Sieglord's page

@Siegelord

Re: Highpowered heroes as examples.

And Captain America, (all of them) the Black Widow, Batman, Mockingbird Nightwing, Hawkeye, Red Robin, etc. are all doable in E6, (IIRC) does that make them less 'super-heroes'?

Heck Beast Boy and Reptil basically 'just' have Druid Wild Shape. Eric and Kevin Masterson (along with any character who's name ends in 'Lantern') are essentially mortals empowered by an artifact, etc. Are they less 'super-heroes'?

Heck, if you use Superboy (Kon-el, not the reboot one) as a baseline, his only 'power' initially was telekinesis. He used goggles (a magic item) to duplicate some of Kal-el's other powers.

The comic industry says 'yes, they are super heroes'.

You're missing the point. I was attempting to illustrate that while there are some similarities (especially on the lower end of the power-scale, as you've pointed out) between the two, that in no way at all makes Pathfinder a "4-colour" game, or even makes it closely resemble one. While some of the things in the "4-colour" milieu might be able to reproduced in a Pathfinder setting, the Pathfinder setting (or any other "traditional" fantasy setting), the important end of the power scale remains completely out of reach to even the gods.

...and while, yes, every character whose name ends in "Lantern" is a basic human powered by an artifact, it is worth pointing out that that artifact gives that character more power than absolutely every single demon prince of the Abyss, and absolutely every single duke of Hell, COMBINED (unless, of course, they are willing to let Ming-Ming do their fighting for them....). Again, it gets back to scale...there is a power level to the "4-colour" milieu that cannot be matched in a fantasy setting. Even if the main characters in a comic don't possess that power themselves, the mere awareness of it fundamentally alienates the two genres...there is no legitimate comparison that can be made between the two.

Chobemaster wrote:

*shrug* If you don't see the distinction between characters w/ supernatural abilities and a Superhero RPG, I'm not interested in delving into it.

When the supernatural abilities are the exact same abilities superheroes get, you NEED to explain the distinction if you want to say it isn't a superhero game.

...but, the abilities AREN'T the same...not at all. The Hulk (and Superman, Wonderman, The Juggernaut, The Silver Surfer, etc.) all possess "Class 100" strength, meaning that (at least, in comic book milieu) each of these cats can bench press 100 TONNES.

...how many "Bull's Strength" spells is that?

Even Spider-Man...long considered "weak" (at least, in terms of comic-book strength) is capable of 10 tonnes...still well beyond anything that any chart in any Pathfinder book allows for.

"Wish" spells and the right selection of magic items CAN accomplish quite a bit; but the "4-Colour" comparison fails in light of the fact that Dr. Strange has combined dimensions together, Superman has reversed the flow of time to save his girlfriend, and The Hulk has thrown more than one MOUNTAIN (not "mountain-top"...but the whole damn MOUNTAIN) at his enemies.

It would be useful, for further discussions, to cease thinking of "4-Colour" comic book super-heroes as fantasy analogues and to start thinking of them as "god-like"...an "American Mythology", if you will (A natural evolution, in point of fact, of stories of characters like Paul Bunyan and John Henry).

It would be equally useful to consider the concept of SCALE..yes, things can be manipulated/changed/directed/avoided...whatever...but to what degree? Jean Grey once threw a half-tonne enemy from somewhere off the west coast of Britain to somewhere in the Pyrenees Mountains (get an atlas and a ruler if you're curious)...your wizard's Telekinesis is AT BEST 375 pounds that can be moved 20 feet per round...no comparison at all.

Ring of Mind Shielding
Ring of Telekinesis
Necklace of Adaptation
Handy Haversack
Sustaining Spoon

....this is, of course, a non class-specific list, in that any character of any class would find these indispensable.

One more thing to think about (and then I'm done, I promise). Due to their much greater ability to empathize, it is perfectly rational to suppose that women might make excellent cavalry troops. Certainly, they could form a closer, stronger bond with their mount (which would lead to more effective cooperation and battlefield capability), and the problem of strength is certainly ameliorated (if not outright solved altogether) by the assistance a good warhorse can provide.

Also I would like to point out that unless you are arming all of your human armies with the axes of the Housecarls, making women stronger might actually DETRACT from their abilities as soldiers. While it is true they don't possess the same muscle mass as men, they generally have much greater sensory acuity, as well as slightly better hand-eye coordination. A phalanx of female archers supported by a formation of pike men is a fearsome opponent for any fantasy army, regardless of its composition.

Now that I have a better handle on what you are actually trying to accomplish, I guess my real question is "Why?". Why change women so they can serve in an army? Why not let women serve in armies by playing to their (considerable) strengths, rather than making them more like men?

"The issue here is that the males would also be a great deal stronger. I want to close the gender gap a bit so that having a military that is around 30-40% female is realistic."

Well, that's even easier...simply remove sexism. Real-world history has demonstrated time and again that whenever given the chance, women prove to be just as good at soldiering as men...better in some ways (women tend to instinctively cooperate and work together as a group, whereas most men have to be extensively trained...brainwashed, even, to do the same thing).

