| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is everybody?
Putting boxes inside boxes and closing said boxes.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What was reinforced for me today (besides Ultrasounds are amazing): Just because you hire the most expensive landscaping company doesn't mean you hired the best landscaping company.
I've spent the last two days fixing all sorts of issues at an extremely high end property that the most expensive landscaping company in the entire Midwest put in, and let me tell you, it's been hilarious!
Luckily the architect that built the place was here yesterday and we were able to point out how incredibly hilarious a job they did.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm pretty sure Freehold sabotaged my saw so the water hose would come off and spray me in the face three times because of my milkmaid gloating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been a bit busy with work and Aiymi's health issues.is there anything she might need from my area?
Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately, no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, intentionally a bit snarky here, but blame my Lawful side:
...that's also what made it exciting to encounter new monsters...
...Yes, you do. You're the GM. You can rip pages out and do what you want...
When a game system requires that I throw out the rules to make encounters exciting, or rewrite monsters in my AP to suit my party, I think that's a clear indicator that the game system is faulty.
Honestly, all we want is a system where the same rule set applies to every piece on the board. It works in every other RPG we've played (Runequest, Call of Cthulu, Champions, Tunnels and Trolls, Bunnies and Burrows, D&D 1.0, Traveller, Shadowrun, and I'm sure more that I'm forgetting). I can't think of another system that says, "Well, the bad guys follow this rule set, and the good guys follow that one."
So why is it that Pathfinder keeps saying, "Well, this rule is inconvenient for this creature, so we're going to make it ignore it?"
A well-prepared party SHOULD be protected from the attacks they're expecting. I don't consider, "Well, you prepared correctly, but my creature ignores that protective spell because I want it to," to be particularly "exciting".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But having unexpected abilities is. We can nitpick specific monsters all day, but I'm pretty sure PF2 will have the same situations if not the same abilities.
Well, in that case you and I would be discussing different things.
"This creature has 8 arms, can wield swords with 6 of them and grapple with the other two all at once," is interesting and unexpected.
"This creature uses a standard death effect, but since the PCs will be expecting that so will have Death Ward up, this death effect ignores Death Ward," is just a screwed-up move, in my opinion.
EDIT: Better example: "This creature has 8 arms, can wield swords with 6 of them and grapple with the other two all at once, and oh, by the way, Freedom of Movement doesn't work against its grapples for... reasons..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, everyone.
Hello, John!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But having unexpected abilities is. We can nitpick specific monsters all day, but I'm pretty sure PF2 will have the same situations if not the same abilities.Well, in that case you and I would be discussing different things.
"This creature has 8 arms, can wield swords with 6 of them and grapple with the other two all at once," is interesting and unexpected.
"This creature uses a standard death effect, but since the PCs will be expecting that so will have Death Ward up, this death effect ignores Death Ward," is just a screwed-up move, in my opinion.
How about "This creature controls positive and negative energy and can change the effects of any creature targeted by a positive or negative effect that also targets it"?
Let me tell you, that was a nasty revelation when casting mass heal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And D&D is not what you want to pull out to bolster your argument. It wasn't until 3rd Edition that monsters were built using the same basic mechanics as the PCs. In 1st and 2nd, most of the creatures in the Monster Manuals were hand-waved approximated, with random abilities that sounded cool when they were sitting around the table (either Gygax's kitchen or TSR's conference room).
I know what you're saying, and in principle I agree with it, but TOZ's point is really what the game is all about.
1) All characters get feats at these levels. Exception. The fighter gets all these other feats too.
2) You can only use a wand if you have the spell on your class spell list. Unless you have sufficient Use Magic Device.
3) If you want to cast breath of life you have to have it on your class list and have it prepared/known. Unless you have limited wish, wish, or miracle.
4) Etc, etc, etc.
The entire rules system is set up to make the coolness happen by circumventing/altering the base rules in regards to that particular character or monster. It's the basis of the entire system.
Now, I do agree with you that all of those exceptions make it harder to remember and adjudicate, but I personally don't see that as being largely different than many other systems. But this is also why the Rules forums are what they have become as well. (No, *you're* stupid!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The entire rules system is set up to make the coolness happen by circumventing/altering the base rules in regards to that particular character or monster. It's the basis of the entire system...
That summarizes my objection quite well, thank you.
