Abraham spalding's page

The rule wasn't crafted with a dual arcane/divine caster in mind. RAW doesn't really come into play. It was the 3pp's job to make it clear, not Pathfinder's.

You don't survive this long without a sense of humor. :)

So having less wealth per family in your state makes your richer?

Well, when that statement is considered in a vacuum, of course not.

When you add in cost of living, then it becomes a little more complicated.

See, that's the problem with quoting statistics without truly considering what they mean, and instead saying "hey; this seems to back my position. I think I'll quote this and shout PROOF!!! and hope nobody actually thinks about it."

The way I see role playing, we are engaging in a sort of cooperative story telling where the choices players do matter. In my experience haunts don't make for cooperative story telling at all. The only choice the majority of players have is to participate in them or not. Let me explain.

Right off the bat, haunts are a passive, reactive thing. With traps, you can kick into paranoid mode and start searching places you suspect there might be a trap. You can also do things like flying or spider climb to bypass suspected traps. There are also spells to detect traps and class abilities which help you deal with them. Haunts rob players of the option to prepare.

When you interact with a haunt, you are also bereft of choice. You make a Perception check, then you roll initiative. Players who made their Perception check AND act before initiative count 10 can do *something*. What exactly is that *something*? For many characters the only choice is to run away because only a small number of classes can deal effectively with a haunt with positive energy. Worse, even the few classes who can deal positive energy damage, often can't do enough to destroy the trap outright. Players are robbed of the ability to react effectively against haunts.

Essentially, haunts turn a cooperative story telling experience into a bizarre circus ride where a party of adventurers is strapped in, going from place to place, hoping whatever damage the haunt mechanics crank out is less than lethal, and spending resources patching up after the fact. It's sort of the 'It's a Small World' ride at Disneyland only each country you visit you get smashed in the face.

Next time I see an adventure with haunts... I think I'll pass.

IT BEGINS

The Texas process for adopting textbooks is something that scares the bejesus out of me to this day. I think it is endemic of the problem, not just from a right or left perspective, though that scares me as well, but because they think they can change the truth by what is taught. y curious to see a study that looks at the effects this has on children.

It should scare the bejesus out of everyone. For economic reasons, the textbooks sold to every public school system in the country are determined by the narrow-minded religous bigotry that rules Texas school boards.

"Agreeing with his basic assumptions of why requires the acceptance of some sort of giant conspiracy that has been perpetrated and perpetuated by hundreds of thousands of people for over 100 years."

I served five years in the Army, and after that I went to work for a rather large corporation. The two experiences have this in common: at my level, with the everyday work that I did, it was not necessary (or, in the case of the military, even desirable) for me to understand or even know the motivations of the people making decisions four or five steps above me, let alone those of the people making decisions at the very top of the command structure. I got orders, I executed them, and I didn't ask why. Now, I get directives, I address them, and I don't ask why. I don't know what you do for a living, but I suspect that the situation is much the same for you. It's actually that way for most of us...we do our jobs, don't ask too many questions, and we get through our days as unobtrusively as we can.

The point is: You don't need a giant conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people...you only need the malfeasance of a few men with vast wealth and influence. Those men can bank reliably on the natural tendency of all of us to mind our own business. The real truth is that it isn't some giant conspiracy at all...it's just business. They are ensuring a reliable work force and a reliable customer base. The fact is, any corporation in existence today would do exactly the same thing if it had the ability, these people just got there first.

Lastly, "Why?" is a question of monumental importance in a project of any kind, as that answer will have direct and indelible influence on whatever philosophy guides the engineering and implementation of the project. Case in point: Even the most well-meaning changes made to our educational system have failed to produce any improvement because they have all been based upon the premise that our educational system is designed from the ground up to produce literate, well-educated people able and eager to engage in critical thinking. As our educational is obviously designed to do nothing of the kind, changes made to advance that goal inevitably fail because they are trying to get the system to produce a result that it fundamentally cannot. Until people figure out that what's being done to their children is being done for a specific set of reasons, they will never be able to address them. In essence, people are going to keep trying to fix the wrong problems.

Nearly all the GMs I've gamed with do not account for equipment on most monster characters (and sometimes, not even their buffing spell-like abilities). I chock it up to not having enough high level games with which to make them more familiar.

It is a common theme among newbie GMs. So common, in fact, that the 3.x DMG specifically addresses it during the chapter on how to run a good game; including noting that treasures should be used by badguys when the opportunity arises, and that badguys should traditionally have treasures that are suitable to those badguys. You aren't likely to find tons of flammable goods in the treasury of an evil fire elemental. And if there is a +1 sword amongst the treasure, then by golly the hobgoblin leader should be using it! :P

A long time ago, I too made many of these common mistakes. In my first few years of GMing, a lot of it was trial and error, and listening to the wisdom of other GMs. I made the mistake of forgetting or just neglecting to use the actual capabilities of monsters, ignoring their strengths and tactical advantages, and I've seen both myself and other GMs who made laughing stocks out of high level enemies by running creatures like balors with the finesse and guile of a pair of bumbling ogres. Swoop in and attack, attack, attack, no buffing, no tactical retreating, no items, blah-blah.

I've long since learned better, and have actually refused experience points for encounters with these sorts of mistakes as a player. I'm not really interested in getting spoon fed XP and treasure and false sense of victory. I'd rather run from an encounter than steamroll something that should have eaten us for breakfast, regurgitated us, and then eaten us for lunch. I do my utmost best to try and lend what experience I have gained GMing over this past 1.2 decades; because other GMs helped me and I want to carry that on. I feel like if I help others avoid the same mistakes and stumbling blocks I've encountered, even those who are fresh and new can reach the same level of experience faster.

I stress to people I advise for GMing: "The GM is NOT always right". That phrase should be burned, boiled in acid, crystalized, smashed up, ground into tiny flour-like fragments, and cast into the bowls of the abyss. It is the absolute best way to make sure a GM never learns another useful thing about being a GM, and is almost like a just add water mixture for creating a horrible GM. Really good GMs look, listen, and adapt. Our mistakes teach us, and with those lessons we can share that wisdom. To tell us we are always right is to tell us we make no mistakes; and to do so is to ensure our own failure as GMs.

-Has anyone ever argued the US public education system is anything other than a disaster?