"One problem with your thoughts, the male would also be in that environment and thus working his butt off as well."

That might be true, but the OP specifically stated that her basis for comparison was a healthy, adult male from modern real life, NOT a fellow male resident of her fantasy milieu.

If we are changing the conditions of the thought exercise to comparing her strength to that of one of her male contemporaries, then it's a good thing we are dealing with a fantasy setting. Magic, the intervention of a deity, or some sort of breeding program carried out on a slave race (which would still, incidentally, lead to a vastly different-looking lady) might be able to achieve the (re)stated goal, but science and physiology can not (at least, not without resorting to genetic manipulation or cybernetic modification...both generally considered to be well beyond the bounds of a "fantasy" setting).

Then again, this is one of those areas where DM fiat would seem to work just fine. It is (presumably) the OP's own setting, and as a long-time DM myself, I have found that there are some questions/issues that are settled just fine by, "I'm the DM and I said so." (Actually, there are some that can ONLY be settled in that fashion)

Take giants, for instance. Physiologically, in the real world, a hill giant can't possibly exist (assuming they are proportioned as depicted, the hill giant in question would snap every bone in his legs every time he tried to take a step...they wouldn't have the density or tensile strength to support his weight). The point is that we just accept all sorts of things from our fantasy games without requiring explanation. If Pathfinder had tried to explain or justify the physiology of gnolls, giants, centaurs, or the jabberwock, the Beastiary books wouldn't be able to fit inside the Library of Congress, and people would think it's a worse game than F.A.T.A.L

May I suggest that instead of changing the physiology of human beings, you simply examine the world and culture a little bit?

Your stated goal is to "make the average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world a bit stronger than the average healthy young adult male of the real world"...that being said, I am working from a couple of basic assumptions here. 1) That the level of technology available to the average human being of your milieu is roughly equivalent to a standard, "medieval" fantasy setting, and that 2) While magic exists, it is not widely available to every member of the populace. Everything that I am about to say rests on those two assumptions...if they are incorrect, please correct me.

Your "average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world" is by default stronger than her real-life male counterpart because of the world she grew up in. Without electricity, running water, or various mechanical contraptions (internal combustion or steam engines, for example) to perform work for people, people will have to do all that work themselves. The real-life modern male you speak of has most likely never had to fetch 10-15 buckets of water a day from the village well...every single day for 13-15 years of his life. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that our modern man has ever needed to shoe a horse, plow a field, tend a garden, slaughter a hog, or do any of the many, many other labour intensive tasks required to sustain a common medieval subsistence. (The modern man may be doing some of those things for hobby or diversion, but the fantasy lady didn't have a choice...she HAD to do these things if she wanted to eat

Likewise, while our modern man may have better access to medical care and information regarding health and fitness, our fantasy lady has (for the most part) been eating much healthier food, and has had no exposure (or minimal exposure, at least) to the toxic by-products of modern life. In short, our fantasy lady simply grew up in an environment that is, in many ways, much healthier than our own.

In other words, her biology doesn't have to be any different...the environment she grew up in has made her physically stronger. She doesn't need more muscle than her male counterpart if she is using that muscle more than her male counterpart.

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

This brings up another question.

Does armor inhibit the dex bonus to your reflex saves.
If not, should it?

All armor has a maximum Dex bonus, yes? And so if the dex bonus is less than your total, this in turn affects your reflex save, does it not?

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

No, no, Mr. Fixit (best Hulk ever, btw). While you are absolutely right, and it SHOULD be pretty "cut and dried", you have already seen that there are those who will maintain that is is perfectly sensible to assume that while a suit of full plate armor will impede a fighter's ability to duck, dodge, weave or roll out of the path of a Scorching Ray, that same armor in no way impedes that same fighter's ability to duck, dodge, weave or roll out of the path of a Lightning Bolt.

You can ask them to convey the chain of logic that has lead them to that conclusion if you like, but I shudder at the thought of the responses you will receive (and despair even more at the state of American public education...I would weep for the future if I thought we had one).

I have always despised the Bard ("The orcish horde is overrunning the town and slaughtering the innocent orphan children...what are we going to do?" "...well, let me get out my lute and play a jaunty tune!").

I was also so very disappointed in Paizo when they just HAD to appease all of the stupid, unimaginative gaijin otaku (99.999% percent of whom have never lived in Japan and know nothing about Japanese culture beyond what they get from their hentai) by rolling out lame versions of the Samurai (as a Cavalier archetype? Really? Couldn't even do some decent research...not even spring for the Cliff's Notes?) and the Ninja.

Let me break it down for you...want to be a Samurai? Play a Lawful Nuetral Fighter who's specialized in the Bastard Sword, and who's inextricably bound to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, UP TO AND INCLUDING IMMEDIATE SUICIDE (or the slaughter of an entire building full of newborn babies) that their "daimyo" ("Lord") tells them to. There, you're a Samurai, and no new mechanics required.

