PrimeJunta

How are you going to do that? I propose that we start by (1) identifying ways in which people are systematically being treated unfairly due to their 'race', and (2) fixing those problems, starting with the ones that impact the largest group of people most negatively. Ideas will follow as practices change. Going ideology-first strikes me as futile.

Aside from the initial definition I already posted? Alternative word. Surely you agree that the definition I posted defines a concept? If you don't want to use the word 'racism' for that concept, I'm asking you for some other word you do want to use for it. One that is in the dictionary, naturally, since you insist on that. We need a word for the concept to be able to discuss it, you know. In that case, you're failing.

@Amentep You're the one who brought up different types of racism. In that analogy, it's not all measles, it's a range of viruses, ranging from nosedrip to Ebola. IMO it is worth ignoring the nosedrip while attempting to eradicate Ebola and measles. Moreso as it's arguable that "reverse racism" is to a large extent a reaction to systemic racism. Reduce systemic racism and "reverse racism" will be reduced with it. The converse, however, is much less true.

@KaineParker Indeed. Can you provide an alternative word for the concept defined in the "Racism (Sociological)" link I posted? One that's in "the dictionary," naturally. I'm betting there isn't one, because "racism" is the word generally used for that concept. Language is inherently imprecise and words have multiple meanings. I find it more productive to clarify the meanings as we go. So if we want to discuss racism (sociological), we're pretty much stuck with the word. Unless, of course, your motive in posting the dictionary definition is to shut down discussion of the topic altogether. Is it?

@Amentep Do you also feel that measles vaccinations are pointless unless you can eradicate all infectious diseases forever?

There isn't a simple command code for that since the level-up tables don't exist past 12. I'd expect it'd be possible to mod them in, but it's certainly more than just removing an arbitrary limitation.

^ Aka punching up vs punching down.

@MLMII and others: "accepting" a dictionary definition, or not, is completely bone-headed. The only thing that matters is that communication happens. If one person is using "racism" to mean one thing and another person is using it to mean another thing, they will be talking (and eventually shouting) past one another, with no meaningful thoughts exchanged. Words don't have fixed definitions. They change over time and depending on context. "Racism" happens to have several. Quoting one is not an "I WIN TEH DEBATE!" button. I posted that link to demonstrate that there are well-established and relatively clearly defined alternative definitions for 'racism' and it's nonsensical to claim that someone using such an alternative definition is 'using the word wrong.' Now that you've got the sociological definition, it'll be possible to discuss whether the definition describes something that actually exists in society or not. (Or, for example, whether and how it's applicable to other societies than contemporary 'Murica. American-style systemic racism against blacks is a relatively new phenomenon where I'm from, for example, simply because when I was a kid there were so few blacks here you'd be more likely to get your picture in the local paper as a curiosity than have someone assume you're a ganster, drug dealer, or putative terrorist. OTOH if you were Roma, well, good luck 'cuz you'd need it.) That discussion is IMO much more interesting than which definition is 'right.' I'm not in the mood for it ATM however, but if anyone else is, I will be looking in.

Compensating much?

Sociological definition of racism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekicwvk3410

When you recruit a companion they will be in your party. So yeah definitely that invalidates the achievement, even if you dismiss them immediately after.

Of course it's annoying, it was intended as an insult. And as you say, if the "W" is the problem, for every social justice militant I'll raise you two militating for social injustice. That part at least is definitely pot, kettle.

"SJW" was intended as an insult. I find it's often more effective to own such attempts rather than try to fight them. I have, however, started referring to the Other Side as "SIJW's." If our side is for justice, by implication the other side is for injustice. Nice and symmetrical. I can live with these terms.

You can get everyone into position for a ranged opening though, all in peace and quiet, even with 0 stealth. You just have to stay a little bit further back. Since the opening is usually ranged anyway I find this gives an unfair advantage. It doesn't apply to backstabs though, for that you'd definitely want to crank up stealth -- except that only being able to backstab once per encounter (since you can't re-stealth except with Shadowing Beyond) kind of makes the investment not really worth it. Yes, very much this.

@Zwiebelchen... That's an intriguing idea. I have a feeling though that it might make light armor dominate even for tanks, especially if we're retaining the armor recovery penalty. Stacking deflection would mean not getting hit in the first place, which means you wouldn't even need DR. Wouldn't apply to attacks targeting something other than Deflection of course...

