The All Seeing Eye's page

Eh blech real life is interfering with me on this, I am gonna pass for now. Good luck folks.

Room for another Artificer in the mix?

4d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 1, 5) = 16 15
4d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 6, 5) = 20 16
4d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 4, 1) = 9 8
4d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 3, 5) = 17 14
4d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 6, 2) = 15 13
4d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 4, 1) = 17 16

.

Old school modules means old school tools. Consider me interested for a Cleric. (My old school default.)

Probably Pelor? We are talking armored up, mace in hand bringing the light of the sun god to evil.

I would propose a pilgrim type, doing what good clerics of Pelor do; healing the sick and blessing the crops. Most likely from Geoff to make sense geographically? Wandering type trying to do right by common folk.

If other deities might make more sense I am game, I just like playing clerics in the old modules, reminds me of my start I guess.

.

I have some interest in the geokineticist slot, I am trying to work my way into it, I should have something soonish.

I'm interested, this sounds fun and I like core...what ate your build instructions (ability points, traits, etc)

I wonder if part of the problem is that because magic is so inherently detailed in what it can and cannot accomplishall the other sources of abilities seem less defined therefore less mechanically satisfying?

Magic in Pathfinder has a lot of moving parts. There is a lot to manipulate and there are many variables to consider in how it is applied, created and accounted for. That gives it more mechanical weight but it seems like that weight also reflects then on how much more time and effort is spent enhancing and fiddling with it from a design perspective.

I guess I am circling around the notion that to give martials better things they need ways to exercise mechanical flexibility and creativity on par with the legwork done for casters already.

Secondary to that (and more important to some over others) is potentially explaining the source of said mechanical sophistication. I agree with Tark that it might be best defined within the narrative of the group but as PF often harkens to Golarion a lack of any sort of "reason" makes the disparity between martial accomplishment and caster ability more glaring in my eyes. (In that setting)

Reading back on what I wrote I was speaking to what I thought would be right not what is and I wanted to clarify that.

I think it is the case that right now BW and Hawkeye (The Punisher?) are what PF imagines as level 20 characters and in some cases that is only with external aid of magic yet at the same time you have someone pulling a Kang and bouncing throughout time, pulling heroes from other realms and shooting someone with "laser beams"...your level X wizard.

I said this in another thread like this long ago but I think the biggest boon to the "modern" wizard is that now they don't have to expend anything to get their power. In older systems items cost literal blood sweat and tears thus hampering progress of other abilities. Magic had a price.

Character progresses on separate tracks to level. Now the math on that is funky and it makes things complicated but it used to be common that the fighter was higher level than many others (save the rogue) and that helped offset the disparity. If a fighter reached level 20 twice as fast as a wizard then would that alleviate some of the feelings of being less relevant? Probably not and its not necessarily the best solution but I certainly wonder...

Hawkeye and Widow are not the same level as Hulk or Thor so comparing them seems strange? A level 18 fighter who is capped within the realm of what those two (Hawk and BW) characters can accomplish points to the heart of the issue.

To my mind the Marvel universe is a great analog to PF/D&D. BW and Hawkeye are level 7-10. Hulk and Thor are 18-20. Most of the time Spiderman is clocking in around 13? Same as Cap? That is a universe with a martial/caster disparity and I will be interested to see how the movies integrate Strange who is generally dealing with a whole other scale of power.

Although it also reveals a very essential factor to this dynamic that gets convoluted - the presence of tech. Martial power can be amplified through the application of technology. Its not the same as magic (though it might functionally be the same a la Thor) but inbetween "normal" and "magic" is X

For most folks X is an event or an alteration - spider bites, gamma rays, super injections.

For others its high int scores and great crafting.

PF seems to want to offer the physical achievements of someone like BW or Hawkeye without the tools to make Iron Man (or even the modest alterations to someone like Hawkeye's gear like a rotating quiver) without the presence of someone like Dr. Strange. And BW and Hawkeye have to expend way more resources to be as good as they are. Something is missing?

Repeating the questions:

1) If someone, say, has 20 or more Con, Dex, or Str would they qualify for having super unrealistic things without explanation?

2) Whats the general limit of power for an at-will magical ability? You can express this in terms of spell level, number of feats and/or level limits.

3) Would you count Stamina as an at-will resource when determining the power of abilities that use it?

4) Would it dilute the concept of the fighter if he could learn magic symbols to place on his sword/armor that would grant things like a temporary fly speed, elemental damage, or bonuses to a save?

5) Given that a fighter, thematically, is just a regular guy what do you expect him to do against magic things that happen at high levels if he is high level?

6) Same question as #4 but with alchemical items.
Envall

1) They certainly would be almost unnaturally strong/tough/agile right? 10 is "average" but 20 is the best that any race can achieve without alteration so I would say that it doesn't need explanation. Some elves (rare clearly) are that smart, some dwarves that tough or wise, etc etc etc.

2) Given that it completely dependent on the effect I would say "it depends"

3) I certainly would and it (to my mind) is slightly more appealing than being based on class, stat or other mechanical feature that is static. I think things like this and "grit" that have a way to get replenished via multiple routes are good.

4) I would say "it depends". As noted in the thread some folks want heroes that maybe gain abilities but aren't steeped in "magic". I think systems that allowed what you are describing makes sense and could be a good mechanical compromise (basically you can craft magic without having magic) but I can see that some folks want the perception that the fighter achieves via "skill" not outside power. Of course even Achilles had his ass dunked in supernatural water and Thor is not human so how a "normal" individual achieves that without some sort of interference might be up for debate.

