ubernoob's page

Jal Dorak wrote:

From a real world perspective, I can power attack. I pick up a baseball bat, and instead of swinging to hit the ball I swing with all my power, likely missing.

The thing is, if you're swinging the bat at a person, a wild swing will never be more effective than a well-placed shot, even if the latter doesn't spin you around in a circle afterwards. "Power Attack" is inherently a game idea, with little to recommend it in terms of realistic analogies.

You can power attack in real life. The fluff is just wrong:

Alternative mechanic: Sacrifice iteratives to make a more powerful single attack at full accuracy. That would accurately represent the powerful swings thing. You hit harder, but less.

ubernoob wrote:

Like arms? Mouths?

Since you insist on explict rules then I suggest you avoid any references to someone elses anatomy.

ubernoob wrote:

You're not being clear.

Which other parts of my message are you having trouble with?

Ogre wrote:

(1)Pretty much any personal attack, and the phrase "Sand in your XXX" is definitely a personal attack. (2)As is calling someone a moron or any other direct insult. (3)Generally referencing parts of your anatomy or anyone else's is probably pretty much out.

(4)As Gary says, there are no specific "rules" to what being a jerk is. (5)Here is the easiest one, pretend the guy you are talking to is in the same room as you.

I've numbered the sentences for easy reference, which sentences are you having trouble with? I've already clarified #3 for you, was that the only one you were having issues with?

Are you all really that thin skinned? Really? I am pretending the guy I am talking to is in the same room. Maybe you should grow a spine or something. I have yet to actually insult anyone.

ubernoob wrote:

I haven't insulted anyone.

We beg to differ.

ubernoob wrote:

I've spoken just like I speak to my intellectual peers.

Then I suppose paizo.com is not full of your intellectual peers, and you can feel free to take your insightful, intellectually stimulating comments such as "You sir, are made of fail" somewhere else.

Is there something wrong with asking someone to back up their statements? That's standard in most intellectual discussion.

I forgot, given your importance, that I should not forget to address your very, very important comment about falling if fly is dispelled.

If you read the above, I didn't say the dispelled flyer would take damage, only that he would "end up on the ground" or "fall out of the combat zone." 60' per round isn't too far (esp. if you reach the ground before your 1d6 rounds of floating expires), but it is enough distance to make you "have some issues" vis-a-vis the place you intended to be on (or above) the battlefield.

Maybe you were confused because in a separate post, talking about future changes to PFRPG, I stated that I would prefer for fly to revert to its 1st Ed. roots, where if you get dispelled or the spell ends, you fall, and not the floaty kind.

For the purpose of discussion, though, it really doesn't matter.

Hope that clears things up for you.

P.S. You misspelled the word "please," unless you were using an Olde English version of the plural of the word "pea."

This man has balls.

I was assuming 3.5 or 3.P. In either case you are a caster so have enough range to stay in the fight even as you fight. As for please, I type WAAAY too fast.

ubernoob wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

ubernoob wrote:

Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.

It's not a list of banned words. Don't try to rules-lawyer your way into us giving you permission to be a jerk.

Don't be a jerk, don't insult people. Make your case, defend it, but don't be a jerk.

It was an honest question. Is there a list or no? All I need is some guidelines. Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate. Please, just give me some guidelines.

Pretty much any personal attack, and the phrase "Sand in your XXX" is definitely a personal attack. As is calling someone a moron or any other direct insult. Generally referencing parts of your anatomy or anyone else's is probably pretty much out.

As Gary says, there are no specific "rules" to what being a jerk is. Here is the easiest one, pretend the guy you are talking to is in the same room as you.

ubernoob wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

ubernoob wrote:

Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.

It's not a list of banned words. Don't try to rules-lawyer your way into us giving you permission to be a jerk.

Don't be a jerk, don't insult people. Make your case, defend it, but don't be a jerk.

It was an honest question. Is there a list or no? All I need is some guidelines. Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate. Please, just give me some guidelines.

Hi ubernoob,

I'm not actually a moderator, but I would like to answer your question. Stop insulting people. Period. That's all you have to do. It's not the words you use, it's how you use them.

No list of words.
Here are the behavior guidelines: don't insult people. Be nice if possible.

I haven't insulted anyone. I've spoken just like I speak to my intellectual peers.

ubernoob wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Well let's see... First of all it sounds like an array of immunities is making only damage work. That doesn't make damage good.

Of course it does. More precisely, it is good by comparison to the array of SoS effects that are, if not trivially, then easily (and even predictably) nerfed or countered by defenses that high-level parties are likely to have.

