The tone there is just...different. The more productive, generally positive threads are focused on 1e and 2e, which that board sees as "neutral ground". The regular 3e posters spend more time apologizing for and ripping apart 3e than actually discussing any fun that might be had with it.
One poster in particular regularly attacks any 3e thread with his pre-rehearsed tirade of how only druids, clerics and wizards matter, and if you dare think of rolling up any other class, "urdoinitwrong" and not having fun. He and I have gone many rounds, because hey, I like Fighters. He would go on and tell me I was wrong and not having as much as I thought I was, and I was like, "really? You've never seen me face to face, and you're gonna tell me how much fun I actually had at a table you've never played at?"
It's sad, even recently I got into it with someone who was a co-founder of a distinguished gaming publisher who pretty much said the same thing; play a cleric, wizard, or druid, or urdoinitwrong. The general mentality is "CharOp or else".
Wow, that's a shame. While I tend to agree with the person your arguing with, that Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are pretty powerful, they're not the end-all/be-all of v3.5 gaming. I rather like Fighter myself as it can be very diverse in it's fighting style. I had a Fighter that used his shield like Captain America like throwing his shield and shield bashing people. Lots of fun.
Funny you should mention Cap, we just ran in circles because someone compared 3e classes to the Avengers; only the super-human ones get to fly into space and fight Galactus(clerics, druids, wizards), all the normal human ones get stuck on trash duty, like Hawkeye(anything not a cleric, druid, or wizard). So I mentioned Cap. Sure, he's beyond peak human performance, but he doesn't fly, shoot lasers out of his eyes, or juggle cars, yet he's the leader and no slouch in the action department. You could replicate Cap physically in an RPG pretty...
You didn't know being rich is a superpower? For shame.
And it does matter to me when 4E supporters paint the whole of the the Paizo community as a bunch of rabid 4E haterz becasue I'm part of this community.
Again, this is a general quality. No one is saying that everyone here hates 4e. That's clearly untrue. But there are enough people here who dislike 4e/WotC/Hasbro/puppies and don't have any problem voicing that dislike that it makes those who do like those things less than comfortable. Defending those things against particularly unreasonable criticism or attack helps make it feel less like enjoying 4e makes you a crazy person, and more like enjoying 4e is a perfectly valid opinion that is actually held by others and can stand up to criticism.
Thanks for including my obvious hatred and disdain for puppies in your post. Glad to know I'm not the only one.
Dude, that's just flame-baiting. Besides, people often fail to see 3e was the "MMO" edition, with having an honest-to-gods World of Warcraft RPG setting AND....
...DDO, the actual, living and breathing D&D MMORPG, which was created around 3.5's rules. Given just those 2 examples, is it really that huge of a surprise of the developers of 4e had some(even a small amount) MMO influence in creating the system?
I'm a 3.5 supporter and even I can admit the above.
WOW was released by an independant developer. Thanks OGL.
DDO was a terrible MMO...turns out, first level wizards having 2 spells per day doesn't translate well in an MMO. 4e would translate much better.
What they should have done was make a NWN style rpg.
Paizo allows the discussion of 4e, but then you guys write threads like "Why do people not like 4e" and someone gives reasoned criticism, someone attacks them for it. We aren't allowed to not like 4e, even in a thread about why we don't like 4e.
Anyone heard anything?
If anyone hears anything from Nic let the rest of us know.
Thanx in advance.
You may find yourself waiting...forever. If you were a particularly enterprising individual, fly to England, find a copy of the unfinished work, and somehow manage to acquire it. Then you would know.
And it's England. You could probably walk to his house from the airport.
WotC was purchased by hasbro. And then they made 4th edition. And it looked NOTHING like 3.5. Nothing. Only the ability scores were the same, and names of some classes.