5) See my answer to 4. Though I will note that if there were hard baked "social" or "plot" hooks baked into level progression a la Ad&D and other systems this might help too. Say you hit level 10 and one of your level up benefits is "Warrior's Journey" this can be handled in game, out of game, explicitly or implicitly (much in the same way suddenly getting followers and a castle used to be handed down at certain levels) once that journey is complete you are now "level 10"...the substance and detail of said journey are of no mechanical benefit save to mark the level but narratively it establishes that Odysseus has returned home or Conan has wandered the earth or what have you and the next set of journeys are now by a creature who is somehow more than he/she/it once was. It provides something to explain "how does that person fell beasts of myth?" with the response "ah they went on a journey and returned something more than normal" or what have you.

6) But its science! Of course its different? Anyone can do alchemy...if they have skills...which fighters don't...but I think the idea of treating weapons with "stuff" to make them do "things" is all well and fine but it causes thematic issues for folks who merely want their folks to do the things themselves.

@ BNW - I guess what I mean to say is, its all well and good to say "you have rights to over there" but that doesn't mean much when other people own stuff in the way. I get the whole L&C thing, thats why I sort of scoff that the charter may well have said anything it liked but that isn't the same as actually acting on that assumption.

It strikes me more as a placeholder and a "see we CLAIMED that" type of thing rather than a well thought out conceptual framework of how westward progression might have been actually carried out. So I get that something said they had those borders but in the way that someone might roll their eyes at if the ever actually tried to act on it, which they never truly did because it got carved up into other states.

--------------------------------------

I think the "feature or bug" argument implies that there was one right choice. A vote occurred, we made a choice but lets look at any number of other historical votes and consider that in hindsight or with modifications to the situation a vote could go another way. I'm proud to live a country that had the hard arguments that we have had and continue to have. I by no means look at each vote, even then, as a "Mission Accomplished" moment.

That Madison and his allies couldn't convince the others to see their point of view and ultimately lost and didn't continue to push the situation since it was in the spirit of playing nice (Something Madison notes in the Federalist Papers) doesn't mean that Madison didn't have a point, and doesn't mean that there aren't benefits and problems with the system as designed. The FF knew it was a hodgepodge and they had other fish to fry. Our system wasn't designed in a vacuum and there was plenty of horse trading and shenanigans.

I think our country tends to idolize the FF as static figures of history when really their brilliance was in their mutable humanity. I personally see no contradiction in saying they designed something as best they could but we could stand to tinker with it in 21st Century. You will note we have done that a few times with the constitutions we have helped draft for other countries.

Buts its all moot. You need to actually clean up the rules of order and conduct in the Congress, find good mechanisms to ensure voter turnout in off season elections and unilaterally enforce neutral drawing of districts to even get a true representation to test the original system let alone act on the will of the people to alter it if that is in the cards.

Georgia no border until the Pacific? What about the Louisiana Purchase and so on? They didn't have rights that extended that far...am I missing something there?

I guess what I am saying is, sure, they looked at a map and said "this will work" but did they REALLY have a way to wrap their heads around the scale of what that did to a population our size two hundred years later? I'm not saying it wasn't a good set of ideas or even appropriate for its time. I just question if it is working super great now.

Adding to that, at the time there was a relationship between size and population density (see the example of Kentucky) but now we have a different situation. Small states with way more people and large states with far less. I'm not disputing the forefathers ability to read a map. I'm questioning if they thought it would make sense to give a set of states that were ten times the size and one tenth the population the same weight.

Maybe it ultimately doesn't matter. A state is state no matter its dimensions or density and THAT is the point, and I get that. I ultimately should be just as irritated at Delaware getting to skew things with their 2 senate votes and I am making the mistake of thinking that, since they are small, that somehow is better or more okay than my Dakota irritations.

Ah well.

The All Seeing Eye wrote:

The system had many intentions I don't know that you can claim it is working as "intended" given the difference in reality then from now. The house made a lot more sense then and the senate did too. The founding fathers surely weren't thinking about states equal in size to half the states in the union when they conjured up their formula I think?

Yeah, actually, they were. The fear of the smaller colonies (like Delaware, which specifically threatened independence over this issue) is that their concerns would be swallowed up in a population-based unicameral legislature. So the Senate was specifically set up to balance the population of the larger states against the smaller states individually. The term historians use for this is the Great Compromise, and the situation is functioning exactly as intended....

Sorry, let me be...more precise.

I understand the Great Compromise and the theoretical underpinnings of that. But even the scale and scope of states then far exceeds a reality where something like the number of people in all of the states in that time would fit in NYC 3 maybe four times over now? The entirety of the population of South Dakota gets more say in the business of the country then 1/8th of the population of that same city?!

The conceptual frameworks make sense but not the way in which they were employed much later down the line. Based on a ratio of landmass to population we should have less states I would think. This is what I mean by say I question how much of it was "intended" to be this way.

Our forefathers were pretty sharp but not gods. Human beings are exceptionally bad at conceptualizing things that are large and/or risky. I just think that as we exist now might be outside of the scope of their concerns at the time they drafted some of these concepts.

