"If they are perpetuating untruths or outright lying, or indeed just expressing opinions as if they are irrefutable facts, then they are essentially inviting disagreement."
suggests that you are defending, even encouraging, the choice to go over there and 'set them straight' about their 'baseless lies,' whether or not you now clarify that you wouldn't do such a thing.
I was defending those on the Den who may disagree with the opinions held by Mr Trollman from being labelled as trolls for simply disagreeing with him. I can't help what someone thought I might have meant, and if I worried about that all the time I'd never post anything.
The fact that right after, someone uses your quoted suggestion as basis to propose posting a thread over there to do that very thing, doesn't help that perception.
Actually, I thought they were suggesting setting up a thread on THIS forum to address those points and have counter-arguments available. I don't think this is necessary myself, any valid points he may have had have already been handled in this very thread.
Let them have their opinions. Most of them are purely subjective. Some of them are flat-out wrong. Whatever. The fact that some faceless yob on the internet says that I'm fellating Jason Buhlman because I don't agree with everything he's said, done or thought in his life is way, way, way down on the list of stuff I care about.
"Don't wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it."
I absolutely agree with that last statement!
GROINK ?
You(general statement) can argue 'til you are blue in the face, but if some of us can play with ToB, Spell Compendium, and psionics [given as examples] without an issue it can't really be considered universally broken.
+1
But you missed ELH :)
GROINK ?Bacon! <chases after pig with meat-cleaver>
Yay! <follows Set trying to chase down the pig>
Yay! <follows Set trying to chase down the pig>GROINK ?Bacon! <chases after pig with meat-cleaver>
"Umm bacon" Starts the grill
Actually, I thought they were suggesting setting up a thread on THIS forum to address those points and have counter-arguments available. I don't think this is necessary myself, any valid points he may have had have already been handled in this very thread.
Not quite. Most of the big issues over there are mechanical issues. They spend a lot of time doing mathematical analysis. Over here in this thread there has been no mathematical analysis, so I can't really say it is has "been handled". Dismissed, yes, "handled" not really. Now their analysis might be flawed, and frankly (haha) from the little I've seen, people haven't been afraid of challenging claims over there with their own analysis and telling them to go such *something distasteful*. Of course that is the language of that site, it is very "middle school locker-room" in that way.
|
While I agree that the vast majority of the posts over there are complete and utter crap, I too would appreciate a reasoned, point by point response to some of their more in-depth arguments. Some of them I find hard to argue with and I would like to hear from some people smarter than me why what they are saying is incorrect. If people just want to discount what they say (the ones who actually say something other than swearing or referring to reproductive organs that is) without any sort of reasoned response, it kind of lends credence to some of the other posts who suggest we have all basically completely "drunk the kool-aid" so to speak.
So with that said, what do people think? Which of their arguments do people feel are actually valid? Or does everyone just dismiss the entirety of the thread?
While I agree that the vast majority of the posts over there are complete and utter crap, I too would appreciate a reasoned, point by point response to some of their more in-depth arguments. Some of them I find hard to argue with and I would like to hear from some people smarter than me why what they are saying is incorrect. If people just want to discount what they say (the ones who actually say something other than swearing or referring to reproductive organs that is) without any sort of reasoned response, it kind of lends credence to some of the other posts who suggest we have all basically completely "drunk the kool-aid" so to speak.
So with that said, what do people think? Which of their arguments do people feel are actually valid? Or does everyone just dismiss the entirety of the thread?
Well, I found it very funny that, on the last four pages, when some of the more vitriolic posters were claiming that CMB/CMD is broken, Hogarth pretty comprehensively cleaned their clock.
Especially funny since they claimed the mathematics were clearly on their side and going on about how Paizo messageboarders can't do simple mathematics and then they totally got it wrong.
( Although, to be fair, Hogarth apparently added things like weapon enhancement bonuses to the CMB, which, to my best knowledge, do not enter into it. Still, their claim that attacks using CMB can only be successfull 25% of the time is not beared out by reality ).
While I agree that the vast majority of the posts over there are complete and utter crap, I too would appreciate a reasoned, point by point response to some of their more in-depth arguments. Some of them I find hard to argue with and I would like to hear from some people smarter than me why what they are saying is incorrect. If people just want to discount what they say (the ones who actually say something other than swearing or referring to reproductive organs that is) without any sort of reasoned response, it kind of lends credence to some of the other posts who suggest we have all basically completely "drunk the kool-aid" so to speak.
So with that said, what do people think? Which of their arguments do people feel are actually valid? Or does everyone just dismiss the entirety of the thread?
