|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Just goes to show that his supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.
And yet if you or I (or anyone else on these boards), were as "negligent" with top level security as Mrs. Clinton, we'd have been thrown into the deepest, darkest of prisons before you could say "scandal"!
Just look at Gen. Patraeus... All he did was share TS emails with a single person, and he was coerced into resigning from the C.I.A. Not only was Hilary accused of sharing TS emails with several people, her account is said to have been hacked by Russia!
Just goes to show that her supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.
Obama's been better on immigration by Republican standards then his predecessors.
Obama has sent most illegal immigrants through the actual deportation process, while Bush tended to just "return" illegal immigrants to their countries of origin without putting them through the whole process of actual "deportation" So you can read the numbers of those "deported" under both presidents either way.
What makes this particular project not a huge, if not the hugest, boondoggle in government history?
I can only speak for myself, but I think that if we as a nation were to take a serious as well as an honest look at addressing our boarders, and the real costs involved with the proposed solutions, we just might be able to come up with a viable solution to the problem.
I thank you for your answers Caineach and lucky7. :-)
You both bring up the issue of those that are already here and securing our boarders now won't solve that. While you are absolutely correct, dealing with those that are already here really is a separate issue.
While there are a few on the right that would absolutely love to have all of those that are here (illegally) deported, the issue of stopping illegal immigration is not about those that are here already, but to stop any more from getting in via illegal means.
This is not exactly an honest question, as I don't think anyone in this thread has drawn that connection.
It is an honest question.
I did not ask it because I saw anyone here drawing that conclusion (though I have seen the word racist applied to those on the right in this thread).
A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
And what does wanting to secure our borders with any kind of wall (be it an actual physical one or electronic one) have to do with racism as well?
I mean, most any country in the world will arrest and deport a person (at best) who crosses into their country illegally.
Yet it seems that there are those that appear to not want any restrictions at all placed on coming into ours, and say that it is a bad thing to want to know (via documentation) just who is coming in.
I've heard it said before when the right speaks on the topic of illegal immigration that this country was founded on immigration, totally ignoring that the person specifically said "illegal" immigration. I am sure there are those on the right that really do want to just totally close this country off and be an isolationist nation, but the vast majority of those on the right just want to stop those crossing into our country illegally; and if it takes a wall to do that (because nothing else seems to work), why is that a bad thing? Such a wall is not meant to stop immigration, just illegal immigration.
The last line of Melania's speech suggests that she might have been "Rick-Rolled":
"He will never give up. And most importantly, he will never let you down"
If you're going to plagiarize something... Why end it by at least partially plagiarizing Rick Astley at the same time??
I think someone was messing with her and "The Donald"!
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
in the worst-case situation, since wishes 'never' come true, the wishing person's parents never wish to have a child, thus the evoker ceases to exist and therefore the wish ceases to exist. Continuity resolved, and it serves as an out-of-the-box cautionary tale.
If this were to ever happen in a game, I can just see the Hate heaped upon the DM who dared to punish a player in such a fashion...
Talk about being careful what you wish for. I wish this party was over already...
Yeah, with such a nebulous phrasing of the wish in question (and with the assumption of this wish being of an earlier edition), I would twist it so that character making this wish was now cursed so that anything the character idly (or through the use of magic) "wishes" would not come true, and that the exact opposite might wind up happening (e.g. such as the above quoted "I wish this party was over already").
It was a classification of how you adventured/fought. Not your actual profession.
That is incorrect. Prior to 3rd edition, the classes were treated as the character's professions.
Here's an example of the language used from the introduction to the chapter on character classes in the 2nd edition PHB:
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook wrote:
Here is another example of the language used at the end of the chapter on character classes disusing the rules of "Dual-Classing":
2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook wrote:
Once he leaves a class he has finished his studies in it
Which meant he could no longer advance in levels in the old class.
So if classes were just how the character "adventured and fought", would it stand to reason that one should be able to continue advancing within every class the character has?
But see, the language used indicates that he had finished his studies in that particular field and could thus learn no more from it...