@BNW-

Other examples where Democrat ideas don't jive super great are blue collar union goals and the industries they are part of w/ environmentalism, certain strains of militaristic and intelligence philosophies as they relate to status, stature and international capability and responsibility to the world (War is bad but if we are going to do it we should do things like bomb the hell out of places from afar...this is more a modern facet of the Democratic identity but they share complicity in many of our issues on this topic, additionally the cutting of Intelligence Services at certain times thus diminishing the ability to react to certain threats, or so it has been debated.) Trade policies and issues of open vs secret negotiations around such areas that are counter to their constituents concerns around consumer safety, copyright and intellectual property protections and/or enforcements (that topic alone is a pretzel twist for everyone on every side), etc.

All I am saying is that the Democrats have to contort to get their agendas served, I'm not putting a value or judgement on that per se. To me it more exposes that the two parties are too big to fit the people they contain but maybe its the only way to make it work at this point.

The All Seeing Eye wrote:

@thejeff - I have never been a fan of the 4 senators from the Dakotas having the same say as the senators of California and Texas two of the larges AND most populous states. The system poorly reflects the constituent needs on that level and the house is ABSOLUTELY unwieldly.

Working as intended. That's the very reason we have a bicameral legislature. The House represents individuals, the Senate represents States.

The system had many intentions I don't know that you can claim it is working as "intended" given the difference in reality then from now. The house made a lot more sense then and the senate did too. The founding fathers surely weren't thinking about states equal in size to half the states in the union when they conjured up their formula I think?

@BigNorseWolf - The one thing about the overlapping interests of Democrats as far as my "yoga pose" comment is that, for instance, the Financial Services industry has been a big donor to both parties but more to the Dems. That doesn't jive with many issues and there are other examples. Democrats are just more civil about their infighting perhaps? But I think you are right about some of the narrative pieces created by the Republicans, I have long been frustrated by a group of people that smash the gears of the machine and say "See?!? It doesn't work!"

@Krysbyn/thejeff - I agree with thejeff that the money list is hard because of the true level of obfuscation and, as the intro to the list concedes, there are individuals like Adelson and Blooberg who would be high up on that list after only a couple of years. That said I think everyone should really look at those lists just to see, if anything, how much money gets thrown around in general. This is just to get people to voite, imagine if we had all that money to actually govern with.

@thejeff - I have never been a fan of the 4 senators from the Dakotas having the same say as the senators of California and Texas two of the larges AND most populous states. The system poorly reflects the constituent needs on that level and the house is ABSOLUTELY unwieldly.

One proposal I had head that I liked was mapping larger more uniform districts and then assigning winners based on total amassed votes. For instance, instead of 3 districts that would end up with 3 Democrats (New York was the example I heard about) you would have one large district with the top three being the reps. In that scenario you might well end up with 2 dems and a repub in the same population base or even a Dem, a repub and an Independent or third party candidate. Less districts, better sampling, same # of reps.

Yeah there are pro and cons to state's rights and its hard especially in a country that has such uneven distribution, tons of district contortion to skew representatives (both parties gerrymander but the republicans have been particularly effective in recent years in no small part due to the number of states they control which is the level those districts are drawn) and other factors. My own state is "Blue" for the most part save for the X number of millions of people in the other half of it that don't have the numbers to skew the calculus to their needs and interests.

I agree with Simon that I think the sampling is a huge issue. You could literally have millions of people of a certain political ideology with no say in federal discourse simply because they happen to be in a place where there are millions more of another political train of thought. That somehow doesn't strike me of the type of representation that was envisioned by our republic modeled system.

I do see the State Rights banner leveled at questionable times (*sometimes other times for legitimate reasons) but Federal policy can make such little sense in certain circumstances, I am less convinced as I get older that it is the be all and end all in a country this massive.

Somehow the mix needs to be stabilized but in my mind a key factor in that would be chipping away at the two party system (which to the best of my knowledge was never strictly intended) and taking certain actions like district drawing and similar actions out of the hands of whoever is in power "at the moment" and putting them in the hands of institutions built with an intention of impartiality. Term limits on everybody from reps to judges might also be a good idea to a certain extent, but I'm less certain on that one....

Phooey, I've always been told that the slippery slope is just a fallacy. Mostly by people pushing for incremental changes.

I think from what I have seen the slippery slope thing is a "thing" in some cases and not in others. Some slopes may slip a little but when everyone describes it as "plummeting off a cliff into unadulterated chaos" then incremental change is seen as somehow a horrid thing to do.

I think that is mostly what the author is trying to articulate. To me it makes sense that some changes will beget changes and for those who don't like change in a direction that is not theirs, it is a hard pill to swallow but the rampant use of hyperbole in what strikes me as an age of important nuances seems...counterproductive.

In any case, here's my problem with the current US government: neither party is really interested in individual liberty. Both are invested in amassing power for their side. Republicans mostly suck on social issues. Democrats mostly suck on fiscal issues. Politician has become a career and like with any career the politicians are now evaluated on metrics that politicians should not be measured on. Seeing how many laws you can pass while in office should not be a goal, but it has become the one politicians are generally evaluated on.

Are people evaluated on how many laws they pass? In many corners it seems more about how many they stop. Quotas in either direction seem silly, I agree. Quantity in governing seems a poor substitute to quality.

On the point of individual liberty I think the biggest issue I see is the fundamental disagreement on what IS liberty and what CREATES that liberty. I think the conflict about money, guns, religion, and so on painted against a country this big and the sense of what is best for a "common good" when so many of us live in states that may well be foreign countries to each other makes for some really hard conversations.

I think both parties have a hard time not falling into some really strange yoga like manipulations of themselves to touch the actions of their agendas to their ideals.

