swoosh's page

1,883 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else find it a bit crazy the way someone will jump into a thread and loudly declare that the math shows that something is really bad without ever actually presenting any math and flagrantly ignoring the math that's already been done?

I suppose you have to admire the absolute brazenness some people have in their willingness to just try to b@~&!$*# their way through a conversation while hoping enough people don't notice that they can get away with it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't buy it. If someone wants to play the character that's terrible and constantly outclassed by everyone else, you can do that even in a system that doesn't wall off concepts with terrible balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Their defense is definitely their weak point but their damage is seriously absurd

That's the theory. In practice the Giant Barbarian doesn't do all that much more damage than other Barbarians and outright loses to Fighters in many scenarios despite the penalties it's saddled with while not really getting access to the extra tricks other barbarian instincts have.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

In the same way that Stride is a single action 25' teleport that doesn't even require a spell slot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
I'm wondering if this is an almost all purpose mega spell.

Can't be all that 'all purpose' if you keep having to redefine your criteria.

But yes, against this hypothetical big bad who resists everything except mental damage and has a low will save it's a really good spell.


This is exactly why 5e changed the way spells are prepared.


Does gain access mean gain?

From how it's used in the CRB and LOWG, I assumed gain access meant gain permission to take. Gaining access in those documents is generally used as giving you permission to pick an uncommon option as if it weren't uncommon.

But the level 6 Dedication feat is going to be terrible on spontaneous casters if you have to manually add the spell to your repertoire afterwards.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
There’s a difference between building up a group of compatible players and cheering as people are driven away from the hobby. You’ve justified doing the latter.

Have they actually, though?

Your definition of 'driving people away' seems to have little to do with actually building a community around a game and more to do with trying to insulate people who don't like the game from criticism.

Honest question, how is someone who just goes from thread to thread talking about how much they despise everything about a game and essentially insisting that nobody should play it because it's trash beneficial to that game's community?

And why should it be Ediwir's responsibility to coddle that person?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:


It may be an initial kneejerk but anything that elicits that kind of response , especially as a single weapon, points to some kind of design issue

Or that people are just really overvaluing the item. It wouldn't be the first or last time people had weird first impressions about something in a game.

There were a lot of really odd takes in the early days of 3.5 and PF1 too.


Gaterie wrote:
It is explicitly written in the book that a minion needs to be commanded every round if you want it to do something

How long is a round in exploration mode?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


But by having both driders, you get to satisfy both the monster girl fans and "I want my spider centaurs to be fully spider monsters" fans!

This is probably it. Unfortunately it kind of perpetuates this annoying trend where you have a monstrous race and the females are traditionally cute or pretty and the males are more traditionally monstrous, which has some potentially problematic undertones to it.

I think it would be better if the more centaur-like and the more overtly monstrous driders were separate subspecies rather than sexual dimorphism.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hobgoblins that look more like goblins. Kobolds that look more like goblins. Gnomes that look more like goblins.

2e is starting to feel more like Goblinfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:
I am asking Paizo to either scale back their promises or make some minor wording changes.

And it's cool that you feel that way, but acting as though you're speaking for everyone with similar issues and as though your perception is an objective fact about the situation isn't conducive to a healthy or meaningful discussion on the topic.

Insulting people who don't share your viewpoint certainly isn't either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:


Ableism isn't that you actively denigrate blind people, it's that blind people are not actively included. All this talk - just scroll up for like 20 examples - about how sight is "standard" or "default" is exactly what ableism is trying to fight against.

Ableism is literally discrimination designed to favor able bodied people at the expense of those who aren't. Things like unnecessarily small font, or access points into buildings that are difficult for people with various mobility issues to traverse are ableist.

Having default assumptions about how tasks are performed by most characters in a game is not that.

Your suggestion wouldn't even make sight any less of the default sense either. It would just require rewording a bunch of stuff for no real gain.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
The problem with your entire post is that people are just pointing out that the intolerant characters they want to play... ARE NOT GOOD.

If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sadly, it isn't.

This post, which you marked as one of your favorite posts on the site, doesn't mention good or evil once. It just directly insinuates that someone playing a character with intolerant traits must themselves be intolerant:

Honeybee wrote:

"I'm not racist, I swear.... but it's extremely important that I get to be racist and genocidal in my shared-world fantasy roleplaying."

Just another day on the Paizo forums.

Rysky wrote:
This.

A post you highlighted as especially good, explicitly accusing someone of using racist dog whistles when they talk about their preference on how to handle certain characters in games:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:


Naaa you 'get it'. You're playing purposefully obtuse to try and ape being ignorant of what you're actually advocating.