And a lot of the spells, and a lot of the feats, and practically all the terminology (DM, saving throw, attack roll, critical hit, skill check, hit points, experience points, trap, monster, NPC, PC, and like five hundred more), and nearly every monster, and all the core conceits of the game, and the core mechanic, and the dungeons, and the dragons, and the minis, and the dice, and the DM screens, and the weapons, and the magic items, and...
Yeah, aside from all of the above and a hundred more things that I don't have the time or patience to list, 4e looked NOTHING like 3.5. Nothing.
Then, in your opinion, since they must not know what they are talking about, why DO they hate 4e?
Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs, man. If you believe squirrels talk to you and the homeless are trying to eat you, fine. If it really bothers you that much to be wrong, and you feel like lashing out about amputation, then go right ahead.
How am I wrong? Are you seriously claiming that I am wrong about what I believe? Because that would be laughable.
I mean what the deuce, man? You say I'm entitled to my beliefs, but apparently I'm not entitled to know what they are? How does that make any kind of sense to you?
Um, you can totally be wrong about what you believe. I believe my examples above show how explicitly wrong someone's beliefs can be.
Some decent answers to the question I posted. Any thought on my suggestion? It kinda makes sense, don't you think? keeps things neat and tidy. pun intended.
This is ridiculous! My adventurers take the time to poop in-game, and describe what color and smell it is, and consistency! Why, just the other day, Grognar the Barbarian had to take a tremendous s&!# after a big battle with some orcs (the elvish travelling bread gives him cramps).
I have been reading through the Inner Sea World guide, and I get the feeling that there is to much going on. Most of the states have really well developed societies, and there seem to be many many large, well organized, militaries and navies. What need is there for heroic adventurers?
I just kind of wish it was more of a vulnerable world.
If you knew anything about militaries and navies, you'd know just how ill-equipped they are to handle the kind of threats the APs throw at you.
I believe in growth and healing, you obviously believe in amputation.
::eyeroll::
Yeah, dude, you "nailed" it.
When you are the only one with an opinion that differs from everyone else...maybe you're wrong?.
Is everyone of the opinion that I believe in "amputation?" Because that's what I'm responding to. Pres man's claim that I believe in "amputation," which is just a false dichotomy he's created to taint my position and make his look better.
And if it is the case that "everyone" believes that I believe in "amputation," then "everyone" is pretty ****ing stupid. I think the only person in the world qualified to state authoritatively what I believe is me, and if you care to disagree, you can go take a long walk off a short pier.
Hey, you're entitled to your beliefs, man. If you believe squirrels talk to you and the homeless are trying to eat you, fine. If it really bothers you that much to be wrong, and you feel like lashing out about amputation, then go right ahead.
Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ) - jup, that sentance was accepted as First Name O.O
The name is a symptom of the larger abuse that the child will suffer by having religious parents that far out of their minds. The indoctrination he or she will undergo at their hands will probably be total. I am genuinely sad for this child now, and need to take a break from browsing.
Their crass assumption that the child will follow them in their hysterical plight, and that he or she will embrace the name, is typical of the religious mind. Religious indoctrination is abuse, plain and simple, and is the only form of child abuse that doesn't raise an eyebrow.
If someone named their child:
Alexei Yuri Gagarin Siege of Stalingrad Glorious Five-Year Plan Sputnik Pravda Moscow Dynamo Back Four Balowski
In the expectation that the child would be a loyal party member, the principle would be the same.
But what is an acceptable variation from that sample? For example, is a lion with two heads or that can fly an acceptable variation? How about a black pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men?
Black Pudding that takes ten times damage from spoons carried by middle aged black men...not acceptable.
Swap a couple of feats for different feats...acceptable.
Hope that helps!
No, it isn't. Only if the Black Pudding (why are we capitalizing it?) takes ten times damage from ten thousand spoons carried by a middle aged black man who only needs a knife. Then, it is acceptable. And ironic.
I rank the monk with the bard-if you play them without knowing the classes, you will not be good at them. In fact, you'll be pissed and bored, because you can't really do anything except miss alot and sing.
