The one I'm in love with is from another part of the country, about 800 miles away. I dreamt I was going to them by train, and when I was about to switch from train to bus for the last 120 miles and was talking to them on phone, I started waking up.
And I was like "no, no, I don't want to wake up, I want to dream about hanging out with my love! sleep, g#%$$*n, sleep!!!". Only to realize that nowadays, we live together and they were sleeping right next to me.
That was awesome and now this morning I'm so g!$@%*n happy because I don't live a 22 hour train travel from them anymore.
"Devil's Advocate" does not serve a useful rhetorical function in a conversation about abuse.
not only does it not serve well, it immediately show what an a%@&+%# you are (not you irontruth, those that do it). "My enjoyment of debate is far more important than ending systemical oppression, to the point where I'll actively derail and disrupt opressed people's struggle!!"
There's few more annoying posts than those that make highly insinuant statements or questions, and then when people make assumptions to try to descipher the post based on those statements - rather than correct the assumptions when they are wrong - goes the whole "i didnt say that!!!!" thingy.
Itssimilar to the "have you stopped hitting your partner?" expression, only the logical answer "thats a loaded question and ive never hit my partner" is met with "OH I DIDNT SAY YOU HAD!!!! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!! JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!".
Its dishonest, provocative disruptive behaviour that works great to destroy any semblance of meaningful discussion.
If you make an insinuant post or rhethorical question and people misinterpret it, drop the insinuation and make your statements in plain english. Dont do that passiveaggressive s++#.
I mean, I dislike the US government too, and they have certain fascistoid tendencies, but i wouldnt call them nazis because they arent. Svoboda however are nazis.
And again, if we dont consoider "armed people occupying government buildings" civilians, then neither could we consider svoboda civilians, and the word "junta" isnt such a bad match afger all, i guess. Dont know the exact nuances you apply to the words, but to me, noncivilian means at least paramilitary. Whether a paramilitary dictatorship is a junta or not is up to you.
Thejeff: i must say, while in general i agreewith you, it seems kinda double standards to consider the armed neonazi forces that occupied government buildings nonmilitary, while at the same time calling the armed separatists that occupy buldings non-civilian.
Because lets face it, what the separatists are doing right now in eastern ukraine is about the same thing as the eonazis did during the coup. Except the separatists are met with military, which yanukovich did not use against the nazis.
Since both sides seem to understand the other side won't give up, why not just drop it? This seems to go down a more and more aggressive and demeaning way, so take this opportunity to just step away from the thread, unfollow it, and just slip away into silence.
Then we can all just let the thread die (until if a FAQ comes out) and no-one feels forced to prove they aren't wrong.
You aren't going to get a +2 on attack rolls including grappling, because grappling is not wielding that weapon.
That depends on how wielding is defined, which is still vague. And seeing as how armor spikes are used in a grapple I find it really hard to argue that they don't apply.
137ben wrote:
What makes the +5 weapon (and +4) good in pathfinder is the ability to bypass DR, which is significant if you are making 4-6 separate attacks per round. Which you should be if you are investing that much into a single weapon.
That's fair (though the general consensus seem to be that flat bonuses are among the best investments, especially for classes like bard or if you TWF). Note though that the only difference is alignment-based DR, which at that point is pretty trivial to bypass anyway (you're likely to have a Holy weapon unless the campaign is neutral-focused, and the times you suspect to fight those with DR/lawful or DR/chaotic, there's a lot of options (oil of align weapon in worst case scenario).
The difference between +2 and +5 is huge, not so much between +4 and +5.
Whenthe things doug/the rich likes are clnsidered fundamental rights that stand above all other rights, and we live in the perfect Hunger Games arena. Except the unarmed eleven-year olds arent allowed todisarm the paramilitary thugs, because thats stealing.
It's named MegaMek in case anyone cares. If someone want to hook up for a game I'm all for it, though I'm reaaaally crappy at it (mostly have played the mechwarrior action games).
"Established lore" arguments are bogus. It is not established that these characters will have access to these items at this time. Established lore is also so incredibly easy for GM's to change (without retconning) that it really holds no weight.
Oh, these are the nether scrolls. Due to the influence of *insert cosmic event* they can now grant levels in any class. Read them to get power if you want to.
Or the other way. Due to the influence of *insert cosmic event* they've lost a lot of power. They now grant a spell-like ability instead of a whole class level.
Or, if you don't want to change the object in any way, just give the paladin something similar in power. Some +10 armor of divinity or whatever.
Letting a character get a "little extra" is fine. Letting the wizard be 4 levels ahead of the paladin, just because the paladin player _DID_ play his character, turning down power that the paladin didn't want to deal with, is asking for huuuge problems.
If this had been stated upfront at the beginning of the campaign, the case would have been different, but right now, I'm completely in the "this was a very bad move by the GM" camp. And then complaining about the player not playing it's character? I can't even begin to comprehend how turning down massive power because your character doesn't want to deal with that sort of thing is "not playing a character".
Hmmm. Maybe i can ask here, if people are interested in discussing it. Please tell me if this is a stupid question... But how do you guys feel about how to include trans* people in RPG world creation? I know theres officially trans characters in pathfinder, but havent read their parts. Where they wel done? Did the PCs realize their status as trans? What made them work/not work?
When i design adventures (for home use) Id like to include trans characters but since its mostly an oral medium I have a hard time figuring out how to do it without it turning out... Awkward, at best, andstraight up transphobic at worst. I mean, if i describe a character thats a woman, its not like id descrie her as a "trans woman", that seems it would be... Really bad. Or is it even important to include trans character, and have the PCs understand the person is trans? On one hand, trans characcters are hardly included at all in fantasy, on the other gandpointing out that they are trans might very easily lead to it becoming kind of... "not a real man/woman" which i of course dont want to have any part in.
Im not talking about making PCs who are trans, but more like NPCs and such. With a PC you get enough time todelve into their character, but not really with an NPC.
What are your thoughts, everyone? If you feel like sharing.
