Deadmanwalking's page

It's good, but by no means vital. Rage cycling is cool...but really only for Spell Sunder, Strength Surge, or the two in combination. And, quite frankly, while awesome, those two are nowhere near the end-all be-all of Barbarian powers or capabilities.

Hell, given the surival rate of casters in melee with a Barbarian and how few combats involve facing multiple casters in one go, it's debatable whether using Spell Sunder more than once per Rage is even that useful. It's the terror of melee Alchemists and melee-utilizing Dragons everywhere...but those are hardly the primary foes most parties are likely to fight on most occasions.

It's better than existing options for the very specific build of a rage-cycling Barbarian who isn't willing to grab a level of Oracle. That's hardly the best thing since sliced bread.

I just realized we've never seen this guy's mount stat'ed up. He's got to have one, like Lini has Droogami. At least give us the beast's name!

Uh...it's name is Donahan (as mentioned above). It was statted in one of the PFS things that's no longer on the site...but it's a horse. Using the 'Horse' animal companion stats. That's really all there is to it.

Cayden Cailean is a good one I hadn't thought of. I doubt he'd be worshiped by the dwarven community at large, given his human origins and relative youth, but I could see an exiled or questing dwarf heading into a holy pub of Cayden for a little taste of home.

Cayden Cailean actually, apparently, has an official place in Dwarven myth these days as Torag's comedic sidekick. So very much the kind of guy a Chaotic aligned Dwarf might be previously exposed to and inclined to follow.

I've actually got a CG Dwarven Barbarian devotted to Cayden Cailean in my current Pathfinder game, as a matter of fact.

Shazathared was an accomplished story teller before she was kidnapped by Jhavhul, it is why he made the effort to grab her and set up a special place for her in his vaults as opposed to his harem.

This. The Songs we get to see are her 'published work' from before she was captured. Note that few if any are the sort of thing she'd likely tell Jhavhul, and none rely on knowledge she could not possess prior to her capture.

So if you free her, you (theoretically) could get a whole wealth of new stories never before heard...

Except Superman has like DR 40/magic.

Which is why I suggested Warden as his Mythic Path. If DR and/or Natural Armor or assorted sorts (or other equivalent effects) aren't available to the Warden I'll be shocked. Their whole schtick from description is being unkillable.

Actually, Superman as a Mythic Paladin 12/Warden 6 while Batman's a Rogue 18 (or something like that) actually makes a fair amount of sense to me. One has cool powers, the other is vastly more experienced with skills that probably out number his by a factor of 7, the same BAB, and probably at least as much HP (barring those defensive Mythic things)...that sounds right-ish.

I'd allow it for any race (I once played a Doppleganger with it, actually), but I'd never lower the age restriction. Violates the whole flavor of the Feat.

I would probably allow a similar Feat (call it 'Broad Study' or 'Academic' or something) with lower prerequisites that only applied to Knowledge skills and only gave, say, a +1, though. Or maybe just made all the Knowledges (or maybe just 4-5 Knowledges of your choice) Class skills. That ought to still help out the concept without being quite as...is excessive quite the right word?

There is also always Cosmopolitan, which is a lovely Feat, and seems appropriate for the character.

Also, nothing is more fun than waiting for someone to climb out a Created Pit... then pushing them back in.

Or, for all the spontaneous casters out there, casting it again on them immediately.

Some very simple ones everyone should know, but bear repeating:

1. Human Barbarian + Furious Focus, Str 18m and a Masterwork Grteatsword.

+9 to hit for 2d6+12 damage all day every day by 2nd level. Make that 3d6+13 if Enlarged. 3d6+18 if you have a Belt of Str +2 and are 4th level.

2. Color Spray + Spell Focus (Illusion) and other Save DC enhancers. All you've ever wanted in close-in minion sweeping. Can be useful against main enemies as well if you go Heavens Oracle.

3. Arcane Strike + Inspire Courage on a Bard. +2 to hit, +4 damage by 5th level. Don't leave home without it.

4. Glitterdust. Yes, all by itself. Especially on spontaneous casters. Don't have room for an anti-invisibility spell on your list, take this one! It not only does that, but blinds people in an area, too. I've taken out so many main villains with a well-timed Glitterdust...

5. Alchemists using Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flasks or other splash weapons once they run out of bombs. +Int todamage is just so nice.

6. Master of Many Styles Monk for 2 levels = Crane Style. Ignore one melee attack every round vs. foes who only have one? Yes, please. Especially hilarious later combined with Spring Attack.

7. Gunslingers + Paper Cartridges. A lot of people seem to miss this vitally necessary combination.

8. Rogue + Weapon Finesse + TWF = Actual damage. Very nice.

9. Wands of Cure Light Wounds. Never leave home without at least two in the party. I'm serious. Usable by a surprisingly high number of characters.

10. Anything with Channel Positive Energy. Especialy with Selective Channeling and Quick Channel. Becomes less useful at higher levels, but at low levels a huge lifesaver and some of the best whole-party healing in the game.

AMF is a bit of a gamble yeah. I think on the whole, if you build for it, you can lose less than enemies not counting on it. You need a pretty specialized build for it though.

I dunno, man. 0-HD Humanoids just don't have enough HP for their CR already, and don't have too many non-magical ways to increase AC to anything remotely approaching CR-appropriateness. Barring a few very specific and specialized builds (an Invulnerable Rager Barbarian, for example) of which this clearly isn't one, I just don't see it as being a viable option.

Yes, they do. Only if they have time for it (not as rare as you'd think), but they do it.

Also, for a designer's intent sort of thing (or at least a closely related one), this post by James Jacobs is both relevant, and more or less how I do things. Mostly, anyway.

