Kwava

dirtypool's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 1,770 posts (1,782 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm pretty sure I was aware of "Tolkien had some pretty problematic ideas on race" (which includes his conception of Orcs from which all fantasy orcs derive) well before there even was a twitter.

Just the idea that there are sapient species who form societies, use tools, create art, etc. that are okay to murder without conscience because of what kind of thing they are is the hobby's original sin.

Please note that in Arda, the goblins, of which orcs are just a subrace, are the twisted and corrupted product of Melkor. They were literally forced into being that way by the great evil of that world. Which is actually kind if the point. Doing that is one of the things that marks Melkor as such an evil himself.

Those would literally be the "problematic ideas on race" that Possible Cabbage was referring to. He was talking about the external force known as the writer - not the in world narrative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
comicbook.com reached out for clarification and got a statement that seems to indicate an evolution of the current OGL rather than out and out removal of it.
I wouldn't say that the official statement really implies that at all, it was more of a non-statement while indicating they're aware that there are concerns about it.

Right... how does the statement While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time. NOT imply an evolution of the current OGL rather than a removal of it? I mean really? How does the word evolve not imply evolution?

Lord Fyre wrote:
The problem is that the people at Wizards and the people at Hasbro don't see gaming in the same way. With the economy pulling back, Hasbro may be concerned about money being given away, not really understanding how the RPG ecosystem actually works.

Excepting of course that Hasbro's current CEO is the former CEO of WOTC and would therefore "understand the RPG ecosystem"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

comicbook.com reached out for clarification and got a statement that seems to indicate an evolution of the current OGL rather than out and out removal of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Owen Stephens should not be chiding others for delayed products. Yes, I'm still waiting for the rest of the 52-in-52 products, close to two years late now.

He's exaggerating for comedic effect about the commonality of scheduling conflicts parties have.

In reality, it just moved three weeks to Scream 6's release date so that Scream could come out earlier in the month.

It's not that serious and certainly isn't a chance to take pot shots at anyone else.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Jen's central thru-line, voiced by her as part of her "closing argument" was that she was having trouble reconciling the She-Hulk and Jen components of her personality through the whole show. Was she though?

Part of that reconciliation was that She-Hulk was the "popular" one and that Jen is underappreciated. Ok, well... JEN has a best friend who comes to work with her in the form of Nikki. JEN has a mom and dad, and arguably a sizable extended family, willing to love and support her unconditionally, even if sometimes her ma gets her hero name wrong.

Also, JEN wasn't unpopular. In the comics there was this dichotomy that Jen was a bookworm in college and only got to cut loose for the first time in her life as She-Hulk; in the finale, video-evidence shows Jen being very rowdy and sociable in college.

Finally, She-Hulk is physically assaulted by The Wrecking Crew as part of the villainous plot in the show, but later JEN, not She-Hulk, is accepted by The Wrecker and other supposed "villains" in a support group that, by all accounts, isn't secretly up to no good but honestly and fairly want to support her in a time of crisis.

In short, JEN has a very healthy lid on her anger, her support network is near-fully formed as the show begins, and acceptance of her never wavers by anyone in the show. Where, exactly, are we SHOWN the internal struggle that Jen herself narrates?

People perceive their lives differently than they actually are all the time, both in the real world and in fiction. Jen's view of Jen is a distorted one, and reconciling She-Hulk with Jen is about accepting the reality of what is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
]I remember him from the comics as Frog Boy. I am sad he was made into a villain.

Frog Boy is Leapfrog's son. Leapfrog was always a villain, his son was a very ineffective on again/off again hero.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Also YAY for Porcupine!!! (just wish it had been Roger Gocking. He's my favorite.)

Name was never stated, very well could have been.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I doubt they will present all of the classes or even all of the rules in their survey process. They’ve likely structured a series of feedback windows on the things they feel need outside feedback and left everything else to internal discussion.

It’s certainly possible to structure a playtest to get meaningful feedback for a shorter release window than One currently has. PF2e’s playtest began one year prior to the release of the final version of the game, and feedback certainly shaped the final product in that instance


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Leon Aquilla wrote:
You're taking things a little too seriously here. I don't think anyone's going to really lose sleep over who won the battle of the 6e preview in the Paizo off-topic subforum.