Glitterdust. Baleful Polymorph. Flesh to Stone. Magic Jar. Imprisonment. You sir, are made of fail.

Cute. Someone made a new alias.

Glitterdust = nice spell but tiny AoE and low save DC. Also, if your party has telepathic bond going (which any sane HL party should have) you can still point the blinded person in the direction they need to go and they can still attack if they wish, or perform other actions (like, say, whip a potion of cure blindness out of their handy haversack (both trivially cheap magic items for a high-level character) and cure their own blindness. Blindness does suck royally, but it is hardly stunning or paralysis.

Magic Jar = blocked by PfE/MCvE (if you, as you suggest, read the book, or the SRD if you are too poor to afford a book)

BP is good. No auto-nerf defenses (well, not in core anyway). Then again, it's also dispellable. Since most people generally play D&D with parties of characters rather than 1-on-1, it is no more than a one-round inconvenience. Also, if you are fighting a creature that possesses shapechanging abilities it can still use those. Spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities are likewise unimpeded, as are psionics and metamagicked spells (what, nobody uses Still Spell, Silent Spell, or Eschew Materials any more?).

Still, better, now you're warming to the task.

Flesh to stone: Now we're getting somewhere. Fire away. Maybe they'll fail their save. Maybe they won't and you just fizzled your turn. Meanwhile, the other enemies besides the one you...

First off: *High Five*

Second off: Alias? Explain.

ubernoob wrote:

It was an honest question. Is there a list or no?

As I just posted, there is no list.

ubernoob wrote:

All I need is some guidelines.

The guidelines are: Don't be a jerk. So far, 80 percent of your posts on this thread have been unacceptable under those guidelines.

"ubernoob wrote:

Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate.

You might want to think of this less as a debate, and more of a conversation.

"Effective" language on paizo.com is not the same as other barfights on the internet. Here, effective language is that which does not insult other people, treats them with respect and keeps the conversation going in a productive manner.

(Having a "productive" conversation is more of a Pathfinder RPG messageboard thing than a paizo.com thing -- see the off-topic forum for wildly non-productive, but enjoyable, conversation.)

Edit: "Stop spouting nonsense" is also not helping.

Would you mind taking some of my posts and bolding the parts you have problems with? It'd really help me understand what you're talking about.

ubernoob wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Spell component pouches and holy symbols are cheap. Please waste your action to deprive me of 1-5 gold instead of taking the rare opportunity to Sunder my face while you're within melee range. No, I mean it. Please, help me out and waste your chance by very mildly inconveniencing me at worst.

It's not an issue of depriving wealth, but an issue of depriving spellcasting ability. If your holy symbol is sundered (or disarmed), then you can't cast most of your spells. Same goes for a spell component pouch. After that, the fighter can hack you to pieces and you as a spellcaster have very limited options (unless you're a sorcerer or have the eschew components feat.)

Multiple pouches.

Move action (at least) to draw a new pouch or holy symbol.

Why? It's right there on the outside of your robe. There's no rules precedent for this. Stop spouting nonsense.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Spell component pouches and holy symbols are cheap. Please waste your action to deprive me of 1-5 gold instead of taking the rare opportunity to Sunder my face while you're within melee range. No, I mean it. Please, help me out and waste your chance by very mildly inconveniencing me at worst.

It's not an issue of depriving wealth, but an issue of depriving spellcasting ability. If your holy symbol is sundered (or disarmed), then you can't cast most of your spells. Same goes for a spell component pouch. After that, the fighter can hack you to pieces and you as a spellcaster have very limited options (unless you're a sorcerer or have the eschew components feat.)

Multiple pouches.

ubernoob wrote:

Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.

It's not a list of banned words. Don't try to rules-lawyer your way into us giving you permission to be a jerk.

Don't be a jerk, don't insult people. Make your case, defend it, but don't be a jerk.

It was an honest question. Is there a list or no? All I need is some guidelines. Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate. Please, just give me some guidelines.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Sunder means the DM hates melee, and therefore is destroying your equipment, ensuring you fail even more. You are again straw manning and toeing the line of an attack (at which point I will smite for great justice). I do not 'disrupt the game with character builds'. And when I do make non casters, I make damn sure the DM doesn't have a hate on for me and pulls crap like 'the enemy breaks your shiny sword' or 'you can't buy the magic items you must have, too bad'. Casters do not give a ****. Generally, the solution for problem DMs is a pure classed Cleric or Druid. I've found that this very quickly makes them realize that letting the Fighter keep his few nice things pales before the radioactive fire breathing monster that is CoDzilla.

