SKR quotables

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:04 am

Wiseman wrote:I heard that one of the developers said that "interacting" with an illusion means either touching it or taking a standard action to specifically examine it.

Makes sense to me.

darkmaster · Post by **darkmaster** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:20 pm

Can we please stop talking about English longbows, it's making my joints ache.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:23 pm

More SKR quotables rescued from the Den's Pathfinder thread:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Is it really that terrible to want an iconic character concept to be good enough for normal play?
I think it's terrible to want a deliberately crippled character concept to be "good enough" that he's effectively not crippled.

Strangely, I don't see this sort of hubbub about the lack of options in the game to make the "blind warrior" iconic character concept "good enough for normal play."

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Yet the blind seer(oracle), is not only playable but gets a pretty nice bonus for giving up their sight, as do all the disabled options for the oracle.
Power of the gods > ascetic serenity

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Clerics worshiping a concept or idea get the same power as clerics worshiping a god, presumably because of the strength of their own will/faith/devotion. Wouldn't ascetic serenity be something like that level of devotion?
When a 20th-level monk is throwing about the equivalent of 3 9th-level cleric spells per day, that may be a valid comparison.

Also, referring back to idilippy's comment about the blind oracle: an oracle with the clouded vision curse isn't really blind in the sense that the "blind warrior" iconic character concept is blind. The oracle is super-nearsighted, the blind warrior is actually blind, can't see at all.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:32 pm

Thanks for the nice cup of SEETHING RAGE, OgreBattle. This is the SKR I know and hate.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:48 pm

Same SKR btw:

[url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lbda?Oracles-Awesome-Display-Question#16 wrote:SKR[/url]]In other words, don't use roleplaying to balance mechanics, and don't use mechanics to balance roleplaying.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:19 am

Dude's like a stopped clock. Or me. Can't help but be right occasionally.

Having said that, you can totally use penalty-cancelling mechanics to balance the penalty mechanics you got loaded with for roleplay reasons. Like being blind. Those penalties are for temporarily blinded characters and monsters, not something you want to play with all the time. And they have to cost something because you're logically immune to blindness and darkness afterward.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:08 am

I guess we won't be seeing as much of SKR from now on.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:17 am

Oh Fuck Yes! This news makes me very happy.

So, do you think he actually quit, or was he fired/encouraged to leave?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:19 am

TiaC wrote: So, do you think he actually quit, or was he fired/encouraged to leave?

Is Jodi his wife? Well she seems to need to move to go to law school, so SKR is going with her.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:56 pm

Welp.

As much as I hate SKR his contributions were always good to give me some entertainment. Not sure what I'll get out of PF without him there.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:35 pm

Seerow wrote:Not sure what I'll get out of PF without him there.

We'll still have Jason Buhlman. He's no SKR, but that's like noting that Chris Rock is no Richard Pryor.

Tumbling Down · Post by **Tumbling Down** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:02 pm

James Jacobs is still around too, isn't he?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:19 pm

OgreBattle wrote:
TiaC wrote: So, do you think he actually quit, or was he fired/encouraged to leave?
Is Jodi his wife? Well she seems to need to move to go to law school, so SKR is going with her.

While he very well may be moving with his wife who is going to law school, he also said that this is totally amicable and works out great with where his and [some guy's] professional goals.

Which means that even if he didn't have this excuse, they damn sure didn't want him working on Pathfinder II anyway.

CCarter · Post by **CCarter** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:54 pm

A bit sad. Initially I thought 'hey maybe I'll go do some writing on his own' but then I realized without 3.x/Pathfinder providing some sort of framework to work inside he'd probably just turn out 3d7 roll-under systems or something too awful to even bother wasting mockery on

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:51 am

CCarter wrote:A bit sad. Initially I thought 'hey maybe I'll go do some writing on his own' but then I realized without 3.x/Pathfinder providing some sort of framework to work inside he'd probably just turn out 3d7 roll-under systems or something too awful to even bother wasting mockery on

Apparently he's working on a novel.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:24 am

I seriously can't read anything written by SKR without raging at the sheer intellectual dishonesty.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:55 am

I found this one.

He's seriously saying that a pathfinder character shouldn't do awesome stuff like Batman, but should instead be a shitty realistic dude unable to do anything special.

So don't complain when your mundane guy try something cool and fail miserably. It's not a bug, it's a game-design decision, because reality is not a batman movie.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:04 am

The mundane aspects of the game have to try model mundane reality, otherwise the player has no frame of reference to understand what they can do without magic. Using the "it's magic" (aka "a wizard did it") is a cheesy excuse to cover weak game design.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Mon May 26, 2014 11:05 am

fighters have to suck, or people get confused

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon May 26, 2014 11:08 am

GâtFromKI wrote:So don't complain when your mundane guy try something cool and fail miserably. It's not a bug, it's a game-design decision, because reality is not a batman movie.

But that youtube video, is a scene from a movie.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Mon May 26, 2014 12:06 pm

ishy wrote:But that youtube video, is a scene from a movie.

I didn't know that. :/

But it's still a great representation of how a Pathfinder rogue should fight according to SKR.

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:04 pm

I found this one.

I'm sad that AMIB backed down so easily. SKR invokes bluff as an argument; but that actually didn't have anything at all to do with the examples in play.

Also, I can't believe that everybody let him get away with his strawman/red herring b.s. on Sneak Attack - people get away with sneak attack because of flanking. This, despite the fact that the sneaking by RAW is practically unusable for surprise in all but the most edge cases (a point he continues to avoid).

Additionally, SKR doesn't seem to understand the point of non-facing - rules that he himself helped to write. In that thread, he seems to be suggesting that a given creature has his head on a swivel every waking minute (unless specifically and explicitly distracted, that is).
The thing is, the non-facing/head-on-a-swivel conceit was for combat simplification and to help cover for instances where the players aren't actively involved in narrative positioning.
Either that, or they really were actively going out of their way to remove even the possibility of fun narrative elements from the game's skill system (and I refuse to believe that someone could intentionally be that cretinous).

And then there is his ABSOLUTE GEM from his previous post:

SKR wrote: [why to take 10]
And that's why take 10 is a convenience for the player, [...] , let's save the time rolling and not risk me failing [...]
[why NOT to take 10 - same post]
It takes the same amount of time in game whether you roll or take 10.

I'm not inappropriately taking anything out of context here. He really is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and his 2 arguments really do contradict each other in this respect.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:07 pm

It takes the same amount of time in game whether you roll or take 10.

I'd never heard of the guy before. This line alone convinced me that he's never actually played an RPG.

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:11 pm

Laertes wrote: I'd never heard of the guy before. This line alone convinced me that he's never actually played an RPG.

He was one of the "Big 3" co-authors/designers for D&D 3.0; and even a significant contributor to 3.5 (and now PF, apparently).

Which makes your observation VERY telling of his competence.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:13 pm

That would be why. I'm not a D&D player.