Want to be a Ninja? Play a Rogue with an emphasis on the Disguise, Stealth, and Sense Motive skills who has an Asian-sounding name (no need for the fancy black suit, real shinobi never wore those, anyway). Abandon ALL emphasis on combat (a ninja who had to fight during a mission was considered an absolute failure), and there...you're a Ninja, with no new mechanics required.

The Gunslinger class was a good idea, it was just stupidly executed. Didn't really bother me, it just needed a total re-write, which was not difficult at all. Witches seemed overpowered at first, but that's only because the first person in my gaming group to play one is an incomparable genius. Looking over the rules, the class is fine, it's my player who's a dirty, conniving a$$hole...I'm actually very lucky to have that problem!

I suppose that the answer to your question ("Is summoning worth it?") depends entirely upon what you want the summoned monster to do.

If you want the monster to fight and win combat for you...well, you need a few more levels (and the Superior Summon feat). If you want a "meat shield" to stand in front of you and tie up combat while you cast other, more useful spells, then summoning is a viable tactic.

...and summoning one Ape with a Summon Monster 3 is rather silly when the same spell will get 1d3 small Earth or Fire elementals. I know...they're small, but at the level you're talking about, quantity definitely counts more than quality, anyway. Plus, consider the immunities and resistances of an elemental compared to those of an animal, and the choice becomes even more clear. Yes, it works differently than it did in 3.5, but that's an inevitable part of the changes in the system. The same thing happened when 3.0 made the transition to 3.5. Certain tactics were nerfed, and others got a boost in effectiveness.

In playing the Pathfinder incarnation, I have found summoning to be a viable and effective tactic when utilized properly. Summoners (and the Master Summoner variant, in particular) are very effective at battlefield control and battlefield manipulation when they are played to their strengths.

P.S. The Superior Summon feat cannot be over-rated in this discussion...regardless of your class. Wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, summoners, oracles and witches can all reap massive benefits from this feat. Just do the paperwork in advance...as a courtesy to your gaming group and your DM.

The short answer is : Nothing. They add nothing to the role-playing experience...but then they aren't supposed to add anything to the role-playing experience, are they?

While the mechanics and the role-playing are utilized in the same game, they are vastly different things that have almost nothing to do with each other. The mechanics (all of them) do nothing more than organize a framework within which the role-playing experience (the actual point of the game...and our hobby) can take place in.

So the even better short answer is : Whatever the player wants those talents to add to the role-playing experience.

P.S. If you find the mechanics taking primacy over the role-playing experience, sell your RPG books and take up WoW...it's so much easier when the computer is doing the math for you.

After 30+ years of gaming, it has been my experience that this...

"I'm trying to find a clever way to trap a character without the need of Soul Binding, so they may not be accessed or revived."

...is incontrovertible proof of this...

"...it's a conflict between player and DM."

Now, I expect that you, having already attempted to refute that line of thought, will disagree; and if it REALLY isn't a conflict between DM and player, then the problem is that you and your DM are playing a stupid game, and somebody (either you or them) needs to find a new gaming group...or a new hobby altogether.

I have a question about Empower Spell, and if it's been covered elsewhere, please feel free to direct me there, but neither the RAW nor the FAQ have covered this: Does the 50% increase in variable numeric effects result in an increase in dice rolled, or in a 50% increase of the total roll of the dice?

Example: Does an Empowered Lightning Bolt at 10th level result in rolling 15d6, or do you roll 10d6 and add 50% of the total to the damage (this is how my gaming table has been playing it thus far, for the sake of simplicity).

I appreciate the Devs' time (I know it's valuable), and I hope that one of you can give me a definitive answer. Thank you.

Sorry, spellcraft doesn't work.

I guess you could try taking Craft: Spellcraft, but it's pretty clear that the feat requires a craft skill, not a skill that mentions crafting :p

I'm not a smart man, so I really am going to need you to take me...STEP BY STEP...through the chain of logic that leads you to the conclusion that a skill that has "craft" in its name, and then specifically states that it is used to "craft" something, is NOT a "craft" skill.

Are we both speaking the English language? Is there some section of the Core Rulebook that I failed to read that specifically states that SpellCRAFT (emphasis mine) is not a craft skill? Have the developers released some bit of errata that specifically states this? Where, EXACTLY, are you getting your information?

Well you just have to get your GM to agree to that, as crafting is not available in PFS. You may want to ask the question here "Is Spellcraft a crafting skill?" I think that most people here will say no.

I'm sure you're right...most people here would say "no". I would be very interested in examining the chain of logic that they would use to come to that conclusion, however, since nothing in the Core Rulebook contradicts what I'm saying.

I'm not involved in organized play, so I'm not familiar with the "house rules" it uses, I am referring strictly to RAW in the Core Rulebook.

Go with the Master Summoner...and unless your GM insists for the purposes of completeness (which I totally understand), don't even bother statting out your eidolon, as you will never summon it. Why would you? By leaving your eidolon wherever it is that you found him, you can continue to do what a Master Summoner excels at: Flooding the battlefield with disposable fodder. I know the creatures on the Summon 1 list seem like weak tea, but just remember that you can summon ALOT of them, and that you only have to survive one more level before you start being able to summon elementals...or even more of the things from the Summon 1 list. You get Augment Summon for free, so you should take Superior Summon at the earliest opportunity.