Well I certainly feel like the lack of civility in political discourse is higher than it used to be even if its just due to the ease by which one could share their displeasure. That is happens on a forum full of people who are highly engaged in what is ultimately a social hobby with large amounts of systems related thinking colors me as completely

I liked the article because it helped me to remember that there are reasons for the spectrum of political thought and there are values and characteristics of worth or note in considering how and why the other positions on their spectrum function as they do.

I for one am critical of most political camps, for a myriad of reasons and feel alienated in the political discourse due to its tendency towards hyper reactionary reactions and a lack of elastic thinking in building solutions that might flex with the issues as they are and how they might change.

Anyway I read an article by a Republican saying that the Democrats have values and approaches that are helpful to consider. That seemed like a shining moment outside of the general "bright line" screaming matches or gloating from either side (Not that those do not exist but the noise gets so loud this time of year) so I thought I would share.

So I was hip deep in reading that voting thread when it got snipped and something that came up for me was this article which I was reading right before it:

How Republicans Can Get Things Done: What the GOP can learn from Democrats about how to govern.

The author (Reihan Salam) is known as a conservative commentator. I know nothing of how far he leans and I would have picked a better title just given the current partisan climate but I think the substance of the article has some merit as far as what he "sees" in the two political parties.

I thought this might be a good example of something to discuss around politics that proves to the powers that be we can have civil discourse.

It just really made me think about how I see the parties and what I "expect" of them and why, etc. YMMV

The All Seeing Eye wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

Every time someone quotes this, I keep imagining a dragon wearing a suit of magic plate mail armed with a longsword facing an unarmed fighter... who then whips out an atom gun and is suddenly equipped with power armor. He then uses his rocket launcher on the armored dragon's zombies, but that causes the nearby graviton reactor to explode.

It's... pretty awesome, actually.

Full Disclosure: I've never played Rifts, and have no desire to do so.

I would play this game.

I also wonder where my out and out Fantasy Western corner of Golarion is...or have I missed that?

If by "Fantasy Western" you mean "John Wayne's Westerns + Magic", the closest would be Alkenstar.

Yes this is exactly what I meant...and I had forgotten about Alkenstar though I read about it once or twice I'm sure. But no sourcebook yet...ah well six guns and train robberies will have to wait.

Every time someone quotes this, I keep imagining a dragon wearing a suit of magic plate mail armed with a longsword facing an unarmed fighter... who then whips out an atom gun and is suddenly equipped with power armor. He then uses his rocket launcher on the armored dragon's zombies, but that causes the nearby graviton reactor to explode.

It's... pretty awesome, actually.

Full Disclosure: I've never played Rifts, and have no desire to do so.

I would play this game.

I also wonder where my out and out Fantasy Western corner of Golarion is...or have I missed that?

The All Seeing Eye wrote:

3. You probably are done with the AP at this point. As written at the very least. Certain beats moving forward *might* happen but the narrative in those stories assume a certain level of mischief not something like this. I think you best contemplate considering how you can take what has been laid and looking with broader eyes at the world. Your players escalated things to another level so true challenges, at this point, will happen well outside what Kingmaker was originally calibrated to offer.

Oh I think the AP could still be a blast. But it will definitely have changed.

The big N is smart and powerful. Her erstwhile ally just got nuked, and she has to know that those sorts of things await her Bloom armies and her plans for the Stolen Lands. So, time to strike.

First, she ensures she's placed sleeper agents as "Joe Trooper" type guys in every PC army. Armed with a lead lined backpack and a 18th level Control Winds one shot item (Craft Wondrous) set to trigger instant Tornado. Those are really, really bad news - look up tornado under Environmental Effects.

Second, she places sleepers in every major town and city in the PC's Kingdom. Also equipped with the Control Winds nukes.

Then, she triggers her Blooms. PC's mobilize the armies which are promptly destroyed by the sleeper agents. The cities brace for catastrophe as the Bloom armies approach but then more Tornados wreck the cities. Loss of life will be massive. The Bloom armies then crash into the already mangled cities. The PC Kingdom is in shambles. They might counter nuke some Bloom armies, but it won't be enough - the Stolen Lands get stolen.

But, the AP continues. The PC's must rescue and restore their Kingdom and defeat the big N. Tell them all gloves are off - do what they can to end N and her armies of the First World. Let them run rampant. Try out their new and deadly ideas. It all happens off Golarion, which can be handy in a way. And maybe they end up winning too.

The...

Right I think big chunks can survive I guess in my mind what changes is that the Bid Bad's plan is basically in scope to what the players arguably accomplished? the big bad's plan doesn't disrupt the world per se and the characters are meant to finish them off before anyone else would really notice. There is now time between her narrative beat and what they did so I think the politics would get more convoluted and complicated much faster.

In my view the AP no longer is self contained and it would make sense that adjustments would need to be made in a relatively large way to make "sense" to me as far as how a world responds to giant falling gold rock nukes or whatever.

Not bad, in fact it sounds quite fun. Just different.

I will echo goose/gander arguments but add the following thoughts:

History suggests that things escalate quickly when a nation/state type entity expands its use of force.

Trading partners, diplomatic envoys, basic exchanges of goods and services between citizens will quickly falter. ESPECIALLY if there is not a bard or face to the party justifying these actions to the people. Tyranny and bloodshed rely on a weak or uninformed populace if theirs is neither they are looking at political and economic strife in a big way from within and without

No one nation *may* have casters of that skill but the like of Brevoy have money and political power. Red Mantis assassins exist for a reason. Cheliax and Andor may not get along but they will find common cause very quickly if they find out some not s+!# northern border territory is stomping around dropping nukes on its neighbors. There are big players in Golarion and the AP assumes a certain amount of casual indifference from them because nothing escalates to a certain point but it certainly will if they are shaking things up that much.