I consider them more advanced classes, because someone who knows the class can win (yes, win) any combat. And not be bored. Just like clerics-if you play a basic healbot, you'll get bored of the character and want him to die so you can roll a more exciting character. But, if you research and scheme, you can come up with a character that does awesome things.
This is true...but it also isn't. Why? Because, while it's almost literally just a quick sidetrek for most of them...Golarion has been declared a no-fly zone for Gods, by the Gods themselves, for the safety of themselves. If they enter the material plane a)they are vulnerable (basically putting up a neon sign with "God over Here!" scrawled in bright yellow) b) the other gods may see it as a power grab and attempt to power grab too.
Even Cayden Cailien gets scrutinized whenever he goes out to the material plane to party. Everyone thinks he's harmless, though, so he gets away with it.
So, like I said...nothing can stop them from entering the material plane, however doing so is highly frowned upon by other, equally powerful gods.
alien to be more of a protagonist, they should have had him eating...the bad guys. Or at the very least, douchey people no one cares about.
I was watching the kid rescue the girl and I turned to one of my friends and said, "what about saving all the other people?" He turned to me and replied "who gives a f~#*, he saved the hot chick." And then the other people who didn't get eaten...free themselves, or something, only to become fodder for the monster's chase scene.
OOOoooh, just thought of something, maybe the whole locket thing was a setup for a sequel. Think about it, the black guy stole the locket from him (to illustrate he's not just a black man, he's also a DICK, and you won't feel sorry for him when he bites it) and now the alien stole it from him. So the kid constructs a FTL ship, and chases after the alien, trying to get his mother's locket back in a tense sci-fi action-thriller, "Super 8 2: Give Me My F#&#ing Locket Back, You Thieving Alien B&@!!!" or S82GMMFLBYTAB, for short. It will have space train wrecks, in keeping with the spirit of the first movie.
I'm still working on the title, but it'll be really cool.
There's a write-up on Cayden Cailien that basically said that he enters the material plane if you throw a ballin party. So...for some gods its as simple as throwing a really awesome parties, and for others it requires the sacrifice of a thousand innocents on the winter equinox.
Okay, a little confusion here as Azoun's latest post seems to contradict the one he made before that... is Alex approaching the agitated youth in the parking lot or not? And is anyone else going with him if he is?
Is the way we're playing alright? I don't know if I'm overdoing it or not.
I have never enjoyed random nightly encounters. In fact, if you polled the vast majority of the RPG community, "fun" would not be the word most ascribed to them. Call Lightning is fluffable. Sleet Storm is nasty, but workable.
is the hair part of you? if it had been a third arm or prehensile tail would it have included asf? thevanswer is thevgame does bot care far vas I can tell how many limbs you have.
thevquestion is this and this answers thevhair question really. I have two arms free the left has a buckler the right noes not. I use my right hand to cast the spell. do I get asf? t think it's yes.
I have three arms free the top one has a buckler the other two i actually use to cast my spells with do not. No ASF
Holding a shield inflict ASF. Whether you hold it in your hand, your beard or tie it to your leg, them's the ASF.
Heck, not even an animated shield frees you from ASF. And you don't even need to tie it to your eyebrows.
Care to reference that? The animated shield calls out that it, specifically, still inflicts all penalties including ASF, but otherwise you only get ASF because armour /shields interfer with somatic gestures. Spells without a somantic component = no ASF, for example. (Page 150 of the Core book covers this).
The question then becomes, do you require your prehensile hair to be free of holding anything to still use a somatic component... I'd say no, you don't (otherwise, what's the point?).
Yeah, I'm confused too. You don't have anything held in your hands, why are you being penalized for your hair holding a shield? I'd say yes, you can ignore ASF.
