Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber. 1,957 posts (1,974 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,957 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:

Unfortunately, monster feats are usually not legal for PCs unless you have a very permissive GM in a home game.

Personally. I like Magus 3 with the wand wielder arcana to spell combat with a wand of true strike.

My personal experience is about 50:50. Usually it's a gut reaction to say NO! because a new or casual DM thinks that "Bestiary feat request auto = POWERGAMEMINMAXCHEESERTRYINGTOBREAKMYGAMEOHNOES!"

Of the several DM's I have played with that had that reaction I am usually able to talk it out with them and let them see that those feats are pretty well balanced. Then again, I think 70% of those instances were with ability focus which is a pretty weak feat. So ymmv.

In my games bestiary feats are allowed without even asking, but then so are 3.5 feats and several 3rd party company feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

What, you guys don't dervish-dance, flame-blade, in bat form?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
necromental wrote:

What, cartoons don't have enough dialogue? I agree for tom&jerry or maybe looney tunes, but most common were flintstones, jetsons and scooby doo which were pretty dialogue driven. And I learned alot from live action movies too: sh.t! son-of-a-b! and stuff like that :D (joking aside, I watched a lot of live action movies, too, so that's not the point)

I still think you undervalue interaction for speaking (not understanding) a foreign language. I was exposed to almost the same amount to italian language (also cartoons and movies), but since I didn't interact with anybody, I can barely speak it. I sang songs in english with my friends, LARPed action movies (american ninja and lethal weapon being the favorites), and did none of that for italian (although i studied them both at school).

And, look here I am debating learning english with you because of gaming, ha!

What I'm saying here is that you're not going to get much thesis material from the boards on this topic, because you're going to find it hard to find someone who intentionally chose gaming as a language teaching aid compared to other means of interaction, or self teaching through means such as Rosetta Stone.

You may find people who used gaming to teach group interaction, but that's starting with the common communication skills i.e. language and grammar to begin with.

In this thread I've seen several studies posted and I have personally offered to connect him with someone in the language education field with multiple years of experience using games as a language tool. What more could someone posting in a random thread on the internet hope to get for their thesis?

Also, immersion doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also Also, you should read threads before making blind judgements about what you think you will find in them. Your lead off sentence is patently false. It was false before you wrote it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?
Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?

As someone previously stated you don't have to have sex. So women have a right to not get pregnant right? You know how you can do that? Don't have sex. If you want your cake and to eat it too you're gonna have to pay. Why is it there job to pay for something elective?

Look I'm a libertarian. I believe individual rights are paramount and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infinite on another's rights. And glad to provide some diversity.

You don't have to eat, so why should insurance cover lipitor.

And by the way THEY ARE PAYING!!!!!!!!!!111eleven
WHen you say "you gots ta pay" they are PAYING by exchanging their labor for a compensation package that includes comprehensive reproductive healthcare.

QFT


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Paris Crenshaw wrote:
David M Mallon wrote:
You might be a Paizo veteran if you remember the blue background.

Technically, you could also have simply forgotten the blue background.

For those who share in my senility...here you go.

Ooh, oh no. That was uncalled for. You shouldn't post things like that. [Kirkesque]FRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMES![/Kirkesque]


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Legion Janus wrote:
Lord Dice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.
Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.
Oh! You mean like feudalism?
Dude, have you even tried to get someone to swear an oath of fealty to you lately? There'a a lot more to feudalism than moneyed classes doing well for ourselves.
It's a lot easier than you think. A lot of people looking for heroes these days. Lot of fools lured in by promises that will never be kept. Such a waste.

Isn't that what I said about corporations? :-D


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Andrew R wrote:
I think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.

That defeats the ability to pool risk, unless you are prepared to accept a nationalized single payer system.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Spending a Ki point is a non-action that's tied into the ability you're spending the point for. That ability would be whatever action it would be called for. Spending a ki point to get extra attacks isn't a separate swift action, it's part of the full-atttack action you're powering up.

