prosfilaes's page

Organized Play Member. 261 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:

What worries me a little is that since Starfinder is a thing we know that all "world ending" scenarios won't really be the end of the world and that no matter what the players do, the future will end up being "all right".

Will a Paizo author come out and say that PF and SF are each happening in alternate realities to remedy this?

In my Pathfinder game, a flying pyramid landed on the edge of Wati and is currently being used as a casino by a kobold. I doubt that's true in any of your Pathfinder games. In your Pathfinder game, maybe they killed Laori Vaus, or maybe she's wife to a PC and queen of Korvosa. If you insist on thinking too hard about it, any setting with prepackaged adventures is going to have to run in a separate parallel universe for each party.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd definitely appreciate any simplification of Pathfinder monsters. I think most of the time I run a battle as GM, the monsters don't end up performing to their full abilities, because I'm not familiar enough with them. I'm sure that GMs that spend more time in preparation don't have as much of a problem, but I do.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:
I actually wrote a short medical mystery novel with an ammonia-based lifeform as a patient. They used sulfur (which is surprisingly soluble in ammonia!) for respiration instead of oxygen, and so didn't actually need to breath. Tissue was polythiazyl-based instead of carbon-based.

Under what name and title?

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

You write 2017 several times in this message. That must be a typo; it's coming out August 2016, and I don't have a whole year to wait, right? Right?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Alchemist wrote:

Okay, I am having trouble pronouncing Ptemenib's name.

Is it like this: P'tem-eh-nib
Or is the P silent (like Ptolemy)? And thus Teh-men-ib

The correct way to pronounce Πτολεμαῖος's name is as it is spelled, with an initial Πτ. I presume that Ptemenib's name is similar; people who speak Common might stutter along and drop the initial P, but no speaker of Osirion would look twice at it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I suspect it's as much of a special snowflake thing as a power thing. Drizz't clones are all "I'm a special Drow, against my whole race, outcast on the surface with my angst."

Yes. It's called a backstory, and many players have one. You don't get this response against people who want to play dispossessed nobility or almost any other unique background.

Just the phrasing is problematic: "special snowflake" is a way of being insulting instead of being descriptive. They want their character to be special? Who doesn't?

Quote:
Gimli clones are like any other dwarf.

You say that like it's a good thing, like having every dwarf be a Gimli copy makes it better.

Quote:
Were people really imitating Gimli from the books when they made dwarves with axes for decades before the movies came out?

If that and the gruff attitude and the thing with elves is your character, then yes. I think it's worse if it's so stereotypical nobody thinks about the origins. Why is it worse to want to play a certain cool character, instead of just doing something generic?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
JRR Tolkien was heavily criticized for having orcs be dark-skinned with animalistic features. When asked about how this was a potentially racist image, he said something along the lines of: They are ORCS. Not PEOPLE. They are intended to be monsters to differentiate them from people.

Imagine a fantasy epic where all the good races were dark-skinned and the bad guys were pale-skinned, where the author dismissed concerns about the latter as "they are monsters". That would make me uncomfortable, and if I read it, would have to accept it with the racial undertones that were obviously there.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my current campaign, I keep reading these morale blocks that tell me when the NPCs will retreat, and I've learned to ignore them. Very rarely do NPCs foolish enough to interact violently with the PCs survive to get away. I'm not sure I'd expect much more if the tables were turned.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get it. Maybe the paladin should feel guilty for lying to the demon under torture. But in real life, what you do under torture is not held against you, at least not by reasonable folks. Lying under those conditions is not deep evil, it's not venial sin, it's an action taken with no good options under extreme stress. To punish a paladin for that, much less make him fall, is completely unfair.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Since we treat this as a bad word, let's treat this as a bad word.

You're trying to censor an idea, not a word. Don't.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get the votes for megadungeons. We have RA and will have Dwimmermount, and the Adventure Path format isn't really ideal for a megadungeon.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beej67 wrote:

Was the entire country of Germany evil during WW2?

I tend to think not.

Not every piece, but the country as a whole was engaged in a large war with parties it attacked in a war of conquest, a war that killed 27,000 people a day, and at the same time was going out of its way to kill 5,000 civilians a day in gas chambers. (The Holocaust was amorally stupid as a wartime act, given the people it pulled from the front. Blame war for many things, but not that.) War is hell, but Nazi Germany worked hard to earn its place in the halls of evil.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Finns fought alongside the Nazis against the Soviets, as a point of national survival, and I find it hard to blame them for it.

