|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Captain Battletoad wrote:
oooh! Closer to DFW or Texarkana?
I largely agree with this. I don't know the precise numbers (obviously) but from my personal estimation over the last 8 years; the forum community has doubled at least a few times. The larger community has different needs and likewise needs to be managed/moderated differently. This means that mods (who have other jobs) have less time to examine or find a root cause and will need to more frequently use a cleaver (no pun) rather than a scalpel. Several forumites with a few thousand posts are more will probably read this as "more aggressive" or some such. And it probably is, but it is only nessesary for a community of this size.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Forums are asynchronous by nature. No consideration need be given to the work/sleep cycle of forum participants. And that's a feature, not a flaw.
Marc Radle wrote:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but ... in addition to swiping the map art from Paizo for your demo (which you don't mention anywhere in your Kickstarter) so it really looks like that is the quality of the map art folks would get, instead of showing what the tiles will ACTUALLY look like ... isn't this basically the same as the 5" × 8" map tiles Paizo produces in their various Pathfinder Map Packs
If I understand correctly it isn't, because he has other things in the package like pregen PC/NPCs, monster cards, and the map tiles are mag backed. It is still sort of strange that he chose to demo it with the map packs rather than use like gaming paper as a stand in.
I didn't say there was no sexism being levied against HRC. I did use sarcasm to refute your assertion that the particular article in question was "inherently sexist."
Marc Radle wrote:
That was my thought as well.
I didn't know that Jane Sanders used to be a Vermont senator whose husband served as a salesman / surrogate for her misguided policies. Huh. Learn something new everyday.
That is a factually incorrect statement. Mara Liasson (of NPR) in particular was greatly fond of the term.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
This is actually a really huge issue imho, if the parties are going to use tax-payer funds to run their primaries then they should not be allowed to close them. If the parties wish to have closed primaries then they should be prepared to foot the entire bill for the election.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
This stance is precisely the reason that the GOP has been able to use the golden mean fallacy to drag national politics to the right for 3 decades. They start off in guano crazy right field, you start off with a reasonable and moderate position; then you "compromise" on some policy that would make Nixon and Reagan blush.
So you don't see the difference?
[Looks at what I actually wrote]
A news link covering a Clinton/Sanders debate where she says the reason wall street banks donated to her campaign fund was due a relationship fostered by supporting said banks after 9/11 - A thing she said and did.
[Looks at your response]
bounce around like uncle-sam-the-jack-in-the-box and scream at the top of your lungs for 6 months that you saved New York on 9/11
A thing he said and did.
Do you or do you not recognise a difference between those two things?
It is a very different thing to answer a question about why wall-street banks donated money to you, than it is to bounce around like uncle-sam-the-jack-in-the-box and scream at the top of your lungs for 6 months that you saved New York on 9/11. If you can't (or won't) see that then having an actual discourse with you on the topic is out of the question.
Texas Election News. Not that I have any real expectations that Clinton will actually take Texas, but the idea is titillating.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Egos are like bubblegum bubbles; the bigger they get, the more fragile they are.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
What is also interesting to note is that in the one election of the last six where they did win the popular vote, John Kerry won more votes than any other presidential candidate in the history of the US up to that point, except for GWB in that same election. So, there is a ground swell.
Not the same at all. I go to walmart to buy groceries. I have to get off my couch (made by haverty's) and open my electric garage door (craftman) and get in my truck (Dodge, powered mostly by QT fuel) and drive on the roads (Dept of Transportation, Department of Public Safety) To get to walmart. I am prepared to take those steps. But if I get to Walmart and they require me to use their new 3rd party payment platform that wants to know all of my casual acquaintances and their email addressed and wants my permission to tell them about how I just used FaceCheck to buy bananas at walmart; then I'm gonna be pissy about the addition of this new party into the situation.
I really liked Wilmore and I liked him on the Nightly Show; however, the first few weeks/months of the Nightly Show were not good. Namely, I think they had intended to produce a show recapping pop-culture/entertainment news of the day. Not sure if that was their stated goal but they seemed to spend a bunch of airtime covering those kinds of stories and guests who mirrored that impression. I stopped watching.
A few months later I decided to just leave it on after the Daily Show and they had changed to a more current events / political news show with a decidedly unique viewpoint. I watched every night from then on and basically loved the show. My worry is that they had a major change in the show but didn't really do justice to advertise it and get viewers.