Pirates: Incorrect. The most famed pirates were often working for other governments against merchant ships of enemy governments to control trade in the Carribean. Their government funded and loot funded ships were some of the best and well maintained during that era. Other pirate ships would often be hired for a good amount of money to perform the same sort of thing. The golden age of piracy was really a cold war, when anyone with a ship and a name could make a good profit via war profiteering.
Samurai: Ritual suicide has been held as a tradition in Japan since forever. Suicide in Japan is not held as undesirable-in fact, it is considered incredibly beneficial and a way to "save face" and uphold the family's honor.
Our culture suffers a severe disconnect when coming to understand Japanese culture-the Japanese value community over individuality, and do not hold the same religious beliefs that we do. The stigma against suicide is not the same there as it is here.
announcer voiceNow to JMD031 with a lesson on perception.
Thank you. First off, I just wanted to say what an honor it is to be able to speak here today. Now, let's get down to business shall we.
Perception is defined as 1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. 2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment. and 3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
What importance does this have on the topic at hand, well it has been questioned whether or not certain individuals are being insulting. On one hand they believe they are not being insulting. On the other hand, there are people who say they are. Who is right? Both of them and neither at the same time. The answer lies in how each individual person would perceive such statements. If one person finds it insulting then it is insulting TO THEM but it may not be insulting to the general populace. If more people have the perception that they have been insulted by this statement then we can perhaps make inferences about how insulting it would be towards the general populace BUT we cannot make broad sweeping statements like "This is an insulting comment because (X number) of people perceive it as insulting". One might be able to say "This statement has the potential as being perceived as insulting and therefore caution should be made when making it or reading it" but that is about as far as it can go.
So basically, everything that could and will be said has the potential for being insulting depending on the person's beliefs, background, heritage and several other factors. Individuals who share several of those qualities will band together due to having a common interest in feeling as if they have been insulted and attempt to fight against the individual who they feel was insulting in the first place because everyone...
Wait, so if anyone can get offended by anything, why do I care what they think? What if I am offended at their being offended?
Doc listens to Sal, and Garrett, then turns to Garrett with a raised eyebrow, "Are you sure you haven't been watching too much NCIS or Criminal Minds or something? I'm sure if it was murder that the police are already investigating, and won't need amateur-hour help. What makes you think anyone is in danger?"
"Oh, I don't know, the Professor's mysterious death, the note he left at his eulogy, the person who just got up and left with a spooked expression on his face, those people over there with extremely worried looks on their faces."
"And my friend sitting next to you is an FBI agent."
So, here's a question; did the Paizo developers really not see the inherent imbalance of 3.5 (and now Pathfinder) core rules, or did they just ignore it? Really, despite improvements to certain overpowered spells and classes, it doesn't really make a difference. Spellcasters still rule the game past level sevenish or so, and melee still have no way to use good standard actions, or have any out of combat utility at all. Has the status quo been retained for backwards compatibility reasons, or what? It just seems strange that with such good examples as the focused spellcasters (Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, etc.), Tome of Battle, and other resources that fighters still gain only numerical bonuses, rather than anything versatile, fun, or useful outside of combat.
Anyways, am I the only one seeing this as a problem?
Pathfinder is designed to be backwards compatible. If you didn't think it was balanced before, you won't think it's balanced now. And there was alot of hate directed towards ToB.
I like how the characters (both good and bad guys) are actually smart... instead of stupid.
Crowley's immediate figuring out of what happened and hasty reaction was perfect. I've gone from finding the character an annoying sarcastic smarmy creep to a *fun* sarcastic smarmy creep.
He did turn Hell from torture and fire to waiting in line for all eternity.
I want to create a new spell called Phase Parrots.
It's for my wizard, so it's an arcane spell.
School: Conjuring.
Effect: A swarm of Phase Parrots form a 5' swarm around a target (which can be a creature). The swarm follows the target whenever they move.
Duration: 1 round per level.
When the target speaks, the Phase Parrots repeat exactly what the target says, but invert the phase, creating total silence from the target. (Note: this is how noise canceling headphones work).
