Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Grey Lensman's page

2,889 posts (2,898 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,889 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Ah! Thank you Jeff and Grey for the clarification.

I think they went with Iceboi since this one is gay and the other one is SO deep in the closet, Not even the Eye of Agamotto can find it.

Well, Iceboi was being used before Jeen threw him out of the closet, but people have been making 'Iceman is gay' jokes for years. Even the Family Guy did it.


thejeff wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Who the heck is Tyke, Grey?!?
The Teen Cyclops, I assume.

This - most of the time-lost original X-Men get some kind of nickname that combined teen with their name.

Tyke - Teen Cyclops
Jeen - Teen Jean Grey
Tank - Teen Hank McCoy (Beast)

and the odd two

Iceboi - Teen Iceman
And Warren/Angel didn't get a nickname since his brainwiped older self got one instead (nuAngel).

You spend too much time on other boards and the names just come to mind instantly without any thought as to whether or not anyone elsewhere even has the point of reference to get it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:

Another build I tire of seeing is the bard who uses Lingering Performance to triple his performance rounds. Kinda feels silly after a while.

"Far Over..."
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
"The Misty Mountains..."
...
...

That's another case of a 'stupid not to take it' feat.

Many of the 'rounds per day' mechanics need a boost that doesn't come from a 'must-have' feat.


Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well, it's not so much the Champions as "they had this spare superhero team name lying around".

Yeah, much like the current Ultimates, who have literally nothing to do with the other universe team of 'ultimate' Avengers, the new Champions don't seem to have any ties to Angel, Iceman, Black Widow or the Ghost Rider, and only the thinnest (and most likely coincidental) tie to Hercules, through Amadeus Cho.

I do miss competent grown-up Angel, who could make the jump to attempting to lead his own team, and later-addition, Darkstar.

Ghost Rider seemed a bit out of place in a mainstream team book, adventuring in bright day on the Left Coast, though...

The addition of teen Cyclops to this new Champions team is interesting, in that it kind of automatically means that the concept won't be showing up in the MCU any time soon, at least, not with Tyke as a member. (They've already introduced a Hulk, a Spider-Man, a Vision, the Nova Corps, Cho's mom in Age of Ultron, and the concept of Inhumans in Agents of SHIELD, but mutants are right out, and Cyclops is a pretty darn recognizable X-Men character, who, unlike Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, isn't 'mostly an Avenger' or subject to any sort of waffling.) Logically, new books and teams would be designed with at least an eye out for possible cross-promotion or future MCU adaptation, but the inclusion of teen Cyclops kind of tosses that logic on it's ear. Then again, it's super-early for that sort of thinking anyway. Spider-Man *just* showed up, as the Vision was introduced, in movie time, about three hours ago. Neither is quite ready for a new Hulk or a 'Vision family.' Similarly, the Nova Corps, while sitting on an Infinity Stone, one of which was shown to be able to pump out superhumans like the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, hasn't yet been shown to be doing anything about that and powering up select members of it's Nova Corps. That sort of stuff would need to be set up or at least preluded to, before an 'MCU Champions' would...

One of the meta-themes of the entire Champions roster is that they all are, in a way, a legacy character of some sort. Tyke is effectively a legacy character to himself, granted, but that's the most the theme needs to stretch.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
I don't think Trump is campaigning for PotUS anymore. I think he has mostly written that off, and has full-time switched to campaigning for future viewers/consumers for whatever his post-election media career will be.

I hope he's not, pillbug, I sincerely hope not. You see Last Week Tonight this week?

Edit: Look, apparently I linked a truncated clip, but just keep searching Youtube till you get get the entire thing, it's hilarious. :)

Yeah, I saw it, and thought it was great. But Trump would (thankfully) never do it. It boggles me; I can't understand how Trump's ego could be so very massive and also be so very fragile.

The two often go hand in hand.


