Gailbraithe's page

Since you ask so politely for me to expand on my point, I shall endulge you. Among the types of "hatred" you say that people demonstrate, the types of hatred that show someone can't be "worked with", is "hatred for gays". Would voting for a ban on same-sex marriages be a demonstration of this "hatred"?

I would wager, especially given the protests and such we are seeing in California, that indeed it could be. So those that voted for such a ban would by your point be people that "can't be worked with".

Don't you get it? Don't you understand why gay marriage is an issue? Because it stirs up divisions, it drives wedges between people. it exploits the differences between people to keep them apart and make enemies of them where no animosity needs to exist.

That's who you support. You support people who primary means of gaining political power is to lie, distort reality, and sow division and hate wherever they go.

Do you know why they use that route to get to power? Because their actual agenda is horrific and wrong, and if they told you that their goal is to make rich people richer, poor people poorer, crush the middle class, and steal as much money from the American people as they can, nobody would vote for them.

And in response to this, you'll have nothing but more mindless blather.

Gailbraithe wrote:

We can have partisan unity when the right is predicating their entire worldview on hatred for liberals, hatred for gays, hatred for the rest of the world. You can't work with people full of hate.

But you can spit on them.

Yup, can't work them.
Black, Religious Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban

What's your point pres man? Why don't you write three paragraphs of five sentences apiece, begining with a thesis, three supporting arguments, and ending with a conclusion that explains what exactly you meant to imply with that half-witticism?

Oh whats that? You can't? You're a moron? You're an ignorant jackass who just spews mindless nonsense and is incapable of producing rational arguments? Sorry! I guess this what happens when we let any half-wit have an opinion on politics.

Come one a%##!@@, you got anything other than stupid snark to back up any of your crap? Of course not, because you;re an idiot and you're full of s#!*.

Dude, my 'side' is the middle. The people we rake thru the muck are the idiots/rabid dogs on both fringes. Not asking for your forgiveness here, since there's nothing to apologize for. 'Smart' enough to know that's a waste of time anyways.

Gailbraithe wrote:

So no, we can't just get along. We hate you.

Say what you will, but Gal is being honest here, and he is not alone. This is why I predict that Obama will be in trouble regardless of which way he governs. If he is a centrist and works to get things done in a bi-partisan manner, he will offend his supporters who, like Gal, want him to use his power to punish Republicans.

But I really wish the right would recognize how deep into the swamp of hatred and corruption they have sunk, and why so many people have turned against them.

We can have partisan unity when the right is predicating their entire worldview on hatred for liberals, hatred for gays, hatred for the rest of the world. You can't work with people full of hate.

But you can spit on them.

My experience of having my wisdom teeth removed:

"I'm going to put this mask on your face for a few minutes, and tehn I'll be back."
::minutes go buy::
::how did I managed to float all the way up to the ceiling?::
"Hi, I'm here to give you your valium drip. You may feel a slight prick."
::prick::
::I feel floaty. hee hee::
"Now I'm going to count backwards from 100. 100. 99. 98."
"How are you feeling?"
::mumbles vague question about when the operation starts::
"We finished up twenty minutes ago. Just give your head another few minutes to clear up, and you can get out of here."

How much did Mr. Obama pay for those 1/2 hour primetime slots to NOT talk about his economic plan? How many mortgages could that money have saved? Who cares. The $150,000 Sarah Palin spent on gewgaws is much more interesting.

I'll tell you exactly how many mortgages that money could have saved: ZERO. Zilch. Nada. Goose-Egg. If Obama had spent campaign donations to help Americans that would have violated multiple laws, and conservatives would have jumped all over the flagrant attempt to buy votes.

Since the alternate course of action you propose is highly illegal and completely unethical, why even ask the question? Why have I seen dozens of conservatives make this very (talking) point since Obama ran the ads?

Wait, don't answer. It's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer: Because the conservative base consist primarily of idiots who don't bother to check facts, have the dimmest grasp of logic imaginable, and can be swayed by completely nonsensical argument that only work because the audience for those arguments is completely and proudly ignorant of political reality.

Since the horse won't seem to die - Can't the same be said about the Ayers connection?

