another_mage's page

If we could mutually block each other this forum would be far more productive.

If you are using Mozilla Firefox, you may be interested in my paizo_ignore Greasemonkey script.

Unless I am mistaken, it doesn't seem to install properly. I open the link, it says "downloading" and sometimes it downloads, sometimes it doesn't. Even if it does, pressing the install button doesn't do anything (or is grayed out, if it didn't dowload). Looking at the user script tab, a few times it mentioned that v6 was installed, but after closing the browser and opening it again, the script was gone.

Sorry for the delay, my Internet connection at home has inoperative all weekend.

If you do run into trouble installing v7, you may need to:
- Click the Greasemonkey menu (small arrow next to the monkey icon)
- Click "Manage User Scripts..." on the drop-down menu
- Find "paizo_ignore" in the Add-ons Manager tab
- Click the "Remove" button on the right-hand side

After that, just click this URL to install Ignore v7:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~meade/greasemonkey/paizo_ignore.user.js

With the old version removed and the new version in place, everything should work. Go into a thread on the Messageboards and see the Hide / Block options show up.

Let me know if this works, magnuskn. :-)

Seeing a lot of 3-4 year old posts getting grave robbed/resurrected/ flamed. Str gives here? Conspiracy? Thoughts?

WHO DARES TO... Oh. Ahem... LITTLE CURIOUS ABOUT THAT MYSELF.

If I were given the power to permanently suspend ten people from the boards

I almost sent a private message asking for a list, so that I could pre-load it in the ignore script.

Why must Ethics be such a cruel master? :-(

we have no plans for an ignore feature.

The perfect opening for a shameless self-plug ... must ... resist...

Will Save: 1d20 ⇒ 2

So, there is this great plugin for Mozilla Firefox that adds a client-side Ignore feature for any users that are interested.

Ignore v5

The spam problem has already been solved:

xkcd 810: Constructive

We're all just waiting on an implementation...

Why would hosting it on the web store be a bad thing?

Google says hosting it on the web store is for security; the user's own protection. I agree 100%. I know a protection pitch when I hear one...

That's a real nice extension you've got there. It'd be a real shame if your users couldn't install it.

In case anybody on this thread missed it:

Ignore v5

Ignore v5

Install:
1. Mozilla Firefox
2. Greasemonkey
3. paizo_ignore.user.js

Notes:
- Your old ignore list will not be preserved in the upgrade. (Sorry)

- The "Ignore" link has been renamed "Block User". The function is still the same.

- There is now a "Hide" link. Per a brilliant suggestion by Maizing, this link will hide the specific post without blocking everything else the user has ever written.

- The lists to Un-Hide posts and Un-Block users are still at the very bottom of the page. Scroll all the way down, and click to remove it from the list.

- The Un-Hide list is quite cryptic; sorry about that. Hopefully you won't need to un-hide too many times.

another_mage wrote:

Christopher Anthony wrote:

Thanks for the bug report. I'll get that fixed.

Sorry, just to clarify, are you fixing the new threads to be compatible with the Ignore Script?

I hope for the reverse :)

Don't worry, it's nothing personal Gorbacz (I don't even actually use my own Ignore Script), I'm just trying to plan out my week/weekends.

This week, I'm involved in the Seven-Day Roguelike Challenge 2014 (7DRL), so my time is a bit limited.

If our esteemed developer is fixing the new threads to be like the old, then the Ignore Script will continue working and those who use it will be happy.

If our esteemed developer is fixing the old threads to be like the new, then the Ignore Script will break everywhere and those who use it will not be happy.

I'd appreciate a heads-up from Christopher Anthony either way, just so I know what I have in store for this week. (i.e.: If I need to take a break from my 7DRL development and switch over to fixing the Ignore Script at some point or not.)

Feedback from script users is always welcome too. If I do end up needing to fix the script, I'll probably put in the Hide Post feature and maybe some other goodies too.