To further expand on that there ARE casters and such that high in the world. Many of them are just as mercenary as your guys and if the realize it is open season in the hinterlands off Brevoy then a sudden infux of power players seems not only reasonable but likely.

Brass tacks:

1. If you and your players don't care about the RAW/RAI issues noted above then don't address them or keep a closer eye on them and let things be.

2. I believe in "reaction" not "retribution" from a game world. There is a living breathing world out there. Look at the Inner Sea primer and ask yourself how the average ruler in 100, 500 or 1000 mile radius might respond to this news. Russia responded to U.S. nukes in relatively short order by testing bigger weapons in very visible places. MAD exists as a military and political concept for a reason. It might take time but I think your players are about to make a lot of new enemies AND friends they never contemplated before.

3. You probably are done with the AP at this point. As written at the very least. Certain beats moving forward *might* happen but the narrative in those stories assume a certain level of mischief not something like this. I think you best contemplate considering how you can take what has been laid and looking with broader eyes at the world. Your players escalated things to another level so true challenges, at this point, will happen well outside what Kingmaker was originally calibrated to offer.

My 2cp.

If only id seen thia 13 hours ago ! Good luck group!

Yeah and I think this is the problem when you get to this level. If you push a game to be rule and definition oriented, woe unto you if you do not define terms you come to rely on for parsing resolution of effects. So I am not unsympathetic to the dialog by any means.

I wouldn't caution the GM; I would caution a designer who thinks you can balance things by assuming they won't be used in the most logical and straightforward manner. I suspect my generous reading is what is intended, but it's not defined in the rules.

And I would disagree.

Though issues of editing have been leveled against Pazio before, barring that I would say that in most circumstances they are good about choosing syntax that reflects basic intent. Ally. Enemies. "When you are the target of a spell". Why add "enemy" if they intended it to be simply whenever targeted by a spell regardless of origin?

Logic denotes valid reasoning. In my mind: Friends are not enemies, ergo my friends cant trigger that effect is pretty logical. I also find it straight forward. I have to step pretty far outside my own line of thought to see what you seem to think it should be. No offense, just my observation.

I think it is all well and good to make the conscious choice to let the ability function that way if everyone at the table is of the same mind but I don't read that ability the way it seems like you are.

Here's a question, would an arcanist with Suffering Knowledge be able to take advantage of the ability if they were hit by an ally who was charmed by an enemy (but not known to the characters) who cast a spell on the arcanist? Why, or why not and is the answer to that question consistent with how enemies are determined elsewhere in the rules?

Funny enough I would argue yes. The ability is reactionary. If your ally is not in control of their functions they are no longer your ally. As soon as they cast at you your instinctual ability would kick in. ASsuming of course, the cast something meant to harm you or otherwise negatively impact you.

But try this:

If we agree that spells resolve based on caster perception:
An enemy charms an ally and then forces that ally to cast a spell they would normally cast, to the arcanist's benefit, I would say no. There is no reason for the Arcanist to assume that their friend is not their friend, there is no instinctual response...

OR

You could take the view that all effects review from the "god" plane:
God sees that an enemy is in control, the ally is therefore not an ally, and then regardless of the circumstances the arcanist could use suffering knowledge because they were targeted by an "enemy".

OR

You could take the view that all effects review from the "god" plane":
God sees an enemy is control, the ally is still the ally based on God's perceived understanding of intent and then Suffering Knowledge triggers based on that intent.

It seems like a lot of mental jockeying to make a "thing" out of something that probably resolves cleanly 98% of the time.

The All Seeing Eye wrote:

Yeah I think the heart of it is about (honest) discrimination at the time of the effect. And in my mind this should be ruled by a certain level of common sense.

Suffering knowledge for the arcanist, for example, you would never fail a saving throw against an ally except by choice. Given that, at that point, you are choosing to fail it isn't so much about them being an enemy as it is about attempting to change what seems like a discriminate marker of balance for the ability.

This is why I made that comment about a player "deciding" what is an enemy in some sort of meta-textual way.

On the other hand, I think suffering knowledge is something you should be able to willingly accept. Because otherwise it doesn't really make any sense.

Right, obviously they choose to activate it. I would caution a GM who would allow a team member to spam the arcanist so the arcanist could hot swap out spells because it would appear to me this effect is intended to at least be balanced with it being an option useable only when being affected by a foe. Otherwise they would have left out the "enemy" part.

Yeah I think the heart of it is about (honest) discrimination at the time of the effect. And in my mind this should be ruled by a certain level of common sense.

Suffering knowledge for the arcanist, for example, you would never fail a saving throw against an ally except by choice. Given that, at that point, you are choosing to fail it isn't so much about them being an enemy as it is about attempting to change what seems like a discriminate marker of balance for the ability.

This is why I made that comment about a player "deciding" what is an enemy in some sort of meta-textual way.

An enemy is whoever the caster or enacter of the effect believes or decides to be an enemy. You can affect yourself as if you were your enemy.

An ally is whoever the caster believes or decides to be an ally.

If the caster doesn't know the creature is in the area of effect, designation goes by what the caster would think if he or she could see it.

I cannot believe I am about to say this because it seems so nitpicky but just in case, I cannot stop myself.

