KaeYoss's page

gran rey de los mono wrote:

You have a "peace" of paper? Where can I get one of those? Besides, goblins aren't supposed to read.

A peace of paper is a peace treaty DRAWN UP ON PAPER. Not that hard to habla.

I might have to revoke your honorary/preliminary/disciplinary/temporary goblin status if you don't learn your Goblin Facts: It's okay to read. Writing is the thing that steals your brain.

PLUS it was just a peace of paper with a drawing of a German on it. The other side had this thing about some versatile treats or something.

How could you tell he was German?

James Jacobs wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

DanP wrote:

they are a good source of conflict in real world (Hadrian, Great Wall, Berlin) and fantasy (Martin's The Wall, Howard's Picts) settings, but I am unaware of any in Golarion.

Teleportation and flight make walls a somewhat questionable defense in a magic fantasy world :)

Teleportaion and flight are not readily available to most large armies, even in Golarion.

What about the remaining elf gates?

I've always liked the idea of strike teams from Kyonin being able to strike all over Avistan should they wish. They just have more important things to do than get tied up in human politics.

Not getting wiped out perhaps? The thing is, if they chose to strike at human nations, the humans might band together to wipe out the elf threat.

The gates might help getting places quickly, but those humans are basically everywhere already. If they team up to kill all the elves (especially if they turned out to be a threat with their gates and aggressive attitude), sheer numbers alone would doom the elves. And those human nations often have more than just numbers going for them.

Has nobody mentioned Hold Person? Cause, Hold Person.

You make a very persuasive argument!

However, note that if you had subscribed to the AP while Second Darkness was being released, you'd have paid $83.94 for those six volumes, plus (with your Pathfinder Advantage discount) another $8.49 for the Player Companion... *but* you'd have also received free PDFs of the AP volumes—another $83.94 in value—while the bundle didn't include any PDFs.

Wasn't the Pathfinder Companion (not yet a Player Companion) for Second Darkness a freebie for AP subscribers at the time?

KaeYoss wrote:

I was shooting from the hip. In addition to polishing, it needs planing and, indeed, basic cutting out of a log.

Before I do any of these, I'll wait for the final version of the rules, as I think it will be much expanded and changed.

I was being polite. In a couple other threads I've started to go into how much polish I think it needs. I think the pricing of items needs a complete overhaul. The pricing is inconsistent, and they need to price the individual items instead of pricing packages of items. Additionally, its not specific enough. There are many items worth less than 1 point, but more than 0. Likewise there are many items that are being rounded up or down too much due to this.

Additionally, there are many things that should have negative prices, as they give a weakness or drawback of some sort.

So yeah, it needs planning, measuring, measuring, measuring, cutting, filing, and polishing.

Ah, so you were talking about the ruleset itself, not about my suggestions of elves - which is what I thought you meant.

You're right, this system needs work. I think they should double all prices and allowances and then go from there. It would make the system more granular without introducing half points. It would also mean that they could more easily split up stuff like "elven immunities".

And you're right: The packages need to go, unless they're really tied to each other rather than loosely grouped by race. The elven immunities are a good example. While it makes sense to group them for the elven entry, forcing another race to take both doesn't. Neither does calling them "elven immunity". While we might argue that the sleep immunity might be an elven thing, I can easily see another race that can be put to sleep but that is resistant to enchantments - and all that without pointy ears.

How many PROFESSION MEMBERS does it take to change a lightbulb?

I'm afraid you forgot the funny.

<Looks away from burning building.>

What memo?

It just said: "Stop posting, Kae'Yoss wins."

I nominate everyone who is not me from this thread for all time.

I second the motion.

Motion is carried.

You're all locked out.

I win.

Hmm. Yep. That's the basic Idea.

So you can field an Elf in a party of Dragons without feeling pathetic.

But as a secondary purpose: Since the races aren't *REALLY* all worth 10 points (some a little more, some a little less) I'd include a straight 10 point version, for the people who want perfect baseline races.

I'm thinking after reading this, that it could be expanded on and revised a bit, and I imagine I'll be revising it for my home games, by adding more stuff that isnt included in the rules. Things like Fast Healing, Regeneration, etc.

I very much like the idea they're pursuing here, but the idea needs a bit more polish, and another playtest. :)

I was shooting from the hip. In addition to polishing, it needs planing and, indeed, basic cutting out of a log.

Before I do any of these, I'll wait for the final version of the rules, as I think it will be much expanded and changed.

Q: How many Andorans (Andorens? People from Andoran!) does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: The Lightbulb is free to change itself if and when it so chooses!

Q: How many Freudians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: 2: One to change the bulb and one to hold his penis. LADDER! I MEANT LADDER!

Q: How many Nirmathi does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Are you saying you *order* me to change a lightbulb, friend?

Can't fault me for being hopeful :D

Sure we can! :P

I think as long as there are no overpowered options, it's okay.

Of course, some of them are overpowered. However, I think the solution is simply to cut them down to size.

After all, we can't know how many favoured class options will follow, especially not if we include §PP material.

