|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Quark blast wrote:
The take away being: Our current climate models suck, expressly so.
Our climate models cannot predict exactly how bad it will be and how bad it will be in different locations.
They are perfectly capable of predicting that this is going to be bad.
When you say that they're bad and therefore not a reason to reduce carbon emissions you're conflating the two and they're not the same thing.
Sarvei taeno wrote:
be fair he said dex damage poisons are worthless i like em because they reduce the creatures ac, just as strength dam can reduce to hit chance, so the worth of a poison is gonna be different depending on who you ask
Are they really going to be cost effective compared to a scroll of heroism though?
I'm obviously sorry you are disappointed. However, suggestions that change how core rules operate, such as changing Vital Strike so it works on a charge without any other player resource being spent on it, or giving every martial character weapon training as part of the base character classes, just aren;t going to happen in a Player Companion. These books are ways to contextualize the existing rules in Golarion-specific ways, and offer new campaign-specific options that work within the existing rule framework.
Its a bit early to see results from that experiment, but dirty tactics had the feat dirty fighting that's basically a nice benefit and all the "Feat taxes" rolled into one. You could do something similar and add half strength to vital strike and let you vital strike on a charge.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Dirty fighting is a nice patch/hack for the annoying combat expertise/unarmed strike feat taxes in addition to being pretty good on its own. Perhaps a similar patch where the feat is something you WANT to take and lets you vital strike on a charge as well? Maybe half your strength bonus or something?
The difference in raising boys and girls seems to boil down to a few minor differences in mind sets; the biggest of those being that boys are more prone to being violent, aggressive, and risk takers than girls are. A fact I blame on testosterone.
That's a big one but its not the only thing. The brain gets changed even prior to birth to be more violent aggressive and risk prone and then gets the testosterone on top of that. (although that formation is itself triggered by testosterone...)
The aggression thing not only starts a difference on its own but snowballs, building off of itself. Testosterone not only gives you an urge to fight it makes you better at it. So what you have is "I want to fight" followed by "Fighting is fun!" AND "fighting actually WORKS to solve my problems!" along with the cultural "I won the fight now I'm the coolest kid in the class for a few days"
I don't think he's actually saying it's OK. More just that it's expected - that's why societies push that position, because there's a hardwired tendency. And that's how we know it's genetic, because so many (all?) societies push it.
Mostly many. And if you're trying to fight genetics with socialization socialization is going to lose. You need to find a solution that works with the genetics. You need to work from a solid foundation of the is to get to the ought.
What bothers me about that logic is nearly all pre-modern societies do far more than just push gender roles, they come far closer to mandating them.
They seem to have hit on very similar gender roles. At the extreme end, no society ever barred the men from going to war and sent the women. The answers range from a minority of women to no girls allowed. That seems very unlikely if we're working from a blank slate.
In so far as the nature/nurture debate has been settled, it hasn't been settled in nurture's favor. Defining nurture as the answer via language rather than argument undermines the validity of the reasoning behind it and leaves people working from a counterfactual position.
If we were drawing conclusions from that, before modern experiments with equality, we'd be justified in much stronger ones.
Or you could say that there's no need to enforce gender roles at all they'll happen on their own.
I also have the PFO boon that's explicitly for one character only. What's to prevent these one character boons from being used on every character I have? Is it just the honor system or is there some sort of online reporting system for these special boons?
95% the honor system
5% someone should be checking your chronicle sheets and should notice that you have 12 of these things when you should only have one...
It does allow you to do both, with very little investment. You take the ranger or the hunter instead. For most combat styles the ranger is better. (everything but two handed i think(
]OTOH, nearly every pre-modern culture goes far beyond what can be taken as innate when setting strict gender roles.
Society certainly exacerbates it to different degrees (no women allowed and you will play football boy and you will like it!) but it doesn't do so ex nilo.
I don't know why, no matter how many times this gets said, it will be ignored in favor of refuting a binary statement.
Thomas Graham wrote:
Nope. I was just making a deliberately lame excuse for the rock elementals apparently suicidal behavior as a joke. He doesn't actually exist here, and just goes home when he "dies" so staying alive isn't necessarily in his best interests.
As fas as i'm concerned, things that are summoned have been summoned enough to understand someone pointing frantically at a specific person, and would even let the earth elemental earthglide under the opponent and come up behind the person: a smart move for a player that remembers they have earthglide, but instinctual for an earth elemental that moves through stone as a matter of course.
For Wizards: 16 int and good spell choices
For Clerics: 16 wisdom some buff and healing spells.
For Damaging: A fighter with a starting 16 strength and a two handed weapon.; Certain fighting styles are going to have to work at it to get up here and weren't all that viable until recently.
Thomas Graham wrote:
maybe with his 11 wisdom score he realizes he can get killed and get back to... whatever it is rock elementals do.. in the peace and quiet of his home realm?
How far back is it supposed to go? And when did we invite reindeer to the games?
I'm picturing an old man sitting around the fire saying "Grandson, your grandchildren s grandchildren may forget yourname, your gods, and your language, but you must always remember, NEVER let the girls toss the caber..."
I know what you're suggesting is probably less overt than that, but so many cultures all having similar traditions and sticking with it for no reason seems like a pretty far fetched claim and there's no way I can think of to provide evidence for it.