The education system reflects the values of American society. In the earlier parts of the twentieth century, there was a high value placed on self improvment through learning and academic discipline to the extent that the average Dust Bowl farmer was far more rigorous in critical analysis and politically astute than the average media-soaked American is today.

American scholarship focus continued for some time through the post World War 2 era. Then the Baby Boomers came into play, knowing nothing but growing up in the longest economic boom the country had ever known in it's entire history. Long term discipline gave way to immediate satisfaction, long term investment gave way to quick cash flipping in every commodity from stocks to homes themselves. Less and less thought was given to investing to the future and as areas of long term investment, the public schools were quick to become targets of scorn and neglect.

I live in a state where every one of the major school districts had to be taken over by the state government. If the Public School system is a disgrace, it's the result of decades of the American people deciding that long term investment in our nation was no longer a priority.

-Has anyone ever argued the US public education system is anything other than a disaster?

Given your frequent errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation, I'd submit that your homeschool education (at least in the area of English) may have been somewhat less than stellar as well. One is inclined to reference motes and beams.

-Has anyone ever argued the US public education system is anything other than a disaster?

Everyone who actually knows the public ed system in the US knows it's a very good system -- probably the best in the world.

However, the implementation of said system fails (in certain parts) in many Districts.

And no system of public ed can be perfect.

Every time I see this post's title pop up on the main page, I read it as "spellbook wights" and I think:

That's frickin' AWESOME!

Then I read it again and say "oh."

Transcript Of Talk
And the visual aid.

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.
But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.
If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.
Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification
We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.
In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You.

Sebastian wrote:

GâtFromKI wrote:

Anyway, any DM who doesn't have the time to write an entire system is a lazy DM.

Agreed.

Plus, Combat Expertise is already one of the best feats in the game. Removing the Int requirement will make all fighters impossible to hit.

I don't know about that. It's up to +6 to the AC which is good but there are plenty of other options, such as AoE and spells that require Will saves.

Yeah, but with their bonus feats, fighters can take Iron Will, which effectively negates Will based spells altogether. As for AoE, they have plenty of hp to soak the damage.

The real problem is the fighter class itself, which is the most powerful in the game. Unlike the casters, they never need to rest, and can dish out a large amount of damage all day long. Making them harder to hit compounds the problem because now they can stay in combat even longer.

maybe catfolk DNA is more prone to variation, or some have a little rakshasa blood mixed in?

Of course it is. DNA is basically just a bunch of string, and cats love to play with strings.

1. Nobody is saying never ever heal your buddy and/or let them die. That is ridiculous.
2. Nobody is saying you will never ever have to heal.
3. What is being said is that the bad guys can put out damage faster than you can heal so the best thing to do is kill bad guys. The less bad guys there are the less damage output there is.
4. Most of the time if you have decent characters and use good tactics you will not have to heal in combat.
5. Once again, most of the time does not mean never.
6. Bookmark this thread if you have too.

You can't force players to do anything, especially if you're another player. If someone insists on something long enough that no one else wants to do both in and out of character and they're already angry with you both in and out, you just might be digging your cleric a shallow grave in the wilderness.

There is a magic word, and that word is "no". If "No" doesn't work, "goodbye" usually does the trick.

This guy got his character approved by the GM, and his concept is a very generic, basic concept. A Cleric of one of the main Gods in the setting.

The person at the table who wants an undead mount and is inflexible about it is the one who is trying to have something unusual for the setting, not the OP. The GM should not have allowed it if they were also going to allow the player to be a cleric.

We had a player once who wanted to play a Good Necromancer, with the backstory being that he believe the Undead could be helpful to people, and were just misunderstood. He went through elaborate planning to keep the fact that his "friends" were undead from the rest of the party.

It was a blast to play with him in that group. But he was fully expected to make all the accommodations and adjustments, because he was throwing the wrinkle in.

The OP is all but playing an off the shelf character for the setting. He shouldn't be required to adjust to accommodate someone who wants an undead mount, unless the person with the undead mount was there first.

Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things, I know, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
Arthur Dent: And are you?
Slartibartfast: No. That's where it all falls down, of course.
Arthur Dent: Pity, it sounded like rather a good lifestyle otherwise.

Enchanter Tom wanted to hit Jason Buhlman. Jason Buhlman used Combat Expertise to improve his AC. Enchanter Tom failed.

I agree that its kind of lame requiring this feat to perform advanced combat maneuvers. However, more than that, I find annoying that someone can't afford a 13 in a "non-essential" stat. Diversify and enjoy. An 18 is not worth buying for ANY class, so spread it around. You like skill points, right?

Marriage is a state issue not federal.

Civil rights are a human issue. Individual states do not get to legislate human rights into non-existence. That's why they're called rights.

I agree.
The state's rights argument is a cop out.
The states do not get to decide who is covered by the Bill of Rights or parse out constitutional rights to who they see fit.

Americans can marry. Americans. Gay, straight, color etc. should never enter the equation.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

The NPC wrote:

Marriage is a state issue not federal.

Ahem (thanks to a Facebook friend for the link).

Disagree it is neither.

In other countries, unions recognized by the state/nation are secular, and marriages are religious. In the U.S., they've been rolled up into the same thing. I don't think anyone is arguing that Catholic priests should have to perform same-sex marriage, anymore than they would be expected to perform a Islamic or Jewish union. But the state should recognize same-sex civil unions, regardless if it's called a union, a marriage, or something else.

To turn it around, why should Catholicism or Mormonism or Baptists or whomever get to decide a binding secular union between two consenting adults; yet others, like Unitarianism, who recognize same-sex unions, don't.

And since U.S. history has proved individual states cannot be blinded trusted to uphold equality -- even when it's in a Federal Constitutional Amendment -- then the Federal government unfortunately needs to get involved.

Okay folks, let's be honest here:

Obama, in that interview is full of s%~&.

Specifically, he's full of s$+~ that his view was ever 'evolving'. Obama's a very smart, pretty decent, guy, with liberal views socially, and he's always been in favor of gay people being able to marry.

It just was politically disadvantageous to admit that previously. At this point, for whatever reason, he thinks it is now an advantage (or perhaps simply not a disadvantage) to admit that, so he's doing so publically.

