Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea NPC Codex (PFRPG)

Abraham spalding's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 10,130 posts (14,933 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 13 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

dragonhunterq wrote:

except a longsword is real, these claws/bite aren't.

You already add your caster level, there's no need to add your str too.

Except every other shadow spell that creates phantom weapons gains strength to damage too, and these weapons are real enough to do half damage at minimum. Nothing about this spell in anyway says you do not add strength damage to the natural attacks given by it.

Unless you think Form of the Dragon isn't supposed to add strength bonus to the damage given by the claws, bite and wing attacks given by it.


Azten wrote:
The specifically states what the damage is, so no Strength modifier to damage.

So someone using long sword only gets 1d8 damage because it specifically states that is the damage of a long sword.

See also:

Form of the dragon:
Claws(1d6) bite(1d8) and wings(1d4)

so no strength bonus because it specifically lists the damage.

The spell in question specifically states:

Quote:


You gain two claw attacks (1d6 plus caster level slashing damage) and a bite attack (1d8 plus caster level piercing damage).

So the claws have a base damage of 1d6 plus caster level slashing damage and of course anything else claws would get because they are claws. Unless you want to argue that every single time a weapon is listed out it has to have all the rules for that weapon listed or it doesn't get anything not stated.


Yes you would get strength bonus, claws and bites gain strength bonus to damage. Just because it has other damage added to it doesn't mean you wouldn't get anything you don't normally gain with claws and bites.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

However if I hand you a possession that does not require you to act.

You have passively benefited.

In other words: If I lose something and you find it you did not have to take it from me. You might have stolen it, but it is not a valid argument that because you have it you acted to take it from me.

In order for you to have sex with me you must act.

There is no way for me to simply give you sex -- and if I attempt to give you sex and you are not willing then I am raping you (regardless of if I am drunk or not).

Also:

Not all drinking = drunk
but all drunk = no consent

You are making an argument about the first when I haven't (and won't).

Also:

Yes -- as a matter of fact leavenworth is full of people that thought, "he/she is not drunk enough for him/her to not give consent."

This is a major problem people don't want to admit to because they are uncomfortable at the position they think they might find themselves in. In fact most cases of sexual harassment and rape involve alcohol. In fact in many cases the defendant's whole argument is, "I didn't think she was drunk enough to not give consent" or "but she wasn't that drunk!"

Basically if you want to avoid being charged with rape do not have sex with someone that has been drinking.

Not all drinking is drunk therefore not all sex while drinking is rape, however it is a very thin line and not one that you should put yourself on.

Mixing Alcohol and sex is just a bad idea.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

The alcohol one is philosophical conundrum. On one hand the person feeding alcohol is doing it for the sole purpose of getting sex, and that strikes me as rather predatory. On the other hand, I think it sets a very bad legal precedent that one sex can get drunk, consent to sex, regret it the next day and ruin some dudes life. Because it would be very difficult to prove whether or not he was preying on the woman in question or just partying when one thing led to another.

Legally speaking, alcohol is not considered a significant mood altering drug to make you not liable for the actions you take, even when poisoned with it. If you can prove poisoning by the alleged rapist, then they are at least guilty of that, which implies predatory motives. But if you can't prove that poisoning, then the act of sex shouldn't be enough to prove that rape happened in that situation from a legal standpoint of not wanting to wrongly convict the innocent.

EDIT: I also think that saying getting buzzed makes women incapable of making decisions is rather degrading to women and edges into trivializing rape.

I would ask why you're assuming it's always a man getting a woman drunk. No reason it couldn't be the other way around, or be a case of same-sex interaction.

This happened to a master sergeant I know -- woman got him passed out drunk and then raped him.


thejeff wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

You cannot give consent while drunk.

Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.

Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.

This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.

Does this mean that you didn't do something that put you in the situation? No. But that doesn't excuse the other persons behavior either.

If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.

Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.

My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.

Define drunk.

1) Had any alchohol.
2) Past the legal limit for driving.
3) Beyond that, but still walking and talking coherently, but judgement is probably impaired.
4) Incapacitated. Passed out or at least not capable of coherent conversation or control of your body.

As I understand it, 4 is the only one where you're likely to get a conviction. 1-3 would criminalize an awful lot of sex. And 3 is basically what we're talking about with charm magic.