Generally I'd recommend against comparing Ayers passing relationship with Obama to Stevens mentoring relationship to Palin, unless you enjoy looking liek you don't know what you're talking about.

I mean, Excellence in Public Service was set up by Stevens to raise funds indirectly for Stevens, and to train women candidates for political office, of which Sarah Palin is the best student.

Apples and oranges.

Dude, this is sounding like the Bush stole the election warchant that has lasted for 8 years. How about we worry about Palin when she tries running for something again? Or some winner writes a tell-all book that becomes the textbook for justifying all the lame attacks. Who really cares at this point?

'Can't we all get along?' comes to mind, but it sounds like that won't happen.

So no, we can't just get along. We hate you. You have treated us like crap for a decade, and given us no reason whatsoever to forgive you.

Maybe, just maybe, whyile your side was crawling up out of the muck in your bid for power, you should have thought about what would happen after you lost it. But nope, your side thought they could make a permanent republican majority out of idiotic policy, lies, and corruption.

But all you really did is work liberals into a fighting mood, and now that your side has lost and is crawling in the dirt, most of us just want to take advantage of the new power dynamic to kick you while your down.

Reap what you sow man, reap what you sow.

Gailbraithe wrote:

* Was a protege of convicted felon Ted Stevens, the king of pork barrel spending, and was herself a pork barrel queen.

Is there any evidence that Stevens acted as a mentor to her? This is the first I've heard this claim.

Steven's endorsements was crucial to Palin's election in 2006, and the two appeared in campaign advertisements together. She would literally have no career in politics if not for Stevens.

what? where do you get that from, from everything I've read her track record is quite good and she has a decent approval rating in her state. You just want to believe what you want to believe without any possible other explanation because she opposed your candidate of choice.

I haven't seen anyone cite any examples of things she's accomplished that didn't turn out to be either complete lies (the claim she was opposed to pork and rejected the "bride to nowhere") or gross exaggerations (executive experience as commander of the Alaskan National Guard, a claim completely refuted by the National Guard commander in Alaska).

So when Obama makes a mistake, a glaring mistake which was done in public, is excusable, but a supposive mistake that Palin made in private is unexcusable. Interesting. So there is zero chance that if Palin did make a bonehead comment in private, it was due to fatigue as well? Fascinating.

Where is the evidence that Sarah Palin is particularly intelligent? She has no notable academic achievements, no particular achievements as a politician (quite a bad track record really), and in interviews she seems clueless and out of her depth.

It certainly seem plausible that Sarah Palin is a pretty but ignorant woman who has gotten by on personal connections, people skills, and ruthless political instincts. She seems a lot like George Bush, another stunning intellect.

Maybe she was fatigued. But these aides are saying that they had to explain to her that NAFTA includes the US, Canada and Mexico because she didn't know what countries are in North America. That's not a number gaffe, that's just shocking ignorance.

If it's fatigue, that's some serious heavy-duty fatigue. How tired would you have to be to make a mistake like that? I know I'd have to be a lot more tired to make that mistake that I'd need to be to say 57 instead of 48.

You sort of have to wonder why they didn't wait til she had a nap to brief her, they certainly seemed to have plenty of time.

I guess at the end of the day, we'll both think each other holds to their opinion because of ideology. But at least I can articulate the reasons why I think what I think. You seem to have nothing but indignant outrage without reason.

But nobody is even bringing up that Obama had visited 57 states and hoped to visit the other two as well, or that Joe Biden thought that Bush should address the nation on television like FDR did in 1929. Everyone says stupid things from time to time, so why should we focus only on Sarah Palin's gaffs? Shouldn't the things the president and vice-president elect "didn't know" be more important than what the governer of Alaska struggled with?

When Obama said 57 states, he was clearly tired after several days of hard campaigning. He meant 48, and pretty much everyone knows it. Jumping all over his case would, to most reasonable people, make the person attacking look rather foolish. In fact, I think it makes you look very unreasonable and sort of goofy just bringing this up as if was comparable. The only people who want to interpret this as lack of knowledge as opposed to number mix up due to fatigue are ridiculous people.