AS a GM, I would caution, very specifically, against not calling out a player who might "decide" that someone was an enemy for the purpose of an effect that seems contrary to basic reason. I cannot conceive an example but I can conceive a player saying "well I decide to cast this spell with Billy being an enemy" (even though Billy isn't) to get some sort of effect. My 2cp.

Supernatural HUD, I see

So here is my thinking on this...

As "enemy" is not a defined term it is subject to interpretation. I would offer, where I a GM with a player looking for clarity, that an enemy is anyone who is actively or would intentionally mean to harm you or negatively affect you were they to discover your true purpose.

So context would be relevant.

A town guard is neutral if you are just walking around. (and you are in no way viewed as a threat, have a warrant out etc. You walk into a new town with completely reasonable laws that you have no reason to assume you have broken and they are not acting in any way to contradict that sense.)

A town guard is an enemy if you are walking around casing the next house to steal from and you would be hauled off to jail if they realized this.

Casting Bane on a 50 ft radius with town guard who you are not opposed to does nothing while casting Bane in a 50ft radius when you are casing a joint and what them to be negatively impacted would work.

I suppose this would work on yourself in context. If you are filled with loathing and mean to do yourself harm I guess you could Bane yourself just like you can Bless yourself. Technically both spells say "your allies" or "your enemies" with you as the center effect. If we assume you think of yourself as an ally, I am sure someone out there feels it necessary to think of themselves as their own enemy.

Friends aren't enemies, they are friends...or in the case of how it is stated in the core rule, allies. Allies can become enemies. Enemies can become allies. The rules seem to care about their state at time of casting. That state is subjective based on the caster's perception.

I say all these things but in a certain sense this is let about rules and more about rulings. Its about a certain philosophical debate that the rules don't assume it needs to support. Its also a clear circumstance (in my mind) where the text does not provide enough data, DMs will have to rule on this...if a player really feels the need to question beyond some basic assumed values.

Is an enemy whoever you believe is an enemy? Or is it whoever believes themselves your enemy? Can an ally by an enemy? Can you be your own enemy?

It might be helpful to know what you are trying to do that would force this line of questions. I assume you are not wanting a philisophical debate as you posted in "rules".

As Creative Director of Paizo, I do NOT feel that the iconics need a redesign at all. I feel quite proud of them, and that we've managed to cover a wide range of styles, personalities, and appearances. Can we improve further? Absolutely. We make new iconics now and then—we've got 10 more coming later this year, in fact.

But I'm not interested in "redesigning" any of the ones we've already got.

Not that this is directly related but I would love to see a "collection" of all the various iconics in different forms of dress. They are scattered through a lot of books but I think it would be awesome to see them in alternate gear and everything...for some reason I can't escape the idea of a clothing catalog.

Valeros could do the "sweater stare" real good I bet.

ABCoLD wrote:

I think this makes Draco's rather silly point is somewhat valid. To claim misogyny would require Sirti to have displayed a disregard for the opinions of all women or at least all women who preferred to not have women displayed this way.

My silly point don't come from nowhere. Many women in Brazil claim that north america "feminism" is too prude and robs the right of women to be feminine. I might not be the best informed person about this dispute, but many women i've talked about the issue said that rumor is based on true info. I don't want to claim that i am right, i only wanted to register that such notion is not universally accepted and there is still discussion about it, even if it's only outside of USA.

Casting a wide net on north american "feminism" is surely as problematic as casting one on the whole of Brazil. The problem with this argument is that there are issue not only of gender or "feminism" but also sexual politics, geographical politics, racial, economic and many other issues that form very different notions of what feminism is and what it means.

Its like saying every person who has an African heritage in the U.S feels the same way about racism or every person who is hetero feels the same way about same sex relationships. All communities are dynamic and have varying opinions.

Look no further than "sex positive" culture in the U.S. to see an example of demonstrated feminism that might be at odds with its more "prudish" cousins. Examples of dissent, allegiance, overlap and divergence abound.

That said, I think for my part the issue here is some people may be offended by *insert notion here* and them being offended or having issue is not *wrong*. Folks may not agree, folks may not have had that experience, but it doesn't make people *wrong*. Feelings aren't *wrong*. Actions on feeling can be. Some notions you come to based on feeling can be.

But if anyone, regarldess of who or what they are (a red martian 5 gendered cephalopod for instance) comes into a thread to discuss imagery and impact and says "I think *that thing right there* is offensive because it makes me feel a certain way" the answer to that isn't "nope you are wrong" but it certainly could be "I don't understand why".

My 2 cp.

EDIT @The All Seeing Eye Thank you. I hadn't seen this before and I am glad I read it.

No problem.

Here are some articles about an event in 2008 around the word "uppity" and its legacy in the American social meta-mind.

And I also encourage folks, if they care at all to look here and here for some background on what art scholars call the male gaze and its impact on art. (and the debates around it)

I have no agenda other than understanding the sides of the debate. Enjoy, or not, your call.

Edit:tweaked wording so it did not start a debate on my phrasing rather tah nsimply pointing to the ideas I am linking to.

As far as residency...remove those restrictions as well. Let med graduates work apprenticeships on terms they and their mentor agree upon.

AAahhhhhhh...uuhhhmmm...no?

For now I'll let the AMA = ≠ Politburo pass me by and say that while I can see some of what you are trying to articulate I cannot conceive of how lifting educational and, more importantly, experiential requirements and replacing that with "ye olde apprenticeship" does anything to advance the issues of care.

Less work load? Yay!
Perhaps smaller paid but less stressed doctors? Yay!

