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

4,584 posts (4,629 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,584 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Will you provide map "tile packs" separately for different environments/genres or will this be strictly bring-your-own-art?

Because digital map tiles program for $20-25US that comes with 3-5 libraries that I could add new packs to for <$5US would definitely have my interest. Particularly if it was well supported (ie, new stuff at least 1/month)

Edit: being able to bring-your-own art that could also play along with program packs would be a huge bonus. Like if I could take a PDF of a paizo flip mat and add surrounding areas or place additional widgets on it would also be great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cartel busting is easy. You do the same thing that the railroad did to The Grange. Offer to pay ONE member for ALL their product for a price HIGHER than the cartel is selling for. Then absolutely buy 0 goods from the other members.


What do you ask for when a demon offers you a boon?

"I'd like 1 copper piece please."

Ain't nobody got time for that.


Sundakan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


Items 1 and 2 don't really resonate with me (yet?) but as for 3, we are hopelessly addicted to our phones. I asked one of my professors just this week (who, I'm guessing has been teaching for 20+ years) what it was like in the classroom before the onset of smart phones. The short answer was, "Better. Teaching is what I do and the iPhone lead a trend that makes it now much harder to teach effectively."

Which sounds like a load of horse s~*$ to me. The people who didn't want to learn would always find ways not to learn in class. He just didn't notice as much because they'd be doodling on their "notes" or something instead of looking at a phone.

Also, lecturing is an out-dated method pedagogically speaking. The best methods for live classroom instruction are usually something like; read a section and take a quiz before class, clarifying explanations based on troubled areas from the quiz, reinforcing activity, homework quiz assignment. This forces students to engage the material 3 times before they study for an exam and gets them indoctrinated on the topic before you do face-to-face time. This greatly increases the impact of in-class time and multiple passes on the info increases retention.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think that we could address some of the wage disparity with some legislation

Which actually replaces the minimum wage with a simple law that requires any entity who reports to the IRS as an employer cannot dispense compensation (total, including maximum potential capitalization of any options, stocks, or other assets) to any employee or contractor that is 50x greater than like compensation to any other employee or contractor of the organization on a per hour basis. Additionally, contractors or employees of 3rd (or 4th, 5th etc) party outsourced services providers (Janitorial, Technical, HR, etc) who directly provide service to the entity must also receive compensation commensurate with an employee or contractor of the entity.

Basically, you can't pay the guy at the top more than 50x the guy at the bottom, and no shady tricks to skate by the restriction.

No more minimum wages, but if the worst paid person in your company only makes $10 an hour, that caps executive level pay at around $1M a year. Assuming the exec actually puts in 40 hours a week at that company. Otherwise less.

You want a raise? You need to give everyone a raise.

Sell it to republicans as abolishment of minimum wage.

I like the basic idea, but find this kind of clever and very complicated approach problematic. There's likely to be shady tricks I can't see now and gotchas that no one expects until they've accidentally violated them. You're now legally liable for the wage structure of nearly any company you do business with. (Do goods count? Or only services? Can I still buy my parts from an allegedly unrelated company that pays rock bottom wages, then resell them at a huge profit and take most of that for myself?)

The nice thing about minimum wage laws is that they're simple. It's easy to know when they're violated and easy to prosecute.

The idea is that anyone who actually provides a service for you gets paid inside your scale.

Buying cheap parts from foreign entities would definitely still pose a problem in many industries. But that could partially be addressed via import taxation. Buying cheap parts from domestic sources could still have a situation where employees at the providing company may not get paid as well, but that would also be mitigated by that company's executive pay.

At the end of the day, the idea is that you shouldn't be able to hire a "cleaning service" with 20 employees including the owner and pay them less than you would be required to if they were your employees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

@BNW: Oh, yeah. I mean, quite frankly, there are a lot of places that seem to see workers as a liability to be tolerated only out of necessity. Companies do not want to pay workers, as evidenced by the flat actual wages for the last, oh, four decades or so. Meanwhile, Millennials also see things like CEO pay rates rising far faster than everyone else's, from I think it was... ~20x the average worker a few decades ago to over 300x today. Workers are more productive, but they're not seeing an increase in benefits to go with that - rather, in many cases, all their hard work seems to be going straight to the pockets of the company executives while many of them are struggling just to make ends meet because of rising costs.

