because you will never chose which card to discard. at which choice discarding any card is valid... but could easily be a trap option.
lets play poker if you really believe system mastery does not have any effect on card games.
So my take:
I liked it -- it was nice to see a pixar movie that wasn't a straight comedy or got overwritten into a comedy and to see a disney movie that wasn't a stereotype out of the box and the entire length of the movie.
MUCH better than brave, and tangled, though I liked tangled more than brave... after all who can be against disney's first bondage princess?
All in all while I could do without the comic relief snowman (really he contributed NOTHING to the movie) over all I think it was the strongest 'kids' movie I have seen in a long while.
As to moderation and what not:
I remember a thread about the magus FAQ where it was decided it wasn't a full attack, but a full round action like a full attack and so forth.
While he and I were in it and many of the posts could probably have been read as hostile, I did my best to read everything in it as just 'grumpy old men' speak as opposed to actual hostility.
Sometimes I read something and I have to back up and read it as 'not myself'. It helps me keep in perspective that they could be trying to not be offensive.
I guess what I'm saying is perhaps some of it all is our own bias coming to the fore in what we read?
So does a bolt of lightning, but you electrocute a couple of people with chain lightning and suddenly you're the bad guy!
That wouldn't follow with the wall of force spell though.
Peter Stewart wrote:
"I can't stand the thought of having a weakness" is all I got out of that.
That and "I have trust issues" are what I tend to see when someone is all, "I can't have a stat under 10," or other such junk.
I'm sure the problem is with me and my perspective though.
How dare I be willing to play a guy that's generally average and maybe less than average in some ways, who is above average (or even exceptional) in others.
First example -- falls apart on impact, we've had this one out multiple times already.
Second example -- More an example of people not paying attention to what the spells state... silence is a horrible scouting spells since you can't listen to what is going on around you and people notice when they can't hear anything around them all of a sudden. Scry requires a target can be noticed, allows a save throw, is a small area spell, takes a long time to use, etc. and clairvoyance has its own issues.
1-ft.-diameter/level sphere, centered around a creature
So at caster level 10 it is a 10 foot diameter sphere, which is large enough to cover 4 squares. Which means it has enough room for more than one creature.
so how does it develop?
A sphere-shaped spell expands from its point of origin to fill a spherical area. Spheres may be bursts, emanations, or spreads.
This suggests that anyone near the point of origin (namely the target) will be pushed out of the area.
The sphere functions as a wall of force, except that it can be negated by dispel magic.
Which is a wall spell which develops at the perimeter of an area. Which suggests that instead of the normal push out it could simply be a literal round wall of force (that is susceptible to dispel magic) meaning it could surround more than one person.
A globe of shimmering force encloses a creature, provided the creature is small enough to fit within the diameter of the sphere.
Hints that it will only contain one creature...
So what happens when a creature is contained and starts summoning creatures that would fit in the space inside the sphere (since you have to have line of effect to where the creature will appear)?
Personally I have ended up treating the spell like a wall spell and allow multiple creatures to be targeted if they all fit into the space the spell will cover. Since the spell allows a save throw I generally go with the following line from wall of force
If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails.
and say that if a creature saves they successfully imposed themselves and broke the surface as the spell was forming and prevented the spell.
Effectively meaning that if you do not contain a creature with it you cannot use the spell as a means of area denial.
The problem I have seen isn't that you can't get your worse save up to over 50% and generally keep it there through out a game -- it's that the differences between the best and the worse is so pronounced and so easy to upset.
If you have casters with the best save DCs possible (in core) and have the best supplements to your save throw bonuses possible (in core) then and you maintain those across all levels they will stay even.
The problem comes in when most people in the party have done so and that one character hasn't or visa versa (when only one person in the party has done so and no one else in the party has).
My point is, regardless of how useful spontaneous is over prepared spellcasting, it irks me that the only way to add to spells known other than the human favored class bonus is a Page of Spell Knowledge. It's not like you can learn new spells relatively cheaply like a wizard can.