1. Is questionable

2. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape
3. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape
4. Is drunk -> No Consent ∴ Rape

Also we very much are not talking about number 3 with charm magic from the get go:

Charm magic is not by consent -- [b]by very definition it is forcibly changing your opinion[b]. This means your judgement is impaired. You are under the effects of a mind altering substance (in this case a magic spell), which means you cannot (in regards to the person you are charmed towards) give informed consent, because they have already violated you.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

You cannot give consent while drunk.

Consent must be obtained or the act is forced is automatically considered forced.
Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.
This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.
So if both parties are drunk, then both parties raped each other?

Yes, on a technical level, with no other information.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You cannot give consent while drunk.

Consent must be obtained or the act is forced.

Drunk has a legal definition. Consent has a legal definition, and you cannot consent while drunk. If you do not have consent then the act is not willing.

This is a basic point everyone needs to get into their heads.

Does this mean that you didn't do something that put you in the situation? No. But that doesn't excuse the other persons behavior either.

If I leave my house open and you take something from it you have still robbed me. I made it easy but you are still a robber.

Consequently if I get drunk I cannot give consent. If I do not give consent and you do it anyways you are a rapist.

My idiocy does not give you the right to my possessions.


Kain Darkwind wrote:


Making the argument that boozing someone up and sleeping with them the same as rape either false, or changing the definition of rape to lose the meaning that invests it with the emotional context its connotations imply.

Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void.

Voluntarily impairing your judgement does not render your judgements null and void agreed -- however taking advantage of someone with impaired judgement is taking advantage of someone with impaired judgement and that is rape.

Purposefully impairing someone's judgement and then taking advantage of that impairment is a violation of that person and is a rape.

Using drugs or magic either way doesn't change that.

Also prior consent does not imply current consent -- agreeing to something in past does not obligate you to provide consent and does not relieve your partner from having to obtain consent again for a new instance.

Impaired judgement renders you incapable of consent.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
umm. if memory serves right, isn't feats/traits/class abilities that circumvent the whole "you can only raise a persons disposition by two with diplomacy" thing?

There are several, Diabolical Negotiator from the ISG is a good example. However, as far as I know you can't go above "helpful" on the diplomacy chart. 3.5 had an additional category called "fanatic" with skill DCs ranging from 50 to 150, but I'm not aware of anything like that in Pathfinder.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Charm and (especially) Domination spells override the target's will and implicitly makes them do things they don't want to do if they fail a will save.

Barring external factors (such as prestige classes that alter how diplomacy functions) Diplomacy does not have that ability - no matter how persuasive the person you're talking to is, you always have the option to "just say no" if the request he makes is one that's incompatible with your values or personal views.

Diplomacy tries to flex your will, charm/domination spells tries to break it.

Thats what I thought, I wasn't sure if I was mixing up my 3.5 with PF xD.

As for the diplomacy thing, you would be suprised at what people can convince you to do... Just going to throw out things like Cult Leaders... and not all of them have to be super satanic cults, just look at Scientology or how Jehovah's Witnessess are...

Surprised at how far you can be pushed doesn't mean you can be pushed in all cases or to the same point, specifically with a single method (i.e. diplomacy).

As per the skill some requests simply are not possible, therefore (again) we can conclude that not all requests are possible.


Drock11 wrote:

I'm of the opinion that charm spells and similar things don't become de facto cheap domination effects just because a charisma check is made. It's a very badly worded vague portion of the spell and that part of it should never have been added into it if for no other reason than the confusion and arguments it can create.

In that it is the same as boozing someone up. In the world in which I operate if you booze someone up then sleep with them it is rape, if you use charm person to sleep with them then it is rape.

At least with the booze they could have not drank.


Make a request (p)
Request is honored (q)
Some Requests are not honored (¬q)

Which means we can say:
p->(q or ¬q)

However we cannot assume
p->q

or

p->¬q

The case that if you make a request with diplomacy it must be honored is p->q and is an invalid argument.


Quote:

Succeed- If you succeed, the character’s attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character’s attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations.

...

You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.

Note how charm person doesn't match that language.

Charm person allows you to do things that you simply do not get to do with diplomacy from the get go.


Jeff W wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
It also mixes nicely with the Razmiran Priest archetype for the sorcerer. At 9th level you can cast spells from scrolls using your spell slots and the with the pathfinder savant's scroll master ability you will do so at your own caster level.
But then you can't abuse scrolls created at levels higher than your caster level...

You can, but you can also abuse scrolls created at levels lower than your caster level too, which is nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It also mixes nicely with the Razmiran Priest archetype for the sorcerer. At 9th level you can cast spells from scrolls using your spell slots and the with the pathfinder savant's scroll master ability you will do so at your own caster level.

