Triskaidek's page

Thanks for all the advice. I like the idea of rolling in the open. I did that for the night, mostly because the other GM at the store does that and I thought it would be interesting to try. I think that was helpful for the players.

There were a few opportunities for most of the players to flee. Mostly they thought that they could win, though, and so they fought. It was also a really bad night for dice from the player side of the table. At least two players had remarkably horrible rolls all night, and I kept having multiple crits all night (though they lived through those . . .)

It would have been nice to get people into something new, but the store was closing.

I know one player did blame the scenario, and it was a challenging encounter (I guess, duh, obviously). The pet and the re-roll were the first to fail, though, so it was not without (at least some) warning.

So I had my first PFS TPK last night. Without giving away too much about the scenario, there was a pretty much instant death condition with a Fort DC of 11. Two players rolled natural 2s (and the summoner also rolled nat 2 for his pet) none of which increased to 11. The other insta killed player, who had bad Con, rolled a 9 and got a 10. One did get a shirt re-roll, which saved him, but then he and the last player proceeded to fight the remainder of the encounter to their ultimate demise.

Two of the players were devastated, two of the players thought it was hilarious. I just feel bad for all concerned.

When you have had player death (and, especially, massive player death), how have you handled it? What are good ways to approach it for the enjoyment of the players?

Things like the ontological argument. It seems that all any formalized, systematic philosophy does is add layers of obfuscation to what otherwise should be a pretty simple matter.

I'll admit that ontology makes my head hurt. But it is foundational. Even this thread trotted out definitions of philosophy and science. If we're not, at least, talking about the same thing we will not make progress. That's all ontology is trying to do.

Oh it occurs to me that I might be using phrases not in the common language.
ad hominem - personal attacks.
tu quoque - you do it, too.
a posteriori - after the fact.

What i see is the exact opposite. People feel their way to a position and then reach for any bit of philosophy that supports that position and reject anything that urges them away from it.

My personal view mirrors this sentiment quite a bit. I think most people are irrational first and then rational second (if at all). (btw, this is also my view of scientists, to not stray too far from the original post).

A friend of mine used to say, when most people say they're thinking all they're doing is rearranging their prejudices.

So, let's grant your premise. People are using philosophy and philosophical concepts to motivate their original position (whether or not that position is irrational or rational and whether or not that position is ultimately self-serving). Doesn't providing a rational basis for a position add to the dialogue? Isn't it better to be motivated by reason than by manipulators such as ad hominem or tu quoque? I know that I'd rather hear an issue debated (for instance, do the rich pay too much / too little taxes) on its merits and on a discussion of what is good for people rather than on, "Well most of the population pays no taxes". So even if the philosophy comes in a posteriori isn't it better than having no reason, no rationality, at all?

When people argue (about anything), most of the good arguments they use are founded in Philosophy. Most reasoned argumentation is founded in Philosophy. I'm going to just focus on Political Philosophy for a moment to keep it clear (since most people, in my experience, can relate to politics). Whether or not a certain policy should be implemented is usually informed by several things. I hesitate to choose a specific instance, lest that sidetrack my point. So choose your favorite political hot potato and think about what informs the various sides of the debate. Ethics is often a consideration (which is wholly in the realm of Philosophy). Economics is often a consideration. That one is often at least partially philosophical. Liberty and Justice are often considerations. The discussion of what they entail belong to Political Philosophy. Sometimes there is a question of whether the political action is within the legitimate scope of government power. That is a philosophical question.

So, if you are asking what Philosophy produces, if you asking where its "truths" lie, here is at least one answer. Any political idea is first a philosophical one. This is certainly not the only place philosophy lurks (in my view it isn't even the most interesting). However, it is one that a layman should be able to appreciate and apprehend quickly.

I will not be able to attend PaizoCon this year. I have a banquet ticket and am in the Lovecraft event. I'm looking for someone who would benefit from these things. I'll check back tomorrow night to see who could use them.

Pre-ordered. Impatiently waiting begins now.

Point of clarification. 9 pages of Feat Charts. That's just the short description of the feats.

9 pages of feats.
Martial Art Styles.
Primitive weapons, gladiator weapons, eastern weapons, lots of guns.
Dueling Maneuvers
Performance fights (like gladiators) that enhance (or reduce) abilities as spectators react to you.
Vehicle combat.
Spells that enhance fighting.