Because I responded to someone unnecessarily correcting my statement that WOTC hasn't sold pdfs in 13 years by stating that another company does sell them, means it's a "battle" that I'm taking "too seriously?"

Okay...

I thought it was a conversation. But I guess being overly corrective of others is only not "too serious" when you're defining microtransactions?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Greylurker wrote:

of the current edition

A lot of their stuff from 4E back to Advanced can be found on DrivethruRPG. Heck I think I even saw Gamma World there

Fine, I’ll revise.

WOTC stopped selling pdf copies of new releases back in 2009. Since WOTC ceased selling PDFs the only PDF content available for sale is of prior editions through a third party vendor in an archival scan format. The last eight years of official content has not been released officially in the pdf format at all. There is perhaps a possibility that 5e content could sell via the same third party platform once One D&D evolves into its final form but that is entirely speculative. It is also likely that the official 5e digital content will, as stated officially, remain backward compatible and sell only through dndbeyond just as it currently does.

Happy?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The NPC wrote:

Asking for clarification: Will print books and pdfs still be available?

Because if not this all sounds like DnD CC to me.

They have made no statement about ceasing production of print books. Just that now there will be direct integration with D&D Beyond and their new VTT.

It has, however, been 13 years since WOTC sold pdf copies of their books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Costume parts for your 3D mini in their 3D VTT you have to use because they won't have an SRD ain't cheap!

Proceeding from the assumption that their won’t be an SRD, which it’s worth pointing out is not a thing they have stated

“Leon Aquila” wrote:

Themed dice systems like FFG's Star Wars/Genesys or Legends of the Five Rings are a good example of microtransactions. You can only purchase them from Edge, nobody else is allowed to sell them without some crafty legal-ese to make them "generic fantasy dice" and even then they could plausibly get sued over it if they impacted Edge's bottom line.

"You can't play a d20 game without some d20 dice" is not.

Not quite, as those dice are easily ignored by following the guidance in the CRB for the FFG and Edge game lines about how to play without the narrative dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Isn’t this conversation about the death of physical media , as usual, an overreaction to a perceived issue by a particular type of entrenched fan?

“Their goal is to make everything a subscription and then soon print books will be dead as a component of the hobby because WOTC abandoned them.” — reactionaries in 2007 after the announcement of 4e

“If all the materials are available via a website then they no longer need to print the books, that’ll be the death of physical copies.” — reactionaries when Paizo announced even greater tool access on the PRD

“If all the character creation and sheet management is done in an app on your phone, that’s the end of physical media in this hobby because D&D provided you the ability to did it all on your phone.” — reactionaries when dndbeyond launched.

Not only did these things NOT kill print media, the company supposedly planning print medias eventual murder is selling more physical copies than ever before.

They will go where the money is, but that doesn’t mean they’ll abandon the existing sources of revenue that have proven so popular to date


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
WotC has shown time and time again that they don't actually do anything significant with the customer and playtest feedback they get

5e was shaped significantly by Next’s playtest feedback. They abandoned many concepts from that playtest because they did not test well.

“Themetricsystem” wrote:
I do not see this changing any time soon because if they DID listen they would need to pull a 180 and abandon the iPad baby demographic they're clearly targeting with One.

Are you in their offices reading the survey responses? If not why are you making the assumption that the overwhelming response is to abandon the broad segment of the 5e demographic in favor of us older players?

“TOZ” wrote:
What are “actual tabletop players” defined as?

People who agree with him.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

3PP 5e products are so successful they were given their own listing in the ICV2 quarterly sales report, and products from the likes of Goodman Games have consistently found themselves in the top 5. That is ALL OGL content.

5e’s media strategy is built around partnerships with members of the community like B. Dave Walters, Ginny Di, Matt Colville, and of course the Critical Role team, all of whom have connections to OGL products and content.