The above quote came from someone who did not bother to reread the ki monk entry before posting. It is entirely false.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Quirel wrote:


Antimatter isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel. It's a medium for high-density energy storage. So, say, you have a string of stattites around the Sun soaking up solar energy and using it to produce antimatter, or you have a solar array that encircles the moon's equator, also producing antimatter. That antimatter is then loaded onto ships for a power source, or shipped somewhere else in the solar system that needs power and doesn't mind using an incredibly volatile fuel.
Or you toss a pound of it on the Earth and totally blow off the planet's atmosphere. The ultimate weapon grade material.
The explosion would be huge as the matter/antimatter annihilated one another, but 1 pound of antimatter would only destroy 1 pound of matter, or in the atmosphere about 360L of N2 gas. Not exactly atmosphere-ending.
Okay 2 pounds make that one kilogram to make the math neat, of matter converted to energy.... run that through the Einstein E equals MC squared equation and tell me how much energy is released. And then come back to me.

Energy releasing /= atmosphere destroying.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Quirel wrote:


Antimatter isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel. It's a medium for high-density energy storage. So, say, you have a string of stattites around the Sun soaking up solar energy and using it to produce antimatter, or you have a solar array that encircles the moon's equator, also producing antimatter. That antimatter is then loaded onto ships for a power source, or shipped somewhere else in the solar system that needs power and doesn't mind using an incredibly volatile fuel.
Or you toss a pound of it on the Earth and totally blow off the planet's atmosphere. The ultimate weapon grade material.

The explosion would be huge as the matter/antimatter annihilated one another, but 1 pound of antimatter would only destroy 1 pound of matter, or in the atmosphere about 360L of N2 gas. Not exactly atmosphere-ending.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Lord Dice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.
Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.
Oh! You mean like feudalism?
Dude, have you even tried to get someone to swear an oath of fealty to you lately? There'a a lot more to feudalism than moneyed classes doing well for ourselves.

Have you worked in a corporation lately? They demand fealty. Particularly for managers.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

In general good game design, you don't do this. I've read books that state that it's not good to penalise players for taking a beating. Having lower hp and being closer to death is enough.

Rachel Carter wrote:

At 75% hit points players take a -2 to attacks, AC, combat maneuvers, and any strength, dexterity, or constitution based checks, maybe a speed reduction too?

At 50% this penalty changes to 3, and at 25% it reduces further...maybe to 4?

This would tilt the odds against anybody who takes damage. Already at 75% they would start to take damage more frequent and do less damage them selves, aka not killing the thing doing damage to them before it can do even more damage.

And if both parts go down equaly quick (applying the penalties to both players' and enemies' AC and attack rolls) the modifiers won't matter. If you have -2 to hit and they have -2 to AC, then there's no point in having this system.

This would only result in your players having to heal as soon as they get close to or below 75%, or they're doing it wrong (from a strategic point of view).

In conclusion: This either tilts combat, giving more advantage to the already stronger side OR it doesn't do anything at all.

I think the effect is more subtle. It strengthens numbers. It gives more of an advantage to larger groups. A single opponent, even when he doesn't go down right away, will quickly rackup penalties. A large number of weaker opponents will start to drop, but the remaining ones will still be at full strength.

Whether this is to the PCs advantage or not depends on whether they're the group ganging up on the one BBEG or the few facing a horde of mooks.

Action economy advantage isn't enough? Do we really need for the party to kill the APL+4 bad guy even quicker?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
zauriel56 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?
Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?

As someone previously stated you don't have to have sex. So women have a right to not get pregnant right? You know how you can do that? Don't have sex. If you want your cake and to eat it too you're gonna have to pay. Why is it there job to pay for something elective?

Look I'm a libertarian. I believe individual rights are paramount and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infinite on another's rights. And glad to provide some diversity.

What is the functional difference between the government saying "You, employer, must provide health care benefits that include XYZ" and the government saying "You, employer, must provide minimum wage pay" and then the employee goes out and buys health care benefits XYZ with their pay?