And maybe he really did think for a while that civil unions were a more practical thing to work towards. A more achievable goal. It certainly looked like it for at least a bit in there.
.
.
.
I actually really like a couple of things about Barack Obama that people here seem to be villifying him for. Specifically, Obama is smart, a skilled politician, and above all a pragmatist.

He has a lot of irons in the fire, domestically, and he's willing to compromise on some of the things he might like to do in order to achieve other things he thinks are more important. That's...really in no way a bad thing in a President.

Sticking to your guns on every possible thing you believe in and not compromising no matter what is considered some kind of ultimate virtue in America, and that's a good thing in some situations...but not always. For example, it's a very bad attitude to have when it comes to politicians interacting domestically with other politicians, at least it is if you want to accomplish anything.

Being a politician on the national level in the current system requires compromising on some issues (and making a devil's bargain for corporate funding, but we won't get into that). What I like about Obama is that he compromises all the time. On this specific thing. For now. And then, like this, returns to the position he actually believes in as soon as he can arrange to do so.

A lot of politicians really change their spots when they make those deals, they accept their new positions with a convert's fervor, whatever they really believe. Obama just chills and blends in, then returns to whatever he was gonna do before the deal as soon as he can arrange it without actually breaking said deal.

let them keep what they have and just throw bigger things at them, in larger groups, until they almost die. When that happens, you've found the right level.

At first level, this is begging for a TPK. Don’t.

Okay, from the top.

Lets start by discarding the terminology your using, it is unhelpful. You are not describing genius, but rather when you point to the article, you are pointing to a number techniques of thought, which are useful for creative thinking. By terming these things as 'genius' you are ascribing value to such thought processes that is unwarranted, unjustified and unhelpful. For instance, the sort of hyperactive pattern finding that allows a person the multiple answers to 'half of 13', is the same process that means that individuals such as you tube user Chris Constantine(aka GORILLA199), a famous conspiracy nut and schizophrenic, see's every circle he finds in architecture to be a sign of the devil.

We are also not talking about a single characteristic of human thought called genius, but rather eight separate strategies. The article provides no evidence that occurrence of these strategies in a humans problem solving style are in anyway linked, it is possible that an individual might be wonderful at looking at a problem from multiple different angles, but be utterly fixated on such a problem, and not see the lead which presents itself if only he'd take a step back and look at a related subject.

Now, next on the agenda is you are showing again in this thread the same inability to differentiate between an idea and a component part of an idea. You seem unable to grasp there are different classes of idea.

Just as you could not differentiate between a belief(singular), a belief system, and a religion, you seem to be unable to grasping that claims that 'a lot of thinking about problems - that sort of thinking has got absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method' is a laughable proposition.

Why? Because A, your not comparing like for like , and B, 'a lot of thinking about problems' is description of the first three step in the scientific method, as described up thread by Meatrace. So why isn't comparing 'a lot of thinking about problems' and comparing the scientific method a Like for like comparison. Because of the level of complexity, just as atheism can be a component of a belief system such as humanism, so 'a lot of thinking about problems', can be component of a system of enquiry, such as the scientific method.

So lets compare the scientific method to another system of Enquiry, which also includes 'a lot of thinking about problems', say 'divine revelation.' The scientific method, has given us reliable and repeatable method of treating hundreds of diseases and injuries, while 'divine revelation' gave us evil spirits cause disease, and no working treatments. There is a clear difference in the quality of information derived from each method of enquiry, despite both including 'a lot of thinking about problems'

More to come after I have finished by assignment.

We're a dying breed, man; whether or not anyone has their finger on our pulse, it's very thready.

Speaking seriously, Paizo is handling the Paizo demographic quite well. If you want old school stuff take a look at Castles & Crusades, Labyrinth Lord or OSRIC. They're all very playable systems.

It's a massive jump in the power curve to be able to completely negate the attack that's most likely to hit you. It doesn't matter what sophistry is used by its supporters and users. At the end of the day, you are still able to negate the most likely to hit attack in many, many situations. And that is overpowered.

Sophistry? The only difference between it and Deflect Arrows, is that melee weapons come up in a fight more often. This means that it has more chances to be useful. I bet you dollars-to-dimes that if a DM stuck you against archers in every combat, that you'd be decrying Deflect Arrows as being "overpowered." You'd say, "Huh! That negates 1 Longbow Critical hit every round! that's 3d8 + X per round I'm not taking! OVERPOWERED!!!111 NERF IT!!!!!1111"

It negates 1 Melee Attack in a round. Any character with Improved Unarmed Strike can take Deflect Arrows at level 1. Call it sophistry, but I call it fair for the cost of 3 feats prior at no sooner than 5th level with the exception of a Master of Many Styles. If you can't do something really cool after 4 feats in a feat tree, then it's not a feat tree worth taking.

* dances and fiddles as the thread burns *

@Irontruth

To make my point more clearly, when James Cameron made avatar, he gave the Navi breasts. He was asked in an interview why he did this, considering the species would likely not have breasts.

He said because people like boobs.

This is where science and science fiction part.

Half of the "cool" science articles that come out actually do a very poor job of giving science information, and are misleading. It leads to people having unrealistic expectations based in fantasy.

Science isn't Santa Claus, it's the actual grown up in the room who gives you the gift.

Science will never, ever, be able to be as cool as Santa Claus.

Fortunately Santa Claus isn't real.

Science shouldn't strive to be as cool as Santa Claus.

Science should be the rational grown up who actually gets you the gifts.

If science tries to compete with Michael Bay, it stops being science. I think the problem with science education isn't the "cool" factor or the "Shiny" factor.

When you say that it should compete, you imply they are equals. When you tell science to dress itself up for the camera, with that comes exaggeration and misinformation, which is the exact opposite of what good science is.

My best teachers were not always my most fun teachers. My best teachers were the ones who taught me to think.

Untyped, dodge, racial, and (if they're from different sources) circumstance bonuses all stack with themselves. That's pretty much it for self-stacking, barring specific text for a particular effect overriding this behavior.

I love the nature of adventuring. Adventuring has traditionally been a very dangerous if lucrative profession. Adventurers die, and die, and die some more. Some are lucky enough to only have to die once. What separates the adventurers that make it from the ones who were just another party that never returned? Well, I think creativity and preparation make the largest difference. I didn't think much about this sort of thing, until Peter Stewart said the following in another thread.