Truth of the matter is that being abusive to retail staff is a boorish act that's not offset by the fact you're buying product. Americans for some reason, seem to have a greater crop of the type of people who have always seem to feel that purchasing from a venue gives you license to abuse the people that serve you.

It's the customer extension of the business management mindset.

Even a mediocre manager can get productivity from employees who produce well and are easy to get along with. However, getting productivity from "difficult" employees is the heart and art of being a great manager.

When these great managers train their sales representatives, they pass on this same idea; getting money from difficult customers somehow makes you a better sales representative.

Honestly, I think it's nonsense, because difficult customers are high maintenance and tend to be a loss rather than a profit in the long run. There are some cowards who worry their complaints will generate negative PR, but truly the difficult customers who complain all the time are known as such by their friends and family and their words don't have nearly as much impact as anybody might fear.

There is an interesting idea gaining traction that businesses should absolutely "fire" difficult customers in a self-deprecating way. Basically, "Sorry, our business doesn't have the capability to meet your demands. Here's a list of our competitors, we hope they can serve your needs better than we have been able to."

It's brilliant because it exports the cost of the difficult customer to a competitor. And, if enough businesses pick up on this notion, a customer who is difficult beyond reason will soon find themselves without a service provider (or paying astronomical rates to hire people who will put up with them.)

Here's an idea... instead of an "ignore" function, maybe a "hide this post" function could be added to the boards? I have found (on many boards), that often there will be one (or more) posters who will make posts that can range from thought provoking to inflammatory. In such cases, I would flag the inflammatory posts, but read (and perhaps respond to) the others.

Perhaps flagging a post could hide it? Or give the option to hide it (in case the flag was a mistake)?

Wow, that is gold! It makes me want to break out Firebug and make Ignore v5 just to add that feature!

1 hour, 35 minutes ago | Flag | List | Reply | Hide Post | Block User

Nice!

And then the next day, they are at your house ... forcibly converting you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

RAmen.

In a practice session I just had a player take a shot at a sahuagin king with his bow, underwater, from 1,000 feet away. He rolled a natural 20 and hit automatically. He rolled another natural 20 to confirm the crit.

The total attack roll modifiers for range and for using a ranged weapon underwater make the sum of his attack roll, and roll to confirm, to less than 0 (WAY less than 0).

A natural 20 is an automatic hit, but is it also an auto-confirmation when rolled on the crit confirmation roll?

I think so.

When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a "threat," meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to "confirm" the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.

Attack roll, natural 20 -> hit, regardless of target AC

Because attack rolls always hit on a natural 20, and a confirmation roll is an attack roll, I would say that it is indeed a critical hit.

Although it isn't directly applicable, there is an interesting paragraph in the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG that addresses cross-class spell research:

Is the player trying to gain a special advantage over the normal rules?

Sometimes players propose new spells with the unspoken purpose of "breaking the system," and, while spell research does let a player character get an edge, it is not a way to cheat. New spells should fall within the realm and style of existing spells. Clerics casting fireballs or mages healing injured characters is contrary to the styles of the two classes.

Obviously something from four editions ago isn't canon law on the matter.

The party was trying to sneak into a fortified city through a crypt and encountered a Beholder.

After finding out that the central eye is an anti-magic cone and inhibits the beholder's own eye stalks, the Dwarf Barbarian has come up with a plan:

I'm a very Yes-You-Can kind of GM, so I've got no problem with the plan. In fact, I thought it was so crazy/funny that it deserved a thread here on the forums.

My first reaction is that Step #2 could be handled by grappling contests. If the barbarian can "pin" the beholder, she can accomplish Step #2. I'm not sure if this is the right way to go.

Anybody have any suggestions on how to handle the mechanics of such a plan?

As that is exactly what I intended to do, I fail to see your point.

WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY TWO MONTH SLUMBER!?

I could kind of understand where he was coming from. I have apologized to him and he is still willing to play. So I was wondering what do people think is the perfect scenario for the paladin to shine without any moral quandary what so ever?