Should the elves from the core rules have to pay extra RP because a later book introduced a really powerful favoured class options that give elven gunslingers more grit points? If a halfling wilder gets to add +1 to wild surge, does that mean that halflings in games that don't even use psionic rules are now more powerful?

Morty probably hit the nail on the head. Poor nail.

I don't think they'll find space for that in the book itself - space seems to be at a premium, and this will probably be low priority.

We'll probably not even see a web enhancement.

However, I'm quite sure someone will do the work and post it.

In fact, I might do it myself, because the idea rocks.

What I'd go with:

Standard races - the way they're now.

Standard Power Level races - 10 points all around.
Powerful standard races: 15 points
Advanced standard races: 20 points
Powerful Advanced standard races: 25 points
"Monstrous" standard races: 30 points.

I'd include ideas to incorporate each version into a world where the regular races abound, have an explanation why they're that way.

Generally, 15p would be "heroic", 20 would be "paragons", 25 "exceptional" and 30 "proto-race".

Example: Elves:

Powerful(15): These are simply heroic elves favoured by fate or luck or genetics with exceptional abilities. Their racial affinity for magic is strengthened and their long lifespan grants them knowledge
New Abilities:
Lesser Spell Resistance (2): SR 6+Character level
Spell-Like Ability (1): true strike 1/day.
Skill Bonus (2): +2 to any Knowledge skill chosen at character creation.

Advanced (20): These are noble elves, stemming from ancient bloodlines and still reminiscent of the greatness of bygone ages. They have more advantageous ability modifiers and their racial agility results in greater speed.
New Abilities (In addition to Heroic)
Advanced Modifiers (4): Racial modifiers change to +4 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Int, +2 Wis, +2 Cha
Fast (1): Their base speed is 40.

Exceptional (25): More than just noble, these elves are almost royal. The racial swiftness and agility, as well as their magical affinity, are even more pronounced
Quick Reactions (2): Gain Improved Initiative as bonus feat
Greater Spell Resistance (1): SR increases to 11+level
Spell-Like ability (2): True Strike goes from 1/day to 3/day

Monstrous (30):
These proto-elves are rarely if ever seen outside of the fabled elven homeworld. They are truly eternal and have a strong affinity with languages.
Fey (0): These elves are, in fact, fey creatures instead of humanoids, though they retain the elf subtype.(fey usually costs 1 RP but includes low-light vision)
Linguist Array (1): Start with Common, Elven, any language is bonus.
Gift of Tongues (2): +1 to Bluff, diplomacy, learn two languages for each rank in Linguistics
Magical Linguist (2): (see playtest document for details)

Spoilers for Namir fight: ** spoiler omitted **

Well, I didn't have these problems: Not only did I smell a rat and never took that option, but it wouldn't really have mattered, as the grenade launcher works perfectly fine all by itself.

Q: How many devils does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Why? *I* can see in the dark...

Q: How many Rostlanders does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: What, you afraid in the dark you Northern pansy?

Q: How many River Kingdomers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: As many as want to. No pressure.

Q: How many Azlanti does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: You call that a lightbulb? In Azlant, that wouldn't have qualified as a night light. You should have seen it!

Q: How many Proteans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: 1d4, and there's no telling what it will be changed into.

Q: How many Chelaxians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: I think you will find that as of the last revisions, it is a long established fact that it has always been dark. Suggesting otherwise is treason. You have been warned.

Q: How many humans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Let a halfling do it!

Q: How many dwarves does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Three: One to hold the ladder, one to climb up, and one to mop up all the barf from the other one's vertigo.

Q: How many Mediogalti Islanders does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One - plus a full complement of bodyguards to protect against assassinations.

Q: How many Galtans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: The lightbulb has been changed seventeen times in the last hour.

Q: How many elves does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: It's going to be dark? We'll, we're off this planet. See you in a couple thousand years.

What about a LN Necromancer worshiper of Her who hates Undead but annimates and controls them to fight and kill other undead?

It's like the scientist who brutally robs and murders people to fund his cancer research.

The end do not justify the means.

People have mentioned the Namir boss fight...

That's the guy way toward the end? The leader of the mercs?

I mentioned him - the fight lasted all of 5 seconds. Hooray for high-ROF-grenade-launchers.

Issues? She'd have a whole subscription!

No matter what some silly rules say about alignment and cleric spells, the very attempt to prepare these spells would get you into serious trouble. Like your wife found a bra in your car that isn't hers trouble.

KaeYoss wrote:

Oh, and concerning your stated reasons: No one is convinced ;-)

Suit yourself.

(Yeah, it's a very bad pun. Sorry I could not resist.)

Never apologise for a proper bad pun!

I have a really god one on the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite formulate it. It has something to do with Birthday Suit Samus.

I couldn't help laughing when my brother told me he was moving to Maidenhead, England.

Funny on so many levels...

Is it closer to Intercourse, Pennsylvania or Intercourse, Alabama?

4 RP for STR & DEX
3 RP for CON & WIS
2 RP for INT & CHA

4 RP for Str? Why? All it does is improve attacks and damage. What are those good for? A spellcaster will simply go and disable the enemy.

