Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Warforged having a gender identity at all bothered me a bit in the beginnig, but they learn from observation, so them identifying as one or the other as they preferred made somewhat sense.

I had always ruled they came out of the forge identical and genderless, but could alter their appearance to look gendered with a hammer and some time.

[Rawbeard]

physically they were always genderless/male-ish, it was always "they identify as X". I actually have no idea if 4e changed anything about that.

[Prak]

I'm basically just disappointed since Eberron that neither Changelings nor Warforged were set up as "gender binary need not apply." And that there still isn't a good race with that as the canon fluff.

That I'm aware of.

If I remember right a male changeling could turn into female and get knocked up, so I assumed gender fluidity was just a thing too obvious to mention past this point. Warforged having a gender identity at all bothered me a bit in the beginnig, but they learn from observation, so them identifying as one or the other as they preferred made somewhat sense.

(Eberron) Changelings really should be genderfluid by default. The whole "true gender" thing is bullshit that's borderline offensive (since "true gender" is a thing that actual trans people have to deal with being asked about).

Warforged suffer from the Western "Neutral gender equals male" ideology that plagues pretty much every constructed race in fiction. It's very common, and very annoying.

Pathfinder has the Ghoran, who are somewhat like that. Ones that interact with other groups might choose to appear male, female, or neither, but those who don't are confused by the whole idea of gender.

However they are also weird plant people who are all around 4,000 years old, so I wouldn't necessarily call them a good race.

That sounds sort of cool, even though it would make more sense for plant people to be hermaphroditic.

[Eikre]

There are also "gender words" which are the words which actually are themselves a description of gender. Like, "masculinity" is a "gender word." And you never fucking see people use the adjective "gender" because it refers to a very obscure thing. The word "gender" alone as an adjective exists, but its a weird construction.

That's actually still not an adjective, that's a genitive noun. It's like "patio door" or "police car." It's not a morphological case anymore like it was in Old English or Latin, but it's still a thing.

Point being, you're correct without caveat. "Gender" isn't an adjective in any fashion.

Gendered (adjective: having a particular gender) is an analogue of sexed (adjective: having a particular sex), and not the past tense of any verb.

Yes it is, it's a verb of the past participle. A dictionary will tell you that the participle is an adjective but dictionaries are tools for laymen and if we are entertaining a nuanced discussion about how wrong Grek was about linguistics, we can stand to be significantly more high-minded.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

[Eikre]

Calling somebody out for arguing semantics is perhaps a valid observation when they're being anal about an otherwise clearly inferred point, but we really are just arguing about parts of speech. That is the actual subject of this branch of the conversation.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

But it's a cat wearing a tie!

[Eikre]

This is true. I concede entirely.

[ishy]

Nauseated and Actions: Does the nauseated condition really mean what it says when it says “The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn” or does it just mean I can’t take a standard action?

The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”

So, I guess you can't drop your weapon or drop prone anymore while nauseated. You can't stand up either, since that is not a move action, but a move equivalent action.

[TOZ]

Oh don't start that stupid shit here. You can still do that, you just have to take different actions to accomplish it.

You want to argue, argue about the necessity of that decision, not 'hurr can't drop my weapon now'.

[Kaelik]

Oh don't start that stupid shit here. You can still do that, you just have to take different actions to accomplish it.

You want to argue, argue about the necessity of that decision, not 'hurr can't drop my weapon now'.

No you really can't do that. Things that are free actions cannot be done in a move action. There is no rule that allows that.

It's obviously stupid because anything that allows you to take a move action should allow you to take free actions, because they are free fucking actions.

You can see why Swift Actions being prevented is a thing that could make sense, because quickened spells exist, but for fucks sake free actions are free.

[TOZ]

No you really can't do that. Things that are free actions cannot be done in a move action. There is no rule that allows that.

Nope, you just use the 'manipulate object' action rather than 'drop item' action to put your weapon down. You can argue that you shouldn't have to do that, not that you can't do it at all.

You can see why Swift Actions being prevented is a thing that could make sense, because quickened spells exist, but for fucks sake free actions are free.

But it doesn't because nauseated already said you can't cast any spells while nauseated.

[zugschef]

A move-action and a move-equivalent action are the same fuckin thing for all technical purposes. If they wanted to make the case that you can't do anything else than move from point a to point b then the spell would have to explicitly state that.