Quite honestly Wind Chime, I think you're asking the wrong people (the Paizo forums).

"I'm not sure I understand. Could you give me a few examples of 'untarnished moments of glory'?" ...
Here you collect player expectations, and with a little clever storycrafting you can make the player happy. Follow up with:

"Oh, and since we're on the topic... You seem upset about Situation X, Y, and Z. What kind of moral quandaries do you think a paladin should/would face in this world?"
Again with some clever storycraft, you can give the player both a moral quandary and an 'untarnished moment of glory'.

I don't think you're being too hard on your player.
Sometimes a rogue goes up against something she can't sneak attack.
Sometimes a ranger faces something that isn't a favored enemy.
Sometimes a wizard casts a spell on something with spell resistance.
And sometimes a paladin gets to face down a moral dilemma.

The key is making sure that your game (the moral dilemmas and moments of glory that you craft) is what the player expects to play.
And you can only do that by asking your player what you are trying to ask us.

Good luck.

GOOD NEWS: Ignore v4 is complete!

Extension/Script: paizo_ignore_v4.user.js

Chrome users: Google has decided that ALL extensions for Chrome will now be curated through the Chrome Web Store.
If you want to install this, you'll need to download the file to your computer, and then drag and drop it on the Tools -> Extensions page in Chrome.

Firefox users: Make sure you have the Greasemonkey Add-On installed. After that, simply click on the script link above and you'll be prompted to install the script.

I'll write up some more details tomorrow evening. Send me a private message if you're having any trouble.

I was doing some work with WebSockets this weekend, so I hadn't logged into the Paizo forums for a bit.

Private messages tell me that the Ignore Script is broken!

I'm fueling up the Firebug mobile; I'll post again on this thread when v4 is working in Firefox and Chrome.

In general, I don't recommend reading the Eragon series of books.
However, there are a few run-on sentences from Brisingr that might be of interest to the thread.
In a spoiler tag for being "obscenely impressive":

The last thing we want is to discourage community involvement, we just have to be careful about navigating the byzantine complexities of intellectual property law.

I also want to point out that Paizo is way ahead of the curve on intellectual property law.

They have published an incredible volume of material under the OGL, including original content that they were in no way obligated to put under such a license. I haven't done a formal study, but I would be willing to bet money that Paizo is the most prolific author of OGL content. (Surpassing even the company that originally authored the OGL license.)

For example, see d20pfsrd.com and then consider trying to make a similar site with the GURPS rules. Steve Jackson Games won't send you a polite e-mail; they will send you a very strongly worded IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST letter from their lawyer.

Paizo also embraces digital products (PDFs and eBooks) without the cumbersome Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) used by bad companies who assume their customers are thieves.

In short, Paizo "gets" the way customers use content in the 21st century. Their presence and positioning in the market is a message to every other RPG publisher in the industry: Content that can be shared and remixed has value to customers; if you want people to buy your stuff, you need to let them use your stuff!

So when Chris Lambertz removes content that violates intellectual property, Chris isn't the BBEG here. It's the company that originally published the content under a restrictive license. They are the ones asserting: This is MINE!!, you can buy ONE COPY, but don't you DARE attempt to SHARE it with your friends or MODIFY it in any way. You're just LUCKY that we let you buy ONE COPY to look at.

If there were any justice in the world, the restrictive publisher would have to do all their own dirty enforcement work. It's just sad that our laws require Chris to be the heavy in this situation.

Paizo is leading the charge in changing the industry for the better. It's just one of many reasons that I channel money to them every month.

James Sutter said to ask you both about Hermea in another thread.... so I'm asking, what are your opposing views on Hermea???

Link: Hermea

Reminds me of the "colony of only Alphas" that Mustapha Mond described in Brave New World.

Another thread I was on, locked. This time on alignment, because it also discussed politics. It was a thread on alignment and how you defined it. Urgh!

It happened again!

WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY TWO WEEK SLUMBER!?