One of their arguments, which I did not check the math on questioned how it was easier to pin a medium sized outsider(I forget which one) than an elephant, and they said that was nonsense. I do agree with that statement. No hero is pinning an elephant while still medium sized. That was part of an argument that the size bonuses don't matter enough. I also agree with that from a realistic point of view. The problem is that with the 3.5 size bonuses some grapples could never be won, and people want to do heroic things, and the previous size bonus made some grapple bonuses impossible. There was really no reason to even have numbers after a certain point. They don't take into account that people want to succeed at things that are really impossible. They just want to make fun of the math, but on the other hand if Paizo did make it possible they would make fun of them by saying it was unrealistic, in that regard. Whether you make the CMB more or less successful you really can't win with them.
PS: If I repeated anything it is due to me not being awake, but I think I am coherent enough that my points are understood.
|
That was part of an argument that the size bonuses don't matter enough. I also agree with that from a realistic point of view.
I feel that the change from +4 / size category to +1 / size category might have been an over-reaction. +2 might have been a better number, increasing to the larger numbers at the end (as the current chart does, with a +4 for the difference between Gargantuan and Colossal, or a -4 between Fine and Diminutive).
As with 3.5, there are a number of minor little things I don't necessarily agree with, but nothing worthy of going all Tourette's Syndrome. If I let stuff like that get my blood pressure up, I might not live long enough to see the Mwangi AP! Priorities!
I feel that the change from +4 / size category to +1 / size category might have been an over-reaction. +2 might have been a better number, increasing to the larger numbers at the end (as the current chart does, with a +4 for the difference between Gargantuan and Colossal, or a -4 between Fine and Diminutive).As with 3.5, there are a number of minor little things I don't necessarily agree with, but nothing worthy of going all Tourette's Syndrome. If I let stuff like that get my blood pressure up, I might not live long enough to see the Mwangi AP! Priorities!
I think that the 3.5 size modifiers on grapple makes more sense, from a simulationist perspective, than the ones PF. But I also think that the simulationist perspective there wasn't good for a game of heroic exploits. The new size modifiers in PF are clearly a gamist adjustment, but I'm fine with it.
As far as pinning elephants goes, you can rationalize it by saying that the grappler has enough leverage on one of the elephant's legs that the elephant can't effectively do anything else but fret about it and try to get out of it in a half-assed way. Playing on the psychology of the pinned creature helps you justify a lot of things that may otherwise make you say "Aw, c'mon!" based on raw number crunching.|
|
As far as pinning elephants goes,
There's a point where even the most simulationist of rules breaks down, in my experience.
GURPS is generally regarded as being much more simulationist than D&D, avoiding abstract hit points or 'levels' or whatever, and yet it's entirely possible to make a swordsman who can hack the leg off of a tyrannosaurus rex in that game. (Cause, I've done it. The GM ws pissed...) At a certain point, one just has to throw hands in the air and embrace the 300-esque absurdity of having a man with a spear being able to fend off an elephant.
Roll dice. Move on.
|
|
Actually, I thought they were suggesting setting up a thread on THIS forum to address those points and have counter-arguments available.
Yes, that was what I was suggesting. For starters, as a reader of that thread I'd find it terrifically helpful if someone told me which points on the first couple of pages contained criticisms which were (perhaps) valid of the Beta ruleset but have been obsoleted by rules changes in the final version of PFRPG.
At a certain point, one just has to throw hands in the air and embrace the 300-esque absurdity of having a man with a spear being able to fend off an elephant.
Roll dice. Move on.
No one doesn't. One can say, "dude c'mon, that isn't possible", and overrule the amputation. To which one's reasonable players hopefully reply, "yeah, that's pretty ridiculous".
|
|
At a certain point, one just has to throw hands in the air and embrace the 300-esque absurdity of having a man with a spear being able to fend off an elephant.No one doesn't. One can say, "dude c'mon, that isn't possible", and overrule the amputation. To which one's reasonable players hopefully reply, "yeah, that's pretty ridiculous".
That example only proves the point. The *rules of the game* aren't addressing this situation. The GM is.
Even in a game that is more simulationist than this one, at some point, the GM needs to say, 'Nah. On second thought, Camelot is a silly place.' and make a judgement call.
Which is possibly the biggest remaining advantage that tabletop games have over computer-adjudicated games. There's a human being there who can say, 'That's lame.' and change things.
|
I really can't figure out why they seem SO angry about Pathfinder. I could understand if a substantial number of them claimed they hated the system but loved the adventures, or something similar. But since the majority of them claim to hate both the system and everything that Paizo has ever touched...why not simply ignore it's existence. It's kind of similar to my views on the Twilight books/movies. They don't appeal to me, but at the same time, I just don't care enought to muster any hatred for them, the people that do like them, or the actors involved in the films.
