|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
That definition is sadly lacking. Don't know what joker wrote that up. Try again. Here.
The actual fallacy in an appeal to authority is NOT limited to when an authority is only a "supposed" authority as the site you linked very incorrectly states. It is a matter of whether you can prove the authority is objectively right in a subject at hand, and moreover, because it shows you are not reliant on your own research, but on that of somebody whose authority you cannot prove.
I say again. Appeal to Authority.
How about rapid shot, with a BAB +6 and rapid shotcould you make two attacks at +4 and -1 and then throw the trident at +4?
You can only throw the trident once. Rapid Shot applies to ranged attacks ("you can FIRE one additional time..." "all attacks take -2").
I invite you to work that one out from there.
I see a few people in this thread saying that they might give out extra skill points so their characters can add them into a Profession without taking them from other skills.
I have to wonder why? My personal feeling is that after the first few levels, even supposedly difficult skill checks become easily rolled-against. I can't help but to feel that, with only a few exceptions, there are too many skill points floating around the classes, and not enough challenge against them. (Unless you're combining multiple environmental factors into every situation, which, let's face it, you can't always do.)
Given the way skill ranks in a class skill are applied, bonus-wise (which I still think was an improvement over 3.x), if you have a fairly rounded party, you basically have a guaranteed skill check for nearly every situation.
My players typically do not know what to do with all the skill points, and I appreciate the checks being more challenging, so when they put some into a profession, it not only pleases me from an RP and world-building standpoint, it also pleases the part of me that wants to challenge the players.
The same thing happens when I'm creating outsiders. I'm big on monster creation and advancement, and for some reason I tend to run outsider-heavy games. They are so skill-point heavy, sometimes you just do not know what to do with all the points. Can't always give those guys professions (not a lot of bakery or florist experience for a lord of hell), but at least the PCs can benefit (and benefit the game) from Profession ranks.
Remy Balster wrote:
Which is exactly why this will NEVER, EVER, EVER nor SHOULD it EVER, EVER, EVER, be answered in a FAQ.
Because it is yet another in a long, sad line of questions that are not covered in the rules because they are common sense.
Is heat damage and fire damage the same? That question has been asked here by many fools, and still many more fools have hit the FAQ button. I've seen the answer from the designers, and it is that they will never FAQ that because you ought to know it without being told. Inane questions like these abound. "If I'm not flying, am I walking? I don't believe I am because the rules on flying don't say that when I don't fly I walk!" I warned the designers of 3.0 way back when it was announced and bits were leaking out, that they were rewarding the worst of the players out there - people who cannot allow their characters to take a breath without a rule governing it - by codifying every little action, and that has been proven true again and again over the years.
In short (too late), don't expect to get a FAQ for this, because it is common sense that the answer is yes. It does not need to be in the rules. Any reasonable GM will say, "yeah, I've seen a hundred movies where a guy gets hit in the face with the pommel or haft of a weapon, rather than with the business end (Darth Maul vs. Qui-Gon Jinn, anybody?!?!?), no problem."
The designers expect you to reason this out, just as thousands, if not millions of players have done before you. There is nothing new about this question. It comes up all the time. GMs allow it all the time.
It depends. Some of my players want me to be ruthless. For them, pretty much no spell is off the table, though their application ought to be carefully measured so as to seem fair and reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, a party who has been chasing down a wizard known for having a fondness for making his enemies "disappear from existence" should not be surprised if somebody gets disintegrated.
On the other hand, I have players who would see the save-or-die nature of such a situation a cheap shot and an empty end to the game.
So this is yet another topic that gets firmly placed for me into the GM-know-thy-players file.
Thought of one more thing. Not sure if anybody mentioned this. I see mentions of statistics and math, which is expected.
But, specifically, remember that game design has become very big business in this modern world. I am speaking of video games now. There are courses at reputable universities in game design now, as well as a host of smaller colleges dedicated to same.
The rudiments of most of the games out there, in terms of the basic algorithms and building blocks used to manage characters within the games, come from roleplaying games, ultimately tracing their lineage to D&D and then to the wargames that inspired it.
A course in how to design and manage the resources of a Pathfinder character, easily serves as a sort of grammar lesson in the origin of video game characters and the resource and skill management that comes with them. Thus, it's an introductory course for future video game designers.
