Succubus

Samurai's page

Organized Play Member. 329 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnCap Dawg wrote:
Samurai wrote:
How would you mark and remember "Today X is my signature spell"?

Your signature spells don't change daily. Put an asterisk next to one spell per spell level in your repertoire. That's your signature spell.

Letting spontaneous casters heighten all their spells freely is a significant power boost that will only get more noticeable at higher levels.

But, hey! It's your game. Do what's fun for you and your group.

You're right, it is up to each group of players and GM to decide, I'm just trying to give my suggestions. In my opinion, it's no more powerful than freely letting Prepared casters just choose which spell levels to prepare a spell at each day. If someone who needs book learning just to figure out how to cast spells can do it for free, then why is it harder for someone who is born with magic naturally in their blood? That just makes no sense to me at all.

I'm just trying to get away from this:

GW: "Congrats, Wizard and Sorcerer, you are both level 3 now, pick your new level 2 spells!"

Wizard: "Finally! I'll choose some new second level spells!"

Sorcerer: "I'm going to just choose Shocking Grasp and Grim Tendrils again."

DM: "But you already know those spells."

Sorcerer: "Yes, but I want to be able to Heighten them."

Wizard: "Should have been a Wizard then, I can prepare them at any level and still expand my repertoire."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Minor monk fix here - alternatives to the Core monk included by trading out Flurry of Blows for other "1st level only" abilities, designed to open up the space a little more.

Early Path to Perfection
At first level, a monk chooses their path to perfection from among Body, Heart, or Spirit. This choice determines which key ability scores they may choose from, which ability they receive at first level, as well as which possible tradition their ki powers may arise from. The Monk depicted in the Core Rulebook is assumed to have chosen the path of Body, and in all ways functions identically:
** spoiler omitted **...

I like your ideas Rainzax. I made a few changes for myself though. It is a small increase in power because it includes 1 free feat for each type of Monk. Let me know what you think:

Altered versions of rainzax's changes:

Monk:
(pg 155): You may chose to focus in 1 of 3 areas as a Monk: Flurry, Ki, or Stances.

Flurry: You use the rules as presented in the core book, and may choose Strength or Dexterity as your key ability. You get the Flurry of Blows ability and the Monastic Weaponry feat at level 1 for free.

Ki: You may choose between Dexterity or Wisdom as your key ability. Instead of Flurry of Blows you get the Ki Defense ability. You get either Ki Strike or Ki Rush at level 1 for free.

Stances: You may choose between Strength and Wisdom as your key ability. Instead of Flurry of Blows, you get the Meditative Strike ability. You may choose any level 1 Stance as a free feat.

Ki Defense (1 action)
(Requirement: Unarmored and Unencumbered):
You may spend 1 action and 1 Ki point to add your Wisdom bonus to your Armor Class until the end of your next round. Each time you spend another Focus point while Ki Defense is still active, it extends the Duration of Ki Defense an additional round. You get +1 Focus point in your Focus Pool.

Meditative Strike (1 action)
(Concentrate, Flourish, Fortune):
Make an unarmed strike. You may use your Wisdom bonus instead of your Str. bonus for the attack roll if it is higher. Roll the attack twice, using the better result. This ability replaces Flurry of Blows in all feats. It only counts as a single attack for MAP.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I liked you changes so much Rainzax, I've replaced my own with yours. I thought I'd show you mu new Research field as well, with changes to make it more in line with your own changes.

New Research Field: Toxicologist: You get Antidote and one level 1 poison in your formula book for free. You get the Poison Resistance feat for free.

I also made another change for all alchemists: The Alchemist’s tools includes a free Formula book in it’s cost and weight, and every Alchemist gets the whole tool kit for free instead of just the free book.

That should help with the Alchemist's bulk problem.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would the Chirurgeon start with a Lesser Elixir of Life? That is a 5th level item. Life has different scaling than the others, he should start with the Minor Elixir of Life, a level 1 item.

Other than that, I like the changes.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
I know the demo is not sanctioned for PFS at this time. Pathfinder Society Scenario #1-00: Origin of the Open Road is designed for level 5 pregenerated characters and available as a free download. Three more entry level PFS Scenarios and one Quest have been released. There are two more Scenarios and a Quest coming at the end of the month. You should be able to find all of those here. All these should be useful at stores.

I just clicked on the link you provided and it says $4.99, not free.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So here are my changes so far for P2. They cover a wide range of topics, from fixing the Alchemist's Research Fields (including adding a new one: Toxicologist), to adding a General feat for multiclassing, to fixes for lots of spells, and a new Condition: Entangled. I also included the Errata that we know about so far at the end, so you have 1 source for all the changes from the core book. This is version 1.0, and I plan to update it as needed. I welcome any feedback and questions about why I made the changes that I did, or suggestions for more changes, or concerns for the ramifications of these changes.

Samurai's Pathfinder 2E Changes

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rather than tracking everyone's initiative to see if you beat enemy 1 by 10 or more so he is flat-footed to you, but you didn't beat enemy 2 by as much so he is not flat-footed to you, my house rule simply says "If on an initiative roll you get a natural 20, all enemies are flat-footed to you in round 1."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:

Does anyone else think that Pathfinder second edition should have gone with the D&D 5e method of spell preparation?