Biden's gaffe was a bit more groan-inducing, but quite understandable. It was a clear example of running off at the mouth and speaking extemporaneously. It's the sort of unscripted mistake one makes when one is on a roll. And Biden's point was fundamentally sound, he just mixed up 1929 with 1933, and television with radio -- and old as he is, Biden was still born after the dawn of the Age of Television. Biden was in such a rush to score a point that he didn't stop to make sure he wasn't sticking his foot in his mouth.

Neither of these comes close to the sort of troubling ignorance that Palin is supposed to have shown off-camera, when being prepped by her handlers. Forgetting that FDR was addressing people on radio when every politician has been using television for the last 60 years is a far cry from not knowing what countries are in North America (especially given that she's been to all three of them).

So nobody is bringing those things up because they have a sense of proportion which ideological supporters of Palin may lack.

Here's Obama allies FOX News, well known for their Obama puff pieces like "Barack Obama: A History of Radicalism" and clearly in the tank for Obama, reporting on the story.

I like how the FOX News reporter admits to having prior knowledge of the story and suppressing it until after the election.

The jury's not out on that, IMHO. I know Obama's allies in the media said McCain's people said that.
Obama's allies in the media have been kicking her allready; why stop now?

Okay.

But kicking someone when they are down is Chicago politics. That's the type of politics we need now.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Rather respond piece by piece to your reply, which would be rather frustrating, I'm just going to quote myself:

No, I will:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Do you know what the difference between government borrowing heavily to fund massive public works programs -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- and government borrowing heavily to fund massive war efforts -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- is? Because I don't.

TRACTORS!

You do not understand, and you want to defend your ignorance.
If you insist, I agree that you have won - you have proven you do not understand the subject.

I find it pretty funny that you're claiming I'm ignornat and don't understand when you argued that you can't convert tractor factories into tractor factories, displayed total ignorance of the PWA, and are now trying to b%!*!!@& your way out of the hole you've dug by manipulating quotes.

Gailbraithe wrote:

I'd just bail out of this conversation if I was you, because you look pretty silly, and you certainly aren't going to get a fair response from me, what with me now thinking your blinded by ideology and not very good at following a conversation, and thus not really worth talking to.

So after confessing to ignorance and attempting to defend your ignorance, you now move to admitting you do not intend to respond fairly.
Once again I must concede to you being the superior blind ideologue.
So I will leave you to your ignorance; you are not worth trying to educate.

Sour grapes man, sour grapes.

Sam, just so you can know what you're talking about, and not say dumb things like "building nature paths", here's a little bit abvout the Public Works Administration:

"The Public Works Administration of 1933 was a New Deal agency that made contracts with private firms for construction of public works. It was headed by Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes.

The Public Works Administration (PWA) was created by the National Industrial Recovery Act on June 16, 1933. It was budgeted several billion dollars to be spent on the construction of public works as a means of providing employment, stabilizing purchasing power, improving public welfare, and contributing to a revival of American industry. Simply put, it was designed to spend "big bucks on big projects."

Frances Perkins had first suggested a federally financed public works program, and the idea received considerable support from Harold Ickes, James Farley, and Henry Wallace. After having scaled back the initial cost of the PWA, Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed to include the PWA as part of his New Deal reforms.

More than any other New Deal program, the PWA epitomized the Rooseveltian notion of "priming the pump" to encourage economic growth. Between July 1933 and March 1939 the PWA funded the construction of more than 34,000 projects including airports, electricity-generating dams, aircraft carriers; and 70% of the new schools and 1/3 of the hospitals built between 1933-1939. It also electrified the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, DC. The PWA did not create as much affordable housing as supporters would have hoped, building only 25,000 units of in 4½ years.

The PWA spent over $6 billion, but did not succeed in returning the level of industrial activity to pre-Depression levels. Nor did it significantly reduce the unemployment level or help jumpstart a widespread creation of small businesses. Roosevelt, personally opposed to deficit spending, refused to spend the sums necessary to accomplish these goals. Nonetheless, the historical legacy of the PWA is perhaps as important as its practical accomplishments at the time. It provided the federal government with its first systematic network for the distribution of funds to localities, ensured that conservation would remain an element in the national discussion, and provided federal administrators with a broad amount of badly needed experience in public policy planning.