And, having played in many other systems, I'll just say PF/D&D is the only place I've even noticed it, much less been incensed by it...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The entire rules system is set up to make the coolness happen by circumventing/altering the base rules in regards to that particular character or monster. It's the basis of the entire system...That summarizes my objection quite well, thank you.
And, having played in many other systems, I'll just say PF/D&D is the only place I've even noticed it, much less been incensed by it...
My problem with most of the other systems I've played is that they go the other way - they tell you an ability can do X, but it doesn't tell you what you could do without that ability. Like they'd tell you what Combat Reflexes can do without ever telling you, anywhere, what the baseline was for comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about "This creature controls positive and negative energy and can change the effects of any creature targeted by a positive or negative effect that also targets it"?
Let me tell you, that was a nasty revelation when casting mass heal.
Busy day at work so I'm not fleeing the discussion, I just actually need to, y'know, DO things.
But again this is an "ability" rather than a "this rule/protection doesn't apply here."
For example, add, "And since this creature converted energy that was originally positive into negative energy, creatures protected by Death Ward are not protected from negative energy damage from this ability," and I would object vehemently.
Once again, it's not "interesting" abilities, it's abilities that are specifically written to bypass spells/items/feats/racial traits that would normally protect them, so a PC can think they've made all the preparations in the world and be blindsided not by lack of preparation, but by a creature that doesn't have to follow the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm pretty sure Freehold sabotaged my saw so the water hose would come off and spray me in the face three times because of my milkmaid gloating.
I dont know what you're talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But again this is an "ability" rather than a "this rule/protection doesn't apply here."A meaningless distinction to me. It's the same as the Winter Witch ability to deal cold damage to creatures with cold immunity.
stop trying to seduce me to the new class side, you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What was reinforced for me today (besides Ultrasounds are amazing): Just because you hire the most expensive landscaping company doesn't mean you hired the best landscaping company.
I've spent the last two days fixing all sorts of issues at an extremely high end property that the most expensive landscaping company in the entire Midwest put in, and let me tell you, it's been hilarious!
Luckily the architect that built the place was here yesterday and we were able to point out how incredibly hilarious a job they did.
It amazes me just how much of your job is an art form that cannot necessarily be taught, or in this case, bought.
I think my post from the other day kinda kiboshed the convos . . . .
It's been noticeable. Even for me.
Love you folks!! Talk!!
I've just been busy/asleep...
where my invite
In your PMs!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, all we want is a system where the same rule set applies to every piece on the board. It works in every other RPG we've played (Runequest,
... fixed Intelligence...
... creatures lacking certain stats...Call of Cthulu
... again creatures that don't have certain stats...
... creatures that automatically suffer minimum damage from certain types of weapons instead of rolling the dice...... creatures that when reduced to 0 hit points instead of dying turn into a cloud and reform 1d10+10 minutes later with full Hit Points...
D&D 1.0
Oh, boy... Where to start?
Creatures that have arbitrary set up AC instead of having them calculated from armor and Dex... Which they don't have at all, because they monsters in general don't have actual ability scores except for Intelligence - and then that rule is broken again as some of them might have specific ability score mentioned in the description?
Golems with either are outrightly immune to specific categories of spells or react to some spells differently.
Undeads that are turned "like undead type xxx" despite not being listed on the turning table.
Immortals... Which break most of the rules with their immunities and abilities to ignore various effects.
And so on and so on...
"Well, the bad guys follow this rule set, and the good guys follow that one."
Buffy The Vampire Slayer (all rolls are made by players - when they attack they make attack roll, when they are attacked by monsters or NPCs, the players are making defense rolls, there are other systems that follow similar pardigm).
Legend Of Five Rings 5th edition dropped the individual skills from NPCs instead giving them rating in five skill groups, and their Composure and Endurance are set for NPCs instead of being derived from traits.
Countless systems that build characters differently than monsters, starting with the already mentioned D&D from its very beginning.
So why is it that Pathfinder keeps saying, "Well, this rule is inconvenient for this creature, so we're going to make it ignore it?"
Because that is basically how rpg system works? Most RPG are games of exceptions - you get a general rules and you get specific rules that can interact or override them. You couldn't really make them work otherwise for most of the abilities would not work because they make conditional change how do the creature/person interacts with the game world and its rules. Fire deals damage to creatures, and yet, fire/red dragons tend to ignore fire or be at least resistant to them in many systems, "breaking" the rule that fire deals that much damage to creatures.