For those of you that don't know, prepared spell casters get to prepare a number of spells, and then can spend a spell slot to cast any appropriately leveled spell. So instead of preparing three magic missiles, you just need to have magic missile prepared today to be able to spend spell slots to cast it.

I think this would have helped people who are coming over from 5e, as well as give prepared casters a little utility after the decrease in spell slots. What does everyone else think?

I've made changes to P2 spellcasting bringing it closer to 5e and P1 I think.

Prepared Spell-casters vs Spontaneous Spell-caster: Spontaneous casters have a Spell Repertoire and those are the only spells they know. However, they can Heighten them freely, casting them using any spell slot that they have available, raising them to the highest level they can cast or lowering them to the base level of the spell. In effect, every one of their spells acts as a Signature Spell by the book’s definition.

In contrast, Prepared casters must prepare the spell in the higher slot if they wish to Heighten it. However, they do not need to learn it multiple times. If they have the spell in their spellbook or from their deity, they have access to prepare it at any spell level they have slots for. If a high level Wizard has only prepared Magic Missile in a 1st level spell slot, he can only cast it as a 1st level spell. The benefit of Prepared casters is that they can change their spells prepared each day.

In effect, when a Spontaneous caster casts a spell, mark off the slot used, but they retain the spell to use again as long as they have slots to spend. When a Prepared caster casts a spell, mark off the spell. It can't be cast again until it is prepared again (unless they prepared multiple versions or copies of the same spell).

Bard and Sorcerer: Signature Spell: Since Spontaneous casters effectively count all their spells as Signature Spells, replace this ability with an additional Class feat of 1st or 2nd level

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
i'm more or less just upset that this happened to goblins and not kobolds. :/
Kobolds are one of the ancestries being added in the Advanced Player's Guide.
Gencon Highlights blog wrote:
That last one will be a 256-page hardcover with four new classes (Investigator, Oracle, Swashbuckler, and Witch), ten ancestries and heritages (Aasimar, Catfolk, Changeling, Dhampir, Duskwalker, Kobold, Orc, Ratfolk, Tengu, and Tiefling), and tons of archetypes, general feats, spells, and magic items.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a great time creating a 2E Druid today. I wasn't able to do everything I wanted at 1st level, but I'm hoping that if I ever get to play her and gain a few levels, I will. I was also surprised to learn that Druids no longer have to have "Neutral" in their alignment!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a crazy idea: What if every character got an Archetype for free? At 2nd level choose which archetype you want, and you get 1 munti-class feat at each of the listed levels. These are not in place of your own class feats, but in addition to them. If there are 2 archetype feats, you can choose 1 for free, and if you want, you can choose the other one in place of your class feat that level.

This would give characters a lot more options, and it would restore some of the things they used to get for free back in 1E, such as a Ranger that has a Druid archetype, thus getting a slow primal spell progression. But he doesn't need to choose Druid, he could choose to multi with Fighter to get more options in combat. A Champion could multi with Cleric to restore the slow divine spell casting he once enjoyed. A Rogue could multi with a Wizard or Sorcerer to get the old arcane trickster feel. An Alchemist who wants to focus on Bestial mutagens could choose a Fighter or Monk archetype.

In effect, you get to choose 2 classes for your characters, 1st at 1st level (their main class) and 1 at 2nd level, their archetype.

What do you think?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syries wrote:

I was under the impression that the Shield spell only gives you the Shield Block reaction if you actually had the Shield Block feat. I guess I was wrong there. Neat.

Well I guess it'll be a wooden shield for me, teetering on the edge of encumbrance until I get Hefty Hauler. +2 ac vs +1 is pretty good anyway.

Still, Energized Font seems to be unavailable for anyone in this case, because I haven't found anything that indicates a Focus Power is tied to a tradition. I'm still changing my Heritage to something else and picking up a primal innate cantrip, just in case. Until I hear an official ruling stating otherwise I'll just keep planning on taking Energizing Font.

You should check out the Backpacks thread for questions about Encumbrance and Bulk. It is my assumption that they forgot to mention the way backpacks, sheaths, bags, and bandoliers help reduce Bulk to manageable levels. Hefty Hauler should be for the rare case of someone who really wants to carry a ton of stuff, not a practical necessity for many starting characters.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It looks great, but I already found 1 small mistake. I plan to play a Champion, so I was looking over that class. The 19th level feat "Heroes Defiance" has a clickable link, but it takes you to "Lay on Hands".

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Breithauptclan is right, a whole lot has changed. There are still humans, elves and dwarves, and there are still Wizards, Rogues, Clerics, and Fighters, but most of the system is entirely different. How you get skills and feats, how you get hit points, how you improve saves and AC, magic items, spells, and much, MUCH more. Basically, the 1E tried to continue and retain compatibility with 3.5. Because of that lots of people called it D&D 3.75. This is what would happen when the Paizo staff decides to create their own system with the math and features from the ground up but retaining many of the basic elements that they liked, but changing them in new ways. It is a whole new game, not compatible with the math from 3.5 or 1E.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Oh boy, it's really good. Cannot wait.