@Ascaphalus:

Antimagic Field is actually a very bad idea due to stopping all his nifty magical AC enhancers from working. the highest AC he's likely to have without magic is 22 or so. even without magic of their own, that's way too fragile vs, well, and combat oriented PC you'd care to name. They'll almost auto-hit on raw BAB. AMF also gets rid of summoned creatures, just FYI.

Perhaps a Wish that's rendered him (and only him, not any items) permanently immune to all arcane magic? Or vastly increased his SR? Obviously with some nasty side effects if you want to go that route. Alternately, drop some (say 2-4 levels) of Ranger for Antipaladin, jack Charisma up (easy enough) and have Saves that are nearly unassailable.

I agree with all your general points to some degree. He needs better survivability and evasion options to be truly viable. That siad, with some improved Saves, his SR 28 is actualy high enough to give PC magic users some trouble, and targeting spellcasters should be first on the itinerary for this kind of guy.

Light Blindness can be solved with this lovely item, albeit somewhat expensively.

Personally, I'd max his UMD, and supplement his mundane skills with various wands and scrolls. I mean, just Shield and Mirror Image (at even relatively low caster levels) increase his survivability enormously, as do various potions and other effects.

153. "I'd like to apologize in advance for this session. I actually feel bad about doing this to you guys."

Or at least it seemed to freak my players out...

problem with agile is that you are not likely to afford it until level 6 or 7.

True, but this is an NPC. As long as the GM gives him or her the weapon, everything's cool.

And even for a PC it's not too bad...at least as long as your GM is reasonable.

You lost me at "Andoran = Randian utopia".

I think he's talking about Goka as a 'Randian utopia', not Andoran. Could be wrong, though.

Also, he's very wrong, IMO. I don't think anywhere on Golarion is really any kind of utopia. A few are dystopias, though.

Get Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dance. Dervish Dance allows you to use a scimitar for Finesse, adds DEX to damage, and specifically mentions it allows the scimitar to be used with the various duelist piercing weapon abilities.

Dervish Dance is definitely an option, but the Agile weapon property is also a very real possibility. Especially if going rapier for stylistic reasons.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Aldori Swordlord is in another book not Paths of Prestige.

I can't remember the book. It might be Inner Sea World Guide though.

Aldori Swordlord is also a prestige class in Paths of prestige. It adds DEX to damage, most notably.

Yeah, this is what I meant.

The Fighter Archetype of the same name (from the Inner Sea Primer) isn't worth it on it's own for a finesse build, IMO.

I'm a big fan of Lore Warden Fighter + Crane Style for this. Possibly with a level or two of Master of Many Styles Monk to season the pot.

Don't have Paths of Prestige yet, so I can't comment on the Aldori Swordlord mechanically...but that would be pretty thematic.

Goka is a single city, and a trading hub. Much like, oh, say Venice, it can easily make it's living almost entirely by trade. You need something a lot bigger than a city before lack of technoogy starts getting in the way of capitalism.

Jinin...uh, Elves went from CG to CE and became Drow over the same period of time (and same circumstances). That's two Alighnment shifts, same as CG to LG. Elves being Chaotic is a deep-rooted cultural tradition...but there's little evidence it's bred into them in any genetic sense, and even were it, the Jinin Elves have been a separate and isolated population for the same lengh of time as the Drow.

Bachuan. Well, if you'll recall, Bachuan was founded by a particular guy who came up with the philosophy (totally possible)...and that due to there being a state religion, their only experience with religion was pretty bad. Very plausible, really.

His will save is only 10, but he has a Spell Resistance of 28. Wouldn't that mitigate that a bit?

If you want to make him more frightening relatively easily, switch Str and Wis (for +2 Will Save), then make his weapons Agile (adding Dex instead of Str to damage), and replace his armor with a Mithral Chain Shirt. Maybe grab a Belt of Dex while you're at it. And definitely grab an Amulet of Natual Armor, too. Maybe a Headband of Wisdom to boost Will Saves as well.

Doing all this really ups his AC (by +4 or so for relatively cheap with minimal rearrangement)...though you might go even more than that with a judicious Wand or two (Wands of Shield are great for this), and likewise raises his damage a decent amount. And boosts his Will Save a decent amount (though if facing 15th level PCs I might still grab Iron Will instead of, say, Blind Fight).

And, for reference, I'd peg a level 17 Drow Noble as CR 18. Drow Noble is definitely worth a CR on it's own.

It's not purposefully misleading. 2011 is quite "current" for me. I just say that it is currently a semi-hot topic of discussion in Switzerland, no more. Maybe next bill will bring them a fully professional army, maybe not: they already downsized militias a lot.

I didn't think it was purposeful, just potentially misleading. And that's very possible.

I agree that the end result is the same (lot of weapons around), but the intent is VERY different. You have to be in the army to got one.

Oh, sure. I wasn't saying otherwise. The difference in intent is why I specifically noted the militia thing in my original post on this.

Otherwise, any automatic gun would be strictly forbidden, as shown here.

Oh, totally. A restriction I disagree with, but certainly an existant one.

Do you have sources for that ?

Sadly, just wikipedia. That said, it's the only area where what they're saying there and what you appear to have is in conflict, so I'd be surprised if it's wrong. Snopes.com agrees, but cite and directly quote wikpedia, so I'm not sure that counts for independent verification on that bit.

EDIT: Glad you found one. :)

As shown on the link above, ownership of automatic guns (even converted in semi-auto) is forbidden by swiss federal law. So no gun, and no ammo (no, they don't have Walmarts selling assault rifle bullets).

I don't speak anything but English, sadly. But, as A Man In Black notes, I'd be surprised if something that works isn't available given the prevalence of hunting.

And, according to the wikipedia article, the restriction is on formerly automatic weapons that might be easily made back into actual automatic weapons, not necessarily everything that used to be automatic (a fact talked about in the wikipedia article and seemingly agreed with here, with citation).