As a Dutch kid I learned a great deal of English by reading the 2.5 D&D books. Wanting to actually read cool stuff like the Bestiary can be a powerful motivation to learn a language. (Not so useful if you're a native English speaker though.)
Although, even for a native speaker of English, the early books fostered a love of mythology and interest in history that has lasted my whole life.
Every time we came upon a creature we had never heard-of, we went about researching it to see if it was made up for the game, or came from a historical, anthropological source. Surprising how many creatures in all iterations of the game actually have a source in the real world, even some of the weirdest ones.
Comparing how the various rulebooks interpreted a god, or creature, or item of legend, to how those things were recorded in real world history, could practically fuel a career.
Actually, about a year ago or so, one of my new players asked me to GM a game for her and a couple of friends who'd never played before. The big bad was a human fighter who had taken over an abandoned tower and reinforced it as a fortress for his army of half-orc fighter mooks.
His goal was the sacrifice of the last heir to the tower on a certain night with a certain dagger, which would somehow imbue him with demonic power to help him take over the kingdom. He was a finely tuned killing machine with no mercy, but only if he thought you were worth his time. Mostly, he just unleashed the hounds. We never got to finish the adventure, so they did not get to have the Big Showdown with him.
It would have been tough. He was a pretty darned good bad guy. Sort of something Northern, Saxon-ish name, with a bit of something from a Frazetta painting to him. Lots of heavy, black armor. Wielded a maul.
In a similar vein, we were playing through a campaign and the players were stuck on a difficult riddle, so I decided to allow the smartest character an Intelligence check to see if I could give him a hint.
I looked over the character sheets, sighed, turned to the player of the paladin and said, "Summon your celestial pegasus. He needs to solve a riddle for you."
The black raven wrote:
I always like to quote Ben Stiller from The Zero Effect at times like this:
"Do you hear what you're saying? We aren't the good guys. There are no good guys in this. There are no bad guys. It's just a bunch of... [waves hands around] ...guys."
Really. Just because you see some weird things out there, doesn't mean everything out there is weird.
My group plays entire campaigns where humans are the only playable race. Mostly those are the games we base on a historical period on Earth, or are set in the modern world.
For the most part, we stuck with the "classic" races from about 1981 to about 1999, at which point somebody decided they wanted to play a drow. (Not too great a departure, there.) Then, my wife joined the game in 2000, and she immediately changed things up with a gem dragon "cursed" to remain in human form.
Since then, my wife has played two elves, a half-elf, three different humans in our modern/historical games, and an angel. My son has played an elf and a turtle-man that I statted up for him. But now he is back to a dwarf. Another friend has just statted up a sylph. We had a friend in our game for a long time who loved her lizard-woman. Our upcoming game, I allowed them to stretch a little, and one player is taking a xorn bard.
I think we have so much variety because, aside from me and an occasional other player, nobody in our group is very rules-savvy. They all rely on me to adjudicate and know the rules encyclopedically. Because they come from a more creative place than a rules place, they are thinking outside the box and allowing their imaginations to run free. Thus, they have more unusual concepts.
But all that said, these are the exceptions. Of our last four campaigns since we began using Pathfinder, counting the one we're about to start, we've had:
The humans pretty much take it in a landslide. And then the dwarves. And if you count the aasimar, the remainder are pretty much tied between "normal" or "classic" races, and anything unusual. And in my experience, we play a "weirder" game than is reported by my other GM friends.
Matthew Downie wrote:
RD is taking a lot of these threads out of context and not fairly judging them for what they are: requests for help in keeping the game challenging from new GMs.
So what if a noob needs help coming up with challenges for a newly leveled-up party? So what if that same noob needs help challenging a powerful fighter? So what if he needs help understanding how to keep the mobile monk engaged and interested?
Pretending all of these threads are made by people who somehow don't understand that a fighter kills things, is just some sort of confirmation bias. You want to think "kids these days" are dummies, so you find "proof" of it and start a thread removed from any real evidence.
I don't think the DM sounds like a problem. Sounds like he's just all about letting it play, no matter what happens.
Which is a gigantic problem in this case.
The type of player the OP is describing is not that uncommon. I have had these guys at my own table. Trust me when I say they do not change, or at least not easily, and not quickly. And they usually end up destroying entire groups, or worse, getting in anything from party-wrecking arguments to outright fist-throwing with other players.