Basically you simply keep a large number of divine scrolls and use them as extra spells known.


Reducing spells prepared per day hurts -- always.

However if you are going to mix it with say white mage and go for something a little less powerful and use the exploits that deal damage it's not the worse thing you could do for/to yourself. Especially if you want an arcanist that is more into charisma than intelligence.


Yeah the problem is the extraordinary part. I was looking for something to help with places like the mana waste.


That's a good point, I think in retrospect it needs to be two uses of inspiration (like combat inspiration) and be limited in the number of times per day like the normal challenge ability.


Trei0 wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Bard and alchemist since the alchemist can quick build all sorts of ammunition for the gunslinger.
Such as?

provided you aren't into society play the alchemist gains a bonus on making alchemical items and makes them faster than anyone else. So he can build the alchemical cartridges and such that a gunslinger wants during down time and at the end of the day.


Bard and alchemist since the alchemist can quick build all sorts of ammunition for the gunslinger.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
A trained laborer makes 3 silver/day. Assuming he works 7 days a week he earns 109.5 gold a year. Assuming not a penny of that goes for an kind of expense whatsoever it take 20.5 years to earn enough to buy a potion to alter sex. An unskilled laborer error earns 1 sp a day, so it takes 61.5 years. When you take in the fact very few people are working every day for 20+ years, and the fact that most of people's money goes to Survival I'd say it makes in world sense that someone may be Transgender rather than even bother.

Oh Gods not this again:

Let me help you out here:

Joe the Farmer is a professional.

Now it's not going to be quickly but it still is not going to take him 20.5 years, even accounting for expenses.

I like your assessment on that other thread. My only disagreement, as shared by others on that thread, is that a farmer's kids multiplies the farmer's revenues, not the other way around. In the 40's and 50's rural families had 12 or 14 kids... it was impossible to run a farm without the farm hands.

Thank you, without derailing here too much, I addressed later in the thread that I wanted to stack against the farmer to start with so that if he was going to be dirt poor so to speak it would be under what I saw as draconian conditions. With the help of a spouse the farmer would be looking to see more like 792.5 gp net a year.


During times of peace and renaissance a gentleman might earn respect among his peers and a place with a noble order through his wit and drive instead of his steady swordarm. A gentleman Knight nevertheless upholds his code and duties with the same zeal that the cavaliers of old did.

Challenge(Ex): A gentleman Knight may expend a point of inspiration to use the cavalier's challenge ability as a cavalier of his level. This ability replaces trapfinding and all instances of trap sense.
Order(Ex): A gentleman Knight gains an order at second level as a cavalier would. He must adhere to the edicts of his order and gains all the abilities that a cavalier would from the order. This replaces Poison Lore, all instances of poison resistance and poison immunity.


The hound of Baskerville does not have access to the varied extracts of other investigators. Instead he relies on the steadfast services of his faithful animal companion.

Animal Companion(Ex): At level 1 a hound of Baskerville gains an animal companion as a druid equal to his level.
Animal Focus(Su): At level 1 a hound of Baskerville gains the animal focus ability as a hunter equal to his level. This ability includes the second animal focus gained at 8th level.
Hunter Tactics(Ex): At level 3 a hound of Baskerville gains the hunter tactics ability.

A hound of baskerville does not gain the alchemy ability, these abilities replace it completely.


The physician relies on his medical inspiration and more "natural" remedies to cure people in areas where magic has failed or is viewed with suspicion.

Medical Inspiration(Ex): A physician may use his inspiration ability on heal checks for free. A physician may use his intelligence modifier in place of his wisdom modifier on heal checks. In addition when using inspiration on a heal check he gains additional benefits based on what type of heal check he is performing:

First Aid -- The physician heals the patient a number of hit points equal to his inspiration bonus on the skill check.

Long Term Care -- The physician heals each of his patients additional hit points equal to his inspiration roll. He may instead heal an amount of ability damage for one patient equal to his inspiration roll.

Treat wounds from Caltrops, spike growth, or spike stones -- The physician reduces the amount of time required by a number of minutes equal to his inspiration roll.

Treat Deadly Wounds -- The physician heals the patient an additional amount of hp equal to his inspiration check with only a single use of a healing kit. A physician that exceeds the DC by 5 or more may heal an additional amount of hp equal to his intelligence modifier. Finally a physician can spend an additional point of inspiration to be able to treat deadly wounds on a patient a second time during the day. Each time he heals the same patient again in the same day it costs an additional inspiration point.