A move action allows you to move your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Move Actions.

And there is an explicit rule allowing you to take free actions whenever you are allowed to take any type of action.

Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/action ... reeActions

[Kaelik]

Nope, you just use the 'manipulate object' action rather than 'drop item' action to put your weapon down. You can argue that you shouldn't have to do that, not that you can't do it at all.

So what you are saying is "The rules don't say I can't use a completely different action type to do something, so I declare I can!"

Yeah, that's called you being an idiot. Manipulating an object is not dropping it. You can houserules that manipulating an object allows you to fall prone or drop a weapon, but the rules don't actually let you do that.

Also side not, as a lawyer, it's really fucking funny to watch someone try to argue that the specific wording of an effect that is literally copy and pasted from a different rule set was "intended" to deprive people of free actions based on rules that weren't present in the original.

And there is an explicit rule allowing you to take free actions whenever you are allowed to take any type of action.

Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/action ... reeActions

Except that if you are deprived from taking free actions, you are still deprived from taking free actions during a move action.

So you still can't drop prone or drop a weapon.

[TOZ]

Also side not, as a lawyer, it's really fucking funny to watch someone try to argue that the specific wording of an effect that is literally copy and pasted from a different rule set was "intended" to deprive people of free actions based on rules that weren't present in the original.

Oh I'm not saying that. That's Paizo's goof with this new FAQ.

[Kaelik]

Also side not, as a lawyer, it's really fucking funny to watch someone try to argue that the specific wording of an effect that is literally copy and pasted from a different rule set was "intended" to deprive people of free actions based on rules that weren't present in the original.

Oh I'm not saying that. That's Paizo's goof with this new FAQ.

No, that's not Paizo's goof. The FAQ just says "no free actions" you are the one arguing that the rules actually say that for reasons.

[Pixels]

So, I guess you can't drop your weapon or drop prone anymore while nauseated.

Or, you know, talk. I look forward to the moment some asshole PFS GM tells a player to shut up because they're nauseated and can't speak. Hurray for terrible rulings.

[Kaelik]

So, I guess you can't drop your weapon or drop prone anymore while nauseated.

Or, you know, talk. I look forward to the moment some asshole PFS GM tells a player to shut up because they're nauseated and can't speak. Hurray for terrible rulings.

Meh, talking has always been something I sort of understand, in that the condition implies throwing up in your mouth levels of nausea, not "man I ate something I shouldn't have" levels.

[hyzmarca]

Warforged suffer from the Western "Neutral gender equals male" ideology that plagues pretty much every constructed race in fiction. It's very common, and very annoying.

By convention, computers and robots are male, ships, cities, and countries are female.

If you build a giant robot the size of a city or a country, then things get confusing.

[Prak]

Warforged suffer from the Western "Neutral gender equals male" ideology that plagues pretty much every constructed race in fiction. It's very common, and very annoying.

By convention, computers and robots are male, ships, cities, and countries are female.

If you build a giant robot the size of a city or a country, then things get confusing.

Well, more like, by convention, anything humanoid without tits is treated as male. Hence dragon tits, because people wouldn't know that female dragonborns weren't male without lumps of fat on their chest.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Dragontits were the best part of 4E.

[TOZ]

No, that's not Paizo's goof. The FAQ just says "no free actions" you are the one arguing that the rules actually say that for reasons.

No, I'm arguing that other actions can accomplish what people are saying the FAQ prohibits characters from doing. I'm not saying there is a reason for the FAQ to be this way, other than the PDT being pants-on-head.

[Kaelik]

No, I'm arguing that other actions can accomplish what people are saying the FAQ prohibits characters from doing. I'm not saying there is a reason for the FAQ to be this way, other than the PDT being pants-on-head.

Well you are still completely wrong and full of shit.

Also that's not all you were saying, since you also said "You want to argue, argue about the necessity of that decision, not 'hurr can't drop my weapon now'."

Which means that even though you are wrong about not being able to drop your weapon, you still thing no one should be allowed to argue that point.

[TOZ]

No, I just think you're fucking stupid if you take up that argument, because it IS fucking stupid.

[Kaelik]

No, I just think you're fucking stupid if you take up that argument, because it IS fucking stupid.

You are right, it is really stupid to judge rules by whether or not they create bad effects for games.

We should instead judge rules based on whether or not they make us feel good inside. Go back to the Paizo forums, you fit right in there.