Add my vote to the "partial VO only" file please. I understand the production-related reasons you decided to go this way, and I trust the text is that much better for it. Please keep it that way.

In re the production process, I'm not at all surprised things like monster stats and spell effects aren't ideally fun at this point. For a long time in the BB the combat was borderline unplayable for a variety of reasons. They hammered it into reasonable shape for the release. Adjusting things from that point to provide more variety in challenges etc should be pretty easy. (Of course we can continue to speculate about Josh's "philosophy" and whether that means that everything should be the same everywhere or not, but, as I said before, I don't think that's particularly productive.) So, in summary, some "numbers changes" I'd like to see that I think would make a big difference for variety and challenge -- these are all easy and (probably) involve no or very little programming: Convert status effect grazes to misses. This would make resistances to status effects much more important; as it is, a graze is as good as a hit a lot of the time, whereas it really should be more or less like a miss. Bump up the high resistances across the board. Using fire against a fire-breathing dragon really shouldn't work at all. Add high resistances to specific status effects. It doesn't make sense to be able to Knockdown or Blind and ooze for example, and I wouldn't mind if Vessels and Spirits were immune to Paralyze or Poison. Nerf stealth. As it is you can sneak up on anything even with 0, 1, or 2 pips in Stealth. That's just unfair and makes for a dominant strategy. Five pips would feel about right for the way stealth works now; that's a significant investment so it should have some payoff. As it is, the detection radius should trip at visual range for anything below that, with the pips up to 5 only slowing down the way the circle fills. Buff special attacks. I liked it when poison was a Big Deal during the BB. Now you can mostly just shrug it off. Make Arcane Veil a short-duration near-immunity to physical damage, but have firearms ignore it, like in the original idea. Some changes that would require a bit more work or adjustments to existing mechanics, but that I think would also contribute greatly to variety and fun in tactics and strategies, without requiring major or fundamental revisions: Get rid of the combat-only flags. I believe they're there largely due to difficulties saving the game state (which is somewhat buggy as it is). Individual stealth. Even better, with detection cones rather than circles. In-combat stealth, e.g. as a Rogue per-encounter special ability. Backstabs FTW! Invisibility spells. Counters built into the spells. "Haste" type spells counter "slow" and "paralysis" effects, "healing" spells counter poison, and so on and so forth. Bring back the original armor mechanic (DR + DT rather than DT only). (This one is probably out.) Relate CON to armor, e.g. make it reduce the recovery penalty. It's currently too dumpy.

Sounds optimistic. I believe Steam has about 80% of the market share for this sort of thing. So 300,000 is more realistic at this point. (I believe the physical non-backer versions are Steam also.) It seems to be doing well enough though. A million in a year isn't unrealistic.

Yeah that sounds a bit... borderline. I've tried it on a MacBook Pro with 2.9 GHz Core i7 and Intel HD Graphics 4000, and it runs great at medium/low settings on the built-in monitor. On a large external monitor at full rez... not so much.

Well awesome, that means the hooks are already there, all that's needed is to use them. I have a mild preference for resistances over immunities actually, because it opens the way for attacks that reduce them. I have an especial liking for BG2 strategies that involve whittling down magic resistance for example; I would like to see similar mechanics used elsewhere.

@Casildar You're right, I stand corrected. It's on page 59 of the 2nd edition sourcebook BTW. There's also a clause that if two characters are engaging a single enemy, one of them can withdraw without the free attack.

Irony alert. What does Josh like? I'm certainly finding PoEs systems more puzzling than anything in the mad-as-a-box-of-frogs 2nd Ed AD&D. You keep saying this, which keeps puzzling me as I find P:E's mechanics incredibly straightforward and transparent, perhaps even too much so. What exactly is puzzling you?

Humm... hey, maybe you're right. I was kind of assuming that it'd be possible to give higher resistances (and therefore also immunities) to specific status effects at least, e.g. Prone. I don't think it'd be necessary to distinguish between, say, Slicken and Knockdown for this to work; just have some enemies which can't be Blinded, Paralyzed, or Prone'd. If the system really doesn't allow for that then yeah, that does need fixing.