A good GM must be ready to reel in problem players, and he must be concerned with the fun and comfort of the ENTIRE GROUP.
"Just letting it play, no matter what happens," in this case is tantamount to begging for your game to end a bloody death and putting a gun to make it happen in the hands of an ass.
The GM is arguably the BIGGEST problem here.
Perhaps I can phrase this in a way that creates better understanding through context. "Just letting it play, no matter what happens" is a style that ought to be reserved for GMing trustworthy, mature players. The player in question is neither, has stated that he is neither, has stated his desire to go on being an immature, awful player out for only his own enjoyment, and especially sadistic, to boot.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Roughly same amount of time playing. Both sides of screen. Opposite experience. Every DM/GM I played with allowed the finding/purchasing of spellbooks, learning from scrolls, etc.
Many pre-written modules over those years featured spellbooks for the finding.
We could do this all day. My experience is the "norm" as far as I'm concerned.
I think you WANT the wizard to suck, either to "win" the argument or to justify some fairly hefty houserules. You go looking for suckage, and sure enough, you're bound to find it.
I've thrown my back out a couple of times (and by the way, you don't need to be old to do this -- the first time I really threw out my back I was only about 22).
You hobble a bit. Have a hard time standing up straight and getting up. Besides any penalties you might get for the pain, or whatever other conditions you might impose, you ought to consider that the character's speed is affected somehow.
I know I wasn't up for running or quick movement in general.
Spastic Puma wrote:
One word: Jonestown.
Another word: Waco.
Another couple words: Nazi Germany.
How about this word: Evangelicals.
Charismatic people have gotten previously sane individuals (and mobs) to go along with, and believe things that all logic and even their very own eyes, tell them is patently untrue. Right here in the real world.
Miguel O'Hara (Spider-Man 2099) had a Latina mother. The Tarantula was Latino, but he was a bad guy.
My feeling is that if you care about the game more than anything else, then you care about it more than staying out late getting so drunk that you won't be able to operate the next day. That would be what it meant to "care about it MORE than ANYTHING ELSE."
Clearly, getting drunk and hungover, in this case, is at least as important as the game.
That said, players have come to sessions tired from lack of sleep, and some have fallen asleep during sessions. If the session has gone on long enough, we tend to just start winding it down when that happens. When the session is in its early stages, we usually let that player sleep and just play around him as if he weren't there that day, or sometimes we wake him for the combat rolls.
If somebody is being completely disruptive, that's a different story. That's where the "stupid" part comes into play. We tolerate disruption fairly well, being veterans of it after playing with a guy for years who pretty much thought the game was all about him. But if "stupid" starts really ruining it for everybody, that's when we have THE TALK.
In this case, if somebody was hung over, causing him to be sleepy, act stupid and be disruptive, then yes, that seems like the trifecta of bad, and I would probably ask him if he'd like to sit this session out and return on a day that was better for him.
As to kicking somebody out, that's what you do when a behavior is chronic and there is no cure for it after a certain number of sessions.
As to the title of your thread, keep in mind that your "right to be stupid" MUST be balanced against the rights of the other individual players, who are giving up their own free time and energies for their own love of the game. They have a "right," therefore, to be free from your stupidity.
See, I don't think of trolling in such broad terms, and I don't think most others do, either.
I think most of us consider trolling to be something that at least irritates a majority in the affected thread, that we sense has been made intentionally irritating, all the way up to actual abuse.
I have a couple of aliases on this board, which I use to say something funny, be prankish or mischievous or even insert a link to a clip on YouTube that seems relevant (but often funny or tongue-in-cheek in context), and nobody ever accuses me of trolling.
That term is reserved for the people who are clearly trying to disrupt.
Firstly, I'm not sure it's fair to use the term "class bloat" in this case. Class bloat implies that there is a problem with the game. Some of us like having at least a good amount of optional classes around (I am fond of Paizo's base classes). I think your issue has to do with your own open-mindedness in allowing all these classes (and the third party stuff) into your game. You have the option to disallow whatever you think does not fit your world and whatever you just don't want to deal with.
Screamers can scream all they want (there are entire - very angry - threads surrounding this topic), but in the end, you have to have fun, too, and if you are working too hard to have any fun, well... that's no fun.
