nathan blackmer's page

Hey no problem, man, one thing you'll find about the Des/Dks communities - we're all pretty helpful.

Derwalt,

I haven't posted in a while - a lot of the reason behind that was the hostility on the boards. It doesn't matter that what you were playing was optimized - people shouldn't be taking pleasure in the fact that your character was deconstructed.
Paizo released a DEEPLY flawed, but REALLY awesome kit with the Synthesist. They said "hey, this is legal for pathfinder society" and people built for it (please note I'm not one of those people, I have no personal stake in it) becuase one of the classes key features was the ability to change physical scores. Why wouldn't you build for that, it was part of the classes main power.
When a classes main power is that it changes your stats and makes you good at melee, and a GM takes that ability away, you SHOULD get a stat re-roll. Unless it's a punitive change and INTENDED TO PUNISH YOU, it's the only thing to do that makes sense.
Paizo, what's up??? You guys have written a BOOK on how to GM well, and this is most definitely NOT that.

Another thought that crossed my mind was that if Next stays on its current course, it could easily serve as a Pathfinder Basic while Pathfinder would serve as an Advanced D&D Next. Having compatibility between the products will be nice...

Funny, I had the same thought. Paizo turned there back on the portion of the market asking for a slightly simpler system and (so far, I know, I know) D and D seems to be moving in that direction.

I guess here is how I feel about it;

I have no worries about Pathfinder surviving and thriving - However, if D and D 5th Ed stays like it looks now - with a lower curve on the numeric side of things - I'll probably jump ship for it when it comes out. Not saying that I won't keep playing Pathfinder from time-to-time, but what they've put out so far is compelling, and fits my playstyle better.

Of course, it's way too early to tell.

I would like point-buy better if there were different numbers of points depending on your class. For example, a wizard might get a 12-point buy, a cleric 14 points, a fighter 16, a bard 18, and a monk 20.

That is a house rule I've had for some time, btw.

Woo! Congrats! I WILL be buying this!

CONGRATS BADGAH!

I missed the chance to vote, but I would like to leave some feedback.

Mike - I was really torn between you and Tom Phillips. His work displays a level of polish and finish that yours lacks, but your work is more over the top creative. I'm not saying either is better, but Tom, I think, is a sure thing. He's going to be writing for somebody somewhere no matter what - and frankly Paizo would be foolish NOT to hire him.

I loved your monster, and your module proposal. I think, ultimately, for me at least... you would benefit the most from winning this competition, and vice versa, I think Pathfinder would benefit from you winning the most.

Congratulations on a good run and a stellar final entry, I sincerely hope that either you or Tom wins, and that whatever happens you BOTH get to write for Paizo.

5) Both players decide to be decent about it, as does the GM, and everyone goes home happy.

Shouldn't that be... the... ONLY... option?

Hooray for option 5!

I know this has been said a few times but I think it bears repeating - both players can decide not to be jerks and just get along with each other. That really is the crux of the issue - and like that metallica song, nothing else matters.

Cooperation with others, meeting new friends, sharing adventures... these are the reasons Organized Play exists. Who cares about the rest?

People love to take up the paladin discussion battle-flag and rage about, throwing heavy-handed opinions and interpretations. Why? At the end of the day, if you can't sit at a table and PLAY THE GAME with someone, the game's not the problem - you are.

I know that comes off pretty harsh, and I'm sorry for that, but it's definitely how I feel about the issue - not that anyone should really care about little old me.

Oh, welcome back nathan.

Thanks! Good to be back.

And yes Mildred is my cat. Emily is my wife. No tail that I know of, and I've conducted an extensive search... :-)

Oh CJ, and it's been SO WARM out here the last few days. They said maybe 60 on saturday though!

btw, new avatar is dayumn creepy.

I'd really, really like to see a master craft system for weapons and armor like the one used in The Black Company RPG. It's always seemed wierd to me that skilli n crafting has a cut-off like it does - It should scale with level like everything else.

I think this is an excellent example of starting a thread intended to create controversy and engender flamewars.

But, more importantly, no sane and reasonable person should care about the existence of NCIS as a show. Cancellation would be an even better addition to the team.

Yes. The only reaction should be who cares?

Focusing on our differences weakens us.