Even before I knew about Pathfinder's existence, I took a brief look at 4E. Didn't appeal to me. Decided I was gonna stick with 3.5. Admittedly, my rather massive collection of books might have influenced the decision somewhat. But I would never criticize someone for prefering 4E. It takes all kinds, and frankly this hobby is niche enought that we should celebrate anything that brings more players, not condemn it because we prefer something else. After all, most poeple who are in the hobby today entered through D&D, whether it be the original game, the Basic Set, AD&D, the BCEMI sets, 2nd Edition, the Rules Compendium, 3.X, or 4E. Quite often, they expand on to later editions and/or other games.
*salutes*
Edit: Before the bashing goes much further, just a reminder that we're not here to bash other posters or other forums. We can all have our opinions of each other. The Den policed itself about commenting on the Paizo forums, and I'm sure the staff here don't want to see a bog of Den-hate threads.
This. Keep it clean and civil, folks.
I'd actually enjoy a reasoned counterpoint to the thread on the forum here, but if it just turns into counterbashing, it's better not done.
I think it's best just left alone at this point. The counterpoint to a fervent bashing is likely to result in little more than a counter-bashing. Maybe if we picked individual things and talked about them, that'd be good, but a thread called "A Discussion on the Valid Points Made on That Other Website" would probably be a disaster.
I'm not even sure why any of all of this is relevant.
Either you're going to play Pathfinder, in which case you accept the RAW and move on, or you're not.
I suspect pretty much anyone could find something to quibble about in any set of rules. I have issues with 3.5 (though that's still what I mainly play), I have issues with 4e (which is what we run in our living/convention campaign) and I have issues with Pathfinder (which is what I'm gradually moving my 3.5 campaign to).
But, unless you're going to rewrite all the rules you're unhappy with (which I personally recommend against - it makes you your own little gaming island), you've just got to go with the flow.
The time to complain was during Alpha and Beta. Whether or not the folks at Paizo listened (and I know they didn't listen to me :) it's over and done with.
Jacobs ever reply back about the contradictory rules on counterspelling spell like abilities?
============
Oh, and I was the centerpoint of a whole thread by one of the talkers over there, who changed his name SIXTEEN times on the WoTC boards to get around bans there. Civil discussion really isn't possible there.
==Aelryinth
|
Oh, and I was the centerpoint of a whole thread by one of the talkers over there, who changed his name SIXTEEN times on the WoTC boards to get around bans there. Civil discussion really isn't possible there.
==Aelryinth
It is actually possible. You just have to talk to the right person and ignore the mudslinging. You're not going to avoid it, you just have to bear it. Not everyone is Roy.
The Ignore feature helps.
|
I really can't figure out why they seem SO angry about Pathfinder.
Some of them may be angry for the exact same reasons that many were angry with D&D4e - if you like your current edition and don't want to change, a new edition means the pool of players willing to run and potentially play your old edition shrinks. 4e fragmented the player base who previously played 3.5, Pathfinder has then fragmented what remains even further.
This is coming from someone with pretty much the same attitude - the release of Pathfinder is a god send to my two GMs who switched, but for me it has meant buying new books, having to relearn the system, do without many of the game aids I had for 3.5 and update those aids I created (just starting updating my Cleric spell list document, it will take hours).
So yes, I can see a potential reason for the vitriol (though they are perhaps over-reacting - I have not read the forum threads beyond the first post linked to earlier).
Actually, I thought they were suggesting setting up a thread on THIS forum to address those points and have counter-arguments available.Yes, that was what I was suggesting. For starters, as a reader of that thread I'd find it terrifically helpful if someone told me which points on the first couple of pages contained criticisms which were (perhaps) valid of the Beta ruleset but have been obsoleted by rules changes in the final version of PFRPG.
Hmm. I may spend some time number-crunching later tonight.
Jacobs ever reply back about the contradictory rules on counterspelling spell like abilities?
============
Oh, and I was the centerpoint of a whole thread by one of the talkers over there, who changed his name SIXTEEN times on the WoTC boards to get around bans there. Civil discussion really isn't possible there.
==Aelryinth
Is that the guy would always say full stop, and fail, or something like that? I don't remember his login name(s) though.
