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

Hitdice's page

3,391 posts (3,641 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Look, I reviewed it, already; I can't say it's the most articulate I've ever been, but there you go. ;)


I'm fine with monsters having HD; it standardizes both monster and player healing between encounters, though it's important to the equation that you regain only half your spent HD after a long rest.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Just curious, but are we going to keep talking about sexuality of fictional characters? Or we talking about Marvel in general?

I just like to know beforehand.

Dude, I just wrote a long, long post about Swamp Thing and Abby (Same sex relationship? Swamp Thing wasn't even a mammal at that point!) but cancelled it when I realized it was DC, not Marvel. I miss the multi-isssue/series character development arcs I used to stumble across in comics. When I was reading the comic in which Northstar came out in battle with an AIDS crisis motivated super villain, I flashed back to every single issue of Alpha Flight I have ever read and, as straight guy, was all, "Surprising? Actually it explains a lot."

I have no problem with Phoenix making Iceman reconcile his own homosexuality by means of telepathic surgery, it just sounds more like the beginning of a Dark Phoenix reboot than a story of Iceman's self actualization, you know?


"Only the Sith deal in absolutes" is, in fact, an absolute.

"The Sith deal only in absolutes" is a description.

I leave it to you, Star Wars nerds, to argue and argue and argue about the difference in phrasing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because currently facts are dismissed as opinion. Not to to put words in in BNW's mouth, but two parties can only disagree on opinion provided they accept the facts of the situation as true. Otherwise they're disagreeing on the basic facts of the situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

Oh, some are just as dangerous and scary, they just don't look like it in comparison.

Think of Father Ted. Ted and Dougal are both crazy, but put them in the same room as Jack they seem perfectly normal.

DRINK!!


Okay, the Leshy from Tome of Beasts is open of those UNIQUE CASES where the hit dice far, far out pace the CR of monster. Like, alot. Also, the Leshy's at will abilities are spells of various levels, not cantrips, so yeesh, don't ask me.

If I had to reverse engineer it, I'd say that the proficiency bonus and the CR are obviously 1st level, but the hit dice and innate magic are just screwy. If it's a first level party, have mercy, if its a fifth level party, just totally own them with a CR 1 monster.

Look, Drejk, at least this illustration of the Leshy looks like an actual wild man of the forest, okay? As often as not, the art is picture of a ambulatory plant like a Treant or a Shambling Mound, and I, who knows very, very little about Russian folklore am all, "That's not what a Leshy looks like, their feet are suppose to walk backwards." :)


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.
Trump is pioneering the new Republican minority out-of-reach strategy!

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.

Also, I love how Trump's immigration pivot just crapped on Ann Coulter's new book promotion. I'm betting a cocktail made from Coulter's tears will be as satisfying (but admittedly horrible tasting) as one made from Scalia's.

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. :)


Which monster was that exactly, Dan? It just sounds totally unbalanced.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
The thing is (I haven't read more than the Cox News abbreviated version, forgive me any errors) Trump gave a minority outreach speech today in New Hampshire. I was all, "Well, that's the state you want to give it in, not, y'know, Arizona or any other state even slightly south of New-Frakkin-Hampshire."

Even when he's done it further south, it's been to rural white audiences. It's pretty clear it's not really minority outreach, it's "convince his not-so-racist wavering supporters that he's trying" outreach.

Of course, his first attempt on this minority outreach was talking about solving inner city problems with tougher policing.

Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.


The thing is (I haven't read more than the Cox News abbreviated version, forgive me any errors) Trump gave a minority outreach speech today in New Hampshire. I was all, "Well, that's the state you want to give it in, not, y'know, Arizona or any other state even slightly south of New-Frakkin-Hampshire."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:

Take into account that, except for cantrip power there is no such thing as caster level as understood in 3rd edition/Pathfinder (or at least I haven't seen any effect that would scale with caster level). The spellcasting level sole function, as far as I can recall, is to determine number of daily spell slots (though this decides the highest level of spell available, and in extension allows for increased damage, duration, and/or number of targets for certain spells) but it has meaning only for creatures that prepare and cast spells like classes. It seems to be completely irrelevant for innate spellcasting and thus it is not listed in the stat blocks. Have anyone noticed any effect for which "caster level" would be relevant that I have missed?

The effectiveness of individual spells (attack rolls and saving throw DC) is calculated with the use of proficiency bonus, which is derivative of CR anyway.

Actually, now that you mention it, cantrips scale to character level for mutliclass characters and the Magic Initiate feat, so I think caster level is just the wrong terminology to use with 5e, like negative hit points.

I mean I'm still to pig-headed to admit I was wrong about the HD thing, but that's my problem.