I sincerely doubt they’ll snub that segment of the community, when the folks releasing new content have become so visible via Kickstarter in the last few years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I’ve got page 8


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

I don't think we'll be seeing any more DC super shows Bjorn. Just more of the same crap you see on other network TV.

Also the FCC is a joke.

Well, they’ll still have Superman & Lois

And joke or not, the legal ability for the CW to become what you are saying it will doesn’t exist. Nor does the likelihood because the CW was sold to the company that doesn’t have that political bias.

It’s another of your Thomas Seitz has to post just to get the last word ramblings that holds no real value.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So because there exists a right wing cable news network you think that a company that is NOT right leaning bought the controlling interest in an air network so they could build a right leaning news apparatus that FCC regulations would not legally allow them to run on the public airways?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wow, you're still on that theory based on confusing NexStar Media with Sinclair Broadcasting?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Likable and not a jerk are also not quite the same thing. One can be likable while still being a jerk. E.G. Tony Stark, Stephen Strange, any Bill Murray character ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Seems a stretch to make a judgement like that about the Paladin based on a fight scene, and some background dialogue free shots - but sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Werthead wrote:
I believe Hasbro have clarified this was a fan poster created for the event which they gave permission to have there, rather than an officially-created Hasbro product. The film's actual poster has been released and is completely different.

They contracted poster artist Boss Logic who creates custom photoshop posters and provided him with the art elements that were used in the creation of the poster. According to Boss Logic himself. These were posters to pass out at the booth at Comic Con.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John Woodford wrote:
Werthead wrote:

First poster!

Including, erm, pre-existing PATHFINDER stock art of an intellect devourer.

I'm sure that's going to be fine.

It's close to the picture in the 1E Bestiary, but not quite identical.

It's directly lifted from the PF2e Bestiary 2


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
\Not sure if the maneuver would have worked in this case, since it usually seems to be either ships of equal size, or the larger doing to the jumping. Still, it would be nice if the writers were aware enough of the history of the franchise to at least make a show of acknowledging the possibility.

That's the only time I really remember it happening in a canon product. They did it in the now erased EU a bunch, and there were rules for it as far back as the WEG Star Wars. So I'm not sure what would be gained by using a questionably canonical thing like that to erase the stakes in the final episode of a limited series.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
Anyway, I think they did that trick a couple of times, but the one I do remember is when the introduced the B-Wing. They attached the shuttle to it so it could jump to light speed, because it’s hyperdrive was either broken or not installed.

Wait, you mean the episode where Hera tested the B-Wing prototype? They used the hyperdrive of the larger ship to jump the two docked ship, not what you're suggesting of using the smaller ship to jump the larger ship.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
Unfortunately, it would also show the writer didn’t do his research in Star Wars history. Even if they couldn’t use the hyperdrive from the shuttle to repair the one for the larger ship, they might have been able to launch the shuttle, dock it with the ship, then use the hyperdrive for both to escape. They’ve shown that being done in Rebels.

You can remember this detail but not specific dialogue explaining the events occurring in the episode you just watched?

I watched every episode of Rebels and I don't even remember that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
And why didn’t the refugee ship go to light speed? The shuttle it was carrying had a hyperdrive. The big ship didn’t?

Because at the end of Episode V right before Reva found the abandoned communicator, Roken sat down next to Kenobi sighed and said: "Our hyperdrive is down."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Long walk from a blink and you'll miss it cameo in one of his seven previous films to thinking he'd cast himself as the lead in this one.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'd direct your attention to DQ's posting...

And I’d direct you toward the description in universe of that moment being a fracture in the collective with a minority breaking off to flee while the majority of the collective remained with the Queen


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Have we ever gotten any indication that's the case?

Not in the least, she has always been seen directing and commanding the collective.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

He is non specific about those time frames, I think largely because it is meant to be allegorical of a fork in the road in our actual present day experience.