Trust me, a Master Summoner is frightfully easy to play, if you don't mind the paperwork (prep your monsters in advance, your gaming group will thank you), and if you don't mind having longer turns than everyone else.

Sieglord wrote:

Take the Cosmopolitan feat...which allows you to

...and really, who couldn't use two extra languages?

I don't believe this works, as spellcraft is not a craft or profession skill.

...except that it IS a craft skill, as it very clearly specifies in the Spellcraft description, "You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS, and identifying spells as they are being cast." (Emphasis mine)

Since the skill description clearly states that the skill can be used to craft something, it is a craft skill, and thus, the Master Craftsman feat can be applied to it. The placement of the word "craft" at the end of the skill's name, rather than at the front of it, does nothing to change this.

Take the Cosmopolitan feat...which allows you to choose 2 Int, Wis, or Cha based skills...and choose Spellcraft. Spellcraft checks can be used to craft any magic item, so ranks in it would be useful for Arms, Armor and Wondrous Items.

It costs you an extra feat, but it allows you to tie all of your crafting to one skill, saving you skill points in the long run. Yes, I know that taking Cosmopolitan wouldn't actually be necessary to put ranks in Spellcraft, but being able to consider it a class skill will be extremely useful, as those crafting DC's can run up rather quickly for a non-caster (+5 for every spell you don't have...even simple items can get rapidly out of reach).

...and really, who couldn't use two extra languages?

I have to say, as the OP, I find the direction this thread has taken to be interesting...not unexpected, just interesting.

Bear in mind, I wasn't expecting a serious answer. My countrymen (and everyone else) gave up long ago...whether they want to admit it or not. I suppose I should come clean at this point...the question I asked was kind of misleading. That is to say; I wasn't actually expecting my question to be seriously answered (although it WAS rather amusing to see BigNorseWolf attempt to ameliorate his own answer...how timid are we in the face of our own truths, eh?), I was more interested to see where the deflections would go.

To be honest, I wasn't surprised. Cliquish, insular, almost...tribal. Not that any of that is necessarily bad, truth be told, I almost wish we would be allowed to fall back on our tribal natures.

...and don't waste your fingers typing out some smarmy thing about how I make no sense to you. It is both obvious and tragic that I make no sense to you.

Why...specifically... were you expecting to be dead?

Quote:

Vote wisely. Listen patiently. Debate courteously. Reasearch regularly.

Vote democrat.

Try to figure out why anyone wouldn't vote democrat.
Try to persuade people to vote democrat.
Show people why they should vote democrat.

...as though "Democrat" were somehow any different than "Republican"...

"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

Prof. Carrol Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope"

We had a chance. We had a real chance to overcome the shortcomings of our evolution and become a truly enlightened lifeform. A select few of our race managed to do so, and unfortunately for the rest of us, they immediately saw a distinct advantage in making sure that the rest of the species as a whole never reached that plateau. And now, thanks to their machinations, we (humanity) never will. By securing unrestricted and utterly unchallenged control over those factors that determine our outlook (education and media), they can keep us in the caves forever, so to speak, making sure that humanity as a whole responds only to its most base instincts and drives (what some call the "lizard brain").

In that respect, we are no different than cattle or sheep, and due to this understanding, we can be (and are) herded in much the same fashion.

I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how Dr. Paul, who is allegedly a great threat to the corporate/banker hegemony that currently rules the United States, has managed to maintain for over twenty years an office in a body that is one hundred percent (absolutely without exception) owned and controlled by said corporate/banker hegemony.

Dr. Paul says and does exactly what everybody else in our government says and does: exactly what he is told to by his masters. He SOUNDS different because your owners thoroughly understand that the best way to deal with any opposition is to control it.

BigNorseWolf wins this thread, as he was the only one with the correct answer: Absolutely nothing.

Sorry, but that's how it is. The people running the show have all the money, all of the influence, and all of the control over everything that any kind of change would require (media being the big one, kind of hard to get your revolution started if nobody ever hears about it).

The whole "start local" bit fails due to the fact that even if your local movement is successful, it will still need media access to go national. But let's assume that by some miracle, your "word of mouth" is able to override the noise of the television...what will you do about the bag of dirty tricks (do you have any idea how easy it is to plant a kilo of coke and some child pornography in someone's house)?

I know some people have decided that going "Bastille Day" on the ruling elite is the only answer...but that entails taking on the military apparatus of the United States in open combat. Again, assuming some sort of miracle occurs that allows said military to be defeated, the ruling elite have one final ace that trumps anything any of you (or anyone else) can come up with: 30,000 intact, active, and ready-to-go-at-a-moments'-notice thermonuclear weapons THAT THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE. These people really do live by the "If I can't have it, nobody will" mentality. If it looks like their military is going to be overcome, if they have legitimate reason to believe that they are really going to lose, they will empty the holes. All of them. No matter what scenario you envision for taking these people on, the very best you can hope for (assuming an unprecedented string of miracles) is mutual annihilation.