All this leads to the question: Why isn't Golarion's (or any other setting's) equivalent to the Pony Express to hire a whole bunch of blink dogs to carry the mail?

To paraphrase the late Douglas Adams...

For instance, on the planet Golarion, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than Blink Dogs because he had achieved so much — the wheel, Absalom, wars and so on — whilst all the Blink Dogs had ever done was muck about on the plains having a good time. But conversely, the Blink Dogs had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man — for precisely the same reasons.

I also find it ridiculous that your skill in terms of spellcasting has nothing to do with how long it would take for an item to make.

So a 12th level caster making an item that requires only an 8th level caster and is worth only 25,000 gold takes the 12th level guy the same amount of time to craft the item as it does an 8th level caster? You'd think the more experienced and powerful spellcaster would have methods and powers that could be quicker than that, and it would be easier to craft in terms of the task's duration.

Yeah, I agree. It's like how experienced mothers can give birth way faster than 9 months.

Alignment consists of two axes:

Moral axis: Good -- Neutral -- Evil

Ethical axis: Lawful -- Neutral -- Chaotic

So to understand alignment, you really need to understand the difference between morals and ethics.

Morals asks the question "Is it right or wrong?"

If you go to your local community college, you can take loads of philosophy courses that can introduce you to all kinds of right-wrong metrics.

A moral relativist will disagree with a moral absolutist if the act of torture is right or wrong. For example, a moral absolutist will say that torture is always wrong. The moral relativist will say torture is not always wrong, and depends on the circumstances and motivation.

(This is why you get threads like Is torturing intelligent undead an evil action?; it's 300 posts of moral absolutists vs. moral relativists, arguing about the nature of right/good and wrong/evil.)

Like it or not, D&D comes from a moral absolutist position. The Book of Vile Darkness starts with Chapter One: The Nature of Evil on Page 5, talking about objective evil. Pathfinder inherits that tradition of moral absolutism.

In Pathfinder then, torture is always wrong/Evil. It doesn't matter who does it to whom for whatever reason, it's always Evil, period. As are lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc. You can then collect all actions (devoid of any context) and put them on a list, call it the List of Evil Actions.

Those of Evil alignment are generally willing to perform some to all of the actions on the List of Evil Actions.

Those of Good alignment are generally not willing to perform most or all of the actions on the List of Evil Actions.

Those of Neutral alignment may be amoral (an animal, without moral reasoning) or willing to dip into the List of Evil Actions, but not quite to the degree that an Evil character will.

Ethics asks the question "Is it permissible according to a code of conduct?"

Ethics is a little bit more complex, because an answer depends on the code of conduct is many times it depends on what code of conduct is chosen as the ethical standard.

The common ethical standard most people know about is the law. Like U.S. Federal law, or Canadian law, or the laws of the State of California. All of these are different standards. Sometimes more than one standard applies at a time.

There are also professional codes. Such as:

ACM Code of Ethics
IEEE Code of Ethics
Legal Ethics
Medical Ethics

So the question of Lawful vs Chaotic comes down to:

- Does the action follow the applicable rules?

Lawful actions follow most or all of the applicable rules.

Chaotic actions follow little to none of the applicable rules.

Characters of a Lawful alignment try to perform only those actions which are Lawful.

Characters of a Neutral alignment may not have a code of conduct, or is willing to "bend" the rules from time to time.

Characters of a Chaotic alignment may scoff at code(s) of conduct they know apply to them, or believe that only their personal code of conduct applies to them, or believe that no code(s) of conduct apply to them at all.

Putting It Back Together

For every action, you can now determine where it lies in the alignment space. Understanding, of course, that alignment space is defined over a set of ethics.

To take a real world example, we'll examine the action of cheating on one's spouse.

To a moral absolutist, lying and breaking a vow are both wrong. Thus we know that cheating on one's spouse is Evil.

The ethical part is a little more complicated. Which set of ethical codes applies to the action?