These are things you consider your 'favorite' type of rhetoric. Posts you've especially chosen to highlight as containing opinions you value. Not "genocidal characters are evil" which is an uncontroversial and obvious statement, but "anyone who's ever played an intolerant character is evil themselves."

This is the intellectual and moral equivalent of those "D&D makes you a Satanist" propaganda pieces from the 80s.

At the very least don't go around cheerleading this kind of rhetoric and then turning around and insisting that's totally not what you're doing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhusquatch wrote:
'Because they like playing sketchy characters' is not the reason for any of the criticism.

Except the accusation that someone playing an intolerant character in Pathfinder is dog whistling for their own personal beliefs has been leveled multiple times this thread.

It's gross and manipulative.

Quote:
And whataboutism doesn't work as well as you think it does.

It is interesting how rhetoric has developed in such a way that certain actors think they can treat pointing out their own hypocrisy as a rhetorical fallacy.

In any case, whataboutism assumes that I'm trying to deflect from one point by pointing to another.

I'm not. The core point about goblins being good (or bad) additions to the CRB is irrelevant here. In fact, let's get this out of the way: Goblins in core is awesome, more nuanced monster races are good, anyone who thinks that blanket speciesism or genocide are even remotely compatible with Good as it's described in Pathfinder, or any flavor of good, needs to seriously reassess how they look at these things because they blatantly aren't.

But these constant assertions of bad faith and use of hateful language to try to cow people into silence is a sickening sort of rhetoric and not at all the way people should be conducting themselves on a forum like this. Especially over an RPG of all the damn things.

The context is irrelevant, it would be just as disgusting in a thread about multiclassing or a thread about whether or not a certain class is underpowered or not too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
And here comes the "Oh you're calling out bigots for their bigoted behavior so YOU must be a bigot, of bigots!!" Defense

It's not a defense of anything. Just a general observation about the way conversations tend to frame themselves. This thread is four pages of spewing hate at someone because they like playing sketchy characters in a game.

If you feel rhetorical weaponization of hatred and intolerance is morally justifiable, more power to you.

It just feels like it wasn't that long ago the whole "violent video games normalize real violence" style of argument was the punchline of a joke.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
I've never been accused of stealing something. Because I don't steal things

So things never happen to someone unless they deserve it?


Pepsi Jedi wrote:
The bigots seem to think they're SO AMAZINGLY CLEVER with their obfuscations

My favorite is when the bigots use phrases like "the bigots" to nebulously deflect away from their own cruel and hateful behavior. They always think it's a really clever way to make themselves look innocent, but it doesn't work as often as they think.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
could fairly easily do something like killing an entire goblin village if only a few of them have been attacking, etc)

No, not really. Killing innocents because it's more expedient than figuring out who's actually guilty is very distinctly evil.

This isn't an issue of alignment being convoluted. There's no way you can reasonably twist the idea of just killing everyone in sight because it's easier as a good action.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:

You don't need to go any further than you PgUp button to see actual exclusion - everyone who posted "why should we rewrite the rules for a small minority?" is actively excluding.

Paizo stated they wanted to include everybody. Maybe you disagree with that goal; that's okay. But you can't argue that Paizo's language doesn't seem to match Paizo's intent.

Man how gross is it to try to bully and scare people into shutting up with tactics like this on an RPG forum of all places?

Having a baseline standard for rules is not excluding people. To suggest it is patently absurd at best and deeply manipulative at worst.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Using sight as a presumed sense is bad game design

You've said this a couple times, you've even loaded your post with barbed accusations of prejudice to try to add more weight to it, but I don't think you've done a good job explaining why.

The rules are built around the standard assumptions the vast majority of creatures play by and special exceptions in turn specify how they interact with those default rules.

Leaving the exception handling to the exceptions keeps the relevant rules more localized and reduces the need to exhaustively handle those exceptions in general use cases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
For a similar reason that you don't roll for concealment on an area of effect spell, you don't roll for magic missile. If you can target with magic missile, it auto-hits.

For a similar reason? You don't roll for concealment on an area of effect spell because the rules directly say that you don't.

There's no such "similar" language about magic missile.

Ascalaphus wrote:

There's a lot of things in PF2 where they changed the language by leaving something out, like the "ignores concealment" bit in Magic Missile in this case. Each time, I'm wondering:

A) They really meant to drop a requirement or functionality, and thought that if they just left it out, we would understand that was intentional.
B) This is just an oversight, it still works the old way, it's just some text that got lost/mangled.

Your problem is that you keep talking about "the old way" or "changed the language."

When what you really mean to say is that it worked differently in an entirely different game and you want it to function the same here.