Honestly some of your tactics here have given me a great deal to think of for future characters. I'd be interested in a general thread on purchases you think are viable or needed at various levels, along with various tricks. A heightened continual flame hadn't even occurred to me, for instance.

My party could use some more asymmetrical means of combating such problems, as right now our tendency is to bully through them using brute force (usually taking tons of damage and expending tons of resources in the process). We're coming up on a long period though were we'll be able to resupply and reequip. :)

So since Peter asked, here's the beginning of a short advice column concerning D&D/Pathfinder and preparing for adventure. I'm cool with people asking questions or advice or tips on specific things; and I'll also answer questions concerning D&D 3.x as well (though I may have to reference the 3.0 SRD for particularly old school stuff, to make sure I'm not blurring too much).

As a simple disclaimer, I want to let everyone know that the advice below will assume that the standard rules are in play. It doesn't assume house rules or changes to the system. Just the goods, plain and simple. If your GM has any quirks concerning item availability, changes any spells, or otherwise alters something, YMMV.

Enough babbling, on with the tips!
========================================================================

Introduction: Adventuring is a hard life. Few take up its call. Those who make it, go down as legends, and retire wealthy and with many amazing stories. Those who do not, inevitably forge their own stories as the ones who just survived, or never came back, or was the one that didn't make it. Yes, adventuring is a hard life. A life that takes you by surprise. The key to surviving isn't just about whose muscles are largest or who knows the most spells. Preparation, and clever thinking, can lead you to greater degrees of success. Shall you brave the dangers and come out on top, or be another tavern tale of the ones who never came back?

The first installment covers some general adventuring equipment.

Motel 6: There are a lot of monsters and enemies who like to spam darkness spells (and deeper darkness). Creatures like tieflings, drow, shadow demons, darklings, and dark folk are notorious for this. Many people complain that this is unfair; especially since most of these creatures either care nothing about the lighting condition's drawbacks, or can see through them fine (such as in the case of darklings and dark folk). So what is an adventurer to do?

Light spells (that is, the light subtype) such as light, continual flame, and daylight pierce magical darkness spells that are a lower level than themselves. A good adventuring tool is to have an item or two that has had a heightened continual flame spell cast on it to at least 4th level. That costs 330 gp including the material component, to have it purchased by NPC spellcasting. Suddenly, the legions of darklings and dark folk are nothing to you, as your continual torch (be it a torch, amulet, or even your belt buckle) shimmers and provides light that is unquenchable by spells such as darkness or deeper darkness unless they are also heightened. Since spell-like abilities are the level of the spell they are mimicing, that means a 4th level continual flame is never overpowered by a creature's SLAs.

I'm most fond of having continual flame cast on the inside of a locket, so you can conceal or reveal the light easily enough, and carry it without having hands free.

We'll leave the light on for you!

First Aid: There's a lot of terrible things that will hurt you in your adventuring career. Poisons, disease, incorporeal touch attacks. A lot of this stuff can leave you weathered, or even dead. So how do you deal with these things? How do you prepare for them away from the comfort of civilization?

Buy potions of delay poison and lesser restoration for 50 gp each. Yes, you heard me, 50 gp. Both are 1st level spells at 1st caster level, thanks to Paladins and Rangers. That sets the price of these items at 50 gp. The magic item creation rules clearly state that the value of magic items are based on the lowest possible caster levels, regardless of who makes 'em; so even if a cleric makes either, they're still only worth 50 gp.

Both potions are useful for helping a party keep up and going. Delay poison makes you immune to poison for 1 hour and ends poisons, but won't cure any of the ability damage taken beforehand. Lesser restoration removes ability penalties, heals 1d4 ability damage, and removes fatigue. Good potions all around to have on hand during an adventure.

+1 Swords? We don't need no stinkin' +1 Swords: Magic weapons are expensive, but sometimes you just need one. DR/Magic is pretty common, incorporeal creatures are a pain, that wizard is getting you down with protection from arrows; but you don't feel like shelling out 2,000 gp for what amounts to +1 damage over a masterwork blade?

Well magic weapon oils are 50 gp, and they last 1 minute at caster level 1. The oil can be applied to a melee weapon, ranged weapon, or poured right into a 50-stack ammunition sack. This is one of the main methods for 1st-3rd level PCs to even be able to combat incorporeal creatures like Shadows with any hope. Works for monk unarmed strikes as well. Since you can decide which weapon to apply it to, it's less of a gamble; as if you need it on your melee weapon, you use it on your melee; if you need it on your bow, you use it on your bow; and so forth.

Lay off the Juice Son: Okay, so steriods aren't a to be abused, but oils were made for it. You can apply an oil to a willing target during your turn. Having several party members slather down the party's melee with cheap potion effects can turn a fight really fast. Have one PC slather him or her with an oil of enlarge person, then the rest of the PCs apply oils like protection from evil or shield (I recently checked, yes you can make potions of shield, as personal range spells still declare you as a target), and expeditious retreat (see commentary about shield, above), true strike (see above, yadda-yadda), and remove fear.

Suddenly, you have a juggernaut of destruction, at the cost of 50 gp per potion. Best yet, the person you apply the oil provides you with soft cover if you come in directly behind them in relation to the enemy, which means enemies cannot make AoOs against you for applying the oil. Notice I mentioned using enlarge person first? Well there's a reason for that. Your ally expands, providing cover to the other PCs who jump in to apply oils.

For a 200 gp investment, you can hit your main tank with up to 4 solid buffs all in one round, many of which normally are only available to mages. Screw aid another. 50 gp can get your party's fighter a +20 to his next grapple check, which can end a fight instantly (hint: the penalty to bind up an enemy during a grapple is -10).

Right to Freedom of Alignment: Ok, let's face it. Sometimes your alignment bites you on the butt. It's great being a good guy and all, except when you're trying to infiltrate that evil cult that has the "No Paladins" sign hanging out side. So what's the poor poorly aligned fellow to do? Drink a potion. 50 gp nets you 24 hours of undetectable alignment. Thanks bards!

Alchemy? Alchem-you!: Alchemical goodies can often be overlooked, but they can be pretty useful, especially at low levels; but some are useful even at higher levels. Turn some vicious villains into trivial trials with a clever splash of chemical supremacy!