Snowlilly wrote:
Scythia wrote:
On the boards, "Scimitar Dervish Dance Magus" and "Greatsword Power Attack Human Superstitious Barbarian" both pop up an awful lot.
To be fair to the Dervish Dance magus: the players tried using other weapons when the ACG was released, only to have both Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace errated away from them.

Nothing is allowed to be as good as the Pathfinder Katana, er, Suemitar.


silverrey wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Well I mean, yeah, if you houserule punishments onto someone because of their stat distribution, the conversation changes, but that's neither here nor there. I play in a game where characters can sub their Charisma for their will save instead of their Wisdom and there are a lot more people with decent charisma scores in that game too, but this thread seems to be talking more about the game as is.

It's a "houserule" for a GM to factor charisma into someone's general social ability or impression?

Anyhow, as I said before, people who want to min/max ability scores aren't likely to change things up because they can't use something like Bruising Intellect; what will change is that they don't ever use intimidate. I'm just trying to point out that Paizo didn't create a game where you have to dump charisma in order to extract the most possible mechanical combat benefits. You're free to create a fighter/face that starts with 16 STR; the sky is unlikely to fall, even if doing it requires a save vs. nausea.

Whether or not a given player or group cares about what ability scores represent or do beyond their derived mechanical benefits in combat - or for pick-n-choose outside applications - and whether or not those players have to optimize in such a way as to end up with 'tired builds', is ultimately on them and their GM collectively. There's no judgement in that statement by they way; whatever is fun is the point. Just don't blame Paizo for making you do it.

I think what we are trying to point out is that unless "Old Screw-Face Thog" is your face character they shouldn't be being forced to do the make or break diplomacy. Unless your GM is also demanding that the wizard break down the doors it comes across as targeting and houseruling against something they don't like but won't ban.

My usual problem with low CHA characters is that they always try to force their way into diplomacy despite the presence of someone with near max CHA and maxed skills.


Jamie Charlan wrote:

To be fair under a lot of systems, targeting anything but directly-the-hull-if-possible leads to even MORE time in spacedock to fix things.

The worst is when repairs are directly a factor of damaged component prices, and labor directly a factor of the expenditure.

Repairing the hull isn't cheap either, but damaged weapons or reactors can cost millions.

It's more along the lines that in any real or fantasy/science fiction world, if your ship needed as many repairs after any combat as the ones I have been in during games, the entire stff would have been drummed out of the service for gross incompetence.

It doesn't feel very heroic, that's for sure.


Ajaxis wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


fortunately she is campaigning, she's just sidestepping the news reports and doing local style campaigning and tv ad blitz (is that the plural of blitz too?).

Here speech schedule

Wow that's a thin schedule for H Clinton. Including considering where it says public events are only listed a few days in advance. Presumambly she is doing a lot of private fundraisers, or running is taking a toll on her.

I think her strategy is to keep Trump in the news as much as possible. Seems to be working so far, after all, when you enemy is busy destroying himself it's best not to interrupt.


Please put in big, bold letters...

Ship to ship combat is not like character combat! You do not need to reduce ship HP to single digits every single fight!

Seriously, I have a GM who mainly runs fantasy but loves science fiction, and insists in running ship combat like fantasy combat. Every time your ship gets into a fight, it's 6 months in spacedock (for Trek) or the next adventure is getting the stuff needed to fix the damn ship (for anything else).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

err, no it's not true of the printed product (it gets delivered without having to download it). I get my subs and never need to visit the website at all.

However, I don't think many people list "not having to go and get it" as the advantage of the subscription anyway. They list things like "getting it early" and "free PDF".

I can see that there might be an advantage offered with a digital subscription, but "not having to go and get it" doesn't seem to be much of one to me.

I think that's the 'digital subscription' option people want. Being able to 'get it early' without purchasing the paper copy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In other election news - In their whale-hunt to get Clinton for leaking classified information, House Republicans leaked classified information.

Hypocrisy at it's...um...finest, I guess.


Theconiel wrote:
If they ever make a movie about this election, it has been suggested that Christopher Lloyd should play Bernie Sanders.

