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

4,548 posts (4,593 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CrystalSeas wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Osteopathy is about as scientifically proven to work as homoeopathy, i.e. not at all. The effect may be all in your head. It's great that it helps you personally, but I would be hesitant to throw money at what probably is quackery.

Are you sure you aren't confusing Doctor of Osteopathy with chiropractor?

Osteopaths are physicians who are licensed by the state and allowed to practice in hospitals just like people with an MD. There are even DOs who are full professors on the faculty of major Tier 1 university medical schools. For example

University of Michigan Medical School

Pretty much this. DO's are legit doctors. Allopathic doctors tend to spread the same misconception that Fabius has.

Fabius, don't take my word for it. Insurance companies pay DO's for OMM services. If they were bogus do you think that would be true?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I strongly recommend seeing a Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) rather than an MD. MD's first instinct is to disbelieve you are in pain, and then to prescribe opioids. A DO has an additional specialized set of tools called Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM).

Changed my life. Even relieves migraine headaches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
KarlBob wrote:

Speaking of ether, I heard something interesting about dark matter recently on NPR: for all we know, there could be tons of the stuff all around us right this moment, even passing through our bodies. It almost never interacts with the kind of matter that we're made of, so we don't notice it.

That sounds a lot like ether (except for the "transmission medium for light waves" aspect of ether). If you had some way to increase the interaction of normal matter with dark matter, and only turned it on when the normal matter was traveling "backwards" in the resonant chamber of an EM-style drive, then you would have something to push against. Since it wouldn't interact with the rest of the ship, you'd go forward.

(Sure, it wouldn't work for many, many reasons, but it's fun to resurrect a discredited 19th Century theory like ether by substituting a 20th/21st Century buzzword like dark matter.)

Didn't we recently learn that Dark Matter probably doesn't exist? Or at least not nearly in the amounts or the way we previously thought. As in, we were arrogant enough to make up a whole other type of theoretical matter because our existing technology wasn't able to "see" the matter that made something be as heavy as it was supposed to be. Then we used a better piece of technology and were able to see it, and now we are tossing 50 years of science out the nearest airlock.

I could be off on this, but I seem to remember hearing quite a bit about it lately.

Commenting while home from work temporarily (exciting time with the particle accelerators!).

As far as I know, we never found the missing matter and every test to find dark matter turned up goose eggs. As in, by all evidence the missing matter simply is not there. I know there's been some work on alternative theories of gravity, such as this one.

I would be very interested if we found that missing matter.

Edit...

This was what I was thinking of, but it doesn't seem to imply what I was remembering. Oh well. Carry on! :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Expert 3, Entrepreneur 2, Biologist 1, Pharmacist 1
Wiz Bang the Wizard wrote:
Wiz Bang uses his quicken rod to cast limited wish to get greater invisibility. He then uses wish to move himself back to the arena, midway along a side wall (as far as possible from where they both started).

Didn't you drop-to-ground your diamonds? How did you provide the material component for the wish spell?


KarlBob wrote:

Speaking of ether, I heard something interesting about dark matter recently on NPR: for all we know, there could be tons of the stuff all around us right this moment, even passing through our bodies. It almost never interacts with the kind of matter that we're made of, so we don't notice it.

That sounds a lot like ether (except for the "transmission medium for light waves" aspect of ether). If you had some way to increase the interaction of normal matter with dark matter, and only turned it on when the normal matter was traveling "backwards" in the resonant chamber of an EM-style drive, then you would have something to push against. Since it wouldn't interact with the rest of the ship, you'd go forward.

(Sure, it wouldn't work for many, many reasons, but it's fun to resurrect a discredited 19th Century theory like ether by substituting a 20th/21st Century buzzword like dark matter.)

Didn't we recently learn that Dark Matter probably doesn't exist? Or at least not nearly in the amounts or the way we previously thought. As in, we were arrogant enough to make up a whole other type of theoretical matter because our existing technology wasn't able to "see" the matter that made something be as heavy as it was supposed to be. Then we used a better piece of technology and were able to see it, and now we are tossing 50 years of science out the nearest airlock.