My rules for limiting this sort of thing are pretty basic. I allow any core or basic class from Paizo, so long as it fits the world or the player can work with me on a backstory that is interesting and plausible.
I have only rarely allowed third party stuff, and only after careful, thorough review. Not because I don't think somebody out there can create something decent, but because I feel I can more easily trust the prime source, so it cuts down on all the extra curricular study.
In both cases, I have to own a copy of the class, either in pfd or book form. I have to be able to look it up quickly and I have to have time before we actually play it, to review it. Nobody gets to play a class I cannot fairly adjudicate.
I have to make all of this easier for myself because the majority of my players are not particularly rules-savvy. I have to keep all their class abilities in mind because they do not always do it themselves. We tend to play a they-conceptualize-it-I-build-it kind of game.
Probably worth mentioning that the game originally (or, original versions of the game) drew upon the Bible as a source for various spells and magical effects, and even magical items.
Sticks to snakes, and all that.
So, duh. Of course spellcasters in the game can replicate the feats of the Judeo-Christian god. The game was intentionally designed to do so.
My mother was a career waitress until she got hurt. And my stepfather was a bell captain at a large, famous hotel. Add to that the fact that I grew up relatively poor, and you end up with a very good tipper. I tip well, and I tip at least the standard even when the service isn't great. Because I understand what it's like working for tips first hand.
As to myself, I have a had a delivery job or two where people tipped. That was rare, but it happened on occasion. I also have worked in places with a tip jar as opposed to a tip on the tabe after the bill (coffee houses). Even a tip jar can make a significant difference over the course of a week or two.
As to the standard in the US, actually it did used to be a very, very regional thing. Some of you may be too young to remember, but there used to be cards printed on plastic, that showed what was a customary tip, state to state. You could buy them at stationery stores and they sometimes came with dayplanners or certain wallets. I think AAA even used to hand them out in their offices.
Around here it's 15%, as in most of Northern California that is "twice tax." (Actually, it's a little less than twice tax in most places around SF.) We use the term "twice tax" here to make it easier on ourselves: you look at the tax on the bill and double it, and that's your tip. That's a bit over 15%, which is nice for the server, as well.
As is the case everywhere, there are a few establishments that calculate the tip in the final bill. Usually, that is only done when there are a certain number of people. A large group will merit that at a really nice Japanese place, for instance, while a smaller group can add the tip themselves. I don't mind too much, as most of those places print a disclaimer on their menus telling you at what dollar total or how large a group the tip will automatically be added. What DOES chafe my hide is when they calculate a percentage of the total, including the tax. You're not supposed to do that. We've had a few arguments over the years, over that.
reika michiko wrote:
...but they also have a bad tendency to release stuff without checking if it makes sense...
That statement doesn't stand in the face of the reality that with just about every release we the community are invited to playtest and give feedback. That is the tip of Paizo's "checking to see if a rule makes sense," which no doubt also includes a lot of in-house playtesting.
As has been mentioned, creating game rules is more complicated than you might think. A lot of careful thought must go into it. Remember the game has to do two things at one time:
1. It must simulate (not exactly replicate) combat in a reasonable manner.
2. It must balance all the variables and various types of combat so that none of them completely overwhelms any others of the same level.
Yes, sometimes that means something is not as realistic as we like, or that we cannot start out right away with exactly whatever titanic power we want. We might have to work for it, or tweak something, or look around for a way we haven't yet thought-of, to get to where we want to be.
Making wild statements like the one above just seems childish.
Jason Nelson wrote:
Love that song. Love that line.
The entire song, Across the Universe is itself a favorite line of mine. But if I had to narrow it down, it would be:
"Thoughts meander like a restless wind inside a letterbox, they tumble blindly as they make their way across the Universe..."
My mom played the Beatles for me since before I was born. This song is where I learned the word meander - a word I am very fond of. LOL
From the Bestiary, page 297, on creature advancement by adding class levels:
If the creature possesses class features (such as spellcasting or sneak attack) for the class that is being added, these abilities stack.
However, the Bestiary does not mention how Spell-Like abilities are affected, and states that creatures with (Sp) are not treated as "spellcasting creatures" for the purposes of determining the type of role they fall into.
Spell-Like abilities do not stack. Just actual spellcasting the creature may possess.