That said pushing a field as critical as medicine back to the days of being defined by what you as an individual "student" can get someone to agree to without some sort of larger consensus seems dangerous and counter-productive?

Protip: Not everybody who disagrees with you is stupid or malicious. It is possible for intellectually honest people to disagree with each other.

That is SO not true. I disagree with this statement you stupid malicious jerk...er...

I agree with this, there are a lot of moving pieces and economics is a bit more "elastic" than some topics so demonizing intellectual opponents is problematic in trying to understand the arguments.

And yes it will raise prices, because if Joe Franchisee is making $100k a year from his store, he certainly isn't going to take a pay cut while all his employees get a raise.

He won't? He might if his competition is willing to drop their profit margin.

I work in a sector of the government where I have seen people tank their profit margins in the economy of the last few years to keep any income through the door. I think they think of it as an investment in the long run; steady business at lower profit is better for prospective clients then refusing to drop your prices and lose your business.

It seems to me shifting the economic power would make some owners reign in their own expectations. That and business owners with varying levels of expectations always will compete with one another. Not every music player needs 10 million dollars to live, not every business owner feels the need to get $100k.

If the income rises for those at the bottom doesn't that create a circumstance were capital might flow enough that if a business dumps all their added costs to price it opens a scenario for competition? Especially with more and more mechanisms around crowd funding? I don't know it just doesn't seem clear to me that the outcome is simply: prices go up, everyone is screwed. Wash rinse repeat.

Edit: to be absolutely clear, my second half questions here are questions and musings. Not sneaky jerkface asshatery or sarcasm.

thejeff wrote:

The whole point of the structure is avoiding responsibility.

Hey look, you just summarized Corporate America in one sentence! Although they'd probably call it "risk externalization."

The word commonly used is "mitigation" in this context. Risk mitigation.

And it can get perverse. There are plenty of reason to want to mitigate risk, for all parties, in creating agreements and contracts that are clear, enforceable with common and positive outcomes.

BUT the flip side to that trend is a desire to "mitigate" it to entities that are not responsible or into black holes of complexities that everyone can nod and claim that the system is just messed up and no ones "fault".

And that is not a corporate failing, its a large institutional failing as this happens in government too...not that I would...uh...know that...

No Chaos War...but I like a lot of...well some of... that stuff :-(

Ah well, different things for different people.

FYI there will be spoiler in my post about about RotRL...I would keep that in mind and not read if you care.

I think you are on the right track as far as what the Runelords did and how they functioned. Its clear that before the fall of Istar (and in the case of the truly enterprising post Istar) it was possible to do things that others could not conceive of with magic and given the odd sense of involvement/disengagement of the triplets of magic there is plenty of reasons both intricate and hand wavy to say why they didn't intervene (as well as the others because lets face it the one thing you (mostly) can rely on in Dragonlance is that a god would rather send a person to do a god's job)

What I think I would focus on more is skinning things, there is plenty of instances where things got built on top of or used Runlords magic (like the temple under Sandpoint.) where you would want to pick the right gods to replace Golarion ones for instance.

The other thing I would be sensitive to (depending on what classic D&D things you have introduced) is creature selection. Given the setting it may not make sense to use goblins, giants, the lamashtu in part 2, and other things depending on where you put Sandpoint. Depending on how you handled Draconian populations post WoL they could be the primary antagonists in many cases (like part 1) and you could replace giants with minotaurs or other more setting appropriate enemies. I just can't ever recall giants for some reason but my memory isn't great about that stuff ever since my son was born. Toddlers ruin memory!

I think the plot threads of RotRL make a lot of sense in DL..in some ways more because the AP has a sense of "only we can stop it" which isn't quite true in Golarion with the cast of characters there is but that might be true of most D&D/PF settings.

For a moment I was going to entertain the notion of fueling the great "Erick Wilson Slumber Hex Showdown" No hate here just sounded like a fun name in my head but I'm not sure we even have similar ideas of what the goal posts are for notions of disruption.

I've just been around here for too long. Wizards are too powerful. Synthesist Summoners? Too powerful...Eidolons in general, my god.

Create water destroys worlds. James Jacobs even said they shouldn't have made it a cantrip, SO disruptive it can be to the course of natural events. Hide in Plain SIGHT? Unbalanced. Makes no sense.

Druids? Best class, apparently. Have you seen the DPR Olympics recently? Uhmmm I would find any of that kind of shenanigans more disruptive than a slumber hex personally...

Gunslingers can craft guns at the same speed as magic items. Guns hit touch AC. They ignore most armor types. Combine those with the fact that all Gunslingers can craft out of the box...why isn't Golarion a steampunk firearm wonderland 1-2 years after the arrival of the first batch of gunslingers? According to the boards, broken broken broken.

Why? Because as my family loves to say "its in the script". Why did that truck full of milk EXPLODE? Because the script says so.

Applying logic to fantasy in general can be hard. Its why all the hard sci-fi folks turn their nose up at so much stuff.

Half the nations that exist in any given world {fantasy or otherwise} should be eaten alive if people made every choice optimally, using only the best of all options.

Like I seriously don't get it. A player is a witch. HAs a slumber hex. Goes on a rampage. {RAMPAGE LANA!}

At what point does the evil elf mercenary troupe not get a call from the local Frost Giant, Aboleth, Balor or theives guild? That's not hating on players, that's "a butterfly flaps its wings in Madagascar" type cause and effect.

And like I said earlier in the thread, how many witches are really out there? Causing all this chaos, getting permission from the universe (because witches get all their stuff from their patron right? That is the *source* of their power?) to just sleep everything in sight? And the statistical average says they will fail eventually.