Thejeff, I think its pointless. When you're arguing against someone who bases everything on an arbitrary set of "good" and "bad", completely ignoring reality or consequences, theres just no point. Especially when their ideal society is the perfect Hunger Games arena, where the elite trained killing machine can pray on the 11 year old farmers daughter and its all fair and good. The only important thing is that there isn't a written rule forbidding the 11 year old from winning. Reality doesn't matter, theoretical rules is the only thing that should be considered.
When the outlook is like that, instead of more like "hey lets aim for society to be as good a place as possible", there's just no discussion to be had. They're religious fundamentalists, but their commandment is "survival of the fittest/richest" rather than stuff like "thou shalt not bear false witness". Because lying is fine - after all, it's their right by the first amendment.
Oh, and also, btw, Hi all. I realize I haven't presented myself in this thread in any way, just stumbling in into some debate. I guess I'm kinda shy when it comes to my personal relationship to QTBLG, but get righteously pissed off when I see people writing crap.
I've been following this thread basically since it started, and greatly enjoy reading what everyone else is writing, but since I currently pass as kind of non-QTBLG I rarely have personal stories to tell, at least none that only deals with me in such a way that I'd feel comfortable telling them without outing or breaking someone's trust, and I live in a smaller country where the juridical fights aren't as heavy as in the US (though there are certainly juridical issues here still, especially for trans people - until just recently, trans people where forced to be sterilized and have any saved eggs/sperms destroyed in order to juridically transition).
But me, personally, I'm lucky to pass as heterocis at the moment. I'm pansexual/panromantic, probably fitting somewhere in the gray A, though I've been both hypersexual and asexual for extended periods of time. Haven't figured myself out exactly, as I've undergone pretty major changes in my sexuality through my whole life, from gay, to bi, to nearly straight, to bi, to pan (though I'm not sure really if I've been pan longer, just not had an opportunity to discover it so to speak). Though I suspect gender roles have had a big part in forming my sexuality and to some degree perhaps even my identity - I think I'd have identified less strongly with my gender if there hadn't been such strong gender roles, seeing as how I loathed my puberty and just wished it'd all go away. Been in same-sex relationships and know a lot of the treatment you get, have been the victim of a lot of homophobia due to my gender expression (though I'm cis), but haven't been in a same sex relationship for some time, and same-sex cis people are the group of people I'm the least attracted to so yeah. I get by pretty easily, but nearly everyone I willingly spend time with except my family is QTBLG so I see a lot of the struggles they face.
Yeah well that's basically my giant wall of text of background. Just felt it was kinda rude of me to just stomp in without any context and start proponing violent QTBLG revolution. :)
That you can get a square peg into a round hole with enough bashing (read: Using a cleric to create many of the inquisitor concepts) doesn't mean it isn't better to get a round peg (read: using the inquisitor).
Of the new classes, the only ones I felt could easily have been made archetypes while retaining their flavor is ninja (archetype of rogue) and samurai (archetype of cavalier). The cavalier itself I think could have been made as an alternate class to fighter.
That said, I could see witch as an alternate class to wizard. Some witch concepts can be done through druid or wizard or cleric, but far from all. I do feel that the witch fits better for many witch concepts.
Inquisitor is very distinct from all other classes. If I was forced to make it as an alternate class or archetype, I wouldn't base it of the cleric, but rather the ranger, switching around spell list, and ditching favored enemy and animal companion for inquisitor abilities. That said, I feel it's much better served by it's own class, and is in fact one of the classes I think is most well-designed in the game, even though I'm not that keen on playing one.
And it's a class that succeeds at being MAD, which I love. I think more classes should be MAD in such a great way as the inquisitor; no stat is an obvious dump stat for the class, any stat can give real, noticeable benefits, yet it's abilities are strong enough to compensate for it's MADness, unlike in the case of the monk.
"Extremists of the LGBT groupings" = people opting not to use a company's products because they got a CEO who's someone who uses his economic power to remove LGBT rights.
Yeah, g~&!!@n extremists opting not to use Firefox. You shouldn't be judgemental to the CEO who has power and money and uses those to undermine basic human rights of the oppressed. No, those that chose to act against such things, that's where the real extremists are.
I find it's ironic about the double standard. If a group decided to stop using a product because of someone's OPINION about certain rights...especially if they were supportive of certain rights...everyone would scream about how horribly people were acting by not using their products (remember an opinion is DIFFERENT then actually BEING).
However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems it's perfectly fine to discriminate?
No, that's not a double standard, that's a standard. Just because two actions are somewhat similar does not mean they are equally justified.
Also, you do not seem to grasp what discrimination means. Acting on prejudices against people is discrimination. Acting on knowledge of actual stances is not discrimination.
There is a huge difference between a neonazi beating up a gay guy because he sees them as subhumans that should be killed, and a gay guy beating up the nazi because of the nazi's expressed view of the gay guy being subhuman and deserving death. That's not double standards, that's standards. And very basic standards at that.
Quote:
It's not okay to say you won't buy a product or go to a store if it supports Gay Marriage, or has an opinion that Gay Marriage is okay.
What do you mean with "not okay"? You won't be arrested or beaten for it, but those who's rights you are actively opposing will see you as an a#&+%~*. That's not very strange is it?
Quote:
However, if one feels it is wrong (which is not unusual, anyone with an inkling of understanding of what the Christian Bible states would understand why the Christian right is against Gay Marriage, irregardless of whether it is a right or wrong opinion) it is suddenly okay to lynch them (in a manner of speaking).
It's really horrible when discussing oppression to talk about the oppressors being "lynched" because they're working to keep the oppressed from getting their rights.
No, you don't get "lynched", not even in a manner of speaking, you get some criticism and if you're famous enough you'll get a bunch of cash from various homophobic organizations.
You know what people DO risk getting lynched, literally? The people that laws like Prop 8 are made to opress. People in same-sex relations.
Quote:
Of course, that led to a lawsuit of discrimination eventually (no idea how it ended up), but I found it ironic that those who had wanted such acceptance elsewhere, would practice the reverse when they were found to be a major influence.
