|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That photo was taken on the scene yesterday by someone with a cell phone, I believe. They must have grabbed it off the net like the rest of us. I don't think there is a hard connection here. (I've looked for the page where it notes the source but can't remember where I saw it. If I find it I'll post the link.)
captain yesterday wrote:
the pdfs for the rulebooks are only 9.99, i'm also cash poor and this price point helps a lot, of course nothing beats free:)
I know, but money is tight right now, and I can't even justify that kind of expenditure. Plus my group and I are heavily (read: monetarily) invested in 3.5 so it doesn't really make sense to jump to PF, even if its close to 3.5. In fact, I have so much 3.5 material, I have enough for at least 2 more campaigns after the one we are in now. (Just finished AoW, just started a mish-mash of adventures that will center on Return to the Ruins of Greyhawk, after that I have Savage Tide, and Rise of the Runelords - original 3.5 version). The only reason I'm looking at this is because of the fact it seems to be an homage to the Giants series.
Got it. May consider it, but I'll wait until the reviews are in.
I've always wanted to re-run Against the Giants, but don't have the time or patience to convert it. So I'm really interested in this. Problem is, I play 3.5 and don't have the disposable income to move to Pathfinder. I've read that Pathfinder and 3.5 are "close enough" that you can run an adventure from one "as is" with the other rules. Is that true? Are there any serious caveats to that? If I do get this AP, I'd want to run it with minimal to no conversion.
its likely the hallucinations started when she left. His fragile brain couldn't deal with the fact she was gone, so it decided that she wasn't.
I wish I could book seats ahead of time.
We have that here in Montreal: VIP seating. You can book specific seats. It's f*&%ing expensive ($20 for a seat) but its quiet, calm, adult (18+ they serve liquor) and no line ups for the popcorn/candy. They'll even bring it to you in your seat. Very nice. And they are paired in a way that prevents at least one person from taking your armrest on you.
Good to get out and see a movie with the wife and not have to worry about getting there early enough to get seats, or getting snacks or what have you. But you pay a premium.
Edit: Ninja'd by bugleyman
Medicine isn't perfect. Sometimes whats possible is not what's desired. Sure, we would all like to only remove that part that is affected by illness and leave the rest untouched. But that doesn't usually work for treatments on other parts of the body, why should it be insisted upon when trying to fix something in the brain? In the end its up to the patient and the doctor to decide if the end result is better than what you started with.
A brilliant kid, but an extreme outlier. Public and even most private schools were not set up to handle kids like this because they are so rare that its impossible to cater to them and to the "regular" kids. His parents seem to have found out how to satisfy his needs within the established system (let him self-teach, get him out of public school as soon as possible and into higher education).
Schools have a lot wrong with them, but having the infrastructure to handle kids like this for 12 years is not one of them.
Fair enough, I've never been in the military so if anyone else knows better I'll concede the point.
When you assume that the public is the enemy, then it automatically becomes a war, and therefore you need war machines.
One of the best parts of the John Oliver monologue is the bit where they show the photo of the police officers pointing their automatic rifles at someone with their hands up and then they cut to the interview where you have someone (can't remember name or occupation) indicating that in a war, soldiers only point their weapon when they are in the process of firing them.
They have the toys but they have no clue how to use them properly.
That can only lead to a happy ending...
I agree with SeeDarkly_X. If you're a child of the 70s then this was the s&*%.
Of course it did raise interesting questions. Like what *was* spiderman swinging from when he was swinging over the tree tops in Queens?!? :)
Are they really goping feature film exclusive with B5? I thought the movie would serve as a pilot for a new series?
WB has the TV rights to B5 and they don't want to do anything. JMS has the motion picture rights, so that's what he's going forward with. Since he thinks its been too long since the show was on, he doesn't think a follow-on to the series makes sense, so he's rebooting it. Whether that's a good or bad idea is open for interpretation.
Good point. If anything, it may be the one season easiest to fit into a 2 hour movie...
I'm a little leery. I don't see how any aspect of the B5 series can be effectively retold in a 2-hour movie. Unless (as someone suggested on ArsTechnica) he decides to go with 1 movie = 1 season. But that requires that fans line up to see 5 movies without getting anxious for something new.
But then, I don't write movie screenplays and jms does. So maybe he knows what he's doing...
Liz Courts wrote:
Each player gets "at least 12 cards," so you should have enough to go around for a standard four player group. However, this limits the variety of options at your disposal (as some mechanics allow for more draws), so each player with their own deck is ideal—but not required.
Thanks Liz. The number explains it. We only allow 4 cards per player (I allow them to swap out and replenish back up to 4 at each new level). But as I said the Dork20 deck can be a bit higher powered than this seems to be (but it would be nice to see some more examples... :)
Are there official rules for using it that explain the 1 deck/person idea? I play 3.5 and use the "Dork20" deck (its a similar idea - its pretty silly and sometimes a little overpowered but my group likes it) and we use only one deck for the whole group.
What about this deck makes it 1/person rather than 1/group? Are there not enough cards to go around?
Andrew R wrote:
But what if they happened to get a job that was very short term (say a week or so) and they got paid cash? Don't they have the right to treat themselves for working hard? Even if it was for a very short time and they have to go back on welfare afterward?
Or must poor people always lead a life of misery until they can get solid employment, regardless of the circumstances?
Forcing someone to be miserable sure seems like an infringement of their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
My point is they are publicly acknowledging the shortcoming as they are "helping" their customers make up the difference. They are already showing "the goodness of their hearts". Just in a way that doesn't affect their bottom line. And by acknowledging that they are paying their employees poorly but not actually increasing their pay shows how transparent their "goodness" is.
This kills me. If Walmart understands that they don't pay their employees a living wage, why don't they pay them a living wage?!?!?!?
(I know the answer - it'll cut into profits!)
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Not exactly. Up to 12 weeks of family leave, if your company is big enough to come under FMLA. It's unpaid, though.
So first time parents need not apply?
Here it's "unpaid" as well, in that the company doesn't pay parental leave. Its paid by the government as part of "EI" ("Employment Insurance"). You get paid at 55% of your salary up to a monthly cut-off. (Dont remember what that is.)
It's not actually hyperbole; it depends on if you're male or female and what the company's policies are. A week is actually pretty high for a male to get; it's not unusual for them not to qualify for leave at all.
Yikes! My brother works in Cali, thats probably where the residual memory information came from. But I was sure I was miremembering...
What I find the most puzzling about this is that it is actually in the employer's best interest to provide contraception in health care coverage because access to contraception means less unexpected pregnancies and that means less maternity/paternity leave. Of course in the US, I think you guys get all of a week or two* of parental leave so maybe its not a big loss?
*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...
I think its starting to look more like a longhouse.
You do realise that its the existence of those "foaming reactionaries" which pretty much dooms socialism from ever taking hold in the US.
(Or rather, the general public reaction to said reactionaries - the fear that they are right.)
and their are still all the holes in the ozone layer, it's a natural phenomenon.
No it's not. The reduction of ozone into individual oxygen atoms by UV is, (O3 + UV -> O + O + O) but left to its own devices the individual oxygen atoms will recombine to reform ozone. That's how it protects us from UV light. It absorbs the UV but reforms afterward.
When you add chlorofluorocarbons (man-made!) into the mix, they are also broken up, but then the individual chlorine atoms grab ahold of an oxygen atom, and leave only 2 oxygen atoms to make O2 thus depleting O3. O2 doesn't absorb UV so we now have a hole in our UV protection where there didn't use to be.
The ozone hole is not natural. It's caused by us.
"Heesa no good to meesa dead."