The Befriend a Local activity rule is a great idea and should be used in the wider game. It lets a PC interact with an NPC using mutual skills, rather than just Diplomacy. Thus a low-cha Wizard doesn't need to use Diplomacy to make friends at the university, he can use his Arcane skill, to talk to other nerds, that is their interest. Similarly, a gruff Ranger can go into the woods with a local guide, they can hug trees or whatever these types like to do and become friends based on the PC's Survival check. An excellent rule.

That sounds like it should be in the main rulebook it is so important...

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Table 3–11: Druid Spells per Day (p. 312) has 4 cantrips on all levels. According to the text for primal spellcasting on page 130, this should most likely be 5 cantrips at all levels, just as with the other prepared spellcasters, the cleric and the wizard.

Is there any version of the D&D 5E cantrip "Druidcraft" in PF2E? Here is what it does, if you don't know it:

Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous

Whispering to the spirits of nature, you create one of the following effects within range:
** You create a tiny, harmless sensory effect that predicts what the weather will be at your location for the next 24 hours. The effect might manifest as a golden orb for clear skies, a cloud for rain, falling snowflakes for snow, and so on. This effect persists for 1 round.
** You instantly make a flower blossom, a seed pod open, or a leaf bud bloom.
** You create an instantaneous, harmless sensory effect, such as falling leaves, a puff of wind, the sound of a small animal, or the faint odor of skunk. The effect must fit in a 5-foot cube.
** You instantly light or snuff out a candle, a torch, or a small campfire.

It is a Druidic kind of Prestidigitation. If there is such a spell in PF2E, I think I'd give it to every Druid automatically and let them choose an additional 4 more cantrips as they want.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Here is a different kind of question: My group are PF1E diehards, but they said they might be willing to give 2E a 1-session try. Which do you think would be a better adventure to run: Fall of Plaguestone or Hellknight Hill, or just create my own scenario? It says Plaguestone is made for new characters and GM's, but how so? Does it have more advice than Hellknight Hill? The thing that turns me off a little bit is the mention of "mutant animals" in the adventure, I don't want the players to think it is a Gamma World game or that such things are now common in Golarion… I ordered the Core rules and Bestiary but neither adventure, so do you recommend one over the other and can you tell me more about what the first session of each is like? Thanks.

Probably neither as there is only so much that can be covered in one session. Both are meant to cover level 1-4 so you will only be a fraction

Apparently plaguestone has loads of RP elements so you could potentially have a large amount of the session with no real test of the new system

Surely best to wait for one of the PFS scenarios that will actually fit in one session?

Thanks. Or I might just create my own scenario

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
I'm so glad the character sheets aren't horizontal like the playtest!

I don't care about vertical vs horizontal, I just need a Form-fillable sheet since I can't read my own handwriting very well after my stroke last year, so until they release a form-fillable sheet, I'll need to keep using the one from the playtest.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I like the post from the guy who said the people who say PF2 is copying off of 4E should have a debate with the people who say PF2 is copying off of 5E.

Obviously copying off of 4E would be a terrible idea. Since, even its publishers abandoned it after only a few years.
I feel like PF2 will be... PF2.

Yep, and I wonder how many 5E players will move over to it as well, not because 5E is bad (it isn't, it's the best edition of D&D in many years), but because Pathfinder has a lot more character customization. Most classes in 5E only get a feat every 4 levels, and most classes have several fairly dead levels. When players see just how much customization Pathfinder allows, I think for some players it will be a revelation.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Folks, the sheets will be coming very soon, just waiting for a few last minute things before we put them up here on the site. As a note, I do not think we have set aside the time to make a form-fillable sheet just yet. I will make sure that gets bumped up on the to-do list.

Thank you Jason! My handwriting has become almost illegible since my stroke last year, and even I have trouble reading what I wrote. But I still love to play RPGs, I'm just having to find new ways of doing some things.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, add me to the lists asking for an editable pdf character sheet. Ever since my stroke last year I have a hard time writing, so I only use editable character sheets for all my games, and I'd love to see how much has changed from the playtest sheet.

Also, I too was being redirected to the main page when I clicked on a topic, and I emailed the webmaster about it as well. Looks like they have fixed that part.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I plan to buy both the new 5e books and keep buying Pathfinder books. There's no reason it has to be "one or the other", and I bet many others will do the same.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)

The hard cap on stats is very important because Bounded Accuracy means enemy AC's, attack bonuses, saves, etc never get stupidly high like in previous editions of D&D. Everything in the game, from the balance of light armor vs heavy armor to monsters to skill DCs rests on the assumption that PCs won't have a super-high score in any single key stat (like Dex or their casting stat). They then give you several opportunities for large stat increases as you level up (gaining as many as 14 stat points for a Fighter by lvl 20), secure in the knowledge that even with +14 stat points, they'll either need to be spread around to less important stats once your key stat is quickly maxed out, or you'll exchange them for feats. If you remove the cap and you can hit 30+ in your key stat, it completely throws everything off balance, and then there will be complaints about how light armor is way better than heavy armor and how ACs are too low on monsters, etc.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
For the level a which you routinely keep a breath of life scroll at hand you can have a handy haversack, so retrieving your stuff as a move action is again possible.