One discussion of horror--maybe GURPS Horror, 4th ed?--said that in horror and Nazis, you can either have the Nazis be working with or for the more fantastic or eldritch horror and give it a human face and grounding, or have the Nazis join the good guys and all humans stand together against inhuman horror.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krome wrote:
So once again the rest of the party must change their characters in order to not threaten the poor misunderstood paladin. The very class of paladin is provocation in many games.

It's called roleplaying. Is it really against the spirit of the game to have a character that takes offense at something someone else in the party does? I've played in an number of groups, and people leave because they don't work out; is it that surprising that sometimes PCs would have to leave because they didn't work out? Or should we just say that PCs can never have opinions strong enough that they would refuse to travel with someone who behaved in certain ways?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
Which is completely my point. Everyone thinks that math is the end all be all of class balance and power.

It certainly is, in most cases. A class that has 4 skill points, all other things being equal, is more powerful then a class that has 2.

Quote:
Where the monk shines, and what you dismiss out of hand, is pratical application, or as you put it, "anecdotal evidence".

Except that we have anecdotal evidence that they do suck in play. I don't know how you expect us to resolve this without math.

Quote:
wraithstrike - I have posts where I went through the Kingmaker AP and there isn't a single encounter that a monk of equal level couldn't hit/damage or be effective.

That's checkable by more than just anecdotal evidence. Take the sample party in the back of #34, and put them up against the tiger on page 20. The tiger can hit any member of the party if he doesn't roll a 1, for an average of 33 points of damage a turn, ignoring grab, 1s and criticals, so he's not likely to kill the party, but could easily kill a PC in 3 or 4 hits. The monk can't stun it; the tiger has a Fort +16 and the stun DC is 16.

Against an AC of 22 in melee, Sajan hits with flurry of blurs 50% of the time on +11, and 25% of the time with +6, doing 3d6+3 13.5 points * 1.5 = 20 damage a turn, with crits adding an additional point of damage.
At 75 HP, he'd die in 3 rounds, and could kill the tiger alone in 8 or 9 rounds. He is the only one that could run away, but has no distance weapons to harry his foe.

Amiri hits with +16/+11, for 75%/50%, doing 22.5 damage a turn, and her crits add another 4 damage a turn. Raging (and why not?) that becomes +18/+13 for 85%/60% and plus 2 to damage, so that goes up to 35.5 points a turn before crits. At 125 HP raging, the tiger will drop her in 4 turns, and she can drop the tiger alone in 4 hits.

Harsk hits with +14/+9, for 65%/40%, doing 12 damage a turn, and his crits add another damage a turn. He will last 4 hits, but drops the tiger in a ludicrous 14 turns. He's the most likely to be tiger droppings.

(I'm not going to try and mock up numbers for the druid Lini, since that's way more complex.)

Sajan and Amiri together can drop the tiger in 3 rounds; depending on initiative and who the tiger attacks, that may not be enough to save Amiri from dying. Sajan and Harsk can drop the tiger in 3-4 rounds; Harsk could die, but it's less likely then the Sajan/Amiri scenario. The three together could drop the tiger in 2-3 rounds; if the tiger directed attacks against Amiri, there's a chance that he could kill Amiri.

(Flanking would change the numbers; the tiger could be in an unflankable position, but if they all got the +4, Sajan goes up another 11 points a turn for 32, Amiri goes up another 6 points a turn to 46, and Harsk goes up 4 points a turn to 16.)

Which is interesting; but it's just math.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
And you are good at ignoring whats right there in your face so I will make it simple. All classesneed some tweaking at the end of the day but some are actually quite satisfied with classes like the monk as is. The monk isnt broken so its effectiveness is subjective and if you dont think its effective enough then thats your opinion but your opinion isnt the one all opinion that is right. Opinions arent right and they arent wrong, they are what they are.

If opinions aren't wrong, why did you start this thread to tell them their opinion was wrong? Some are satisfied, and some aren't; some of those that aren't are using objective standards, but the choice to use those standards is still an opinion that apparently can't be wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:

Human Height has a Range of 21.5 inches (Smallest Man was 1'9.5") to 107 inches (tallest man in the world was 8'11"). Unfortunately Humans in the RPG are never shorter than a Dwarf, and never taller than a Troll.