So, are Millennials cynical about business? Yeah, I think they are. Honestly, I think that's one of the driving forces behind their desire for a better work-life balance - they don't want to work quite so hard for people who don't seem to care about them. Especially when executives' pay is broadly tied to the stock market, so they can get paid better when the company as a whole is successful, a fact that is not true for most workers.

I think that we could address some of the wage disparity with some legislation

Which actually replaces the minimum wage with a simple law that requires any entity who reports to the IRS as an employer cannot dispense compensation (total, including maximum potential capitalization of any options, stocks, or other assets) to any employee or contractor that is 50x greater than like compensation to any other employee or contractor of the organization on a per hour basis. Additionally, contractors or employees of 3rd (or 4th, 5th etc) party outsourced services providers (Janitorial, Technical, HR, etc) who directly provide service to the entity must also receive compensation commensurate with an employee or contractor of the entity.

Basically, you can't pay the guy at the top more than 50x the guy at the bottom, and no shady tricks to skate by the restriction.

No more minimum wages, but if the worst paid person in your company only makes $10 an hour, that caps executive level pay at around $1M a year. Assuming the exec actually puts in 40 hours a week at that company. Otherwise less.

You want a raise? You need to give everyone a raise.

Sell it to republicans as abolishment of minimum wage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
I'll suggest he re-check
An example of the kind of job I'm talking about. Not in his field but his credentials qualify him to skip the in-field experience.

Oh man, I'm just gonna leave this here


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Storyteller Shadow wrote:
Funny. Tuition keeps rising but finding a stable job at a University keeps getting harder and harder. Anyone have an explanation here? I know that many schools have transitioned into using adjuncts more than ever but they get paid dirt so that should not really increase tuitions...

It is administrative bloat caused by the inevitable career progression of 2 generations of over-hiring tenured professors. Those people get promoted into cushy admin jobs, they make jobs for their friends, they need administration to administer in the administrators. All the money at the university goes to the top. They increase tuition to cover their salaries, they have faculty hiring freezes, overlead professors with bigger classes and more sections, they fill in the gaps with adjuncts, TAs, and GAs.

In 40 years when they all die or retire it will correct itself. But by that point academia will have been so ravaged that it may take 2 generations to correct, or funding may just go away and the same problem will persist just without the administrative overload.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
I'll suggest he re-check

An example of the kind of job I'm talking about. Not in his field but his credentials qualify him to skip the in-field experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

One thing that some people tend to ignore when they are told to go to College is to earn a degree that will actually lead to if not a good job. A decent enough one that allows one to pay their bills and have some money for themselves. Going to College than getting a degree in Ancient Chinese languages is not the fault of those who told one to go to College. It's the person fault who decided to waste time on a degree not worth the paper. Doing one own thing is all well and good. Taking a subject they will have fun with at College the same. Not realizing that their chocie was a poor one because of "reasons" it's on them. In the end a person is responsible for one own choices good or bad. So the whole "but they told me to go to College" is just a excuse and a poor one for people terrible life choices imo.

I made a poor choice when going to College and ended up having a student loan. I paid it off but I'm not blaming friends or family because they told me to go to College. It's my fault and mine alone for making the wrong choice.

Unfortunately we aren't preparing 18 year olds to be critical thinkers, and certainly not on the level required to challenge what every authoritative adult in their sphere of influence is telling them.

I went to high school in the late 90s/early 2000s and there was only a very marginal amount of discussion about how to choose a successful path. Many many counselors and advisors would tell my peers to just go to college and not declare a major if they were unsure of what to do. Just get a degree. That was the mantra.

