, but maybe cut back on it 5 or 10 percent and replace that with fluff or even artwork. This would ease back on the demand for new content, and allow for stronger editing of rules content and less chance for subpar elements to slip through.

More fluff specific books, would also be nice. I must say that Mister McCoy's post touched a note with me. Having a few more majority fluff books with some rules content that goes reaaaaly in depth would be awesome!

Say, instead of "Ultimate Combat" or "Ultimate Magic" you instead have...wait, for it..."Ultimate Village"! A book about a few different villages that have not been touched on in other works in different parts of Golarion. Going real in depth on each on, with NPC's, some plot hooks , some stats here and there, a few monsters...but mostly about what it is like to be born, live in, and die there. Our heroes come from some place, and too often that is quickly forgotten as they set off on the road. While epic battles are memorable, dealing with a local menace and solving local problems can be just as rewarding as a huge, world spanning campaign! Of course, these villages could be taken and dropped into any campaign with a little work, so while Golarion specific, there would be great versatility.

Just a bit of a harebrained scheme, but I'm not a fan of offering criticism without at the very least attempting to give a suggestion on how to help solve the problem that is posited as existing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do these passports work for interplanetary travel? I'm just saying, we might not be so quick to ban him if they do...

Not that I did anything wrong on Bretheda. It was just a misunderstanding you see....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And of course, we all known that Switzerland which lets young men carry home fully automatic assault rifles, subsidizes the sale of ammunition to the civilian populace and sponsors gun clubs, the gun murder rate in Switzerland is off the charts! Bern is even worse than Chicago!

Oh wait...except, it isn't. Strange that. Or that the anti-gun paradise that was the Soviet Union with it's all powerful secret police had one of the highest murder rates ever seen, despite it's ban on evil black assault clip folding stock baby killing dum-dum rounds.

Quote:
That is because both of those fears are not valid or reasonable.

Caineach, Tuvia Bielski would like to disagree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
And so the evil worm of feminism wriggles its way into your brain at last! Hahah! *twirls evil, pasted-on moustache*

Hah! Maybe. Then again it is close to my 9am bedtime, so it could just be me wearing down. Glad to hear, I am sorta envious of some things about Canada, but not others. Things like that being one.

On a serious note, it does give me a lot to consider. Just to say, engagement like this is infinitely more effective than labels and stuff and pointing and blaming for convincing people. Most people I've found are open to having their minds changed or to at least hearing you out if stuff is presented in a reasonable and calm manner. Some people you're just not going to convince no matter what. But some of us are willing to listen. Although I'm not convinced about this Patriarchy bit, more that it's just an Oligarchy.

Icyshadow wrote:
Hey, I'd prefer that kind of world. I'd also want to add in that people didn't judge others by their sexual orientation, potential fetishes, religion (hell, I get death threats from the one I was "born" into) and many other things that just make us different. Then again, I've become pessimistic enough to think that we'll probably achieve this equality when we're all dead as dirt.

I hear you on that. Some of it is just people being ignorant. That is going to go on for perpetuity. It's just a thing we humans tend to do, a whole us v them dynamic to make ourselves feel a part of a group. Often it's not so much that we don't like the other group, just disliking them gives us a reason to be with our own group. The first two tribes of humanity probably chucked spears at each other just because they were different.

Society is increasingly fracturing into smaller and smaller subcultures more and more isolated from one another with fewer and fewer shared experiences. I doubt we will ever see some sort of broad based equality because we're just not well programmed for it. If it's not gender it's race, if it's not race it's nationality, if it's not race it's religion. We have a tribal mentality that is incredibly hard to shake...

Man I need to stop rambling. Night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
You as an individual may have had a horrible life; if so, I am truly sorry for this and hope that things have (or will) get better for you.

Nah, it isn't that awful at all. Plenty of people have it worse. Got an honest job and enough to eat and a place to sleep and some books and a computer with an internet connection. Good friends, the weekly game. Life is pretty good, all told. Some of my friends ain't so lucky.

Alice Margatroid wrote:
Men on the whole have better experiences in life than women; this is evidenced by various factors that have been mentioned ad nauseum in this thread so I won't return to them again. This is not to say that individual men don't have worse experiences than most, or that in specific circumstances a man may be disadvantaged in comparison to a woman (e.g., showing emotion). But when we talk about privilege we're talking about a much wider scale than that.