Nice catch with the Innate Spellcasting, I'd missed that one this early in the morning. However, the spell level of your example matches neither the HD or CR, so I'm sticking with "all over the place." :P

Design question: do you think monsters at the upper end of the scale (proficiency +7 to +9, CR 21 to 30) should get higher caster level effects?


I'd use HD rather than CR, and not just because of my screen name. In the stat blocks with a Spellcasting entry caster level matches HD, whereas CR doesn't map directly to any single mechanical feature in 5e.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Snowblind wrote:


"This movie is racist against dark purple people!"
So long as they don't have purple people eaters.

If the D&D movie doesn't have purple worms, I'm boycotting it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drunk gamers? In my local stores? No thank you.

I'm fine with players sipping beer at my home games, and frequently do as GM, but we don't want to be the public face of the hobby.


To be fair (well, slightly fair-ish, I guess) the story and NPR piece were before Trump went to Louisiana. Not that Louisianans haven't developed an immunity to PR appearances in the continual s**tstorm of disasters since Katrina.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Fergie wrote:


Again, I don't think there is really anything that could come out that would affect anything. People have know for over a year that Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
Many of whom were serial human rights violators.
Bomb those Houthi babies and MSF hospitals with Hillary-approved war materiel!

What a pity you aren't going to vote against her, Doodles.


Rednal wrote:
Well, I suppose we'll hear more once they have time to review them. XD

I saw that, Red! :P


Rednal wrote:
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.

The headline doesn't agree with the body of the article. The headline says "another," but the article doesn't mention any email that weren't reviewed during the FBI investigation. Not that I'm arguing with you, Red. I guess I'm pointing out to Doodles that while a two-time pulitzer finalist* wrote the article, it sure wasn't one who wrote the headline.

*Doesn't that make him a two-time loser, though? You know why the US gets more olympic medals than any other country? 'Cause we count the silvers and the bronzes and, like, every other nation on earth just counts the golds, 'cause second and third aren't wins.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
It reveals his hypocrisy. If he said, "I've had business dealings with both China and Goldman Sachs and believe that those sort financial deals result in both domestic prosperity and international stability," I'd have absolutely nothing to say, but it seems to me he's just pandering to his audience of choice by bad mouthing his business partners.

So? Not all business partners are sweetness and light personified. I will be more than happy to badmouth Verizon, and even to support substantial reform to the telecommunications industry while still paying them money every month because they're the only game in town in my neighborhood. The fact that I have to use them as a business partner despite their gaping flaws is, in fact, one of the issues that I have.

So I'm willing to go on record as saying "I've had business dealings with Verizon, and believe that those sort of deals result in inequity, hardship, abuse, and a loss of prosperity as well as financial autonomy. Speaking as one of their business partners, I firmly believe that this type of pseudo-partnership should be eliminated, and when I'm elected President, one of the first steps I will take is to use Federal authority to unilaterally rewrite such deals."

Of course, Verizon will probably campaign against me. It's not like China has been campaigning in favor of Trump, have they? [Putin/Russia, on the other hand, seems to be campaigning for Trump and against Clinton, and Trump has acknowledged as much. "Sarcastically," of course.]

Well, Orf, given that you're willing to go on record with an honest evaluation of your phone service provider, I respect your integrity more than I do Trump's. You're assuming I was talking about much, much more than I was when I said the debt holders were more damning than the amount of debt. I mean, I don't think Trump has displayed the maturity required to put US national interests ahead of his own (granted, incorporated) financial interests, but that's a separate issue from his lack of honesty with his voter base.


It reveals his hypocrisy. If he said, "I've had business dealings with both China and Goldman Sachs and believe that those sort financial deals result in both domestic prosperity and international stability," I'd have absolutely nothing to say, but it seems to me he's just pandering to his audience of choice by bad mouthing his business partners.


What's more damning in Trumps case is who holds the debt than the amount held. You can shout Crooked Hillary all you want, but when your corporation owes millions to Goldman Sachs, it sorta surpasses the hundreds of thousands they paid her for a speech. When your corporation owes millions the First Bank of China and you continually vilify China as an economic enemy of the US, that's no better.


bugleyman wrote:
Hey, the freedom to exploit and pillage free of interference is a freedom, too. ;-)

Okay, but it's not a constitutional right, is it?


It could even be a mundane proposition; so long as the ship is still floating (HP damage), enough of the crew remains alive to perform lair actions; not that it has to be a pirate ship, or there has to be more than one lair action per round, either. Back to the thread title, I think the secret of a low level legendary encounter is limiting the number of legendary actions per round by tier. Hope that makes sense.


Pillbug, you don't think Sanders was the candidate of choice of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, or that Clinton moved to the left to attract his voters? She certainly didn't start her campaign supporting a $15/hour minimum wage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Your least effective tool is still more effective than no tool at all. I fully endorse using all your tools, from most to least effective.
Sure. If you haven't gathered signatures, organized a protest, or, in general, been out on the street week after week organizing for a higher minimum wage and against police violence (or whatever tickles your fancy), go ahead, vote.