I would love to explore the idea after a rewatch on the concept that the show that nailed the continuity with its production design felt wrong, while the one that played fast and loose with it felt more accurate. That’s an interesting notion to me.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:


I'm one of those people who will die on a hill for the sake of canonicity. At the end, when Soong is looking at the folder marked "The Khan Project" the cholesterol in my arteries began to boil in white hot fury because the events that resulted in Khan's exile in the original series episode "Space Seed" took place in the mid-1990s and in "Picard" the Augments project hadn't even begun yet, throwing canon off by 30 years.

There's no canonical failing here. The date on the file's cover label says 1996, the ID tab says 1992. The first time Trek traveled to 2024 it was established as being post Eugenics War, and this time canonized the same governor of California.

Canonically on Enterprise, Arik Soong was continuing his families research into genetic augmentation despite the ban enacted after the Eugenics Wars. The file was setting up the arc, much like how Arik at the end of the Augment arc mentioned abandoning genetic augmentation for cybernetics thus setting up Noonien Soong building Data almost 200 years later.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There hasn't been any news since Nextar began prepping to make a bid, back in February. It's not "under contract" until an official offer is made.

Could you maybe once google something before speculating wildly and getting salty when someone points out that your speculation has no basis in reality?

Even IF there was a secret bid that was secretly accepted, the analogy of buying a house is wrong in both how corporate changeovers happen and how houses are purchased.

While under contract there are any number of things that could result in you NOT getting that house, and it remains the prior owners home until paperwork is finalized - and as for corporate structures the old team remains in place until the new owner officially takes over. In many cases that leadership team remains in place in an interim capacity until the new owner makes changes (as just happened with WB Discovery.)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'm pretty sure, DQ, the new management is using the old metrics because they don't strike me as the brightest bulbs.

Since no sale has been finalized yet, there is no new management. It's the same group.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Novem wrote:
It's important for the health of the overall game. I'm not being unrealistic, there are indie studios much smaller than Paizo who do much more regular maintenance on their products.

Which companies would those be? Because most TTRPG publishers provide errata even less frequently than Paizo does.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I already addressed that. You could try reading what I wrote. But you won't because, quite predictably, you don't care whether it's true.

You already addressed it by posting two items in the book that are not statements about the default assumptions of the game. Is there a direct statement of such, or not?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Most heartland societies are not all heartland societies in Faerun, Wizards and Sorcerors are not the only casters in the game and the entry makes no mention of others, and you yourself pointed out that Faerun was not the core setting of 3.5.

At least this though was an attempt to engage with the question as posed.

It does not however, like the city builder before it, confirm it is the across the board core default assumption as you claimed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Invoking polite society after insulting someone? Doesn’t sound overly polite to me.

Also sounds a tad hypocritical given your behavior in other threads.

I challenged a single assertion and as usual you stage a multi post condescending feet stomping marathon of word salad.

Is there a statement in any 3.5 book that the default assumption in world is that only 1% of the population are casters? It’s literally that simple.

If yes, provide the page #. If no, move on.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There are no forum rules that appoint a threads originator as a moderator or confers upon them any authority over the topic.

Just as there is nothing in the core books of 3.5 that states the default of the system is that only 1% of characters are casters.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I know this, because you have not presented any reason to believe my ideas are wrong

I have presented the solitary reason that the book does not state what you claim it did and you’ve been unable prove that any such statement was included in the core text despite claiming it was the default.

As for the other claims - you provided no links in your replies to me nor quoted anything other than the roll on chart mechanics pages so I literally have no clue what you’re talking about.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
If you actually cared about tje topic and answer, you'd work with me towards a shared understanding

What shared understanding is there to be found in the difference of you claiming the core game assumptions are something and my saying that such is not stated explicitly in the book

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
So, either you are too stupid to understand how to have a productive debate, or your entire goal is to produce negative feelings in others to make yourself feel better.

And now you attack me

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
Either way, leave my thread alone till you can behave yourself and be productive.

You posted it but are not a moderator


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

You don't even try to think at all, do you?[/QUOTE

No attempt whatsoever.

I gave evidence, made a link to guy who gives even more excellent evidence, and even addressed your prior comments.

Are you even sure what conversation you are having?