Yes, I was refering to the spring loaded sort. I just think its too cool of an item not to have. The haversack on the other hand, is something my dms have always ruled is affected by the Curse.

That said, if i had the power to use my spring loaded wrist sheat to shoot items 10 feet away, I'd probably ask my DM to let me use it as a cursed cannon. Because why not.

Because it's 10' in a random direction and you're as likely to hit allies as enemies unless you are completely surrounded by enemies?

I wonder just how forceful the movement is? Imagine if you ARE surrounded by enemies, so you pull out your bag of caltrops and empty it onto the floor... instant 10' r. shrapnel bomb! :)

Sovereign Court

51 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

I was going to title this "James Jacobs, you're wrecking my character!" because sensationalism draws attention! :)

Most forum goers seem to agree with me that the Oracle's Haunted curse names a specific action, "retrieving a stored item", which is listed on the Action table (Move Action, draws an AoO). Drawing a weapon is specified as a separate action in the rules, unless the weapon is stored away in a pack, and only in that case is it treated as retrieving a stored item. So, pulling out a potion, scroll, wand, rod, sunstone/torch, most unslotted magic items, rope, etc would all be hindered, but drawing your weapon usually would not be.

However, James mentioned in a couple posts that in his opinion, "retrieving a stored item" included weapons. My GM is pointing to that (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=308?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#15397) as evidence for a broader interpretation of the curse. I feel that if Paizo meant for drawing a weapon to be included, they would have written "When you draw a weapon or retrieve a stored item, it takes a standard action." And since my Oracle, like most Oracles, only has access to Simple weapons, she uses javelins as her only ranged attack option, and this rule would ruin that, not to mention it taking a standard action every time she picks up her staff.

This question has been hotly debated on the forums for a while (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nug3?Haunted-archer-Oracle-question#6 , http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mqn4?Haunted-Oracles-quiver#6 , http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mmf6?Haunted-Curse , http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b2?Oracle-witch-multiclassing-win#25 ) among others, but aside from definitively stating that spell components were never meant to be included, I don't think Paizo has laid the question to rest officially.

Does the Haunted Curse also affect weapons that are not stored away and can normally be drawn as part of a move action, or does "Retrieve a stored item" refer specifically to the action on the Action Table, "Retrieving a stored item" and not include weapons?

Thanks!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Well, to be fair, there is a fairly large segment of the left, especially in universities and social justice circles, that do define "=isms" as only possible against minorities and "oppressed groups", and that it is literally impossible against whites, males, etc. So she's correct that there is a different definition for it within that circle, which is why I said "different" rather than "wrong", even though it's not a definition I agree with. The battle for the meaning of words and their proper usage is one that has been going on a long time.

Who makes up the vast majority of Congress? White Males.

Who makes up the vast majority of upper level corporate echelon in America? White Males.

Who makes up the vast majority of the military, judiciary, police force, and local elected officials still? White Males.

All other factors being equal who's more likely to be paid more?

It's really hard to be the discriminated party when you're still holding the bulk of the power cards. The white male power base may be in decline as far as sheer population numbers go, but they still got most of the keys to the kingdom.

Who makes up the vast majority of the 25 "worst jobs in America", the toughest, most dangerous, smelliest jobs? 85% are performed by men, but I don't see many women demanding an end to the glass cellar.

On a related note, who makes up 93% of all workplace deaths? Men.

Who makes up the vast majority of homeless? Men.

Who commits 80% of all suicides? Men.

Morale: Just because some other people with the same gender as you are rich, famous, or powerful doesn't mean a thing to all the other men out there, the ones working as garbage collectors, sewer workers, plumbers, farmers, etc.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Samurai wrote:
As to "if X outcome happens, is that opportunity or outcome", the question answers itself... it's outcome. Opportunity doesn't care about outcomes, those are up to individuals, it looks at opportunity. If "no females/males/blacks/whites/Irish/whatever need apply", because they won't even be considered if they do, that's unequal opportunity.

But if they're all allowed to apply, then the manager making the decision is biased in favor of one group, but doesn't admit to it, which leads to unequal outcomes, what's that?

Outcome, since that's all we can see? And therefore not something to be worried about.

Or opportunity, even though we don't know why?

What if the company just doesn't promote or hire a certain group past a given level in their management structure? As long as they don't have a policy stating that and don't admit it publicly, is there anyway to tell other than looking at outcomes?

"No X need apply" is functionally no different from taking the application and tossing it in the trash as soon as they leave, or not giving it any consideration but leaving it in the stack. In promotions, it's usually possible to tell whether a better candidate was passed over for a less qualified one. In that case, the other applicant should file a complaint and the person who chose the less qualified applicant should explain their reasoning. In cases where the applicants are very close, it'll be hard to prove, but in cases where a clearly better candidate is passed over, it won't be as hard.

Note that this should apply to places hiring or promoting significantly less qualified minorities and women over whites and men too, not just the other way around. It should be the same for all, and you should be able to defend your choice on merits alone, not "because we wanted a male/female/person of color in that job".

