The1Ryu's page

I can't say for Pathfinder, but in 3.5 Draconomicon it says that the maximum age for a Chromatic dragon is 1200 plus 50 times the dragon's Charisma score. Metallic dragons got double the amount, 100 times the dragon's Charisma score.

I think keeping it 50x for all true dragons works. that ives a Red dragon a maximum age of 2300 or a Gold a maximum age of 2500.

Of course the Draconomicon has a Prestige Class for dragons that makes them nearly deities and immortal. It also says that most evil dragons, always go for some form of immortality rather then just waste away and die. Good dragons tend consume their hoard, or most of it, and either depart to the afterlife willingly or become ghostly guardian spirits of their territory. Some even do this well before their twilight years, as early as when they reach the Old age category.

Persuasive
I would like to be better at talking to people, and I get to be automatically successful when explaining myself like 5 times a day. Sounds like a dream.

tzizimine

I want to say how much I love your site; the conversion you've done has served my players and me well during our Eberron campaign. However, your site went down yesterday and it has left me deeply concerned as to whether or not the problem is a simple matter and the site will soon return or if this is a more serious matter.

This thread being five years old, I worry that you will not get this message. If and when you do, I hope this matter can be resolved.

Well the meta reason is probably because the game developers don't have many opportunities to use celestials so they took this opportunity.

But as the other have said the in game reason is probably that Unity sees itself as a positive entity that is going to bring peace and harmony to the world. You can play this up by having him talk to the PCs about how once he is a god he will purge suffering from the world and have him regard the PCs as agents of evil. By the last module Unity has gathered quite a bit of information about the PCs so the GM cam bring up their failures or the rioting they caused in Starfall as things they have done to cause suffering. Unity could constantly ask them to stop fighting and offer to 'take away their pain' ie do what he did to Ozmyn Zaidow and Ophelia to them.

Characters who make it to the final adventure would make excellent servants for Unity after all.

That's not what people talk about when they bring up cultural appropriation and no one has made that claim.

"I don't believe in it" is dismissive to the discussion, it doesn't add anything.

"I don't believe in it" is part of the discussion and I explained why above. Ignoring others contributions and explanations also adds nothing to the conversation. Additionally, it's up to each person to decide what points add something to the conversation for them, you don't get to dictate what does and does not have value.

The thread is on how one deals with cultural appropriation and creating settings. "I don't believe in it" doesn't address the question OP put forth nor is it helpful.

Actually, that goes straight to the heart of the matter the OP is asking. He said 'it's incredibly hard to create a fantasy culture or people that doesn't feel at least somewhat inspired by one that exists in the "real world".' and 'shouldn't we try to celebrate all the awesome stuff that people have done and are in the world?'

But cultural appropriation theory says that your not allowed to incorporate elements of other cultures because it's a form of cultural theft. Critics of this theory explain that all cultures were formed my taking aspects of other cultures and incorporating them together into a new culture and if that is how all cultures are formed then 'cultural appropriating' is just part of the natural evolution of all cultures and is nothing bad or shameful. If we are not allowed to talk about these things then the OP's answer will never be answered.

However, much like the 'Fist of the Ruby Phoenix' thread I don't think it's appropriate for the environment that Paizo is looking to foster in it's forum and therefore this thread should be locked as well. There are more appropriate forum where one can discuss cultural appropriation and other matters of social justice.

None. Once you have even a single level in a PC class, you have enough experience to no longer flinch/cry out in pain from battle.

Proof: Go to any martial arts trainer, and watch a match between the second lowest level of tier (usually known as a belt) that actually engages in sparring matches.

They will not flinch. They will not cry out in pain. And a 1st level PC class is above that in training, especially the martial ones, as there is no way in hell that that student has enough training to be proficient in all simple and martial weapons, but a 1st level Fighter is. Which means they have actually trained in actual sparring matches, with every f&&%ing last “normal” (read: non-exotic) weapon, to be proficient with them.

Martial artists won’t flinch at a form and intensity of pain that they train with all the time, true, but expose them to a very different, unexpected, or very intense form of pain and they will certainly flinch.