I suspect most of us here agree with BT about the War on (Some) Drugs and the War on Terror, as well as the corrupting affects of government getting too cozy with big business.

I just disagree that the solution is to gut government so that it isn't capable of doing anything bad.

That seems reasonable - probably because you believe that people won't just suddenly change their nature and become socially responsible and kind-hearted... which people seem to think is the case when they advocate castrating the government.

Honestly, IMHO government exists to protect the people from their own base instincts.

Then again, I'm military, and a centrist. The system has issues, that much is blatantly obvious, but it's not like there's a blueprint for what's going on - there hasn't really been a culture like ours before.

Personally, I like the idea of federal control and regulation, I just think it should be transperent. Ideally, we could do with a lot less regulation than we currently have, but much stricter enforcement of that regulation.

eh, just my 2c.

Aberzombie wrote:

Also, Charlie get's his tubes put in his ears tomorrow. We have to be at the doctor's office by 0710. Ugh. Hope I'm feeling better by then.

I hope you feel better, and that the tubes drastically reduce the number of ear infections Charlie gets.

Just wanted to swing by and congratulate Taig again on a job well done with the Phasic Ravager. You really stepped up your game this round - keep it up.

Gary got a PHYSICAL hammer to accompany his metaphysical one? What is the world coming too!?!?!

The bigger issue this is bringing up is one of stewardship of the campaign setting, which, when I've run/played in PFS (not alot, paizocon, some local stuff) has never been the attitude of the GM's. It's not your job to make sure a character makes sense, it's your job to ensure that he's legal mechanically, and to run the game. You're not really an auditor even unless something jumps out that seems unbalanced.

I understand table variance in running style, but I don't think it's right, fair, or even intended for you to enforce campaign fluff as rules. Characters built with the rules, by the rules, should be valid at any table. If there needs to be a rule that supports or restricts something, it needs to be brought into the game in an official manner before armchair campaign managers start dictating things.

Congratulations Mike! Ignore the hate, they just don't know what happens when you do damage to a badgah.

CREATIVE RAGEEEEEEE

Jiggy wrote:

Just for my own curiosity, why is it you don't want people multiclassing? (Or is it just one- or two-level dips?)

Multiclassing is fine. One or two level dips aren't. Why do I hate them? It gives characters stuff they really shouldn't have, like a Wisdom Sorcerer or Druid with a Monk's AC bonuses or a Wizard with a Crossblooded Sorcerer's bloodline powers. Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?

I like the idea of making the players justify it, but how do I write it out in such away that my players won't toss it out for being too vague or open to GM whims?

Ok, I'm sure it will be clear soon that you are in the minority around here (which is NOT to say that you're opinion isn't valid) but I don't think that it has anything to do with roleplaying. They could easily have begun their life in a monastery, you know?

I think what it really comes down to is - you just don't like it.

That's fine, it really is. It's not broken or cheap or poor roleplaying, it's just not something you care for - just let the players know and move on.

A belated happy birthday Crimson Jester!

As Wes kindly pointed out, we, the DMs, should be thinking of ways to include Adrissant in our campaigns in a greater way. I, also, believe that campaign's primary villain should be known to the party before the end, so I'll also be brainstorming the ways to include him. Until I think of something of my own, I'd be glad to hear suggestions. Has anyone had any ideas so far?

Here's how I'm running it;

Players are being watched by Adivion the whole way. He's a bored super-genius and he wants intellectual company. In-between the modules he sends them little puzzles, which, if they are able to decipher, lead them to obscure and dark parts of the cities. There, they are instructed to keep quiet and watch what happens.

It's a long story, but in essence they are being led down a path that ends in the creation of their very own phylactery. The trick is keeping the wool pulled over their eyes long enough for them to keep wanting the crazy good rewards they're getting.

It's an amulet in my game, and every run in with "A" is amping up the amulet. Started with a scroll handout that had a code in it (linguistics) an illusion on it, and then a formula that represented the melting point of gold (intelligence, alchemy, or goldsmithing).

I'm building him up as a sort of mentor/moriarty for the first few books.

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

Joss Whedon?

No, I swear he has at least one good thing left in him. Of course I hope beyond hope it is the Avengers.

Please, please, please let it not be a flop. I've wanted this movie since I was 3.

