|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Are you claiming that no events have taken place since January that might influence whether the UK stays or leaves the EU?
Cause that's what you're saying and that doesn't seem accurate at all.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
This is assuming that the Greece economy is healthy enough to support the trick. That a Grexit doesn't automatically devalue the very concept of doing business in Greece to the point that everyone pulls up stakes or just avoids it.
A separation of Greece from the EU and the Euro is going to hurt Greece in the short term. It would eventually recover to some degree, but when, and how much, is impossible to prognosticate.
If I'm a manufacturer looking to build a new production in Europe, a country that was so poorly run that it was essentially kicked out, is not an attractive option, no matter how little I have to pay my workers there. If I want cheap labor options, I can look further East to other EU countries that have less political turmoil, but are still way down on the cost of living scale.
The trick still doesn't prevent a Greek government collapse/bankruptcy and disorder in the streets. A couple months ago there were migrants on the verge of rioting. Last year locals were rioting. 2012 fringe political groups were rioting.
None of that is encouraging to tourism or investors. If those things persist or get worse, the value of the drachma would decline, were it Greece's currency. In theory, it's a way to lessen the blow of separating Greece from the EU, but doing that would only make Greece less stable and inherently open up risk to a plummeting drachma, regardless of how low you set it (barring truly ridiculously low initial offerings... which could turn the country into an actual fire sale).
The problem is the transition though. Regardless of what value was given to the new-drachma, it would surely plummet after that and continue plummeting for while.
The total number of drachma stays the same, assets valued in drachma stay valued at the same number, but their relative value compared to Euro's goes down.
The government can't tax based on the value of the Euro, it has to tax based on the value of the drachma. Someone who makes 100 drachma yesterday, still makes 100 drachma today and you're still taxing them the same percentage. Just when you turn around to pay the governments debts, the value of what's received in drachma is now worthless.
Norman Osborne wrote:
A lot of presidents set the agenda for their party. Reagan, Bush 2, Clinton, Obama all led their party. The last half of the 20th century, presidents almost uniformly wielded large amounts of influence on their half of the aisle, some less, some more.
Now, I'm not saying the presidents controlled the economy or government as a whole, but they were the leaders of their party.
Trump is not the leader of the GOP.
All of that too.
Every month there's a new quiet story about how the Trump campaign basically doesn't exist, other than as a support staff to get Trump from one rally to the next.
There's an interesting nugget towards the end that talks about how most presidential election cycles, the candidate for president really sets the agenda and tone of the next four years for the party. Right now though, Trump isn't doing that because he's not really participating in the party or doing any of the normal top-down leadership via funding. Instead, the Republican agenda is being set by Paul Ryan. Regardless of who wins, they're going to be going up against Ryan's agenda.
Clinton would be opposed by Republicans no matter what, but she'd have backing of the Democrats to at least apply pressure when needed. Trump will basically be a third party candidate with very little political clout to push his own agenda. Especially if the Republicans retain control, but lose seats, they're going to blame him.
I suspect his presidency will be kind of like Jesse Ventura's governorship of Minnesota, except on a bigger stage. It wasn't pretty, nor beneficial to the state, but the events of it were also quickly forgettable with nothing really being accomplished.
A lot of it will depend on how the media decides to handle this. Do they go for purely what makes them money? Or attempt to retain even a shred of their ethical obligations?
As long as the media cares only about ratings and advertising dollars, Trump will get free media and continue to have a chance. If that ever starts to dry up, he's going to be in a hole so deep, he won't make it out of.
Essentially Trump is quadrupling down on Romney's campaign. He's focusing on white voters and relying on the RNC to run all his state level campaigns. The problem with this is that the RNC is underfunded, even just compared to themselves in 2012. It's also understaffed.
The Trump campaign has one person on staff for the state of Ohio and one person for the state of Colorado. Meanwhile, New York state has 17... plus additional county chairs. He's putting his political money and weight in states he's less likely to win.
Ohio: Clinton +5
New York last voted Republican for president in 1984 and Obama won by nearly 20 points in 2012.