I realize to the modern gamer, this is hogwash, but it does illustrate that in those earlier editions, classes were treated as much more than just a set of skills.
And there are plenty of other examples of how class = profession/career spread throughout both the PHB and the DMG, and that is just 2nd edition; 1st edition also used such terms and language.
Derek Dalton wrote:
It's another when I'm forced to do what they want giving me no say with my character. Example play only a healer cleric, Play a cowardly rogue. In those cases I'd rather stay home.
Obviously, I wasn't there, but this sounds an awful lot like a pre-generated character... And while it IS a bad thing to give a player an effectively non-functioning character, it is however, very common for pre-gens to have pre-determined equipment and personalities.
I think what DigitalElf is saying is that in the old days you explored the setting, discovered the fantastical. Your character was relatively mundane, the anchor, your point of view and the really cool stuff was what you found / discovered.
Yeah, that about sums it up. :-D
It's like the game has moved from exploring the world to exploring your character. I still prefer exploring the world myself.
If I recall, in the original Drzzt stories, the main city had a huge stalactite...
Yeah, it was called The Narbondel, and at the beginning of each 24-hour cycle, A wizard would cast a spell on it that would cause it to heat up (originally however, the "heat" was only seen through infravision as the Dark Elf Trilogy of novels were written during the days of 2nd Edition AD&D).
I still have 5 of the original set of six dice I bought when I started playing D&D back in 1981/1982. Sadly, the d10 was lost in an RV on a trip from Southern CA to Northern CA a few years later... They are solid black (I had to color in the numbers) and the d20 is numbered 0-9 twice.
Now, I keep the dice that I use regularly in a cigar box made of real cherry wood (older dice are kept in plastic tubs).
In most cases, I would address the player, but in games where the game's mechanic's attempt or at least try to sync with the game world, like 1st or 2nd edition AD&D for example, then it is possible that the player winds up asking a question that the character would likely be asking (e.g. "How did that NPC just do that?") and you can have the question answered "in-game" by an NPC...
Quark Blast wrote:
AC is just poorly thought out.
Armor Class in PF is a hold over from the earlier editions where combat was an abstraction, where each round's duration was 1 full minute, and not a mere 6 seconds.
The assumption was that during this minute of time, there was a constant "back-and-forth" of sword-play happening (e.g. dodging, parrying, blocking, etc.), and that the actual attack roll in those editions represented the time that an opportunity presented itself and you were able to find the opening and possibly score a solid hit (and therefore breaching your opponent's armor).
Initiative in 2nd edition is really just a set of different options you can pick and choose from...
For example, there is the option to roll once per combat (much like 3e/PF), or you can choose to roll each and every round during combat, you can have group initiative where you have a player make a single initiative roll that is the initiative roll for the entire group, or you can have everyone roll their own initiative, you can use or not use weapon speed factors and casting times for spells, etc.
I chose to let each player roll their own initiative, and add in their weapon speed factors and casting times for their spells. While as DM (for the most part, as there are exceptions), I roll once for an entire group of monsters, thus including all monsters of a given type under a single initiative roll (e.g. regardless if there are 2 orcs or 12, I only roll a single initiative die for the orcs as a group).
Matthew Downie wrote:
1st edition AD&D was full of rules like "dwarves can only be clerics if they're NPCs" that served no real purpose and were wisely removed from later editions.
The AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook clearly listed cleric as a playable class for dwarven Player Character's (Character Race Table II: Class Level Limitations, page 14); they were limited to a maximum of 8th level, and could not be druids however.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking that NPC may have been in the horrible 3e version of the original module, and then I recalled that he was in the 2e sourcebook, "Book of Crypts".
Which is why I deleted my post mere seconds before you responded to it.
Guess I wasn't fast enough... Oops! :-(
If you want to get nitpicky, I never actually said that people can jump as far as kangaroos.
What you did say however, was:
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.
Which is what people are disagreeing with.
You mean memorable characters like Bob the Fighter XXXII or Harry the Thief XCV?