A well-prepared party SHOULD be protected from the attacks they're expecting. I don't consider, "Well, you prepared correctly, but my creature ignores that protective spell because I want it to," to be particularly "exciting".
If you come to fight a creature with an wrong set of weapons/defenses, then you haven't prepared correctly in the first place. This might or might not be good, depending on underlying reason for that: did the player character actually researched the situation and failed? Did they researched situation but GM mislead them in-game? Did the GM failed to provide adequate information from research? Did they used their RL knowledge of the game to prepare how to fight an enemy their characters should not know of?
Of course there can always an issue with the clarity of the presentation of abilities, and better and worse reasons for building exceptions in special abilities and some of them are way off. In the case of banshee the first issue is not the wail itself but the general rule that surprise round gives merely a standard action, and the lack of ease of showing the action used in 1st edition notation - which was somewhat amended in the 2nd edition where each ability in a stat block shows number of actions used.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On lighter news while running back to work: I unpacked a box at lunch and found a hard copy of my dissertation: "Embeddings of SL(2,C) into the Ring of Differential Operators".
Impus Major declared that he's interested so he's going to read it.
Should be hilarious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On lighter news while running back to work: I unpacked a box at lunch and found a hard copy of my dissertation: "Embeddings of SL(2,C) into the Ring of Differential Operators".
Impus Major declared that he's interested so he's going to read it.
Should be hilarious.
And that's a level of math that I'm not qualified to discuss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It amazes me just how much of your job is an art form that cannot necessarily be taught, or in this case, bought.What was reinforced for me today (besides Ultrasounds are amazing): Just because you hire the most expensive landscaping company doesn't mean you hired the best landscaping company.
I've spent the last two days fixing all sorts of issues at an extremely high end property that the most expensive landscaping company in the entire Midwest put in, and let me tell you, it's been hilarious!
Luckily the architect that built the place was here yesterday and we were able to point out how incredibly hilarious a job they did.
Oh no, this was bad! Like take pictures and send them to the boss with hysterical laughing emojis bad.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On lighter news while running back to work: I unpacked a box at lunch and found a hard copy of my dissertation: "Embeddings of SL(2,C) into the Ring of Differential Operators".
Impus Major declared that he's interested so he's going to read it.
Should be hilarious.
DON'T DO IT IMPUS MAJOR ITS A TRAP
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's a level of math that I'm not qualified to discuss.On lighter news while running back to work: I unpacked a box at lunch and found a hard copy of my dissertation: "Embeddings of SL(2,C) into the Ring of Differential Operators".
Impus Major declared that he's interested so he's going to read it.
Should be hilarious.
more proof of Math's evil.
...
... drop it down...
... one more...
... here we go!
Da rules
D&D is, fundamentally, an exception-based game. Probably at least partially because it was the first of its kind - or at least one of the earliest (we can quibblemuch* about whether or not Chainmail counted, and Arneson's home brew as "not D&D" or whatever) - and the work of first converting war game rules, then becoming something new is bound to generate weirdness.
As it progressed forward, each edition** generally** tried to keep the "feel" and "spirit" of previous editions**, and that generally meant keeping exception-based rules systems, even as the rules themselves changed. Other systems, on the other hand, were more than free to go, "Hm. Let's scrap all this, and tell a completely different type of gaming narrative." And some of them do.
Many, though, are still based on the "exception-based" rules... it's just not always as obvious, or the exceptions tend to be more intuitive.
As a real quick example, I can easily explain the Cortex rules system by noting that it's a dice-pool mechanic: roll dice and keep the largest two numbers; compare to the opposing thing that does the same. Exceptions, however, come from any natural 1s you roll (those are bad, regardless of the dice), any time you spend your points to add Plot Action Hero Dice, or otherwise increase your pool, or to keep the top three, or so on. Then you get into complications, which either inhibit your ability, reduce your pool, force you to make extra rolls, or take you out. After you've been taken out, you can't do anything... unless you spend your points. Everyone has access to the same basic statistics and abilities... until you have distinctions. And their special triggers. NPCs and PCs are built differently. The list generally goes on.