All of this is also why the campaign is having an issue attracting big donors: it's not being managed well. Normally the top of the ticket (the presidential campaign) is a big driver for contributions and that money gets rolled downhill to the RNC and even local elections. Trump is supporting the party, which he's going to need to do if he wants the infrastructure for voter registration and get out the vote efforts on election day in areas where he's competitive or can carry.
It's like he assumes that his XX million twitter followers will be enough. The problem is you can't target Ohio with that. He's going to have followers from all over the world. A one-way social media campaign isn't going to be efficient. Yes it's free and he's really good at it, but I don't think it's going to be game changing enough to actually win.
Unless of course CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS continue to give him free airtime to say whatever he wants.
Songbirds in myths are pretty common, people transforming or being trapped as them.
One idea you could use is having these corrupted whippoorwills being used to control/boost undead. For example, you could have a set up being that whippoorwills are very common in an area, and it's been eerily silent at night recently. Then, when a PC is on watch, tell them they can hear one singing in the distance, have them make a Knowledge (Nature) check, then give them info that makes it seem creepy and off (the check determining not whether they know something's off, but how much detail). Then suddenly they're attacked by undead, but the whippoorwill's song is bolstering them to be immune to turning and more effective.
I'd look at different variants too, having the whippoorwill's basically being Bard's and using their song against the players, or casting certain effects like Bane.
Make the players fear the whippoorwill song!
So, we got a new charcuterie cook book. Tried out their basic cure, sweet cure, savory cure and did an experiment with some chipotle chili powder. It all turned out really well and the chipotle is surprisingly good. I still like basic, no frills bacon as my favorite, but the very slight heat of the chili's is excellent.
I personally still like maps, because I have serious difficulty with spacial reasoning based purely off verbal descriptions. Unless positioning is completely irrelevant.
For example: 13th Age works great with just using the map as a reference for relative positioning. You know who is in melee with who, but the distances between non-melee opponents doesn't have to be exact, just generalized.
Dungeon World on the other hand doesn't care about positioning at all, so complete theater of the mind I'm okay with.
Each side rolled once per round, and there were no modifiers and combat in earlier editions was significantly faster.
The major reason combat was faster pre-3.0, there wasn't a tactical grid. The grid is the biggest time sink in combat. And it's not just the physical presence of the gird, but all the rules associated with it. Back in the day you might count, but often as not you just "eyeballed" it and the DM would say "yeah, you can make it that far" or "no, he's just out of reach".
Don't worry about creating a long, well-plotted story.
Think of it like this, with a long story, the goal is to have good sessions, all leading up to an amazing payoff. The difficulty is that you first have to have good sessions.
So instead of focusing on some distant goal of a long story, just focus on having fun, cool sessions. Once that comes easily and naturally, start linking the story in the sessions together more concretely and pay attention to the continuity.
The Raven Black wrote:
Let me get this straight... you're saying the timing looks like this:
Is this your claim? I already see the flaw in this and how you're creating a giant loophole which effectively means Readied Actions are useless for one of their most commonly used triggers.
We don't handwave languages at all in my games and find the rules suitably ripe with roleplaying opportunities. In fact, we sometimes make parties of one race and whoever is GM'ing will give small bonuses to those who remove Common from their list of languages. It helps highlight the race as being more distinct and different from humans and often creates communication barriers... even though it would only cost one skill point to solve.
What do you want to happen? What's the point of this thread?
It's a fictional game where we get to determine what the rules are, so the result could be anything. If I'm the DM, I immediately throw out anything that is uninteresting to our version of play.
There's a game called Ryuutama and it has a Wish-style spell. Per the rules of the spell, every player gets to write a wish down and hand it to the GM. The GM then gets to pick one to come true, or throw them all out if they don't like them. So as a player, you have to not only consider your own needs/desire, but those of the GM if you want them to pick your wish.
In a game I'm running, I gave the players a "scroll" of wish. I say "scroll" because when you cast it, it's not actually expended, it's on a clay tablet and can be cast as many times as you want. It does have a slight change to the verbal and somatic component though. The Wish spell requires 5 people to all make the exact same wish at the same time and conclude by killing themselves (no roll required and you must actually die). All participants must do so of their own free will and any deviation ruins the spell. So far my players have declined to use it.