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
pres man wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Which depends, because tests can be designed in such a way that whites, or males, will be guaranteed a higher score on the test. Then, I would argue, it is once again an opportunity and not outcome issue.
The racism of the peanut-butter & jelly sandwich, perhaps?
You respond sarcasticly, but it is well documented and is currently being intensely studied by standardized test companies so that they can try to control for it.

Whether it's Barbie leaving her dream house in Malibu and traveling 100mph for 40 minutes, or a big train leaving the depot going 100mph for 40 minutes, people should be able to look past the trappings to the math problem underneath. :)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Of course, we live in entirely post racism, post sexism society. All forms of systemic discrimination ended decades ago with the Civil Rights movement, which was mostly unnecessary and probably unconstitutional anyway. Any problems minorities or women still have are entirely their own fault or their imagination. </snark>

Frankly, I don't have the time for this. I just failed my will save (or maybe an intelligence check) and couldn't resist responding to that post.

It should be noted your issues (discrimination in hiring for example) is opportunity issue, not outcome issue.

Let's say only whites were allowed to take a test that was used for advancement and pay raises. That is much different than everyone being allowed to take the test and whites being proportionally more successful or possibly no non-whites passing.

Which is why I asked how it was being measured. If you only use outcome to measure, you can't always judge accurately if there was true equality of opportunity.

<I need to buy up my will saves>

Sadly, most of the time employment and promotion aren't based on the results of objective tests, but on subjective impressions at interviews or from applications/resumes/etc.

There have been successful lawsuits on hiring/promotion discrimination, which is brutally hard to prove unless someone is told "We didn't hire you because you're a X" or there is a policy promoting that. All you can do is look at broad patterns. If women with equal records and experience are promoted less often than men, is that opportunity or outcome?

There have been studies where minorities with the same resumes were less likely to be hired or resumes or applications with stereotypical minority names were less likely to be interviewed.

I've been told to my face that while I was well qualified for a job and they wanted to hire me, they needed an Asian person to fill that slot. But I guess that's ok.

As to "if X outcome happens, is that opportunity or outcome", the question answers itself... it's outcome. Opportunity doesn't care about outcomes, those are up to individuals, it looks at opportunity. If "no females/males/blacks/whites/Irish/whatever need apply", because they won't even be considered if they do, that's unequal opportunity.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A very interesting rebuttal to Damsels in Distress that points out many things Anita left out

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting back to the OP:

Lord Fyre wrote:


  • If change is not inevitable, then what are they worried about?
  • If change is going to come, would it not be better to be honest about what one wants in order to try to influence that change. They might very well be shocked that even most feminists would not be automatically hostile to their viewpoint.
  • IMO, change of SOME kind is inevitable... nothing stays the same forever in human sociological relations and culture. But just what that change is can be manipulated and altered. And that is where the battle is, over what changes there will be, how they'll be implemented, etc. Every "Rights" group out there believes that, or else they wouldn't be fighting for change they'd kick back and let the inevitable happen.

    In the case of feminism, I feel that it has left men in the dust, sometimes purposefully so because it benefited them, sometimes to get back at "the evil patriarchy", and sometimes because it simply wasn't what they cared about. It's time for men to take a stand and start demanding rights of our own, from schooling methods to reproductive rights, fairness in divorces to the way husbands and fathers are often portrayed in media (as incompetent fools that need to be taught a lesson each week by their more intelligent wives).

    Sovereign Court

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Nymian Harthing wrote:
    Darklord Morius wrote:
    Men have their own problems, society is merciless with males, but do not try to mitigate women's problems.
    Yes, please! Both sexes have some real issues they struggle with, and neither side's issues should be marginalized. (I do have to idly wonder though how often males consider crossing the street because a possibly threatening-looking group of women are approaching on the same stretch of sidewalk.)

    And I wonder how often women fear hugging, tickling, or playing with their kids/nephews/nieces in public lest they be called a child molester and the police are called.

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    pres man wrote:

    I have no idea why someone would threaten anyone in that fashion.

    As to the video produced, I wasn't overly impressed. The big issue is that women aren't often the main hero. Complaining that a woman NPC doesn't escape on her own is a stupid issue, given that male NPC don't escape on their own. If they did, that would be basically programmer masturbation. Sort of like when a GM just runs adventures for the NPCs and ignores the PCs.

    No the issue is that the main characters tend to be male and it is the main character that does things. So while the result is [some] males escape and females don't, that has more to do with the narrative of the main character then the gender.

    Now why are most main characters male. I would say it had to do with the initial demographics involved, influence of fairy tales and myths, etc. Hopefully, we have seen as time goes on more men are quite willing to play female characters and game designers are more willing to have them. Are we ever going to see a "dude in distress" become a common trope where the heroine saves a guy who falls into her arms. Doubtful. Even the most militant feminists of heterosexual women would not probably find that interesting.

    Also, nearly all her examples were from the '80's and 90's, and many were from Japan, an entirely different country with its own values. Many more modern games allow customizable playable heroes, usually both male and female. I always play a female hero when given a choice, and it's rare to find an RPG, MMO, or shooter that doesn't give a choice.

