|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Plum wine is delicious, but adding plum to any type of beer sounds unappealing.
Y'know, it's funny; I find that fruit beer is usually a horrible "someone got Kool-Aid in my lager"-type flavor experience, but White Birch Brewing has blueberry and raspberry weisse that I enjoy quite a bit. Hell or High Watermelon by 21st Amendment Brewery is awesome too, but both are on the the sour side, rather than sweet.
. . .
Yes, I'm posting on a beer thread at 10 am; this is a proud, proud moment.
I don't know, it seems like everyone's taking issue with Moffat and Clara (and the sonic specs, which I agree on), but Series 9 seems just as Whovian as any other Series I've watched, and that's coming from someone who started with Tom Baker.
Just given the internet buzz, I've been waiting to watch Clara meet her end since the beginning of this series, and it did not disappoint. Less shocking than Adric, though, I'll freely admit that.
Jason S wrote:
I didn't want to be the first to say it, but I don't see how the time spent writing was a better use of the author's time than, say, volunteering at a mental illness crisis call center, if she's out to improve the lot of the mentally ill. I'm saying that as someone who worked as a nurses' aide for three months, whatever that counts for.
I've been running more 5e than anything else lately, which accounts for situational bonuses with advantage/disadvantage, and allows players to grant themselves advantage with an inspiration mechanic, but I don't generally grant bonuses (or penalize, for that matter) for player RP. I mean, I'm happy to see them engage, but it doesn't effect the DC.
Of course, I'm always willing to fudge when I'm behind the screen, and have received no few XP "for role playing" without protest when I was in front of it. As with just about everything in RPGS, it varies table to table.
My choice is a far more selfish one. I wouldn't use the crystal, not because of some quasi-ethical dilemma, but because by using the crystal I'm destroying the chance to roleplay becoming the leader of a resistance movement. The number of excellent stories told throughout history, that revolve around the "heroes" actually being the leaders of a small resistance movement against greater odds and superior forces, boggles the mind. No way would I take the easy way out here. It'd destroy my chances to roleplay a long-term guerrilla warfare campaign. This is one of those rare choices where breaking the 4th wall because you love playing a character, can easily translate into an in-character decision: "my character would never sacrifice so many innocents. Not when any other choice is available. I know, let's start an underground resistance movement!"
Not bad, but I'd go to negotiate with the machine collective in hopes of gaining levels in sort sort of Locutus of Borg type prestige class. (Seven of Nine? Aw man, look, I'm fine with the spandex and techno face implants, but Gnurk the Half Orc is gonna look real stupid rocking those heels.)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but whether you're happier with something based on the Confusion/Insanity spell from the CRB or the Sanity and Madness rules from the GMG seems a personal preference. The authors of RPGs shouldn't use my preferences as an excuse to be insensitive, but I'm a lot happier with a system in which making your saving throw and avoiding the insanity effect is the ideal outcome, rather than one which attempts to mechanically model real world disorders.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Oh, hey, that's how I got a reputation as a "Gotcha DM"; you give a Displacer Beast a Vorpal Sword one time, and no one ever lets you forget it! :P
Maybe this is your point, but aren't going to the opera and getting drunk on the couch both equally removed from the food/clothing/shelter necessities of survival?
I'm a little confused as to why you'd need any more variation than is provided by the current human racial traits (well, and ability score selection) to model the difference between modern (as we're using it in this conversation) and preindustrial human beings. I mean, they built aqueducts and we can still row boats when we have to.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Thanks for the info. Still new to the way skills work in 5e.
That's your issue, there is no ride skill in 5e. The Combat chapter has a section on mounted combat (page 198 PHB, 76-77 Basic) and the Adventuring chapter (page 182-183 PHB, 63-64 Basic) talks about mounted travel. The mounted combat section is the only description I've found of any game mechanics for riding. Basically, a lot of PF ride skill is handled by the mount having been "trained to accept a rider."
Non-scientific thread for the day...flumist is contagious and I'm suffering it's side effects RIGHT NOW!
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I'm reading the hypothetical correctly, 'Hero' is the only class available, so all the various class features it ignores aren't available to anyone, making them a non-issue.
. . . I think that's the verbal component of Summon Doodlebug, isn't it, Monkerdoodle?