Again, you're arguing that once the trigger happens, the reaction used can cause the trigger to have never happened. Do you have text for this? Because I don't see anywhere where this is stated.
As for timing, remember that you can't trip someone with an AoO when they stand up from being prone... because the AoO happens BEFORE the action, so when your AoO comes, they're already prone and you can't stack the condition on itself.
Both reaction types happen before the action itself, so they're literally triggered at the same time. Unless you set the Readied Action to trigger off something else, in which case, that something else will not happen at the same time as the trigger for the AoO, so the question is moot.
If the Readied Action and AoO have identical triggers, they are both triggered regardless of the consequences of either. The flow chart looks like:
Trigger -> reactions -> consequences -> continue triggering action if possible
You are arguing that it's:
Trigger -> reaction -> consequences -> check trigger again -> reaction -> consequences -> check trigger again -> action continues if possible
There is no rules basis for this.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Basically your rebuttal to actual evidence that the rule is unrealistic, is to cite other aspects of other rules that are also unrealistic.
If you want to embrace the rule and the changes they make, that's fine, but don't claim they're realistic, when they clearly aren't. You're trading one unrealistic aspect for a different unrealistic aspect.
The Linguistics skill is already a pretty weak skill. It's useful for social characters, but this rule reduces that effectiveness by 1/3 (since you need 3 ranks to get zero penalty). 90% of the time, all Linguistics does is allow you to roll other skills and doesn't even get rolled itself.
I agree that it's unrealistic that the way games are framed, if characters go from level 1 to 10 within a 3 month span, that someone also learns 9 new languages, probably without meeting anyone who speaks those languages. This attempts to be a course correction, but does so in the drastically opposite direction by essentially removing polyglots from existence, even though we know they exist in real life.
Instead of reducing the effectiveness of ranks in Linguistics, instead put time limits or keep track of how long a language has been known. For example, you could say that every new rank in Linguistics gives you language points equal to the new rank. Using the same 5 point scale, you can spend points equal to the new language rating that you want, but this requires 1 month of down time.
Ex: Linguo the Bard reaches 5th level and puts a 5th rank into Linguistics. He started with Common and Elvish at first level (native speaker each).
By 4th level he had:
At 5th level, he gets 5 points, so he increases Dwarf to 3 (costing 3 points). This takes 1 month of downtime, but leaves him with 2 points left over to either save, or invest in a new language if desired. He could also have learned 5 new languages (1 month each), but have them all at a rating 1. Using this system, it wouldn't be until level 15 that you could earn enough points in one level to take a language straight to rating 5, but by that point having 15 ranks in Linguistics should make you a master of learning new languages and very quick to pick them up.
Brad Whittingham 241 wrote:
I believe that's because its a movie, I understand the point your making, that the barriers are interesting at first but become tiresome, but the reason I make this suggestion is primarily to add to realism and, in some cases, add to roleplay as well, as i've stated many times.
I understand why you think it's realistic. Assuming you're from the USA, it's fairly uncommon for people who aren't immigrants or children of immigrants to speak more than one language. In the US, it's pretty standard for people to only speak one.
In the rest of the world though, this isn't true. People speak lots of languages, in fact, a very significant portion of the world's population is bilingual (over half). In regions where countries are about the size of US states, people are often multi-lingual (3 or more languages).
My high school German teacher would have had at least 3 ranks in 8 different languages, but more likely 4, with a couple 5's. In game terms, that puts him somewhere in the realm of level 30-40. 10% of the European population has 2+ ranks in 4 languages, which is a massive portion of the population to be level 8-12 (or higher).
It's realistic that it takes time to learn the language, yes, but it's unrealistic how limited people are in how many/well they can learn them.
If realism is your goal, you're partially achieving it, while failing it at the same time.
If you instead made it that each time you put a rank in Linguistics, you got your new total to spend on languages, maybe capped at 5, but no more than 2 points spent on any one language. Players still have to "practice" the language and progress is slowed down, but it means that someone who focuses on languages can still be good at it (which is realistic).
You're inferring that the trigger doesn't happen, but that isn't what the text says. The text talks about whether the action continues or not, but it doesn't say that the trigger never happens.
