|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts
Players who, upon meeting a plot NPC, say, "Okay, so I found this feat in the Complete Arcane, and I wanted to know if you'll allow it in game." Players who, upon entering a dungeon that is several days journey from the nearest town, ask, "So how many scrolls of displacement can I buy?" Players who waste 20 minutes debating the finer points of grappling rules when no grapple check has taken place in game.
I ruled that there was no save this time as the PC was in very dire straights. The TRex had a CMD of 44 or so. That was the right decision. First, it's exactly the way the spell is supposed to work by the RAW. Second, you don't want to punish players for using clever tactics, even if it does annoy the hell out of you the first time they do it. One of the coolest things I ever saw a player do was grapple a creature, move into its space, and then escape from the grapple so that he could provide a flank for one of his allies. At that moment, I could have ruled that it was a total rules hack and not allow it. Instead, I told him, "You grab onto the creature's head and though it tries to grab onto you, you escape its grip and flip over to the other side!" The player really appreciated it and it made for an awesome in game experience.
Death Alchemist Professor Allen is a young professor at the University College for Alchemical Studies. Having discovered a new formula that allows him to call upon the supernatural powers of the dead, Allen, his grad-assistant, Ju-Lin, and his pet panda/pokemon/creature thing, named Lupin, are the only ones who have the power to defeat the ancient Dragon Emperor, and his undead legions of zombies and vampires... in mech suits!
"Topics That Don't Belong Anywhere Else" That's what it says at the top of the Off-Topic Board. I think that's discriminatory. Our topics belong here! They are positive, and fruitful (sometimes), and they don't deserve to be treated like outcasts. We need a different phrase to describe our off topics. Something that is less pejorative, and more... uplifting. The time for change is now! Who's with me? :D
I've heard generally good things about credit unions, but I have never been in one IIRC. Credit unions are full of awesome! However, you need to be part of an organization that belongs to one in order to get in. Seriously, if you ever work for an organization that has one, get in on it. You'll never regret it. Personally, I was able to get into the Partners Federal Credit Union because I used to work at Disney. In fact, they helped me buy my first car. I still use BoA for my primary checking and savings, however, because while I can use any federal credit unions' ATM machines, there are a hella lot more ATMs for Bank of America then there are for credit unions, and I like not having to pay a $3 service fee every time I want to withdraw money.
The fact that BoA accepted federal bail out money clearly demonstrates gross mismanagement and incompetence. I actually disagree with this statement. Unlike Wells Fargo and Citigroup, Bank of America is one of the few banks that didn't get into the whole subprime mortgage business. As such, they can't be blamed for what happened to the economy. The reason they're struggling right now is because they were essentially forced by the U.S. government to complete a merger with the failing bank, Merrill Lynch. If any bank is deserving of federal bail out money right now, I think it's Bank of America. If you want to blame someone for their economic troubles, blame our government. They're nothing but a bunch of neo-conservative, socialist, gun-toting, baby-killing, redneck Commies! :P
It hasn't happened to me yet - but some posters seem to have been hammered by the odd A$$ Hat who thinks that they need to prove how "well hard" they are by setting their scorn levels to kill. Maybe I'm just hanging out on different boards than you, but I haven't noticed this at all. In fact, I've noticed just the opposite. I find that the boards here are extremely civil. Heck, we can have discussions about religion and politics here without people calling each other names. To me, that's pretty impressive.
Gods above, I never beleived that anyway! I saw a pattern in the rumor I heard regarding doomsday. One said 2000, the next said 2006, and then there is the one saying 2012 will be the end of the world. So, if the pattern holds, the next 'end of the world' should be 2018.Or 2024 if it doubles every time. Well they say social security will be bankrupt by 2020. Maybe we'll get four years off for good behavior. :)
The few positive stories aside, treating people comes down to the sad fact that the tests always have some probability of failing. And when it fails, people sue you or die or are in pain or at the very least you're ability is questioned. I think you're right, and that this can be a contributing factor. It's similar to the story in that report about the doctor who sends his patients to the hospital when they have a 102 degree fever. It's not because they need it. It's because the doctor believes (rightly or not) that the patients expect it. Of course, I'm not sure how much of a factor it is. For example, I've heard reports that malpractice suits against doctors only account for approximately 2%-10% of our healthcare costs. Nevertheless, I can see how the fear of litigation might cause some doctors to prescribe additional procedures, even if the actual threat of litigation is comparatively small. Here's a related question. Do you think Obama's proposal to limit malpractice suits against doctors will do anything to eliminate some of the fear that might be contributing to doctors prescribing unnecessary procedures?