The thing is, removing all limits of any sort on PCs is actually pretty balanced, it's just that the GM will have to multiply the CR times infinity when building encounters. As long as every character has access to every class ability ever, they'll never out distance each other.
. . .
Builds like that would probably completely wreck any published encounter, though.
Ooh, ooh, ooh! What if, despite their long lives, elves have really terrible long term memories (like, physiologically or something) and the reason they like songs and dances and other varied forms of art so much is because they require mnemonic devices to remember anything? Anything as in, who their parents are, but nothing that would actually effect game mechanics. Well, beyond putting a whole new spin on Bardic Knowledge, I guess, but that's fluff, right?
. . . About as often as I say, "I have been exiled from noble court, where my paramour died sitting at a window that looked out on the road I had sworn to return by; I was delayed through lamentable mischance, and so she drank the wine the viscount offered, knowing full well the cup was poisoned," and my GM has no idea who I'm talking to?
A player's actions, whether rollplaying or roleplaying, have to be relevant to the situation the DM is describing, but that's the only thing required to validate a form of play, imo.
I guess you'd have describe your character's actions enough to make them relevant to the game, but that's a valid way of playing. Loathe as I am to admit it, there are tons of ways of playing the game that are perfectly valid which I don't personally enjoy.
. . . given my upbringing, I always assumed "eco-hippy" was an accolade.
Well, I had to do more than "insist the only thing I should be required to do is roll dice" when I was playing boardgames as a kid, right? (I don't mean Risk, I mean Clue)
Y'know, I think I remember a Dragon magazine column where Gygax preferred roll-play to role-play, but don't quote me on that, it's been 30 years.
What about Hack'n'Slash, does that feel pejorative?
Not to speak for LazarX, but I think he's pointing out that the difference between roleplay and rollplay is in the playing of the character, rather than the build of it.
With that kind of maturation rate, elves would probably just cast endure elements on their infants and leave them naked in the yard, rather than inventing diapers at all. Look, I'm not saying elves are negligent parents, the yard would be fenced in; you should see how Hivers treat their children.
Speaking seriously, in Pathfinder elves are aliens. Like, aliens-from-another-planet type aliens. I have no trouble whatsoever imagining they would take decades, rather than years, to mature, or that their brains would function in such a way that they were mechanically (like, game mechanically) similar to humans despite their long lives.
"Turns out?" Hasn't that been pretty obvious throughout all recorded history? I'm not sure you even have to fake the charm, so much as know your audience.
But if those women stay at home for a good part of their careers, is it any surprise that women as a group have a worse salary development? Sure, you could say the number of years you actually worked shouldn't factor in your salary...
Not to quibble, but I feel like we need to define the difference between "actually worked" and "took parental leave" before I can answer that question, even in the hypothetical. I mean, if you take parental leave and it eats up "a good part" of your career, doesn't that mean you just weren't employed all that long to begin with?
On the other hand, if you've been edged of every promotion you've ever had a chance at because the higher-ups think a female employee is just trying to get into a position with really good maternity leave, that's a problem.
Not to derail, but most of those US stay at home moms (ugh, when did we start saying "moms" instead of "mothers?" That's baby-talk! Well, terminology is terminology) are staying at home out pragmatism rather than laziness. If you've got a spouse who's willing to support the family while you stay at home, and your pay will barely cover the cost of a nanny, you might as well stay home to raise your kid.
It's the single working mothers who need state support, and frequently don't get it, just due to socio-economic issues.
No said "just a Swede" before you introduced the phrase. :)
Should the government institute programs to get more disadvantaged groups into the very highest echelons of society? These would be paid through taxes, they would benefit the best-to-do of the disadvantaged groups, people who are far more privileged than most of the population in total. In Sweden, there are a serious number of people who advocate quoting in women in company boards, as an example of the above.
Look, I can't speak to any of that. I've been to Sweden once, for maybe 18 hours at longest, back in the summer of 1988; all I can remember about Sweden is that MacDonald's had really high prices given the exchange rate, and there was a woman sunbathing in a park without her top on. If you asked me about it at the age of 16, I would have been willing to pay three times that much for a Big Mac just for the view, but I've (sort of) matured since then.