I think they should get the guy who played him on Saturday Night Live.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
To me, the message of conservatism is about raising everyone up, keeping the playing field even so that anyone, no matter their background, can succeed.

So... progressivism?

Granted, neither term actually means what you say, but 'progressives' have actively supported those ideals for decades (always?) while 'conservatives' have actively opposed them.

Once upon a time (before I was old enough to vote in reality) one could be both a conservative AND a progressive.

For example, Nixon (yes, Nixon!) was the president when the following things were created.

Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Endangered Species Act
Earned Income Tax Credit
OSHA
Equal Employment Opportunity Act

He also ended dumping in the Great Lakes, required federal contractors to use affirmative action, passed the SALT treaty, proposed a universal health insurance mandate (killed by Ted Kennedy for not being liberal enough) and as vice president cast the tie-breaking vote to strengthen black voting rights in the Southern US (JFK's vote was for Jim Crow) in 1959.

He was also a paranoid racist willing to play upon the public's worst instincts, but that's the part everyone remembers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
With those babyhands i bet he can live tweet the classified info in 4.8 seconds flat.

They give him the advantage of never accidentally hitting the wrong key, it really speeds up the process.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Hit,

If he makes it to 48 hours I'll be impressed. Not greatly, but impressed.

Grey,

Not sure that's true. Vegas bets on everything after all.

I tried to google the odds and couldn't find them, but got a twitter hit from someone saying Vegas took that off the boards. Of course, Trump is proof that you can say nearly anything on twitter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Anyone wanna make a bet on whether or not he can go 48 hours without saying something from one of the briefings that he shouldn't?

I don't think even Vegas would lay odds on it - chances are the house will lose, and they hate that.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Megas XLR is kind of a parody I'll grant you but it's also ingrained into me as a great show about giant robots fighting giant robots.

The best parodies come from love, and they are really easy to pick out from the ones that gave too much control to people who are just annoyed by what they are supposed to be spoofing. I've seen the second where the parody comes from 'I'm trying to insult it cause I hate it!' and it's painful to even watch the previews for such crap.

Megas XLR comes from the first group.


thunderspirit wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
The "extremely careless" bit still doesn't sit well with me, but I can concede she did nothing illegal.
This.

Pretty much. Shady but not illegal. Of course, when the House of Representatives is willing to go over everything they can manage to find with a fine tooth comb looking for anything they can get, I might not want much oversight either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Golarion has some oddities

Absalom is ruled by a grand council. Not wizards, but not a monarchy either.
Geb is a undead dictatorship. I'm not sure if Geb himself is a lich, but whatever he is, he seems to be a deathless necromancer at the very least.
Hermea is an experiment ruled by a gold dragon.
Razmiran is a theocracy ruled by a wizard pretending to godhood.

Just as some examples.

Geb became a ghost because of his psychotic worry about the fact that he couldn't find out what happened to his archrival Nex. The Lich Arazni is the one who pretty much runs everything at this point.

Aroden is slowly slipping back towards ogliarchal rule. Absalom seems to besomething between a meritocracy and and an ogliarchy.

Democracy as we know it requires a lot of things not generally found in such settings. Among them would be a higher general education and emancipation level of the general public.

Which is probably part of the reason why the earliest experiments with Democracy limited voting to the educated social classes.


Qaianna wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Yeah, concepts are far more tiresome than builds. I'm probably going to kick the next player who plays a "CN" rogue who tries to smart-ass his way into some cheap loot (while also stepping on the other players' toes and screwing the party by pissing of every NPC in their vicinity because he's acting like a f!#$ing idiot and doesn't understand that there are consequences). Or the next druid character who probably should have been built with the commoner class instead (the guy who does f@!%ing nothing).
I'll agree, the concepts behind the numbers might be the greater offenders. Look up any thread full of hate of people using Chaotic Neutral to cover up Chaotic Stupid (or Evil) for some, and its good 'friend' the Lawful Stupid 'paladin', both of which stand out despite many others being able to carry off the alignments in question without being a problem.

