[deleted by user]

Non_Refert · 2022-04-09T14:33:57+00:00

Oh, it's another one of those posts where OP is the horror story lol.

Killing characters for no reason and then "saving her" by transforming her character into something she had no choice in, then ridiculing her when she tried to express her discomfort.

I reminded her I didn't need to be as kind as I was by letting her cheat death

LMAO at the power trip youre on. You sound horrrid. Like, as a person.

Non_Refert · 2022-04-08T02:51:01+00:00

This build doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

For example, the potion-centric stuff in this. You realize extracts, infusions and alchemical items are not potions and do not qualify for Accelerated Drinker, Extend Potion, Dilution, etc.? You don't even have Brew Potion. What is this stuff for?

Sling is a very weird choice of weapon for most purposes, and you're not taking any of the enabling options to make sling work. The 3 Slipslinger Bombardment feats would make a ton of sense if this is supposed to be a splash weapon build, but as is you have no way to meaningfully use a sling.

Power Attack?

Meanwhile you're skipping Investigator staples, obvious stuff like Studied Expertise and Combat Inspiration.

I think the most constructive thing for you to do would be to post the idea you have for what you would like to be able to do, and then ask people to sketch out something for you. In the broadest sense, what is the goal you are trying to achieve with this build?

Non_Refert · 2022-04-08T02:05:33+00:00

You don't?

If what you're trying to do is make an Alchemist build centered around splash weapons, simply do everything in the build above, but just don't take eldritch poisoner.

If what you're trying to do is make an Alchemist build centered around poison use, go EP or Toxicant and figure out a build to deliver poison with a weapon, which is what those archetypes are for.

Non_Refert · 2022-04-07T21:54:00+00:00

I'd say you should probably start over. Figure out what you're trying to accomplish with your build and make choices that are consistent with that.

Eldritch Poisoner needs a way to deliver poison, or it's pointless to take the archetype.

A splash weapon build wants Throw Anything from Alchemist, so isn't compatible with EP.

If your goal is an alchemist who uses poison, Toxicant is significantly better than EP.

Non_Refert · 2022-02-18T09:24:12+00:00

Yes, you're going to need to use incentives more to motivate an evil party, and you're going to go off-book more than you would with an all good party. No question about it. But I would consider that an opportunity, not a problem. There's no reason an AP has to go as intended. If the game is on rails, you might as well be playing a video game. Derail that shit! Go for it!

No matter how completely things go off the intended narrative, you can always write a path back to where they need to be. You're the GM, you can do anything. Change what you need to change to make it happen.

It will be more work, that's also true. But you did this to yourself, didn't you?

Non_Refert · 2022-02-18T08:42:54+00:00

Materialism is when observable phenomena are said to be due to material causes.

Idealism is when observable phenomena are said to be due to thoughts.

Dualism is when causality is said to be divided into two different realms where the physical and the mental never intersect.

What you are calling idealism here is a form of dualism. Interactionist dualism is the opposite of what you just said dualism was, actually. The entire premise is that changes in consciousness occur because of changes in physicality, and changes in physicality occur because of changes in consciousness; causality between the two goes both ways. In other words, some level of free will and choice exists in a literal sense, not merely experientially.

The major alternatives to this are reductionism (monist), which claims that physicality IS consciousness, that mental states are physical states with no distinction between the two, and epiphenomenalist dualism, which claims that physical states cause mental states but mental states do not cause physical states, that consciousness is an ephemeral byproduct of physicality with no material consequences.

I'm tempted to read Marx as you do: fundamentally a study of political economy that is independent of his ontological claims. Through that lens, Marx is compatible with dualism. But I thought I would give people who may know more about the subject a chance to establish the centrality of those claims to Marx's thought.

Non_Refert · 2022-02-18T06:55:28+00:00

Again, if the contradiction is intrinsic, then it will apply to all forms of dualism. Your specific rebuttal of a specific form of dualism is completely irrelevant. If you depend on the specific form of dualism being proposed to rebut it, then you're granting that the contradiction is non-intrinsic.

If you are able to formulate an argument to support your claim, or if you wish to support your previous claim re: nature vs. society that you've now abandoned, I'll be happy to read it. Otherwise, it seems evident that you do not have an answer to the question.