This means the target cannot cast spells with verbal components or be heard by anyone.
No Spell Resistance or Saving Throw from the target since it's basically an environment effect.
Of course, Dispel Magic or anything that gets rid of Summoned Creatures, etc. will affect the Parrots. Of course, since they're parrots they are vulnerable to being offered crackers :)
So -- what level should this spell be? I think level 2 because they are tiny creatures and only a 5' swarm instead of the normal 10'.
What does everyone think? I never created a spell before. This is basically the arcane version of Silence but more specific and a much smaller radius.
Thanks!
Level 4 spell. No save or spell resistance? Wait until a variation of it targets YOU.
Ashiel, i like your posts and your opinions, but i think that sometimes you are focusing too much on average damage and other crunchy stuff...maybe you could try a more...organic approach to the game from time to time.
Also, it's not polite to tell people that they are lying, even when they are.
Sure, but necromancers aren't even necessarily evil in the first place.
Also, condescension and being impolite are allowed on this forum. Abuse and insults are not.
I don't know, I'm not impressed. Gold standard for using a point of Ki is gaining an additional attack at highest BAB. Compared to that, most of the options are underwhelming. Blood Crow Strike sounds nice, but has problems (evil descriptor, full round action to cast, so does the monk even get to attack? Not by RAW imho), and the improved blinnd fight / ki leech may be good, too (no cost, but a round to cast, probably not worth it for the low-critting monk).
The other options are way to expensive when you take into account, that each costs you an attack. And don't get me started on the vows, for one they don't add that many points, and they are horribly expensive either mechanicly (poverty eg) or for roleplaying.
I don't see myself using any part of the Qigong.
Have you seen what the normal monk gets? Color me underwhelmed.
I like the QingQong monk because I can get rid of the crappy special abilities and replace them with something more useful.
Nope, never said that, or implied that. I just said that undead seek to destroy life because negative energy directly opposes positive energy, and living are powered by positive energy. If the orc warlord was good, the antipaladin could smite him. I said that undead are evil because they seek to destroy the living when left unattended. Also, check out nightshades from bestiary 2. It explains it pretty well.
So, don't let your undead off it's leash, and you'll be fine.
I personally can't stand the negative level penalty with character death. It skews the balance of later encounters completely, especially if the campaign is a TPK wipefest (and it could just be me rolling lucky that night). Now they come back, at a lower level, where they will definitely not be able to meet the challenge. And what if somone's character dies repeatedly? He just comes back as a 2nd level character in a 6th level game? I'd quit playing.
This is RAW, right in the book. So now we have a firm starting point.
I submit to you, that creating evil in the world is an evil act. Forget whether you think the spell itself is evil (I know you won't ever admit that, despite the evil subtag). But, given that RAW zombies and skeletons are evil, will you admit that creating evil in the world is an act of evil? Walking around putting on helmets of reverse alignment on Paladin's would be creating evil in the world, the same as creating undead is creating evil in the world. Both are acts of evil.
Again, we're not talking about your preferred homebrew world where undead are neutral. We're talking about RAW.
Yeah. What everyone else is saying, is that RAW is flawed, and the reasoning of the developers is wrong.
Putting a helmet of reverse morality on a Paladin's head and creating a skeletal horse are not equally as evil.
So if my character casts Awaken on a stalk of celery, listens to the poor calery stalks death cries as it dies in slow, agonizing pain, casts animate dead on it, and then dips it in ranch suace and eats it, is he a necrovegetarian?
Well, nuclear power plants are not inherently bad. They are a tool with a variable amount of risk attached to them.
Japanese citizens had been benefiting greatly from having nuclear power plants(61% of the energy generation is through nuclear). their cost of living would be greatly increased if they were to see other power sources.
But... Japan is also a very foolish place to put nuclear reactors. Considering almost 90% of the world's earthquakes happen there, reactors have to consistently withstand strong quakes and the resulting Tsunamis. Also considering Japan is an island, the nuclear plants are not easily isolated from the water.