I might, if I end up coming out for it. My in-laws live just outside seattle... I wonder how much it's gonna cost all in all. If I can swing it after looking into my honeymoon this winter I'll be there. It would be pretty awesome to meet all of you IRL.

Just found out that I have around $30.00 in my bank account due to National Grid deciding to f$@# me with a broom handle. I can now officially not afford to buy food.

That sucks. Seems like you've had a run of bad luck lately... I hope things turn around for you - I've lived on the edge before and it's not good for anyone.

In other news - I greeted Jeff (the new airman in my flight) this morning by throwing a soft plush softball at his head. I then convinced him it wasn't me, but a much higher ranking sergeant. Ahhhh new guys.

Also - the war with my cat continues. Mildred Percival Wexley ended a month-long truce by deciding that, sometime in the dark hours of the early morning, it was time for feline mardi-gras.

grumbly groggy nathan stumbled out of the bedroom, stepped on one of the sets of beads left over from the kitty bender. I jumped, because it was unexpected and a little painful, and landed on another set. I tripped. DOWN GOES THE NATHAN.

As I looked up, groggy, hurt, and angry, I see Mildred. She trotted into sight with another set of beads in her mouth. There was a twinkle in her eyes, as if she was saying "neener, neener, neener", then she spun around in a circle real fast in what I can only assume was a victory dance before bolting into the bedroom and curling up with my wife.

This means war.

Again.

nathan blackmer wrote:

Valid, if a little strongly worded.

Meh, I take out my frustration from intense boredom and/or stupidity at work on hapless forum-goers that I happen to disagree with (or not, sometimes I just argue for the sheer fun of it). Besides, anyone who takes anything I say seriously deserves what they get. It's not like I would do something crazy like try to wrap a guy around a traffic light just because he woke me up early to take him home.

:P

You're a dick, ben. :-)

Mmmmm....flotation devices

Bad zombie! Plastic is NOT brains!

taig wrote:

aeglos wrote:

Celestial Healer wrote:

Mothman wrote:

nathan blackmer wrote:

Real quick update before bed - I got married! Pictures are up on the book of faces. I have more news but it'll have to wait - I hope you all had a GREAT Halloween!

Congratulations!

+1

+2

+3

+5

Thanks everybody! Married life has been fantastic so far. (we weren't married on the 31st, we were married on the 8th, in Vermont. It was awesome.)

In other news - I'm looking into Rune Quest. might be nice to try a new system.

Also... well deserved death cert's? Do tell, mr. pidgeon.

Real quick update before bed - I got married! Pictures are up on the book of faces. I have more news but it'll have to wait - I hope you all had a GREAT Halloween!

I believe we should begin with establishing Batman's alignment.

Oh, you. Don't troll the poor boy's thread.

Philosophers make the point that everything is stupid.

Really?

The universal statement there is - ALL philosopher make the point that everything is stupid.

Hate to toss down the troll card, but it has to be done. Not much of a discussion to be had about this, I think you've made your point clear - you don't like philosophy, philosophers, and you think there's no value in either.

Obviously it's not a point that you can prove, and no one can make you change your mind so your motivation is what.... to get a rise out of people?

Might be time to let this one die.

Uh...

You can make rabbit fur sweaters. They're quite nice, in fact.

Madness I tell you!

Rabbit fur you say?

Prove to me you are all not just in my mind.

You can not.

Pshaw! I'd have to be some sort of evil mastermind, with power only equalled by my deceptive nature. Of course, maybe I have your brain in a jar with electrodes hooked up to it that are sending you false sights sounds tastes and feelings...

That proves neither of those concepts. Try again.

Why? Nothing gets proved philosophically. Its like a set of chopsticks complaining that a forklift can't pick up mt rushmore.

This statement kind of rubs me the wrong way. Via arguments of reduction, nothing is ever uniformally proven. Positive statements are, by nature, very difficult to prove. The same is true of scientific theories.

Descartes proved that "I exist" was a positive statement. Primitive I'll grant, but an important intellectual landmark.

I think the root of all philosophy is human curiosity - the big questions of how and why that have, directly, been the root of all human advancement. If you'll allow me a little dramatic leeway in my meandering, questioning is at the very core of philosophy... and if mankind never questioned we really wouldn't have gone anywhere.