How is that strange at all? Wanting safe zones from the oppressors isn't anything ironic at all. Because, you know, gay couples that, say, go to a bar risk getting beaten or stabbed or similar. Even bars that claim to be gay-friendly. Having safe zones is extremely important when you are part of an opressed group, especially one which is oppressed in such a direct and violent way as QTBLG people.
Quote:
Key West is great in that there is no difference normally between who is Gay and who is not.
Do you have any statistics showing this wonderful and groundbreaking change? Like, say, gay people not being overrepresented as victims of violence or harassment? That gay kids in the schools are not overrepresented as victims of bullying?
Since that's the way it is in the US as a whole, and any state I've ever heard statistics from, and the world at whole, such an extraordinary claim really needs some extraordinary evidence.
EDIT: for example, a character with 5 (o r even 4) Int is 85% as likely to succeed on an Int-based check as a character with 10 or 11 Int and equal training.
That's only true if you can't take 10 and the DC is exactly 11. If both have one rank but does not have it as a class skill, the character with Int 5 will have a 5% chance to make a DC18 check, and is not able to take 10 on a DC 9 check, while the character with a 10 has a 20% chance to make a DC 18 check and can take 10 on any check DC 11 or less. So on DC 18 and taking 10 on checks respectively, the stupid characer only 25% as likely to succeed on the check and can't even try on the other.
I don't think it has to be either or though. Mostly there seems to be a camp of "ability scores mean NOTHING beyond the numerical modifiers!" and one camp of "ability scores define you more than ANYTHING! low int means you can't function in society!"
I sort of believe in a middle way between those things. I do NOT agree with "intelligence score only determines your knowledge modifiers etc" because then there's nothing stopping the giant spiders from putting up elaborate ambushes with complex multistep traps, or to employ army-like team tactics and take over the world (of course!).
On the other hand, the whole "int 5 is unable to function properly" is also bad, since it often arbitrarily puts restrictions where there really should be none (and I'm not talking about what is in the rules, but what one thinks should be in the rules).
"You've got 5 int, you don't understand how to flank" - Really crappy.
"The int section of the rules doesn't say I can't understand nuclear technology just because I have a 5 int!" - Really crappy.
If I have a player sit down with a character with, say, cha 5 (because that's an easier one to take examples from), I ask them to justify it. I ask them to explain what it is about the character's stat that is lacking. Do they have a really dull personality and monotone voice? Lack of intuition in social situations? Are they considered butt-ugly?
And yes, there might be situations where that comes up. If they have a really dull personality and monotone voice, I may give them a circumstantial penalty if they where ever to take the stage and hold a grand speech. Just like how I'd let the Con 18 character be the one that can stay up the longest without getting tired.
That doesn't mean a Cha 5 character should be considered some abomination that no-one even considers, nor that their weaknesses can't be made up for through training (skill points).
Heck, I've got aspergers and ADD, which means I have what would in D&D probably be considered a low wisdom and charisma. But fortunately I've got a high Int score, and have been able to put a skill point in diplomacy and sense motive, so I can nearly measure up against most people, at least in calm situations where I can take 10 (though I tend to be a lot more clumsy under stress). Still haven't been able to put any ranks in bluff or intimidate though, lol.
Though of course, when it comes to a character with Int 5 Wis 5 Cha 5, you can't really substitute your lack of social skills through logical reasoning. I do think that a character with such low mental stats SHOULD be played as a really stupid brute. Not to the degree where they don't function in society, but it shouldn't be ignored I think. This is not saying that you _can't_ ignore it, but I do think it's bad role portrayal if you do.
When I first joined, in the aftermath of Occupy after being unaffiliated with a group for a decade, we had an international speaker from Austria come and give a talk at the Unitarian Universalist church in Nashua, NH and a bunch of the comrades from Boston came up.
Afterwards at the post-meeting party, they were talking about their good relations with the social democrats, and the Stalinists and the anarcho-syndicalists, and the Austrian comrade was all like, "What?!? You're friends with everybody? You must be doing something wrong!" And I was like, "Now that's the Trotskyism I remember!"
It's not so much that they're not friends, more that they're the only larger left wing group that I'm certain pretty much everyone tries to keep out of whatever else is happening. I mean, the autonomous left doesn't care for the stalinists much either, but at worst they're embarrassing and at best they're additional bodies. They rarely actively try to destroy something.
Here, it's like this. Say there was a wild strike tomorrow at an automobile factory.
- The syndicalists of the local "Lokalsamordning av Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation Syndikalisterna" (yes, seriously, they are named that - they fight capitalism and brevity with equal zeal :)) and Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet would be there immediately, likely the strikers are largely organized with them. They'll act as strike watch, hand out flyers, and form a blockade. When the cops come, they'll be as obnoxiously hard to move as possible, forming arm chains et cetera. They'll generally be the ones that cares the most about fulfilling the worker's wishes there.
- The anarchists would drop in one after another quite early, acting much like the syndicalists, and in addition perhaps make some minor sabotage or prepare for the arrival of the cops (shoving random things into the middle of the street to stop police cars, putting padlocks on gates etc). When the police arrives, they'll join the arm chains etc if they believe the police won't be too violent and/or there's many witnesses (those things are connected). If they think the police will be very violent, they'll harass them in other ways instead, like shouting at them, running around and creating chaos, trying to put glue in the cop cars's doors so they're hard to open, and generally disturb the cops as much as possible. This risks increasing the cops violence dramatically and is quite dangerous and not always smart of them, but other times it has worked well and many of my friends have been saved from arrest by anarchists.
- The stalinists of Kommunistiska Partiet will come in a bunch. If no stalinists work at the place, they'll stand beside, proclaim their support of the strike, and if one's unlucky they'll start waving some north korean flag or some other embarrasing symbol. When the cops arrive, they'll put up some symbolic opposition, perhaps quote some law about how what the cops are doing is illegal (it often is), then get chased away.