One of us DMs (not me) used to enforced the notion of trainers and seeking them out and training with them back in our 2nd Ed games. It sucked mightily. Mainly because instead of just allowing this to be something that happened behind the scenes - flashforward style - he made us actually play (stuck at the same level and still accruing XP) while we searched and searched and searched, and frankly I think we hardly ever found anybody to fit the bill. Sometimes we'd acquire enough XP for two levels before we found anybody, and guess what? We could only gain one level from one trainer at a time. Basically, we walked around with a surplus of XP, unable to use it (and lost half the time in his magical labyrinthine forest).
This used to provoke endless arguments about whether actually going out in the world and fighting monsters COUNTS as training towards... well, you know... FIGHTING MONSTERS.
Of course it does. But he was a college guy, and I was a working guy, so I think our philosophies diverged in that way. In my life, the best training is the life experience of being on the job, and he believes the best training is the kind you get in the classroom. So maybe that was where the stylistic differences came from.
Anyway, fantasy is full of precedent for characters increasing power without strict classroom training. Watch enough TV, enough Saturday morning cartoons, enough Anime, read enough comic books, you'll see plenty of characters utilizing powers they never dreamed they possessed in the heat of battle, or when some other crucial moment came upon them. You will also see examples of characters trying to harness powers they know exist or have seen demonstrated, failing until - voila! - they suddenly can do it (also often in the heat of the moment). Sometimes they can do it only once or intermittently, and have to rediscover or refine the ability.
The opposite also exists. Training scenes from The Karate Kid come to mind.
Both can coexist. But I think it should probably be a matter of style for each player. A player who thinks his character is the type to learn on the fly, who improvises a lot, should be allowed to "level up" as he goes. A player who loves to hear the Rocky Theme blasting out as he does his sit ups under the pounding fists of Master Pai Mei, should be allowed to have his fun, too.
EDIT: I should also point out that, as a musician, I "leveled up" - that is, improved - slowly and steadily over time. I did so through accumulated experience and practice. I didn't need a trainer to get better. I just got better because I did it all the time.
Since Tolkien invented the creature we refer to as Halfling (yes, I know the word was used in olden times to mean "child," it also was used in reference to half-grown livestock and sometimes to dwarf versions of animals), and the fictional Red and Green books were meant to represent the history of Middle-Earth as implied to have been written by Hobbits, I would say that Halfling is probably a lot like Old English, or some proto-English variant.
I've said this many times over the years, as this old, beaten horse occasionally gets dragged from its blood stained death bed.
The most consistently naked character in all of Fantasy is Conan. A male.
Where are the rage/hate demands to see HIM get dressed up like a proper gentleman? And how stupid would that be? Very.
Look, there's exploitative crap out there, and always has been. That can create a bad impression, sure. But there's room for sexy, too. And frankly, there have been plenty of times in human history when people did not wear much. Our ancestors depicted same in their art over millennia. Fantasy often reflects those past times.
And, finally, naked can be artful, too.
My advice? Don't try so hard to be insulted. It blocks your brains from actual thought.
As to good or evil; I'd say it's not evil because you aren't harming the people (or creating an addiction), at the very least it's no more evil than if you had cast the spell...
Addiction is as addiction does. Note the OP says that he doesn't addict people, he just uses a psychotropic element (in this case, magical) to get them to want his stuff against their better judgment, thus forcing them to pay to devour his baked goods by the dozen.
I can't imagine a bigger bag of BS. That's the very definition of addiction. Just because he tries to say it isn't, doesn't mean we can't use our own common sense.
Of course he's evil. He is a the epicenter of a web of deceit, information theft, addiction, lies, falsification, fraud... need I go on?
I mean, I like what he's got going. It sounds like a fun turn of events. But to paraphrase what I said above (and Forrest Gump for the second time) evil is as evil does. And he does evil.
He does evil right like KFC does chicken.
I think some people here may not know what "cheese" means. Cheese is some rules loophole you find and exploit, generally against the spirit of whatever game you're playing, but which no solid argument against can stand, due to the vagueness surrounding it.
The tide of battle turning because of a legal, game-balanced resource, being applied fairly, is NOT cheese.
So, no. This was not an example of cheese. This was somebody buying a resource that he had a good idea would work against a known foe, whose abilities were also known, and that resource working.