I suspect that fee for service abuse was less of an issues when more people paid for fees out of pocket. I think that the third party payment system is one of the principal contributors to escalating prices. How often do patients question the cost or necessity of medical proceedures that they aren't paying for directly? My dad told me a story about when I was born. Apparently, back in the day, hospitals actually charged patients less if they paid out of pocket then if they had insurance. It was so much less that if my dad had actually paid the out of pocket expenses for my mom's pregnancy, he would have paid less than he wound up paying for his insurance. That doesn't happen today. In fact, patients who pay their expenses out of pocket typically wind up paying more, because insurance companies have the power to negotiate down the price.
With so many variables involved, from the doctor's personality, to the patients, from the medical culture to the threat of malpractice, I don't think it is possible to point a finger and say doctors or the for fee system are the root causes. Like my grandmother used to tell me, when you point a finger at someone, three more point back at you. I can respect that opinion, and I don't necessarily disagree with it entirely. However, while I don't think all cautionary procedures (like the MRI you mentioned) are wasteful and/or unnecessary, I do think there are many times where they are. I read an article in the New York Times, called "The Cost Conundrum." The article compares hospitals in two different counties in Texas: McCallen, and El Paso. Despite the fact that healthcare costs in McCallen are some of the highest in the nation, the health of patients is actually worse than that of patients in El Paso. This, in spite of the fact that the demographics of patients, and the medical equipment provided in both hospitals are roughly the same. Why the difference in health? Well, it largely has to do with the unnecessary, invasive medical procedures Returning to the original report mentioned, I know at least three people who have had the back surgery medical procedure mentioned. Out of those three, two of them are in constant pain as a result of it. I can also tell you that none of them were ever told about a less invasive version. I'm not a doctor, and I don't know enough about the two procedures, or the medical symptoms of the people I know. However, in light of this report, and the article mentioned above, it makes me wonder whether or not they could have benefitted from the less invasive medical procedure, and if they would be in better health today as a result of it.
Regardless of what your stance is on the current healthcare debate in the U.S., I think the following report, produced by NPR's "All Things Considered," requires a listen. The Telltale Wombs of Lewistion, Maine Note: I don't want this thread to turn into a debate about single payer heathcare plans. I also don't want it to turn into a debate about President Obama's proposals for a public option. This thread is dedicated solely to the discussion of waste in the current U.S. healthcare system, whether doctors should be paid on a fee-for-service basis, and/or whether the legislation currently being debated by the two houses can help prevent the kinds of unnecessary procedures mentioned in this report. If you want to debate single payer options, or President Obama's proposed public option, kindly take it somewhere else. Thanks. Additional Note: Try to keep the discussion civil. :)
Well, that leads to another interesting question: Is even Kyuss himself redeemable? Was there a point in history when he was not evil? Or would this be too much, do the PCs need an ultimate villain to defeat? I'm actually working on an epic level adventure where something like this is the ultimate result.
I have to say I'm not much of a fan of the new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Some of my favorite races, cultures, and deities are now gone, and the rich tapestry of history that so much turned me onto Forgotten Realms in the first place now feels bleached and washed out. I understand that they were trying to respond to customer complaints about the Realms, but I feel very much like I got a product that I never asked for, and that makes me very disappointed.
The biggest thing I've noticed (and keep in mind, I've only played in one game) is that you can actually do stuff when it's not your turn. I think this is a good change, because while combat seems to take just as long as 3E, it doesn't feel like it because you're constantly doing things. The only time I didn't like it is when I had to pee. I fear that many a D&D player is going to suffer from bladder infections as a result of this edition. Very sad.