I have never seen a Lawful Stupid Paladin run by a player in all my years of gaming. I have seen a couple of Lawful Stupid NPC's and a couple of crap choices where the GM felty the paladin in question was Lawful Stupid for not turning a blind eye(the non LS alternative was to watch an innocent get tortured and killed in front of us - the ENTIRE party objected, the paladin merely won initiative).

And more than a few players who try to run as close to eveil when they see a paladin in the party and insist that lawful stupid is how the class should be played - mainly because they get caught when the slightest bit of intelligence is displayed.


Samy wrote:
"Know-it-All" Bard archetype with Int casting stat.

Actually, do ANY of the 6 level spellcasters have an archetype with an alternate casting stat? My gaming group has run 3 games in a row that aren't Pathfinder, so my game reading has been devoted to other things.


CBDunkerson wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Why do I bring this up, just read a story about a navy guy who took pictures while on a submarine. They had classified areas on them. After he saw them realized they had a classified area, so didn't send them to friends like he was going to. Didn't publish them, but kept them and didn't realize that was against the rules.

He had NO intent to have them sent off and no intent to do wrong. These are a FEW photos of the same area...NOT a bunch of emails specifically talking about multitudes of classified information.

He's threatened with jail time for a few years.

Clinton...get's off home free.

Gosh I hate how the elite are privileged and get away scot free with things that everyone else would go to jail for.

Gosh I hate how there is an alternate conservative universe where everything is radically different from our own reality.

Few details of the case from this reality;
1: He took photos of a classified propulsion system (not just random areas of the sub) he knew he wasn't supposed to
2: When he learned of the investigation he destroyed evidence
3: There is some evidence that he meant to sell the photos to foreign agencies

Completely different circumstances than the Clinton e-mails.

First thing is that with part 1 he already knew he wasn't supposed to take the pictures - it's supposedly part of the training you get before sub duty. And his pictures, when put together, gave a complete view of the entire system.

Part 2 is rather important, I remember reading that the investigators found pieces of his smashed computer in the woods behind his house.

He's already done worse things than Clinton (according to legal precedent) even if the third point is complete bunk. I remember reading about this the day after Comey gave his review.


The last dwarf I played was in the Forgotten Realms back in 2nd edition. A...uh....cleric of Torm named Liam Axegrinder, but he wasn't overly grumpy, instead playing the part of father figure to the party paladin.

I even did a 'brooding loner' type, but since he ended up being party leader he didn't have any time to get past the brooding and act like an actual loner. But it also helps to have a source for the brooding, I suppose.

It also helps that I don't stick to those types exclusively, so when I do hit one it is less likely to produce groans from around the table.

The Pixie Mage Adept I play in Shadowrun, on the other hand, was able to get them just from a request to the troll tank to grab her a small espresso when he was picking up coffee at the local Stuffer Shack....ok, so it was more like panicked shouting and a big NOOOOOOOO from one player.


cuatroespada wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Oh, I'd really adore more class archetypes that remove spells from a caster.

Example being the Trapper Ranger, which entirely replaces spells with another ability. I'd love to see other archetypes that replace spells altogether.

this.

i'd like more archetypes that entirely remove spellcasting from some of the partial casting classes. specifically bard, paladin, and ranger though i wouldn't mind a spell-less hunter (but tbh i would have been happy if hunter had been a spell-less ranger archetype with a full AC edit: among other things).

I imagine it's much easier to remove spells from a Paladin or Ranger than it is from a Bard - 6 level spellcasting is much more difficult to replace without granting a whole host of abilities that would probably be considered game-breaking.


Jaçinto wrote:
I'm in Canada, in northern BC. At the time, cartoon network did not air here. Instead, we had a station called Teletoon and YTV which was a bit different and had very few, if any, anime. Heck, we never even got Thundercats back in the 80s.