Treat Poison or Treat Disease -- The patient may use your heal check in place of his save throw against poison or disease.

At level 4 when the physician uses an alchemical item on an ally (including himself) he may spend a point of inspiration to increase the effectiveness of the alchemical item. When the physician uses this ability he makes an inspiration roll. He may increase the duration of the item by an amount equal to this roll in the form of duration the item already has (if the item lasts minutes he increases the duration a number of minutes equal to his roll, if it last rounds he instead increases the duration a number of rounds equal to his roll). He may instead increase the items effectiveness by an amount equal to his inspiration roll (if the item provides energy resistance it increases by an amount equal to his roll, if it provides fast healing it the amount of fast healing is increased by his roll).

At level 7 the when the physician improves an alchemical item for an ally he may also negate any negative side effects that come from using the item. The physician may also attempt to treat ailments other than those normally treatable by the heal skill. He may attempt to remove any of the following conditions from a patient; blindness, deafness, stunned, confused, fatigued, exhausted, nauseated, paralysis, sickened, staggered, or unconscious. The DC for the check is the Caster level of the effect + 10 and takes a full round action.

At level 10 the physician may attempt to treat wounds that would normally be fatal. By expending 5 points of inspiration the physician may attempt to treat someone that has been killed. The DC of the check is 10+the number of rounds the patient has been dead + the amount of negative hit points the patient is currently at. If the physician is successful the patient is revived with 0 hp and one negative level.

At level 13 the physician may attempt to treat permanent negative energy levels or ability drain. The DC for the check is 10 + the caster level of the effect.

This ability replaces Alchemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
A trained laborer makes 3 silver/day. Assuming he works 7 days a week he earns 109.5 gold a year. Assuming not a penny of that goes for an kind of expense whatsoever it take 20.5 years to earn enough to buy a potion to alter sex. An unskilled laborer error earns 1 sp a day, so it takes 61.5 years. When you take in the fact very few people are working every day for 20+ years, and the fact that most of people's money goes to Survival I'd say it makes in world sense that someone may be Transgender rather than even bother.

Oh Gods not this again:

Let me help you out here:

Joe the Farmer is a professional.

Now it's not going to be quickly but it still is not going to take him 20.5 years, even accounting for expenses.


I got a big smile and wear bright colors.

I'm boring that way.


the cavalier is going to be heartbroken he did not make the sexiness cut.


valet familiar shares its masters teamwork feats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malaclypse wrote:
KSF wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.
No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to.

The hostility towards non-puritan imagery uttered in this thread makes me disagree with you.

citation, and exact quotes.


thanks, i could not find that for the life of me. i knew what it was supposed to be and such but i just could not find it.


are they charisma or intelligence based, and are they the normal 10 plus half level. my pdf didnot say.


indeed each corner actually counts on each axis if you check in the combat section of the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ the thread title: That's between her and her partner.

But I recommend infernal healing afterward if they agree to this.


Non-helpful post of the day:

Magic.


Question: Why does the Pulse Rifle that Aeryn Sun is using have a pistol grip, a trigger for hip fire, and scope?


Nicos wrote:
Well, not sure why every female/male in paizo art have to be attractive either.

because every monster with high charisma is butt ugly so we need low charisma attractive iconics to balance... well iconics and npcs.


Well I guess I can see that -- any trait can certainly be attractive (well, maybe not any trait but I get the idea).

I think it's because I read what was quote of you from Nicos and took that on its own. By itself and the throw away line of "concealing" I read it as "covered" or "not exposed" which let to the sarcasm/snark about being exposed and such.

But again in retrospect it looks more like I missed a beat an misunderstood what you were trying to say.


Ceres Cato It was sarcasm... sorry if I broke the meter.

Why/what does sexiness have to do with anything really?

It's not indicative of intelligence, strength, health, agility, skill, power, success, or anything else with the possible except of personal hygiene.

Honestly it's all about looks which are only skin deep. Of course when you think about it so is live cause if I get the blade under the skin... well...

Honestly I don't care. While I can generally find something amazing about any body (and anybody) that's because people are amazing things mechanically, aesthetically and in sheer ability.

At the end of the day the dress or lack of there is generally only indicative of what the person has on layered (or not) their body with and possibly what their immediate intentions for the future are.


Nicos wrote:
Ceres Cato wrote:


On another note: I was terribly, TERRIBLY disappointed with the art in the Inner Sea Gods hardcover. Besides the Calistrian cleric and some evil female clerics (why evil?) most of the women dressed in stuff so concealing I asked myself: Are these women afraid of showing that they are women?
Why they have to be afraid of something?