When Roosevelt moved industry toward war production and abandoned his opposition to deficit spending, the PWA became irrelevant and was abolished in June 1941." - economicexpert.com

And you said they gave people shovels to build roads, not tractors.

So no Sam, I did actually say "shovels, tractors and trucks." I don't know if you're a sloppy reader, or if you're just so eager to refute the point you couldn't be bothered to actually attempt to understand it first, but yeah, you're wrong. I said tractors, and then your comment implied that tractor factories can't be converted in tractor factories.

Also, you clearly know nothing at all about the public works projects engaged in during the new deal, which you rather ignorantly dismiss as "building nature trails."

I'd just bail out of this conversation if I was you, because you look pretty silly, and you certainly aren't going to get a fair response from me, what with me now thinking your blinded by ideology and not very good at following a conversation, and thus not really worth talking to.

Gailbraithe wrote:

I really don't see what the difference, is economic terms, is between the state hiring a man to build roads in national forests using shovels, tractors and trucks paid for by the government, and the [state] hiring a man ...to kill enemy soldiers with rifles, tanks and bombers paid for by the government.

*raises a hand*

I know the difference.

...

Factories and other infrastructure on the other hand remain and can be converted to long term civilian purposes. A tank factory can become a tractor factory, and a bomber factory can become an airliner factory.

Which is really amazing to me. I mean I am truly blown away that you didn't seem to notice how you danced right around that little assumption.

Of course, I'm sure you know that when America began the war effort, we actually converted the tractor factories (built to supply tractors for all the massive public works projects going on all around the country, and bought with farm subsidies by farmers) into tank factories.

So I watched both speaches last night, I thought both were remarkable oratories. However one thing bugged me, Obama calling it the greatest economic crisis of this century. Now I know that since the current century is 2000-2008, that what he is saying is accurate, but it's kind of lame to say that something that has only happened in 8 years is the greatest of this century.

;)

Lets see, the GDP increased by leaps and bounds from nothing. That isn't shcoking at all. However, we were still in a depression for eight years, mostly because there was little PRIVATE SECTOR investing happening (side effect of the 79% top rate on income tax). The GDP was almost exclusively government spending, which does not create permanent jobs and does not create wealth. Again, it wasn't until private industry cranked up for the war effeort, and industrialists could see a profit, that the depression truly ended.

Do you know what the difference between government borrowing heavily to fund massive public works programs -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- and government borrowing heavily to fund massive war efforts -- with the requisite expenditures on labor, materials, tools, and heavy equipment -- is? Because I don't. I really don't see what the difference, is economic terms, is between the state hiring a man to build roads in national forests using shovels, tractors and trucks paid for by the government, and the hiring a man to build bunkers in foreign countries using shovels, tractors and trucks paid for by the government, or even hiring a man to kill enemy soldiers with rifles, tanks and bombers paid for by the government.

But hey, you keep living in that fantasy where all the government spending of the New Deal had nothing to do with pulling America out of the death spiral of the great depression (even though all indicators rose steadily from 1934 to 1939), but all the government spending of the war effort (under the same president!) had everything to do with pulling America out of the death spiral that had reversed course seven years prior...

Meanwhile I'm going to listen to the vast majority of respectable historians and economists who recognize that the New Deal ended the depression, set America on the road to recovery, and that the New Deal boom was sustained by the war effort, and then the post-war rebuilding of Europe.

But, you know, hold on to that liberal dream that big daddy government is the answer to everything.

Thank GOD though that the High Priest of the Church of Free Markets, Alan Greenspan himself has repudiated this absolute rubbish philosophy, having seen for himself the complete and uetter mess it has created.

Sorry dude, but Ayn Rand is wrong, get over it! Find a new idea!

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I can think of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Gailbraithe wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Wow, the Depression lasted until Lend Lease right before we entered WWII. Um, FDR did not "pull us out of the Depression". World War Two did...

Just wow...

Learned that in high school, did you?