I presume anime is covered under the Canadian Content Laws. I haven't kept up on any changes or the specific nuances, but I remember that the Vancouver filming industry often couldn't get stuff aired in Canada because of those laws (largely because they are US productions that film there for cost reasons).

Or have things changed (Or was I merely wrong to begin with?)?


thejeff wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:

So let me see if I follow your logic here, Clinton isn't paid a lot for her speeches, Bernie was paid a couple thousand, and Clinton's standard fee was 225,000.

$2000 > $225, 000?

Why this is a big deal isn't because of how much money Clinton earned, it's about who she was earning that money from. You may have missed it but there's a strong anti-establishment vibe to this election and that's why people are upset about the speeches. Trump is a sell out, anything for money, but his supporters believe he isn't bought and that's part of his success. In reality if he isn't bought it's because nobody is offering yet because Trump is sure as hell willing to sell. People bring up the speeches because they believe that it shows quid pro quo, and yes, that seems to be the norm for politicians.

I think it's Bernie who is the outlier, not Hilary.

I understand why it's a big deal - but this cycle (as far as I'm concerned) the alternative left to us is exceptionally dangerous.

I don't have to like Hilary in order to pull the lever for her (or against Trump, if you prefer) in November. I just have to have some understanding of just how bad the alternative is.

From the previous linked examples, Bernie is definitely the outlier. Clinton was relatively low as far as speaker's fees goes. Since Bernie has actually been in office all along, there may also have been more regulation of his outside earnings.

As for what she did with her earnings, donating them to charity is a good thing. If the Clinton Foundation is really horribly corrupt and doesn't actually qualify as a charity, then that's a bigger problem and one that's serious independent of earnings from her speeches.

Unfortunately it's hard to tell in the morass of allegations of Clinton's evils whether there's anything to the ones about the Foundation. As I've said before, I've gone to the "Boy who cried wolf" approach to the various Clinton scandals rather than the "Where there's smoke...

I've mentioned that same exact line to my family - if you don't like Clinton the biggest thing in the way is her accomplices in the Republican Party. By clenching on to any potential scandal as 'the one that will do her in, for certain this time!' they have pretty much managed to drown out anything that should matter and allowed things to be dismissed as another example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Has Gilbert been forgiven for the rant that got him fired from Aflac yet?

From what I read, it was just a "too soon-ish" joke, not a rant. Besides, that's only medium spicy compared to some of his standup material.

Hey, maybe it could be Mxy vs. Bat-Mite (disguised as "Flash-Mite"?) using Supergirl and the Flash as their unwitting/unwilling game pieces? Could we get Wallace Shawn to voice Flash-Mite?

Inconceivable!


Guy Humual wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Krensky wrote:
As pointed out earlier, Ms Clinton is not paid a lot for her speeches, she's paid less than market rate.
What's more the mere fact that it's a question when such issues were never raised for anyone else this election cycle points to it being something "different" about her.

How much was Bernie payed for his speeches? Or Trump? I bet they were paid more because they're men right?

In all seriousness, if Trump did give speeches to a bunch of Wall Street bankers that would be the least of his problems. Trump University anyone?

Bernie was paid $2,000 on average did less than 10 such speaches and donated the proceeds to charity (btw Clinton donated 17M of her proceeds to charity as well).

Donald doesn't speak for less than a million and pockets it.

If you had looked at the links I provided for this you would actually have a clue of what you are talking about and why you look so vapid right now.

So let me see if I follow your logic here, Clinton isn't paid a lot for her speeches, Bernie was paid a couple thousand, and Clinton's standard fee was 225,000.

$2000 > $225, 000?

Why this is a big deal isn't because of how much money Clinton earned, it's about who she was earning that money from. You may have missed it but there's a strong anti-establishment vibe to this election and that's why people are upset about the speeches. Trump is a sell out, anything for money, but his supporters believe he isn't bought and that's part of his success. In reality if he isn't bought it's because nobody is offering yet because Trump is sure as hell willing to sell. People bring up the speeches because they believe that it shows quid pro quo, and yes, that seems to be the norm for politicians.