The Switch Hitter looks very interesting, and goes pretty close to my initial idea for the character. I notice the guide you reference doesn't take into account the archetypes. How would they alter the approach?

Honestly? Not every character needs an archetype. For what you seem to be aiming for, straight Ranger is great. Maybe Skirmisher if you don't want spells or Falconer if you just think it's cool (or both).

The group looks like they need either someone to dish out the damage quick or someone to be able to soak damage (or just draw fire). So I'm curious about how well I can fit that role.

Shooting things a bunch works pretty werll for this. Archers deal a lot of damage, and getting things to melee you is very much to a Switch Hitter's advantage. ASside from that, there really isn't much that can make things attack you.

On another note, if you go Animal Companion (and not Falconer), the Bon Companion Feat is a must-have.

Str 3d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 2) = 9
Dex 3d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 1) = 4
Con 3d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 2) = 10
Int 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 1) = 11
Wis 3d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 1) = 11
Cha 3d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 1) = 4

Dear lord...uh, Commoner? Destined for an early grave in any case. Yeesh.

Str 3d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 3) = 13
Dex 3d6 ⇒ (4, 3, 3) = 10
Con 3d6 ⇒ (6, 1, 6) = 13
Int 3d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 6) = 13
Wis 3d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 6) = 9
Cha 3d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 1) = 3

Human or Half-Orc Fighter or Barbarian. Doesn't talk much. Workable and fairly smart, though.

Str 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 6) = 16
Dex 3d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 1) = 11
Con 3d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 1) = 9
Int 3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 4) = 16
Wis 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 2) = 7
Cha 3d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 6) = 11

Dwarf Magus. That actually sounds pretty cool, now I think on it.

Str 3d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 5) = 13
Dex 3d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 6) = 11
Con 3d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2) = 11
Int 3d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 3) = 15
Wis 3d6 ⇒ (1, 3, 6) = 10
Cha 3d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 3) = 8

Ratfolk Wizard it is. Again, very workable.

"Switch Hitting" is good for Archers or someone with the ability to enhance a bow (Magus or Paladin), but awful for someone with 14 dex.

I disagree.

I am far from alone. And anyone who can't find a way for a Fighter to casually deal with flying stuff isn't trying very hard.

Multiclassing Fighter and Ranger is odd and unlikely to be that effective, IMO. I'd just go straight Ranger. Single-classing is usually just a good plan in Pathfinder.

Mechanically, you're likely better off going Switch-Hitter or something like that than Two-Weapon Fighting, but if you want to, TWF is certainly a viable option.

Assuming you go that route, stat-wise, as a Ranger, you're likely most optimized with something like this:

Str 18
Dex 15
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 7

That gives you good stats and spells, lets you grab TWF at 1st level so you can have Double Slice as your 2nd level bonus, and leaves a third Feat free for all sorts of options.

You should probably also grab Humanoid (goblinoid) as your first Favored Enemy, just because, well, RotRL.

Personally, I'd get Dex 14, Int 12, and grab Double Slice at 3rd, not 2nd, and have two Feats free.

If going switch hitter, your Feats are even easier (Power Atack, Furious Focus or maybe Iron Will, and Rapid Shot), and you definitely go with the Dex 14, Int 12 stat layout.

I think this thread is a prime example of using a topic (in this case gun control) that has almost no effect on people's daily lives to push aside important issues that could have a huge effect on us EVERY DAY.

Here is a little hint for all you folks outside the US. You can do what every you want to people in the US, as long as you distract them with guns, gays, and god (dancing celebrities don't hurt either). Almost any Right can be trampled, but as long as you flash the 3 G's on the TV screen, they will get all worked up, and not notice as they get poorer and more controlled every day.

I actually agree with this. I'm just constitutionally incapable of not keeping arguing once someone starts one. Sorry. :(

Though, in fairness, I think a lot of this thread (as opposed to Americanpolitics where you're completely right) going off into that space has to do with a general consensus on a lot of those issues (especially the economic ones), and thus not a lot of debate to be had there. Hell, I'm a libertarian and I'm all for more government regulation on big business and higher taxes on the rich, and not entirely against socialized health care. What does that tell you?

DMW,

I'll grant you the cameras. There are a hell of a lot of them. The fact that most are not run by the goernment but by private companies does not really make things better, IMHO. I'll also give you a freebie of the DNA database, although the most egregious detention rules on that have been ruled illegal and it's now more am atter of getting the police to comply than anything.

Yeah, like I said. Having done some research, a lot of the issues seem to be improving. Statements regarding the UK and totalitarianism are withdrawn.

However,on self-defence I have to disagree with you. This may turn into a rant. It's not personal but Americans seem to have a really warped idea of what's legal in the UK. It also hasn't changed. The Conservative party keeps saying they'll 'toughen it up' but when asked how just waffle because there really isn't much to toughen up.

It's entirely possible that you're correct. That is not what the various resources I've looked at and people I've talked to have said but, well, biased sources are a very real possibility (perhaps even a likelihood) on this kind of issue. Either way, even the sources I'm looking at seem clear that even were the self-defense laws bad at one point they aren't any more...which kinda makes the whole issue academic, and not one I wish to argue.

Your Switzerland comparison is not as good as you think, for several reasons :

1) it's not about the right for citizens to bear arms, but about the way Switzerland chose to organize its own defense. Technically, they are soldiers, not civilians.

Switzerland went for a militia model, along quasi medieval lines, where every male citizen is required to bear arms a few days at a time, from age 18 to 30-34. Think about them as National Guard equivalent, except participation is mandatory. It's a very, very old swiss tradition, currently challenged as it's not very efficient and quite costly.

I was, in fact, aware of this. It's of dubious relevancy, though. Private citizens can still have guns relatively easily, they just don't get automatic weapons and it's illegal to carry them around just because.

And a 2011 bill to remove said guns failed, so 'currently challenged' may be true...but also a misleading statement in some ways.