I just don't understand why you think doing all that means you shouldn't vote. It's not an either/or situation, is it?


In the bag? I wouldn't say that, so much as "You can't win an election in August, but you sure can lose one."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your least effective tool is still more effective than no tool at all. I fully endorse using all your tools, from most to least effective.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


WHY

What the hell is going through people's heads that this is even an option ? If you're telling me an email scandal you're lying to yourself. That isn't it. You are being made too angry to think straight and you need to get your head on right, because this is freaking serious.

I, of course, don't agree with your assessment of Clinton (and I'd hazard a guess that I'm one of the few posters in this thread that helped organize an anti-Trump demonstration) but I'll take a stab at the question:

Eight years of a neoliberal "recovery" that has left the masses screwed , with the prospect of four to eight more under Clinton, combined with the usual racist scapegoating that often goes along with that, plus an electorate weaned on a nostalgic belief in a never-was greatness of yore, along with a very American love of con artists and carnival barkers.

Doodles, considering you've gone to the effort of organizing a protest, are you going to vote against him in the election?


If he makes it to 48, I'll take double or nothing on 72. *wink*


Are now, or have ever "the Clintons" been a presidential candidate? I can't believe the way "the Adams" founded this nation! ;)


thunderspirit wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Seriously, I don't like Hilary, but if she got away with all the stuff she's accused of then she's clearly a woman who can get s%#% done.
She doesn't have people taking the fall for her.

Of course not. She has them all killed.

</tinfoil hat>

Maybe there's no record of how many she's had killed, since she deleted the emails. JUST SAYIN'.


Rednal wrote:

Aaaaaaand wow, today just got even more interesting, given the apparent links between Trump's campaign chairman and Russian interests.

The part that stuck out to me the most was this bit, from an explanation of why former CIA acting director Michael Morell decided to support Clinton (the whole of which is worth reading):

Quote:
“Putin was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated. … Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States. In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

I had heard the connection between Yanukovych and Manfort mentioned in passing on NPR, but didn't dare mention it here for fear of undermining my own scorn for conspiracy theorists. Thank you!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

GOP operatives on the prowl for secret Clinton transcripts

Interestingly, they seem to be doing it (to have done it? article's a few months old) to inflame the populist-cum-social democratic wing of the Dems, not their own party because, as Comrade BeeNee put it above "We are corporate shills" is kinda their motto.

And, even after you don't find anything, you can still fill the news cycle with nonsense about how damning the contents must be, because they're being kept so secret that you can't find anything.


I keep hearing it mentioned as an equivalent degree of nondisclosure (I disagree strongly) whenever Trump's tax returns are brought up, but that's about it.


Guy Humual wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
The fact that Clinton often comes across as a corporate sort of candidate doesn't really help - for example, she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches whose content isn't disclosed.
Which would not be a problem if she was a Republican...or a man.
I don't know about that last part. I'm sure sexism plays into this, the same way race plays into for Obama, but it's a non factor for me and I don't think there are many people in this thread upset with Hillary because she's female.

Well, It's totally weird in such a way that you can't really measure it, much like Obama's race. I'm absolutely sure there are people who didn't vote for Obama because of his race, but I'm also absolutely sure that they could just say it was his lack of experience, and there's just no way to pole for what's actually held in the chambers of the human heart. I don't think there were a significant number of people who poled as Obama supporters because they didn't want to appear racist and then voted against him in the election. I think Clinton is in the same position; I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't want to see a woman as president, but if poled they can just blame it on her trustworthiness or whatever.

Lena Dunham said before I ever did, but I do find very telling sign of the gender divide in politics is that, during the primary, Clinton was continually required to manage her media image because she had a likability problem, whereas Trump really did assure a debate audience that his penis was of adequate size, and Sanders ranted about financial inequities while waving his arms around. Being inoffensive just wasn't an expectation for either of them the way it was for her.

Edit: Speaking from the opposite side, I had many, many problems with Palin, and I can say with absolute certainty that her being a woman wasn't one of them, so who the hell knows, right?


I don't know BNW. I agree that Trump is a symptom of political dysfunction rather than the one single cause, but I think his specific personality and rhetoric generate a feedback loop that drives the lunatic fringe further into lunacy, if you see what I mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
So, which one do you think is scarier?

At this point, I don't really see a scarier option. He's so maniacally harmful that intentionality isn't a factor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You remember how for my last few posts I've been of the opinion that Trump's just utterly thoughtless, not actually malicious? I'm changing teams!


I thought it sounded more like some low environmental impact tile material, but okay, I got it wrong. Also, in terms of visual pattern recognition, I think it far too similar to servile. What would you prefer as nickname?


Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
Yea, I'm still not voting for her, nice try.