I think it's Bernie who is the outlier, not Hilary.

I understand why it's a big deal - but this cycle (as far as I'm concerned) the alternative left to us is exceptionally dangerous.

I don't have to like Hilary in order to pull the lever for her (or against Trump, if you prefer) in November. I just have to have some understanding of just how bad the alternative is.


Has Gilbert been forgiven for the rant that got him fired from Aflac yet?


Claxon wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Spellbane wrote:
fighter/barbarian builds with 2hander weapons who decimate everything in their path.

Until they fail their Will Save and turn on the party.

I've seen enough of those!

Honestly, that's not really an overused "build" IMO. You can't even call it a "build". It's the bare bones of melee character. Strength, two-handed weapon, power attack.

This is really due to the fact that two weapon fighting is generally worse than the two handing (unless you build for it really well) due to the problem of moving and only being able to make 1 attack and because of the attack penalties from TWF and because you have to spend more feats to get the extra attacks. Unless your class gives you a lot of flat bonuses to attack and damage TWF is usually worse. This isn't so much a build issue as it is a problem of the mechanics of the system.

And spend additional money for weapon bonus and effects.

Although if the rest of the party includes multiple buffers than 2 weapon fighting can pick up some of the slack.


As does Mxyzptlk, with him being a classic Superman adversary and all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ronin_Knight wrote:

Because republics and democracies have too much chance of bringing in real world politics to the game world, I'm already twitchy about Paizo inserting their political views in to game materials, I don't need to worry about a GM being given a preset setting/adventure to vent their frustrations with a fantasy stand in of whichever political candidate they oppose.

I also think that the potential for this and alienating the customer base by seeming to lord one fantasy version of a certain political viewpoint over others or as inherently good would be the other reason.

There's no reason a fantasy republic would have to touch on modern political conflicts any more than any other setting would.

A Roman Republic model or a Greek demos would have little to nothing in common with Democrat vs Republican or Conservative vs Labour or whatever other modern conflict you want to avoid. The worlds are different. The time periods are different. The conflicts and issues of the day are different.

You sure? The matter of plebs vs patricians was a BIG thing throughout all of Rome history. You have people like Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus and the land reform and the way they were both killed for menacing the interests of the ruling elite. On a similar vein you also have the conflict between Marius and Sulla.

In a way the Empire came to be as a reaction to the power of the senatorial class (and conversely a lot of later roman sources are "suspect" when they malign emperors simply because the writers were from the disgruntled senatorial class or their clients).

As for the OP: there's no logical reason why you can't have republics in a fantasy setting and in fact in many cases you actually have them.
In Golarion you have Andoran and Galt (in a manner of speaking). In the world of ice and fire (Essos continent to be precise) you have Braavos (modelled on Venice). In several others you have city states that are repubblics. The fact that monarchies and empires are more...

Not to mention anyone using a rapier - a quick look shows the rapier was invented around 1500 - but the start of the renaissance period is between 1350 and 1400.


Something that makes the rapier as effective as the scimitar in every single way.


MMCJawa wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I think the Republican party will be quite happy to throw Trump under the bus if(when?) he looses the election.

Who is "the party"? The RNC would happily throw him under the bus right now, and would have done so in April if they could have done it without alienating the voting base.

I don't think the voting base will be as happy to return to business-as-usual in 2018 or 2020. The next candidate who campaigns on a platform of "eliminate the estate tax" and "more free trade pacts so that American companies can export more goods [and jobs]" is going to have a hard time getting out from under Trump's shadow.

Indeed, the RNC was happy to throw the Tea Party under the bus this time around, but couldn't manage it. One of the things that the post-2012 autopsy made clear is that Palin and her followers were actually a net hindrance, but that didn't translate into the votes they needed at the primary level.

Oh by Party I meant the establishment, and what you posted all goes back to what I posted earlier: RNC strategists know exactly why they are doing poorly right now, but any changes to address those issues are likely to result in alienating the same voters that keep existing Republicans in office in deep red states. Movements to implement those by politicians will almost certainly result in them losing primaries to tea party candidates.