- The Rättvisepartiet will come with a bazillion banners, try to sell their magazine to everyone including the CEO and the scabs, and if they see any kind of journalist or similar they'll try to make sure to get the papers to write that the strike was their initiative. When the cops arrive, they'll first try to sell them their mag, then when the cops attack the blockade they'll start exclaiming that the syndicalists and anarchists should cooperate with the cops so the leftist movement doesn't get bad rep, then they'll hijack the sound system, denounce the syndicalists, go find the journalist and cry about how they are nice socialists and all these bad violent fake-socialists are trying to hijack and destroy their protest.
- The increasingly liberal (as in right-wing here in sweden) reformists of Vänsterpartiet won't go there at all as they'll denounce wild strikes to begin with, claiming we're disrespectful or whatever. Some of their local youth groups might very well join or show support though, though they risk expulsion from the party if they do. One can't expect more from a parliament party though, so I'm less irritated by that than the trotskyists.
And yes, this might seem like an extreme exaggeration, but they did pretty much exactly these things about half a year ago on an antifascist protest.
Personally, id rule that the itemwith the highest enhancement rating is the only one that functions in that case, blocking out the other to prevent a magical overload. If they are equal, the user chooses.
It is not in the rules, but i think the armor rules set a good precedent for handling it that way.
Also, claiming that a FAQ doesn't affect people that don't want it because they can house rule it out is a bad argument because it goes both ways: Not having a FAQ doesn't affect those that want a definite rule because they can house rule one in.
Honestly, I don't agree either that "everything with the word "weapon" in the name is a weapon" or that "it's only a weapon if it's on the weapon list". I think "weapon" is more vague than that, and shifts from circumstance to circumstance. For example, I think "weapon damage" always refers to S/P/B damage dealt by a wielded weapon, and not for example the fire damage of a red dragon's breath weapon. But I do think an improvised weapon is a weapon. I'd go by the rule of thumb that if it's given stats, or a way to define weapon stats, in the weapon section of the rules, it's a weapon, and if not, it's probably not, though exception might exist from time to time.
I think as always it's a case of common sense. Sure, common sense isn't always the same from table to table, but that's not really a big issue, in my opinion, except perhaps for organized play, but then I think it's better that the organizers of the play write down the definitions they are going to use.
In general I agree with Mr. T. on this topic, but I do think that the game would have benefitted if a few things were in fact mechanically defined better than they are; "what is a weapon", "what is wielding" etc. They are cornerstones of the system, and giving definitions, or at least guidelines for how to determine them, would have been far better than just assuming people "get it". Templating was a good thing in general, but they mostly applied it to spells and creatures where I think it should also have been applied to the combat rules in general.
However, Mr T, some of the things you say are not clear are to my mind quite clear in the rules, or at least clear enough to easily draw a quick conclusion with support in the rules, and do not really need GM intervention to determine:
Quote:
What's the AC for hitting a rope with a thrown Axe? What is the best way to use a fire poker as an improvised weapon? Club, Mace, what? If I stab with it, then what? What does someone with 50% hp remaining "look like" - can I tell at a glance how injured someone is or not? What are the odds that there is sand on the floor of the cave I am in, and what kind of action/attack is it to throw sand in my opponent's face? If I want to break a long spear's haft over my knee, what is that? A STR check? A Sunder attempt? Simply impossible?
The rope: It's a fine object probably, so has an AC of 10-5(dex)+8=13, and you take a -2 for every 10 ft distance (range increments). Quite clear by the rules.
Telling wounds: Nope, you can't tell. Which makes sense, seeing as how abstract hit points are. No rule isn't a rule of "no", of course, but many things can get weird if one puts up hard limits of how someone looks at certain hit points.
Sand on the floor: Environment is adventure designer decision. Pretty clear.
Attacking with the sand: Dirty trick maneuver, 100% clear (it's one of the examples)
Breaking item over your knee: Strength check (pretty clear by the rules), DC below 24 (bending iron bars) probably somewhere around 17 (destroying a simple wooden chest). That it's a strength check is pretty clear, the DC is up to GM adjustment.
So several of them are in fact quite clearly defined in the rules - clearly enough to be determined by someone who has no grasp of the rules otherwise, being presented to just those rules.
I hit the FAQ. While in general i agree with the floating head, "what is wielding?" is such a very cornerstone of the rules that it should have had a clear answer in the cire rulebook.
The whole "what is a weapon" and "what is wielding" iss IMO paizos biggest screw-up. Such basic aspects of combat, that are central to hundreds of other rules, shouldd have mechanical definitions - though those definitions shouöd preferably include some "use common sense" language.
The thing is that it switches order, thats what neo is getting at.
00+8=8
00+9=9
90+0=90
In every case except 00+0, the value of 00 is 0.
Having the 0-9 dice instead be a 1-10 dice, through treatibg 1 as 10 always, gets rid of the exception:
00+9=9
00+10=10
90+10=100
this is the standard method in a swedish rpg i played some. Didnt personally like the method but if one has a pet peeve against exceptions i guess its nice (though in that case PF might be the wrong game)
Some of Kirth Gersen suggestions look fine... some are so overpowered I see reason for certain feats, classes, rolls and spells to exist any more... like with acrobatics, one pretty much doesn't need to roll it any more...
How so? Sure, a mid-level rogue won't need to roll to balance on a 1ft ledge anymore, but they shouldn't need to do that either. They'll probably still need to roll to run along a 1 inch ledge in a snowstorm, which seems more like something a mid-level character should be able to do.
If you want some simple tips for designing traps in general, rather than for calculating the formula for CR, these would be my main suggestions:
1. A single trap is generally a really bad idea. It comes down to just a single roll to see what happens.
2. Don't look at the CR of individual traps, look at how challenging a whole encounter that involves traps is.
3. Mixing traps and creatures is generally a great idea.
4. Traps that rely on pure hit point damage become very binary past level 3; either they kill the victim, or they just take a few charges from the wand of cure light wounds. Past level 5 or so, this also applies to ability damage.