It's far more complicated than that, and the New Deal policies had mostly restored the economy to pre-crash levels by 1939. The war merely provided a boom.

17% unemployment in '39 was "pre-crash" levels?

According to most sources, we emerged from the depression in 39 when we borrowed a billion dollars to start our military buildup. This would indicate that, yes, the depression ended because of WW2, not the New Deal.

And, as a side note, I could do without the condescention, thank you :)

Wow, the Depression lasted until Lend Lease right before we entered WWII. Um, FDR did not "pull us out of the Depression". World War Two did...

Just wow...

It's far more complicated than that, and the New Deal policies had mostly restored the economy to pre-crash levels by 1939. The war merely provided a boom.

The Virgin Islands are an American territory not a state but if any nation were to invade them you better believe the USA would consider it an attack on sovereign American territory. The same attitude was held for Alaska and Hawaii before they became states.

Several 100 native Alaskans were killed and captured during the invasion. Some of the captured were never returned or heard from again.

Yeah the Japanese actually had military bases on the Aleutian islands in Alaska.

Maybe grizzly bears. But grizzly bears aren't American citizens.

I had a English teacher who kept referring to ancient Celtic literature as "Seltic" literature. When I told her that the "Seltics" were a basketball team, and the "Keltics" were an ethnic group she responded "Oh, it doesn't matter, they're all dead now." You here that Ireland and Scotland? You're all dead!

But I never got sent to the principal for correcting a teacher. I went to nice private schools where they don't discourage students to think.

Ubermench wrote:

Companies supported by and propped up by the government to promote the government agenda sounds like the fascist model of business to me.

What in the world are you talking about?

All fascist governments have relied on the financing of a loyal cadre of corporate business owners to achieve power. The Republicans attempted to achieve a "permanent Republican majority" by creating the K Street Project, a link of soft money between the GOP and partners in the business community that lead to many Republicans losing office in scandal, including House Majority Whip Tom Delay, who used campaign contributions to control votes.

In return for financing, the corporations get special protection from the government: write your own regulations, outsource your labor and get tax benefits for doing it, get bailed out when you blow all your money on risky investments, and even high profit wars.

Toss in the occasional sop to the masses, like fake prescription pill benefits that are really more corporate welfare and saber-rattling at evil socialists and perverse liberals and presto, you have fascism.

Too bad it took a major market crash for Americans to finally get wise to how the Republicans pro-corporate, anti-America economic policies have completely screwed us.

Barack Obama's no socialist, we aren't going to get guaranteed wages or public ownership of natural resources, but he is a progessive liberal, and anyone who wants a good idea of what kind of reform is coming should check out the Center for American progress, Barack's "government in waiting", and their Green Recovery information.

This is very similiar to the first thing FDR did to pull America out of the Depression: dumping money into massive public works projects to create jobs to get money into consumers hands, which is known as "priming the pump."

I've never ever seen anyone use the Combat Expertise feat under any rule set, nor have I ever seriously considered taking it. It's just not that powerful anyway.

Having thought about it a little bit I've modified the spell progression chart I presented earlier to make it a little prettier and add a little something to the very boring second level for sorcerers

**SNIP AWESOMENESS**

I also think it's important that there be no confusion between bonus spells being spells or spell-like abilities, which is my only issue with snorter's suggestion. It just adds additional complexity.

Jason should really seriously consider this option for implementing the bonus bloodline spells. It really seems to combine both interests: unstaggering the sorcerer, and using bloodlines to give the sorcerer more flavor.

I would not change any of them. It again is an unneeded change. And now we have more then one class that has staged casting so that augment can die.

If staged is the issue well then no one would ever play the warmage, dread necromancer or the Beguiler, but they do.

::jaw drops::

Me want! Me want! Me want! Gimmie!

If you are, well, then you still aren't making an argument for un-staggering, because the WotC design and writing of those feats and classes was done with the knowledge and expectation that the sorcerer was delayed a level behind the wizard. If you think WotC made a mistake in designing those feats and classes that way . . . well, why are you worried about using the material as written, instead of Rule Zero-ing the mistake?