That's not why I'm angry with 4e. I'm angry with 4e for much the same reason I'd be angry with Sesame Street turning Big Bird into a mutant menace out to suck children's brains. They've got a right to do that and they've got a right to still call it "Sesame Street", but why?I really can't figure out why they seem SO angry about Pathfinder.Some of them may be angry for the exact same reasons that many were angry with D&D4e - if you like your current edition and don't want to change, a new edition means the pool of players willing to run and potentially play your old edition shrinks. 4e fragmented the player base who previously played 3.5, Pathfinder has then fragmented what remains even further.
The ironic thing was that Sesame Street was flanderized. I think they have the ORIGINAL Sesame Street on DVD now, with the imaginary Snuffleupugus, insane Count, no Elmo or other lame things, and other non-kosher things done away with as "bad for kids."
Yes, but not once has Big Bird ever sucked out children's brains.The ironic thing was that Sesame Street was flanderized. I think they have the ORIGINAL Sesame Street on DVD now, with the imaginary Snuffleupugus, insane Count, no Elmo or other lame things, and other non-kosher things done away with as "bad for kids."That's not why I'm angry with 4e. I'm angry with 4e for much the same reason I'd be angry with Sesame Street turning Big Bird into a mutant menace out to suck children's brains. They've got a right to do that and they've got a right to still call it "Sesame Street", but why?I really can't figure out why they seem SO angry about Pathfinder.Some of them may be angry for the exact same reasons that many were angry with D&D4e - if you like your current edition and don't want to change, a new edition means the pool of players willing to run and potentially play your old edition shrinks. 4e fragmented the player base who previously played 3.5, Pathfinder has then fragmented what remains even further.
And neither does 4e. You are being absurd.
You're being obtuse. I didn't say 4e has big bird sucking out children's brains.
If you don't want to respond to what I did say, then at least don't resort to personal attacks.
I said you are being absurd in your comparison. You are blasting 4E because.. you don't like it? They changed the rules of the game, boo hoo. I'm quite sure 3E is a departure from 2 and 1E.
heheheh
And neither does 4e. You are being absurd.Yes, but not once has Big Bird ever sucked out children's brains.The ironic thing was that Sesame Street was flanderized. I think they have the ORIGINAL Sesame Street on DVD now, with the imaginary Snuffleupugus, insane Count, no Elmo or other lame things, and other non-kosher things done away with as "bad for kids."That's not why I'm angry with 4e. I'm angry with 4e for much the same reason I'd be angry with Sesame Street turning Big Bird into a mutant menace out to suck children's brains. They've got a right to do that and they've got a right to still call it "Sesame Street", but why?I really can't figure out why they seem SO angry about Pathfinder.Some of them may be angry for the exact same reasons that many were angry with D&D4e - if you like your current edition and don't want to change, a new edition means the pool of players willing to run and potentially play your old edition shrinks. 4e fragmented the player base who previously played 3.5, Pathfinder has then fragmented what remains even further.
Big Bird is an Illithid. Gosh, everyone knows that.
You are blasting 4E because.. you don't like it?Would you rather I blast 4e because I like it? Or that I say nice things about it because I don't like it?
Neither of those make sense.
One would presume you had reasons.
heheheh
One would presume you had reasons.You are blasting 4E because.. you don't like it?Would you rather I blast 4e because I like it? Or that I say nice things about it because I don't like it?
Neither of those make sense.Not liking it seems like a very good reason to blast it.
So you dislike it for no reason. That's what I thought.
When a problem comes along
heheheh
When a problem comes along
** spoiler omitted **
For some reason this caused the scarecrow's song to get stuck in my head.
What the heck?
EDIT: Silly me. I thought I'd fool the smurferizer with a hyphen :)
EDITEDIT:
heheheh
Your connection of Devo, smurfs, and Oz is truly sublime.
EDIT: Yes, it was very smurfy of you. I forgive you for mangling my alias.
So you dislike it for no reason. That's what I thought.One would presume you had reasons.You are blasting 4E because.. you don't like it?Would you rather I blast 4e because I like it? Or that I say nice things about it because I don't like it?
Neither of those make sense.Not liking it seems like a very good reason to blast it.
Being so overly defensive is like reverse trolling. Picking-out a minor comment that could have just been ignored is fueling a fire (or at least sparking one). Such exaggerated sensitivity to one's opinion will only start a fight. What do you have to be so defensive about?
Who cares why someone dislikes something that you apparently like? Does 4e need such PR championing and defense lawyers?
Who cares?
I thought there was only one 4e sheriff in town.
What I said is that I'm blasting it because I don't like it.I don't like it for much the same reason that I wouldn't like Big Bird being turned into a mutant menace who sucks out the brains of children.
Which is STILL just as absurd as the first time you said it. You have no reason for disliking 4E. Great. Now that's out of the way, let's move on.