I could be off on this, but I seem to remember hearing quite a bit about it lately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Combat has begun, our warrior has moved adjacent and turned incorporeal but shenanigans are afoot. What will happen next?

Well, since the warrior was even permitted to have a turn his chances of survival have risen greatly I would say.


Caineach wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Hybrids are good but if you are on your 3rd may I ask if you really need to drive that much?

I don't drive much... ~325 miles per week.

I got the original Prius when it first came out and drove it until it died. Next car got totaled (while parked). Have had the third for a few years now... considered going EV instead, but they were new and either poor range or super expensive.

I don't think people realize that Hybrids have been out long enough for them to die of old age at the same time as every other car their age. Hell, by this point it wouldn't be hard to kill 2 to mileage.

Yep, my folks bought one of the very first. The 2001 Honda Insight. My dad had a 50 mile each way trip to work everyday. That one got 100,000 miles in a hurry (less than 5 years.) They downgraded its service status to "2nd" car and bought a light truck. In 2013 they retired both and since they are both retired just bought a Mitsubishi Outlander and 2 motorcycles.

Point is, my folks' hybrid was 5 vechicles ago.


Ugh, we you only run 7 episode half-seasons there isn't time for this chicanery. There wasn't enough time for what was already going on. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:
atoms are not particles of fire connected to earth, wind, and water.

Ancient Greek Atomic theory

Crusinos wrote:


Eugenics has plenty of scientific issues; many of the criteria for the sterilizations tend to reduce genetic diversity, and in turn act as a countermeasure to evolution.

Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the scientific plausibility of accomplishing it.

Crusinos wrote:
And you don't need radiation to give the appearance of turning something to gold; it's an old chemistry trick.

Except that by the method I described, it actually becomes atomic gold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

There's always the more simple explanation that we don't know what the rules are and found something that demonstrates our ignorance.

There's been a few examples of that before. It usually precedes a massive advancement in human knowledge.

Yes.

The major "problem" with accepting this outright, though, is that the rules as we currently understand them really seem internally consistent and have seemingly proven themselves to the most rigorous of testing - by both math and practical, where possible - to the point that something this significant is akin to having to start over from the very beginning.

I want this to work. It would be amazing.

The most likely explanation is probably an error somewhere that no one is noticing somehow - one of the reasons NASA is testing it in space before accepting it is in order to show that there really is something happening and it's not just experimental error. If not an error, than we need to rethink everything and do so a lot. This only applies to a single well-established rule... but it's such a well-established rule that, if it's wrong, we no longer really understand how anything works, because it's part of the cornerstone of how we do stuff.

The problem with this is that the most rigorous of testing doesn't mean we're right. Even ignoring the problem of trying to figure out the laws of physics for the entire universe while being trapped on a single planet, we still have the fact that our own history of scientific advancement brings up multiple times where the most rigorous of testing provided conclusions that fit all evidence available but turned out to be laughably wrong later.

Like the Sun orbiting the Earth, or some of the early Greek ideas of what an atom is. Theories about Earth land formation before plate tectonics were discovered. Eugenics comes to mind. Turning lead into gold through chemicals. Some of the early theories about dinosaur physiology. That Columbus would die...

I can't recall any scientific literature from history claiming the sun orbited the earth. Plenty of religious propaganda. The early Greek conception of atoms was wrong but not laughably so. Eugenics has moral issues but not scientific ones. And gamma irradiation of Hg, and then beta decay will yield a radioactive form of gold. So not lead, but definitely a more-common metal can be converted to gold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:

custom magic items are banned automatically, because they require dm approval and there is no dm.

without a dm, things like ring of continuous true strike become possible.

so, no.

I mean, I think the OP is the dm but he already gave a ruling. Must be in the Paizo prd. Since custom items are specifically not-published I would lean away from that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


The Acubierre effect does not rely on impulse either. It does have it's operational issues, mainly that you can't navigate, you can't steer, and that once it's invoked, there isn't a way to turn it off.
It also involves "stuff" that's not known to exist and is not compatible with quantum mechanics (it only uses general/special relativity). I'm not sure I'd rely on Alcubierre's [sic] work in a discussion of quantum effects.