The1Ryu wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Just to note that people usually offended by Asian portrayals in American media tend to be Asian-Americans.

I don't have very deep understanding of this subject, but its pretty much about minority feeling stereotyped or marginalized by the majority. It's different thing from when you are part of the majority and see foreigners stereotyping you, lot of people in that position just find it funny or amusing. (I can confirm, finnish stereotypes are funny :p UNLESS its done by Swedish in which case we resent portrayal as violent alcoholics ;P )

I find this fascinating. So if I consider the depiction of an American in a piece of media to be offensive that doesn't matter because I live in the US. But if I move to Japan my opinions about the depiction suddenly become valid and I should be listened to because I'm now a minority?

I think the argument is more the other way around: People living in their own culture, especially when that culture is a world power, are more likely to laugh off other culture's bad takes of them. People from that culture living within the other culture, are less likely to do so.

In other words, we shouldn't let the fact that most Americans living in America are just amused by American depictions in Japanese media override the complaints of Americans living in Japan.

There is also a separate argument you might be thinking of that CorvusMask wasn't making, which is that power matters. Dominant groups should be especially careful about bad depictions of minority groups because when those holding the power spread harmful stereotypes of others it's far more likely to lead to harm than the other way around. The underprivileged group lacks as much power to act on those harmful stereotypes.

What constitutes a ‘bad depiction’ or a stereotype? What is the criteria that one uses to determine if something is one of these things and what way do a privileged group, in these examples Americans as a whole, act on harmful stereotypes. Isn’t the ability to demand one group be more considerate to another group which then is not equally call upon to be considerate to the first group a form of power that the ‘underprivileged’ over the ‘privileged’ group.

Just to note that people usually offended by Asian portrayals in American media tend to be Asian-Americans.

I don't have very deep understanding of this subject, but its pretty much about minority feeling stereotyped or marginalized by the majority. It's different thing from when you are part of the majority and see foreigners stereotyping you, lot of people in that position just find it funny or amusing. (I can confirm, finnish stereotypes are funny :p UNLESS its done by Swedish in which case we resent portrayal as violent alcoholics ;P )

I find this fascinating. So if I consider the depiction of an American in a piece of media to be offensive that doesn't matter because I live in the US. But if I move to Japan my opinions about the depiction suddenly become valid and I should be listened to because I'm now a minority?

Zepheri wrote:

Can you guys please stop fighting about rules and post if you're still playing the game and what are you playing

Fine, fine. I'm currently writing the AP that Artofregicide is planning to run. I recently dropped my first draft and am on my second draft, and he's kind of doing his own thing in terms of choosing which one to use and how to convert the two into one whole.

I hope to DM it in 1e eventually, when it's done and when I can actually find a group.

Oh man that's so cool, writing your own adventure that someone else will run is something few people do. Do be careful to never mis-label something, because no matter how clear you are in the text about what something is, if it accidentally ends up somewhere it shouldn't people will never stop screeching about it.

Anyways, I've love to read your AP some day. Is it going to go to level 20? My players are always complaining that the standard AP never let them go to level twenty and get their class capstone.

Well, page 183 of the Core Rulebook tells me that 5 foot step is "No Action". The book contradicts itself.

We're not going to come to a conclusion and honestly, I think you can't make a 5fs after a teleport, because that makes SENSE. But the point was that the PF1 action system is dense, exception-based, self-contradictory and leads to repeated arguments (the "what is an attack/attack action/standard action used to make an attack" argument is right next door).

And if you go to page 189 it's listed under Miscellaneous actions, that's were it actually talks about the action. You're free to interpret the rules however you like. They are not inherently self-contradictory, however the world is a imperfect place, as are the rules of any game system, I sure you can find a contradiction if you look hard enough, however this isn't one.

Ooooo! What encounters have them trouble? And have you posted on the obituary thread for SA?

It was some years back I can say specifically and before I knew about the obituaries. Each encounter in the Dreamlands just seemed way too tough for them, and that was after they breezed through the second adventure, they did it backwards going to Iris Hill before the Fort. They got so man inanities they eventually couldn't do anything. One character went psychotic and murdered the others.