The thing is Conservatiles (look, whatever, I call Doodlebug Anklebiter "Doodles," and I had to come up with something in a hurry) I don't think you absolutely have to vote for Clinton to prove that you have a brain in your head. I just don't understand why a person with a brain in their head would vote for Trump.


Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
Hmm, not feelin' up for Trump, but I'm sure as Hell not voting for Hillary. Odd election for me.

Y'know, I work with a guy in your position. The other day, when there were no tables in the restaurant, he was talking about how he can't vote for Trump so it's either Stein or Johnson, but he's not sure which one. Without thinking I said, "Why would you have a hard time choosing a third party candidate, they're both a lost cause." Followed by: "Sorry man, it's easy for me, I'm just gonna vote for Hillary 'cause I like her."

The way he looked at me, if a couple of teenagers on their first date hadn't walked in right then, I would have ended up wearing the entire salad bar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
Stars Without Number. It's OGL, class based (standard 3 classes) and sandbox. Think of an OGL Traveller. Starships, etc. There are a number of supplements, free material and another related game called Otherdust (think a gritty nanite based Gammaworld). It's very well done.

Not to pick nits, but SWN isn't actually OGL. I was very surprised to find that nothing in there is open content. It's a good system, and Kevin Crawford is a reasonable guy, but you have to get his permission to publish 3pp. (It's so similar to B/X D&D that it's a pretty moot point, but what can I tell you, I'm anal retentive.)

I've been getting my OSR sic-fi fix from White Star and The White Star Companion lately. There's a lot of 3pp out there, but with just those two books you can play a jedi knight, fighting alongside a borg, fighting alongside a transformer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They said it on NPR before I thought of it, but at this point, we know the world going to end in a blasted nuclear wasteland, with the last press secretary on earth saying to the last reporter on earth, "What President Trump really meant was . . ."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
We're so far under that higher bar we can't even see it.

I can see it when I dream, though, as a single tear rolls down my cheek.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Or, you know, 2nd amendment people can vote in congressional folks that could block Clinton appointees. But, sure, murder is quicker, I suppose :P

Just curious, what sort of special voting powers does the 2nd amendment grant people? Because the second amendment portion of the quote follows directly after a statement that if she's elected, she'll nominate anti-gun judges. So at this point in his statement, the assumption is that she's already been elected.

Are "second amendment people" granted special voting rights that I'm unaware of?

They don't have any special powers. What special voting powers to LGBT people have, other than choosing candidates that will make things better for them? None. It's a lobby, like anything else.

So day 1 after election she's going to submit all of her supreme court nominees? This is a false premise. Appointing nominees takes time, perhaps time enough for a senate or house election cycle. Who knows.

What was the point of this question?

Again, it's the switch between "nothing you can do, folks" and "the Second Amendment people, maybe there is". That's why we're asking what the second amendment people can do that normal folks can't?

And given the common talk on the right of "second amendment remedies" and the like, it's very hard not to wonder.

All that said, parsing Trump's speech that closely is pointless. It's stream of consciousness, not legal text. It's not actionable, though the Secret Service has taken an interest. But it's also laughable to think he's not aware of the implications. He's a blowhard, not an idiot.

See, I don't disagree with anything you've written here, but I've got a problem when "parsing that closely" means trying to find a coherent narrative. Seriously, the switch between "nothing you can do" and "the Second Amendment people, maybe there is" happened between two consecutive sentences. There isn't even enough space to quote those two sentences out of context. No, he didn't actually tell anyone to assassinate Clinton, but presidential election oratory should be set to a higher bar than not legally actionable as a threat on the opposing party candidate's life.


Kinda, sorta, BNW; kinda, sorta calling on your armed and crazy supporters to assassinate the other candidate for you.

TBH, I'm much more in TheJeff's camp that Trump speaks without thinking, but that doesn't make an attempt on Clinton's life by a SAP nut job any less likely. I also don't think talking about something 2 days after it happens make me hung up. If, on the other hand, you want to say that I'm "hung up" on the way he Trump felt a need to assure a primary debate audience that his penis was of perfectly adequate size even though everyone says his hands are small, I guess that's fair; I'm still pretty surprised that was the one time he didn't use the word Yuge!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If Trump brought enough nuance to the table to explain to the SAPs (my new favorite acronym!) that their vote for a congressional candidate is a more effective weapon than the firearm protected by the Second Amendment, or to explain that Daesh gained power in the vacuum left in the middle east by the draw down of forces during the Obama presidency, I wouldn't be flat out scared of him becoming president. I might even reflect that he was acting more presidential than I gave him credit for.

I don't appear to be in any danger of having to make that concession.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, jeez, Scott, there's no record 'cause she deleted the emails, duh! It's like you're just not willing to listen to conspiracy theories because they're not factually true! :P

1 to 50 of 3,391 << 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.