5. Traps are best when they are confusing and disorienting.
6. Consider who made the trap. If it's made for any kind of home defense, they'd not want the trap to hurt themselves.
To take an example, say that you want to challenge a 5th level party through a CR 6 trap encounter in a hallway of the dungeon.
Looking at the examples of traps in the book, we have these kind of stuff:
Spoiler:
- Flame strike, will deal some minor damage and cost the party like 10 charges of CLW to heal. Takes like, 3 seconds to run and is boring as hell.
- Hail of bolts, see flame strike.
- Insanity mist, can really hurt the party if they have a wis dumper with low fortitude (perhaps a bard for example) but is still mostly a cost sink as the party likely has a wand of lesser restoration.
- Lemure trap: This is the first trap that actually is more than like two dice rolls and then done, but it's basically just a creature encounter and doesn't really feel like a trap for the players.
- Primitive guilliotine, see flame strike.
- Symbol of pain trap, pretty pointless by itself.
- Wyvern arrow trap, somewhere between the flame strike and insanity mist.
As you see, none of these make for an interesting encounter, and they're not really challenging either. Consider instead something like this:
Spoiler:
The corridor is about 60 ft. long. 30 ft. in is an obscuring mist trap, and 50 ft. in is a covered pit trap (20ft). In the covered pit trap is two spider swarms. When the obscuring mist trap is triggered, it also activates a magic mouth that speaks loudly in Aklo from somewhere behind the party, as well as causing a portcullis to drop 20 ft into the corridor. In addition, two other spider swarms that are in the vicinity are drawn towards the sound, arriving three rounds after the initial trap is triggered.
This may not be an incredibly dangerous encounter for the party, depending on party makeup and player skill, but it is far more interesting (and it's easy to make it more difficult through deepening the pit and increasing the amount of spiders, or even better, through adding a few monsters with ranged attacks).
The party will stumble into the corridor, seeing a heavy mist appear at the same time as they hear chanting in an alien and strange tongue behind them. Some might run away from it, some might run towards it - only to face the portcullis with the mist extending beyond it. Those that run from the trap will likely fall into the pit, which isn't deep, but the durability and poison of the swarms combined with the bad vision and communication due to the fog can make escaping kind of hard, especially for weak characters. If the party is smart and efficient, no-one will be in the pit when the rest of the spiders arrive, but if they're not as efficient... well, at least the spider population will boom with all that protein.
The party isn't very likely to die, but might very well take noticable damage and/or ability damage, and even if they can easily heal up afterwards, the encounter will have been much more memorable than "you get hit by a random flamestrike and take 10 damage". Naturally, there are other ways to solve the trap - a gust of wind will clear the mist for example, making it a fairly trivial encounter if someone is smart enough to use it.
Honestly, the character is beyond salvageable and it is my firm belief that the player will "misunderstand" rules in his favor over and over again.
Rocks fall you die is not always the worst option.
If i had such a player, and didnt just kick them out, at the very least id say "you can only use core material and you can not be a full or 2/3 caster. In addition i want to review your char sheet before playing. If you can misunderstand so much about the rules you need to play a simpler character."
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
This rule doesn't permit me to use elbows or knees to make attacks but we know from multiple dev statements and published modules that this is allowed. This is not a permissive rule.
Actually, in this case a strong argument can be made that you can not use elbows and knees unless you have the Unarmed Strike ability of the monk, since the monk ability explicitly states the monk can use elbows and knees; that is a strong argument that it's not part of the standard options.
Though of course I agree with you in the larger scale, I think it's a bad example.
I think, however, that showing a rule that is unambiguously non-permissive is impossible, since such a rule is kind of an oxymoron.
Most written rules can be read as either permissive or non-permissive. For a rule to be unambiguously permissive it needs to state that it is, but that doesn't really work for non-permissive rules as stating it is non-permissive can be used as an argument that it is actually permissive.
A spear made using the fabricate spell was not crafted and can be used as an improvised weapon.
Pure sophistry. That spear was crafted using a spell instead of manually, but it was still crafted to be a weapon.
not by your logic. The craft skill states it crafts objects. Fabricate does not. If you apply any method of reading the rules even vaguely similar to what leads to "spear shaft are not objects", then "objects created without Craft are not crafted" is equally (if not more) supported by rules.
Your counter to the accusation of 'sophistry'...is more sophistry?
You ask for RAW, i give you RAW. If youre going to exclude RAW too from your list of valid arguments, there is literally.nothing left. And since my argument relies on the same kind of reading as your "spear shafts are not objects", any sophistry from me has to be equally matched by you.
So, we prove it should work through common sense -you say NO COMMON SENSE! JUST RAW!
We prove it through RAI, you say NO RAI! JUST RAW!
We prove it through logic, you say NO LOGIC! JUST RAW!
We prove it by RAW,, you say STOP THIS SOPHISTRY!
Depending on how often the arcane archer wants to use it, might be better to go with scrolls (or if allowed, a custom staff or uses/day item), and ditch aiming for 6th level arcane spells alltogether.
I think a Gnome (magical linguist) could just go straight from urban barbarian or paladin or ranger or whatever into arcane archer.
Or, you could be a human urban barbarian archer to get all the nice superstition bonuses, make sure to have Cha 13+, take Eldritch Heritage (Destined) and BAM you're qualified, take two levels of arcane archer and the rest of your levels as urban barbarian.
EDIT:
Or, to synergize better with the Cha, what about:
Human Paladin to 6, taking Eldritch Heritage (Destined) (i find that bonus the most useful unless you go for greater eldritch heritage), then Paladin6/AA2, then straight paladin from that?
You are blaming optimisation for the flaws inherent in the system. Maybe if the system were more balanced there wouldn't be any need to take into account those issues.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I'm with andrew on this one. We're stuck in a system (alongside a great many players/gms) that really doesn't like Multi-classing.
Trogdar wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
Erick Wilson wrote:
We're going in circles here. Optimization is the problem. The system is only unbalanced when some people are optimizing more than others.