If one is a Christian, then cheating on one's spouse is not permissible by Christian Ethics. Thus cheating on one's spouse would be Chaotic Evil.

If one believes that the wedding vow creates a code of conduct for the marriage, then cheating on one's spouse would be Chaotic Evil.

In some states in the United States, there are still adultery laws on the books. (In Michigan, it is punishable by up to a Life Sentence; no kidding!)

But it is questionable is those laws are actually enforceable. Thus in the absence of all other codes of conduct, one could conclude cheating on one's spouse is a Neutral Evil act.

So now we know what alignments would be comfortable with cheating on one's spouse; Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. Lawful Evil might also do it if it's not against the law. Lawful Neutral would be hesitant. Any Good alignment would find it reprehensible.

Some more examples:

A lawyer fully defending a rapist in court, knowing the rapist is guilty. (Lawful Evil)

Helping someone escape punishment for a crime they didn't commit. (Chaotic Good)

Donating money to a good cause. (Neutral Good)

Littering. (Chaotic Neutral)

And now you know how the other alignments will feel about these actions and why.

Normally these threads aren't my cup of tea. However, I'm going to chime in for Aranna here.

I've been running tabletop games for a heck of a long time; most recently a Pathfinder game over the past two years.

As GM, my goal is to make sure the table is having a good time.
Sometimes that means saying NO to disruptive players, disruptive character concepts, and the like.

It may be disruptive because it breaks verisimilitude, or unbalanced power levels break the roll-play, or the RP concept breaks the role-play, or the player is a sociopath who enjoys being disruptive.
It is the GM's responsibility to prevent and correct such things, so that everybody can have fun. Sometimes an incorrigible player gets the boot ... so it goes.

Some of the comments on this thread make me think the poster has never spent any time behind the GM screen.
I get the feeling Aranna has logged some time behind the screen. If not, I think she would be a very good GM if she tried.

RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!

WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY NINE MONTH SLUMBER!?

With the influx of new readers, as with Ryans PvP post, I think this topic should come back to the light for a bit.

Please Carefully read Vic's post.

WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY FOUR MONTH SLUMBER!?!

Orthos, I'm glad you found the script. Hopefully you find it useful.

If others come looking in the future, they can be directed to my profile page. It will have the latest links to all the scripts I've created for use here on paizo.com

I've also posted all the scripts to a GitHub repository, for those of the source code persuasion.

The rogue in my campaign just reached level 10. The rogue's player had a question for me about two Advanced Talents:

Slippery Mind (Ex) {Core Rulebook}

Benefit: This ability represents the rogue's ability to wriggle free from magical effects that would otherwise control or compel her. If a rogue with slippery mind is affected by an enchantment spell or effect and fails her saving throw, she can attempt it again 1 round later at the same DC. She gets only this one extra chance to succeed on her saving throw.

Hard to Fool (Ex) {Ultimate Combat}

Benefit: A rogue with this talent is hard to fool with mind-affecting effects. At the start of her turn, if she is still subject to any mind-affecting spells or effects, she can make a Will saving throw with a standard DC for the effect’s level, and if she succeeds at the check, she is no longer subject Classes to the mind-affecting effect. She can make this saving throw even against mind-affecting effects that normally don’t allow a saving throw. In those cases, generate the saving throw as if the spell or effect did allow a saving throw.

Note that Hard to Fool should not be confused with an identically named Advanced Talent from the APG:

Hard to Fool (Ex) {Advanced Player's Guide}

My player said: It seems that Hard to Fool gives me one roll per round until I shake it off, whereas Slippery Mind gives me just one extra roll period ... so I want to know:

1. Why would anybody choose Slippery Mind?
2. Has Hard to Fool been given any errata for being "overpowered"?

I told him that the wording for Slippery Mind covered "Enchantment" while Hard to Fool covered "mind-affecting" which were two different tags; although I couldn't come up with a non mind-affecting enchantment spell/effect on the spot (and haven't had time to research it yet today).