I'm swapping my Strange Aeons group to PF2e once they hit book 3. If do it now but they're deep into The Thrushmoore Terror and I've already rewritten the entire book once already.

The reason? PF1e is too complicated for them. And they keep forgetting their abilities, actions, etc. That's not a jab on PF2e, it's a testament to the fact that it handles really hardcore and casual players really well.

Now to figure out how to convert the Mesmerist class...

Man, Dreams of the Yellow King just thrashed my party. The Dreamlands just kicked their teeth in. It was one of the only adventure paths that ended in failure for us.

ok question why did you start to play Pathfinder 1e? To remember old day of 3.5? If you want a change why don't you stick with d&d 4&5e?

Pathfinder 1e was for me to remember my old days of school and college where I can play with my friend a lot of adventure. Changing to 2e it's like to kill the 1e format

Before you criticism the 1e, try to remember why you start playing again that format.

Backwards compatibility.

You haven't addressed the question. Is 5-foot step an action? The book says no, it isn't. It doesn't fall into any action type. The spell says you can't take an action after it. So, you can take a 5-foot step, because it's not an action.

Of course, there are lots of actually intelligent counter-arguments, starting with one that teleporting could be considered "movement", so you shouldn't be able to take a 5fs after it. Or the argument that it would be really weird if ddoor prevented you from taking a free action to talk (as much as GM allows you) but not prevented you from taking a 5-foot step.

But there's no clear answer in the rules and we can argue until the end of days.

A 5ft step is listed under miscellaneous actions so yes it is an action and no according to spell you can't do it.

You can consider teleporting "movement" but it's not, it's a spell. Ddoor does technically prevent your character from speaking to the other characters, but it's not as if your character is standing around for a long time unable to speak. A combat round is only six seconds and technically all the characters are acting at the same time. If your character did nothing but cast DDoor he would lose like three seconds of interaction. You seem to be confusing combat how it appears to you sitting at a table where a round could take 1, 5, 10 minutes, to how the combat appears to your character which is always no more than 6 seconds.

If a core gameplay element like action economy can be a "burning mess" and an "obtuse mess" but plenty of fun can still be had playing the game, the edition must not be quite so awful. Perhaps it'd be useful for multiple posters on all sides to cool down the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the original post? Why don't you tell us a bit about what PF1 games you're playing? I'm sure people are curious.

I'm running two games, both adventure paths, Reign of Winter and Iron Gods. Interestingly they are both in the final book. My Reign of Winter Party consists of a Arcane Trickster, a Cleric of Gorum, an Greta, the Winter Wolf Fighter NPC they met in the second adventure. Iron Gods Party consists of Archeologist(Bard Archtype), a Megus, and a Paladin of Sarenrae. The Archeologist and Megus are both technologically savvy and took over the Technic League. The Paladin killed the Black Sovereign and took his place as ruler of Numeria.

Why not? Sure, the spell is clear, it says you can't take any actions after ddoring.

But what action is 5ft step? Is it even an action? The game has move, standard, swift, immediate, free and full-round actions and in the very "Action Types in Combat" table in the Core Rulebook, it says under "No Action", there's the 5-foot step. So is it an action, or isn't it one?

There've been massive threads where people would argue back and forth about this. Both interpretations are valid. Both could be correct if ever Paizo would issue a FAQ/errata on this (they won't). But the entire problem arises from the action system in PF1 being an obtuse mess that it is. Unlike, erm, the PF2 one.

Why not? Because that's how that spell works, you don't like how the spell works don't use it.

You answer your own question about 5ft steps here so I'm not going to repeat you. It is clearly explained what a 5ft step is and the reason you can't take a move action to move afterwards is because the 5ft step doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity so to make sure it's not abused, it has that limitation put on it.