Nothing is going to "fall apart"...their hegemony, their control, will only tighten. If you want to be happy in this world...give up. Submit, and recognize that the life of a useful slave is still a useful life.

A Dwarf Fighter, "Axebeard Stonehammer" was my close second...

My all-time favourite (both for the name and just as a really fun character to play)-a Mite Cave Druid named: Bocephus Stinkeye!

So...what? There's all this railing against governments and corporations (and the cozy relationships they enjoy)...but no so much on the subject of how to create lasting, effective change.

So...What are you going to do about it?

Try a standard druid, but replace Wild Shape with a free bonus feat every four levels. You could make list of feats available, much like a wizard (bonus metamagic and "summoning feats" would be appropriate), or just let them be discretionary choices if you aren't too worried about your player going munchkin. Then again, as Cheapy pointed out, Wild Shape is a VERY powerful ability, so that may not be so much of a concern.

The best movie I have seen in the past two years...Takashi Miike does a brilliant job of honouring the tradition of Bushido while simultaneously making light of its absurdities. That, combined with some of the best sword-fencing sequences that have ever been committed to film, make this an unparallelled epic.

Amazing.

People I remind you this is about corporations not government -- take it elsewhere.

You're absolutely right, and I apologize. Government and corporations should NEVER come up in the same discussion, because the two are kept completely apart by a vast gulf of morality and goodness that is absolutely impossible to cross.

So when Diebold builds and programs electronic voting machines, they do so at no profit, as a public service, and we can be absolutely sure that they have nothing but the best interests of the country at heart. And when executives from, say, Haliburton or Goldman-Sachs take high positions within our government, it is certain that they forget all of their corporate ties, and make their policies and decisions entirely on the basis of their social consciousness (which, of course, grew spontaneously the moment they became public servants). And when these selfsame individuals leave government, the extremely cushy jobs they get with the corporations they left a few years earlier are awarded entirely on the basis of their ability to run a business that they have had no connection to for several years. Sure.

...sarcasm aside, it is folly to attempt to separate "government" from a discussion about "corporate malfeasance". To those few of us who are actually paying attention, the two terms are perfectly interchangeable. For all practical intents and purposes, Goldman-Sachs IS the Treasury Department of the United States...and that's just one example.

The two reports I cited throw that into sharp relief. I admit that it might have been unrealistic to hope that anyone would have read the report of the Reece Commission...it IS 2,086 pages long, cover to cover, but I did have hope. Silly me.

...and the Nye Commission report doesn't just discuss "war profiteering" (although it does go on at length about that), it also discusses at length how the armaments industry, along with the banking corporations that supported it, actively interfered with any attempt by European nations to forge a lasting peace prior to WWI, and in some cases, actually forced (yes, FORCED) some of the more impoverished European nations into the "entangling alliances" that were partially responsible for the hostilities spiraling out of control as quickly as they did. Did they "cause" WWI? Not by themselves...the hubris of the nations involved played a major role. But to say that they stood aside and let everything happen on its own would be dishonest, too. As we can number no fewer than 30 million dead as a direct result of that conflict (and as it set the stage for the horrors of WWII that followed), it stands as one of the most stark and brutal examples of "corporate malfeasance" that a human being could name...and it directly involved "government".

I know I'm reaching back a bit, here, but has anybody ever read the report of the Nye Commission? The Reece Commission? (My personal favourite from that one: "We operate under directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power to alter life in the United States such that it may be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.")

It's amazing what our government will admit to when they think nobody is paying attention...the two commission reports I reference above directly relate to corporate malfeasance, and if they were widely known and understood by the American people even today, the resulting bloodbath caused by an enraged public would be quite literally Biblical in scale.

Werthead wrote:

Someone did ask him about the riddle of steel, and rolled his eyes and mentioned he'd been asked that a few times :-)

I am bit disappointed Momoa rolled his eyes at the mention of the riddle of steel (probably the 500th and counting.) I would hope he understood its importance to the Conan sagas, and by this time have come up with a 'stock answer' if not a really good answer.

...or maybe he's just tired of all the fanboi crap?

As usual, I haven't read every post on this thread, so if this has already been pointed out, sorry for the duplicate post.

Pathfinder (just like D&D, and every single other role-playing game before it...with the POSSIBLE exception of the Cyberpunk 2020/Friday Night Firefight rules) bases its weapon damage/statistics on the premise of GAME BALANCE and THEME...not on the real-world ability of that weapon to do damage to a human body.

If weapons were "statted out" on the basis of their real-world abilities, fghters would never use anything but sa-jyat-koen (three-section staves, which would look something like this Dmg: 5d6, Threat: 15-20, Crit: x5, and would include +4 to Disarm and Trip attacks and have 10' of Reach...but would require THREE Exotic WP feats to learn to use safely.), and rangers (or other missile weapon fighters) would never use anything but atlatls (spear-throwers, which would look like the three-section-staff stats plus a 40 ft range increment).