I also told him that I didn't think Hard to Fool was overpowered, but would check for errata and forum opinions. To me, it seems the game effect is a long-acting defense against a specific category of attacks, which does not affect hundreds of other ways of killing the hell out of the rogue. Moreover, the opportunity cost of not taking one of the more offense-oriented advanced talents means that my baddies will last longer in the fight anyway.

Anybody have any examples of where Slippery Mind might still be useful?

E = mc²

Quarotas, Erth16 try this:

- Get a dozen 3"x5" index cards and some Crayola markers. Color one side of the index card GREEN and the other side of the index card RED. (Ask around in your group; if anyone is colorblind, then color one side BLACK and leave the other side WHITE instead.)

Give one to each player and tell the players they should set the GREEN side up. As soon as they are not having fun, they should turn the card over to the RED side.

If you as the GM look out and see a RED card ... then STOP the game, and ask the player why they aren't having fun. If the answer is "I don't want <bad player> to tie my Ranger up." then you tell the player doing the tying up, "Look <red card player> isn't having fun. You must untie the Ranger."

If <bad player> says no, then say, "Okay, <bad player's character> is teleported away. <Bad player>, you're done for the session. You may observe quietly or leave the table, your choice. Oh, and the ropes binding the Ranger are suddenly gone too. Who's next in the initiative order?"

If <bad player> starts to complain or argue, "You may observe quietly or leave the table." At this point, you look at <bad player>, but don't say a single word or react in any way until <bad player> either shuts up or leaves the table. Even if <bad player> goes on for five or ten minutes shouting at the top of their lungs, you SAY NOTHING and DO NOTHING -- <bad player> either shuts up or leaves, there can be no other option.

If you start to feel weak, or like you want to cave in to <bad player>, or like you want to respond/reason with <bad player>, then look out at the RED card on the table. <Red card player> is the player you SHOULD be worried about. THAT is the player you are slapping in the face by not holding the line with <bad player>.

And here's the secret: Everybody else at the table is rooting for <red card player> and they're also rooting for YOU to hold the line with <bad player>. They don't want to say it, but believe me they're thinking it; as sure as the sun rises every morning. Don't let your other players down. After the game, they will THANK YOU for holding the line with <bad player> and making the game more enjoyable.

After I cast Dispell Marketing there was nothing left of that article.

Oh wait, there is a little something...

Hi, I'm Mike Mearls. You may remember me from such products as D&D. You remember D&D? The game with the the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things?

WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY ONE YEAR SLUMBER!?

On the topic of initial reactions, EN World's Morrus ran a quick Twitter poll earlier today, asking for Favorable/Neutral/Unfavorable reactions to the announcement. The response was strongly favorable (something like an 82% rating if broken down into 100/50/0 scores and averaged). We don't know very much so far, but it seems like people are finding very little to object to.

The poll asked how people felt about the news: Positive, Neutral, or Negative.

There were over 250 responses, and only 4 said "Negative."

It had an 82% rating because I weighted the "Neutral" responses at 50. Given that EN World is pretty supportive of 4e, I'd say it's pretty likely that of the respondents only 4 people liked 4e.

I think it's more likely that the sort of person who likes 4e is also the sort of person who is excited about where the hobby is going next. I never saw 4e (or any edition, for that matter) as a stopping point of any kind, and I think a lot of people share that viewpoint. We think that the hobby today is cooler than it was 10 years ago, and that 10 years from now it will be cooler than it is today.

Do I understand correctly that poll participants were self-selected? (i.e.: People saw it, and some % decided to respond and be counted?)

If so, the entire poll is meaningless, because we don't know the population.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 5E is/isn't positively received. I'm just saying this poll doesn't (read:can't) tell you anything about that.

The rules just do not do the actual weapon justice. Quit screwing one of histories greatest weapons!!!

I beg your forgiveness in advance. I am compelled by forces beyond my control...

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Crossbow" b++#*~*& that's going on in the d20 system right now. Crossbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine crossbow in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot through slabs of solid steel with my crossbow.