    Sovereign Court

    20 people marked this as a favorite.

    I really think you need to separate Anita Sarkeesian from the question. She basically said "Some women in video games have boobs and look sexy, so give me money." And when that didn't get her enough money, she baited some trolls and they rose to the occasion (if they were even real trolls at all and not just friends/allies of hers posing as trolls to help her make her point...). Then it became "Some women in video games have boobs and look sexy, and some people on the internet were mean to me, so give me money." And lo, that did the trick.

    So, cutting her scam out of the question leaves us with "are men worried about losing power?" First, men have lost a huge amount of power, and have been for decades. Men have absolutely no reproductive rights, for example, only responsibilities. Women can choose whether to have an abortion or not, whether to give the baby up for adoption or not, even whether to simply drop it off at a hospital, no questions asked (which was done to try and stop them from leaving babies in dumpsters). Choice after choice, and the law supports every one of them, whichever way she decides. Men have no choices. And if she keeps the child, he's on the hook for up to 60% of his income for the next 18 years, with no choice in the matter. And there are not even reasonable exclusions to this... there have been multiple cases where much older women raped an underage boy, got pregnant, and the victim was forced to them pay child support to his rapist for 2 decades. Or where women have lied about using birth control, or even stole a used condom and impregnated herself with it, he still must pay. A sperm donor for a lesbian couple was forced to pay. And the laws says that once you've been named the father you must continue to pay, even if later DNA tests PROVE the kid isn't yours, and the mother admits she lied, it doesn't matter, the man must still pay! And visitation rights for fathers are almost never enforced, not like support payments are anyway. Oh yeah, lotta "privilege" there.

    Women are graduating from all levels of school at higher rates than men. Young, childless women earn significantly more than their male counterparts. The whole "women earn less" myth has been debunked and shown to be a matter of choices, such as men work far more overtime than women, and do more dangerous jobs. 93% of all workplace fatalities are men.

    Women receive far less jail time (even none at all) compared to men charged with identical crimes.

    90% of the homeless are men. If women lose their home there are many shelters and places for them to stay, but men are not allowed in most of them. In fact, if a woman in a shelter has a son that is 18, he's not allowed to stay there with her, even if he lived in her home before... he must go live in the streets or find somewhere else. Daughters are allowed to stay no matter their age, of course. The vast majority of domestic violence shelters also don't allow men to stay, even if they were the victim of domestic violence from an abusive spouse (and studies show half of all domestic violence is committed by women).

    Women have massive advantages and preferences in divorce cases, as everyone knows.

    I could go on and on and on with more examples, but if you are interested, I suggest looking up Men's Rights.

    So, when someone with all these advantages and more, living in one of the wealthiest and most free countries in the world complains about how very, very terrible things are, and blames all men as some conglomerate "patriarchy", as if the very few rich men on top cared 1 bit about the vast majority of poor men on the bottom, men can get a little angry sometimes. They might be living with their parents because half their wages are being garnished to pay for a kid they are not allowed to see, are passed over for jobs and promotions because they are a male, are shown to be idiots and fools compared to women in most TV shows and commercials (just watch, when you look for that, you'll see it everywhere!), and then some woman wants to stop him from even being able to enjoy video games with good-looking women in them? The vast, vast majority of men have already lost their power, and are still losing more and more of it. And that is not a good thing, no matter what some may think.

    Sovereign Court

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Lilith wrote:

    1.) I'm here to game first. That is my priority when I sit down to game—everything else is secondary.

    2.) If you're going to flirt with me, or ask me out, or do anything besides game, do it AFTER game, or during breaks, or whatever. Not during game. (Seriously, GMs have a hard enough time keeping everybody focused—I know I do when I GM...)

    For everybody, don't jump to conclusions... Just because somebody holds the door open for you doesn't mean they're trying to get in your pants (they might be trying to be polite), nor does asking to spend time with you outside of game mean they want to have a Serious Relationship. They could just want waffles at Denny's.

    I agree with all that, and offer a suggestion. If some guy does start making advances toward you during the game, just tell him, "I'd like to concentrate on the game right now, but how about we talk more afterwards?" Most guys would respect that.

    Sovereign Court

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    I think the point the OP is trying to make is this:

    Let's say a male is paying a lot of attention to a woman, complementing her (perhaps a little too much?), asking about her interests and whether she's seeing anyone, and basically making it known that he's really attracted to her.

    If that male looks like Brad Pitt or a GQ model, the woman will be flattered by the attention, whether she actually goes out with him or not.

    If the male looks like Danny DeVito, she will be creeped out by it.

    The same thing goes in reverse if a woman is hitting on a guy. If she's a gorgeous model, the guy will be flattered, even if he turns her down. If she looks like Roseanne Barr, he'll be creeped out by it.

    I and many, many other people have seen this at play numerous times in our lives, it's no use denying that it is a factor. The beautiful people can give some cheesy pick-up line and that will just get a smile and start a conversation, while an uglier person giving the same line elicits a "Eeww, get away from me!"