If weapon stats were presented realistically, any axe built specifically for war would deal bludgeoning damage (with a penalty being assigned to damage and threat range if it were sharpened), and any two-handed sword would also deal only bludgeoning damage...and cost more than any adventurer could ever hope to afford before level 8-10.

If your arguments against the way the tetsubo ( an extremely dangerous and fearsome weapon...light years ahead of the threat presented by a baseball bat) are based on game balance and design, the go right ahead...you might have a case. But if you're basing your arguments on some premise involving "real life"...give it up. Nothing about this game is based on real life, nor should it be. It is, after all...FANTASY.

"1 minute ritual" seems to imply more than a little obvious preparation, in all honesty. If I close my eyes and think about "ritual", I see candles, symbols drawn on the ground, painstaking procedures, special ingredients, proper timing (dusk, dawn, certain stellar alignments, etc.)...it just doesn't strike me as something that can be done unobtrusively, or on the fly. Most importantly, it strikes me as something that is obviously happening, and in fact, CAN be interrupted.

...but that's just my take on it. It would be nice if Paizo clarified whether the ritual takes 1 minute including preparations, or if the ritual takes one minute once the preparations have been made. It IS kind of a grey area...

Sounds to me like Ishma should be congratulated on fulfilling every proper barbarian dream: fighting the good fight and dying with an enemy's heart in her teeth! (Ishma's player should also be commended for properly playing that character to the hilt!)

That being said, as a DM, I've never killed a character. Good DM's don't kill characters...they give characters ample opportunities to kill themselves (or let their teammates die, which sounds like the situation you've described). Based upon the original post, you warned them. You gave them time to prepare. One can only hope that your players have learned the value of coordinated action in future endeavours. Don't put the "kid gloves" on, however. Keep the pressure up, and let your players know that they can EARN their way through, but that you won't GIVE them the way through. THAT'S a top-notch DM, right there!

...and keep up the good work, by the way. Sounds like you'd be an awesome DM to play with!

This is utter nonsense.

If somebody is overweight and you choose to ridicule them for it, it is insulting even though it is true.

If you mock someone's disability, it is insulting.

It is entirely possible to state the truth and make a personal attack at the same time. Being courteous in one's personal interactions can go a long way.

I respectfully disagree on almost all of your points.

"Overweight" is, in nearly all instances, a choice. You can tell the difference between those for whom it is a choice and those for whom it is a genuine medical condition by whether or not they hide behind it. If you are unable to tell the difference, watch their hands. People with a real medical condition will be using their hands for some sort of exercise, whereas those for whom it is a choice will be whining about their "medical condition" with a Big Mac in their hands.

I should also like to point out that there is a marked difference between stating the truth ("You're overweight because you eat too much bad food and do no exercise."), and outright mockery ("Haha! Look at the fatty!").

Everything you are most likely thinking about me right now IS true...I am vicious, cruel, spiteful, full of hate, consumed by rage, and utterly opportunistic...but I am also fair. And I agree that mocking a person for their disability would make one a douche-nozzle. It's a good thing that this thread ( and my comments) had nothing to do with mockery, and everything to do with truth (which, by the way, plays no favourites, and spares nobody's feelings).

I agree with you when you state the value of courtesy...but I should also like to point out the detrimental effect of coddling people. Our nation as a whole might be a good deal healthier, for instance, if our society didn't coddle the feelings of those who could do something about their condition, and instead subjected them to the ridicule that might motivate them to take useful action to remedy their situation. Peer pressure can sometimes be a very useful motivating factor.

Not that I know of in Pathfinder, however there are 2 or 3 feat chains in the Ebberon Campaign Setting Book (3.5E) that allow other weapons (Longspear, Longsword & something else I think). The feat pre-requisites were 'Weapon Proficiency' & 'Weapon Focus', then taking the feat that allowed it to be a monk weapon. They had fancy kung-fu-move like names which I forget (ex: 'steel splits mountain'). A single dip level of fighter is probably the least painful way to accomplish it. My DM and I had discussed it and agreed it was an acceptable way to go about it with any weapon assuming you asked him first.

So all I have is 3.5E Ebberon/house-rule, likely not helpful, but a start in the right direction as long as it's not PFS. I have also not seen Ultimate Combat yet, so it may or may not have someting similar.

"Whirling Steel Strike" allowed a monk to treat a two-bladed sword as a monk weapon, and "Serpent Steel Strike" did the same for the longsword. As I don't do PFS games or characters, I generally allow my players to take feats from 3.5...so long as I don't see any obvious "'sploits" in dong so. And if the "flavor" outweighs the value of the 'sploit, I'll allow it anyway, as I am big on flavor.

In Sunset's case, for instance, if I was his DM, I would let him take "Serpent Steel Strike", change the name to "Whirling Shamshir Strike", say it applies to the scimitar instead of the longsword, and we could all get on with our lives (and our game).

Also...

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Well, the Dark Side IS strong in me...