There is also a feat you can take.
But a large part of the reason it isn't as easy for a sorcerer is because of how they cast. It makes a huge difference.
It is different precisely because of how their core mechanics differ.
This isn't apple to apple it is apple to limes.
Yes they are both fruit and yes they are both nutritious but their taste, method of being eaten and what sort of nutrients you gain from each are different as is the way you prepare them.
You wouldn't make an apple pie from oranges and you wouldn't make key lime pies out of apples.
It a similar ability yes and they both get extra spells known yes, but the sorcerer can make better use of the ability from a day to day basis.
Where the wizard has unlimited spells known he has limited spells available per day constrained by his spell slots.
The sorcerer is not constrained by this -- any spell known he can cast provided he has spell slots of that level or higher available.
It would be more accurate to say it would be the same benefit if the wizard could spontaneously switch out a spell prepared for the spell he knows through his favored class ability.
This same point stands for the bard and inquisitor and works against the witch as well.
The class doesn't matter in this regard -- only if it is a spontaneous caster or a prepared caster.
Spontaneous casters get more use out of this ability.
No wizards do not gain the same benefit. The get a similar benefit but for sorcerers who can cast any spell known at any time the benefit is much bigger than it is for a wizard.
So I've seen a lot of threads suggesting that if you have a low stat then you should act a certain way, or that you are lacking in said stat in all ways without exception.
One example often cited is charisma. If you have a low charisma you are understandably not a people's person (even though you may be a people person), but does that mean you are ugly, unlikable, shy, off-putting, and a jerk all at the same time -- or could you not be one of those?
If you are lacking in wisdom could it be that you are simply unaware and not strong of will while still having a certain amount of 'folksy wisdom' to you that you simply learn from your grangran?
I would argue that by not allowing such expressions and by forcing people into a strict interpretation of what each stat means people are actually acting in a way that will lead to players being overly concerned with their stats and numbers and correspondingly less concerned with their overall character concept to the point of wanting new numbers for things (including substats) to help make the numbers match what they want their character to be more.
I would suggest that allowing the numbers to be more... fuzzy on what they represent without negating the mechanical penalties involved with them can help people look past the numbers and develop more in depth characters.
I would also suggest allowing characters to invest in improving the flaws with skills, traits and feats is a good thing that can help GMs show improvement is possible even if it comes at cost and helps bring a more realistic bent to the game as a whole.
Which is the more specific case?
Everyone that rolls an attack roll with a natural 20?
Or when a specific class (swashbuckler) does a specific thing (activates an ability) in a specific case (when attacked) causes a miss?
I mean yeah you could argue the other way.
But it would take a certain kind of special.
But if you don't like that consider:
The only point the ability activates is if an attack would hit.
Was there an attack? Yes
Except on the odd levels beyond 1st, when wizards generally have the same number of spells per day.
I think it's a bit more than you are offering -- a +4 with chance to counter an attack for just a -1 on attack rolls is a rather good exchange. However it is rather feat intensive.
But with that said it is something that can work really well for a magus since they have to keep the hand free. A two level dip (which hurts I know) into a martial artist master of many styles can get you through the feats pretty quickly.
All in all like anything else magus it's a pick your poison deal.
Louis Lyons wrote:
So you are right -- well... when are you going to write it?
Or you could just take the crane style feats to reduce the penalty to a 1 and then combined (and having ranks in acrobatics) to get a total of +7 to ac... +9 if you are a halfling and spend a feat on cautious fighter.
+9 dodge to AC for a -1 on attack rolls? I'll do that.
Of course that's 5 feats at that point but you do get to negate a melee attack a round and take an AoO on it too so there is that.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
It's only controversial because others can't keep their damn noses out of someone else's business and seek to condemn them for their actions.