Please don't blame players for playing the game, thanks
+1
Okay, first off: There is nothing about "blame" here. We're not saying people who optimize are bad or inherently worse roleplayers. We are not discussing individual players and their characters.
But this issue exists in any system where some options and combinations are stronger than others - which means, the vast majority of games, period. It's rare with games where every choice has equally beneficial outcome, and some people claim those games aren't even games (I disagree vehemently with that, but it's worth noting some people see it as so central to the concept of game).
In any roleplaying game where there are certain options/combinations that are stronger, and certain options/combinations that are weaker, there is an inherent conflict between roleplaying and optimization. This doesn't mean those that focus more on optimization are "bad" in any way.
Optimization is about making the optimal mechanical choices. The higher requirement a game has on optimization, the less roles can be played, because some roles feature taking suboptimal choices. And this is not just on a build level, it's also a matter of in-game tactics; Whether the paladin should charge her archenemy she sworn to kill whenever she could or protect her party which might be mechanically superior, whether the arachnophobic sorcerer will make the perfect spell choice when beset by a bunch of giant spiders or if she will flee. Etc etc etc.
It's not just about multiclassing; a character that wants to be a master-scribe-turned-mercenary might be a fighter that want Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus (Profession: Scribe) as her first level feats, and would be a lot weaker for it and not fit in a mechanically difficult game.
The only exception is a rule system in which the mechanical choices are so completely defunct of flavor that any rule can be used for any purpose, but I've never seen such a game.
So, tl;dr:
1. Optimization exists in any system where some choices are stronger than others.
2. Optimization is all about making the optimal choice.
3. A high optimization requirement limits the number of different roles that can be played.
4. A high requirement of being able to play any role at all limits what mechanical difficulty can be in a game.
5. It's not about one being better than the other or individual players, it's an assessment about how roleplaying games function on a systematic level.
High optimization does limit the number of builds avaliables.
But does that limit RPing?
I might have to agree here. I find that I just can't play a fighter in a group with a synthesist summoner.
You've heard the Henry Ford quote "any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."?
That's the limitation on RP high optimization requirements put.
How so? I've played the same optimized build multiple times with completely different personalities and backstories, and I'm sure even if others haven't recycled builds that they could do the same if they wished. The flavor of mechanics can be whatever you want it to be.
Using the car example, it's like saying you can't tell the difference between a black car and one with a tricked out paint job because they both have the exact same motor.
Well, the car quote is a bit of a hyperbole, but the basic is still the same; the higher the requirement of optimization, the less different characters can be played.
Say you have three concepts you want to play - a dual-bastard sword-wielding druid/wizard, a thuggish half-orc rogue and a human diviner wizard.
In a game with a really low floor of optimization, you can play any of these you wish.
In a game with more of a "standard" floor of optimization - say an AP - the first of them won't work, but the second two will.
In a really difficult game with a high optimization requirement, only the diviner wizard will really be useful.
As such, optimization limits roleplay, in terms of width, rather than height; it does not limit how WELL a single character can be roleplayed, but it limits what kinds of concepts can be made working characters and what can't.
You see examples of this with the quote above that a ninja that doesn't take vanishing trick is irresponsible; in a game where that person sets the optimization floor, ninjas who lack the power to turn invisible simply aren't valid roleplay concepts.
Hence, "you can have a car in any color you want, as long as it's black"; "you can roleplay any character you want, as long as it's mechanically powerful".
If your concept is not one the system rewards mechanically, optimization prevents you from roleplaying.
It is true that I basically view the game as ending at around 12th level.
Do you think that 1/3rd of a game being unplayable is a problem?
But it's not 1/3 of game play. Games rarely get that high.
Which would be great if more games started that high, but because the rules are so unwieldy, so many people try to stick to the 'sweet spot' which shouldn't exist.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong design-wise with focusing on one part of the game, leaving a later, more "advanced" part a bit underdeveloped. Their time is limited, and focusing on the part most people will experience as part of the basic gameplay - AP's, play from 1st level etc - makes sense. The high-level rules could be seen as a "okay, things are going to be a bit buggy and weird here, but if you wanna do something superpowered here's how the system handles it". I think that's okay, and probably is the method I prefer they keep to.
The issue though, is that that attitude is NOT clearly communicated by the game towards the players. You can find hints about it by dev comments etc, but the people most needing to know that is not the same kind of people who keep track of dev comments.
Consider a game like Minecraft. Now for my comparision I have to assume that most people by this point have a basic idea of what minecraft is. Most of the development goes into making stuff functional for survival gameplay, and especially for the first ~300 hours on a world. After that, there's just not that much more new stuff to do. You CAN do stuff like manually building computers inside minecraft, but when you do the really advanced stuff, it gets... buggy. And easily breaks. And that's okay, because every player that tries to do stuff like that, is aware of that at that point. At no point do they think it's a basic part of the gameplay.
Or for that matter, Magic the Gathering. From a balance perspective, Type 1 gameplay (it's changed name now, hasn't it? legacy or something? where basically every card is allowed) is incredibly unbalanced and broken. Not just between cards but between card types and colors. And there's a lot of "martial/caster disparity" there too, kinda (more specifically, the strength and toughness of creatures is pretty much irrelevant).
But most people first encountering magic will face none of those imbalances, because that's not how the gameplay works except by people accessing all cards and optimizing it 'til it turns blue (in more than one sense of the word).
Having the "advanced" parts of the game be inherently unbalanced and buggy doesn't have to be a huge issue (naturally it'd be better if it weren't, though), but players need to know what parts of the game are considered the core gameplay _by the game itself_.
High optimization requirements stifle and limit roleplay, because the amount of roles you can play drops. Likewise, a high freedom of roles to play, limits what optimization level you can aim for..
Not only that, but let's face it. Us mortals just have so many brain cells. The more you spend on obsessing over that last point of DPR is the less you can spend on a exciting memorable personality. Think about it- your last big game moment... do you describe it as the time you did 400 points of damage and one shotted a monster? Then, you are into ROLL, not ROLE playing.