Regardless of whether or not magic missile ignores concealment, "it did it in a different game!" is a dumb position and fundamentally irrelevant to discussing the rules of this game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're really reaching with your accusations of prejudice here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
If they keep comparing game A to game B which they do like, I wouldn’t say quit.

They compared the way something was translated from one game to the other and expressed that they thought something was lost in translation. The post in question says nothing about their preferences regarding the core system itself.

Quote:
And has the latter occurred here?

Yes.

I guess we only worry about calling people out on their behavior when the person in question is also disagreeing with us. Ends justifying means and all of that.

Kind of a gross and mercenary mindset, but that seems to be how the internet works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
And there’s been plenty of times on these forums where the veneer of “criticism” gave away instantly to bile.

Like, say, telling someone they should quit playing a game and insinuating that they're stupid because they don't like one particular set of feats?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sliska Zafir wrote:
It seems to me that knowing a familiar's intelligence modifier is necessary to adjudicate how much a scouting familiar can convey to its master via speech.

There's nothing about the Intelligence attribute that would give you any insight here.


+11 to hit and 18 damage sounds like a level 3 or 4 enemy. Level 1 characters taking a lot of damage from enemies several levels higher from them seems standard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So OP made his alchemist trained in stealth and is now mad that his character can do the thing he has training in?

How bizarre.

Claxon wrote:
I don't like the feeling that no matter how hard I try, I can't guarantee success

You can though, just not at challenges specifically designed to be comparable to your own abilities. Anything else you can steamroll pretty easily by the time you have that big modifier.

Plus higher proficiency gives you access to new actions and feats that less proficient users can't take. I don't know why you're saying that doesn't matter but.

Are you saying you should just never fail at anything? Even against threats that are supposed to be equal or superior to yourself? That sounds like a fantastically boring game. To each their own, I guess.


The monster in question is several levels higher than the party so it's supposed to be a major threat, FWIW.

It also sounds like your spellcasters had unfortunate spell loadouts, because it has one really strong save and two terrible ones that should have been relatively easy to land spells against.

19 AC is standard for level 2 though, so nothing your group could have really done better there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
I just don't see what making the system based on 4-man parties got to do with it.

They have to have some kind of baseline assumptions about their game, so they went with the one that's been the D&D standard for decades. Not sure why you're acting like this is so surprising or confusing.

Doesn't stop you from playing however you want though. Doesn't make things hard, either.

At this point it seems like you're just complaining for the sake of it. Mission accomplished though since the whole thread has devolved into this pointless back and forth about XP budgeting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
There's actually not much evidence that doing so would meaningfully improve the product.

You say this, but Ultimate Wilderness exists.


At first I'm probably going to try running it the way the book suggests, with characters able to generally find someone to cast the spell for them but it not being particularly easy to learn themselves.

I'll have to see how that plays out first.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:


Also, I don't know why you equal hybrid/spontaneous with laziness

Because on the internet, when you disagree with someone you have to make sure everyone knows they're not only wrong, but also bad people.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Melo wrote:
There is also the fact that a lot of Pathfinder fans come from D&D roots leaving after 3rd and actually have Vancian casting a thing in there world and settings.

One of the main problems with Vancian casting is that it usually isn't reflected in the world and setting. You'll rarely see characters in FR or Golarion fiction talk about spell slots or preparing specific spells. Magic is usually described in much more nebulous terms like energy or fatigue that map better to systems like spell points than actual Vancian casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Which just proves my point - why turn something perfectly natural and easy into something unintuitive and hard?

They didn't.

It's pretty clear that you despise this XP system. You've kind of made it your personal quest on this forum to look for as many opportunities to deride it as possible. That's fine, everyone's allowed to have their own taste.

But there's nothing unintuitive, hard, unnatural, complex, difficult, mind-boggling, brain-bending, strange, bizarre, clumsy, byzantine, or even particularly odd about having XP budgets tied to encounter difficulty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Are people really going to add "raised by gnomes" to their backgrounds just to get a slightly better weapon?

There are a group of players who'll take a mechanical advantage if it suits them regardless of the associated concepts or fluff. To them, building the character they want is more important than what it looks like in-universe. Some of them just want to build a strong character, some of them are more interested in fulfilling their own specific fantasy even if it clashes with in game lore, and some people specifically just hate having fluff wall off mechanics.

Dunno if there's much of a reason to be disgusted with them like you seem to be suggesting. Different people are interested in different things.

That said, Unconventional Weaponry is just as easy a path for martials to pick the weapon up so I imagine a lot of people who want the weapon will be just as likely to be human or adopted by humans as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's nothing metagaming about thinking the gaunt old man might be frail.