Basically, I'm sad. I liked the show, and I think more people may have liked the show, and that some folks who saw an episode in the first couple of months may have been turned off.
Paizo has a web store, and the forums help to drive traffic to that web store. I don't see them leaving so quickly.
I think the holodeck episodes might have been a symptom of having 24 episode seasons. Eventually you need to come up with some episodic filler. In the age of the 13 ep. season they will have less time for those shenanigans.
This is actually one of the things that makes me really sad. I miss 26 episode seasons. Some of the best episodes were one-off episodes that didn't necessarily tie into the larger plot. Sure some were bad, but others were fun, or campy, or truly exceptional. I wish they would bring back 20+ episode seasons.
We'll see, but from what they've said they made the main character too high a rank. If they want to tell a story of someone growing up an learning about themselves and to work with others you should not use a department head. That's what ensigns or midshipmen are for.
Absolutely agree. The premise seems to excite an idea that the series would be like "the lower decks" which was hands down one of the best told TNG episodes. But with a Lt. Cmdr as the star it will be a bit off for that to work. :(
Not if you understand how scientific papers are cited in review studies. The 97% number is taking all the authors of all the papers into the total number. If he is a co-author on his colleagues paper (which would be totally appropriate depending on how much contributory data he collected) that he says was misconstrued in the 97% number then he actually rightly would be one of those 97%. His personal self-identification as "not-a-scientist" doesn't mean he isn't represented in that statistic as one.
If it is for a bbeg then you just need to make a custom spell that is the highest level it can cast and call it a day. It discovered the ability via spell research. Yadda yadda. Put the spell into a daily use item for the cohort to activate. You need to be prepared for the adventurers to get ahold of the spell and item in the future.
Yeah, ensemble casts work far better on TV. Preferably 26 hour-long episodes a year. Also, I'm sad that we don't live in that world anymore.
I do find some of the newer, popular shows to be insanely slow paced. I just can't watch The Walking Dead anymore (I find that every half-season stretches 1 episode into 3 and then smashes 3 episodes into 1 episode finale, which basically leaves me pissed off because neither of those is satisfying in any way.) But, I do find that episodic shows don't frustrate me. I feel like even if you are telling stories in long arcs (which I greatly enjoy) the each episode should have its own plot thread that rises and resolves
Also, I know several gay men who have children (both their own natural progeny and via adoption.) I think given the politics of the 23rd century that "being gay" and "having a daughter" shouldn't be considered exclusionary statements.
Honestly I just don't think the Sulu thing matters at all. I just hope beyond is a good movie since into darkness was just trash, even ignoring the canon. I hope they get new writers and a director that actually cares about Star Trek, not a schlock action movie.
Given the box office numbers that isn't likely. It is far more likely that they will continue to milk their cash cow in its current form.
Linked article wrote:
In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Takei said he’s glad they’re adding a gay character to the Star Trek canon — but would prefer they didn’t fundamentally change a player from the original series. Takei officially came out in 2005, and has spent the past decade as an advocate for LGBT rights. But he also respects what Gene Roddenberry created with the original series (with Sulu played as a straight character), and actually asked the film’s creative team not to make the change.
I could be misremembering, but I don't recall any time from the original series or the movies where it was explicitly noted that Sulu was straight. I think the idea that "straight" = "default" is one we should fight against, even if that idea was pervasive when TOS was created. We don't have to interpret the work through the lens of the time it was created. And unless someone can point me toward a time where it was explicitly demonstrated the Sulu was straight, then in my mind he will have always been gay, and we just didn't know until now.
No, but I do think it should lose the arrow. You should carry more pole arms if you want to throw them.
What would you think of a feat that allowed my reach fighter to attack enemies from 100s of feet away with his polearm. It has a lot of prereqs like combat reflexes, power attack and weapon focus.
I would be totally fine with a 3 feat chain that ended in increasing the thrown distance increment of a pole arm to 50ft. So you could throw it 250ft with a -10 to hit.
Yeah, bows being a better reach weapon than any actual reach weapon is a problem. And while martials need nice things, archery is already high on the power scale and not limited to just martials.
With 3 feats though. It isn't just "being a better reach weapon than any actual reach weapon," it comes at a high cost in a combat style that is already feat heavy.
You only roll one check. Example would be something like noticing something is out of place in the filing system of a computer. You have a +4 to perception, and a +8 to trade:prog. The GM tells you to average those two skills and roll a check. So you would be d20+6 to notice something amiss.