2) Yes, they have assault rifles at home... But no ammunition since 2007. Before that, they had only a SEALED small case of ammo (a clip worth) to use in case of emergency (read: war). AFAIK, they DO give back the rifles when they are done with their military duties: it's confederate property.

Nope, they get to keep it (or some of their other gear, and, as noted with it's autofire option removed). And from what I'm looking at, there's nothing preventing you buying your own ammo, they just no longer provide it.

As for UK having tight gun laws, well, every european country do. I can't really vouch for Australia or New Zealand, but it's still true that it's only in the USA that you can hear people arguing that the detention of guns is a impregnable political right.

Oh, I wasn't ever saying that the US's gun laws weren't more permissive than almost anywhere else. They are. I was arguing that if the US and UK are two ends of a continuum, most countries (including Switzerland) are somewhere in between...not all the way over on the UK side.

So you're proposing the US's current system, which all but outlaws military weapons.

All evidence in this thread to the contrary, military weapons are not my primary interest, nor am I arrogant enough to believe I can effect policy on something like this to a meaningful degree. So I don't, offhand, know all the details of the legality of acquiring military weapons in the US (and am far too busy to look it up), and it's thus entirely possible you're right. Link the relevant laws and I'll tell you.

My original statement had everything to do with what I believed was right. It had nothing to do with which of those things are currently in practice.

I was using it as an anti-militia and anti-revolutionary parable. Klaus can get the details for Chile, since all I know about it is how to locate it on a map.

I actually know a little bit about Allende's coup, but more on the economic and policy side than the mechanics of how it worked on the ground. So I'll have to go check that out...

That isn't quite what I was saying, but rather that a militia-incited all-but-civil-war created the necessary conditions for Hitler to take over the government. Since DMW has backed away from the militia/revolutionary claim almost entirely, though, I'm not sure Germanychat is relevant to anything any more.

Just to clarify, I have not backed away from my original claim (which is basically that an armed populace makes governments nervous about instituting totalitarian policies, and allows people to do things about said policies better). I never supported militias as a particularly good idea, and the two are not the same thing.

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree and move on in regards to this one, though.

For melee sorcerers, Dragon Disciple is indeed cool, however, Eldritch Knight is a valid way to go as well (especially combined with a 2 or 4 level Paladin dip), and synchronizes well with some of the more melee focused bloodlines. It's a common enough idea that it should likely be noted somewhere.

Why Arcane Duelist?

Giving up Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge really sucks...so the question needs to be asked why you are doing it. If it's just for Arcane Strike, it's a bad choice. If you really think you're going to wind up using Disruptive and Spellbreaker a lot it's probably worth it...but that's an awfully specific 'if'.

The bonded item also screws your spellcasting completely out of combat unless you grab a sword-cane or dagger, since you need it in hand to cast reliably.

Fully-automatic weapons, ordnance, and armed vehicles. Explosives are inherently hazardous, fully-automatic weapons represent a greater threat of stray fire (and tend to have a greater risk of pass-through), and armed vehicles have both of those problems plus the problem of integrating them into civilian traffic.

You should obviously need licenses for automatic weapons or ordnance. Probably fairly hard to get ones, in a technical sense. I mean, I'm not advocating they be handed out to any incompetent with a few bucks...I'm just saying said licenses should be a skill minimum, not a beureaucrat's judgment call.

And for armed vehicles...I'm not sure I really advocate those being legal. All you need for a proper resistance movement is the ability to take out such things, not actual possession of them. I'm, in fact, thinking they'd likely do more harm than good.

Okay, then Germanychat is beside the point. How are military weapons going to matter, ever, without organized groups using them?

Well, ideally, you have perfectly ordinary people armed, who then form such groups when and if necessary. IE when the government really is descending into totalitarian badness.

One could argue that militias are doing precisely that...and I'd argue that they're paranoid and premature. They tend to be poorly structured from a 'resisting a totalitarian regime' perspective, too.

DMW,

Can you explain exactly how you think the UK is becoming a totalitarian state? Because most of the security state that people like me oppose is coming straight from the US.

Are you speaking culturally or technologically? Because, culturally, the UK is way more into, say, traffic cameras on every corner than the vast majority of the US. And that Orwellian nightmare is certainly quite a big problem.

I actually had quite a bit of other stuff (including the UK's unfortunate self-defence laws...which appear to have become much less unfortunate in the last few years), but looking it over (this site has a good overview of a lot of the issues)...I'm actually a lot less convinced that it's a good example of what I'm talking about. There are definite problems, but most of the really bad stuff I was thinking of has actually been getting at least slightly better the last few years, and I was thus working with outdated information. Totally my bad on that one.

Excuse me while I go look for an actual example or three (aside form the obvious Nazi one everyone brings up...though that was really quick).

Seriously, the UK a totalitarian state ?

No, of course not. The phrase was 'on it's way'. Also, see above, where I admit to being basically wrong on that one. :)

Because it ban weapons (as absolutely all first world countries, USA excepted) ?

That's a ridiculous statement. The UK has some of the most restrictive weapon laws of any first world nation by quite a ways. In Switzerland, for an extreme example, most men between 20 and 30 are legally required to have an automatic weapon in their home as part of being in the militia (in it's original sense), and are allowed to keep them after they are no longer in said militia (albeit, with their automatic fire option removed). But even, say, Austria or Sweden have much less restrictive laws than the UK (though, in fairness, Spain, for example, is much closer to the UK on that one).

The US has pretty non-restrictive gun laws, yes, but the idea guns are not around other places is just silly.

I wasn't aware that pot was already legalized in the States...

Much as I am all for legalizing marijuana (and I totally am), I don't think drug legalization (or lack thereof) is a good barometer for totalitarianism.

Because military weapons are hazardous, even in trained hands. Boom. Done.