    That said, perhaps that isn't what should be focused on for a "behavior at the game table" kind of thread.

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I answered it far back in the thread, when this first came up. I believe in equal treatment. If some white players said they felt uncomfortable having a person of another race play with them, I'd suggest they learn to play together and just treat them as any other player. I would not be happy with a "whites only table" and a "non-whites table." If a bunch of guys wanted to exclude a female player, I'd be opposed to that. If a group wanted to oppose playing with a player for their religion, or sexuality, or whatever, I'd be opposed to that.

    So WHY, when either some female players say they don't want to play with male players, or if some organizers were to suggest women shouldn't play alongside the men, should I happily embrace that? It's logically inconsistent to do so. They are stereotyping the unknown male players based upon their gender, something the male players can't help. I understand that they may have had some bad experiences from some male players in the past, but unless it was THESE specific males, it's not relevant, any more than if the whites said they were uncomfortable with the black player because other young black men had mugged them in the past. That's terrible, I'm sorry it happened, but was this black gamer the mugger? No? Then you are excluding him merely for his gender and skin color, and that's wrong.

    Like I said before, if the powers that be decide to start excluding people from games because someone at the table has a problem with "their kind", well, I can only voice my dissent and stand up for what I believe to be right. They'll go ahead and do what they want to do regardless, I'm sure. But would you be as supportive of any of those other cases, I wonder? If not, why not, and what makes this so very different in your mind?

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
    Ahhh I see that now, my apologies for mis-understanding the stance you were taking.

    NP. My point has always been "treat women as equals at the table, not as some strange creature that needs special attention, care, or even segregation". I don't think most female gamers want to be seen as FEMALE gamers, but rather as female GAMERS, or better yet, just gamers. If they are new to the game or new to GMing, teach and advise them like you would anyone else that is new. If they are experienced at the game, respect that experience the same as you would anyone else's. Bring more gamers of all kinds into the hobby, including female gamers, but don't include them by excluding everyone else.

    Some have characterized this as "denying there's a problem" but I don't see it that way... I think treating female gamers differently IS the problem. Treating them like a piece of meat, or like a child, or like she's invisible, or like she's extra-special, or she needs to be sheltered, or myriad other ways in which she isn't just "one of the people playing a game with us", she's 'different'.

    But like I said, that's just my opinion.

    Sovereign Court

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Wow, long list of ideas there Neil! I think some of them would be quite helpful. I'll add another as well:

    I for one enjoy watching videos of games being played, like the "Celebrity D&D" or "Acquisitions Inc". What if Paizo put something like that together (or anyone else for that matter) and had 50% female players? That would be a visible way of showing "Hey, women play this game too", and I think both men and women could enjoy watching it. It might be helpful for any new gamer to be able to see the game being played.

    Sovereign Court

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    StrangePackage wrote:

    We all have varying degrees of experience in playing games, running games, introducing new people to games, and being the new people at games. No one is trying to diminish your experience or the potential value it may have.

    But in your 20 years of gaming, and your years of 4e encounters, I can guarantee that you've never had the experience of being a female gamer. Neither have I.

    Since you lack that perspective, and the question at hand is what can be done to make a more welcoming environment for female gamers, why do you demand so adamantly that your opinion be given equal weight to the stated opinions of people who actually know from their own experiences what they would like best?

    Would you demand your medical opinion be given equal weight to your doctor's, or would you defer to his years of experience in the medical field? What about your legal opinion, as compared to your lawyer? We have certified expert females on this board who are trying to offer their perspectives, and are being shouted down and counter-manded by people who, while they have undeniable experience, lack the critical experience and perspective to the question at hand.

    Why can't you just set back and take them at their word as to what they want and what they think may be best for others in their situation? Do you really think you know better what it's like to be them than they do?

    32 years of experience gaming, not 20. I started playing in 1981 with the Erol Otis cover basic set.

    If we are talking about getting new players into the game, then I and many others here do have relevant experience. It's only if you believe women are such extraordinary, unique, and unfathomable creatures as to need special segregated groups and playing areas and incentives that it might not be relevant.

    Tell me this... if there were a discussion on how boys are getting into video games more than role-playing, and how we might best get boys to join the hobby, and a woman with decades of gaming experience offered her perspective, would you say "Hey, hold on a minute, you may have years of experience as a female gamer, but you've never been a boy, you can't understand boys, and so your thoughts and ideas are irrelevant. Let the men speak, they've been boys, they know what they are talking about!" Heck no you wouldn't, right?

    If whites wanted a whites-only public game, and said they just didn't feel comfortable playing with players of other races, would you support that? Again, I don't think so.

    Look, I'm just 1 guy on the internet voicing my opinion. If Paizo or a con wants to do a women's only game, they will, no matter what I say to the contrary. I'm not stopping anyone from anything, I'm just offering my opinions, they can take 'em or leave 'em.

    Sovereign Court

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Alice Margatroid wrote:
    Samurai wrote:
    Are only women allowed to play/attend? If so, and you are fine with that, I assume you'd also be fine with a "men's night" that excluded all female gamers? Or would that be unfair and exclusionary?