You gave no evidence beyond the city building framework, you provided no link to someone else and their evidence, and only addressed prior comments by saying “no” and then repeating what you claimed in a more condescending tone.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Now, I've read only a dozen books in the dnd settings, and not a thing ever indicates this is false.

Not a thing ever indicates that it is true either, yet you claimed it to be canonically stated as such IN WORLD. So where can I find the evidence that proves this statement of yours to be true? Burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
The stories focus on high level characters, because that is what the stories are about

Modules present Magic users of multiple stripes across a multitude of levels, because that is what modules do. But as you said, you’ve only read a dozen or so. Funny how you often paint yourself as an expert and then admit to less experience than previously claimed. Pattern?

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
Yea, we are. Every solid system is built on assumptions.

We aren’t discussing solid systems, we’re discussing 3.X.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
I contend these ideas I present are the assumptions made for 3.x.

Then you should be able to provide evidence that explicitly confirms that or balking that it is my duty to provide evidence if it’s falsehood. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. That is how argument works.

“GM DarLightHitomi” wrote:

I contend my ideas are the best because my ideas fit whenever I apply them, and no alternatives are provided that do better, nor even half as well.

It's like any other scientific theory, if the theory works really well, and it's the only that works at all, then it taken as true until either proven false, or a reasonable alternative is provided.

Unlike any scientific theory you’ve provided tangential proof in the form of something observed that is not indicative of the whole. I provided a simple challenge to test your theory, to apply it to existing canonical cities and towns in the setting and see if the result continues to align. A scientist would already have done such modeling to confirm their “theory.”

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
Ignoring the foundational assumptions is not a valid alternative.

You have yet to provide direct evidence that it is a foundational assumption.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
running the numbers on these ideas works, and works a whole lot better than assuming level 20 is attainable by real world people, a concept that falls apart when trying to run the numbers.

It’s a fantasy game where floating islands contain magical schools that teach one how to teleport, none of it was ever considered attainable by real people.

“DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
No I didn't. I said it is the fundamental system assumption, the assumption upon which the "reference gridlines" are based

No you actually used the words “in world assumption.” Scroll back up if you don’t believe me, or just look to where it was directly quoted in the previous reply.

“In World Assumptions” is a phrase meaning the assumptions of the setting as visible to the characters IN THE SETTING. You were asked to prove that statement to be correct and you couldn’t.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
I said that I had done research in the past and that some of the research included sources outside the books. Never said what exactly came from the interviews. Quite frankly, it's been so long I don't remember.

Yes and you presented all that goalpost shifting to a simple question of what page number one could find the reference to casters representing only 1% of the characters in the setting as an in world assumption. There isn’t such an entry, so your “research” is pointless.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
My contention is that the framework is built on the same foundation and is not separate.

And that contention is supported by what evidence?

Quote:
“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.
This is not claiming anything about specific settings.

The phrase “in-world” comes from literary criticism and is used when discussing TTRPG’s to indicate the discussion is about the setting rather than the real world that we inhabit.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
Yea, because you present laughable and illogical reasoning to claim my ideas are false.

And just how is “it does not explicitly state that in the book” a piece of laughable or illogical reasoning?

You made a statement that something was an explicit assumption, could not prove that, and then moved to a framework that serves a subset purpose and claimed it was indicative of the entire system but somehow the response “it doesn’t claim to be indicative of the entire system” is laughable?

Your whole argument is based on “research” you did “so long ago” that you “can’t remember it” and yet my stating that the book does not explicitly define a connection needs more evidence?

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
I present my evidence for believing it true.

No you don’t, you just claim that it is.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
your assertion boils down to claiming a lack of evidence as a reason to disbelieve something even when there is neither evidence to the contrary nor viable alternative.

When this entire conversation proceeded from my asking you for evidence of a claim, you admittedly not being able to provide it is certainly a logical reason to continue to disbelieve.

“There’s no rule that says it isn’t true” is Air Bud logic.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Your Elminster and any other story character has just been negated.

You missed that point completely. The number of high level magic users in each canonical published setting tends to run counter to the 1% you are claiming

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
Second, this is not a court of law where I need to prove anything.

