BigNorseWolf's page

Rada has option not to approve,of course.
Which they didn't use.Because they can't.

Would you care to spell out which of the ~40 clauses you're saying allow the impeached president to call in foreign troops?

Its past the point of absurdity that a 0-0 vote favors your position but a 328 to 0 vote is insufficient to be against it.

Putin is a ruthless, bloodthirsty sociopathic dictator that has made a complete mockery of the democratic process and free speech to degrees that make the US look like utopia. Giving him more territory to rule is taking away the rights for more people, and that's a bad thing. Your defense of brutal, naked military aggression is an insult to humanity and the mental gymnastics you've had to pull off to deny a russian invasion are an insult to thinking.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Whats the minimum for a quorum ? I'm pretty sure they're over it.

You are wrong.Article 111 of Ukrainian Constitution.

The dude got voted out 328 zip. He's gone. Legally. Move on. Are you denying the part where when he gets booted out there are new elections too?

Its amazing that the legalities of a quorum are so important to you but the fact that the president can't invite the Russians (because he doesn't control foreign policy) in means nothing.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

328

By that logic,1/1 will be more than 75%

No,you need 75% from full 450 elected,which is 338.
Which also means that they were short 10 votes.
And even in that case,Arbuzov will act as a president.(by no means the same as being acting president)
Which is why these clowns just threw constitution out of the window.

Whats the minimum for a quorum ? I'm pretty sure they're over it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No

Ogods.Are you able to substract 25% from 450?Because i can do that for you.

328/328 > 75%

I don't think I have ever played with a GM that lets a party systematically remove NPC's like that, unless they have animal int. However it's cool that your group works with you so when you do need that SA boost, your rogue is there to step up.

I don't see how its a matter of let. The fighter type has one move and whack (probably with a 2 handed weapon) , the archer guns something down, and the cleric can finish it off.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Thats more than the 3/4 required under the constitution.

No.

Yes.

Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Prime.Minister.

You're going to have to explain yourself a bit. You're not making much sense.

It says if you oust the president , the prime minister absorbs his power for the time being and you hold new elections.

I know everyone here says that they play rogues, but I really have to question the builds that are being put together.

If you don't have a:
- a full feint line
- a flanking familiar
- multiple wands
- a supportive bloodline
- a supportive group that wants to work together to kill bad guys efficiently
or
- a racial, talent, or multiclass way to cast a few low lvl concealment type spells

then you should not be on here complaining about how hard it is to get off sneak attacks that hit. In fact, if your build can't string together at least two of these, then you should be playing another class.

My main problem with sneaks is that you're very lucky to get one precisely BECAUSE groups are decently coordinated. Rogue moves and sneaks. Party kills the guy you're standing next to. party member moves up to attack other guy. You move into position to flank, and backstab 0 or 1 times. Party kills that guy you need to move again.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So 3 people weren't there or what?

But there was an impeachment provision. Which they did. What exactly is the argument that the former president is still legit?

They needed 3xx votes.They got 3xx-3.

So formal procedure weren't followed.So Yanukovich is still legit.Technically.
Which is why it was far easier to just kill the guy.
Then procedure is more or less automatic.

The vote was 328 to zero. Thats more than the 3/4 required under the constitution. And there are provisions for more elections.

In the event of the pre-term termination of authority of the President of Ukraine in accordance with Articles 108, 109, 110 and 111 of this Constitution, the execution of duties of the President of Ukraine, for the period pending the elections and the assumption of office of the new President of Ukraine, is vested in the Prime Minister of Ukraine. The Prime Minister of Ukraine, for the period of executing the duties of the President of Ukraine, shall not exercise the powers envisaged by subparagraphs 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 25 and 27 of Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

They were short something like 3 votes.

So 3 people weren't there or what?

There are no provisions in ukrainian constitution for early elections AFAIK.