Edit: really, the most interesting aspect of the conversation is the timing of things in regards to consequences, but these would be super outside cases that will probably rarely happen.
NPC is threatened by two PC's.
I would say yes, because even though the NPC is being sent to another plane, the attack and spell happen simultaneously.
As a home GM, I might inject some chaos into the mix, saying that PC can attack, but if he hits he needs to make a Will save or go along for the ride (giving them the chance to forgo their AoO if they want).
I want to break this down with as few words as possible, kind of a flow chart. Is it your argument that:
Trigger -> Readied action -> trigger no longer exists
is that the crux of your argument? If so, can you back that up with text, that specifically say the trigger is no longer considered to have happened.
You're putting too much emphasis on the word "interrupt".
Interrupt doesn't mean "prevent". It just means that before the thing that triggered it can continue, the "interrupting" thing has to happen.
Person A: I really like...
The interrupting doesn't prevent the thing from continuing (though that is possible) it just merely means that the process has been disrupted in some fashion.
The basic longsword is actually pretty good as a starter weapon as well. Good range, decent stamina cost per swing.
Pontiff curved sword is a decent early weapon as well, the range is short but it hits a very broad arc around you which is nice when an extra enemy charges from the side or you're surrounded.
The dark wraith in the prison at high wall can drop the dark sword, which is one of the best all-around weapons in the game (highest straight sword damage, fast, good range, decent stamina cost). I run a refined one and my damage with Sacred Oath and a buff is pretty high. Very few things other than bosses can live through my stamina bar worth of swings.
I don't think it matters what the results of the triggering action are (being interrupted or prevented), what matters is that the triggering action happened at all. All the triggered actions (readied, AoO) are triggered, and have no regard for one another.
As for order of execution, they're considered to be simultaneous, but you could probably use initiative order.
I'm all for modifying the rules to achieve something, predominantly what I see with this rule is to make Linguistic skill points less effective and make them impact other skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc).
I personally think there are already enough stackable bonuses for Bluff and Diplomacy that you don't really need more.
Overall, I find linguistic barriers to be interesting at first, but quickly tiresome. Consider the movie 13th Warrior. At the beginning of the movie the language and customs differences are to highlight how different the narrator is from his companions. Once that difference is firmly established, the movie removes these devices for the most part, touching on them only when necessary.
I never knew my high school german teacher was level 24 (or higher). Not only could he speak English, Icelandic, German, Russian, Spanish, French, Italian and Latin, he could break down root words and how they evolved in the different languages.
10% of the European population is conversant (rank 3) in 4 languages (including their native language).
It doesn't seem realistic that 10% of Europe is level 12 or higher.
One aspect that's occurred to me recently is that too often we set out with the goal of achieving the ideal, before we test to see if it's even possible.
Consider building an RPG group with the analogy to dating. You don't post ads "Looking for long term partner, must like dogs, marriage ceremony in three weeks."
My advice, when trying to build a group (face to face or online), play short games. Make small commitments. Now, when you have to replace one or more players, that small commitment means you aren't frustrated that the long campaign is ruined, or trying to slot new players into an ongoing campaign.
Instead of building the group around the campaign, build the campaign around the group. A bunch of people who don't know each other should plan something short. If everything works great, plan a longer campaign. Let that comfort and trust build up over time and don't rely on it being there naturally.
For a friend's birthday weekend, I picked up a bottle of Michter's Small Batch. Normally I had seen it priced around $45, while tasty, isn't quite worth that price. I found it at Total Wines for about $34 + tax, which I found to be very reasonable. At that price, it's an excellent buy, very tasty and fairly smooth. We had about 7 or 8 bottles of bourbon at the cabin and this was the only bottle we finished.
My point is that it's all relative. There are numerous variables as to whether you could deny someone trial by combat, there's no magically compelling thing requiring that people honor it. Tyrion demanded his trial, but certainly didn't honor it's outcome. There are no hard and fast rules, just what you can get away with or convince others to let you get away with.
BTW, is there any limitation to the "Trial by Combat" thing? What's stopping someone like the Mountain to do whatever they want and then demand a "Trial by Combat"? He could literally kill the king, shout "Trial by Combat!", then kill whoever he faces in combat and then be declared innocent. :P
The limit is whether the person with the bigger army cares about your "right" to Trial by Combat. Rickard Stark (Eddard's father) demanded trial by combat, the Mad King declared fire to be his champion.