I fell into that trap. But I was lucky enough to make some good connections and got a few years of high-income earnings from consumer electronics sales, enough to start my own business. I will add though that my liberal arts education prepared me with the soft skills and non-construct critical thinking I needed to be successful in those positions, so it is not a useless degree. But a liberal arts degree is definitely one that you have to invent your own job/path because there won't be someone on the other side to give you one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
memorax wrote:

One thing that some people tend to ignore when they are told to go to College is to earn a degree that will actually lead to if not a good job. A decent enough one that allows one to pay their bills and have some money for themselves. Going to College than getting a degree in Ancient Chinese languages is not the fault of those who told one to go to College. It's the person fault who decided to waste time on a degree not worth the paper. Doing one own thing is all well and good. Taking a subject they will have fun with at College the same. Not realizing that their chocie was a poor one because of "reasons" it's on them. In the end a person is responsible for one own choices good or bad. So the whole "but they told me to go to College" is just a excuse and a poor one for people terrible life choices imo.

I made a poor choice when going to College and ended up having a student loan. I paid it off but I'm not blaming friends or family because they told me to go to College. It's my fault and mine alone for making the wrong choice.

Yeah, my B.A. was in Math/Physics, and my M.S. and Ph.D. were in Pure Mathematics.

You'd be surprised how many computer companies come knocking at your door with a set of degrees like that.

My friend got a B.A. in English Literature, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Mythology.

He's having trouble finding a job that pays even $15/hour.

One of the things I notice the younger generation ISN'T being taught is, "Choose a degree that's marketable."

PhD in any field qualifies him for many jobs in academia. Tell him to look into being an instructional designer. Entry level starts around $50k in major university systems. Advancement opportunities go all the way up into the top levels of administration. Also puts him in a preferred position to adjunct.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yeah, whether it's lazy GMing, or lazy AP writing, the 'PCs get ambushed' is generally too attractive for a GM to allow a single character with an ultra-high perception to just invalidate the encounter setup for the entire party.
Not allowing the scout to detect an ambush with a good perception roll is a GM problem, not a rules problem.

Er, yeah, which is the main point of my post that you replied to. However, if it's common enough among GMs to spring ambushes without a proper 'RAW' perception chance, as seems to be the case, then you can either change all of those GMs, or adapt the rules.

In any case, it's because of this common GM behavior that I will never, ever not put full ranks in perception in any of my characters. It's just asking for trouble.

Yeah, you will just run into GM's that don't care. You got a 40 on your check? Well, you only rolled a 2. So, you rolled bad and didn't see anything.

In my experience the GM's who are more likely to ambush you without a roll, are also the ones who prefer the swinginess of the d20 and don't care if you invested resources into maintaining a predictable result.


Chemlak wrote:
knightnday wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
A couple folks have said to me, "But if you stop posting, the other guys win." But I was never here for a motherf@@~ing competition. I was here for fun and sometimes intelligent discussion, not to "win."
And that is one of the biggest problems I have on the forums and why I tend to lurk rather than post. It isn't worth getting into some of the conversations when I can predict the outcome within a few post and by who is posting. It stops being about the conversation and starts being about point scoring and being "right".

This sort of behaviour is particularly prevalent in Rules Questions (where some of us lose sight of "it's a game"). It's a hard thing, because some of us try to nail down RAW so that a better version can be written, and that's a laudable goal, but there's a subset that seem to want to be "my overpowered interpretation of the text is correct, while your balanced and reasonable interpretation isn't right and I'm going to shout at you all until I WIN!!!"

I'd love to see some clearer rules for RQ threads (usually responses rather than the initial question) to counter that behaviour, but I frankly have zero clue how to approach it.

My experience was slightly different, lines always seemed to form around does one reading/combination allow a player to do something unexpected or unique (regardless of power/strength of that thing?) Then regardless of the clarity/cloudiness, or the precident, applicable FAQ's, other similar rules to draw logic from, or lack of those the exact same folks will always stand up and say allowing is broken cheese abuse and another group of folks will always say that only grognard control freak GM's wouldn't allow.

Which always put me off because I gm basically 95% of the time, so being called an abusive cheese-seeking power gamer with snowflake complex was annoying.