Maybe the PCs are a crackerjack team of Elf Slumber Hex Witches. They will rule the world apparently. Can't be stopped. At that point isnt this a conversation about stupidbadfun and managing player/campaign expectations?

Why isn't Golarion overrun with witches? I dunno, I have lots of theories but as of the last AP the world was still turning...But I think the gunslinger fabrication machine of unified Nex/Alkenstar RAW would give the Kyonin Slumber Witch empire a serious run for its money.

Edit: And it occurs to me, witches are using resources to use Slumber...actions. Its a good use of an action but isn't being outnumbered a relatively common and easy thing to accomplish...does this mean that goblin hordes are the most unbalanced thing because they can kill witches en masse?

The All Seeing Eye wrote:

Yes some GMs do let everything in the world be.everything but the rules dont support that logically because so many options make no sense if all options are open to everyone. Golarion would fundamentally not exist because it would be overrun with witches and druids (which according to another hot thread ATM, are the best class hands down) or something. Narrative explanations, setting fiat or some other mechanism ensures the setting exist. My point is taking the unique offerings of players and expanding on them creates waves (hence my reference to the Create Water debate) so at that point, sure, quasit witches rule the ashen wastes of reality in service of their Balor patron masters. Cool game, would tottally play that but it exists in the warp of applying rules on a scale beyond their intended purpose, no?

I accept this.

However, adventures that we find satisfying follow a sort of pseudo-logic that occupies the grey area we might call "acceptable disbelief". As Paizo changes the rules, that grey area moves around, and I think it's important for module writers to try to track this so that they can write background / set-up scenario material that players and GMs are going to consider reasonably believable.

It's important to me, anyway :-) If I write something with a colossal red dragon in the bottom of a dungeon, then I put something in there about how he gets in and out.

Richard

Oh I agree that the dragon's ability to enter his own home would be an omission of substantial game disruption proportions for me. This sort of realism seems different to me than the question of "why arent all the Viking hamlets is the north optimizing as slumber hex witches".

Oh for the record, my balor fields elves. Maybe wizards...but any class will do.

Giants and Balors and Witches oh my. I think all that is missing the point. A witch and a party of who cares with scythes, longspears, and greataxes walk into a 4-hour PFS scenario. The witch casts slumber on EVERYTHING nullifying 75% of the scenario and all walk out an hour later. The next three hours finds all the 'who cares' rolling up witches and the GM searching for a scenario specifically aimed at defeating witches (not many I grant you).

Synergy? Congrats? They win?

Win what exactly Im not sure, last I checked people field characters of all types for different reasons. Gaming is repleat with munchkins doing tbere.thing, this is no different.

But demons can be witches (i.e. have some level in the witch class), and the "mysterious other powers" would be a nascent demon lord, the one whose army the Balor is commanding.
A quasit/1st level witch is a way better low level soldier than a quasit 1st level fighter. A Babau demon abilities will have a interesting synergy with the slumebr hex.
The supernatural abilities of the witch will be way more useful than spells from low level spellcasters in a fight between outsiders, where most of the creature have SR.

And a good number of GM feel that what is available to the PC should be available to the NPC too. Some ability will be rare, but the number of NPC is very high, so you will see NPC with any kind of ability if you meet enough of them.

Yes some GMs do let everything in the world be.everything but the rules dont support that logically because so many options make no sense if all options are open to everyone. Golarion would fundamentally not exist because it would be overrun with witches and druids (which according to another hot thread ATM, are the best class hands down) or something. Narrative explanations, setting fiat or some other mechanism ensures the setting exist. My point is taking the unique offerings of players and expanding on them creates waves (hence my reference to the Create Water debate) so at that point, sure, quasit witches rule the ashen wastes of reality in service of their Balor patron masters. Cool game, would tottally play that but it exists in the warp of applying rules on a scale beyond their intended purpose, no?

Has the bar been set so low that now NPCs are allowed access to any material in the books? The Eldritch powers of my worlds (which the witch must commune with as their patron), Golarion or otherwise, choose to bestow their gifts at whim and will. Those sad maggots may not see a slumber hex witch in generations. PCs are unique that they can choose their mechanics are they not? Every NPC.could have straight.18s but may only be heading to the local garrison if they are not chosen by a God, cannot find their voice, summon the arcane or find that shifty fox or pig who is a conduit to the by and by.

Balors dont summon hordes of witches because demons are cheap, reliable and most likely dont answer to mysterious other powers.* Insert narrative explanation here*.Players are unique, their ability to pick and plan are unique. Or did I miss something?

Every power, every scenario, opens potential exploits. This thread reminds me of the great "create water" debate of oh...2011 or so. "But there would never be desert", etc. etc. etc.

*sticks head in thread, leaves*

zylphryx is banned for not capitalizing his name. It confuses me when I type.

I iz in ur thredd.

Steeling ur win!

My sources say no.

The All Seeing Eye wrote:

Of all possible outcomes, I see myself winning

Get your eye checked out. It seems to be "all"-seeing, where "all" means "crap".

Because I'm going to win this.

Scientists are even talking about it. They go on and on and on and on (and on) about string theory and how there are all those different worlds that are all different in some way to ours, but now they have found out that I win in all of them.

They're all beside themselves. This revolutionises cosmology. Because of this, we'll have wormhole technology within the year because of this, and of course replicators.

It's called the "KaeYoss Is Always Awesome Constant"

Reply hazy, try again.