Well you know I HAVE to prove I'm a man by dressing skimpy all the time. That's why I don't go anywhere without my banana hammock.

So of course a woman should be wearing something similar.

Of course sometimes it's cold, or I would like to dress with more clothes but I don't want people to think I'm afraid so all my tuxedos and armor have to expose my banana hammock.


24 people marked this as a favorite.

Dude.

What.

There hasn't been "opposition" -- no one has said, "No this shouldn't be a part of gaming."

There has been a discussion on what "eyecandy" says about our society or how it is presented, and if it is evenhanded or not and a million other things.

But not once did a developer or employee of Paizo come in here and say, "You know what, we will not have any eyecandy or skimpy dressing for any more iconics from here on out."

I can almost guarantee there will be more eyecandy. If for no other reason than Freya, Seona, and all the other iconics are still the core iconics and therefore will be used more than the others in artwork for Paizo.

And on a serious note, if the fact that a company that people have discussed what they would like to see and how what has been affects them and other causes you to think you should be disappointed because you somehow are getting what you want and everyone else is, and somehow that means they are privileged.

No NOW I'm mad. They finally got an equal say. Grow up. For once they have a company that says, "Yeah we can make that happen." What you have gotten your entire life has finally happened for them. They are your equal and now you have to wait your turn.

It's no longer all about the semi-nude female for you to look at. Your tastes are not central and quite frankly this is a good thing.

At least have the good grace to wait your turn.

The basic idea of the thread, "Hey this is what I would like to see more of and it feels like you are over swinging in the other direction." Alright that was fair to be brought up as your opinion.

This last post however? It's crap.


LazarX wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

It's also fun to see what doesn't change in their clothing. Like the specific jewelry they keep, or such.

Finally the different outfits can help show faster than words ever will important points about cultures.

Only time iconics get a new set of clothes is when they go mythic. Seltyiel didn't even get a new outfit when he changed out of Eldritch Knight!

There were a couple in the GM guide.

I'm not expecting a huge amount of them and I know that the iconics will have a default look and outfit of course. But a couple of different outfits here or there wouldn't be a bad thing.

But I do know better than to hold my breath waiting for it.


Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


Yeah sounds like Divergent or Brave New World, or The giver or any other variation on that theme to me...

I would worry for the person not creeped out by the idea.

Hello, I'm a person who had their mind altered.

I suffered from clinical depression that for over a decade required medication. I regularly meet people who are leery or critical of using medication to assist when one's brain chemistry isn't doing what one wants. When I was depressed every single morning was met with dread, and pleas to some higher power for swift end was regularly a weekly occurrence. This was carved into my very physiology, and very likely my genetic code from my family history of mental illness.

Yet I had a feeling there was something better, and with placement of trust in my doctor, I agreed to medication that changed my outlook on the world, yet at the same time did not shatter my sense of self. If anything, it strengthened it, being able to look at some things in life and not be filled with a grey, morose feeling of emptiness made me have certain things to cling to, idealize, enjoy, and care about.

I understand the value of a personal identity, but if something is personal, then it is that person's, to do with as they see fit in accordance to their conscience.

Your examples of what you are creeped out by are specifically instances where a person outside the person themselves influences identity, in both cases a Big Government that wants to maintain absolute control over people.

I however, simply wanted control with myself.

Well I certainly understand your position. I also appreciate you understand that you need your medication and use it. I know some who keep going on thinking they are better and don't need the medications and then dropping off them only to end worse than they started.

Also you are correct in identifying that choice is a huge part of it.

Another example would be limitless for me or steroid use by professional athletes.

I do understand and appreciate the need for medication to help people though and I am grateful that such medication is available for those that need it.


Crystal Frasier wrote:
KSF wrote:

As worded in your original quote, the implication seems to be that the magic would, for example, make a male-bodied trans woman feel good about being in a male body. That is what I mean by changing the person's gender identity, and that is what I object to.

If whatever process or thing you place in the quotes ("magic" or whatever) were to make me happy to have a male body, I would no longer be myself. And that would be a violation of me.

Excellently said, KSF!

The point we're trying to make here isn't to attack you or call you a bad person. Instead, what we heard was "What if we tried fantasy solution X to address condition Y." And a lot of people with condition Y are trying to explain that that fantasy solution X sounds terrifying to us.

Yeah sounds like Divergent or Brave New World, or The giver or any other variation on that theme to me...