They will go ahead and blame Trump for the losses. But Trump will blame...well everyone else (Media/RNC establishment/rigging of the election/etc). And I would bet that the core block that got Trump the nomination are going to believe Trump and not Paul Ryan and crew.

There is a story...something about riding a tiger. You can't keep it up forever but when you stop it's all over...


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


I expect the RNC will probably look very closely at how they choose presidential nominees, and attempt to revise the system to make it difficult for outsiders like Trump to win.

"Fighting the last war".

After 2012, the RNC looked closely at how they chose presidential nominees and attempted to revise the system to avoid the protracted in fighting in that year's process. They limited how early primaries could start and moved the convention date up, as well as changing the rules on proportional vs winner take all primaries. All of which played into Trump's hands.
They thought they'd be helping the establishment candidate secure an unchallengeable lead, but they put Trump into an unstoppable position instead.
The fact that they had so many candidates splitting the vote I think was the real reason Trump was able gain such a monstrous lead early. When there's 17 candidates you only need a fringe faction of the party to take a lead, and when you've got a big lead people are happy to vote for a winner. Jeb was weak sauce vs Trump, but had there been only five candidates the plan might have worked and we might have had a Jeb Vs Hilary contest.

Don't forget that most of the non-Trump candidates were attacking each other and not Trump. Each one wanted to be sure that they, and no one else, was the person situated to benefit from Trump's fall. Except, of course, that by attacking each other and not Trump they helped ensure he didn't have a fall to take advantage of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voadkha wrote:

To put things into Pathfinder terms... this election is similar to voting for House Thrune, a rumpled pant-suit, and subjugation to Asmodeus and oh lets call it a Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, Sczarni businessman with, apparently real, hair that looks like a toupee.

If only there were a viable third option!

I'd compare Trump more to a rule 63 Queen Ileosa than anything else.


Cruz also doesn't get to say the he and he alone refused to back Trump. Kasich can lay claim to that as well, and while he isn't as high profile, that also means he isn't as hated.


I think the difference this time is it wasn't an incremental step, but had finally reached the point of leaping off the side of a really tall building.


Aranna wrote:

I do love giant robots...

But I prefer Gundam UC over Mega XLR.

Well, the second one is a parody. Not a deconstruction, but a demolition. Much like the brother/sister episode of Dokkoida!? was the demolition of anime's onee-chan bit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I think the reason you see small race mounted combat characters is that it is just impractical to play a large race mounted combat characters given how much of it takes place indoors. If your mount is a class feature and your mount can't join you in the pub then your class is problematic.
Not looking for explanations for why people play what they play. Just wanted to start a discussion about builds you feel you see to often. That are over done and lack any originality. Do you have any of those Mr. Pitt?

Whether you like the reason or not it's true - normal sized mounted characters are basically told 'Time to leave your combat effectiveness outside the dungeon.'

But I am willing to bet many of the 'overused' builds are because one option has been made far superior to everything else.

It's the same reason why the Dervish Dancing magus never goes away - it's as if there is an unwritten rule of Paizo's that if a new supplement makes a finesse weapon equal to the scimitar then it must be nerfed into oblivion.

Also why so many pounce builds exists - "You moved? Please deposit you combat effectiveness on the table until next round."


Of course mounted combat builds tend to be small characters. Welcome to the dungeon, er, loss of many of your most powerful features for an extended combat period (what normal size people go through in dungeons) isn't overly fun. At least not for the person who loses a huge portion of their ability.


"The halfling has tied his shoes!" For proper effect it should be said in a horrified tone, preferably followed by another player singing a heavy 'Dun...dun...dunnnnn!'