Can you provide incontrovertible proof of said ignorance? If so, then the answer is, "Absolutely not." The truth is never (under absolutely any circumstances whatsoever) an insult or personal attack. If the ignorant person is too prideful or too stupid to admit they are wrong, that is THEIR problem, not yours, and there is no fault in pointing that out.

Just make sure you come correct (i.e., have your facts straight) if you plan to take the discussion in that direction...

Sieglord wrote:

p.s. The operation of our banking and monetary system is a rather arcane subject that is not well understood by many Americans (for instance, a survey of 500 Ivy League PhD's found that not a single one could clearly and properly articulate it), so this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544 should help. Forgive the poor animation...the info is solid, though.

Seriously, computer technology and the use of computers for communication is NOT going away... ever.

Learn how to linkify your links. Please.

This dude's Google vid link

No.

On the subject of Marx, I think it bears mentioning that he didn't actually "create" anything...when writing the Communist Manifesto, he was working not as a creative force, but as a ghost writer, setting to prose what his employers ( a group of figures calling themselves "The League of Just Men") presented to him. This is the reason that Karl Marx's name didn't appear on The Communist Manifesto for the first twenty years of its publication.

On the subject of the thread itself...well, I don't normally read every post in a thread that goes more than one page, but I did this time. Well done, all of you. A civil, well-thought out set of comments, replete with evidence and well articulated.

It's just a pity you're all wrong. Before the flaming begins, I am not attempting to insult anybody's intelligence, politics, patriotism, religion or belief systems. I am merely attempting to point out that everybody is looking for the source of (and thereby, the solution to) our economic problems in the wrong place. Our economic woes do not derive from one party or another, nor do they stem from the decisions taken by this administration or any other. The problems go much deeper than that, they are systemic in nature. That is to say: The problems we are having are a direct consequence of the system by which the economy itself is organized and delineated.

I'm not talking about "capitalism", as that is a philosophy, not a system. In order to implement that philosophy (or any other), a system must be developed and employed. In this case, I'm talking about our banking and monetary system...that is, the system by which the money comes into existence (as it must, in order to have an "economy").

The root of our economic problems is the fact that with the exception of coins struck by the US Mint (somewhat less than three percent of our money supply), every dollar in circulation was borrowed-at interest-into existence, and that no dollar can come into existence unless it is borrowed at interest. Those of you waiting for some conspiracy rant about the Federal Reserve and the "Illuminati" can keep waiting, I don't do conspiracy. What is evident, though, is that every means tried within the confines of our current system to stabilize our economy and preserve the value of our currency have failed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or an economist to see (or at least, it shouldn't) that a serious examination of the underlying system itself is in order, and that it should become the second highest priority of our government, and of We, The People.

p.s. The operation of our banking and monetary system is a rather arcane subject that is not well understood by many Americans (for instance, a survey of 500 Ivy League PhD's found that not a single one could clearly and properly articulate it), so this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544 should help. Forgive the poor animation...the info is solid, though.

Of course you fail as a GM...anyone using pre-written crap rather than coming up with their own campaigns fails as a GM...I should think that would be common knowledge.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Umbral Reaver wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

I do not recommend GURPS. If 3e can be MATH OVERLOAD, GURPS is MATH HEAT DEATH. Also I just sorta personally dislike GURPS which colors my opinion, admittingly.

There's that epiphanic moment when you're playing GURPS and just realised that you asked the group if someone has a graphing calculator with them.

GURPS: Vehicles more like GURPS: Porn For Engineers boosh

Holy Crap you beat me to my comment about GURPS Vehicles. I made an attempt to try and build a modified lightly armored tank many, many years ago. I still dont think that I've recovered the sanity that I lost in that attempt.

I have to admit that I am at a complete loss...GURPS rules confused people that much? Really? Now, if we were talking about Cyberspace or SpaceMaster, I would get it, but GURPS? Unlike many of the Iron Crown Enterprises games, GURPS never required college algebra in order to make a skill check (or two days of engineer-level mathematics in order to make a character).

GURPS might seem a bit clunky compared to some of the systems available today, but when compared to many of its contemporaries, it was simple and elegant.

I am a dedicated, story-addicted, must-have-have-a-decent-plotline-or-else-I-will-leave-in-a-huff roleplayer...and I encourage as much optimization as possible in the games I run. I have told my players, on more than one occasion, to re-write their characters or re-roll their stats on the basis of the fact that those characters, while well-conceived, were too weak to cut it in heavy combat.

Why? Simple: I want my players to run characters they are happy with from the get-go. The reason for that goes all the way back to my early adolescence, unwrapping the Basic D&D "Red Box" set (you know, that version of D&D where Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves were actually classes rather than races, and the dice came with uncoloured pips and a wax crayon to do the job yourself)...specifically, the very first page of the Player's Guide, where High Lord Gygax lays out in Plain English the most basic and fundamental purpose of our hobby. And I quote, "The purpose of a role-playing game is to HAVE FUN." (Emphasis mine)

If my players aren't enjoying the game, I'm doing something wrong. (Concurrently, if I'm not having any fun, then obviously, my players are doing something wrong...but that is a discussion for a different thread).