So yeah, one can optimize and Roleplay, but one tends to push out the other, like it or not.
On one hand, I see your point and agree to some degree. On the other hand, I don't think it's that bad. A lot of optimization can take place off-game time, and many of us has much more time than game time. Roleplaying consideration can also be done during off-game time, but not to the same degree as roleplaying is largely reactive. If I have 10 hours of free time that I can spend on thinking about my character between 5 hour game sessions, those can't all be spent on roleplaying consideration, so there's a lot of time for optimization considerations. Of course, things are different when you have off-game time together with other players in the same campaign, then you can strategize and prepare both roleplay and tactics beforehand...
But yeah, just wanted to say that. Optimization and roleplay do not fully compete for the same time/effort.
Whether one can be killed or not is very rarely a relevant measure of winning or not.
I mean, a stone-avowed half-red dragon half-troll skeletal champion reaver is basically unkillable by nonmythic means (and even by mythic means there's just a very very limited list of ways), and it's CR 10 isn't too out of whack (maybe a bit depending on scenario, but not extremely).
A much more relevant way to gauge whether one "wins" or not would be to insert the character in some end-AP boss battle and see if the goal of the battle can be met.
EDIT: It should also be noted that being a (Su) ability, there are plenty of ways to kill someone with the Immortal mythic ability, if that's what is discussed here. Simply having an anti-magic field up either when the character dies or is revived (depending on rule interpretation, it's basically either or depending on if you view it as triggered when the character dies or 24 hours later).
Also, immortality doesn't stop you from being killed, it only makes you automatically resurrect. Which is a very different thing.
Also, just sticking the body in a dead-magic plane works wonders, and is easily within the grasp of the wizard. Follow these simple steps to have your perfect killzone:
1. Create lesser demiplane.
2. Get temporary immunity to fire (easy peasy)
3. Fill plane with lava (through gate, or shrink object, or various other means)
4. Get out of plane.
5. Create Greater Demiplane to make your demiplane a dead magic demiplane.
6. Get a bunch of ways to cast Plane Shift on your victim of choice (traps are just 2250 gp apiece, and since the enemy will save on a 1+ anyway you just need to get a lot of them)
In the case of an already-dead mythic immortal, it's even easier - just put the body within a space with a bunch of those traps; as soon as it starts living again, it'll have to do a whole bunch of saves and if even one fails, goodbye immortal.
And no, it's not Stormwind, and again, Stormwind is in some cases not actually a fallacy. It's just oversimplified. It's a fallacy only if you view it as necessarily applying to every instance.
No stormwind is always a fallacy.
That may be true, but the stormwind fallacy does NOT encompass as much as people seem to claim it does. At least 80% of the times I see someone calling out on a starmwind fallacy, it's not actually the case.
Saying "optimization limits roleplay" isn't part of the stormwind fallacy.
Saying "the optimizers in my game don't care about roleplay" isn't part of the stormwind fallacy.
Saying "a high optimization requirement impedes roleplay" isn't part of the stormwind fallacy.
The ONLY THING that the stormwind fallacy covers is this:
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
The stormwind fallacy is only applicable when discussing actual roleplayers, not roleplaying systems. Saying that "you can't roleplay an optimized character" is the stormwind fallacy.
But people throw around "stormwind fallacy" as if it was some kind of cover-all perfect assessment that there cannot be any conflict between roleplay and optimization within a system, which is of course completely incorrect.
High optimization requirements stifle and limit roleplay, because the amount of roles you can play drops. Likewise, a high freedom of roles to play, limits what optimization level you can aim for.
G##@$$n I wish they hadn't posted that thing about stormwind fallacy to begin with. Not because it's incorrect, but because it's application is so limited but loads of people treat it as some all-encompassing rule.
EDIT: Kind of like "ad hominem", which is very specific - it's attacking the other person and using that as an argument, not just attacking the other person. So "you're stupid and therefore you're wrong" is an ad hominem, while "you're wrong, and also stupid" might be rude, but not an ad hominem, yet people claim it is one.
Two things concern me about casters (power-level aside):
1- Save DCs are super-awful for low-level spells.
2- Metamagic is only good when it's abusable and a headache otherwise.
So I'm considering the following:
1- Spell save DCs follow the CL instead of the SL. So the formula would be, "10 + 1/2CL + Ability Mod." This way by the time you hit mid-levels, you don't feel like your lower-level offensive options are useless because they're no longer auto-savable.
No. This is a major and straight powerup for casters, and any limiting factor due to spells/day is lost (not that it was a large hindrance before at mid+ levels, but it just becomes too much).
If you're going this path, at least make it something like 10 + 1/3 CL + Ability Mod, making the weakest spells stronger and the strongest spells weaker.
Also, consider how this superpowers the already incredibly powerful Persistant Spell.
Quote:
2- Treat all metamagic feats the way the Spell-like Ability version works. ie: Instead of increasing spell level or casting time or both, they're usable X times per day (X being a value that shifts depending on the power of the feat - Enlarge would be more times per day than Quicken, for example).
Thoughts?
Again, no. This is also a powerup, especially in combination with the previous. The rods are already usually better than the feats, and they cost a lot of cash.
If you want to empower low-level spells and the metamagic feats that are generally considered weak, without empowering the wizard even more, consider the following instead:
1. Ban metamagic rods.
2. Make save DCs 10 + 1/3th (or 1/4th) level + Ability Modifier.
3. For the metamagic feats that are considered weak, bunch them up in a "2 for 1"; "discreet spell" could give both Silent and Still possibilities (still costing one level for each), and bunch together widen and enlarge in the same way, and empower and maximize in the same way.
4. Ban stuff that decreases the cost of metamagic (such as magical lineage etc) or that grants free metamagic. Remove that part of Spell Perfection (the doubling of bonuses from other sources is enough for it to be a viable feat).
5. Make heighten spell a basic function of spells; with the static DC's, the difference is mainly penetrating globes of invulnerability and countering darkness/light etc.