When you use [sic] you should replicate the error (and really, it should only be if you are directly quoting someone.) If you make the correction and still mark it with [sic] it just makes you look like an asshat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Slee Papnea

1st round
Quicken Extend Suffocate - DC 30 Fort for 6 rounds
Suffocate is a close spell, you start 400 feet away. (200 foot radius for level 20). How are you closing the distance?

Depends on how the room looks at crunch time. I could always use my swift action at the end of the round, after the time stop.


Wrath wrote:

Did Google not got Solar because it would make negligible difference to their own personal energy bill, or because it would make no difference for the world to go solar?

One is a very different conclusion to the other.

If you are a company with a very huge energy demand (eg Google) and you have a very small surface area to volume ratio (eg Google building), then putting solar panels up will actually cost you more money than you will save.

They could invest money on to a solar farm that supplied them with all the energy they needed, but again, cost benefit ratio will probably upset investors, who expect profit.

Google can sprout green alternatives all day, sadly as an individual company they have investors. Investment law and the litigation rate in America means even if they wanted to do what I suggested above, there's a chance they would lose out big time in some law case because an investor didn't make their annual expected returns.

Sad truth of the world is still big business doesn't care about environment enough to risk losing profit.

That will stay true until going green is profitable.

Fiduciary responcibility isn't an absolute, and individual investors don't get to challenge it. Charitable gifts, for example, extend good-will and increase the value of a brand and also grease wheels depending on the charity. Much the dames reasons can be justified to make any decision. As long as you can claim to get <something, even marginal and intangible> then there is no real concern over a fiduciary responcibility lawsuit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I would be interested to see the level 20 fighter against the level 20 druid optimized for wildshape combat (this is obviously not what druids are good at.) I imagine that the fighter could lose at their own game there.

Actually druids can be amazing at melee combat.

I would be more interested to see if a druid, or really any full progression AC class, could be put up against the fighter and win with its master acting only as support/buffing.

I am currently looking at a nature oracle and wondering if his pet talking horse can beat the fighter...:)

It may be interesting to limit the spellcaster to just two spells known. (No cheating and using catch-all like wish, or the illusory evocation spells, or even summon monster.

I'd go with magic jar and ddoor. Take over their body, take off all their gear, then just ddoor straight up, take falling damage, repeat steps 3-4 as needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Gulthor wrote:
andreww wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Traits magical lineage, reactionary

Check the contest rules, no traits.
Check the feat: Additional Traits

Trumped by the rule "No Traits"

Therefore wasting a feat. " Look I spent some of my valuable resources to obtain more of nothing!"

Hmm, questionable given the reasoning behind the rule. I'll let the OP make that call and adjust as needed. Extend spell is a nice middle finger, but not critical. Neither is the +2 initiative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Traits magical lineage, reactionary

Check the contest rules, no traits.

Check my feats


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Iridescent Spindle ioun stone...

No worries, I'll use my three rounds of dancing and laughing to instead walk over and snatch it.

But, I'm done defending against hypotheticals. When the fighter build is ready we can do this in real time.

I only mentioned it because I had included it in my Alchemist build. Not sure how much of a 'must have' item it is in these sorts of contests. Of course, mine is nice and safe in a wayfinder where you can't get it. ;)

Yeah, it probably makes sense to swap out dodge for preferred spell: suffocation, and then fill all the slots with wish, limited wish, mage's disjunction, and other general-bad-day-for-the-fighter spells. Then swap on the fly.

But I built the thing in like 30 minutes and just slapped in stuff to fill the slots. So, yeah, imperfect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Iridescent Spindle ioun stone...

No worries, I'll use my three rounds of dancing and laughing to instead walk over and snatch it.