Alchemical weapons such as alchemist fire or acid flasks are beautiful when used by the whole party. They ignore damage reduction and target touch AC. They're ranged weapons, so they benefit from feats like Point Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot. They can be dual-wielded as well. By having your party focus-fire on a single tough cookie, you can bring them down to size in short order. For example, let's say you're facing down an enemy NPC in banded mail and carrying a tower shield. His AC is easily 22-23 at 1st level. Excellent time for a BBQ wrapped in tinfoil! Have everyone toss an alchemist fire. A 4 person party can easily land 4d6 damage on round 1, and another 4d6 on round 2 (from the burning). Sucks to be that guy!

Tanglefoot bags are amazingly good. Chuck a few of these at people or creatures you just don't like. It's an auto-entangle, which is already a petty nice debuff, but also threatens to glue them to the ground, prevent them from flying, and forces tough concentration checks to cast spells. Worst case scenario, the critter is still slowed by 1/2 its speed.

Probably the most overlooked alchemical item is the humble smoke stick. Cheap, and surprisingly effective. Unless wind conditions are much against you, dropping one of these lets you use Stealth as if you were a Ninja Turtle collecting bells, gain total concealment vs ranged attacks, and ruins sneak attacks. Yes, ruins sneak attacks. You can't sneak attack a target with concealment. You can drop a single smoke stick at your feet and even if you're surrounded by 20th level rogues, blind, and in the dark, you're immune to their sneak damage. Excellent against dirty roguish sorts, and even prevents an assassin's Death Attack. Brutally efficient.

Holy water. The anti-shadow. At 25 gp a pop, this stuff is kind of like acid of alchemist fire for undead and evil outsiders. Incidentally, it specifically affects incorporeal creatures as well. It deals 2d4 damage as a ranged touch attack that doesn't provoke attacks (see item description) if you shake the water at the enemy. 2d4 averages 5 damage, which means a 1st level party can tear a shadow apart by just running up and splashing it with holy water. Statistically, 4 holy waters will outright kill a shadow (and less should force the shadow to flee for its unlife), and frankly, 100 gp for a dead CR 3 enemy seems entirely reasonable to me! The fact it also deals splash damage, and is party friendly is double the fun. Alchemists even get to add their Intelligence modifier to the damage, allowing them to take apart some truly nasty critters in short order.

Aw, Nets: Nets are arguably one of the strongest weapons in the core handbook. They deal no damage, but are a non-magical ranged touch attack (meaning even the -4 non-proficiency penalty isn't so bad usually) which inflicts the Entangled condition on the target, and all that implies. To escape it, you must spend a full-round action to even attempt to be free (either via a hard Strength check or a DC 20 escape artist), which means that either an enemy has to deal with it, or waste actions to be free. Hitting the same enemy with multiple nets in the same round almost ensures the condition will remain for the entire encounter; because no one wants to spend round after round trying to de-net themselves.

Who you gonna call?: A good investment for anyone who really hates incorporeal creatures is a +1 ghost touch net. Valued at 8,000 gp, it's not a terribly expensive tool if the entire party chips in to get it. Why is this tool so great? Well it has full effect on incorporeal creatures, who auto-fail on Strength checks to move away from you (allowing you to control how far they move away from you), and since it counts as both corporeal and incorporeal, you can prevent them from moving through objects while ensnared in your net. Entangled is also a sucky (if rare) condition for incorporeal creatures, as they rely heavily on Dexterity for both offense and defense (-2 to attacks and -4 Dex means -4 to incorporeal touch attacks and -2 AC) and most thrive on improved mobility which is outright denied in this case.

I'll try the 9 Iron: Golf-bagging is often a complaint by some of the casual gamers. Personally, I love golf-bagging. I like having that extra weapon on hand for a particular occasion. Ever look at the Pathfinder iconics? Loaded with seemingly random assortments of weapons, with obvious spares and backups. Golf bagging has lots of advantages.

Grab a cold iron, silver (or mithral), and maybe adamantine weapon. Carrying them allows you to bypass the DR of virtually anything. Definitely have an assortment of silver and cold iron arrows (they're cheap and easy enough to store/carry). It's cheaper to carry lots of +2 weapons of different materials than it is to carry one or two +3 weapons, and it makes you less of a target vs sundering or shattering (because who bothers with that when you've got a backup weapon in easy reach?).

You can go a very long way with just different material weapons and a greater magic weapon spell to keep your hit and damage top notch. It's also easier to rely on special materials for all the low CR enemies who require things like silver or cold iron to hit (such as imps, quasits, lycanthropes, or fey).

It's not magic, it's brains: There's a lot of very mundane methods for dealing with magical effects that suck. One of my favorites is the bag of chalk. A piece of chalk is 1 copper piece. A hundred pieces of chalk is thus 1 gold piece. Crush the chalk up into chalk powder and store it in cloth bags with a tie. Now you have the perfect weapon against invisible people. Have you ever seen the clingy puffy mess that chalk dust makes just when you're dealing with basic chalk erasers in school? Now imagine grinding up 100 pieces of standard issue chalk and scattering it through the air. You'd create a nice 10 ft. cloud of super clinging dust. Better than flour for spotting invisible creatures! Anti-invisible grenades, for 1 gp. Eat that Will o' Whisp.

Clay jugs are pretty heavy when filled, but are pretty useful. Their obvious use is for carrying large quantities of water or similar liquids (ideally packed on burden beasts such as mules, horses, or oxen), but can often be adapted for adventuring purposes. They can just as easily carry coins and the like, or you could place food in them, fill them with black powder to make a bomb (if your campaign has such fare), create weapons or traps with them (fill them with spiders, scorpions, snakes, or whatever), or even keep potted plants in them (carrying around your own plants makes the entangle spell useful in the most amusing places). At only 2 copper pieces, you can figure out what to do with them later. Flasks are 3 coppers with similar uses.

Keeping a few vipers in a state of sedation (via nonlethal damage, sleep spells, or other means) can be a good method of extracting lots of injury poison for the budding assassin, alchemist, or other poison using character. Just milk their glands for poison daily. Finding and keeping vipers isn't usually very difficult for adventurers. In fact, the clay pots can be useful storage devices in this case. If someone has a viper familiar, you could just ask nicely for venom.