So the Realistic Human Height Generator would be about 17d6+5 (for a 22 inch-107 inch range).

That produces way too many people out of human norm. Out of six billion people alive, 3 are above 8' and none above 8'3", and 2 people below 2'.*

Player character wise, people above 8 foot tall, in real life, often have serious health issues; Robert Wadlow (the 8'11" guy) had trouble standing near the end of his life and his growth contributed to the problems that killed him at 22. Neither of the other two people listed on Wikipedia as being above 8'3" could stand upright, and a number of the other people on that list have serious height-related problems.

In any case, if players want to play an extremely tall or short human, I doubt most DMs would object.

Quote:
it also means that the reason most of the Human populace are taller than 5'4" is because we have killed off short people through thousands of years of eugenics.

No. Height is very dependent on diet; refugee Mayans who grew up in the US grew 4 inches taller then their siblings in Guatemala. Golarion, not having the industrial revolution and food distribution systems of the modern world, is likely to have shorter humans then Earth.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_people

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

It doesn't matter if its true (i dont know if youre right or wrong).

It's still often said.

It does matter if it's true or not! We shouldn't mindlessly pass along falsehoods without checking them, and we shouldn't encourage copyright holders to engage in unnecessary legal action, or discourage them from protecting their rights when they're justified to and legally empowered to.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arikiel wrote:
Nice work. I've always found it curious that the evilly aligned planes get way more representation then the good ones. I thought there was supposed to be a cosmic balance. I'd really like to see something like this for the CG end. It's always the most neglected of the four corners.

The Planescape cosmology looked balanced, but the Golarion cosmology looks to me to be biased for the CE side.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scaevola77 wrote:
Furthermore, a DM should never be expected to make exceptions for special items. ... it does not have plot immunity,

Why? This isn't fact; it's a choice. And it's a choice that flies in the face of dramatic convention; in no half-decent fiction will such an item be casually be destroyed. If you bend towards storytelling, of course it survives. "They burn all your cloth in fear that it carries the plague, except that a girl enamored with you steals the scarf." "They toss all your clothes in a furnace, but the scarf falls to the side and doesn't get burned/is so light it gets blown out the chimney/is scavenged by an imp that's been following the party." The DM has extensive freedom to write the story, particularly when it goes along with what the players want.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
I get that there's a vocal minority who thinks that the Monk class has been violated from behind using some funky monk weapon

And there's a vocal minority that likes to rant about how everyone who thinks that is a whining nancy and incompetent, even when the thread is specifically not about that. They're both rather small minorities. However, I do not believe that the group that believes the Monk class is fully powered is in the majority; at best, those who believe it is underpowered combined with those who have no opinion are in the majority.

Quote:
this is like getting old and yes I am tired of blocking those threads off.

So don't make another one. It's a forum; there's no on-topic thread more annoying then a "stop talking about that!" thread.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've read all threads about the monk, and generally agree that the monk is a less then capable class. (If you disagree, then this is probably not the thread for you.) As a GM, I'd be happy to fix that but I don't have a coherent set of rules changes to make. What type of minimal changes would you make to bring the monk up to a credible meleer -- or to credibly fulfill another role you think they're designed to fulfill but don't?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Friendly Lich wrote:
In a society that worships the sun as a god - would you have to deny the existence of the sun in order to be an atheist? Or would you have to deny that the sun produces sunlight - and thus makes life possible - in order to be an atheist?

I'd say the answer to that is moot in this case. The Rahadoumi are not denying anything. They're refusing to worship. That's an entirely different thing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I also want out point out that the religious wars that Rahadoum was so afraid of was due to some (good) missionaries of Sarenrae travelling to the area and meeting some insane native followers of Nethys (probably in the Mangi expanse and some cannibalistic-warmongering savages of Norgorber, (probably around Nex and Yamasa who where forced to return to their dark ways when the Eye devistated them).

No one has brought up a source besides the Inner Sea Guides, and this is wrong or reading a lot into the text by that source. The ISG says this was about the numerous isolated city-states of Rahadoum, so not in the Mwangi Expanse. Nethys is a neutral god, and since they had such influence in the city they probably weren't insane.

Quote:
It is also implied that the cults of Norgorber and Nethys attacked the followers of Sarenrae as they came to the area.