But, I'm done defending against hypotheticals. When the fighter build is ready we can do this in real time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Slee Papnea
Male human diviner 20
Medium humanoid (human)
Init +28; Senses Perception +45
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 39, touch 24, flat-footed 31 (+8 armor, +5 deflection, +7 Dex, +1 dodge, +1 insight, +5 natural, +2 shield)
hp 262 (20d6+180)
Fort +18, Ref +18, Will +18
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Arcane School Spell-Like Abilities (CL 20th; concentration +31)
. . Constant—detect scrying
. . 14/day—diviner's fortune (+10)
Diviner Spells Prepared (CL 20th; concentration +31)
. . 9th—time stop (3), suffocation (2, DC 30)
. . 8th—mind blank, greater prying eyes, suffocation (3, DC 30)
. . 7th—limited wish (2), greater scrying (DC 28), suffocation (4, DC 30)
. . 6th—true seeing, suffocation (6, DC 30)
. . 5th—overland flight, suffocation (5, DC 30)
. . 4th—greater invisibility (3)
. . Opposition Schools Enchantment, Illusion
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 8, Dex 24, Con 24, Int 32, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +10; CMB +9; CMD 33
Feats Additional Traits, Dodge, Extend Spell, Greater Spell Focus (necromancy), Greater Spell Penetration, Heighten Spell, Improved Initiative, Maximize Spell, Persistent Spell[APG], Quicken Spell, Reach Spell[APG], Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus (necromancy), Spell Penetration, Still Spell, Toughness
Traits magical lineage, reactionary
Skills Acrobatics +27, Appraise +34, Diplomacy +20, Fly +30, Knowledge (arcana) +34, Knowledge (local) +34, Knowledge (planes) +34, Knowledge (religion) +34, Linguistics +34, Perception +45, Sense Motive +25, Spellcraft +34, Stealth +27, Use Magic Device +20
Languages Common
SQ arcane bond (arcane familiar, greensting scorpion), forewarned, scrying adept
Combat Gear greater maximize metamagic rod; Other Gear dusty rose prism ioun stone, amulet of natural armor +5, belt of physical might +6 (Dex, Con), bracers of armor +8, cloak of resistance +5, cracked dusty rose prism ioun stone, headband of vast intelligence +6, manual of bodily health +5, manual of quickness of action +4, ring of force shield, ring of protection +5, tome of clear thought +4, wizard starting spellbook, 72,000 gp

Spells up going in: Greater Prying Eyes, Mind Blank, Overland Flight

Declare 20 on initiative roll, Total 48.

1st round
Quicken Extend Suffocate - DC 30 Fort for 6 rounds
Time Stop (5 rounds)
Dance, Laugh
Dance, Laugh
Dance, Laugh
Fly to 75’ above fighter
Finish flying, cast greater invisibilty

Next 9 rounds
Follow to stay 75’ above fighter
Quicken, Extend Suffocate - DC 30 Fort for 6 rounds
Extend, Persistent, Heighten Suffocate - DC 32 Fort for 6 rounds. Save twice, take worse

Suffocation
School necromancy; Level sorcerer/wizard 5, witch 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a vial containing a bit of the caster's breath)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one living creature
Duration 3 rounds
Saving Throw Fortitude partial; Spell Resistance yes
This spell extracts the air from the target's lungs, causing swift suffocation. The target can attempt to resist this spell's effects with a Fortitude save—if he succeeds, he is merely staggered for 1 round as he gasps for breath. If the target fails, he immediately begins to suffocate. On the target's next turn, he falls unconscious and is reduced to 0 hit points. One round later, the target drops to –1 hit points and is dying. One round after that, the target dies. Each round, the target can delay that round's effects from occurring by making a successful Fortitude save, but the spell effect continues for 3 rounds, and each time a target fails his Fortitude save, he moves one step further along the track to suffocation. This spell only affects living creatures that must breathe. It is impossible to defeat the effects of this spell by simply holding one's breath—if the victim fails the initial saving throw, the air in his lungs is extracted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

is the Arena completely featureless?