That..seems extremely debatable. I can't really follow you there. The idea that men on the whole have better experiences in life than women. It's far too specific to a person and what they want out of life. Men are also less likely to bring up issues (see how few men go to the doctor when they really should.) There is a pride in 'grinning and bearing it' and 'paying your dues'. And so on. Without some sort of...objective way of measuring a large pool of people about happiness and contentment and getting them to actually be honest about it?

This is another leap that I can't follow at the moment.

Alice Margatroid wrote:

This is what I mean by "privilege is not universally applicable". You have a number of different privileges as an individual and they all intertwine with each other in different circumstances.

For example, I'm a white, able-bodied, middle-class, queer, cis gendered woman. In some cases I am disadvantaged; for example, getting pre-judged in my degree program as a computer scientist for being a woman, or being stared at when I walk down the street holding hands with my girlfriend. (This is a pretty good depiction of what it's like.) Or just not being able to marry her..

See, that sucks. Anybody who does that is downright ignorant for thinking you can't be a good computer programmer just because of your sex. But then again people prejudge me for my manner of dress and my accent, thinking I'm not intelligent because of the drawl. I do get a lot of stares because I'm a hick who rides a bicycle in a car town, but it's probably not the same. It's wrong that you are not able to marry her in the state in which you reside, in my personal opinion. Two consenting adults should be able to make whatever contract between one another they so choose (which is what marriage really is.)

I've had people honk their horns, throw stuff at me, etc. It's not staring, but it kinda sucks to be riding on a sidewalk and have some SUV blast their horn right next to you as they speed by. Some people are just plain ignorant and will act like fools to any and everybody, is how I see it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every time I see the world "privilege" I open my wallet and look for the White Straight Male Card that supposedly gets me all this awesome stuff just because of my gender and race and orientation. That I'll be invited into some executive squash club full of backrubs from beautiful women and champagne.

And then I look down at the bowl of cheap ramen in my hands, and think about my minimum wage overnight job of unloading trucks, and worry about being able to pay the water bill before it gets cut off and how I can't afford to subscribe to the AP's anymore.

If I am going to get flak for "privilege", I at least want to be able to enjoy some of it. So could the White Male club send me one of those cards? Please?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While the OP was unnecessarily confrontational, they do sorta raise a good point. Why even bother making stats for this weapon and naming it when anybody with good sense would just use a dagger or a short sword and call it a "butterfly sword."

It is literally worse in almost every single way to a dagger. It costs 20gp to the dagger's 2gp, it does only slashing, while the dagger does piercing and slashing and can be thrown. The dagger is a simple weapon, and the butterfly sword martial.

The single thing it has is the monk quality, and something about being able to separate them as a free action. What is even the point of this thing? Does anybody even use them? If so, why?

Also: The Butterfly Sword isn't a light weapon. So you can't even TWF with something that seems to be implied to be used in pairs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AdAstraGames wrote:
So, can we get a sample build that uses all three of these feats? Let's see if we can make a 20 level fighter with NOTHING but the worst feats in the game...

Make it so, number one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:

I too would like to thank Valiant for posting his build. It's not perfect, but it does show us where he's comming from. It doesn't change our opinions, as Dabbler and others have pointed out it sacrifices a lot to do what it does compared to other martial classes and relies on circumstancal equipment and buffs; but that doesn't make it a less valid opinion then our own, just a differing one.

It took balls to put up with our criticism when so many others have simply said, "I'm not going to do the work for you". So again, I tip my hat sir. Carry on.

Sure. I appreciate the attempt...but I think he just proves the point even more so that the Monk is always a bottle half full of water. Just turning the bottle upside down and standing it on the lid does not now mean it is full, just that the water has gone to a different place.

Meanwhile a Fighter is a 12oz lukewarm beer and the Wizard is a frosty keg.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
8 Red Wizards wrote:
I don't understand all of this monks are bad stuff one of my player's makes a ton of frontline fighting monk tanks that are just unhitable. He is not the most rules savvy player either so how can everyone else in the pathfinder community be so bad at making a fighting monk. Flurry of Blows is full Bab AoMF I can't see anything wrong with the price. When he's plowing things over with his monks I can't understand how no one here can figure out how to make an awesome monk.