It's a little dumb to assume he's defenseless though when he's the cult leader in a world brimming with magic, though.

Dumb and metagaming aren't the same thing. Dumb might even be good roleplaying in certain circumstances.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
.I am liking PF2 so far it plays a lot more like 4e D&D. Which in my book is an awesome thing.
And they tried telling me I was crazy for saying PF2 was like D&D 4e

Did anyone? I saw a few people get annoyed at the way you seem to use the term '4e' as some sort of dog-whistle, but I don't remember anyone calling you crazy.


The Raven Black wrote:
I prefer a game that does not push players too strongly in the open arms of metagaming.

Metagaming has nothing to do with the player pitching a fit and ragequitting because they couldn't one-shot a boss. Which, again, rarely happens in any of these games when the encounters are tuned correctly.

Usually it's considered a bad thing when one player instantly ends the GM's big boss fight with a single attack, even.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is definitely an issue that'll sort itself over time, but the World Guide does read like it jumped the gun a bit with its huge number of backgrounds and fairly limited selection of skill feats supporting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unicore, you keep saying that the language changed as though it was some dramatic shift, when both statements you're contrasting with each other are more or less functionally synonymous.

You're grasping.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@DMW - I’m not sure how helpful it is to dig into someone that explicitly expressed having bad experiences with players causing them to become sour towards the concept themselves. Kinda just perpetuates it ya know?

As opposed to what? Shrugging as someone perpetuates s~+*ty stereotypes and hate?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Well if the "boss" would have been build according to character rules a surprise round full of successful sneak attacks would have at least leave him very impressed.

If the boss had less HP or inferior defenses, yeah maybe the damage would have been more relevant. I'm not sure how that really matters at all though.

In 3.5 he wouldn't be a 'boss' monster, but he'd probably have templates and buffs and extra levels inflating his stats and the end result would have been similar. I guess that's... somehow better? This is an incredibly arbitrary distinction you're making.

Quote:
And this player was not at all throwing a fit.

Dude literally swore off a system forever because he couldn't cheese his way through a fight. Sorry, but this statement isn't consistent with his behavior as you're describing it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

One shotting the boss with a sneak attack wouldn't have happened in PF1 or 3.5 either.

Your player thought he could get away with instakilling the boss and when it didn't work he threw a fit. Not sure that's really a condemnation of any system here.

Does kind of make your rogue player look like an ass though.


I don't really see what we gain here by ridiculing someone's behavior or suggesting they're irrational for looking for help online when they don't understand a rule, John.

Seems kinda s~@%ty to put that on them like that, John.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Outrider wrote:
I mean, look how much of a debate this has sparked.

It seems just a little self serving to argue with everyone who posts in this thread and then use that as a justification for you point in the first place.


Stereofm wrote:

Well YMMV, but I think this is a good step, as recently the dice roll where only for show hidden behind a ridiculous amount of modifiers, to the point they hardly mattered.

There might be again challenge and danger in the game.

At high levels, maybe. Low level PF1 was pretty swingy, too and Plaguestone is a low level adventure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It says something about the class when even the person defending it is telling you to pretty much give up on the first quarter of your campaign because it's such a disaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd strongly suggest you take a look at Sorcerer Dedication instead of Minor Magic, for one it's strictly a superior feat as it gives you two skills on top of cantrips, plus it allows you to eventually progress your spellcasting proficiency to Master.

Being stuck at Trained is going to severely impact your ability to reliably hit enemies with your spells as the game progresses.

Minor Magic is for rogues who don't want to cast spells but still want to pick up a couple magical tricks. If you want to make Ray of Frost a meaningful part of your build it's not going to be enough as you level up.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So basically "What if our GM is a terrible person who thinks the role of GM exists only to make our lives as players miserable"?

No amount of rules are going to save you from that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
PF2 states unequivocally that the GM decides what information to give. PF1 leaves it open and that seems to have been largely interpreted as player asks

Let's take another look.

PF1 says:

Quote:
A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

PF2 says:

Quote:
A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes

The text is incredibly similar here, there's nothing about player's choice or anything even like that in either rule.

I think it's more accurate to say that you're looking for reasons to be upset with the PF2 rule and so you're reading into it what you want to.

pauljathome wrote:


Uh, it seems a little unfair to dismiss what I've actually seen occur

Behavior which, again, you describe specifically as adversarial in PF2 and specifically as relying on a benevolent houserule in PF1.

So adversarial GMing in PF2 is worse for the player than GMing with player-friendly houserules in PF1.

That's so weird.

1 to 50 of 1,883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>