Blood of my Blood (ep 6) included Vaes Dothrak, and was the only episode this season to do so (so far).
Two things, they'd also have the location of the Narrow Sea correctly placed.
The auto-summons (darkmoon/wolves/sentinels) seems pretty random. I thought I figured out how to get to happen more often, but then it stopped happening.
Some areas can't be summoned into. Usually this is for the dividing line between regions/bosses. For example, from the Crystal Sage, you can't summon in the area immediately after, you need to get almost all the way to the Cleansing Chapel before summons can happen.
Yup, Dungeon World is great for "seat of your pants" gaming. The mechanics push you to create stuff on the spot, but the mechanic involved determines the nature of the thing. It's perfect for that "Hey, we're hanging out, but we have nothing planned and want to roleplay" kind of night. You can even intentionally show up to a session with that.
It doesn't work well for a thought out campaign though. As much as I love Dungeon World, I wouldn't use it to play the PF campaign I'm currently running, it just wouldn't work. Our campaign is currently mapping out nicely to a 3-act play and we're entering the final act. The surprises and curve balls of Dungeon World would wreck havoc on our ability to wrap up story-lines we've been building for several years.
I do think that Dungeon World (and similar games) are good for getting a new GM's feet wet in short games that don't necessarily have to go anywhere and can just be a wild ride. Get used to running a session without the pressure of having to plan it out ahead of time.
There are game systems out there where the GM can be just as surprised as the players about what's behind the door.
I had a theory that was dashed by events last episode.
Arya kills Jon Snow (specifically I'm calling it for the second to last episode in season 7).
My theory is most surrounding literary relevance. If Arya stays with the Faceless Men, the past season she's basically been having it beaten out of her who she is. Of course she hasn't forgotten, but from a story telling standpoint, if we're going to focus soooooo hard on her having to remember/forget her past, then her past must therefore be relevant to the events in her future.
Within the fiction it makes sense that they're constantly testing her obedience. You don't serve your own desires within the FM, you serve the many-faced god. From a character arc though, this only matters if it culminates in some way that truly tests her obedience.
Combine this with the fact that Jon Snow (through no fault of his own) has cheated the many-faced god, perhaps once R+L=J is revealed someone decides to remove him from the equation and he's a prime target. It's also particularly poignant and tragic when you consider how kind Jon was towards Arya (he gave her Needle). It's also a common story theme, that a great leader brings his people to paradise/salvation, but cannot join them (Moses is the archetype, but it's common in American history/story-telling).
Second place would be Sansa (Cersei pays to have her killed), third place would be Bran (just harder to imagine the circumstances right now, but it's very possible).
That's my theory, I don't think it's completely ruined, but it's looking less likely now.
It's a friend's birthday this weekend and a bunch of us are going to a cabin to play RPG's and board games all weekend. My personal contribution to the food is I bought some Berkshire-Duroc pork belly and set it to cure last week. Maple Syrup, bourbon (good stuff too) and a touch of molasses were added to the cure. Going to let it rest and dry out tonight and tomorrow it goes in the smoker. Friday/Saturday it goes in my belly.
Next batch, I'm setting a small amount to the side and doing a pure salt, very dry cure. You rub the pork down with salt, let it sit over night. Next day, you drain any liquid, rub it down with more salt. Rinse and repeat until there is zero liquid the next day. It's supposed to be shelf-stable at room temperature for a couple weeks and is intended to be hung and air dried.
Yup, it's kind of a mix, it doesn't show every location, usually just the most prominent (geographically, not story) location in the region where action is taking place. It always shows King's Landing, Winterfell, the Wall and wherever Dany is. Other locations change depending on the episode though, like the Iron Islands drops in an out.
All up to you. If you're downing content, you don't have to farm levels. The only time that SL is really important is if you want to PVP and do fight clubs, for that you want to be about 120 +/- 10. I'm level 178 though and still finding people to summon/be summoned, but sometimes if it's off-peak or not a popular spot, I don't find anyone.