So you want to be the all mighty wizard (or not -- sorcerers, oracles, clerics, druids, magi, witches and summoners are welcome too), but the thing is you don't want to be 'that wizard'. We all know the one -- the guy that insists that the only reason the rest of the party is there is to waste time between his turns and how if the whole party was spell casters they could play on super easy mode.
You aren't looking to steal anyone's thunder -- you just want to morph reality at a whim, and there is nothing wrong with that (if you are me at least)!
There are several steps in this and it's a process that is learned and takes practice. But if you are willing to spend the time, effort, and (perhaps most importantly) develop the deviousness then you too can have REAL ULTIMATE POWER, and still walk down the street without a rulebook stuck up your can.
The first thing to do is get on your GM's good side. You want to know his pet peeves, know how he operates his story line and where you can step. Make no mistake -- if you are full on playing a wizard you are very much going to be walking on the GM's toes every now and then. The key is to tread softly and be careful where you step. Have him develop a subtle sign he can give you before you run roughshod over something he wants the party to go through. Generally if the wizard doesn't bring it up, no one else in the party will -- and if they do then it's not your fault it came up. This means that even though you are the guy with the answer, it isn't your answer, so you aren't going to get blamed for it.
The second thing to do is know your party both the characters and the players. A lot of wizards like having high initiative (I am no exception) but the truly masterful take that high initiative and then delay.
By delaying or readying an action you can hit when it matters most with the spell that is needed the most, and you aren't drawing first blood. This can be important as some players greatly desire that, or will see your early actions (even if buffing) as devaluing them. It also tells the GM that you consider him a canny opponent -- not to be taken lightly and that you realize you need to pay attention in order to not be had by his wily ways.
You are going to want to know what your team is about too. IF you have a 'rock of a fighter' that stands solid and trades blows you aren't going to want to be pushing foes away from him or making him unable to sit still and engage. You also don't want to take away from his solid hits with last hit kills or dumping a lot of damage. Clear out the mooks from around him so he can go solid against the large damage source for you.
If you have a bard focus on battlefield control and let him be the major buffer (if he's that sort of bard) -- you both contribute and don't step on each others toes.
And perhaps just as importantly always remember to have mundane means to solve problems with you. Passwall is great! A flask of acid and some magic lockpicks for the rogue is cheaper on your resources though, and keeps other players with skin in the game.
If you find yourself at the end of a turn and you don't know what to cast -- don't cast. Move around and maybe aid other if you feel the need. I have gone entire battles where I cast one spell at the beginning of the fight and did nothing else. I didn't bother with the crossbow I didn't swing my staff I just sat back and out of the way. We have always been able to ignore the concept of 15 minute adventuring day in part because I don't feel the need to cast every single time I have a chance.
This does two things -- it preserves resources and makes you look canny and trusting in your allies. Look if you have a dwarven stalwart defender and you are facing giants you can step back and let her have fun. You don't have to get fancy with the high level spells, just give her a heroism and let her go.
Finally leave some slots open at higher level. You aren't likely to blow through all your spells in a single fight and you rarely need more than a couple utility spells on the spot to save a slot or two of each spell level so you can be versatile in the field.
More suggestions from other players are always welcome.
This is one of those books I've been waiting for -- between it and the gamemaster's guide I feel I have specialized, direct and insightful books to help my new or amateur players mature and grow in the hobby without me pulling my hair out or them feeling like someone is bashing them over the head with 'the right way to do things'.
And hopefully it will include a few surprises or new ideas for myself as well.
Again in it's own comment then:
I always wonder about out the different races and cultures of Golarion would speak in 'the language of love'.
For example in the real world different languages have different words to describe different types of love or use adjectives and nouns together differently to express different concepts on love (for example the greek seven kinds of love.
It would be interesting to see if the elves have different words for the length of time the love covers, or who the love is with or if it is a romantic love or not.
Equally interesting to me is how the dwarves would describe the same things.