It refers to a GM who was in a storytelling rut (he's normally very good, but everyone has bad periods) and was inspired by books where the heroes accidentally release ultimate evil upon the world and the rest of the story/series is about them trying to seal it back up. Several campaigns had moments of red herrings or 'surprise, the hook was a lie' where the party was maneuvered into following the plot of whatever series had inspired him that session. Including one time where the party halfling was putting his shoes on (some places even halflings want footwear) near a brook and grabbed a shiny skipping stone. Which just happened to be the 'must not be moved keystone' for the campaign BBEG's magical prison.

So now whenever we even think that the party is being manipulated into creating the problems someone will say "The halfling has tied his shoes!"

The GM stopped reusing that plot point when the party as a whole (and without any discussion between players) immediately went for broke to either seal it back up right away or suffer a TPK trying (forcing a new campaign).

I explained after that it felt decidedly unheroic if all we did was pick up our own messes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In related news, we've lost Artoo.

You will be missed.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Rednal wrote:
she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches
At least we see where her money is coming from. What IS he hiding?

My money is on one of two things.

A: He is really the So-Called Billionaire Donald Trump. He is running largely on the illusion of his success - seeing his tax returns might very well shatter that illusion as yet another exaggeration.

B: How much of his income is coming from Russia?

OK, maybe three possibilities.

C: Both A and B


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.

That may (or may not) have been true a few election cycles ago, but any similarities that remained have gone out the window with Trump. Clinton could be every single bad thing her opponents say about her and she would still be better than Putin's Puppet, er, Trump.


Norman Osborne wrote:
Hulu tends to put episodes up the day after they air, but those episodes generally expire after a few weeks. Although apparently the CW deal with Netflix for the upcoming season has lead them to drop Hulu. As far as I know, AoS will still be on Hulu, once it's new season begins. (Hulu and CBS haven't ever had that good a relationship...so Supergirl's first season was never on it.)

That's gonna suck for this cord-cutter. It means I'll have to wait until the season is over to begin watching (I do have Netflix, but they don't do weekly updates like Hulu - unless the CW deal includes that).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

That's definitely one of the subjects that's harder for people to agree on. Quite a few people I know really do believe that abortion is effectively murder - and while the adoption system isn't perfect, it would be far better than killing someone because you don't want to raise them. (Of course, it's different if the pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger.)

So... that's not something I expect the pro-life side to concede very easily. Regardless of what someone thinks about the subject, I don't think it's wrong to say that it's fairly divisive.

In other news, Trump is pushing hard on his Election Fraud angle, despite the evidence suggesting that it pretty much doesn't happen on any statistically relevant scale. Of course, his campaign's been ignoring reality for months, so... *Shrugs*

I think it's to save his face/ego. After all, in Trump's fantasy world, everyone knows that he is the most awesome candidate evar, so the only possible explanation he can fathom for a loss is fraud. It also fits his pattern of believing that 'Unfair to Trump' means 'Trump didn't get what he wants.' Because that's exactly how he defines fair, in much the same manner as a two year old, except the latter I expect slightly more maturity out of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't, but, regardless, I'm just interested in how far the "panders to" = "is" formula goes for other, more established, candidates.

For me it also depends on what exactly is being pandered to. Anti-vaccers have a very dangerous belief that endangers society as a whole - it's not a coincidence that the recent outbreaks of diseases that we thought were gone in the US seem to happen where the vaccination rates have fallen. Sadly, if you are a child whose parents have signed on to that lunacy you don't get a choice.

So for me, the proper amount of pandering to the anti-vaccer movement is 'None at all.' Anything more is too much. But I have a few nurses in the family so my opinions there might be colored a bit by that.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Looks like the same exchange about the same quote we had about Jill and vaccination in the other thread.

Got me wondering, though. Remember back in 2008 (I think) when Hillary's position on abortion was that it should be "safe, legal and rare and when I say rare I mean rare"? And something about morality?

I can't recall, but I wonder if anyone ever tried to blur the line between her pandering to anti-abortionists and her being anti-abortion.

I still believe that the line of 'safe, legal, rare' is how it should be - I just also happen to believe that the best way to achieve that is via proper sex education and access to birth control.

1 to 50 of 2,889 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.