In 15 and 20 PB Adventure Paths/Homebrews I have to STRUGGLE as a DM to give monks something to do. Often I find myself fudging DR just so the monk can feel useful. Monsters/Enemies that have faced the PC's before should know that the monk is no real threat and simply bypass him to attack the more useful members of the party, but they don't because it would expose how useless the monk is.

There is nothing worse than cautioning a player about a Monk, but they are so excited to make an awesome Kung-Fu master only to watch as the Monk rushes up to pitifully lightly slap at bad guys, either with a flurry of misses or failing to penetrate DR to any great degree. I see flurry of misses in almost every game I DM with a monk and make it policy to caution players of Monks about the weaknesses of the class. I really hate having them in the party because it means I have to push the challenge so low for them to be able to feel awesome it is a literal cakewalk for the rest of the party.

The real problem is that it has no niche. Anything it does can often be done with another class, easier, with less MAD or with cheap magical items. It's a Frankenstein of conflicting ideas and rules that often devalue one another in practice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Do not forget

Spinning Lance (Ex)

At 7th level, a dragoon may alternate attacks with the piercing head of his lance with reach, or with the butt end (treat as a club) against adjacent targets. Unlike a double weapon, the masterwork quality and magical special abilities apply to both ends of the lance, except for those weapon special abilities that apply only to edged weapons.

So other classes get to attack with TWF with just one weapon, enchanted as just one weapon, but it's broken to let the monk do this...
But that isn't true, it's a single archtype that gets the ability. So yeah maybe it is broken to let an entire BASE class do it.

I......what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrowVampyre wrote:


You're right, but at the same time, he's the one that started with it so trying to step back and say "Look, see, I told you THOSE people are crazy and can't be debated with. The name calling, the attacks!" would be pretty ridiculous on...

I went back and read through everything on this thread, especially his comments. I've got to admit except for the use of the word BS I don't find anything I would consider egregious. Smiley faces and calling somebody by their last name is not something I would consider grounds for such a response. Perhaps I am just not seeing things correctly.

He does have a right to an opinion, and to express that opinion even if you, me and everybody else considers it dead wrong. He's using Pitchford to try and make a point about not really being able to change who you are even if you attempt to change your social mask (in my interpretation). Even if it he isn't it is low level needling at best. It's the internet, the wild west of opinion and thought where people can say things they never would if they faced another person in real life.

If you believe him to be a hateful, bigoted troll then the best way to respond is with calmness and rationality. Like I said before it isn't easy and you're at the disadvantage for being a social minority.

Or maybe I am just out of touch with social norms from spending too much on time on 4chan, and my skin has grown thick and leathery and impervious to damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:

Well in the case of employment, most paperwork asks for gender not sex. Gender and sex are two different things, and in those cases you can put either one. In the more government based things (identification, benefits etc) you do have to put your physical sex (unless your particular state does not have the SRS requirement to change your sex, but that is few and far between). The more problematic thing for transsexual people just starting their transition is the legal name. Until you have your name legally changed it is required for most paperwork.

On the other question, it's a very tricky issue. As most people do not come out as transsexual until adulthood, a lot of damage has already been done by the hormones they were born with. For that reason, biologically there is an advantage in such situations for MTF transsexual athletes. However, hormone blockers and estrogens do have some effect even late in life on redistributing body mass. It won't completely take away biological advantages but it will significantly decrease them. On the other hand, FTM...

Interesting, so that would apply to all things, like sex/gender based scholarships and the like and other things? I'm just curious as to how far that legal protection extends.

In the case of an FTM athlete, I imagine they would probably have to take things that would be considered performance enhancing substances. That is an interesting issue to me. I'm not sure if I agree there about hormone blockers and estrogen doing enough work to balance the playing field for an MTF person, but if sufficient studies and research is done to show there is no real benefit I'd be fine with it. It would certainly be an interesting situation for a transgendered college athlete at a state college to present such a case to be allowed to play.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>