None of this is bad, exactly, and it feels fairly intuitive if you know the system, but it can quickly cause weirdness if you're unprepared or don't understand what's happening. (Also, it can be difficult to switch between a system like PF and a narrative system - I find I can be hard pressed at times to come up with "Complications" that don't involve physically wounding people, or otherwise imitating things from PF or similar games.)
Or, for example, let's look at the incredibly simple Heroes' Kids game - each character has the same four stats (melee/strength; ranged/agility; magic/mind; defense). Each character also always starts off with the same hp and number of healing potions (two). Everyone has the same movement and same initiative. But then you start getting into exceptions: does a character have a particular skill? Do they have a particular item? PCs can alter their stats, pushing one higher at the cost of others, of course. And, of course, NPCs and PCs are radically different from each other. Now these are small changes you'd expect with any amount of customization at all (except for the NPC/PC thing), but the skills really do alter how the game is played. Unless a character has rope, they're not going to get down that hole, so a GM has to either rewrite the scenario, create an exception to the rules, or accept that the characters aren't ever going to find <thing> down a hole. But that's kind of intuitive - it's the sort of thing you'd expect. Maybe you don't exactly expect there to be a hole you need a rope to go down, but you kind of expect that if there's a hole deep enough that you can't see the bottom, you need a reasonable way of getting down there. It's an exception, but a kind of "expected" one that people just kind of "already know" is a thing.
So exception-based gaming is really common, whether it's a narrative style game, a simple RPG for kids, or more complex, like PF.
But one of the things I've noticed about PF is that some of the exceptions aren't... they just aren't really intuitive. I mean, sometimes, yeah, they totally are. But sometimes it's just... I mean... why.
Let's be clear. I am one for whom complexity is often its own sort of reward. But I can easily fatigue on PF's fiddly complexity. Not because any particular facet is wrong, but it's because it becomes too much.
Let's take a few examples, classes from the core book:
> everyone: ability scores (and modifiers), hit points, saves, skills, feats, base attack, combat maneuver, AC, initiative, movements, proficiencies, items/wealth, alignment
> race: while we could go at this deeper, I'll just note that a character's race touches on aaaaaaaaaaalmost everything - items/wealth, alignement, and {base} attack are generally independent of race, but that's about it
> fighter; a fighter has bonus feats, which add to the complexity and exception simply by virtue of that's what a feat do. It adds complexity (if not exception) by adding the bravery ability and weapon training, but goes right into exception-based design with armor training, armor mastery, and weapon mastery. The fighter, widely accepted as one of the simplest classes, is built all around the concept of exceptions - even if you ignore the extra PF-specific abilities, this is true, just based on feats. Still, a fighter is kind of straight forward - most of its exceptions are rather focused on doing just the one thing.
> barbarian; if there's a class that was (supposedly) simpler for a newbie than the fighter, this was it. Barbarians get fast movement, and that's the end of their non-exception-based abilities (I mean, it alters the rules in a way, but it's minor/consistent enough to be seen as a bonus instead of exception by most, I'd hazard). You have rage, which temporarily alters your statistics (stacking with some things, but not others), rage powers (temporarily altering your character's abilities during a rage), uncanny dodge (and later "improved" - both of which are a sometimes food), trap sense ("get a bonus under only specific circumstances" may not be seen as as an exception, but it fundamentally alters what a "trap" is compared to the rest of the rules system, hence creating a kind of artificial divide - an exception - in the rules), and damage reduction ("you ignore damage! except when you don't! but from physical attacks! except this kind! but this doesn't have bypasses! except it does!"), and, of course, all the variants on rage (rage: it works this way; greater rage: nu-uh!; indomitable will: nuh-uh, plus!; tireless rage: nu-uh part the third!; mighty rage: I'm just a mild thing, comparatively). Barbarian also ups the complexity, even without exceptionalism, by adding another pool to track. Everyone has to track hp, and this is fine. But the rage rounds/day means that you now have to track two pools. This isn't that onerous, and, in fact, is kind of cool, but is a thing to note for later.
> cleric; a cleric has a pool of channel energy, domains, and spells. Honestly, the cleric is probably the "cleanest" of the spellcasters, in terms of exception-based effects. Buuuuuuuu~uuuuuuut... secretly, each spell is its own exception-based mechanic. Of course, each spell level is a different pool of magical energies you have to track, in addition to the channel energy pool, and... your domain abilities (some of which have individual abilities that require tracking). So you have a variable host of exception-based mechanics, each of which comes for a different pool of resources. Your domain spells specifically tap into each of those pools and once extra, while your spellcasting is always limited to what you prepare, unless you're using a cure/inflict effect (based on your alignment, unless it's based on your deity). Despite all of that, cleric is one of the simplest full casters in the game.