So for japan, nuclear plants are both useful and dangerous. For areas with minimal risk of natural disasters and that are safely distanced from large population centers, nuclear power great and poses an acceptable and manageable risk.
Exactly. How can magic be put to use for the betterment of the world? Well, fireball probably can't do a whole lot for the betterment of the world. It seems primarily about destroying things. It's not sustained power, and it's not easily harnessed. Shocking grasp or lightning bolt on the other hand, if combined with the trap rules, could power a city as super reactor that literally harness lightning to power things.
Likewise, animate dead can fill the bulk of armies, protecting living lives. They can be used to preform grunt work that great civilizations of history relied on slave castes to preform. They are in expensive, and can work all day, and all night, do not eat, and do not sleep, do not get sick. A government that uses undead for such things could then focus on the betterment of their people. Open colleges to have people become adepts, clerics, and wizards, experts, and artisans. Taxes remain low because the overall costs to produce and maintain the population would be lower. Bodies would be gathered from those who die of old age or natural causes, and executed criminals...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say. But at least it's paved.
I wonder what the road to heaven is paved with. Bad intentions?
I not only want one, but do in fact live very near one. I prefer them to coal plants.
There's lots of people in Japan and the Ukraine who would have much rather had a coal plant.
In conclusion, students, nuclear power and likely science as a whole is completely evil. Please open your textbooks and burn three pages as today's lesson.
:P
Thank you for missing the point entirely. It's about responsibility and recklessness in the face of unimaginable potential to cause harm. The fact that you continually fail to understand this and why people are justifiably afraid of that is frustrating.
That's been my point this entire time. Great power. Great responsibility.
But I'm done here. There's stuff I'm reading here that implies some rather terrifying stuff about people on these boards I'd rather not think about and I'm stepping out before it gets ugly.
Personally I hope no one here ever attains the capacity of physical change in reality as a wizard does in fantasy. No ones mature enough for that kind of power.
Oh, okay. Wizards are evil because they are powerful. Nuclear power and it's advocates are evil because 9.0 earthquakes might happen.
Self-defense is not a legal defense in cases where you provoked the initial action that created the need for 'self defense'. "Legal" is not the same as "good" of course, but the concepts are comparable. If you provoke a bar fight, and someone comes at you with a broken bottle, and you stick your sword through their innards, then you are the reason for the dead person. In a court of law this would probably be "manslaughter" but you'd still be prosecuted for it. From a moral perspective your initial provocations were clearly not "good" and the potential for this sort of result is a major reason why they are not "good."
So there are plenty of cases where "self-defense" is no argument that your actions were not evil. How many westerns have you seen where the bad guy attempts to avoid prosecution by provoking a farm boy to go for his gun, an act that is pure suicide against the skilled gunslinger? The "self defense" argument in that case is clearly a joke. So the real question you are asking is "is it evil to ride an undead horse into town and provoke the townsfolk into violence?" I would say "yeppers! Sure is."
Hey, Binky (the undead horse) wasn't hurting anyone!
You can't seriously be justifying that provoking someone in a a way that causes them no harm is evil. Is a cleric in Rhaduom evil when the villagers try to kill him because he has faith?
So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?
Then you get to have fun when people say evolution and ID are the same. The fact that we can understand the fundamental physics underlying the universe, they say, implies that something created it intelligently.
Of course, the "planned it all along" theory can also be considered a cop-out.
So, if I animate a horse (minor evil act, but I'm still good so far), ride it into town, the townsfolk attack me and force me to defend myself, as they won't listen to reason, and I end up accidently killing a few of them...does that make me evil?
Yup.
More likely though they'll run away screaming.
A wise conjuror doesn't summon outsiders in town, a wise blasters doesn't randomly launch fireballs in town, likewise it would behoove a necromancer not to animate the dead in the middle of town. . .