When we talk about succesful people, we often wonder about their philosophies and seek to emulate them. Design philosophies have driven market developement before.

Here's a rhetorical exercise for you big norse wolf, You've made a positive assertion that nothing has been proven philosophically. Care to prove that statement? Also, let's get some proof that philosophy is useless.

A warped version of Nietzsche's philosophy was used to spur on the germans before WWII.

You know, I'm not sure if it was mentioned, but all of the sciences used to referred to as philosophies.

There were the natural philsophies, for instance, study of the world and weather and zoology. It wasn't until much later that "science" and "philosophy" were distinguished as seperate things.

In short;

Used to be Philosophy = knowledge of a topic.

Now Philsophy = inflective views of the human condition.

now as for it being worthless... well, I can't really vouch for that one way or the other, although it's a pretty big statement - inflection, retrospection, and constructive thought about humanity is worthless is a textbook example of nihilism.

And, seeing as you're using nihilism to discredit philosophy, it leaves you on pretty shaky ground.

Of course we could go back to talking about semantics, because I could use a good gruntle-ing!

Bladebound Magus!

To Kryzbyn and others,

Suppose a Chinese citizen gains access to the US -- legally or illegally -- and settles in here. While here, he speaks out against the Communist regime, corruption, and human rights abuses back home in China. He even goes so far as to channel financial aid to activists and possibly revolutionaries back home, sets up TOR nodes and ways to circumvent the Great China Firewall, etc... all considered treason.

Then, without a trial or attempts to extradite, China hits him with a drone while in at his suburban residence in the US. Assuming the strike is surgical with no other casualties, is it still ok?

Clever, Ambrosia.... you set a logic trap, there. It's impossible to ascertaing the "OK"-ness of the act because "Ok" is a value judgement... so the answer, for me, is;

If I'm american in the hypothetical - No that's an act of war.

If I'm chinese in the hypothetical - you bet your buns. That guys a scumbag.

I'm cool with assassination. Then again I'm in the military and it's kind of our jobs to kill people.

I don't have a problem with my country going after enemies of the state. I don't see America having a loftier set of ideals then anybody else though, either.

Just seems like the day to day workings of any government to me, I guess? It's not like it's a new concept, or that we should be inherently better than any other country because we're "AMERICA"...

Kryzbyn wrote:

Good points.

I won't vote for Obama.
Unless someone else takes the field, it looks like I may have to vote for Paul.
"OMG he's for ID in schools! OMG he's pro-choice! OMG he's..."
Don't care. I want my friends to have jobs. I want the economy to improve.
The social issues MUST take a back seat (not regress, I'm not saying that) until the fiscal issues are fixed.

when you take your eyes off of social issues, they tend to regress.

Can't help but agree on that... besides, at the risk of thread derailment - the fiscal issue is the war, and we do need to fix that.

Clearly, we do.

To me its good AC/HP, decent saves, and the ability to constantly threaten the enemy when they try to get at the squishy bits of the party (the casters). The problem is the relative lack of ways to force the enemy to attack the "tank".

Paladin has dealt with this a little via a bunch of spells designed to force enemies to consider them before others or suffer, so that's a tank.

Antagonize can work for other classes, but ultimately your damage really needs to be significant enough so the DM considers whether or not he wants to eat your attacks while hitting you or your friends. If you can do enough damage to give the dm pause, can survive a few hits from a CR appropriate enemy, and have a decent chance of making saving throws, I'd say that makes you a tank.

Endoralis wrote:

Im not cheating, the character was established before the change for me to change it again would ruin the character ... The Errata went from maybe reasonable to completely unnecessary..

You are not using the current accepted rules for PFS. Yes, that is called cheating.

Probably the more important issue would be fairness, the trait was strong enough to be built around, and the character should probably get a re-build.

Nicoe?

Yeah, I could see them complaining about that.

Absolutely. I'm probably the worst Airman ever. I've also been trying to build hype over my alter ego - White Ghost Rapper Natty-G.

Edit -- I pronounced it a little closer to Ncuh, which, when preceded by "Whut UP" really gets there hackles up.