The best explanation of how PF1 action system was a burning mess compared to PF2 system, by LuniasM (shamelessly stealing instead of linking):

(Go Gorbacz post if you want to read LuniasM post)

Well this is a completely dishonest comparison. Why?
Because LuniasM brings up 1-round actions, which is really only allpies to a small number of spells, it's not one of the base action types, it would be like me bringing up Ritual casting time while talking about 2e actions. He comments on his personal opinions of 1e actions type, "it takes your next turn's Swift Action to do it - don't worry if you forget about that, because I probably will too." Which is a form of poisoning the well. He blatantly lies and says you can't take a 5ft step and then cast a spell that teleports you, that's not true you simple can take a 5ft step before after making a Move Action to Move. And continues this by claiming you can't take any move after teleporting which is also not true except for Dimension Door which has built into to the spell that it immediately ends your turn after casting it. Then he talking about other actions you can take as give categories of actions, but he never does this with 2e example, and situational things that effect your action in 1e but not 2e. And his point is that he wrote said explanations and because the first is longer, with much more details added in along with his personal commentary, therefore 2e is a better system. Again this comparison is completely dishonest.

No. My response was not that it's too much trouble and therefore game is bad. It's very rude to put words in people's mouths. I said that it's a crapshoot. It's unlikely to work and functions only in niche circumstances. If your opponent is mindless and lacks combat reflexes, sure! You MIGHT succeed(If they're humanoid/medium or smaller). Probably not with how CMD scales outrageously but that's yet another fault of combat maneuvers. And again, since you seem to be misunderstanding my point, the bad aspects to the system don't outweigh largely what I believe to be the good.

Do you really think people don't know how to play Rogues? Do you think nobody on these forums play/played Rogues since Pathfinder's release in 2009 or prior in 3.5(which they had a really rough time unless prestiging/multiclassing). It's not even that much math to show that Rogues are bad. They lack accuracy, they lack saving throws, they have poor AC, and don't have a very good Hit Die to make up for it. They're mediocre at skills and lack any unique mechanics to draw one to play them.

This part right here is why nobody is taking you seriously, say that you are arguing in bad faith and are possibly a bad actor. You are assuming nobody here has played...

I didn’t put any swords in your mouth dude again I have had players ya combat maneuvers all the way up to level 18 and you are wrong, I actively tried to counter my player and he was still effective, similarly I have taken and ran rogues to max level I was not just doing the things from your ABC list. The fact that list is your argument as to why rogues are bad is how I know you have no idea what you’re talking about, I’m not assuming anything you are telling me through faulty reasoning that you don’t know how to play rogues or fighters or use Combat Maneuvers don’t blame me because you can’t make a real argument.

The1Ryu wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

The1Ryu wrote:

Dude why are you casting me as the bad actor here, I'm just having a discussion

No, you are not. You are not even attempting to see the conversation from any viewpoint but your own. You are denying everything that anyone else says and putting forth your viewpoint as the only valid one. For there to be a discussion there must be the possibility of changing minds. Yours has appeared to be made up from the very first post.

No I’m making counter points and when people’s arguments involve them misrepresenting game rules to say the other game is better that just shows they are incorrect. Also why am I the only one who has to be willing to change their mind, which I’m looking for example to prove you point not asserting points for mine, should those that choose to engage in the conversation also be willing to change their mind?

There are easy arguments you can make vs PF2e and the same against PF1e. Saying PF1e can be overly complex to it's detriment is a fact. It's a simulationist game vs a more Rules lite game. The fact that PF2e has less rules minutiae is a simple fact. Do I think that makes it a "better" game? No. Do I believe that can carry it's own appeal? Sure! Do I think you might be disingenuous with some of your arguments? Yes, some bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

Maneuvers being awful without the feat is a simple fact. You provoke, and if the attack of opportunity hits, take anywhere between 1-40 penalty on your maneuvers now. Baiting AoOs so you don't provoke is always a crapshoot.

There are literally hundreds of threads proving mathematically and thematically that the Rogue is an awfully designed class. Same with Fighter pre-weapon master handbook. There's no reason to play a Rogue besides having the words "Rogue" on your character sheet.