His name is Babe: Paul Bunyan had the right idea. Oxen rock as animal cohorts. They're cheap at 15 gp and share statistics with aurochs. They are large quadruped beasts of burden with impressive strength, which means they can carry some truly astounding loads. They are also beefy and dangerous in combat. They have gore attacks for 1d8+9 damage and can even trample. Training them for war is not a bad idea for someone with Handle Animal. Have the party ride around on these strong beasts with high Constitution, and just dare something to try and harass your mounts while you rest. For a good 1-4 levels, the oxen will be more dangerous than your PCs. You can train 3 of them at a time, and cover them in leather or studded leather barding on the cheap.

Oxen cost 15 gp, have a 40 ft. movement speed, +9 Perception, low-light vision, scent, +7 gore at (1d8+9), trample (2d6+9, DC 17), and the following carrying capacity: 600 lb. light, 1,200 lb. medium, 1,800 lb. heavy, 9,000 lb. push/drag. Horses are so last season.

=========================================

I'm going to pause here for a moment. I'm not even finished with equipment, but I need a bit of a break. ^-^"

mdt wrote:

I think the Fast Learner's intent, with that horrible run-on sentence that would have been given an F- by any competent high school english teacher, was as follows...

The human with this feat may, when taking a level in their favored class, take both an HP bonus and a Skill bonus. Alternately, they may take one of those two bonuses and also the racial favored class ability.

I'm reading it as, take:

A) +1 HP & +1 Skill point

OR

B) Take one Favored Class Alternative ability

I can already take a Favored Class Alternative without a feat. All taking the feat would get me is the option of taking A, if this were the case. Since that's a bad selection, it's only worth it if you NEVER take B.

I reiterate, I think it's supposed to mean A) 1HP & 1SP, or B) FCA & One of 1HP or 1SP.

EDIT : I also reiterate that the sentence in question should be taken out and shot.

But...

This can't be victory...

I still feel so empty.

omitted for the sake of space.

Speaking as an atheist, I couldn't care less whether the military calls its counselors chaplains or imams or anything else. It does worry me that military personnel are discouraged from admitting to suffering from PTSD in various ways, ditto on sexual assault. Simply put, anyone serving should have someone to talk to, regardless of religious affiliation; I think the confluence of military training and evangelical christianity has been more hinderance than help with that.

There is a reason the U.S. is the richest most powerful country in the history of the world.

Because we were one of the few industrialized nations that had a fully intact infrastructure after WWII?

Note you picked North Korea over China...

To be clear, I am not in favor of communism for any number of practical reasons, and I even think socialism far over reaches any practical benefit when it expands into anything non-essential.

Don't create the false dichotomy of an either or choice of absolute equality vs absolute freedom.

The fact is power consolidation in all forms is a problem, be it government authority or individual wealth.

The many are smarter than the few.

Hey all,

There is now a new way to get your money back for any purchases you made from Nick Logue's Sinister Adventures.

Email your request to bgmcubed@gmail.com

I expect to be able to start sending people their money back by the end of the month. I will update everyone here if there are any delays to the start of that process. Money will be refunded in the order requests are received. Everyone who wants their money back can get it.

I extend Nick's apologies if you've already emailed and need to email a second time.

IN THE INTERESTS OF FULL DISCLOSURE
===================================
I need to let everyone who purchased know that there is a tiny, tiny possibility that I might be able to put out Razor Coast for Nick. If I do it will be more expensive than the pre-order price, by a significant factor. The book got a LOT bigger under my development. One of the primary issues preventing this is recovering the art from Nick's crashed hard drive and/or getting his artist's to resend it, years later.

Am I committing publishing RC as this time? NO. Absolutely, not.

WHY ARE YOU DISCLOSING THIS?
============================
If you don't get your money back, and I do put this out you get RC for whatever price you originally paid.

If you do get your money back, and then (by some miracle of personal goodness) decide later that you want RC anyway, you'll have to pay full price. Whatever that is at the time.

If is a tiny little word with a really big meaning, but IF I can help Nick in this way, I don't want anyone to feel they got fooled or ripped off.

Again, this is NOT any kind of promise to release RC in any shape or fashion, whatsoever.

But I have to make you aware of this possibility, now, even if the chances are fairly small. Transparency is important. Anything else would be dishonest.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET MY MONEY BACK NOW?
============================================
I've been working with the Logue to help him recover from a computer disaster and otherwise get his ducks in a row.

He agreed -- and did -- release to my management his email and paypal accounts from Sinister Adventures, solely for the purposes of processing return transactions on his behalf.

I'VE WAITED THIS LONG, WHY ANOTHER #$%&#! MONTH?
================================================
What I've got is a giant stack of thousands of unsorted emails across multiple years -- many filled with understandably inventive imprecations -- plus a few years of PayPal statements. I've hired a temporary assistant to sort everything. He starts next week. Then I've pre-arranged extra hours for my bookkeeper to stay on top of payments. And I've got to make sure they do everything right and don't miss anything. It's an extra project I wasn't planning on, and it's going to take a while to get all set. Sorry.

WHY NOW?
=========
I would like Nick to survive Paizocon with all his body parts reasonably intact. He'll have a hard enough time surviving his mud wrestling match with Rich Pett. Pett + a pitchfork mob VS. Logue? No way. He'd never win.

And I only recently had the idea.

And it took me a while to work up the courage to offer him my help with this.

DOES THIS MEAN YOU, LOU, OWE ME THE MONEY?
==========================================
No. Nick owes you. Always did, always will. I did not buy Sinister's accounts from him. I have no legal obligation to anyone for the money. I am not and have never been an employee of Sinister. I was a freelancer. Now I'm a payment processor. Think of me as an unpaid freelance bookkeeper handling the mechanical and accounting steps of refunding people's money. I'm just helping a friend (finally) do right by the community.

WHAT THE HECK DOES BGMCUBED MEAN?
=================================
Figure that out, and I will shower you with accolades. :)

I'm sure there are questions I didn't address: please fire away.

Well, it might go something like this Quantum Steve:

GUARD 1: Well done! You captured the fugitive alive--did you recover the stolen sword by any chance?

FIGHTER: Nay, good guard. We questioned him about it, but he insists that he fenced it before we could apprehend him.

FUGITIVE: Guard! Guard! They stole my stuff; I need my stuff to pay off the fines!