'Military weapons' covers a lot of ground. What exactly are you talking about here? I'm not crazy. I think private nukes are well over the line, for example. What precisely are you calling 'military weapons'?

Why do you think people hated Communists in Germany? It was because they were also a bunch of fringe crazies setting things on fire and getting in fights. At no point was the NSDAP (the Nazi political party) ever in majority in the Reichstag; Hitler formed a coalition to be declared prime minister, and declared martial law after the Reichstag fire was blamed on the KPD (the German Community Party).

Yes, I was aware of that.

His message was that he would do what was necessary to deal with the unrest caused by the KPD and the SA. The only reason the opportunity existed for him to seize power was heavily-armed fringe groups causing unrest.

True to some degree. But not the entirely orchestrated effort you were strongly implying in your previous post.

If the SA and KPD hadn't been well-armed, the military could have dealt with them. Isn't that the whole idea behind arming militias to the teeth, to resist the military?

Large parts of the country being under martial law is still precisely the kind of thing that could serve as an almost equally efficient prod. Setting things on fire also still very much works in an unarmed society...so the political calculus isn't necessarily effected overmuch by such changes, just the precise nature of the violence in question.

And once again, not advocating militias here. At all.

So you're making a claim that's hopelessly vague. Somehow, banning private ownership of military weapons might someday somehow make it easier for a totalitarian government to come about at some point in the future.

I guess I can't really refute that!

I think the onus is really on you to justify the removal of guns, not on me to justify their continued presence, since you're the one attacking other people's positions here, but whatever.

And it's a process that seems well on it's way to occurring in various countries that have banned guns (the UK leaps immediately to mind). So not that vague, really.

No, it was deliberately instigated violence used as a lever to turn a minority government into an absolute dictatorship. It's ridiculous for you to be falling for Hitler's propaganda line, that he was swept into office by popular consensus, 80 years after the fact! He used what was basically a civil war he started as a lever to assign himself greater and greater power to deal with the problem.

That's...a really simplified version of what was going on. Hitler's basic message was pretty popular even leaving aside the instigation of violence. Working class people during the Depression liked the idea that their problems were the fault of Jews and Communists. They liked that he promised them that things would get better. And the existing political parties were a mess it was hard to justify supporting in many cases. The whole thing was primed to explode into some kind of violence as early as the end of World War I when the Treaty of Versailles screwed Germany economically. World War II was probably inevitable at that point, as was some degree of radicalization of political beliefs. The Holocaust and sheer degree of evil involved in the Nazis not so much, but things were always gonna get pretty bad there.

The idea that people weren't pretty drawn in by his message is dangerous, because it implies that people would never follow such a man or such a platform without trickery. Only many of them would and did.

Now the instigated violence was definitely a factor, and certainly a large part of how he so vastly expanded his own powers, but any percieved crisis could've been used in the same way.

Do you know what happened to the SA leadership? They were arrested and executed by the SS, at Hitler's order.

Yes, I was indeed aware of that. And? How is it relevant here?

The risk is that fringe lunatics cause enough chaos to destabilize society, not that they actually overthrow the government.

Okay...only that's not what you said here:

and increases the chance to see the government overthrown by fringe crazies.

So yeah. Now, what you said in your most recent post might be what you meant, but since I can't read your mind, I'm hardly to blame for responding to your actual words.

Additionally, you have yet to explain what removing all guns would do to stop the kind of civil disorder used by the Sturmabteilung, which only requires that they be either slightly better armed or more numerous than a random civilian or the militias of other political parties (both easily done whatever weapons are available...with no real weapons available, they'd just use hammers, baseball bats, and kitchen knives).

Or, to put it simply: The kind of destabilization you discuss has nothing to do with guns and/or people's right to have them. It has to do with organized groups actively formenting dissent, which is another thing altogether, and one as easily done without guns readily available as with them.

Though one must remember the easiest way to kill a God.

** spoiler omitted **

Depends on the world, actually.

In Golarion, gods exist independent of their worshippers, and are not meaningfully empowered by them, for example.

He doesn't need one. No class features of the Archivist require training in any Perform skill whatsoever.

That said, most nobility probably have some training in Oratory, and Comedy is valid if he's good at mocking and belittling his opponents in debate or those he considers inferior, so those are likely the most appropriate options.

The current law banning military weapons is 44 years old. How long do you think they were planning to wait to round up people and ship them off to the FEMA camps? (Granted, FEMA wasn't founded for another 11 years.)

A law banning a few weapons =/= a law banning all weapons (or effectively all weapons). Also, you're arguing like I'm saying that blanket weapon bans inevitably lead to totalitarianism in just a few years. I'm not saying that at alll. Indeed, it often takes generations, not years, for such things to happen, and they aren't inevitable, just much more likely and much harder to do anything about.

I'm also, especially, not arguing that most gun control advocates want a totalitarian regime, just that their well-intentioned actions might lead in that direction in the long-term.

Because arming yourself with military weapons is a useful canary in the lunatic fringe coal mine.

Wait. So it's useful and you want to get rid of it?

Why?

And having one automatic or otherwise military-grade weapon can be for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with being on the 'lunatic fringe', from simply liking guns to being ex-military and wanting to have something you're familiar with on hand if something unpleasant happens.

I mean, even large numbers of such weapons might simply indicate being a serious gun collector. If you've got a bunker in the woods full of them, well, then we're starting to potentially get into 'lunatic fringe' territory...but that's not exactly the most common reason to buy guns.

Read that article, don't just look at the pictures.

Did that. Also, stop being a dick. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and/or incompetent. Some of us just, y'know, think you're wrong.

The Sturmabteilung did not have widespread support. Using them and then burning them was a major part of Hitler's rise to power, as SA/KPD skirmishing was a large part of the disorder Hitler promised to correct.