I mean consider the Ascetic Mage feat. It allows a sorcerer (and only a sorcerer) to combine levels with a monk. The prereqs are Improved Unarmed Strike and Spontaneous 2nd Level Spells. In 3.5, there is absolutely no way for the would be Ascetic Monk to get this feat before 6th level. More obnoxiously, the character can't keep their levels even, and ends up being a Monk 1/Sorcerer 5 or Monk 2/Sorcerer 4 at 6th level. So they incur XP penalties on the way up. And having played this character, I can tell you it really sucks having to go through five levels of useless before you start seeing your concept come together.

If the Sorcerer was unstaggered, then the character could go Monk 3/Sorcerer 3.

Here's another way to phrase it:
Fighter & barbarian acquire iterative attacks (by way of their BAB) at the same rate, have but different class abilities.
Cleric & druid acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but have different special abilities.
Sorcerer & wizard don't acquire new spell levels at the same rate, but (now) have different special abilities.

eh I didnt dismiss it jason did. And more then just me agreed with him in this very thread

My group (12 years+ time together) almost always uses sorcerers over wizards in 3.5. The greater spells/day appeal to them and they take their known spells to get their flavor/concept down. The bloodline feats got a lot of 'ooohs and ahhs' and made them even more common of a choice. This includes games with starting at low or mid levels, even with the 1 level delay for new spell level access. It doesn't seem to be crippling spell progression wise from my experience. The characters still feel very different and distinct. Each one has appeared(and played) very different to me as a DM.

Those are classes where the nerfed progression is actually balancing. The sorcerer, even with bloodlines, still doesn't stack up to those choices.

Eh I would go with option 3 leave it how it is. worked in 3.5 so it works now

Why not? Two reasons: Nerfed caster progression, lack of class abilities.

So far Pathfinder has fixed one half of the problem. Why not fix the other half? Why not make the Sorcerer an actual full caster will a full caster spell progression and a host of preselected abilities based on bloodline?

Then the Sorcerer isn't a nerfed Wizard who trades spell variety for castings per day and a bloodline rather than a speciality.

Unstaging the sorcerer is unneeded and not really called for.

Lets just agree to disagree here. You will never convince me unstaging is needed and I will never convince you it is not.

In the end jason will make his own mind up on it and we'll live with it. Lets spend time on sorcerer features discussion that does need improved and jason wants us to look at such as the bloodlines.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Yes, well, many of us are attracted to Pathfinder because of the promise that it won't invalidate our gaming library. Which mostly means WOTC's bucketloads of mediocre books.

up to this point so far I can use any book I have with little or no change. Is there any book or thing that your having trouble with? I have yet to run into an issue so just wondering.

I pointed out that it wasn't a realistic solution since the material in question was published by WOTC. He responded by dismissing that material as rubbish, I pointed out that what he calls rubbish many of us call "a significant reason to favor Pathfinder over 4E or some other new system."

I mean, if Pathfinder ends up doing to my 3.5 collection what 4E did to it (i.e. dismisses it to the closet to live with my massive and useless 2E collection), then I'll just say screw it and finally switch over to Fantasy HERO like I've been threatening (my players) to do for years.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Indeed, this is frustrating. If the casting isn't fixed then the prereqs should be restated so the classes get things at the same level.

That's an awesome idea. Now we just have to convince WOTC to reprint the entire Complete series, the entire Races series, and the other theme splatbooks, all updated to Pathfinder!

OH WAIT.

Meh... I could care less what WotC does with their bucketloads of mediocre books.

Indeed, this is frustrating. If the casting isn't fixed then the prereqs should be restated so the classes get things at the same level.

OH WAIT.

I guess my question is: "How would the game be more fun by giving the sorcerer 2nd level spells at class level 3?"

It's like every other level, the other full casters are like "I got a new spell level. Did you get a new spell level? No? Oh, sucks to be you."

Then, on the alternate levels, it's like "Woot! I got a new spell level." "Yeah, I got mine last level. Hah hah, sucks to be you."

It's highly irritating.

I dont see a need to have it unstaged that simple. There is no need what so ever to change this.

The bloodlines do infact breath new life into this class but the staged casting is not an issue with the class.