1d4 + 14 ⇒ (2) + 14 = 161d6 + 12 ⇒ (6) + 12 = 181d8 + 10 ⇒ (4) + 10 = 141d10 + 8 ⇒ (2) + 8 = 101d10 + 8 ⇒ (1) + 8 = 91d12 + 6 ⇒ (7) + 6 = 13

16
18
14
10
9
13


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

That's a really good post, DQ. I don't know the context (for all I know, I was part of the problem), but I hope the forums can get better at that sort of thing. It's a tall order for a messageboard of this size to self-police itself effectively, but it's not so tall that it should be abandoned as a goal.

We should always try to call out hostile posts, no matter what side of an argument they're on. If you're arguing about paladins, and a guy who agrees with you starts being really unpleasant to the other side, you have to stand with the "other side" in telling him to back off. Argue ethically.

This is a pretty common issue that I have seen come up a bunch over the last year. Exploring problems with a particular argument is often seen as an attack on a point of view.

More than once I saw someone who agreed with a position challenge the validity of an arguement in favor of that position. this is called academic honesty. These people were routinely lambasted for daring to challenge the one-true-vision by those with whom they agreed with in principle.

A few times those folks who would dare to engage with academic honesty were chided for their own bias against an idea that they actually supported.


Cevah wrote:
Bwang wrote:
Cevah wrote:

Back in my post in another thread, I wrote:

Quote:

Did some more spreadsheets with exhaustive stat selection....

/cevah

Copied into my tome of things I really should know after 4 decades. You wouldn't have done calculations on any of the other rolling conventions out there, would you?

I run with 20 pts now, but you pay for unusual or more powerful races and get 1 point each level to buy stats rather than a +1 every 4 levels. I really doesn't phase Single Attribute builds, but helps the Multiple Attribute builds bring up scores they need later. My players did the rending and ashes bit at first, but all 3 games spawned by mine since have cloned the system. The GMs all B&M, but players seem happy.

Check my previous post in the linked post thread. That person had an odd and overpowered die rolling rule.

Making exhaustive spreadsheets needs hours of compute time, as well as huge arrays of data. 9d6 keep 3 needs 6^9 sets of data [=10,077,696 entries. Each set needs 9 numbers for the die rolls and 19 for calculations. That is 282,175,488 cells filled. For 9d6 down to 4d6, you need 336,186,288 cells at the same time. And that is just to come up with the stat numbers. Now you need to generate the possible combinations of these stats. There are 6.04328E+38 combinations. I don't want to make that spreadsheet. :-)

** spoiler omitted **...

^^ listen to this guy he knows what's up with spreadsheets!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The perception check gives you two pieces of information. (1) that a thing is there (if not already obvious), AND (2) precisely what 5 foot squares it occupies.

It specifically does NOT give you sight of 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.

We can therefore infer that because the perception check doesn't grant sight, it doesn't govern sight.

So, failing a perception check for an object (like the sun) means you do not precisely know its location down the exact 5 foot cubes (in this case) that it occupies (that would be a huge and quite impossible check, like, with a -59 billion modifier for a creature on Earth as indicated by the OP). That, however, doesn't preclude you from seeing it since we have already inferred that sight isn't covered by perception anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.

Why?

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

As written, that's impossible. Why?

1. Not knowing the style exists since you're not a worshipper of Shelyn

2. some things aren not just gained through knowledge but through the blessing of a specific god or goddess. If you leave the worship of Shelyn, you won't forget your training, but without that bit of divine blessing, you may not be able to make use of it.

Is that fighting style (su) ?


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

Hi All,

I'm about to start an all day Giant Slayers session and I need a spare character in case mine dies (at the GM's request), and have no time to build one. Does anyone out there have a pre-made 6th level wizard that I can steal? Preferably in a hero lab file.

Thanks in advance.

Prux

No, but I can put something together for you quickly. What are your character generation rules?

A 20 point build basic wizard. email address is russandtaryn@bigpond.com

Thanks Mate.

Incase it comes up. 16000 gp starting wealth. And I bought the scrolls for 1/2 price cause you have scribe scroll.


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

Hi All,

I'm about to start an all day Giant Slayers session and I need a spare character in case mine dies (at the GM's request), and have no time to build one. Does anyone out there have a pre-made 6th level wizard that I can steal? Preferably in a hero lab file.

Thanks in advance.

