ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]

  • 0 Posts
  • 88 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • that if one wants to argue hard, it’s best to start with some politeness where possible.

    Wow, you’re a real fucking peice of work - you’re going to complain about people being impolite while running interference for a genocide? I’m not even talking about the post, I’m talking about your comments in this thread - equating Israeli society falling with the genocide of the individuals who make it up? Really? They can just fuck off back to europe where they belong, while they are actually genociding palestinians in an attempt to destroy the country entirely. Accusing others of wanting to do what your side IS ACTIVELY DOING, right now, as we speak, is exactly why you don’t get civil replies; there’s no reason to be civil to genocide supporters. You’ve done nothing to deserve civility. You’re just complete fucking scum.




  • This is completely standard, Paizo have always given the rules for free and made you pay for the stories and lore.
    It’s not even a starter set, it’s the playtest, so you already need to be familiar with Pathfinder 2e in order to use the rules. Definitely not a place for a group to test the waters, they’re looking for serious dweebs to obsess over the maths and mechanics so they can refine it - the playtest adventure(s) are just playgrounds for them to do that it.






  • The 3.x tarrasque became a joke, but that was a result of the extensive options combined with people’s system understanding - sure a single wizard could kill it, but that still needed to be played by someone who understood the system. It was a system that gave unlimited options, so if you worked out how to combine enough of them you could break the system wide open, and the tarrasque was a great yardstick for that.

    Then you come to 5e’s tarrasque and it’s so badly designed that it’s obvious from a glance that a level 1 character with flight can just hover above it and plink it down with a bow. I’ve seen 3.5’s brought up in comparison to that, but not as an example of difficult fights in a vacuum.


  • No, equating alignment and morality makes them both meaningless. Morality should be tied to outlooks/philosophies etc, a personal matter of how the individual acts in a situation, while alignment with the forces of good/evil/law/chaos should be a matter of absolute determinism. It’s easy to look at D&D and say it’s wrong, but just because something’s bad in D&D doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad.







  • Counterpoint: The overwhelming majority of curses are either crippling or a complete nonissue. Something like mummy rot will quickly kill a character, and curses that impose penalties on stats or rolls either affect something they use, making the character almost useless, or doesn’t, so doesn’t matter. If you don’t want the party remove cursing a specific curse, just make it more powerful than them.
    Counterspelling is bad for a similar reason curses are bad, not remove curse - the overwhelming majority of counterspelling mechanics make it either too easy to too hard. Too hard and it’s just not worth trying, and too easy makes combat a matter of who has more casters.





  • I had both of these in A-level biology somehow. One week we were taught by the ex nurse who was constantly exasperated by us not knowing stuff like how coronary bypass surgeries are performed, and the next a former primary school teacher who would have us doing cutting and sticking exercises on ATP transfer or DNA sequencing. Neither particularly improved our understanding of biology.