They also didn't seize power in and of themselves. The Nazis did, and by debatably legal means, too. Now, they made use of the Sturmabteilung and illegal tactics to do so...but that core of popular support was still there, and it wasn't a violent overthrow of a government in any real sense (it was all kinds of other bad things, but not actually that). And could've been done without any weapons at all, assuming an unarmed populace (since it was the fear of these gangs of thugs that was the useful factor, not their actual military potential).

The point is that a militia is at least as likely to install a totalitarian government as a democratic one, regardless of their intent.

Sure. Maybe more so, since they're pseudo-military and people in militaristic structures tend to like clear hierarchies.

But I'm not advocating militias, they're a bizzarre and often unpleasant social phenomenon. I'm advocating people being allowed to have guns. There is a large difference between these two things, and equating them is disingenuous and inaccurate.

Your attack seems a little low...

BAB= +6, DEX mod= +5, Haste= +1, IC= +3, PBS= +1, +1 bow (pretty low for 9th level)= +1, Rapid Shot= -2, Deadly Aim= -2, gives you a +13 by my count. As I mentioned earlier, I also suggest Heroism for an extra +2.

Or Good Hope. Lovely spell, highly reccomended for all Bards everywhere.

Clearly there's a way to kill a god since Tar Baphon was able to kill Aroden.

As Graywulfe notes, Tar Baphon killed Arazni...a demigod and servant of Aroden, not a full-fledged deity.

Nobody knows what killed Aroden.

We already take ordnance away from law-abiding citizens, by writing the laws such that buying military weapons is illegal.

I suppose. I'm generally all for getting rid of most of those, though.

Arming yourself to the teeth isn't going to help protect you from government oppression, because not only would even a reasonable government demand that you disarm (with broad-based support!), but so would any government that intended to be oppressive. The militia types are right in that a totalitarian government would expect people to disarm themselves before taking more-overt action, but they're wrong in that any sane government would do so also.

Oh, a non-totalitarian government can indeed demand such a thing. Debatably, by doing so they become a totalitarian government in at least one way (No Guns)...and it opens the door for so much badness that it shouldn't be allowed.

Even well-intentioned people can do horrible things.

Besides, there's little point in restricting firearms, so why do so?

Ahem.

I said 'maybe they'll even be better.' Or are you arguing that the Nazis didn't have widespread popular support? Because they really did...

I'm saying to the john, "This is not a reason you are allowed to pay someone for sex." Like I said, I'm for decriminalizing prostitution, but pursuing pimps and johns. It's pointless and cruel to pursue people who are on the punishing side of an unequal arrangement. I'm not really interested in who has or why people have sex, but I do believe it's possible to make a just law that outlaws exercising power over people.

I'm not actually entirely against this position...though it seems a bit harsh to men who actually treat sex workers respectfully (a rarity, I'm aware), andf has the unfortunate side effect of eliminating prostitution as a career choice even for those occasional women who actually want to pursue it.

Probably a good idea as an interim measure, just to really kill off the current form of sex trafficking, but one I'd hope could be gotten rid of eventually. I'm talking about criminalizing beingb a john here, for reference. Criminalization of being a piump should probably continue forever.

Decriminalizing drug addiction and prostitution while criminalizing distribution and pimping does actually work, and can actually be done. Portugal is an example of the effects of decriminalizing drug use, and Sweden is an example of the effects of decriminalizing prostitution for everyone but prostitutes.

I agree that this is entirely possible. I don't think that necessarily makes it appropriate (particularly in regards to drugs). For reasons previously specified.

You have the power to overthrow a government for precisely as long as the government lets you, and your right to own guns rests on promises made by politicians. Why would a silly thing like a promise now to allow you to have ordnance stop a US-government-turned-totalitarian from just taking your guns?

It wouldn't. the fact that they're trying to take said guns away from, well, people with guns certainly might, though. I mean, part of this whole idea working is considering the removal of such arms entirely to be an example of an act that necessitates armed resistance.

It would be simple as pie to justify it even: you're armed to the teeth and have declared the intent to overthrow the government. Even legitimate democracies don't put up with that sort of thing.

I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of anything. Hell, I'd fight physically to prevent such a thing at the moment. I'm advocating that the people as a whole retain such a capability...just in case. Helps keep the government honest (well, honest-er anyway).

Now, removing guns from people who actually appear to be attempting to overthrow the government is entirely reasonable and...we do that already. But taking them away from law-abiding citizens? Not so much.

In the meantime, your proposal increases my chance to get shot or blown up by some idiot who has no idea what he's doing with military weapons, and increases the chance to see the government overthrown by fringe crazies.

Oh, I'm all for requiring things like certification. I'm hjst a 'shall issue' supporter, in terms of permits. Which means if you've passed the classes you can get the weapons. Period.

And fringe crazies are never going to have a meaningful chance of overthrowing the government unless they get either the whole population or the military on their side. If they do either of those two things, they're not exactly fringe, and, IMO, if they get to that point things have gotten so bad maybe they'll even be an improvement.
.
.
.
On another subject entirely, I'm pretty much with ANebulousMistress on hunting, information, and science. Go science.

You didn't read them, then. The countries were Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and the US. South American countries aren't generally too hit on liberalizing prostitution because of Catholicism. Canada is just now liberalizing prostitution, so there aren't a lot of studies of its effects. I'm also unsure what definition of "consenting adults" includes a job people only take for fear of utter destitution and where literal slavery is commonplace.

*sighs* Not who I'm talking about, here. Also, what part of "I don't want to have this argument" in bold was unclear?

And I read what you linked and did a cursory search on areas where prostitution is legal. I didn't hunt down all the cited sources. For reference.

As for definition, I have a friend who once engaged in a sex act for money. She only did it once, and didn't enjoy it much...but she wasn't raped or severely traumatized or abused. That's a possible example of what I mean by consenting adults. People have the right to make their own choices...even wrong ones, or ones you or I might not agree with. Having sex for money is such a decision.