Answer: There is no difference. Hobby Lobby has just found a way around a minimum compensation law. Corporations don't go to heaven.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Don't buy bracers until the cheapest way to increase your AC by 1 is more than 25,000 gp. (Or 12,500 if you are crafting.) ie, in your case you need a ROP+3, ANA+5, and a belt of DEX+6 (or DEX and CON +4) before you think about crafting BOA. When you do craft them, they should be +5.

Note, for people who aren't crafting the benefit point comes much later.

Edit: changed numbers to reflect the ability to craft other wondrous items.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Fake Healer wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I like my fantasy game to include badasses who don't slow down 'til they drop. YMMV.
You could still do that with feats or abilities that allow martials to ignore all or a certain amount of penalties, something like "Tough as Nails" or "It's Only a Flesh Wound" feats.... There is always easy ways to allow something in general in the game and let specific things have a way to avoid them. The trick is to do it with an easy mechanic that doesn't bog down the game or make it less fun....

Just what the game needs, ANOTHER martial feat tax.

(Let's see how this goes over...) I think that casters should have to take their % damage as a concentration check penalty (so if you are down 80% of HP then you take a -80 on concentration checks) and casters must make a concentration check if they are injured at all. There will be a feat called "improved combat casting" which has combat casting as a prerequisite which removes the penalty.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


What happened in the 1960's - Usagi Yojimbo outlines it. It has nothing to do with your (troll-like) implication that black people can vote.

Starting in the 1960's, sometime after the Civil Rights Act was passed [having nothing to do with Constitutional Civil Rights], lawmakers and others in power began dismantling the social contract expressed and implied by the FFs in various documents - the Declaration, the Constitution + Amendments, the Federalist Papers, etc.

Usagi Yojimbo's only recent comment refers to changes after/during the Civil War. The 1860s, not the 1960s.

Unemployment insurance has been around since the 30s, as has Social Security and most of our other welfare programs (in one form or another). The only major addition in the 60s was Medicare/Medicaid.
So what are you talking about?

What did the lawmakers and others in power actually do in the 1960s to begin dismantling the social contract?

I keep making those troll-like implications because I can't think of anything else you could be talking about. Especially when you started this with

Quote:
Our system of government started to lose effectiveness (slip into Democracy) in the 1960's.
and
Quote:
By law, anyone can vote regardless of ability to hear and understand the issues on the ballot.

Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?

Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about?

You're feeding it. It only lives if you feed it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Rathendar wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Aside from the other reasons mentioned, I really dislike the idea of mechanics scaling off HP. Why is it that a level 8 fighter with 25hp left is taking a penalty that the first level fighter who only has 14 hp at full health isn't taking?
Because he gets to enjoy the benefit of not being dead, unlike the 14hp fighter after the same damage? HP are abstract, but damage does represent damage. (mostly i am just stating a possible perspective, and am not the OP)

So a higher level character with more resources left is taking a penalty that a lower level character with less resources left isn't taking. What game are you playing where that makes sense, because it sure isn't pathfinder?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
You could call somebody who cared for a quarter.

If you can find a dang pay phone then it's 35¢ and no change back for 2 quarters.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

100 1st level kobold sorcerers shoot you with magic missile. magic missiles: 100d4 + 100 ⇒ (2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 1, 3, 3, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 3, 1, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 1, 1, 3, 4, 3, 1, 3, 4, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1) + 100 = 343


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Aside from the other reasons mentioned, I really dislike the idea of mechanics scaling off HP. Why is it that a level 8 fighter with 25hp left is taking a penalty that the first level fighter who only has 14 hp at full health isn't taking?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
But Andrew, you do understand that "plenty left over to can" is such a work intensive proposition that the system you're espousing results in feudalism, right? Cause M'lord Dice and other such masters of industry grok that junk in technicolor.
Considering how well this democracy fad is working, I suspect feudalism will make a return soon enough.
Why? for the moneyed classes, the present setup has been working VERY well for them.

Oh! You mean like feudalism?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!

But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.

The king does most certainly not represent the citizens. The king represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people (cf. the movie The King's Speech) but usually not.