But there was an impeachment provision. Which they did. What exactly is the argument that the former president is still legit?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

having trouble finding this: what percentage of the post revolution ukranian congress are the same people as the pre revolution ukranian congress?

As far as I can tell, it's the same parliament. Essentially just a different coalition forming the government - thus different president, prime minister, cabinet, etc.

Thats what I thought. so how does a 100% vote to oust the president NOT make the next president legal?

The FAQ makes mounted charging not work.

I don't think this is the case.

having trouble finding this: what percentage of the post revolution ukranian congress are the same people as the pre revolution ukranian congress?

Unfortunately, using any trick IS indeed a move action. (barring class abilities that change the rule)

This is incorrect.

1) You can easily read the free control mount as a free action to allow the rider to control the mounts attacks

2) Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.

You don't command the horse? that's fine. It still defends you. Hoof to the head!

Rogue always disables traps. If you don't have ranks in disable device, the party throws you onto the trap. Problem solved.

What about replacing power attack with piranha strike?

So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

Its a trained combat animal. It is set to defend its owner against attacks. It just saw its owner whack the soldier/orc/ peasant worth the 1 xp he needed to level.

It attacks. Using the defend trick doesn't take an action.

Possibly neither genetic, nor "learned," so waiting for a "gay gene" to disappear is probably pointless, as is assuming homosexuals are "recruited" or whatever.

There's also probably more than one way to get a hairless cat.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Even then, your horse probably has the defend trick (or can be pushed into defending you) and if it sees you going near something with a sharp pointy object, is going to put a hoof to its head if it has the chance.

True, but it would have to wait until the next round since the charging eats up its full round action.

Hmmm? Little confused

If you're doing this with a sword, the horse attacks too. A charge is a move and an attack for both you and the horse. I don't see why the horse would have to wait.

Of course, after you ride up and lance the monster you'll be standing right next to it with your horse, and both of you can now attack to your heart's content.

The lance has reach, the horse doesn't. So the rider has to stop 10 feet out to lance, and the horse just stops.

The only way you'd need to make a Handle Animal check is if the horse also attacks at the end of the charge. Which it doesn't have to do, since the attack part of charging is optional.

Even then, your horse probably has the defend trick (or can be pushed into defending you) and if it sees you going near something with a sharp pointy object, is going to put a hoof to its head if it has the chance.

I'm guessing the nerf to mounted combat change in question is this faq entry?

I must be missing something because I don't understand what makes spirited charges unworkable. You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge.. it's a ride check instead and if the mount is combat trained, it doesn't even eat an action.

I think the hyper literal way of reading it is that your mount can't charge because you have a lance and you're going to stop 10 feet out, and then the mount can't charge, so it has to break time or something and go back where it started.

Which is not only overly literal but also has a lot of unknown assumptions thrown into it. (like what the heck happens when an action becomes illegal in the middle of doing it)

I'm sorry, is this the "slight change in the wording for charging mounts that people misread as not letting you charge " faq or something new?

As a simplistic argument, if there were a particular gene that made you homosexual, it would disappear as a matter of course.

There are a few reasons this isn't true. It could certainly decline but it won't be disappearing

This would take a very, VERY long time if its recessive. A recesive carrier of a lethal gene can reproduce with virtually no hindrance to their reproductive fitness if their descendants avoid inbreeding, keeping the gene in the population.

You can also have new mutations arising: genetics aren't locked after all, and mutations do happen.

Dog islands.. definitely sounds like somewhere to visit...

Another note is that Ant Haul only affects Encumberance with carried items and not from Armor.

I don't see how you're getting that distinction. Your carrying capacity IS your carrying capacity, its not differentiated into carrying armor and carrying other stuff.

The "encumbrance due to armor" is for armor check penalties, speed reduction and the like.

re fast learner: you can use toughness like fast learner at any int. Just take toughness and then put your favored class bonus into the skillpoint instead of the hit points: winds up being the same thing.

I would dump strength. You're a caster, one casting of ant haul will last you through the dungeon even at low levels.