Now...that decision being made by someone other than the woman in question is a definite problem, and one that needs to be eliminated completely before this kind of thing is widely accepted, but that's a practical matter, while I'm talking specifically about principles here.

The practical matter is definitely a far more important one than the principle I'm espousing...but the two aren't mutually exclusive in the way you seem to be implying.

In fact, you make the libertarian "writing and enforcing just laws is hard, might well legalize it all" argument twice. It is possible for drug and prostitution laws to not be a colossal train wreck, and it's not an either/or decision between the laws the US has now and full legalization. Decriminalizing and helping the victims of drugs and prostitution (addicts and prostitutes) while going after those who actually benefit from these black markets is an option. It just involves helping a bunch of poor people get out of exploitative relationships, so it's not terribly popular.

Now that we're getting away from prostitution, I'm actually willing to discuss this a bit more:

Just to start with, I'm actually entirely comfortable with making being a pimp (or running a brothel) illegal. Indeed, I think the idea of helping the victims of human traffocking while punishing the offenders is wonderful, and wholeheartedly support it. There are some logistical problems with the idea, but nothing insurmountable.

But it's when you start saying "You, woman over there, this is not a reason you're allowed to have sex." that I think you're stepping on people's fundamental right to decide such things for themselves.

I am also, for the record, all for beating sex traffickers to death with a shovel, as I find the things they do profoundly disgusting on every possible moral level. Rape, torture, and long-term abuse for profit? One of the most awful things I can think of.

Now, onto the more general point: I'm not being lazy or saying writing just laws about drugs or when and why an individual can have sex are hard. I'm saying that doing so is both fundamentally wrong on a moral level (maqking a 'just law' on it impossible), and that in the entire history of mankind, no such laws have actually served to stop the behavior in question. And that, well, as prohibition showed, when you make a desired comodity illegal, a new class of criminal will arise to provide it, and (being criminals already) will engage in various other criminal ventures such as murder and extortion.

Also, why is your "right" to overthrow the government more important than my right to democratically elect one, again?

Because power is force. You have the power to democratically elect a new government for precisely as long as the government lets you. They are a great deal more likely to keep such a right available if, were they to not, they would face violent overthrow. It's a matter of the balance odf power between a people and their government.

Or to put it another way: The right of the people to overthrow the government is the root of the right to elect it. If they can't do the first, their ability to do the second rests on a set of promises made by politicians...not something I'd choose to base my freedom on. Especially not on a generational basis.

I'd a million times rather elect a government than overthrow one...but as long as the people as a whole can overthrow it, that election is vastly more likely to be a legitimate one, and even to actually occur.

I'm not a lunatic, I know that, even did we lose all our guns tomorrow, the US has a long history of peacefully transitioning power, and that social trend would likely persist...but social trends can change, and strike me as a vastly shaky foundation for something like one's fundamental liberty, thinking long-term (and I mean generationally here).

Well, I'm a libertarian...but not the way people on the internet seem to feel that word means.

On social issues:

I, too, believe in complete freedom to own whatever weapons one wishes (including anti-tank missiles, never mind automatic weapons). For all the reasons gone into by others. I'm cool with not allowing convicted felons to have guns, though.

I think religion should be a personal choice. And that the government and all government organs (such as publically funded schools) shouldn't be involved in it in the least way. This means both that there shouldn't be school prayer, and that if an individual student wants to lead a prayer group (of any sort) the school should leave them the hell alone. I do agree with the person above who mentioned that this is all religions, not just Christian denominations, or even Judaeo-Christian faiths...though that may have something to do with being a pagan.

I am very much for assisted suicide in certain cases, and against the governement having any real say in such a thing. If you don't own your life itself, what do you own?

Legally speaking, I am pro-choice. Both because I believe in women's rights to their own bodies and, more compellingly, because women don't stop having abortions when you make them illegal. They just try riskier and crazier methods. Personally? I don't think it's morally wrong. But it is often psychologically damaging to the woman in question, deeply unpleasant, and is not something to undertake at all lightly. Which, frankly, isn't something I think women ever actually do.

I am for legalizing all drugs. Prohibition didn't work on alcohol, why do we think it'll work on other drugs? This would also go a long way to solving the prison overcrowding issue mentioned above.

I am absolutely against government censorship. Parental censorship (such as the child-blocking stuff on many TVs today) is wonderful and should probably be in universal usage (kids really can get messed up by media).

Legal immigration should be readily available to basically anyone who's not a criminal on the run or something silly like that. Current illegals should be given every opportunity to become citizens, resident aliens, etc. Thereafter (once it's easy legally) new illegal immigrants should be treated pretty harshly.

The governement shouldnn't be involved in marriage, civil unions, or any of that at all. Mariage should be an exclusively religious observance while any contracts or legal unions should be worked out among the people (of any gender, and in any number) in question. Domestic abuse should obviously be punished harshly...but that's not exactly new.

Prisons, at least as they exist, are an awful idea. People go in, and come out with credibility among criminals, new criminal skills, and a network of connections. It's like college for criminals. A felony will also severely limit your job opportunities, and the culture shock greatly increases recidivism. The whole thing's a bad idea. I don't know what should replace it precisely, but it seems clear that something better could be come up with.

As for the death penalty, we need to either use it or lose it. I don't actually care which. In most states it's such a long, expensive process, that it's more expensive than a life sentence. We either need to decrease the appeals involved (or at least how long they take) or scrap it altogether. I have no real preference for which (as it's potential effect as a deterrent is balanced against the inevitability of executing an innocent someday).

I am for legalized prostitution, and very skeptical of the sources cited in the report A Man In Black links. It's not my area of specialty...but I'd bet those are based on South American countries...not, say, Australia or Canada. The diference between a corrupt government making prositution legal in order to rake in money from sex-tourism (ie: this will result in horrible abuse) and a rational governemnt deciding it has no say over consenting adults (ie: maybe not so much) is rather large...Not that I want to get into that argument in depth. In fact, I refuse to do so.