Are we required to stay in this arena?
How above or below the ground can we be?
Do we know this fight is going to happen or are we surprised?
Standard starting WBL for the level stated?
Are you the fighter or the spellcaster?
Does the spellcaster need to show up personally and physically in their own body?
Does the spellcaster get to bring along any permanent friends he has that day?

EDIT: I will go with lv20 wizard as well.

OH depending on answers to question I also submit Anzyr's Arkalion, Ruler of the Grand Cycle

Doesn't Arkalion rely on spells like Aroden's Spellbane? That aren't on the Paizo PRD?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In. 20th level wizard. I'll post later tonight.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


As far as violence, sometimes it is so subtle that we don't pick up on it. Someone who spreads their things over a table and takes over half of it Truth in text, I've been guilty of this, I'm working on it. is being as aggressive as the person who takes a swing at a person, it's just a different approach and methodology.
Could you unpack this for me? Are you saying taking up space on a table is violently aggressive, and on a similar level as actually attacking someone physically?

Yeah, I had that concern as well. When you start to equate non-violent things with violence you are on a quick trip to rabbit-hole town.

Is unpacking your stuff over a large part of the table territorial? Yes

Aggressive? Maybe, but it would greatly depend on the circumstances including for how long, if anyone else was looking to make use of space, etc, etc.

Violent? Unless you picked up someone else's stuff and threw it across the room (perhaps hitting someone else or destroying something) then I'm going with no.

Unless you are trying to use the Starship Troopers definition. "Violence, the ultimate authority from with all other authority is derived." Followed by "Acts of force, including voting, are violent." Then sure, but in regular contemporary English, not so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Enervation


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
Why should Paizo have a dedicated 5th edition forum? They don't owe WoTC or you one.

Why shouldn't they?

Or to be more direct... Why would paizo (an online gaming retailer) want to drive gamer traffic away from their site?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Detect Scrying
Nondetection


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do all sea mammals use tidal respiration or do you see any with countercurrent?


Crusinos wrote:
TigerTiger wrote:
Not half. If you know someone who can fool half of the people all of the time, give me their contact details because I want them working for me.

He's retired now. So, I don't think he's open to working for you.

Very smart man. Had at least half the nation thinking he was an idiot for eight years. From what I've seen, almost no one he fooled realized it.

I am relatively certain that at some point he was a smart guy. If you go back and watch/listen to the Bush/Richards gubernatorial debates, he was sharp and with it. He did a good job.

Then go and watch the Bush/Kerry debates.

I'm pretty sure that some time between 1994 and 2004 he had a stroke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only ones really missing for me are TMNT 2, Megamsn 3, and Faxanadu.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Quote:
The difference between precision and accuracy is essentially prescision is replicability (aka, clustered shots) vs accuracy is hitting the mark. In general both precision and accuracy is desired but in elections it isn't required. For example, it isn't important to be accurate about the exact number so long as you can be precise. So, if a candidate is leading the vote count by 30,000 votes and the total number of absentee ballots is only 25,000 then you don't have to count the absentee ballots to know the leading candidate won. You don't need to accurately know the number of votes cast for either candidate to know who won, but you DO need to know with precision that A has more than B.

Whilst that's true and would mean that not counting all the absentee votes would be known ahead of time to have no impact on the result in some circumstances, it doesn't really answer the question of whether they are counted.

All the websites (that I found anyway with not much more than a cursory search) say that they are all counted and that the claim that they aren't is a popular myth.

Do you have any kind of source or link where the opposite is put forth convincingly? (ie Some sort of 'official' or at least knowledgeable site where it's stated as a fact that they aren't all counted?)

No, because I am fairly certain there isn't any such link/information. I was simply responding to thejeff because he said that he didn't see the difference. (Which I assumed he meant between accuracy and precision.)


thejeff wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
If the popular vote for the Presidential election actually mattered, then the count for it would have to be precise. Since it doesn't matter, the popular vote is just accurate enough for each state to be correct for assigning those electors to a candidate. No one is checking up on local election officials to make sure their popular vote counts are precise.