I apparently hit the sleep-deprivation wall. That mystical state of being that induces hilarity at even the most mundane of ideas. NCO stands for Non-Comissioned Officers (Sergeants and higher in the enlisted rank structure).

Apparently suggesting that we should address NCO's phonetically is entirely inapropriate....

Back in mah day we nevuh had non'dis lut.

We mayuhd dew with stiyaks and stonehs and the twiztuhd falisees uh thu falluhn.

Ayuhp.

Hey here's another thing - the blog post specifically calls out armor use... Which I don't get because, well, barding. Barding is armor for animals. It makes perfect sense that any animal could take armor proficiency for barding.

Clarifying and addressing my concerns by listing them after the blog section;

"an increase in Int comes with all of the standard bonuses, such as additional skill points."

hmm ok.

"Once a creature's Int reaches 3, it also gains a language. This is where things start to get tricky. "Really, now my pet monkey can talk?" Well, not really. Allow me to explain."

Ok it gains a language, but not really.

"There is also the issue of learning the language. The rules are mostly silent on this front, due to ease of play for PCs, but a GM should feel safe in assuming that it might take years to actually teach Common to an intelligent animal. All of this, of course, assumes that the animal even bothers to fill that language slot. Possessing the ability to use a language does not necessarily mean that such an ability is utilized."

A gm should then make the same assumption of a human in regards to linguistics I suppose? The implication that you can choose not to do certain things upon level up is also an interesting one. Wouldn't we assume, that as an extension of my Class Power (Animal companion) that the animal would learn the language I picked for it?

"Another aspect of intelligent animals is tool use. There are a number of feats that convey an understanding and the proper use of weapons and armor. Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats."

A bit of verbal judo here. Feat A teaches you how to use Item B. BUT not when Given to creature C, even though rule D states the exact opposite. Of course you CAN equip the creature with the item, as you've given it the feat (representing specialized training in the use of the item) for the item. I don't undeerstand the logic here.

"The rules themselves are left a little vague to give the GM the latitude to make the call that's right for his campaign."

Absolutley no offense meant here, but I do not believe this.

"The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes. A character must still make Handle Animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate tasks. A GM should, however, make exceptions in the case of how such an intelligent animal might react in absence of instructions. It might not know to unlock a door to escape a burning building—as that's a fact that's learned over time and experience—but a smart animal might have a better chance of finding a way out."

Ok, others have posted this BUT - if the animal gains a language (which assumes proficiency in the language, in this case AT LEAST the understanding of it) why are we suddenly assuming that the creature won't understand what we tell it to do? Are Animal language proficiencies different as well? It seems that any feat an animal companion takes has a different set of unstated rules.

nathan blackmer wrote:

Well then, if I'm playing a 3 int human people should have to use "handle animal" on me to get me to do anything as well.

"FYE-TOR NOT UNDERSTAND! FYE-TOR WANT SMASH!! NOT "GUARD"!!"

"Fye-tor, would you please, please, PLEASE go hit that dragon?" begs Tansi the pyromancer "Pretty-please?"

GM - "Roll handle animal."

Tansi rolls a 4.

Fye-Tor - "BUNNIIIIIESSS!!!!" Fye-tor begins hopping excitedly away from the party.

GM - Generic, the red dragon, looks on amused.

Tansi - "Wait, I've got....CANDY!" Tansi produces a stick painted navy blue.

GM - That'll get you a re-roll, at +5. He likes candy.

Fye-tor - it's true. "C...Candy?!??"

16. Have the players roll 5 or six d20's, factor in their save bonuses and use them later instead of having them roll when they need to save. Watch the dawning realizations, the looks of terror when they remember what they rolled.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Sounds like somebody pissed in SKR's corn flakes this mornin lol

No, it just makes sense that if something isn't defined in the game, you should go to the real-world definition of that thing. The game doesn't define "boots," "bones," "metal," or even "water," but you know what those things are. Otherwise the Core Rulebook becomes a dictionary as well as a collection of game rules, and expands to 1,000 pages....

+1

We live in a dark era of roleplaying. Too many rules. Too many silly discussions that slow things down when a simple and quick DM ruling could fix it.

I run into situations where people feel "cheated" if things don't go specifically as stated in the "rules" all the time. What a poor attitude to have, and what a bad direction the industry as a whole has taken.