The staggered casting doesn't add anything to the class except headaches, goes overboard in its attempt to balance the class, and simply doesn't need to exist.

Even the backwards compatibility argument is suspect, since the changes already made to the Sorcerer via the inclusion of bloodlines (which I fully support) already make the Pathfinder Sorcerer an involved conversion.

Thanks guys!

James, your story about your grandmother is at once tragic and very, very funny.

The spellcasting classes are powerful directly in relation to the cleverness of the players and the amount of time/ resources the player is willing to put into their character. The wizard to an even larger extent than any of the other casters. The sorcerer is on the other end of that spectrum... easier to learn, easier to play effectively and should stay there. There needs to be a decent arcane class for people who don't have the time/ energy to be Batman.

Is the editor's name seriously Rose Cheeks?

Seriously?

Because if so, she has the meanest parents ever.

Magazine looks good though.

Yesterday afternoon I got an email from my dad, who live sin California (I'm in Seattle). He's going in for a major operation, a lesion on his lung. Open lung surgery. It's apparently very risky.

My dad is such a tough guy, I didn't even bat an eye at first. But last night I suddenly remember that he's almost 70, and he's not the superman I remember from when I was a little kid anymore. And now I'm worried and fretting.

So help me out. Share a story about a loved one or family member who faced a major challenge and came out on top. It'll give me hope while I wait to find out how the surgery went.

Huh.

I've been running it like this:

Wizard casts Hand of the Apprentice, which draws weapon as a free action and hurls the weapon through the air, up to 30', and attacks the foe. I assumed the intent -- and I almost always rule according to perceived intent, because anything else is just seems anal and obnoxious to me -- was to give the Universalist a reliable (i.e. at will) combat ability that roughly matched the combat abilities of other 1st level at will powers, which tend to be in the

If the wizard wants to change targets, or the target runs away, moving the weapon functions just like Mage Hand. And the Wizard can attack people further than 30' away, up to the range of Mage Hand. Moving the 15'is a move action, attacking is a standard action. And if he breaks concentration, the weapon flies back at high speed and returns to it's sheath.

So an INT 15 Human Wizard 1 could move 30' and then attack an orc 30' away with his Long Sword at +2 to hit for 1d8+2 damage. If he kills the orc, on the next round he could move the sword up to 15' and attack another orc. Or he could break concentration, have the weapon fly back to him, move 30', and attack another orc within 30'.

I imagine it as a vastly improved Mage Hand that has the programmed ability to draw a weapon (which it "borrows' from the Wizard, hence the need for proficiency with the weapon), and fly it in a straight line into a foe, and then zip it back to it's sheath -- all in one round.

It should be limited to light weapons, really. If used with a short sword, it's essentially no different than any of the other 1st level abilities that give the caster a 1d6+(level/2) touch attack up to 30' every round. But even the extra damage of a long sword is pretty well balanced by the fact that it's a regular attack and affected by DR.

Staggering or not, what he makes quite evident is that a *party* simply does not always have the luxury of stopping in the middle of what they are doing to let a Wizard pick up the perfect spell for the situation.

Sometimes they do. In my experience, most of the time they do not. Is there a good balance possible for the Wizard to maximize this flexibility advantage? Sure, but that doesn't make it some awesome perfect solution to any problem. In my experience, most of the time battles are sudden, or time is short.

The sorcerer is better for combat than the wizard. More spells means more endurance in a fight, and the forced specialization of the narrow spell list encourages the sorcerer to select for optimal combat spells, and for strategic spell combos.

For example, my 4th level Celestial Sorcerer Aishwara's spell list, including bonus spells from her Celestial bloodline and the Celestial Bloodline feat from Dragon Compendium is:
0 - Detect Magic, Light, Mage Hand, Message, Read Magic
1 - (Bless), Burning Hands, Karmic Aura, Mage Armor, (Protection from Evil)
2 - (Daylight), Scorching Ray
Notice the complete lack of utility spells above 0-Level. Her spell list is optimized for undead fighting. Her feats include Consecrate Spell, and will eventually include Searing Spell, so she can burn demons and devils. But she won't be learning Knock, or other utility spells, because no utility spell is worth a combat specific spell to a Sorcerer.