I don't see the difference. The popular vote in every state matters - enough to determine who gets the state.

If we elected the President by a national popular vote, the national popular vote matters - enough to determine who wins.
Whether we precisely count every single vote to be certain the victory was by 2,557,654 votes not 2,557,653 votes matters just as much (and as little) as precisely how much one candidate won Hawaii by.

As for counting absentee ballots

Quote:

What are absentee ballots? Do they only count in close elections?

Many absentee ballots are cast by voters who are unable to vote at their physical polling place due to being an active duty military member, a family member of someone on active duty or a U.S. citizen residing overseas. All ballots submitted according to State laws are counted in every election.

The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same.

You can of course choose to discount this as well, on the grounds that it isn't actually law, though it is a government source.

The difference between precision and accuracy is essentially prescision is replicability (aka, clustered shots) vs accuracy is hitting the mark. In general both precision and accuracy is desired but in elections it isn't required. For example, it isn't important to be accurate about the exact number so long as you can be precise. So, if a candidate is leading the vote count by 30,000 votes and the total number of absentee ballots is only 25,000 then you don't have to count the absentee ballots to know the leading candidate won. You don't need to accurately know the number of votes cast for either candidate to know who won, but you DO need to know with precision that A has more than B.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Two-Gun Sam wrote:
Gisher wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.

I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.
That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.
The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.
You could fire a shotgun into it using pellet ammunition. That's lots of objects "thrown" with a single action.
Actually - I use a dragon pistol, so it is effectively a shotgun. I get one attack roll for every possible target in the cone. So, that would mean, One Wall - One attack roll (or only one attack).
I think that is a reasonable ruling to make, but it isn't what the spell says. The spell description states that the damage is based on the number of "objects" that contact the wall rather than the number of "attacks" used. Each pellet is actually a separate object and would therefore trigger damage.

Yes, but there is simply no way to resolve which pellets hit and which pellets miss. The "Broad-side-of-the-barn" still has an AC, and even the best warriors in the universe miss with their favored weapons 5% of the time. The only way to know if a hit was successful in pathfinder is with an attack roll, and attack rolls (unless specifically called out, ie manyshot) only resolve one object. The flavor of the attack may be pellets or pebbles or whatever, but from a game mechanics standpoint that is a single object and should be treated that way to resolve ALL mechanical effects.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
I know. Why don't we cut up a few states so that population numbers aren't so skewed. That would solve everything. The only downside is the need for a new flag with more stars on it.

Naw, you can do it with 50 still


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I'm well aware of everything in GWL's little historical lecture. None of it had anything to do with the land area he brought up. Looking at a political map of the US and seeing all the red may be impressive, but political power doesn't and shouldn't correspond to geographical size. That's completely irrelevant.

None of the sides in the original compromise cared about physical size. The fight was between equal representation by state and proportional representation by population.

Really? I'm trying to decide if you are being intentionally obtuse. Lower population density is directly tied to agrarian-metropolitan divide. Which is exactly the onus behind "we don't want to give them equal representation" / we don't want to give them majority representation."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.

I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.
That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.
The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.

This is incorrect. The rules state that your number of ATTACKS are limited by your base attack bonus, not the number of things you can throw. My character can throw a handful of pebbles just as readily as he can squat and take a dump.

It's fine to try and limit/balance a potentially broken combo, but any GM who says it's impossible for a character to do something so basic like you seem to imply is just asking for trouble.

Strawman. I didn't say that. Here, I'll do this again.

BigDTBone in the post you quoted, look up it's actually still right there wrote:
You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.

You are being cute by trying to say, "Permissive system, I can do what I want," and forcing it to link with, "You must interpret the spell mechanic to reconcile with my hand-waved action to yield completely unbalanced results." That is literally the worst kind of way to parse the rules.

If you want to elicit a predicable mechanical response from an interaction, you need to approach it with a written mechanical trigger. Otherwise you have NO ground to cite RAW.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

I'm flagging every political thread as spam for the near future.