Japanese smiths spend years working on a single crossbow and cock it up to a million times to produce the finest instruments known to mankind.

Crossbows are thrice as powerful as European bows and thrice as large for that matter too. Anything a bow can shoot through, a crossbow can shoot through better. I'm pretty sure a crossbow bolt could easily pass right through a knight wearing full plate with a simple trigger pull.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their crossbows of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the crossbows first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Crossbows are simply the best ranged instrument that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Crossbows:

(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage (P)
19-20 x4 Crit
240 ft.
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage (P,S)
17-20 x4 Crit
480 ft.
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the shooting power of Crossbows in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Crossbows need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

Hudax wrote:

In short, it would require players to think.

No, it doesn't. It either forces everyone into tankmage builds, de facto forces everyone into trinity builds, or ends up into a vague City of Heroes blur where there are seventeen million different builds of vastly varying effectiveness but who cares because the game is extremely easy.

This gentleman is correct. Contrary to the talk about "Hate" mechanics, the reason for "trinity" roles is microeconomics.

A basic axiom of microeconomics is: It is more efficient to specialize and trade.

So what? What do logs and fruit have to do with an MMO? Everything.

Replace "logs" with "damage" and "fruit" with "healing".

A party specializing in roles and trading with one another (i.e.: the healer trades healing to the dps in exchange for the dps also doing the healer's share of the damage) is using their time and resources more efficiently.
Means they spend less and do more, faster.

It also means that every successful guild in the game will be looking for specialized people who can trade their skills to the group.
The more successful the guild, the greater the degree of specialization they will desire.
Anybody not specialized will be excluded, or given very bad rates on their trade (i.e.: you don't get to go on the raid unless there's an opening they can't fill, but, you only get to roll on things that absolutely nobody else needs).

All this said, there are ways to design games out of the trinity pit.
But, I guarantee that none of those ways is ignorant of the underlying microeconomics involved.

Another one I just remembered from earlier in the campaign.

Codwin I of Augustana was called:

Sir Codpiece the First

... although never to his face.

The character is a 4th-level barbarian, played by a very experienced player who has maximized his feat selections and class abilities to make an unstoppable killing machine. He's turning enemies that are 3-4 CRs above the party (that I spend a lot of time designing) into two-round wonders.

In the last session I ran, the party's barbarian failed two Will saves against Dominate Person. The enemy wizard told her to kill the ranger's animal companions.

Best part?

The barbarian's player was out for the session, and let the ranger's player run her for the session.
So the ranger's player had to play both the ranger (who was trying to avoid having her dogs killed) and the barbarian (who was trying her best to murder the dogs).

That session was a lot of fun. >:-)

I know these things have been cited before, but search isn't finding them.

What are the point buy equivalents of 3d6, 4d6 drop low and 2d6+6. My statistical understanding always implodes. I'd think that 3d6 is equivalent to 0-6 point buy as everything averages out to 10 or 11, but I'm not trusting that conclusion.

I wrote a program to simulate randomly rolling 5 million sets under each method. Adding up the point buy equivalent for every set and dividing by the number of sets (5 million), gave me some averages:

Classic (3d6): 8.390 points (44.18% thrown-out)
Standard (4d6; drop 1): 20.704 points (15.5% thrown-out)
Heroic (2d6+6): 25.665 points (0% thrown-out)

My values will differ from some of the others posting here.
The point-buy table only includes values for scores 7 to 18 (inclusive).
This means any score of 3 to 6 (inclusive) is undefined.
In my simulation, I threw out every set containing a score with an undefined point cost.
The percentage of total sets that I needed to throw out in order to obtain the 5,000,000 "good" sets is indicated above.

Because the undefined numbers are on the low end of the scale, it does push the point-buy values up some.
However, even an incredible set like [18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 6] is thrown out due to the 6 it contains.
So it doesn't push up quite as much as one might first guess.

another_mage wrote:

I'll see how I feel after the gym tonight; if I'm not exhausted, I'll work on it then.