ROGUE: Shut up about your stuff already. Geez. You think we're going to let you walk around in manacles wearing armor and carrying a weapon?

GUARD 2: Wait, you guys took his stuff?

CLERIC: We defeated him in accordance with your warrant. Of course we did.

GUARD 1: Well, now. You see that is against the law here. His property is to be sold off to pay those who suffered for his misdeeds.

ROGUE: Wait, what? Oh, no, Sir. You mean we went through all this trouble to recover a 250 gold piece bounty--divided amongst the six of us?

GUARD 2: The law is the law. Hand his gear over or we will be forced to arrest you.

FIGHTER: Look, we don't any trouble, mate but you didn't tell us that ahead of time.

ROGUE: Oh, I get it. Fellows, these aren't the lawful good guards we were led to believe; they are the secretly corrupt guards in league with this criminal. We give them his stuff back and he'll escape and we'll be blamed.

GUARD 1: Wait, what?!?

CLERIC: 'Tis a sad day when the Watch is infested with corruption--corruption that must be purged with flame and steel. BLESS

GUARD 2: Oh, we are so screwed.

Followed by a quick and bloody battle. Yeah, that is how it would go in game in my experience. HINT: Major changes to player expections should always be talked out beforehand and out of game, otherwise you won't have a game.

Master Arminas

Bards are pretty awesome. They are wonderfully flexible and can always fill in when the party is in a tight spot.

This is also why bards are terrible.

If you are a barbarian, for example, you can walk around and hit things with your axe. Doesn't matter what the problem is, the solution is to hit it with your axe. Generally, the rest of the party will deal with the rest of it.

If you are a sorceror, you could easily cast magic missile at everything. That's where we get the joke "I magic missile the darkness". Again, the rest of the party will take care of the rest.

If you are a bard, you ARE the rest of the party. Now, you have to THINK. You have to CHOOSE. You have good skills, are decent in a fight, are decent with spells, have bardic abilities, and can usually heal. It's not as simple to know what the best move is. As a result, people can and do play bards poorly.

But when done well, bards are one of the strongest classes in the game. The barbarian and sorceror above will be 100% effective about half the time. A bard can be 75% effective about all the time. Overall, that's a more effective character, even if you never manage to do this.

I don't understand this thread. Obama is Bush; viewed from a policy standpoint, they are one and the same person, with a suntan and some speech lessons to bypass that pesky 2-term limit. Debating how one is better or worse than the other is like debating which of two ticks you'd like to drink your blood.

In a world where little details didn't matter, and we could choose between better and best, we might be able to get away with running down the old "all career politicians are evil tools" trail - a trail, I might add, that is as old, stale, and boring as a dust-clogged cobweb in an empty attic, and has yet to contribute anything at all constructive to the discussion.

However, we live in a world where the Devil is in the details, and where we must choose between evils and semi-evils, and live with some things we don't like in order to get the ones we do. In this world - the REAL world - Bush was a bully and a man of limited intellect, who never questioned his bad decisions, and consequently never learned from his mistakes. He alienated the people on the other side of the aisle and killed the good will built up behind him with all manner of bad decisions. His second-in-command regularly exceeded his authority and usurped the authority of the Commander In Chief, with no repercussions, and to his own economic gain, and that of his cronies. Constitutional power was exceeded, and bad decisions pushed through, through a constant mantra of fear and hatred. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class suffered. A giant surplus was turned into an enormous deficit through implementation of bad laws, which we still must live with, and two wars were started, one of which was totally unjustified, and broke the country while making corporations - all to which the Executive Branch was beholden, very rich.

Obama's big mistake has mainly been in trying to work with the people across the aisle, whose positions have been stocked by angry and bigoted voters with exactly the same people who will refuse to work with a black president, or even just a Democratic one. Meanwhile, the career politicians in Washington continue to resist any change Obama attempts, for the same bad reasons Bush made all of his lunkheaded decisions - corporate interest and the maintaining of the status quo. As for the man himself, he has demonstrated an ability to learn from mistakes, and is trying hard to keep the middle class from vanishing. His methods may be longterm and difficult - AS THE MAN STATED DURING HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH.

None of this is made up or exaggerated. Anybody over the age of 18 who has been paying attention since Clinton left office and has a Wisdom of 10 should have seen for themselves what a bitter, lie-filled stenchfest politics has become, and who is actually trying to help (very few, but including Obama), and who just didn't ever give a crap (Bush/Cheney all the way, baby, yeah!).

My take:
It is well established that if someone buys a physical object, they can resell it as they please. Barring some prior agreement with the original vendor, anyway.

That historically speaking does apply to books and other objects relating to intellectual property: I can sell, lend, give away, or burn an individual book I have purchased without the publisher having any legal right to stop me.

In the case of a book, the IP is where that prior agreement point comes into play. While I have ownership rights over the physical book, I have no right to copy the contents and distribute them, unless the author or publisher has specifically granted permission to do so. So if I sell or otherwise relinquish ownership of a physical book, I then have absolutely no right to keep a copy of the contents. The owner of the IP contained in that book retains their ownership of the IP even though I sold the physical copy.

Rightly or wrongly, that is also how most people, including myself, consider other physical media involving IP, such as music, movies, and computer games. If we buy a physical copy, we expect to have certain rights over it. A company which includes a license agreement inside the box which gainsays those rights is going to be perceived as trying to rip off their customer. That may or may not be the case in a legal sense, but it's definitely not going to win said company any brownie points once word gets around that they're trying to 'screw the customers'.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know whether the law either in the US or New Zealand actually supports the position that such companies take, but even if it does, I can also think of laws both in the US and NZ that have been repealed because it was concluded that they were unjust and should be struck down. I think in the game of perception, laws which allow a vendor to 'remove' the rights of their customers are going to be perceived as unjust, unfair, and unreasonable by those customers and as a result breed ill will against those companies which take advantage of them.

As for me personally, after getting nailed by a single player, local computer only game which didn't warn me on the box about needing an internet connection to register before I could play, I almost completely stopped buying new games. The more restrictive behaviour of the gaming companies has almost completely lost me as a customer. Which I suppose is a win for Paizo since they're getting more of my entertainment budget. ;-)

Yeah, if we want to claim our society is a meritocracy we have to allow everyone to prove their merits. One's financial well-being doesn't sway the case in either direction. Useless poor people are born as are brilliant rich people, I'm sure! True also is the reverse, and NOT having health care for all, stellar free education, and (hopefully) an accessible information infrastructure only ensures such individuals are unable to ever prove their merit by living up to their potential.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

When a healthcare insurance provider habitually makes a mess of things, people can go to one of their competitors.