Here's the spell list from one of my 3.5 sorcerer NPCs with Fey heritage feats, the Sorcerer 10/Wild Soul 4 Erinjaye Amberglass:
0 - Daze, Ghost Sound, Dancing Lights, Electric Jolt, Arcane Mark, Detect Magic, Read Magic, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand
1 - Charm Person, Color Spray, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, True Casting, (Remove Fear)
2 - Eagle's Splendor, Hypnotic Pattern, Rainbow Beam, Scorching Ray, Touch of Idiocy, (Tasha's hideous laughter)
3 - Arcane Eye, Dispel Magic, Major Image, Rainbow Blast, (invisibility sphere)
4 - Energy Spheres, Rainbow Pattern, Ray of Deanimation, Ruin Delver's Fortune, (break enchantment)
5 - Arcane Fusion, Prismatic Ray, Persistent Image
6 - Analyze Dweomer, Ruby Ray of Reversal

You'll notice that almost all of the spell's in her list deal with one of two themes: magic manipulation and prismatics, with a tiny smattering of very broadly useful utility spells. She's a mage killer.

If the Wizard seems no different than the Sorcerer, I suspect it's because people are playing the Wizard wrong. The whole point of the Wizard is that he's like Batman, except everyone he fights is Superman. So he wins by being prepared. He makes sure that he has the right kryptonite for every situation. That's what makes him the master of the arcane arts, and makes the Sorcerer a glass cannon.

Consider this: by 7th level, a wizard could easily have spellbooks containing 20 to 30 spells per level for levels 0-3. Depending on the DM's feelings about OGL material, the wizard has potential access to dozens, possibly even hundreds, of spells at every level.

Assuming a standard dungeon crawl, and a DM who isn't railroading the whole party and being a jerk, then the wizard studies four spells in the morning: Mage Armor, Invisibility, Dimension Door, and Arcane Eye. The Wizard has already created a Wand of Scorching Ray (CL 7th).

Wizard travels to the dungeon. If anyone attacks him on the way, he Dimension Doors to the maximum distance away, casts Invisibility, and flees for home. Assuming he makes it safely to the dungeon, and there is an open entrance, he casts Arcane Eye, scouts out the location to the maximum degree possible, and then selects the optimal set of spells for the situation. And if he screws up and gets into trouble, he pulls the Dimension Door/Invisible combo and gets the heck out of Dodge.

For example, he might notice that just beyond the entrance of the dungeon is a group of orcs, and just beyond them is a door. And beyond that door is more orcs. So the wizard memorizes Hold Portal or Arcane Lock, and when the party engages the first group of orcs, the wizard's first priority is sealing that door to contain the reinforcements, allowing the party to fight them on their own schedule.

A sorcerer can't afford to waste a spell known slot on a spell that is of as limited and infrequent use as Hold Portal, but a wizard can easily afford the few pages in a spellbook.

Gailbraithe wrote:

When I've played wizards with 1 first level spell, I've never memorized spells in advance. Thus, I actually end up using spells like Animate Rope and Hold Portal, because when it only takes 15 minutes to memorize a spell, it makes far more sense to carry your spellbook with a dozen first level spells and memorize what you need on the spot.

That is a HUGE advantage over the sorcerer.

Of course. I do nothing else. Whenever we're ambushed, I call out "could you guys wait for a couple of minutes, I'm going to prepare my spells. Say, are you immune to fire? Really? I'll learn lightning bolt, then.

The hold portal one is the best idea yet!

"The monsters are coming, they're trying to get in here! We have to stop them now!"
"Just a little bit more!"
"Little bit? We're pushing against this door for half a minute now, and in 30 seconds, at most, they'll be all here and start pushing. We have no chance to hold them back then! Cast your spell!"
"Just another 14 minutes!"
"WHAT????"

I mean seriously, the lack of imagination evident in this post is staggering.

I wish more companies would focus on actually making things rather than just, you know, spouting off about how awesome they are. Seems like a lot of companies these days put way more effort into making press releases than quality products. I'm glad paizo isn't one of them.