Prux

No, but I can put something together for you quickly. What are your character generation rules?

A 20 point build basic wizard. email address is russandtaryn@bigpond.com

Thanks Mate.

You've got mail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prux wrote:

Hi All,

I'm about to start an all day Giant Slayers session and I need a spare character in case mine dies (at the GM's request), and have no time to build one. Does anyone out there have a pre-made 6th level wizard that I can steal? Preferably in a hero lab file.

Thanks in advance.

Prux

No, but I can put something together for you quickly. What are your character generation rules?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
hmmm then its a house rule literally every dm ive played with implements

It's realistic and offers an aspect of risk (as well as a nerf) to ranged characters, so it makes sense that a lot of GMs would want to implement it as a rule (either because they want to bring life into their world, or because they just hate OP ranged builds).

I personally would enforce it as a GM, but when you apply its logic linearly (such as by having 2 or more creatures providing cover for a given attack), it begins to fall apart.

But the rules don't say anything about, if you miss your target by 4 or less, that the attack instead goes onto the target that provided the cover bonus to the creature you originally intended to attack, and I acknowledge that how I'd run it is incorrect.

No, it is a terrible house rule. The -4 is to indicate you are taking less-than-optimal aim at your opponent to purposefully avoid hitting your teammate.

If you want to have a houserule where you risk friendly fire then you should eliminate the -4 penalty altogether. The make precise shot remove the friendly fire chance.

No, that is a houserule. You take a -4 penalty because the target has soft cover in relation to the square you're attacking from, and has nothing to do with trying to avoid hitting your teammate. I'm not saying that PCs want to shoot their teammates, merely that the penalty doesn't apply for the reason you're saying. It applies because the teammate in question is in your line of fire, and therefore is making it more difficult to accurately shoot your target.

Realistically speaking, it's quite plausible to shoot him in the back by accident instead of shooting the intended target (the creature adjacent to him), but I only go that far at my table; by the rules, all it does is make the desired target more difficult to hit, which is likewise fine and dandy.

@ _Ozy_: The houserule suggests that there should be...

Yes, the -4 penalty for soft cover is because you are trying to hit the thing instead of the cover.

Ie, a big chunk of the middle of the thing you want to shoot is obscured. So you try to shoot around it.

But in any event, suggesting that missing by 4 or more should cause you to hit the thing you were trying to shoot around and already caused you to take a -4 to your attack roll is crazy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
hmmm then its a house rule literally every dm ive played with implements

It's realistic and offers an aspect of risk (as well as a nerf) to ranged characters, so it makes sense that a lot of GMs would want to implement it as a rule (either because they want to bring life into their world, or because they just hate OP ranged builds).

I personally would enforce it as a GM, but when you apply its logic linearly (such as by having 2 or more creatures providing cover for a given attack), it begins to fall apart.

But the rules don't say anything about, if you miss your target by 4 or less, that the attack instead goes onto the target that provided the cover bonus to the creature you originally intended to attack, and I acknowledge that how I'd run it is incorrect.

No, it is a terrible house rule. The -4 is to indicate you are taking less-than-optimal aim at your opponent to purposefully avoid hitting your teammate.

If you want to have a houserule where you risk friendly fire then you should eliminate the -4 penalty altogether. The make precise shot remove the friendly fire chance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turelus wrote:

So this is what Mr Mona was teasing us with!

Pathfinder VTT fixed link


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tsudico wrote:

Metric and Imperial both have their issues. For a sci-fan game like Starfinder, I think they should use the dozenal system TGM(Tim, Grafut, Maz).

Be unique, and this way the whole world has to worry about converting so Paizo wouldn't be biased toward anyone.

When the options are:

(1) Please the majority of the audience.
(2) Please the widest cross-section of the audience.
(3) Please no one.

I don't see how you arrive at (3) being the preferred choice.


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


Stat dumping is something that occurs just as much for rolled stats as they do for point buy, unless you're doing the extreme dictatorial standard of "roll Xd6 in order". The player will assigned the worst number rolled to the stat that means the least to them.