The main problem it is very unclear to me at this point what is acceptable, what isn't, and why. Well first, I don't think you can ask for a hard and fast set of rules about what is and is not socially acceptable on the messageboards. There are a lot of nuances in social interactions, and you can't expect someone to say "Okay, you can talk about politics, but you can't bring up universal healthcare." Why? Because while there are many discussions that are pretty obviously contentious (Is Universal Healthcare Destroying Our Country?), there are many that are relatively neutral (President Obama Laid Out His Plans for Universal Healthcare Today). I don't know about you, but I almost always know when a post of mine is going to be contentious, because I feel a big, knotted ball of anxiety in my stomach. I know that's not a lot to go on, but as I said, the nuances of social interaction are many, and you can't always rationalize why you feel one way about one thing and don't feel that way about another. So when in doubt, go with your gut.
Oh that's clever! It even remembers what your dice rolls are. So for example, if you don't like the first roll you got, you can't just refresh it, and have it give you a new dice roll. In fact, if you delete it out and type it back in again, it'll still give you the same dice roll you got initially. So for example, in my first post, you can see I got a 93. I then deleted the text out, typed in the formula again and got 93 again. I then tried another experiment. I copied the formula and added a second line. I got 93, and 82. I deleted out the second line, refreshed it, added it back in again, refreshed it, and it still remembered that my second roll initially was an 82. Extraordinary!
Oh, nothing really. Just noticed it while browsing the ol' interwebz one day and thought it was a bit odd... You obviously haven't read a lot of Joint Resolutions. Doing a quick search of the Library of Congress, I found this. 106th Congress
109th Congress
I would personally say that to "wield" an item you need to be holding it freely in your hand without being encumbered by a shield. Presumably you need to wave it around and present it boldly at your foes and the like. I think this would be too difficult to manage while having a shield strapped to your arm. Also ruling it this way helps keep all the annoying munchkins out there in line. Yeah. That's pretty much how I've been playing it. Not that it's really come up, since we're 1st level, but you know.
I talked to my local game store about it. The owner said that while he didn't have any particular objections to the idea, he would be more interested in supporting a local charity. However, if I decide to go through with it, he says he's willing to let me use his store for a charity event. I think what I'm going to do is start with a more local charity first, generate some interest in that, and then hopefully, if the event is successful, work to expand people's horizons in future years. For example, there's an organization called Gamers for Humanity, that looks like a really good group. They helped people out in New Orleans after Hurrican Katrina, and they work closely with Habitat for Humanity to help build houses and stuff. I think the fact that they're a bunch of gamers too will help people identify more with the charity. Anyway, that's my plan. Wish me luck!
Does anyone know if there is a more definitive answer? Elven accuracy is a requirement of the feat so you cant take the feat unless you have it. That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure. Thanks. You can wield an implement in your "offhand". Some classes however (namely clerics and Paladins) Dont have to wield there implements to get benefits from them, they just have to have them (around there neck or something) I understand that. However, I want to know if you can hold a shield and wield an implement in the same hand, or if an implement is more like a weapon, in that you can't wield both a shield and an implement in the same hand. BTW, I used the term 'shield hand' because that's the term the book uses.
My Friday group is just starting to play 4E, so forgive me if some of these questions sound n00bish. On page 221 of the Player's Handbook, under the arcane implements description, it states that using a nonmagical implement confers no benefit. However, other than the wizard class, it doesn't seem as if nonmagical implements confer any ability upon their wielders. Also, other than the wizard class, characters don't appear to need nonmagical implements to use any of their powers, so my question is, why are they there? Under the half-elf description it states that you can take feats that have either elf or human as a prerequisite (as well as those specifically for half elves), as long as you meet any other requirements. With the feat Elven Precision, is the racial ability, elven accuracy, considered a requirement for the feat, or do you automatically gain the racial ability by taking the feat? When creating magic items do you add the base price of the weapon to the price of the magic enhancement? In other words, if you have a +1 longsword, does it cost 360 gp (the price of the enhancement) or 375 gp (the price of the weapon + the price of the enhancement)? Can you wield an implement in your shield hand, or is it considered a weapon? That's all I can think of right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