That last one is an older scenario before they had prestige. Just split the boxes in half and track the prestige and fame normally. If you got fame, then you also got prestige.

Russia did not seem all that eager to annex the Crimea or any of the Ukraine until destabilizing actions by the US.

There was no need to. Russia's puppet dictator was on the throne, that's just as good as controlling the Ukraine and Crimea. The dictator is out, so now they need some way of controlling the peninsula.

And to be blunt, if homosexuality is a genetically acquired trait, the fact that gays are no longer forced to "conform" in Western society is pretty effectively going to remove them from the gene pool in a few generations. Unless you are going to invoke the argument that it enhances the prospects of close relatives. If you do some reading that one is on pretty shaky mathematical ground.

1) Its possible its not genetic, its something that happens in the womb/very early development.

2))Even IF homosexuality is genetic it might be more complicated than 2 genes. [even more hypothetical than usual]Lets say that its 10 genes, 10 being completely strait, 1 being 10 being completely homosexual. 10 could make you SO MANLY that you have trouble relating to women and decrease your chances of finding a mate, so its worth it to have a few copies of the genes around, even if it does occasionally wind up being too much of a good thing that drops the reproductive rate[/even more hypothetical than usual]

3) Even IF its binary, then there are recessive genes far worse for your chances of reproduction than homosexuality that have been with the human species for millennia.

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

Stuff.

And the concise response to all of those things is "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." Entirely behavioral, and can be handled on a case by case basis if they're going overboard. No need to go on a nerfing crusade.

And who's to tell you your ac is too high?

Its not like there aren't a lot of other ways to kill someone. Most times I've been put at risk of death at high level wasn't from something swinging at me, it was from a spell.

On casters I'll try it. I can get everything i need on a caster from a spell, it just costs a few extra slots. On a martial.. yeah. Everything goes into weapon stat booster and AC.

Probably eat anything threatening the owner and then follow him.

You can teach the critter the "Serve" trick from the animal archive to get other party members to give orders to the critter if this is a regular event.

Australian, and I found it a bit funny.

Insensitive, certainly. Racist, not even slightly. Don't use the labels when they don't apply.

Course, where I am from, we would have a good laugh every few years when a German tourist got eaten by crocodiles. Or a yank wandered off into Arnhem land and was never seen again.

In yellowstone they had the warnings not to taunt the bison in english and french. I don't know if they get a lot of canadians from quebec there or if the french take that month long holiday they all get at the same time in yellowstone or what. but apparently the bison find them annoying.

Just removing sexual dimorphism from humans would be enough fuel for a sci-fi/fantasy setting all on its own.

I'll admit, this type of thing grates on me and really hurts my sense of immersion. How does someone spend an hour each morning requesting individual spells (and the specific number of each) from his deity without realizing he's doing so?

The player requests specific spells. Maybe the character wonders why some strange, otherworldly being has filled their head with magic.

Get the wand for out of combat healing, save the lay on hands for "He's gonna DIE!"

What kind of pathfinder has trouble running across bodies?

(some of them you may or may not have made that way...)

Objectively, as you like to say, is your argument working?

In order to allow what you've said happened, as far as the information we have, we would have to allow someone shouting for surrender from the door of a cavern to intimidate the big bad into coming out. That might not be what you're trying to do, but your exact same logic would say that that's allowed.

The argument seems to be whether someone can nerf the raw intimidate or if they have to cancel any table you show up at just to prevent what you insist should work.

NEITHER is a very good result for you.

I'm fine with allowing skill insanity, skill insanity when it doesn't break the main plot , and especially on nameless mooks.

" clothes made of this cloth have a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid. You don't see me as naked do you?

From the start I provided everything that was necessary to get an objective answer.The creatures, the fact that it successfully got to the 1 minute mark to make the check and that the check would have normally succeeded. So exactly what didn't I provide?