Circa 1800 I can assure you plenty of poor were represented as they were able to vote (duh). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if proportionally more poor were represented then as now due to the high literacy rate, relative lack of stigma associated with being poor, and greater importance of the social contract for being a contributing citizen.

Also, "nonwhite" households each had a vote if they were free landholders... Silly old bear :)

Oh, OK. Trolling then.
Poe's Law.

Which is why I directly asked about his intentions. The lack of response pretty well sealed it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!

But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.

The king does most certainly not represent the citizens. The king represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people (cf. the movie The King's Speech) but usually not.

Circa 1800 I can assure you plenty of poor were represented as they were able to vote (duh). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if proportionally more poor were represented then as now due to the high literacy rate, relative lack of stigma associated with being poor, and greater importance of the social contract for being a contributing citizen.

Also, "nonwhite" households each had a vote if they were free landholders... Silly old bear :)

Oh, OK. Trolling then.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
GregH wrote:
thejeff wrote:

He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.

But, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?
Not at all, it is the cost of expecting others to pay for you

Or, more accurately, paying for it yourself while others are paying for anything for you.

Exactly what programs should make it illegal for you to buy alcohol? WIC? SNAP? Housing assistance? Medicaid? SSDI? Medicare? Standard retirement Social Security? EITC? ACA subsidies?
Tax breaks on your mortgage payment? Business tax credits?

After all, all the money is fungible, so if you're getting any government money at all, it's like you're using it to buy booze.

Clearly, only the programs that Andrew personally doesn't like should force you to "carry the mark," which prevents you from spending your cash as you choose.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
graystone wrote:
If I recall, the rules say you have to use 'both' hands to use a two handed weapon. It NEVER states what to do when you have more than two. It never states that 'both' must be primary + offhand. So there isn't ANY RAW on wielding 2 2-handed weapons.

It doesn't matter how many physical hands you have, you only have two metaphysical "hands of effort." And it is your metaphysical hands of effort which actually wield weapons. So, no, you cannot TWF with THW under any circumstance, ever. Even with 100 arms, you still couldn't do it.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Nimon wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Nimon wrote:


I wrote a similar paper for Sociology about the benefits of games in general. This was a few years ago, I will look for some things. This is one URL I used. We were allowed to cite .org,.gov or .edu for our papers. This is a .org.
History of Games @ Learning
Really? .org is readily purchasable. That rule seems to come from someone who has disdain of technology because they personally don't know anything about it. They should look into this thing called "peer review."
I think .orgs are considered slightly more credible. Did you not just list 3 .orgs yourself?

Jstor is a .org that doesn't mean that I can't buy one and put whatever the hell I want on it. And it certainly isn't more credible than a .com or .net

You should judge each site on its own merits, not its domain extension.

http://theflatearthsociety.org


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.

Not only did it happen, it happened in a post you favorited. Do you even read the posts you endorse?

Caineach wrote:
I don't think you understand english if you think that is what was said.

Before you jump to insulting someone, perhaps you should make sure you understand english. And I quote (not for the first time):

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
What is the definition of a "job" in your book? Does it mean you get paid for some amount of labor? If so, then we can say that being on government assistance counts, since in effect the benefits are the "paycheck" for the labor of applying for the benefits.

Oh, apparently we have different definitions of insist. I guess you take insist to mean "suggested as an absurd alternative to demonstrate the ridiculousness of referential point," where as I take insist to mean insist.

Wait, but using your definition of insist your last point makes no freaking sense. Maybe you do just have problems with English language usage.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jc38f this one has a section on EFL instruction and story-telling.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt7jh this one has an article on imaginative play and language learning.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2253638 This one is about games and language.

It seems like someone asked a similar question before but all that could really be found on the subject was tangentially related. The more difficult task in from of you is going to be taking existing information on RPG's and showing how it lines up with positive and established practices for language learning. In essence, your paper will really be making a theoretical case for why RPG's should be used in language education rather than why RPG's are good at language education.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jc38f this one has a section on EFL instruction and story-telling.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt7jh this one has an article on imaginative play and language learning.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2253638 This one is about games and language.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Morgrym, the Servant of Torag wrote:

The thesis isn't due for more than a year, but this will require a lot of work and preparation, so I decided to get a head start. Anything and everything related in any way to the topic is welcome, from links to theses. In case anyone is wondering, my first language is Croatian, but the thesis itself will be in English.