It's not like there is a section of the brain that turns off if you are female and prevents them from enjoying sports.
Thats not remotely whats being suggested. You don't need either absolute on/off OR all men/women like/hate sports. You just need a difference in the averages between the two.
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
But children are mostly treated differently according to their (perceived) gender from birth (babies dressed in 'girly pink' as opposed to 'blue for boys'), so "boys like sports" is implied before they can even walk, and reinforced by the choice of games adults play with them (talking to dolls or playing catch with balls). It's a distinction that occurs very, very early and is very pervasive.
It is, but do boys like sports because parents assume that they will or do parents assume that they will because boys like sports? Nature or nurture. Obviously its both to some extent but how much?
Trying to keep this on track since its a meta discission about the discussion, but the language of social justice seems to have mostly (if not all) nurture as the answer baked into it. If you don't agree with that idea you have to use other language, which hits a timey whimey ball of implications because the ideas are linked.
CB DUnkerson wrote:
Cultural gender - The gender that someone's behaviour as perceived as based on cultural norms. E.g. 'boys like sports'.
This is what I was disagreeing with before when someone mistakenly thought i was confusing terms: I was not. The vast majority of "cultural norms" are descriptive of underlying biologically driven behavior. The exact form they take is cultural (football, soccer, lacrosse, kicking a ball through a hoop) but "boys like sports" is prevalent in far too many cultures and has too many analogs in our closest relatives to be a cultural phenomenon. Society certainly exacerbates it to different degrees (no women allowed and you will play football boy and you will like it!) but it doesn't do so ex nilo.
For example, many people with AIS are genetically XY 'male', have the external physical characteristics usually associated with 'females' (though with internal testes rather than ovaries), and think of themselves as 'male'. Their sexual and cultural identity could then also be male, female, or something else.
AIS= androgen insensitivity syndrome? If that's the case when its total the person tends to identify as female and has about the same rate of a preference for males as other women.
Psychology is just biology above the neck.
There's some pretty compelling evidence that your gender is hardwired into your brain whether you're cis or trans. That makes it just as biological and far more important than the plumbing.
]That's true. But that's because it's hard to talk about and uses a lot of concepts that really are outside of most people's experience.
How does the jargon help that?
The jargon also gets used when its completely unnecessary.
Even in that sentence, "assigned gender" probably requires more explanation and "gender identity" might.
It seems to get used to push the idea that gender is an entirely arbitrary social construct rather than a mostly accurate description of of mammalian biology. I don't know if that's because a lot of the social justice types are into...well sociology and societal explanations.
Most of the concepts don't seem that complicated. The ones that are aren't given extra enlightenment from the jargon: whether you define things in terms of privlidge or just "people treat other people differently based on a lot of stuff" you get the same idea. I haven't seen anything you couldn't put in a sentence of hulk speak if you keep it reality based and aren't trying to read something into how they're expressed.
The jeff wrote:
The problem still is that there really isn't another common term, so what I'd be likely to do in a case where I was bringing it up would be to use "cisgender", explain it the first time, and then use it thereafter rather than say "people whose gender identity matches their assigned gender" every time.
You can probably do that with A term.
But there are posts on the thread, ironically discussing how hard it is to communicate this stuff, where I've had to crash my browser opening wiki pages to translate sentences.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
GAH! no. They specifically ask people not to do that.
or start doing what others have been doing and make a case for the feat. It might have simply been missed as a result of the ratfolk not being a common race.
*headscratch* i think thats what he's doing
Auke Teeninga wrote:
I went there! One of the locals managed to do "hey, I know you have that leatherman in your pocket, come help me get the goat out of the fence" as well as "I've seen you with a compass, which way is east its prayer time"
Charm person has...
"You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
So communication can include charades.
"He either wants me to activate the magical device behind the demon, or shave his back....
"Which one is more likely?
"Coin toss really, been summoned three times for both this week....
Quintin Verassi wrote:
Racial Heritage Ratling? Now I need to read the wording of that feat to see if it works for my halfing aasimar (Non-PFS)
Prerequisite(s): Ratfolk, swarming racial trait.
much like needing a tail to be a kobold tail terror, you need swarming to make use of it, which splinter can't give you no matter how good his parenting skills
Whats the sens motive of your average kobold?
Whats the sens motive of our fighter?
..Hey, Meat Shield, we're not casting invisibility on the door this time, we're really making it disappear. Charge the door.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Yes. Or well. Almost.
Let's say Daesh manages to bring down an american bomber and the pilots are able to eject themselves out of the cockpit before the plane goes down only to be gunned down by the "people on the ground" would you find this acceptable?
No, but because they're Daesh and killing people to further that goal is pretty evil, not because they're shooting a pilot. I would answer yes given different targets, even with a US pilot.
I believe the point here is if you want to appear as the "good rebels", "freedom fighters" and the like you don't do exactly what could be expected the likes of Is would do.
I'm pretty sure they're a few orders of magnitude below the level of organization needed to have a public relations expert on hand.
Queen Moragan wrote:
It would really depend on what I was doing while flying the plane.
People on ground are at the mercy of the pilot. Pilot drops bomb.
Pilot is shot down and is at the mercy of the people on the ground. People on the ground _____________