6. Increase the cost of Persistant Spell to +3 levels or even +4 (needed to balance with the static DC's)
This would mean metamagic would provide options and versatility, but not increase power that much. It would make them harder to superstack, but easier to use for fun and occacional benefits.
Though of course, this is coming from the perspective that wizards aren't underpowered and don't need further boosting. You might not share that perspective of course.
Yeah, none of you are going to be able to convince me the 'bloodline' aspect of sorcerers isn't absurd. Fact of the matter is, Sorcerers rely on someone else for power, much like all of the divine casters, and even the Witch. The Wizard, Magus, Bard and Summoner* don't rely on anyone but themselves to cast their spells. It's either powered through their understanding of the world (intelligence), their exceptional musical abilities, or their skill at summoning.
*I don't consider an Alchemist a 'caster' as much as he is like the greatest charlatan and potion brewer in the game.
Unless the wizard was miraculously born out of nowhere, and selflearnt first how to create languages, inks, and papers, then self learnt magic and writing it down on home-made spellbooks, the wizard DOES rely on someone else.
I mostly like it because it allows a very easily adaptable way to get kind of "ritual magic" in pathfinder, via custom single-use use-activated magic items.
The few mortals still alive saw in horror as the existence collapsed around them. As the Sun Queen and He Who Is Sea fell in the third great battle, the world went dark and dry. When the stars fell upon the earth and dissolved the Chained God the last of the mortals perished.
Of the thousands of deities only two existed, and yet the fighting continued. Good and Law was gone and so was Evil. Only Chaos remained, and stood strong. But as Old Lady Darkness and Chaos fought, they slew each other; Chaos consumed by Old Lady Darkness as she was cut to pieces by the innumerable and inconceivable weapons of Chaos.
Which? The Credit Suisse report or The Moscow Times? Cuz I was talking about the latter which apparently is owned by Finns or something.
Both of them use Credit Suisse report as basis.
Which is strange for reasons i explained earlier.
You see,we have 12m population in Moscow(11?%total pop),with average of 190 square feet per user,with price of one square feet UPWARDS from 500$
And i'm pretty sure that Moscow is not the only city in country.
How would it be strange? I don't know that much about how it works in russia, but in eastern and southern europe, generally, the rural populace is far poorer than the city-living one.
Also, averages is quite pointless when the point being made is that inequality has increased, not that total wealth has dropped.
I have had collegues who's moved here from eastern europe, who were very poor because they lived in rural areas. Even if the people in the capital weren't nearly as poor on average, I know at least one has told me their familys most valued possession (apart from the house) was a horse.
Honestly, I don't like that article very much. First, it ignores that what they call "identity politics" is an important part of any relevant socialist movement.
That's not quite the same as saying it was wrong. But could you explain what is meant in the second sentence?
The very specifics of identity politics - proposing a unified identity within an oppressed group - is central as a starting point of any struggle. It is just that among socialists, class identity is so obvious for them, they don't call it identity politics.
What various left-wing groups often refer to as "identity politics", often in a degoratory sense, are important parts of very real political movements such as those of anti-rasism and feminism, movements that should have an obvious place in worker's struggle as a lot of workers are women and racialized people (in fact, those groups are overrepresented among the working class). One can't deny that the working class struggle has had loads of issues with racism and sexism, that have no doubt alienated large parts of the class.
In addition, racism, sexism, homophobia etc are powerful tools of the owning class, probably their main weapon in the "divide and conquer" scheme.
We cannot have a successful revolutionary struggle while alienating large parts of the class.
I actually have the physical book at home somewhere; its a softcover with some semi-nude sorceress art on the cover. Bought it for 1 kr (about 1/6th dollar) on a sale. G+!+!#n that is a crappy game. Dont have to hell and back though. If i can find it and anyone wants it and you pay for the shipping, you can have it.
I'd actually call that a design feature. Having a range of different classes with options that matter to varying degrees seems like an awesome thing, to me.
Bad options are a bad idea. Having a range of different options is great when the player can process the information well enough to make an informed choice.
Quote:
This in itself adds depth to the game.
Not really. More options =/= more depth; there is a correlation but it's not definite. I think I linked it in the previous post too, but if you haven't watched it, watch this: Some game designers talking about depth vs complexity
Someone makes a quite nice summary in the comment field, and while I don't think it's entirely accurate it's a quick shorthand; Depth is how much a player can think around a situation in the game, complexity is how much a player has to think around a situation in the game.
Ilja wrote:
Rogues have it pretty easy, tbh. You have to screw up pretty hardcore to be unable to pull your weight in combat with a rogue. Are you not flanking? Why not?
Because you're a squishy class and if not correctly built can be squished in an instant by the creature it tries to maneuvre around? Because just flanking isn't enough to be a credible threat in combat as a rogue, unless you have put a lot of extra resources into being able to hit, or built something that is quite counterintuitive for new players (such as STR-focused rogue).
Ilja wrote:
With many classes, the choices are either quite straightforward, or the floor is much higher. A paladin that makes the worst choice of class abilities at every point will end up much more powerful than a fighter that does the same thing, because fighters have to make more dicisions and the power level difference between those decisions are much larger (for example chosing feats vs mercies).
Sorcerers also have a low optimization floor, but they are straightforward enough that few new players won't be
...
Quote:
While the Paladin may be more powerful if he makes bad character option choices than a fighter who makes similarly bad character choices....
A paladin who makes a couple bad in-character decisions is much... much worse off than even the least optimized fighter.
Dynamic game with depth and variety mate. I can dig it. I think it is good. Maybe you disagree? That is fine. I’m sure we disagree on a number of things that are purely and totally based on personal taste and preference.
Paladin was just an example; this applies equally to a class like cleric or bard.
Dynamic games with depth and variety are disserviced by complex mechanic and classes that need to put a lot of their resources into being combat viable.
You could literally remove half of the rogue talents that exist and have the game be equally deep, while being far less complex.