Don't be an a*%$~@* and just let things settle for awhile.

Please.

Instead why not just hide them? Just because you don't want to take part in the conversation doesn't mean you should prevent the conversation from taking place.


BigDTBone earlier in this thread wrote:

Clinton supporters (like myself) NEED to be vigilant that there appears to be a polling bias in her favor this season.

Suck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
Well lets see how the world starts to shape up at the end of 2016, with Brexit and Trump, so many stupid decisions will go down, lets see what no.3 will be...

Things often do come in threes... But we can break that trend... right?

Cubs won.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

This thread

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qpmc?SnoCone-Wish-Machine#1

has 49 FAQ requests and no answer for over two years. They are aware of it, but apparently not willing to do anything about it.

I don't see the need for a Paizo intervention on every single issue that a GM may make homerules on. You won't see it used in PFS as it's not on the exception list in terms of the bar on ongoing spell effects.

As you may or may not notice, Paizo tends to restrict rules changes to issues that directly impact PFS play. where a simple campaign change won't do the job by itself. Pathfinder Unchained! was created because PFS play had identified several classes that needed a major do over.

You know there's a huge world of PF players out these besides PFS.

And we buy stuff. Thereby we are customers. And the customers want this FAQ.

And it's largely because of PFS that Paizo exists for that stuff to be available.

Really? Source cite?

I hear PFSers say this, but I think it is confirmation bias. PFSers see each other more than they see home gamers. And home gamers see less of each other than PFSers. But I find it very difficult to believe that PFS is the engine driving the revenue behind pathfinder.


Oh my god! The song! It haunts me! It's been in my head for 3 days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Meh, I just put up a wall of sound next to the enemy then throw a fist full of pebbles at it (easily done in one round with a partner, or with Quicken Spell).

Hundreds of dice of damage to anything within 10 feet of the wall, no save, with very few resistant to it.

I would call the fist full of pebbles one attack, and only one instance of dice rolling.
That would be a balanced house rule, but the rules are quite clear in how they are written in this case. Any object hitting the wall sets it off. A handful of pebbles consists of multiple separate objects. Ergo, lots of damage to anyone near the wall.

The rules don't permit you to throw multiple objects at the same time either. The rules are painstakingly clear that the number of objects you may throw in a round is governed by your BAB and a few feats. You simply cannot throw a handful of pebbles and hope to elicit a game mechanic response.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
constantly jumping into the negotiations and risking everyone's lives with their insistence on doing equal shares of the talking
In TV, most conversation is between the central characters, and these interactions define them. In my RPG experience, most conversation is between PCs and NPCs, and the party rarely talk to one another - at least, not while staying in character. Is that normal?

It varies.

I've seen face-to-face tables range from absolutely zero first-person intra-party dialogue, to so much excited chatter between PCs that the store had to tell them to tone it down because they were bothering customers. And that's just within PFS. When you start looking at other mediums, such as Play-by-Post, there's even more possibility of PC-to-PC dialogue.

When I first read this I thought that "the store," was in-game, in-character. As in the proprietor of Ye-Olde-Majik-Shoppe asked the characters to keep it down. I was very impressed by the dedication to immersive play on the part of the DM.

Reminded me of the time a shopkeep told my character to roll a d12.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Tier.

It's not so much the word I dislike as the concept it has been used to represent. I find the idea of tiers both judgmental and needlessly limiting.

To clarify: do you mean that the thing you find judgmental limiting is (a) the actual meaning of the PF tier system, or (b) what it sounds like the tier system means because of the inaccurate use of the term "tier" to name it?

For me, it's the latter: the term "tier" suggests a hierarchy of superiority where the "best" is at the top and everything that isn't Tier 1 is inferior in some way. This is completely contrary to what's actually being modeled by the thing that is called the "tier system" for D&D/PF, leading to lots of needless arguments.

Thus, I too dislike the gaming term "Tier".