You didn't list the scenario. For all we know the scenario says "Attempting to intimidate this guy is pointless", or the demon in question has so many hit dice you couldn't have succeeded on a 20 (there's a few scenarios out there where fighting the demon is suicide. Run or die) If you state this (preferably in spoilers) we can see exactly what the situation is.

The fact that the demon can't attack you (it was paralyzed?) didn't come up till the last page or so.

Why exactly it couldn't see you.

What am I imagining and not writing to help everyone out that makes me seem like a psychopath that cannot have his mind alerted?

Your argument, as written is this.

He only needs to hear me to be intimidated.

Nothing prevents me from intimidating him from half a mile away through echoey caverns.

= I can just intimidate people and they must surrender, muahahahah! I am unbeatable!

but apparently not, although I believe it's others with the issue, and not me.

Thats what everyone thinks. Someone has to be wrong. (likely both)

But the OPs situation does not invalidate an encounter right?

It may or it may not invalidate the encounter (the description of what happened is a little vague and kinda spread out all over) but the strict raw that's being demanded as a rules resolution WILL break encounters.

Mark, I just want to make sure about what you wrote to me. You absolutely feel I'm unreasonable, and inconsiderate with how I deal with others that I just have my mind made up and unconditionally won't change? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but asking for clarification. I feel that's really unfair, and what I write is directly proven by the rules. I get you're trying to be creative, but baseline what I write is what it is.

What you have in your head when describing the situation isn't necessarily what you type.

What you have in your head for your goals isn't necessarily what you type.

You're reacting as if we know whats in your head rather than what you're saying. Your description of the events is rather incomplete and very piecemeal.

Agreed, they generally cover things like that and often set absolutes for enemy behaviours that override the skill rules that are eminently sensible. But scenario writers are entitled to change things up, GMs are not.

No, but DMs can look REAAAALy hard for a loophole and they'll usually find one. He sets you on fire after 30 seconds, the scenario says he fights to the death (ridiculously common), "Friend" does not mean "slave", the monsters only concepts of other beings are food and "mate" and since you just made it friendly...,

You simply do not get to ignore the rules in PFS, and you seem to know what the rules are. Its not a grey area, you have the rules outlined for you for how intimidate works therefor you are not entitled to go against them. You can choose to do otherwise, but you are in the wrong by PFS rules.

I think its telling that the scenarios themselves alter or even completely nix the way intimidate to change attitude works as a matter of standard opperating procedure.

I was thinking something like 2 steel claws which does 1d6 of normal damage ( as tiger's claws) but enchantable. Do you think that's unbalanced? I would like to do this mainly because animal have a very small growth on weapon damage, basically only the one given by the growth of strength.

You can also use an amulet of mighty fists on the tiger, barding (critter armor), and a belt of strength.

Kitties do NOT have a problem doing damage. A reasonably geared or buffed kitty charge/pouncing over the battlemat can easily out damage some fighters.

Nope. Animals are intended to be using their natural weapons.

Not that I wouldn't like to see a tail attachment or two for an ankylosaurus...

Hmm, I wonder... if I saw this kind of thing (outright cheating) between a GM and a player and said something to them about it and they both think it's in the rules, but no one has a way of proving it, and they continue on with it, what should I do? Do I go to a VO?

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance.

So can I have your gaming books? Since you won't be using them and all...

You should see the halfling mouse druid that can pin the red dragon...

BigNorseWolf wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

Yeah...back before they got their own studio to make movies, they sold off a ton of rights. A lot of them have clauses where basically if a movie isn't done with the property in X-amount of time, they revert back, which happened with the hulk and I think a few other properties. They have also bought back a few.

There was a so awful its amazing 1994 fantastic four movie done at one point on a 10,000 dollar budget just to keep the rights. There's no reason they wouldn't do that with the different spiderman/x men movies.

ow! that trailer was so painfully cheesy

The whole movie is after it.

Its like hot mustard.. it hurts.. but you can't stop...