When you claim that something is THE core assumption of the entire game, then yes you absolutely need to be able to prove that statement to be correct.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
Any well designed system has a structure with basic axioms and assumptions that shape the design.

Yes, but we’re discussing D&D 3.X.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
Third, this is about having a good understanding of the system and the results from running the numbers instead of your emotions, to remove personal bias as much as possible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with emotion or personal bias. You claimed something was codified in the rules I asked you to prove it. You said you read it in an interview somewhere and then pointed to an optional mechanics to streamline worldbuilding for DM’s who need charts to roll on.

This is a failure on your part to provide evidence to support your initial claim and then glomming onto the nearest similar rule.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
If you have a better theory that explains deepens an understanding of the system, an alternative to axioms I propose, then feel free to share and give reasons.

Only reason necessary: The thing you stated before is an explicitly stated fact of the game is not in fact explicitly stated in the game.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
The idea that it's just a guideline to help GMs is the purpose of the system, not an axiom of the design.

Exactly it is not an axiom of the design, thank you for agreeing with me. Earlier you had claimed that it was.

“Interesting Character” wrote:
Frankly it feels like your only concern is to prove me wrong, rather than show why some other idea might have more merit.

You claimed that IN WORLD ASSUMPTION of the game is that only 1% of the population are casters. I disagreed with that on the basis that in world it is NOT in any published material. You couldn’t provide a quote and said it was in an interview, which you also didn’t provide. Then you pointed to a worldbuilding framework for lazy DM’s. Now I’m the one who needs to show the merit of other ideas? Come on

“GM DarklLightInteresting” wrote:
Your own words.

Yes those were my own words that you truncated in order to twist an argument out of them. I said that those were the assumptions of the framework for rolling off towns and cities. I specifically stated that there is no official statement that the assumptions of the framework is the assumption of the games overall design. Your disingenuous reframing of my words omitted that so that you could lecture me about the origin of the assumptions - even though I had clearly stated what I meant.

“GM InterestingHitomi” wrote:
Who said I assume such a thing?

You did.

“GMDarkLightCharacter” wrote:
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Why do you assume the freedom to deviate equates to a lack of basic assumptions in generating the base guidelines?

Why do you assume that an optional rule equates to the design assumptions made by developers for cities and towns throughout their other settings.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
These rules detail the kind of world the designers expect in designing their rules

No these rules provide a simple framework to allow a DM to create a city swiftly based on certain assumptions to simplify the process. The section does however begin with a whole section about what the framework is built around and how to adjust for different campaigns. It does not however contain a statement that the frameworks assumptions are the design assumptions of Dungeons and Dragons et al.

“GM DarkLightHitomi” wrote:
the kind of world they run the numbers in to make sure everything pans out as they intend.

Then prove that. Compare the canon cities of the main settings of 3.5 to that framework and see if they align. I’ll see you an Elminster and raise you a Mourning that says they don’t.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Pretty sure some of it came from interviews and other context of designer intent though.

Why does it keep happening that you claim something is the specific design of the system and when asked to prove it you claim it’s from an interview or other content piece not included in the text itself?

Then when you DO provide something it’s something you are using out of context. The optional rules presented in the DMG for a quick and easy worldbuilding system =/= to the default assumptions of the game writ large.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.

Got a page number for the claim of that specific rarity of casters in the Forgotten Realms per 3.5?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
This is actually more magic than generally presumed by 3.5 rules.

No it isn’t, because the presumption of 3.5 rules is that you use their existing and less restrictive magic system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The recommendation was based on looking to the source for specificity of how it integrated into the original mechanics rather than that adaptation to best suit the adaptation of the class mechanics for the game.

Might make it easier, might fight something you missed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Zack Snyder's Justice Lengua


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Yep. As I said, I'm adapting it from baldurs gate for 3.5/pf1.

Yeah, I wasn't confused on what you were doing. More suggesting you look at the prior editions text about multiclassing rather than trying to adapt it from the video game that adapted it from the TTRPG. Kind of a "go to the source" recommendation.

1 to 50 of 1,770 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>