Or do you mean the followers of Norgorber and Nethys attacked the cults of Sarenrae when they came to the area? The sentences in question is "When the faithful of Sarenrae, spreading their religion like rising sunrays across northern Garund, came upon this region, they met sudden resistance from these independent city-states, who favored Nethys and Norgorber. The Oath Wars--more than 6 ruinous decades of religious war between rival followers of the three gods--followed, devastating the region." I see no evidence that the hostility was instigated by the city-states.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Regardless of what your opinion or belief system is, or how you define "good", "evil", or "magic" in the world, in Golarion,

"magic" in the game seems pretty distant from anything considered "magic" in the real world. Good and evil, on the other hand, have caused more arguments in the game then just about anything else.

Quote:
it's defined for us by virtue of the fact that the gods have alignments and they decree things from within their alignments.

I don't see that at all. As far as I can tell, good and evil predate the gods, and the ascension of various gods did nothing to affect the definition of good and evil in the world.

Quote:
All decisions have consequences, and those of higher authority get to decide those consequences. If they are unpleasant for those who go through them of lower authority, doesn't make the higher authority wrong. In this case, there is no higher authority than gods, and thus they will make a decision that those of lower authority must abide by.

Who put them in charge? Power does not equal authority. It may be advisable to kneel to someone more powerful then you, but you have the right to stand on your own two feet if you're ready to accept the consequences.

Quote:
Democracy is defined by the fact that there is no particular ruling class.

That's not what the link you point to says. Even today, the average person elected to the US Congress is a lot more male, a lot more white and comes from a lot wealthier background then the average American. It's easy to imagine democracies where de facto the elected officials were from a certain class; de jure would be a more interesting case, but could still leave enough choice in the hands of the electorate to be considered a democracy.

As for slavery, until 1865, the United States was a government where slaves and women were denied the right to vote. Perhaps it was not a full democracy, but it is generally considered a democracy.

Quote:
the fact that they are willingly screwing themselves over for eternity* in order to "stick it to the gods"

What's freedom worth? It's hardly a tradeoff that other nations haven't made; Hell is hardly a pleasant destination, either. And they don't know of their ultimate destination; all they know is their lot here in life.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:
But we're not talking about things like choosing not to play with someone. We're talking about things like taking away power from a legitimately built character because it's somehow too good.

Would you prefer they just kicked you out?

Quote:
If you are at a table with 4 people, and three of them have weak characters and one has a strong character, why is it that the person who made the strong character has to tone their character down because everyone else has a weak character? Why not make the other three character's strong?

Because maybe they want to play a halfling barbarian/wizard, not whatever is dictated by the laws of optimization?

Quote:
Or heck, play the game as is and realize that it's not a freaking communist society where everyone is equal?

If they don't find that fun, then they don't find that fun. There's a reason why a lot of modern boardgames are carefully balanced, with reduced luck elements and rules that keep the leader from running away with it without having the other players pound on him. Because that type of balance is what people find fun.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Shopping is not furthering the plot

Some people care; others don't, and there's no reason they should. Furthering the plot is just one way to play the game. For some people, D&D is a multiplayer fantasy shooter, and for it's a chance to roleplay and speak to everyone, including storekeepers.

Quote:
Selfishness, greed, bitterness, no respect for others, the power gamer is a sad creature.

Because that's the way to communicate with other people; stereotype them and label them sad, bitter, greedy people. I don't think your description is a useful description of any non-negligible subset of gamers.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
To my mind it aids immersion if the rogue can actually derive part of his wealth from stealing,

My problem is that I feel that players who play rogues like this want to be the exception. It aids immersion if my enchanter actually mind-controls people, so magically coercing the rogue to hold off the dragon a few rounds while we escape should be okay? It aids immersion if the fighter can actually derive part of his wealth from killing people and taking their stuff, so killing the rogue and taking his stuff should be fine, right?

Your group wants to play like this, more power to you. But the rogue should not have the exclusive right to be abusive to the other characters, and it seems like the rogue player who wants to steal from the other characters wants the excuse to do this no matter how much it annoys the other players and characters.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The word for people who fudge die rolls is "cheater", not "powergamer".

Why do I make sure my character is as powerful as I can make it? Because I've played where nothing I did seemed to matter, and it wasn't fun. I'm watching a guy play in my current campaign who's playing an archer who is minimally or completely ineffective, and it doesn't look fun.