    Really? This argument? *facepalm*

    Firstly, the default for gaming is already very often exclusionary to women. Men don't need to have their own "men's club" because their gender is already the default assumption.

    Secondly, the women's night kind of thing is fundamentally not about you. It's about the women. It's about making them feel comfortable and not feel like the odd one out. If you, as a man, feel uncomfortable playing in what is already a male-dominated activity, it most likely has nothing to do with your gender and is related to something else. In which case a "men's night" doesn't solve anything and is just exclusionary for no reason.

    Thirdly, what reason would you need a men's only game? The women's game (if it is indeed women only, which I am not sure of) has a clear purpose: create a comfortable atmosphere for women to be exposed to gaming without the usual threat of sexism and so forth.

    A women's only game is not about you. I repeat: IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU. It is about giving women a bit of a help in an area that is somewhat stacked against them. It is not about disadvantaging you in any way, shape, or form.

    Note: Not referring to games where all players are men, like what earlier posters talked about. Seriously, I don't care if that's what you do with your mates, go right ahead. This is more of an open to the public kind of thing.

    It's "not about me" in the same way a male-only golf club or military academy isn't about women. Sorry ladies, but if you are going to kick in the doors of every single men's institution and group, demanding membership and forcing your way in simply because its there even when "it's not about you", then equality means the same right back. "Female-only" public game sessions are sexist and exclusionary. If someone wants to do that in their own home, then like you said, that's their home, their right to choose. But don't bring that into the public sphere. And it also fosters misandry and double standards by saying a woman should always be allowed to join a men's game group (and the men should change to accommodate her presence, which is what this thread was about) but men should not be able to join a woman's game group at all.

    In my 32 years of gaming experience, gamers tend to be pretty good people overall. They are imaginative, creative, and desirous of social interaction. Many (including me) were labeled "geeks" and "nerds" in school and didn't have all the socialization the more popular kids got, but the vast majority are well-meaning and harmless even if they can be inept at times. All these stereotypes of "creeps" and being frightened of even having a male at the game table just doesn't match with my experience at all, and I've been in hundreds of games with women over the years. There are some jerks out there, as there are in all walks of life, but you can't let a few bad apples dictate your responses to entire categories of people, like "male gamers".

    Like I said before, just as men need to drop their stereotypes of female gamers and treat each woman as an individual, so too must women drop their stereotypes of male gamers. Just get in there and play, hold your own, and earn the respect you want with great ideas, heroic actions, crafty solutions to puzzles and traps, and intelligent roleplaying. If you do, I'm positive the vast majority of game groups will accept you as an equal and valued member of the group, just as they would a new male player who eventually earns his stripes. And the few groups that won't do that, whether you are male or female, dump them and find a better group.

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Quote:

    Epic Meepo (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16), Yesterday, 02:29 PM

    Bobson wrote:

    This actually made me think: There's a whole bunch of alternate racial traits that can be taken to modify your race. Someone should go price them out according to this new system and compare them to the prices of the traits they replace. How much of a range does that produce for each race?

    Many of the alternate racial traits from the APG are already in the playtest document in one form or another, and most of the rest are fairly balanced against the abilities they replace, and thus wouldn't affect a race's RP value.

    However, a few racial traits in the APG are worth noting:

    Dwarves can trade hardy (supposedly 1 RP) for magic resistant, which is nearly as good as lesser spell resistance (2 RP).
    Elves have an option trading elven magic (2 RP) for hatred (1 RP), suggesting that various elf builds have different RP values.
    Halflings can trade two skill bonuses (supposedly worth 4 RP) for warslinger, which is arguably worth 2 RP at most.

    So the APG suggests that hardy is underpriced, skill bonus is overpriced, and not all variants of core races have the same RP values, possibly varying by a point or two.

    This is an excellent point, and it shows what abilities Paizo feels are approximately equal before any artificial numbers are placed on them. It means that even if the normal core races were artificially made to be worth 10 points each, the already-published racial ability substitutions don't always work out to the same value. This is just more reason why giving a range of values for the races rather than 1 fixed number is better, as is pricing abilities by their actual worth rather than how many more points are needed to get a race to 10 points.

    Sovereign Court

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Here are my suggestions:

    1) Build the system with as accurate prices for abilities as possible, ignoring the PF core book races for the moment.

    2) Use the system you built to price out the core book races in a range, rather than forcing them to be 10 each. If it comes out to a range of 8-12, that's fine, just state that other races created in the 8-12 range should balance against the PC races.

    3) Then use your rules to build new versions/subraces of the races that all balance out to exactly the same amount. If you decide that you want a set of 10 point races, offer "Hairfoot Halflings" that get a few additional abilities from Core Halflings to get them up to 10 points, and offer "Hill Dwarves" that maybe shave off a few abilities like stone-cunning so they are 10 points too. You might even replace some abilities for others because the design system might include choices that weren't considered when the core book was made.

    This really is the best of both worlds... a truly accurate pricing system for races rather than one that is forced to bend and twist into existing races, and new subraces that then give an option for DMs and players to play more balanced versions of the races if they'd like (and the subraces can exist right alongside the Core versions in the world, they don't necessarily need to replace them.)