But... you probably knew that. I presume the point of the thread is really to boast about a plan that went well. It went well. Congratulations. Next time, just post the thread honestly, as a "guess-what-happened-this-weekend!" thread. There's nothing wrong with that.
I don't think I've ever seen an error in anything so crucial as a creature's attack bonus or AC in any of the Bestiaries (and when I suspected there might be one, I found in every case some ability or modifier that accounted for it), so I don't think you ever have to worry about errors in those cases.
I have noticed what might or might not be actual slight discrepancies regarding a skill rank or two. Or at least what might be the monster creator's artistic license for that particular creature (just because a thing has tons of skill points available doesn't mean they all have to be used, I guess).
On the other hand, I don't have a lot of experience with stat blocks in the various official APs, so I can't comment there.
But yes, 99.9999999999999% of the entries in the Bestiaries have their size modifiers correctly applied. I wouldn't waste my time double-checking them.
Interesting. I am a fan of old sages, so have had my fair share of both ladies and men in that role, as NPCs, but even though our groups have had a wide variety of unusual character concepts, I must admit that this is one I don't think we've ever got to.
Now, a few years back, my mom, stepdad and an old (female) friend of the family did sit in for a couple of sessions, and we had a good time. But I believe the two ladies (in their late 'fifties at the time) played a half elf, and elf, respectively, so who knows how young they probably still looked, despite their ages?!
Well, you can see the spell for yourself here.
The spell does not state specifically that the awakened creature can take class levels. It says that an animal becomes a magical beast. However, the Bestiary gives advice on how to add class levels to monsters, and there is plenty of precedent for creatures with greater-than-animal Intelligence taking levels.
I've done it many times with various creatures. It is not game-breaking. Go for it. But remember, as Joex said, the bird cannot be an animal companion anymore (though it remains friendly).
I have some issue with Martin, but comparing him to Lieber is ridiculous.
Arya and the Mouser are nothing alike at all. And since when is it uncommon for a weapon to be named?
Martin and Lieber are both great. But nothing alike. Their styles and their stories are miles apart. Nobody ripped anything off. You're just showing ignorance here.
In the first Conan flick (with Arnold), Conan sunders his father's sword whilst it is wielded by Rexxor in the Big Battle (TM) toward the end.
It's a great, clean shot of a sunder, with the blade splitting nicely in half, and a chunk of it flying into Rexxor's hair (in slow motion, no less).
Love that scene. And the music is spectacular.
My wife is a quiet-voiced person in a group of fairly loud people. In more recent games, she has had more difficulty being heard. This comes after many years where she typically played the character in-charge (she tends to play paladins and similar types, and with some of the more "naughty" players we've had in the game, I needed her to help keep things on the straight-and-narrow). So I think this is doubly as hard for her.
One thing that complicated the issue was that a friend of ours, who helped her keep the peace, moved to another state. The two of them worked well together, and we all miss the dynamic.
Now she has to compete harder in a situation with more opinionated people with slightly more ego than some of our past players. She often offers good ideas, only to be drowned out and to have other players later offer the same ideas. Very frustrating for her.
Here's what I do.
Firstly, I have never been shy about having "those talks" before sessions with the whole group. Without pointing fingers or singling anybody out, I let everybody know when people feel they are not being heard. I remind everybody to try to be a bit more orderly so everybody can be heard. It's not a big deal. Everybody understands this is a game wherein we all need to have fun. Sometimes they just need to be reminded to be a bit more courteous to one-another.
Secondly, during the game I keep my ears open to everybody. I make sure to listen to what everybody is saying, and when I hear somebody say something interesting, I ask everyone to settle down and let that person speak. That way, it's clear who came up with what idea (this can be important because people like to feel like they are contributing and they want others to know they are, too). I also am not afraid to sum up the conversation by going around the table and reiterating what everybody has said. When someone is drowned out, I even repeat what they have said to the others.
Being a GM sometimes goes beyond navigating rules and settling in-game issues and arguments around the table, into the realm of a sort of mediating group therapist. You have to be brave to be a GM. You have to be confident.
Get into the mix. Talk these things out. Stay positive and mediate. It'll be fine.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Inside any place where people gather, including stores, bars, restaurants, etc., and in most counties/cities nowhere within 30 feet of same.
People who still smoke (a minority now), do so out in parking lots.
We call this place California.