Gonna have to disagree with that claim. Yes, a character is putting their lower rolled stats where they do less harm to their concept or power, but it's not dumping in the sense that you get a payoff for doing so like you do by taking the stat down and gaining points back to pay for boosting something else.

That is a distinction without a difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Can I buy land on Mars? I hear it's cheap and doesn't need to worry about global warming...

There's no reason to buy. Once you get there just claim what you'd like and I doubt you'll get any hassle about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Plus picking up bonus sales from those who would like to purchase it in the new format.
We will see. Never assume anything with the rpg hobby imo.

Well, I mean, truth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
So your selling the same material twice and expecting it to somehow be as successful the first time

No, but I expect it to continue being as successful as it is. Plus picking up bonus sales from those who would like to purchase it in the new format.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Pan wrote:

^

You may have to prepare yourself for the possibility you are odd man out.
Possibly but I also think some vastly overestimating how many people want to buy the same rules twice. Just because some do does not mean everyone else will. Just as I won't assume everyone wants to by a completley new edition.

See, it's just not about you. You can not buy it and that would be OK. The CRB continues to be a top seller EVERY YEAR. That means that people are already buying the crap out of it. Reorganize/Syreamlining will only serve to increase that number. Because the same amount of sales (that gives it top seller status) will continue in any event AND everyone who wants the revamped format will buy it too. The new version would be a smashing success because it will only get bigger sales than the current success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Calethos gave a really great and succinct answer. I would add just to be explicit, if you are a fighter 1, and sorcerer 1; when you move up to 3rd level you can go back and choose fighter again. So in a way you can progress both at the same time by alternating which class you choose to level in. It also doesn't have to be every other level, you could do 2-1-3-1 or whatever. You can also take 1 level in 20 different classes. (Which, aside from saves would make for a pretty terrible character, so probably don't do that :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1d4 + 14
1d6 + 12
1d8 + 10
1d10 + 8
1d10 + 8
1d12 + 6

Arrange to taste. Anyone at the table can use anyone's array.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eldred the Grey wrote:

the disappearance of long time posters ... DTBone

I'm still around but definitely much more sparse than I used to be. For the most part I gave up on Rules/Advise forums a few years ago. If I see an in interesting question about a core mechanic I still like to pop my head in.

Mostly I've been hanging out in the OT, but with political threads on hiatus (permanently?) I've spent even less than my usual time.

I agree the boards aren't as fun (for me) as they used to be. I think that mostly has to do with the growth of the user base. This used to be a much smaller place, it was a lot easier to bump into familiar posters and people were (somewhat) willing to engage in honest discussion.

Now the boards are more representative of the internet en masse, which is great for paizo probably. Legacy users on most sites feel this way after a popularity boom.

Anyhow, I'm still here, just lurking more than posting. :D


EVERY episode needs to be planned, cut, and edited with the pacing of THAT episode.

It was a good mid-season finale. Not a cliffhanger, but definitely leading to something else.

I wish the entire half-season had been done as well. We could have gotten a lot more interesting development and story/character growth.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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?

I know this tangent has passed - but of note - many (potentially most) DOs were originally students who couldn't get into school to get their MDs. (DO schools are a bit easier to get into [considerably lower MCAT and GPA score averages for their students] and their schools do less research etc. Not that that matters much for primary care physicians - which I think DO medical schools focus on more.)

As someone who happens to know, (I work on a health science center campus which houses a college of osteopathic medicine) this statement is 99% false/misleading. Many (most) students choose to go to a DO school for the same reasons anyone goes to any school; it is geographically convenient to do so. And many candidates seek out osteopathy because of its focus on treatment of the person, rather than the disease, focus on community based medicine, and the uniqueness of OMM. But, that said, the program is rigorous, and the students are first tier. The regulatory / accreditation bodies for all schools of medicine in this country specifically limit the number of student slots available in total across the US. This makes every seat at every school highly competitive.


The guidelines specifically tell you to use the table first, then spell level x caster level x 1800. Since weapon bonus is one the table you don't use the formula. Bonus squared x 1000 (would be 2000 if it added to damage too.)

So the correct answer is 20x20x1000 gp = 400,000gp.


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 to 50 of 4,584 << 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.