The only time we ever did that, was back in grade-school... It stopped once we hit Jr. High (where we were still playing 1st edition AD&D).
Not that there were any fewer character deaths when we got to Jr. High, we just accepted that it was just a part of the game, and rolled with it.
Made quite memorable characters too!
That's BS imo. If it says the spell may fail in the description sure.
Spells can and cannot do anything that the game requires them to do or not do, regardless of what the spell's description says. And sure, if it is going to be a permanent houseruled change, then the DM/GM should by all means inform the players that spells do not function as per the RAW.
However, my comment was specific only to that happening every once in a while, and that the DM should indeed have a reason for that, but the DM does not have to inform the players of that reason, since the spell not working would be a mystery in this case, and not something that the player's character would know (and perhaps something the character may not even be able to find out at all).
If Commune always keeps failing because the DM does not want it to myself and other players are going to notice. The DM is allowed to do many things at the table. DM or no being a dick is not one of them.
While definitely not advisable, technically, the DM IS allowed to be a phallic symbol all he wants... ;-)
But like I said, if, to use your example, Commune always fails, then yes, the DM should be up front about such a change to the rules.
Dropping it out of the blue is poor DMing imo.
If the DM is doing so just to stop a player from using an ability he did not account for or simply does not like or is inconvenient to him, then I'd agree.
But there are times when a DM does things behind the scenes, which from the player's POV may seem like "out of the blue", but are very much planned and calculated decisions, and as much as the player might want to know what's going on, the DM is under no obligation to reveal the how's and the why's of his campaign until the time is right or the characters are able to figure it out in game.
I don't see why those spells would fail to work.
As a player, and not the DM/GM, I would not expect a player to see why any given spell would not work as expected. But it IS 100% within the purview of the DM/GM to have spells simply not work. There should be a reason as to why (other than the DM/GM being vindictive or what have you), but that reason does NOT need to be known by the players...
I like the lower numbers because it seems less "gamey" to me.
Yeah, to me, those higher numbers created a never ending "arms race"; sure you can get some of that with lower numbers as well, but at least with the older editions of D&D and it appears with 5th edition as well, those numbers quickly max out at a much more reasonable level (well, "reasonable" IMO anyway - YMMV).
My immediate thought is that those who "grew up" with games that had lower numbers will be more apt to prefer 5e
There's probably at least some smidgeon of truth to that. At least from my anecdotal experience, most of those that I have known and gamed with since the early days seem to prefer lower over-all numbers over the higher over-all numbers.
If the CEO of your work comes in from out of town on a surprise visit, and takes everyone in your department out for lunch on the day you called in sick, does he come back the next day and give you a gift certificate?? I'm guessing not... ;-)
But part of the issue I suppose is that I come from, and still play an edition that uses different XP table for each of the base character classes, so level disparity is a non-issue (but then, even when I played 3.x/PF it never was). I also game, and have gamed with people that feel as I do, in that, as much as we all love the game, missing a session has never been seen as some sort of punishment in-and-of itself.
If a player misses a session, that player is already being punished enough by missing a session.
I do not think I will ever be able to wrap my head around this concept! I just don't believe one should receive benefit from something unearned, even if that something is imaginary.
Also, I have never viewed missing a game session as "punishment"; sure it sucks, especially if it's because of something like having to work or what-not, but punishment?? That's quite a stretch...
Degoon Squad wrote:
We are talking about Racism in a game where Orcs are killed on site, Goblins are all thought to be crazy psychopath, and a Demon will be robbed and killed just because?
Kill them because they're evil if you must, but don't you dare hurt their precious feelings by calling them names based upon stereotypes while doing so (because that'd be just mean)! :-P
Kirth Gersen wrote:
a sorcerer who had cast nondetection on himself.
I know the conversation is about psionics in 3.x/PF/Kirthfinder, but in 2nd edition AD&D, the default assumption was that magic and psionics were different and did not mix. However, if it is of any use to you, specific to psionics vs. nondetection, "The Complete Psionics Handbook" stated: "Nondetection: This spell is fully effective against psionic sensing."