You can Sunder spell components or spell foci. High level spells, particularly in PRPG, have expensive material components. I do it all the time. It drives the players crazy (in a good, challenging, no-holds-barred way), until the party fighter steps up and returns the favour. Failing that, grapple shuts up most spellcasters pretty quickly.

The DM can always give you more treasure later.

Why are they casting spells with expnsive components in combat? That's just asking to lose wealth. The DM shouldn't have to give extra wealth because newby DMs won't know to do so.

ubernoob wrote:

Again, quit with the nice police and put your logic where the sand in your vagina is.

These kinds of comments are completely unacceptable on the paizo.com messageboards. Please don't do this again.

Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.

ubernoob wrote:

<made fun of Jason>

You do realize Jason is fully aware of all those things? If you actually read his posts, and some of his other work, you would realize he does.

This thread is making me want to pull my hair out again.

Again, quit with the nice police and put your logic where the sand in your vagina is.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

The CharOp cant is whatever you want it to be. We're the guys who teach you how to make the most of your game and character. Yes, Monks suck, but if you wanted to be a Monk you'd get a build pretty quick (which may or may not involve the Monk class, but would definitely be a Monk in every other way).

It's that kind of attitude that makes people not like optimizers. We can make perfectly good characters, even potent characters, without having to pour through splatbooks and obsess over numerical combinations. I certainly don't need your "help".

Quit with the nice police and actually defend your point. Nice police is exactly why you don't have REAL game designers like Frank around anymore.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

DM is using Sunder, he hates you and is out to kick you in the...

Oh, heaven forbid the DM use something on you that you have no way of working around. Yeah, you can actively try to disrupt a game with character builds but if the DM uses a core rule that disarms you, he is being a jerk.

Wealth By Level is core.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Well let's see... First of all it sounds like an array of immunities is making only damage work. That doesn't make damage good.

Of course it does. More precisely, it is good by comparison to the array of SoS effects that are, if not trivially, then easily (and even predictably) nerfed or countered by defenses that high-level parties are likely to have.

Glitterdust. Baleful Polymorph. Flesh to Stone. Magic Jar. Imprisonment. You sir, are made of fail.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Second, dispel magic etc by the enemies? That's the DM doing me a favor. Please do spend your action trying to remove a few buffs Mr. High Level Caster. Since you will only get 1, maybe 2 chances ever to attack me, you're doing me a favor.

It is interesting to me that a lot of the CharOp cant seems based on a 1-on-1 face-off. YMMV, but in my experience of D&D that is rarely the case. Even when you have BBEG battles, there are typically minions and lieutenants aplenty. One bad guy dispels defenses. Bad guy #2 takes advantage of dispelled defenses. This trick works best in combination with a spell like greater arcane sight that gives you a HUD of what spells and magical effects the enemy has going.

It also assumes that the dispel itself does not cause its own inherent trouble: e.g., dispelling water breathing/FoM underwater, dispelling flight in the air, dispelling energy resistance/protection in a damaging environment, dispelling heroes' feast in poisonous atmosphere, dispelling death ward in a negative energy zone - any of which is an eminently possible place to find yourself in a high-level game.

Area dispel only gets one buff off the person. Targeted dispel is the one that can remove multiple effects. Targeted dispel is a poor tactical choice until you can quicken it, but at that point you're running up against the CL cap. Dispel is good, but nowhere near as good as you make it out. Plus, real players don't go into areas without (ex) protection against the environment. To go in protected by ongoing spells means that character deserves to die.

About the fly/dispel example I gave, I had in mind but did not state explicitly a low/mid level game, where your 5th-7th level wiz is flying around raining doom on low/mid-level enemies unable to reach him, and then the enemy's low/mid-level caster boinks him with DM. But falling out of the combat zone can still be troublesome at high levels. If the combat is up in the sky and you end up on the ground, you may have some issues.

Pease go read the fly spell. Specifically how slowly you fall.

http://www.d20srd.org/
It's ok if you're too poor to afford a PHB. Just read the rules for free before you waste the time of more important people (me for instance).

Crusader of Logic wrote:

First, before I say anything else, am I reading that right? Is it 'fights typically last 3 rounds' or 'typical half life is 3 rounds, aka enemies are half dead by then'?

After 3 rounds there is a 50% chance the fight will be over.

3.5 RAW combat takes an average of two rounds. Low end 1 high end 3. I've never actually seen a combat take longer than three rounds except because the PCs used delaying+summoning tactics and those were the cleanest fights I've ever watched.

So, half life should be closer to two rounds. Probably 1.