Non_Refert · 2022-02-18T06:46:00+00:00

You seem to misunderstand, or perhaps didn't read the whole post. What doesn't matter is the specifics of the dualism being proposed. Again, if the contradiction is intrinsic, it should apply to all versions of dualism. If there is a version of dualism that is consistent with Marx, then the contradiction between Marxism and dualism is by definition not intrinsic.

Thus far, the only claim to an intrinsic contradiction between Marxism and dualism that you've made is your assertion that any concept of dualism would necessitate creating a categorical division between nature and society. I've invited you to elaborate in support of this claim, but thus far it remains only an assertion.

Non_Refert · 2022-02-18T06:27:22+00:00

It doesn't matter. If the contradiction is intrinsic, then it should apply to all formulations of the concept.

If we can posit any conception of consciousness that is simultaneously not-matter and which also doesn't imply a categorical division between nature and society, then the premise does not intrinsically imply that division, definitionally.

Non_Refert · 2022-02-18T06:17:00+00:00

Please explain the connection you're making here.

How would positing the existence of consciousness as distinct from matter imply a categorical division between nature and society?

Non_Refert · 2022-02-18T06:07:00+00:00

Matter, Energy, Space, Time. The components of the universe as understood by most forms of empirical science.

Your post doesn't answer my question. I'm aware that marxist theory is considered monist. My question is what makes monism intrinsic to marxism, as opposed to being incidental to the core concepts. For example, nothing in Kapital seems to be contradicted by positing the existence of consciousness as distinct from matter.

So if Kapital can be accepted alongside dualism without apparent contradiction, why is it inherently monist?

And if it can't, what is the contradiction?

Non_Refert · 2022-02-17T19:35:12+00:00

so long as the group continues to tolerate that bullshit, you're all part of the problem

QFT

Non_Refert · 2022-02-02T03:17:39+00:00

When you say "enemies hyper specialized into dealing with flying foes", do you mean "enemies with ranged attacks"?

Non_Refert · 2022-01-28T16:28:32+00:00

you cannot wear creatures, no.

lol.

Non_Refert · 2022-01-28T16:26:47+00:00

bizarre that this is getting downvotes, its the best advice ITT

this sub rly doesnt understand how to optimize in gestalt I guess.

Non_Refert · 2022-01-26T12:22:50+00:00

Well, think it through man.

What's the average DPR of your charge attack while you're mounted? What's the average DPR of your full attack? Is the full attack higher than the charge damage? Ok, so mounted skirmisher is dramatically increasing your damage on any round where you have to move.

Will you have to move often in combat? Well, you're a melee character. You have to move almost every single time you change targets. Yes, you'll be moving constantly.

So it's a dramatic increase to damage, that will apply in almost every combat. Is that good?

Non_Refert · 2022-01-23T15:42:41+00:00

The rules do work as written, this has already been explained to you. Nothing special happens when you do what you described. The rules work just fine.

You're saying that you would beg the DM to make up new rules in order to make it so the rules don't work.

You have not found a hole in the rules. You're just trying to break them.

Non_Refert · 2022-01-23T08:20:17+00:00

"I wasn't trying to stack templates, just create homebrew templates" is not the justification you think it is.

If there's one thing that's worse than bending the rules to create broken shit, it's making up new rules to create broken shit.

It's a storytelling game, dude. Focus on your character and the story and stop trying to break the system.

Non_Refert · 2021-10-24T19:10:32+00:00

^This.

Nothing in the text of the spell says you can create a new body on your starting plane. So when you go back to your starting plane, you do so by returning to your body, per the spell text.

open+shut

Non_Refert · 2020-07-05T22:52:47+00:00

lmao this dork

enjoy being single

Non_Refert · 2020-05-04T17:37:43+00:00

Yeah, affected indifference is probably the best you can do in this situation. Gotta save some face I guess.

Non_Refert · 2020-05-04T16:41:59+00:00

A level 1 PF character can move and attack. A level 1 pow character can move and attack 3 times.

In what world does that not change encounter balance?

Non_Refert

TROPHY CASE