I would worry for the person not creeped out by the idea.


You know Crystal I had the same thought but couldn't figure out how to say it right so I didn't at all (about the elves -- Lashunta is something I just don't mess with).


LazarX wrote:
Red Velvet Tiger wrote:
When in doubt, ask the Elves! They're smart enough to have a good answer somewhere! Seriously though, in a culture as free as the Elves have, why WOULDN'T they have some sort of easy magic for this?
Having a mostly chaotic alignment does not translate into cheaper access to magic. In other words, elves don't get a magic price break because they're elves, at least not in Pathfinder default.

Secondary point: Just because it might work for elves doesn't mean it would work for anyone else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Terquem

First off hello, great to meet you on these forums. I want to share something personal with you (and of course the general public). It may or may not apply but please take it in the helpful spirit it is offered.

As a CIS white male (I believe that is the correct term) I have had a very privileged and lucky life. This is no one's fault and I do not feel guilty for it.

However my overawareness of just how good I had it had often been a barrier to my own attempts to better understand other people. Ironically it was the fear that I would say something incredibly ignorant or stupid or down right offensive that would frighten me into not saying anything.

Fortunately I am rather gifted and used my awkward silence to listen and observe. What I saw helped me overcome my fear -- I saw other CIS white males make complete jerks of themselves... and people forgive them of it.

It wasn't the awkward questions or misunderstanding of terms or deeply personal nature of the questions that caused the problems though. It was usually the need for the CIS white male (as myself) to try and understand everything from my own viewpoint.

Which is ridiculous -- you can't do that and somethings there simply is no understanding. I guess it's kind of like faith, I can accept and believe something about someone without understanding it (Interestingly this has helped me accept myself more and there are things about me I don't understand and I have been able to find peace with).

The second biggest issue I saw was the need of the person to try and 'correct' or 'defend' when inevitably something got miss-communicated.

In this case people are telling you that you seem to be skirting or not understanding a specific point. They aren't accusing you of wrong doing. The thought or idea might be very foreign to you and therefore it is brought out again not to bludgeon you with it but so you can understand this hard point is very center to what is being discussed.

Now I do not know your race, sex, make up, intentions, or anything else about you other than you are in this thread and trying to learn and talk with others.

I want you to understand I find this extremely admirable and a great trait to have.

I simply want to offer a possible thought to you, or anyone else that might be reading on an issue I have had in the past.

To everyone else -- sorry about making this about me (damn that CIS White Male privilege!).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lilith wrote:
Red Velvet Tiger wrote:

EVERYONE NEEDS MOAR SKEXY ICONIKS!!! MOAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Selytiel = pure sex poured into black leather!

Where he's going in my sketchbook, he doesn't need leather.

Also, I feel compelled to point out that when art is depicted in either extreme all the time is the problem. There's a time and place for pinups, and a time and place for being an armored juggernaut, and a wide variety between both points is most desirable and as the situation of the art warrants. :)

Oh general thought and point of order:

Paizo, when you get artwork of Iconics I would LOVE to see multiple pictures of the iconics in different outfits.

Seeing how the character dresses in different situations is awesome and helps break people of the thought, "But I have to always where my breast plate" or what not.

It's also fun to see what doesn't change in their clothing. Like the specific jewelry they keep, or such.

Finally the different outfits can help show faster than words ever will important points about cultures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Bards are far too balanced. They should either be made much better, so they can compete with the other overpowered classes, or made much worse, so they don't overshadow rogues.

Your Poe'sLaw, it's tasty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
That's right! So are Droogami and Daji!
It's ridiculous that the only nude iconics are beasts! I demand more nudes of the other humanoid iconics!
I, on the other tentacle, believe we should see more iconic critters fashionably dressed. Such as Kolo sporting full Rocketeer cosplay... Daji sporting a top hat, monocle, jaunty scarf, stylish vest, and swordcane... Biter nakkid but for a fez...

I would normally second this but instead I will square it as it just sounds awesome.


JoeJ wrote:

One thing about bards that has bothered me ever since it was first allowed in 3E was letting them cast Cure spells. Bards are arcane casters, not divine casters. If arcane casters can heal, then why can't wizards, who are supposed to be the experts in arcane magic, do it?

Falls flat when you consider they could case cure spells in 1st edition too (since they cast as per druids). Also falls even more flat with the introduction of the witch, and there have always been other options for healing as arcane casters through out the editions.

Indeed the separation of magic into arcane and divine is itself a more recent addition to the system.

1 to 50 of 10,130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.