Thanks for everything so far, as I said, anything and everything related to the topic in any way will be helpful :)

My mom just retired after 20 years of ESL education. She spent the last 10 years instructing 6th and 7th grade English immersion Science classes at an international newcomer academy. I'm sure she has lots of personal experience with using games to teach English, though I doubt much in the way of RPG's. If you are looking for primary sources for interview PM me and I can get you two in touch.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Nimon wrote:


I wrote a similar paper for Sociology about the benefits of games in general. This was a few years ago, I will look for some things. This is one URL I used. We were allowed to cite .org,.gov or .edu for our papers. This is a .org.
History of Games @ Learning

Really? .org is readily purchasable. That rule seems to come from someone who has disdain of technology because they personally don't know anything about it. They should look into this thing called "peer review."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Al Borland. Quintessential 20th level commoner.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filth
Countryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.
It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.
once you get to an area where you are asking people to accept name calling in the name of accuracy, any sort of dialog is officially over.
Dialogue ended when your side insisted that filling out forms to get benefits was a job.

Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Lunar solar will probably happen. The collectors will be on the moon, not in orbit of the moon. This is because about 20% of lunar surface dust is silica which is exactly what you need to make glass and solar voltaic panels. You send machines to the moon to construct the panels and then you can transfer that power back to earth. "Wireless" energy transfer is already a thing. It's called microwaves. They can penetrate virtually any atmospheric condition and can be sent any where on earth with an antenna array equipped to receive them. Unlike solar which gets blocked by clouds/storms and that pesky rotation thing the earth does.

Microwaves tend to get blocked by rotation as well.:)

There are also some questions about the effects of that much focused energy being shot at the earth.

That's what satellites are for.

As for your 2nd point, there is a Bond movie about that.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:

Though, as a GM, it is certainly within your purview to rule that the CL requirement must be met. Or a compromise could be made in which it is a +10 to DC instead of +5.

Personally, I am of the mindset that the CL should be a requirement, and would house rule it as such.

I rule that the caster level requirement is cumulative. Ie, if you are CL 9 and want to make an item that is CL 12 then fine. But in order to be CL 12, you must first be CL 11, in order to be CL 11, you must first be CL 10, et cetera. So the DC modifier is effectively 5x the difference between your CL and the item's CL. This seems to work well because the biggest gap I ever see is 3-4 caster levels.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Kaiser D. wrote:
Well, I have heard rumour, and I don't want to be quoted on this, but engineers are working on a way to conduct electricity wirelessly, and are trying to come up with ways to set up sort of a solar power grid in space to orbit the moon and beam the collected energy back to earth. It sounds unfeasible, but we've got some pretty smart people on this planet working on it, I wouldn't be surprised if we see this sort of technology within the next twenty years. As for using matter or anti matter as a fuel source, that's not really possible, because it's not really anything. And I don't see why we'd go to saturns rings when Enceladus, one of Saturns moons is suspected to have water under the frozen surface. If there was going to be anything that may support life, that would be the better choice.

Lunar solar will probably happen. The collectors will be on the moon, not in orbit of the moon. This is because about 20% of lunar surface dust is silica which is exactly what you need to make glass and solar voltaic panels. You send machines to the moon to construct the panels and then you can transfer that power back to earth. "Wireless" energy transfer is already a thing. It's called microwaves. They can penetrate virtually any atmospheric condition and can be sent any where on earth with an antenna array equipped to receive them. Unlike solar which gets blocked by clouds/storms and that pesky rotation thing the earth does.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
thaX wrote:
So using Bard for the DD PrC is a sub-optimal way to go. Thing is, I didn't want a third sorcerer.