> bard; a bard is pretty decent at less complications, but doing so through more exceptions. It has the spells, same as a cleric (albeit without the exceptionalism of domains, domain spells, and prepared v. spontaneous; also the spontaneous reduces complexity), and it has a pool of performance to keep track of increasing complication (not to mention the sometimes-fiddly interaction between performance and other rules); but it has bardic knowledge, versatile performance, lore master (which also has a pool to track), and jack of all trades - all of which are about bypassing typical skill rules by way of exceptions, but all of which (exception being loremaster) tend to simplify gameplay. They also have well versed, which... well... okay. It's a thing.
You can also compare druid (shapechange pool; exceptions to the polymorph rules), monk (I just... I don't want to get into it; "exceptions: the class"), paladin ("I'm immune to <things>, also putting stat bonuses where they don't belong, also..."), ranger (not bad, but so daggum fiddly), and of course sorcerers and wizards. Sorcerers have bloodlines that treat undead as if they weren't (but only certain kinds), while wizards have... look, wizards are just... they're the worst. I love them, but they're the worst.
And the problem is not one design decision (exception based), but three: exception-based, contingent/dependent variables, and an over-abundance of pools to track, which combine to make many of things rather unintuitive. (This is a similar issue, I find, to running mythic and why it becomes problematic in its own way; and, bear in mind, I loooooooooooooooooooooooove mythic.)
And I think this is where NH's problems start to come in.
I think the flaws with the exception-based design system start to come into sharper relief when a) you have an abundance of exceptions to work at, and b) you have a large number of fiddly bits (even non-exceptions) to be mindful of, and c) you have to track whether there's more of <this> remaining at certain points in the day, you start to have to keep track of an aaawwwful lot of things. And that means that it becomes difficult for you to figure out which ones apply in a particular context.
That last part is important - because even if something isn't intuitive, if the system is "consistent" enough in how it's designed (even with exception-based conceptualization) and "finite" enough in its scope you can generally get a handle on how it works. When your exceptions are extremely specific, however, it becomes hard for people to figure out how things are working.
I love PF. I have problems with PF.
PF2 looks like it keeps the complexity of PF, which... okay. It does, however, look like it tried to clean up a lot of things (there is an apparent flow and organization to some elements of the PF2 books that, at least, feels a little better based on quick perusal), though, as I've not had time to go in-depth I can't say for sure.
But I think while exception-based systems are not inherently problematic or incorrect, and complexity is delightful, there comes an upper saturation point which, when sometimes-oddly (dis)organized as PF can be in some of its books (inherited from older systems that were slightly less complex) it can lead to weird problems, especially when PF tries to straddle that line between heavy codification and "casual" language.
* Alas, this isn't Discord, so he won't necessarily notice that I "@"'d him. Technically he wouldn't in Discord, unless I put the "@" symbol, but still.
** No. Nope. Shut it. Doesn't matter. Hush.
Well, that's way too much, and is probably wrong. But I felt like writing it and have over the past several hours while playing with a kid.
Short version: "Hey, everybody, I'm on your side!"
EDIT: ninja'd by a dragon! How humiliating! They're huge and have crap dexterity, meaning their initiative should be tanked, and they should be the worst at stealth! Alas!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: ninja'd by a dragon! How humiliating! They're huge and have crap dexterity, meaning their initiative should be tanked, and they should be the worst at stealth! Alas!
I happen to play Shosuro Berserker* Infiltrator in Legend Of The Five Rings currently. Which is shinobi school, not ninja (which in 5th edition refers to mercenary assassin/spies, while the former term refers to loyal clan-serving assassin/spies).
*I have compromised and unmasked myself more times than the rest of the group together through the whole campaign with strong favor of rageunmasking, which has combat advantage/disadvantage (you get to inflict but also to suffer stronger critical hits).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only one day of teacher inservice week left. Classroom looks pretty great and my partner and I went shopping for minor stuff today, worked on little details. We're going to be very ready, except for the things we forget to tell our new intern about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, intentionally a bit snarky here, but blame my Lawful side:
...that's also what made it exciting to encounter new monsters......Yes, you do. You're the GM. You can rip pages out and do what you want...When a game system requires that I throw out the rules to make encounters exciting, or rewrite monsters in my AP to suit my party, I think that's a clear indicator that the game system is faulty.