If I am exhausted, it may need to wait for the weekend.

Don't overtax yourself, the weekend will be fine. I can endure/do without the boards for a few days.

You're still my personal hero - without your script, I wouldn't be posting here.

Wow. I'm happy to have read that.

No kidding, the very first house rule that I adopted for my Pathfinder group was your post about Elven Finesse Blades.

I have a player who wanted to play an Elf Rogue who fought with a TWF/Finesse style. He mistook Elven Curve Blade for a one-handed weapon until I pointed it out. So, his character concept was doomed; until I found your post and approved it for my game.

So yeah, I'm glad that you post here. So is my player.

I have completed Ignore Script (Version 3) that is compatible with Paizo's new page structure.
In order to use this script, you must be running Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome.

Mozilla Firefox (Notes)

If you have Firefox, you will need to install the Greasemonkey Plug-In before you will be able to use the script.

Google Chrome (Notes)

If you have Chrome, you must configure it to allow the ignore list to be stored on your computer.

[Wrench Icon] -> Preferences (menu item) -> Under the Hood (sidebar) -> Privacy (section) -> Content Settings (button) -> Cookies (section)

This must be set to "Allow local data to be set (recommended)" or you need to click the "Manage Exceptions..." button to make an exception for paizo.com

Installation

Both Firefox and Chrome use the same ignore script. Click the link to the script and you should be prompted to install it.

paizo_ignore_v3.user.js

Usage

On the messageboards, where you typically see "Flag | List | Reply" you will now see "Ignore | Flag | List | Reply". If you click "Ignore", the person will be added to your personal ignore list. On future page loads, their posts will be automatically removed.

If you decide you would like to stop ignoring somebody, scroll down to the very bottom of the page and you will see something like this:

Ignored: DeathQuaker | KenderKin | TriOmegaZero |

Click on the name you wish to remove from the list. On future page loads, their posts will no longer be removed.

General Notes

Unlike previous versions, the posts do not disappear immediately. Clicking to ignore or stop ignoring will seem to do nothing, until the next time you load the page.

Unlike previous versions, this version will ignore the user and all aliases tied to that account. Ignoring the account or any alias will suffice to remove them all. (Due to this, your old ignore list may no longer work. Sorry about that.)

Like previous versions, this version is also licensed under the GNU General Public License v3+. In a nutshell, it means you are free to download, use, modify, and share (as long as you share-alike).

I figured today's changes would break a third-party ignore script. They might actually make creating a new one easier, but I wouldn't be surprised if future changes break that one too. Our policy on ignoring individual posters hasn't changed, though please note that you can now hide entire threads if you like.

Indeed, it seems both the ignore script and the topic auto-link script are both broken.

On the bright side, you are correct, the new page structure does lend itself to an easier/better script.
Alas, change happens. I'll have to put out an update for these scripts.
I'll see how I feel after the gym tonight; if I'm not exhausted, I'll work on it then.
If I am exhausted, it may need to wait for the weekend.

I think everybody might want to take a few minutes to enjoy the outdoors. I'll unlock the thread in a little bit.

WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY ONE HOUR SLUMBER!?

My players are currently assaulting a Hall of Frost Giants and came across this:

Giant, Frost

A frost giant's hair can be light blue or dirty yellow, and its eyes usually match its hair color. Frost giants dress in skins and pelts, along with any jewelry they own. Frost giant warriors also don chain shirts and metal helmets decorated with horns or feathers. An adult male stands about 15 feet tall and weighs approximately 2,800 pounds. Females are slightly shorter and lighter, but otherwise identical to males. Frost giants can live to be 250 years old.

Maybe some questions are better left unasked...

THERE...a friend of mine convinced me to try it out again, and i did. Session lasted for six or so hours and it was quite fun.

Pics or it didn't happen.

WHO DARES TO DISTURB MY FIVE YEAR SLUMBER!?

+ √2

Now, now, no need to get irrational.