Some optional rules which allow:
Armor as DR instead of AC
Wounds and Vitality systems.

That's all my notes.

I was going to add something about what was mentioned at the banquet, but I have no notes about this book. Apparently, I was too excited listening to note anything . . .

Yes indeed! Many thanks to all of the GMs and Paizo Staff for the excellent Con!

Leysh Fighter Human

S 18
D 13
C 15
I 13
W 8
C 7

Hp 49

Feats: dodge, mobility, combat expertise, spring attack, whirlwind attack, wf great sword, power attack

Perception 5, acrobatics 5, climb 4, knowledge dungeoneering 5, swim 1

Gear: great sword +1, belt str +2, full plate +1, cloak resistance +1, amulet natural armor +1, 400g

Traits: rich parents, armor expert

Here's his guy. Look how it's not a summoner!

I had cha 9 because of the Halfling racial. I think he's bringing a Summoner but not sure.

Sorry, must've read the belt price from construction price. I'll swap the bow for masterwork, which ought to bring me down below threshold. As for pts, str 16 = 10, dex 17 = 13, con 12 = 2, wis 9 = -1, cha 7 = -4 plus racials plus 1 dex at 4th. I'll take Deadly aim for the other feat. I'll take reactionary and history of heresy traits. Name is Perudoc.

I spoke to my friend after I posted the other night and thought he would have contacted you by now. I'll call him and let him know you are waiting.

Let me know if my math is wrong on the pt buy.

Last year I took a shuttle from the airport. It was either 14 or 21 dollars. Can't remember, but they went every hour and pretty much went straight there.

Unsure where you wanted this, so here you go:

Halfling Fighter (Archer) Level 5
Str 14, Dex 22, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 9, hp 39
Fort +6, Ref +8, Will +1
AC 19 (17 touch, 13 Flat Footed, 11 Flat Footed Touch); Init +6
Skills: Ride 5 ranks, Stealth 5 ranks, Perception 5 ranks
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus: Comp Longbow, Weapon Specialization Comp: Longbow, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot
Class Features: Trick Shot - Disarm, Expert Archer, Hawkeye
Equipment: Bracers Archery Lesser, Belt of Incredible Dex +2, Mighty Comp Longbow +1 (+2 Str), Riding Dog, Military Saddle, 200 Arrows, Pack, Leather Armor, 708g

When would you like characters?

Ran this Tier 1-2 and the end boss seemed unkillable. Just for fun, we had her fight eight and then more Bugbears (who are also CR 2 each). It took sixteen to kill her, and even that might have been a function of lucky rolls (and me stopping using her fear effects). DR in lower tiers is bad and regen on top of that was killer. How much discretion should a GM take if they think a fight is completely unwinnable?

One for Triskaidek, if you would be so kind.

Mmm, me too!

I would recommend dice. Sean mocked me (kindly) for only bringing one set. (probably because my main attack was 4d6 and I kept rolling that poor six over and over delaying the whole table . . . )

Any news on when the event sign-up begins? I'm bringing two new people this year and want them to have a good experience.

I will be bringing my car full. +4 if there is still room.

I would love to be part of this event and I also have a friend who would love to play.

So, as the dust was starting to settle, Majuba, his fiance, Joshua Blazej, (apologies, I forgot your name) perhaps the last FAWTL member "left standing" and I got together and did something amazingly fun. Total random generation. Pretty much everything we could think of. Good workout of the new GameMaster Guide. Absolute craziness. A 20 Int paranoid Fighter with +1 weapon that had nearly every aspect you could take on (What was it, Blazej? Ghost Touch, Vicious, Anarchic, Shocking . . . ). A Fighter with amnesia who couldn't remember her "former" life as, strangely enough, a fighter. A multi-personality disorder Paladin whose riding dog ended up doing more damage than just about anything (weapon of awesomeness being a notable exception, though it got bonus points for damaging the party, too . . .). And a Monk / Paladin who had started his career afraid of hibiscus and hiking (now he is just offended, as his Paladin level makes him immune to fear) who rode madly through the Ethereal plane for many rounds before realizing he wasn't doing anything.

So with that, it got me thinking. What "off schedule" events did everyone run? Give reports of your games, so that we may all vicariously enjoy them.

And long live the Fascinating Rainbow Bears of the Gods!

(No relation, btw, to any cartoon bears that may have rainbow connections . . .)

Super fun. I had no idea that this event would be this enjoyable.