Again I’m not arguing which is better I’m asking for examples to show that the claim 2e is better is accurate.

Yes, if you’re opponent can make an AoO and it hits there is a penalty that why you work around that circumstance. I have walked you all through how to do it effectively and your response it that’s too much trouble for me so therefore the game is bad, that is your problem not the game’s.

Why is the rogue made, because people who never play the game did a bunch of math to show that the rogue is bad. I’m talking about real gameplay not forum nonsense that create things like Pun-Pun that doesn’t even work purely mechanically. Rogues and fighters work just fine in proper gameplay take from someone with actual experience.

The1Ryu wrote:

1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.

No they cannot. There are so many exceptions and corner cases that simply do not exist in PF2.

There are plenty of exceptions to how you described 2e action. How you ‘can’ describe is vastly different in both case than a full description of something. But leaving things out and forcing GMs to make calls in place of proper rules has its own set of problems creating more instances where people’s interpretations of the rules will clash.

The1Ryu wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.

You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.

Vs.

You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions

I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.

1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.

So, can you take a 5-foot step after a teleport/ddoor in PF1?

Not after ddoor but that’s and effect of the spell not the rules governing action.

Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.

You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.

Vs.

You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions

I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.

1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.

Pf2 is easier for new players. There is a uniformity to the pf2 rules that makes them a bit more intuitive than pf1 is.

Again there are no examples here, just assertions. How is making characters in 2e faster when you have to pick all your class features? How is the optimal/suboptimal gap smaller? Optimizing any character takes planning that’s not unique to 1e. You can do three things a turn in 1e: move, standard, and swift action. How is that more complex? How is 2e less complex? Why do I have to take an action to defend myself with a shield?

I have read and played these rules I fail to see how they make the game better, they just force me, the GM, to make more rulings and interpret the rules. However I can fall back into established ruling from older systems, new players don’t have that benefit. That dependency doesn’t make the game better, but does create more problems via conflicting interpretations of the new less precise rules. However that experience is irrelevant to the conversation, if you make an assertion it’s on you to provide examples to prove that assertion.

Sure, but what gives that game its wider appeal?

A more streamlined system, less complex or annoying rules, and a much larger appeal to beginners, since it's so much easier to learn. See the success of D&D 5e, which is orders of magnitude less complex than 3.5 but flows much more smoothly and is far easier for beginners to get into.

From what I can tell, that's the direction Paizo wanted to take 2e. It remains more complex than 5e, but many of the changes have come in the form of making the classes more balanced, lowering the power divide between martials and casters, and making gameplay and character building overall more intuitive. That may not be "perfect" in the eyes of people (like me) who actually enjoy the insane complexity and ridiculous power that you can achieve in 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e, but to others, it may be a vastly more enjoyable system.

Also see the ability of fighters and the like to do much more than charge and full attack- there are options in 2e that did not exist, or were not easily accessible, in 1e. A game can contain more, or simply improved, options without being complex.

I don't think that "technically perfect" or "better rules" applies at all to this comparison. There is no strictly objective way to make a game like Pathfinder better, hence all the rabid arguments over the two editions that spring up so frequently.

And again I ask how is it simpler, a more streamlined system? How are its rules less complex or annoying?

Is it easier for newcomers? I’ve watched newcomers to 5e flounder in confusion at the system and struggle to figure out how to do things.
Does there need to be more balance between martial and spellcaster? I’ve seen many spellcasters completely overwhelmed by martial characters. What options exist in 2e that didn’t in 1e? Fighters have always had many options other than charge and full-attack so I don’t see any improvement.
You are just asserting these things without giving real examples, if the game really does have these improved qualities then they should be easy to put on display.

It has newer rules and 1/100th the content so there's less opportunity for rules to be a problem so far.

Asserting that it’s better because it’s newer is a complete fallacy. How much content 1e had is irrelevant because one no one needs to use anything beyond the core rulebook and 1e having more content is irrelevant because eventually 2e will build up a similar amount of content that addition content won’t change the quality of the game.

Honestly if 2e is better where are the actual examples of where it’s system is better than 1e.