If you're making that claim with a straight face, you're either kidding or uninsured. Seriously. Try to do it sometime -- your employer offers the option: "insured or not," and private insurance costs enough that not even Mitt Romney can afford it (and no one can qualify for it anyway unless they lie about every trip to the doctor, cold, cut, or scratch they've ever received).

It comes down to the trade off of the free market. They don't have to provide services if it isn't profitable.

The free market is the best way to handle creating systems for things we want, not for the things we need.

Just think it through. If the authorities are real bastards about getting the fugitive's items back, then the PCs are going to simply say "lesson learned, next time we dump the fugitive's body in a ditch and keep the loot."

KEEP IT IN GAME

1) Would the NPC authorities know that the fugitive had magic items? How would they know?

2) Would they care? What sort of contract or obligation were the PCs under, in returning the fugitive? "Dead or Alive?"

3) If the fugitive told the authorities he had magic items, and the PCs tell the authorities he's lying, are the authorities really going to believe the fugitive over the PCs? Are they going to go through all the hassle of detecting truth to recover some items?

..now, if there's a particular item that's important because it's "evidence" or whatever, then I could see the authorities going out of their way to recover that particular item. But don't go trying to get the loot back just because you're afraid of cracking the "Loot By Levels" table. That's lame. Just dial back some future loot to compensate.

I frequently have conversations with my players about their expectations and mine in the world. How I see the society and culture and how they see it. The only view they get of the world is from what I present, and I am unable to roleplay their upbringing and all that jazz. I find having these conversations tends to make others aware of what they are going for and to set-up fun experiences. It also prevents me and my players from setting up dissonant characters. I find it to be both respectful and a pretty good time. It also gives me an idea where they think quests are going, what is going on with the world and whatnot.

Editted: To change characters to players.

Whoa cool

So if there is 5 images in MI you have a 1 in 5 to hit but if you close your eyes you have a 50% to hit? Why is that, its awesome by any means just curious as to why.

your eyes can deceive you don't trust them.

Well then. Time to stop playing new games, then. Gods know I have enough old ones, and honestly, there are seriously few new ones that make me interested anymore.

@Shifty

I see your point. Unfortunately I doubt that banning guns or restricting access would have alleviated this situation. Zimmerman could just as easily carried an illegal handgun, the event would have gone down just like it did, save for the added permutation of him "disarming the assailant" and shooting the youth with the gun. This happens all the rime in America.

Zimmerman is an overzealous Community Watch Captain. Which is very similar to an overzealous Security Guard. There is a ridiculous Seth Rogen film, Observe and Report, that pretty well lays out the personality type that Im getting at here. I have friends who thought that movie was hysterical, others thought it was horrible. Me I found it uncomfortably close to the truth.

I live in an independant suburb of a small city. We have a small police force. It has several experienced full timers and then some part timers that are young and with less experience. The younger ones work part time until they get hired by the County Sherrif's office or the City Police. Unfortunately there are a couple who can't seem to get hired by those two organizations, because they can't pass the psyche qualifications. These guys are still working in law enforcement, armed, but in a place where they are far less likely to get into mischief.

About 10 years ago I watched a private "Rent a Cop", pull a gun on a mouthy teenager.

I closed my bar on a Wednesday night, my security guard ( a deputy sherrif on injury leave) and my bartender joined me for breakfast at our local Waffle House, a 24 hour eatery. When we arrived the 3 contract security personnell were escorting a young black guy out of the restaurant followed by two late teen girls. The 3 kids were leaving, but the kid was being quite caustic in his mockery of the contract security personell. One of the Rent a Cops just lost his cool and pulled his gun, a Desert Eagle (huge hand gun) and pointed it at the kid. The kid was standing between the gun and the two young girls and my group of coworkers.
This would have been bad enough but then "Superfuzz" took the gun and moved forward to put it to the teens head while his buddies grabbed the kid's arms. This was amazingly stupid on it's face but then it went to 11, the kid pulled free of the guy on his left instinctually. That guy,"Superfuzz#2" bumped into the gun and Superfuzz#1 dropped the giant hand cannon on the ground. All 4 participants started rolling around on the ground. The kid was the only one seemingly aware of the gun laying on the ground, and methodically kicked it under a car.

About that time the real cops showed up. The total event so far took about 40 seconds. The local deputies and patrolmen split the participants up and got the various stories. The rent a cops were laughing about the whole episode, the kid was sullen and quiet and his girlfriends were in an uproar.
My bouncer took the senior sherrif deputy aside and explained the situation. The kid and his girlfriends were sent home. The rent a cop retrieved his firearm. The cops dispersed and we had breakfast.

This was the last weekend this security firm was contracted by Waffle House to do security.

Now, this long story looks like a brilliant reason not to allow firearms to private citizens.
Not so.
The contract security firm was bonded, insured and theoretically trained in the proper handling of fire arms. All of that failed in a spectacular fashion that night. However that firm was licensed to provide armed asset protection. No gun control would prevent that.

Moreover Superfuzz#1 was also armed with a Tazer, collapsible baton, tonfa style patrol baton, a tactical knife and, I kid you not, shurikens. All nearly arranged on his Batman style utility belt.

The guy would have been no less dangerous without a gun.

Zagnabbit here is where we disagree, see I would posit that Mr Zimmerman placed himself in a very precarious position following suspicious people around at night, and I would ask WHY he felt confident enough to do this... because he was armed? mentally ill?

Now either he was mentally ill, or pretty stupid, both reasons enough not to be granted possession of a weapon. Sadly he did get a gun, sadly he was allowed to carry one around, sadly someone is now dead.

Now I'm not suggesting that every gun everywhere should be turned into paperclips, thats just stupid (see I'm actually quite pro-gun, but pro gun control).

So its not an unneccesary diversion, because right or wrong, he shot someone. This whole thing would not have happened had he not had a gun.
You can't have a shooting without a gun, so yes talking about how to control them is relevant. I'm not sure what you are seeing here that suggests it isn't.