Particularly since most folks who advocate for looking at the game through the lens of the tier system advocate for classes to be closer to tier 3. Which is perhaps confusing / not-believed by those who don't like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
For example, no one can see the sun in the sky

I think this is a miss-interpretation of the rule (if I may). The perception check gives you two pieces of information. (1) that a thing is there, AND (2) precisely what 5 foot squares it occupies.

It specifically does NOT let you see an object. Ie, you can make a perception check against an invisible foe. If you succeed you are made aware of their presence and know exactly what space they occupy. But you don't get to see them. They still get a full cover bonus.

Conversely, seeing an object (like the sun) does not mean you can precisely know its location down the exact 5 foot cubes (in this case) that it occupies. Knowing exactly the space it takes up would be a huge and quite impossible check. But that doesn't preclude you from being able to see it. Since we already know that isn't covered by perception anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drimoran wrote:

40 feet -> 1 DC
80 feet -> 5 DC
160 feet -> 9 DC
320 feet -> 13 DC
640 feet -> 17 DC
1280 feet -> 21 DC
2560 feet -> 25 DC
5120 feet -> 29 DC

What an outstanding chart. I am incorporating the principal into my home games right away.

If I could suggest a more game-friendly version however

40 feet -> +1 DC
60 feet -> +2 DC
80 feet -> +3 DC
100 feet -> +4 DC
120 feet -> +5 DC
250 feet -> +10 DC
500 feet -> +15 DC
0.25 mile -> +20 DC
0.5 mile -> +25 DC
1 mile -> +30 DC

This makes the shorter distances a little more granular and makes the further distances a little more relatable to the average person.

Edit: I think I want to change ranged weapon rules in my game to reflect these distances as negative modifiers. That will require a bit more work (like reclassifying ranged weapons by range types rather than range increments. [Thrown, Short, Long, Siege off the top of my head.] Which set a hard cap on range. Maybe point blank shot removes or mitigates the lower penalties. I really like combining charts for multiple uses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
I don't really care for this show much. From someone whom loved the comic and made his whole family watch the shows premier, if you took a picture of me each season , my face goes from a smile of wonder to a a frown of just poor lackluster.

I agree, I think the show's pacing gets worse every season. They stretch and stretch and stretch so they can have a cliffhanger on every episode and then try to cram a whole season's worth of plot into a single episode.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Tarondor wrote:
Is it better for an archer (let's say a 10th level fighter archer) to have a bow with a high enhancement bonus and multiple arrow types (e.g., +1 holy arrows, +1 thundering arrows, etc.) or is it better to have the additional damage on the bow itself?

From a cost-efficiency standpoint, go for the high enhancement bonus on the bow and an assortment of +1 (special ability) arrows in an efficient quiver.

The exceptions are generally adaptive, distance (unless in a dungeon-focued campaign), holy (in a typical campaign with many evil foes), and speed. Cyclonic is dependent on how often you encounter foes with wind wall, etc. to shut down archery; it's pretty expensive unless most of the enemies you face use that tactic.

If you really want to be cost-efficient, then magus (eldritch archer) 8/arcane archer 3/magus +X will let you treat your non-magical arrows as magical and add +1d6 elemental damage (cold, electricity, or fire) for the entire day while using your Arcane Pool to boost your bow's enhancement bonus and/or add special abilities.

Please don't add speed to weapons, it is a 30,000 gp upgrade. You can get two pair of boots of speed for that. You could almost buy 3 wands of haste and give them to your caster buddy.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The basics of the Stromwind Fallacy deal with the idea that optimized characters are inherently bad for role playing and/or that non-optimized characters are better for role-playing. Which gets turned into "you're a bad role player if you optimize".
The Stormwind Fallacy is a rebuttal for an argument never made. It is however a correct observation that an obsession on min-maxing does have a impact on roleplaying decisions.

Only to the extent that game options are terribly unbalanced. It would be wonderful if all of my role playing ideas had a strong mechanic to represent them. Bringing bad characters to a game simply isn't an option for some tables.


Sissyl wrote:
So, Big, which is it?

I don't believe my two predictions to be in conflict.

1 to 50 of 4,548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.