World's Okayest Fighter's page

I'm sure you could have picked a worse name for this thread, but I'm not sure how.

Yes. It's called picking up the book.

Close thread.

Why did you think this is okay to say, like that it was helpful or anything? Why do you so often tell people to close threads? Why do you openly ignore the topic of discussion and come in like you're some kind of authority?

If I've learned anything from the PDT (and it's debatable if I have), when the options are "cool but somewhat powerful ruling" vs. "cut it down at the knees no fun allowed ruling", they will somehow choose "double burn it to the ground and salt the earth." I expect this to be no different.

I'm sooooooooooo sick of this.

It's NOT "flavor;" it's not some superfluous secondary consideration, it's REAL. It's why the game exists. When you're playing the game, the gameworld and everything in it are REAL, so think of it that way! It's called "suspension of disbelief," and if you don't do that, then you are, indeed, NOT playing the game right.

Cool, glad you're here to tell me how to play this entirely subjective game, I really appreciate you deciding that how you play is the correct way, and that any other way of playing is entirely invalid. Tell me, how's the proper way to play the game?

Thematics: Because as a near mystical ability, physical form isn't enough to make it work. Without the mindset, the complete and total joy one takes in the art for art's sake that only a shelynite can have you can't achieve the proper form. You're not in the zone.

Mechanics: It also serves to keep people from combining the best fighting styles because they're the best. Its an additional layer of protection against unforseen combinations.

Thematics: So flavor, that's it, that's still the entire argument.

Mechanics: What two fighting styles that require a deity could mix with this? What is this safe guarding? Most divine fighting styles are based around a specific weapon, so what are they trying to guard in such a backwards and convoluted fashion? The closest I can come is a glaive wielding alchemist who can't drink fast and wield a glaive, but alchemist isn't even proficient in it, so that's another feat added to the ones already needed, so you're stopping this level 7/9 alchemist from being able to dex wield.

If you're going to claim this, I want to see an example rather than just assuming it to be true, how is this safe guarding anything?

I honestly wonder how much of a solution it would be to publish a new feat that gives dex to damage with a different polearm, without invoking any deities in particular?

Like if you could get dex-to damage with a Ranseur or a Guisarme or a Tepoztopilli without worshipping anybody in particular, nobody would care about bladed brush right?

I'd be fine with that myself; I don't like mechanics being locked behind flavor, and there's not really any defined rules for deity worship that I've found, so it's all nebulous lip service. People keep trying to accuse others of doing it for power, but have you ever once thought maybe that it's because people just like the concept of the character? Do I have to be a powergamer to think dex to damage is interesting? Does that make me a powergamer for playing the unchained rogue?

Seriously, if you took out the arguments about power gaming, 90% of the people who were for flavor wouldn't have an argument.

Just came by to say that this level of communication with a writer is really awesome, it's cool to see questions being answered this fast!

Dragon78 wrote:

I am getting sick of my Paizo wish lists becoming commercials for 3pp.

It's not 'your' list.

The 3pp advertisements are awesome. When I want a class and find out a 3pp has made a version of it better than anything Paizo will ever put out, that's great news, because chances are Paizo will never make the majority of things in this thread.

THIS!

Nothing that's coming out this year looks like it's coming out with a new class, and 99% of the time, Paizo already has its own ideas for what they're going to do. They can't put out even a fraction of these themselves, so most suggestions here fall on deaf ears.

Something I doubt Dragon's aware of is that the majority of these 'wishlist' threads are great gauges of interest to 3p publishers for what's desired. So yeah, I'm sure they appreciate it even if that's not your intention.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Ryzoken wrote:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemöller

{marks "Godwin" on bingo card}

While that is the historical context, the quote seems more apropos as regards abuse of power and why you should care even if you are not the group being oppressed.

Or you can choose to be reductionist and assume I'm invoking Godwin when I'm really not. Either way, the post I responded to reminded me of this quote, so I posted it. I'll now be leaving this thread, because in the grand scheme of things, what Paizo does with their forum doesn't concern me overmuch. Its fun to post here sometimes, but then there's threads like these and posts like yours; just more people looking for reasons to be upset, jumping at shadows.

...you know this is a message board, right? And that someone was stopped from post on it. That is what happened. You literally invoked Godwin, that's no 'second way of seeing it.'

Maybe you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit, get some perspective before you compare a user being banned from a message board to one of the greatest tragedies in human history. And in the spirit of this thread, pretty sure this post will be removed, and for good reason, since this entire chain is inane.

My group also has a no 3pp rule. I am not a fan for 3pp as well.

Hearing people say this always makes me think of Americans who hate immigration, not thinking that Paizo was originally a 3rd party 3.5 company (we could argue 2nd party due to dungeon/dragon, but the point stands), and now that they're the ones in power, they don't want anyone else making anything. Like seriously, you're playing in a land created by 3p, and here you are talking like 3p is a bad thing. And yet this is something you're totally okay with standing by.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the usefulness of skills, intelligence, and speaking.

"Sneak through this stand of trees and then circle around to the far side of the hill. The dwarf will be at a cave mouth about halfway up. Tell him we need a healing potion for the elf and then bring it back the same way you went."

Try that with an oversized canary. :]

I'm not sure that one specific scenario (or others of that kind) are worth the brutal gutting of a class's features.

I love reading about min/maxing in a Product Discussion thread!

I don't know if this is sarcastic or not, but actually discussing the product is a great place to do it, and it's really cool to see how thing stack up.

It's pretty shocking how underwhelming the drake is for how much it's been built up, maybe I can talk with my GM about not giving up an arm and a leg for it.

I like the corruption's as is. Not everything needs to be some advantage players can obsessively munchkin toward.

Yeah, that's cool and all, but isn't this thread about missed opportunities and not trying to belittle people who play in a different way than you?

So now we have Horror Adventures, and we also have rules text that tells us if we cast an evil spell twice, we get a step closer to evil.

A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood

to evil.

Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.

No justification, no "it was for a good reason", it's just you cast it enough and you become evil. And this works inversely as well; you can be completely evil, cast pro from evil 3 times, and you're good again. So there's no grey area or anything, which feels even more odd for a horror book to be so black and white about alignment changes.

And your credentials are...

I'd say not being Gary is strong enough credentials here :D