Is this for PFS? If not I would talk to my DM about the spell casting progression. Bards are 2/3 casters and dragon disciple is 2/3 caster, it seems ok to let the bard progress through DD at his full bard rate. Either that or also progress the inspire ability at 2/3 through DD. Both options seem very reasonable and I would allow either for a PC in my games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:

Your thread was begging to be locked. Your opening post with it's negative attitude toward the staff guaranteed that was going to happen as soon as a staff person noticed it. Go back and reread it several times and try to put yourself in the shoes of the people you directed it towards.

If you can't answer your own question by doing this, I don't think anyone else here can.

What makes your reading of this post so wrong, and incidentally why the locking of the thread was such a bad call, is that the OP seems to agree with the changes. He is using the term "nerf" as a descriptor rather than a judgement. It is actually quite strange to say someone is being derogatory of something they agree with. Perhaps you (and the moderation staff) should not seek out offense where none exists.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

After reading the thread in question I have to agree that overzealous moderation took place. Clearly Liz has a different conotational meaning for "nerf" than I do, but beyond that she clearly didn't read the thread from a neutral perspective before locking it down. The OP and subsequent discussion were completely civil and in no way whatsoever begged for a lock.

General discussion over current rules trends should not be discouraged. The idea that general trends is not a specific enough topic is pretty nuts.

Hopefully they will open that thread back up, but almost certainly not.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

?!? The DuPont dude was convicted back in 2009, it was never sealed but the ruling wasn't noticed until March of 2014?!?

Man, Fitzgerald was right. The rich are different!

Yep, that's the one. He 'would not fare well' in prison, so all eight years were suspended.

Must be nice.

Wow, that's awesome. I have got to get in on this being rich enough to ruin a judge's homelife deal. Or write their election campaign checks by myself. Or both...


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
meatrace wrote:

95% of the population couldn't have been land owning white men. I'm guessing 50-ish % were women and a significant portion black.

You should stop lying.

HA! Silly old bear. :D

The answer to your self-induced conundrum would be 95% of people were represented by those who were eligible to vote.

Is this a serious statement or are you trolling?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
insaneogeddon wrote:
I would make them prove their control and put their money where their mouth is... 'go take a crap right now and you can do it'!

You may wish that you hadn't issued that challenge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I don't know man, if you are developing a spell which does something no other spell does or has done before (give access to a "you call it feat") it would seem appropriate to at least scan the list of published pathfinder feat (which the last time I bothered to check was less than 1000.)

It doesn't take but about 4-5 minutes to meaningfully scan a list with 1000 entries. Improved eldritch heritage maybe you miss, I can see that. But expanded arcana? That was a lazy miss.

I am sure they have other jobs to do and you need a certain mindset to find things. In my 3.5 days I found a lot of ways to combine things in a manner that would make a GM throw a book at me, but now I am not really into that mindset anymore. Maybe the devs are not either. I am not saying they shouldn't be but I would rather them not spend hours trying to break every spell or feat that comes out. A class is something I can see getting that kind of attention.

The collective devs perhaps do have other things to be doing. Whoever developed this particular spell should have realized that it was doing something completely new and should have taken the 4 minutes (ie, not hours) to scan the list of things (feats) that they were changing the access paradigm for.

I'm not saying they should look at every possible combo/corner case.

I'm saying that the person who decided to write a spell that gives players access to abilities 5/day that a regular character gets access to 10-22 of in 20 levels of play should have read the damn list of things they were granting access to.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

My issue with Reactionary is the following

The Dictionary wrote:


re·ac·tion·ar·y
rēˈakSHəˌnerē/

adjective: reactionary

1. (of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.
synonyms: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultraconservative, traditionalist, conventional, old-fashioned, unprogressive; informal redneck
"a reactionary policy"
antonyms: progressive

noun: reactionary; plural noun: reactionaries

1. a reactionary person.
synonyms: right-winger, conservative, rightist;

None of these meanings have anything to do with a person with fast reflexes.

It would appear that the dictionary is too caught up in politics or political views to understand the apparent meaning behind the word (or anything related to it). As such, it's hardly a reliable resource.