Honestly, all we want is a system where the same rule set applies to every piece on the board. It works in every other RPG we've played (Runequest, Call of Cthulu, Champions, Tunnels and Trolls, Bunnies and Burrows, D&D 1.0, Traveller, Shadowrun, and I'm sure more that I'm forgetting). I can't think of another system that says, "Well, the bad guys follow this rule set, and the good guys follow that one."
So why is it that Pathfinder keeps saying, "Well, this rule is inconvenient for this creature, so we're going to make it ignore it?"
A well-prepared party SHOULD be protected from the attacks they're expecting. I don't consider, "Well, you prepared correctly, but my creature ignores that protective spell because I want it to," to be particularly "exciting".
HAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm pretty sure Freehold sabotaged my saw so the water hose would come off and spray me in the face three times because of my milkmaid gloating.
Correction; Four times it came off and sprayed me in the face.
After that I got out the old saw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm saying is NARF
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*groan*
Another morning. Why do they make them in the first place?!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
NEW TRUCK!!!!!!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last day of setup before the new school term! I'm so excited! I'm going to try to go in early to get as much done as I can before faculty meeting. I refinished the work folder rack yesterday, so it should be dry enough to put the hanging folders in this morning, and I need to laminate the name cards for the classroom chores chart. And take out all the recycling. And finish my personal goals tracking worksheet for the boss. And about a hundred other little things. Can't wait to see the kids on Monday!
And one of my boys who is returning for his second year just became a big brother three days ago, which he was really excited about. And my friend Jessica just had her first child (a little girl) yesterday afternoon. And while these don't make me want another of my own, it DOES make me really excited for the Vagrant Erudite and Lord Synos. Because even when the child--or the circumstances--are difficult, children are pretty fantastic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and Hermione has her very first sleepover at a friend's house tonight (another faculty kid), so Val and I get some Mom-and-son time after school by ourselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't get through to the rapier semi-finals, but no matter - that means I can go to the sidesword class that's on at the same time, providing the field isn't underwater...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't particularly want to restart the argument,so I'll just leave it at that a lot of NH's complaints about 3e/PF1 are exactly what I love about the system.
That said I'm also very quick to throw out something I view as stupid or annoying and houserule over it, such as Breath of Life and Raise Dead not being able to bring someone back after a death effect. I never really understood why these abilities would be introduced about the same level as death magic and creatures with instant-death abilities, but then specify it doesn't work if those abilities were involved and make you wait four more levels for the higher level version. Thankfully that's an easy fix.
My FACE is an easy fix!
... wait, no, it’s not really that easy. And I don’t wanna spend the money. Take THAT plastic surgery!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unrelated math
You are/were a miniature subscriber? Since they stopped naming the sets after the adventure path arcs - is there a set that corresponds to Return of the Runelords?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't particularly want to restart the argument,so I'll just leave it at that a lot of NH's complaints about 3e/PF1 are exactly what I love about the system.
That said I'm also very quick to throw out something I view as stupid or annoying and houserule over it, such as Breath of Life and Raise Dead not being able to bring someone back after a death effect. I never really understood why these abilities would be introduced about the same level as death magic and creatures with instant-death abilities, but then specify it doesn't work if those abilities were involved and make you wait four more levels for the higher level version. Thankfully that's an easy fix.
There was an argument!? Man, why do you guys have all the fun while I'm at work!
Very well, here goes!
"How dare you! The nerve! This would never have happened if Mister Belvedere was there! Colonel Mustard! Lead pipe! In the ballroom, motherf##~er!! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!".
That should cover all my bases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I didn't think of it as an argument. A reasonable disagreement over design philosophy.
Gonna ask for a favor: could several of you send me some PMs? Nothing in particular. I’m just trying to figure out if I can see when I’ve received in or not.
‘Sup?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I didn't think of it as an argument. A reasonable disagreement over design philosophy.
Maybe its just where I was raised but there's not really much difference between the words in my experience. It was certainly a civil argument no question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I didn't think of it as an argument. A reasonable disagreement over design philosophy.
It figures you'd say that!