The point is: If I'm doing my job the way I'm supposed to, character optimization is just another way for players to enjoy themselves; and should not at all impact my ability as a DM to challenge them.

Let the dogpile/flaming begin...but it must be said that there is only one political party in the United States. One party that has utilized a brilliant propaganda campaign designed specifically to fool people into believing it is actually two parties that are diametrically opposed to each other...they aren't. The "Republicans" and "Democrats" agree completely on all major policies. I say "brilliant" because it has managed to sell this lie despite the overwhelming amount of completely incontrovertible evidence showing that no matter which "party" gets elected, the end result is always the same. Literally, ALWAYS. No major policies have changed...in the last 90+ years.

("Major Policies" in this case refer to the underlying mechanics that make any society possible...food, energy, money...especially money and banking. Things like foreign policy are secondary, especially for the United States, which could -if it had the will- exist entirely on its own resources.)

I would like to point out here that there is absolutely no such thing as "government waste" or "government corruption". Given the seemingly outrageous nature of that statement, it is obviously necessary to clarify the terminology.

Simply stated, "waste" and especially "corruption" imply that the system is working at cross purposes to its intent, that is to say, the things being pointed out are somehow unintended or unwanted consequences of the way we do business. This is obviously and patently false.

The simple truth is that THE GOVERNMENT IS FUNCTIONING EXACTLY AS IT IS INTENDED TO, WITH ALMOST NO DEVIATION WHATSOEVER. The money isn't being "wasted", it's going exactly where it is supposed to.

Take the War on Drugs, for example. Much attention is payed to the vast sum of money being wasted, but how much attention is payed to WHERE THAT MONEY ENDS UP? We pay quite a bit of attention to the money disappearing, but almost none whatsoever to where that money actually lands once it stops moving.

Contrary to popular belief, our government does very little by accident, and it ALWAYS gets what it pays for. Most of you have fallen for the most destructive and dangerous lie ever told: That the people running our government are "stupid", or "incompetent". These are very smart people, who know exactly what they are doing. I've always thought it was a tragedy that President George W Bush never received the Oscar he should have. Think about it: The Ivy League-educated son of a super-wealthy banking family from New England managed to convince the entire world that he was a dumb, uneducated everyman hick from Texas...Christian-effing-Bale couldn't have pulled off an acting job like that. A triumph of calculated image construction...and business as usual in our society.

I spend A LOT of time on this hobby...regardless of which side of the screen I'm on. If I'm a player, I spend a great deal of time working out a back story for my characters, making sure that my skills, equipment, feats and "fluff details" match that story. In short, I don't create "characters", I try to create "people"; realized, actual and whole.

In short, the level of immersion that I strive for in my role-playing experience simply cannot be conveyed over an internet chat room. Just so we're clear, I don't see anything wrong with Play by Post gaming. For many people, it's the only format that fits their schedule, and I also realize that quite a few people reside in areas that are "gamer deficient", and that Play by Post is the only way for them to find a game.

I, most fortunately, do not currently suffer from either of these circumstances, so my gaming is exclusively Face to Face. The experience is so much more satisfying when shared with people who are able and willing to go just as deep into it as I am (again, just so we're clear, I'm not talking "Mazes & Monsters" deep...but I do like to get into my games).

You might consider the Defensive Combat Training feat...but at 3rd level, the benefits are minor, at best.

The simple truth is that, as LazarX has already stated, grabbing/grappling is a "silver bullet" against a low-level arcane caster. (And rightfully so, given what a high-level caster is capable of. You SHOULD have to earn it, at least a little.)

Your very best bet (and I know how typical this answer is for me) is INTELLIGENT PLAY...a technique that there is absolutely no substitute for. Regardless of your alignment, fight dirty. Use terrain, use cover, use your sturdier friends. If you're excluding avoidance as a viable tactic, then you are screwed.

P.S. You might consider the possibilities of alchemy...at the level you describe, a tanglefoot bag will gentle down even the nastiest grapplers that you are likely to encounter. (Unless, of course, your DM thoroughly understands that "DM" stands for "D*ck Move"...in which case, Best of Luck!)

And for higher level casters, my favourite tactic for avoiding a grapple is Elemental Body...consider, for a moment, the idea of wrestling with a Fire Elemental.

2 Summoners (any race)
2 Druids (any race)
1 Evoker (Elf...with the Spell Penetration feats)

The summoners handle the front line, the druids back them up and heal, and the evoker's function should be obvious.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Actually, with a Mars-analogue based on Burroughs' Barsoom and a Venus analogue with psionics and jungle-dwellers, you can not only use Pathfinder, but even Golarion's solar-system, if you like.

I didn't know golarion was in a solar system. Do you think pathfinder can handle futuristic play?

Yes, of course Pathfinder can handle futuristic play just fine. The Pathfinder rules are nothing more than lightly modified d20 rules, and they worked just fine for the Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Super Hero, and Zombie genres...again, with only light modifications ("more than light", in the case of Super Hero gaming...) to the d20 System.

It'll be fine. Sounds fascinating, actually.