The obvious intent behind the word is "having the ability to respond," something which the trait definitely helps in doing.

Jesus, what dictionary did that come from? That is a terrible (on multiple levels) definition for reactionary


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

My personal favorites are Optimistic Gambler and Outlander: Lore Seeker.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
andreww wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yeah, you guys are the zen masters of corner cases. And I know, since I was out there with you too contemplating the same koans until last month!

I am not sure you can count Paragon Surge -> Expanded Arcana or Extra Hex or Extra Arcana as corner cases. They are really obvious uses which should have been spotted very easily at the editing stage. I can see missing Improved Eldritch Heritage: New Arcana even though New Arcana is in the CRB but it is a little convoluted. Expanded Arcana however came out in the APG, probably the best known of the expansion books.

Both however were spotted within days of Paragon Surge being released and have been known about for what, the last two years? That's not "taking time to get it right." I am not sure why it has taken so long but finding the right solution doesn't ring true as the reason.

I am one of the people who spotted it within days too (in my case, as soon as my subscriber copy was shipped and I gained the pdf). But that doesn't mean it isn't reasonable that it slipped through into the book without anyone noticing. It does require looking through the list of all feats, after all. If every spell and feat required a search of the books for every possible combo or choice in the way that you and I would do it for building a character (for instance, I am crazy enough to have a print-out of every rogue talent and ninja trick with me every time I play my ninja, with annotations for myself on ones I'm likely to choose, since I have Forgotten Trick), the books would never get out the doors.

Anyway, though, my use of the term corner cases is in reference to the post I was quoting, which is in reference to locating rules elements like that Old Ones feat from Inner Sea Gods

I don't know man, if you are developing a spell which does something no other spell does or has done before (give access to a "you call it feat") it would seem appropriate to at least scan the list of published pathfinder feat (which the last time I bothered to check was less than 1000.)

It doesn't take but about 4-5 minutes to meaningfully scan a list with 1000 entries. Improved eldritch heritage maybe you miss, I can see that. But expanded arcana? That was a lazy miss.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
137ben wrote:

Deep Magic expands on WoP considerably...

a big part of the 'expansion' is rewriting the original WoP system just because the editing in UM is so bad. The Deep Magic rewrite/expansion is actually really well done.

Qft


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Tels wrote:
Wow... I'm confused, this thread was so free and clear of drama too. Been at work all day and come back to find nearly a whole page deleted. :(

Someone suggested that contentious animosity gets FAQ's answered more quickly, so we tried that. It didn't work this time. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

At this point I am somewhat indifferent. I really like the physical book for many aesthetic reasons (look on the shelf, quality of printed art, the SMELL, and tradition of the game are a few) but when it comes to reference I'm apathetic. Over the last couple of years I find myself building more and more characters using electronic methods and during that process pdf's and the PRD are preferred, though I do find most PDF's to be bothersome to navigate. I think if PDF's were fully-hyperlinked, had more efficient art (from a load time perspective), could do partial rendering (ie, the 2 pages in front and behind my current page rather than trying to render the full file before I can do anything) and were full indexed so that search functions worked as text searches rather than OCR searches it would be a much more pleasant experience and I might leave hard books on the shelf forever. (Wow, run-on sentence much?)

For general "reading" I vastly prefer the physical book. When I get the new books, or read through modules I plan to run, or do character background research, it must be the hard copy. I can't snuggle up on the couch with my dog, coffee, and iPad. Mostly because the tech device feels vastly out of place to the experience I am seeking and because most book readers suck if you plan to read RPG books for pleasure rather than reference. They either dim out before I am done with the page, or you disable that and the battery dies. The size is wrong, and the reading angles are bad or strain the wrist. Overall a less enjoyable time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
The sorcerer is still a powerful class. I particularly like it for NPC's. I don't have to worry about making a spell book for someone that will only be created so they can die.

"Sorcerers, the NPC class of Arcane Casting." Yep, sounds about right. :D

1 to 50 of 1,957 << 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.