On economic issues:

I am almost the most radical free-market advocate it is possible to be. There's just one thing: Almost all the other people claiming that are wrong.

We don't have a free market. At all. Not even close. Why? Limited liability corporations. Their very existence, necessarily authorized by a governmental body, is a deep and appalling violation of every possible free-market principle. By removing responsibility for their actions from the people who form such a corporation, you give them an entirely unfair and artificial advantage...as well as basically ensuring truly horrible abuses. The idea that you have corporations in anything like their current state in a free market is a monstrous piece of corporate propaganda, and I am shocked that almost everyone buys into it.

Vastly empowering corporate entitries via governemental mandate and bailing them out when they fail is not how a free market works. An actual free-market economy would look nothing like what we have today.

Now, being for a free market in theory doesn't mean I'm an idiot or a fanatic. In practice, we have corporations, and (as utterly idiotic as having them is) we're stuck with them for the moment, so some sort of oversight (even governmental) is a lot better than nothing.

I'm also not against social programs per se. It seems to me that universal medical care, particularly, is a perfectly reasonable thing for a state sponsored body to provide (as long as there are privately owned alternatives, anyway). Of course, our current medical system is so horribly broken that I'm rapidly losing any hope of it being fixed per se. We might need to burn it down and start over (though I sure hope not, as the death toll might well be staggering).

I am also all for higher taxes on the wealthy, assuming you have taxes at all. I mean, the purpose of taxes is to provide money to the government at the lowest real cost to the people, how is this not obviously the way to go? I can, and wil, argue that taxes are not a necessity for a government...but alternate revenue streams don't seem a practical method at the moment.

I also agree with basically everything Fergie mentions (except the electoral college thing...I honestly can see both sides on that one). That all sounds entirely reasonable, and the simplified taxes particularly is something I'd give almost anything to make a reality.

I also primarily agree with meatrace on the legitimate functions of government, though I'd add law enforcement, and don't think it's absolutely essential for infrastructure or education (though it can certainly be handy for both).

Canaonically, isn't Middle Earth, well, Earth? Just a very long time ago?

That would tend to combine with what feytharn notes to make thyem share a universe.

Getting to the right time period is as easy as GM fiat or as hard as you want it to be.

What would be a good melee weapon for a Mongolian Badass?

Lance if they're melee focused, scimitar as a backup weapon. Since thats basically what they actually used. Also, a good weapon selection mechanically.

She's beyond 20th level, most of it as an Enchanter using Thassilonian magic. Beyond that, we have no idea how the Epic (or Mythic, or whatever) rules in Pathfinder work as of yet, so we don't know.

I'd switch out Str and Cha. Lay on Hands is literally the only use Stonelords have for Charisma...and that makes Strength a better investment, IMO.

Other than that, looks good.

Skills were part of the reason I went Order of the Dragon on my Cavalier build. It grants Perception and Survival as Class Skills, after all.

And yeah, Cavaliers, Rangers, Fighters, and maybe a Barabarian or two (the Mongols did have lancers as well as archers, which Barbarians can do well at) sounds right for a Mongol hoard.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I just started Throne of the Crescent Moon a recent novel by Saladin Ahmed. So far seems perfect as an inspiration for Legacy of Fire.

Thank you! I decided I wanted to read that book about a year ago and then completely forgot the title and the author about a day later.

Now...it will be mine!

No problem, always happy to be of assistance. :)

I'd go with Deadmanwalking's build but Mongol archers have got to be CE at best NE.

Why? They're perfectly nice to each other and those they respect, they just see nothing wrong with hurting or killing strangers they do not.

That's pretty typical CN barbarian tribe behavior. The Mongols were just so crazy-badass that they got the chance to do that second part to more people.

The Mongol Empire was extremely safe, well run, and even instituted a comprehensive set of laws and complete freedom of religion. It was only during conquest (or when they were defied) that they, say, made piles of the skulls of everyone in a village.

All that screams Neutral alignment. Very few real-world cultures are actually Evil when examined as a whole (though, similarly, few are truly Good). There are some, but for all their savagery, Mongols probably aren't among them. Certainly not on an individual basis, anyway.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

BYC wrote:

Charge and Ride-By Attack. Lame.

How does this not work?

Charging requires you to move directly towards the target and Ride-By Attack is somewhat pointless unless you move to the side of your target.

Nope. Still doable.

You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

That is often, perhaps even mostly, also a space where you can keep moving in a straight line from.

This configuration for example, assuming that one of the Xs was moving on the straight:

OOOO
OXOO
OOXO
OOOO

Or this if they're moving on the diagnol:

OOOO
OXOO
OXOO
OOOO

Only if you are in direct line with the target (less common than being in line with a square you can attack them from...much less common with a Reach weapon, like a lance) does the Feat fail to be useful, and (knowing this) you can maneuver somewhat to set this sort of thing up.

It's admittedly a bit more of a hassle with Large or bigger creatures, but by no means impossible.

Charge and Ride-By Attack. Lame.

How does this not work?

For the OP, mix and match the basic ideas of several different classes that have been put forward already.

The mongols bow though is a composite short bow (not a long bow). Most armors would be a variant blending leather and quilted cloth. Mongols were known to wear layers of silk shirts under their armor which stopped arrows. Only a few would wear heavier armors, most likely medium.

Actually, according to the wikipedia, which I have no reason to disbelieve, lamellar was their standard armor of choice. They wore silk under the armor, but it was still very definately there.

And bow-wise...mongol bows are widely considered to be roughly on par with English longbows as the best bows in the ancient world...which leads me to think that the two being on par stat-wise is the correct route to go with.