If, on the other hand, you're asking me if the government of a nation has a responsibility to provide equal opportunities to all of its citizens, my answer's yes. I really can't tell you whether I think the government of Sweden in particular has a functional definition of disadvantaged groups, though. I wouldn't even know where to start forming an opinion on that one.
Please give examples of what you're talking about in the section I bolded.
I don't mean to pile on here, but look Sis, you're a Swede who lives in Sweden, and you've got all sorts of opinions about how the US gets it wrong, but you're not speaking from experience. Yes, racial affirmative action is a blunt instrument when it comes to solving long term economic disparity, but that means we need to keep widening access, not re-segregate it, not matter how many times the Roberts Court will hear cases on the subject.
You don't have to provide a link or anything, I was just confused by the phrasing. Although, in the late 80s Rhode Island had a large population of Hmong immigrants-cum-refugees, and I'd bet their children's access to higher education was as limited any other minority group's, asian or not.
Edit: oops, ninja'd, that was to Sis.
If I had to draw one huge difference between philosophy and religion, it would be miracles. Philosophy, no matter how far from the hard sciences, doesn't allow for miracles, whereas religion does. Like, a lot.
As for a definition that isn't synonymous with thinking, I'm not sure you can do that. I mean, the natural process of rational though and logic that humans perform just standing around looking at stuff developed into philosophy, so that's a very fuzzy edged border. Then again, I'm the guy who thinks that the only difference between alchemy and chemistry is 500 years.
Sis, the whole issue that resulted in affirmative action (love it or hate it) is that minorities who work just as hard as members of the majority don't achieve the same results. I'm not sure affirmative action is the best solution to the disparity*, but it's not a matter of welfare queens riding in limos to cash their checks.
*You remember how I talked about being born into an old New England WASP family? I went to a small private school that one of my ancestors founded; another of my ancestors wrote the school song. But despite the wealth and lineage of my extended family, my parents were crazy hippies who lived off the grid, so I was on scholarship.
My first year there, after earning a scholarship through the normal channels that anyone who lived in a house without running water would have used, I was awarded a legacy scholarship reserved for the children of alumni. At that point, I didn't receive anymore funding to my scholarship, but it did move to a different column in the ledgers, so the scholarship I had received for my first year could be used to fund students who weren't legacy students.
My point? The world is a nuanced place. Everyone rails against legacy scholarships, and I agree with most of what they say, but if it weren't for legacy scholarships I wouldn't have the education I do. As crazy at sounds, sometimes taking a legacy scholarship is the more responsible choice.
I didn't mean to go off there, but it feels connected to the subjects of social justice and privilege.
Pipe, you can find out more about just about all the 5e rules you've asked about (advantage and spending Hit Dice during a short rest) at WotC's free basic rules. It doesn't have all the options you get from the core rulebooks, but the chapters on Using Ability Scores, Adventuring and Combat will describe the mechanics for you.
Freehold DM wrote:
Y'know Freehold, your mention of GPS provokes me to think that YMMV is a much, much less confrontational way to phrase "check your privilege."
Anyhow, I can be pedantic sometimes, and I know that about myself; feel free to tell me when I'm doing it . :)
But trans women, especially trans women of color, are murdered at higher rates than any other group of people in the U.S. It's not legal, sure, but the powers that be aren't exactly trying their hardest to stop it.
Not to get pedantic, but once the powers that be successfully do stop it, it moves from the murder column to the assault column. I'd suspect that's what going on there is that prostitution has a high fatality rate to murder, and it's also one of the few professions where being transgendered can increase your earnings potential.
. . .
That's a description, not an endorsement.
Thanks for the explanation. Being born into an old New England WASP family, I was never really confused about what it was, but I get where you're coming from.
Listen BNW, I'm not trolling, this is an honest question; you mention double secret probation fairly often in threads about privilege. What exactly do mean when you say that, and how is it relevant to the subject of privilege?
Edit: Given my post up thread, I feel a need to clarify that when I say privilege, I'm usually talking about an assumption that my (or whoever's; any individual, I suppose) experience is more valid than another person's.
Y'know BNW, the last, like, 3 years of post history would a whole new kind of sense if you and were talking about very different things when we used the term privilege.
I find that dealing with what they're saying and figuring out how much privilege they bring to their point of view are the same process. I wouldn't say there's any part of having a conversation with someone that deserves to be equated with divination magics.