Only 2 for Int and Cha? Woohoo! Arcanists are close to totally dominating the game, but they're not totally there. This is what they needed!

How I deal with dead PCs? You mean after the mandatory 5-minute evil laughter session (of course right in the player's face. Finger pointing optional, but recommended). And, in some cases, the victory dance?

I was hoping to ask in general what the rules other GM's use for bringing in a new character into a campaign. Just curious how other's deal with characters that were to meet a grim fate (or retire to a condo down in Florida).

If I killed them because they used a plural apostrophe in the phrase "GMs", it's final. Because then I have killed the player.

Just kidding.

Maybe.

;P

Things I was addressing:
•Any Level Penalties to new PC
•Loot Pertaining to Fallen Comrades and wealth/treasure over gain...or do they bury the persons belongings with them?

No level penalties whatsoever. The new guy starts at the same level (if I still used XP, he'd start at the same XP total)

As for the stiff's gear, it depends: If they're behind on kit and need some dosh, I'll let them keep the dead guy's stuff, and otherwise, it is understood that he'll be buried with it (i.e. make an investment in future generations of adventurers).

In any case, the players then do a quick calculation of their current wealth and the new guy starts with the average.

And concerning whether this is due to character death or retirement: Doesn't matter. However, players only get one "joker", i.e. they are strongly encouraged to create a character they can think of playing for the whole campaign, but get to either retire or redo their character from scratch one single time.

I did the latter to counter a rash of characters that lasted hardly more than a level - which frankly gets troublesome if the characters are supposed to be invested in the story, and maybe even involved.

It's not completely set in stone - if I notice a player being really unhappy with his character, he can switch it even after the joker - but it does mean the players won't create characters on a whim to "test out a class" or something and not investing in a proper character, with character.

Just been having issues with players using death to bring in a new pc at higher levels with EXACTLY the right everything. As the actual PC's who are surviving have had to make due with what they explored and found and or could buy and sell.

Well, I don't have that problem since I am relatively generous with kit, so they tend to have the stuff they want, anyway.

If you have a problem with a player who brings in a new character after the old one died and customises his kit, just limit access to items for late-comers.

You see, the problem with punishing those who have to stop playing their old character because you killed him with less kit and levels is that just like the guy juggling with running chainsaws and not catching one, his problems are only starting.

The guy's character already died. Now he has a weaker one. Guess what is more likely going to happen to that guy?

Most games I've seen bring new PCs in one level below the others. There needs to be a reward for surviving the campaign. Otherwise, you'll have people rolling up new characters every week.

No, you wouldn't, because you can simply limit the number of characters they simply retire and bring in a new one.

Of course, if the new ones are brought in because the old ones have died, you might just re-evaluate your GMing style, for it seems you're just a hard-arse sadist ;-P

And, as I said, if you kill off a character and then make the next one come in weaker, just to kill him off again (you were mentioning new characters on a weekly basis), you'll eventually (and sooner rather than later) end up with a few characters who are 10 levels or more behind the group.

The reason why Paizo changed the rules about characters being brought from the dead (and getting rid of the permanent punishments) was because frankly, getting punished for bad luck stinks.

If you have a problem with people lacking commitment to their characters, talking about the issue is always better than passive-aggressive punishments.

KaeYoss wrote:

CunningMongoose wrote:

Necromancer wrote:

I'm playing through my sixteenth character in Fallout: New Vegas, twenty-something-th Torchlight run, Hawke #9 in Dragon Age 2, but I've only made three characters for Saint's Row 2 and I consider it to be my favorite out of those listed.

Whoa! I think the only game I played that much was Super Metroid back in the 90ies. Seriously, how old are you to have so much time for gaming, you lucky guy?

And you only did that to see if that one myth is true. You know, the one that if you finish the game quickly enough, Samus takes off the bikini.

Admit it! ;-P

Nah, I was a boring teenager with a sceptic mind - I did not buy Nintendo would produce x-rated content. I just liked that game.

But I did get 100% under 3 hours. I'm not much of a record holder, so I am proud to say I wasted enough time on one game to actually get good at it.

I played it a few times. Most of it, actually, via emulator. Never got to the "speed run" phase. I always like to take my time.

I did play Metroid Prime 3 to 100% completion and got to see Zero Suit Samus (which sounds sleezier than it is - it just means she doesn't have her Varia battle suit on, not that she doesn't wear anything. Though it is very form-fitting.

Oh, and concerning your stated reasons: No one is convinced ;-)

KaeYoss wrote:

Though, to be honest, a lot of stuff means something bad in a different languages. We have these chocolate marshmallows called "Dickmann's" (Which just means "Fat man's") English speakers are always laughing about, while German roleplayers were quite amused about the word of Harn (which is a German word for urine) they did for d20.

I know quite a few English-speaker who think "Manschaft" is a pretty funny word.

Now that you point it out, yes. I have to tell my staff about it! ;-)

But it's Mannschaft.

"Mann" is German for man.

"man" in German is an indefinite pronoun.

"-schaft" is about the same as "-ship". Meisterschaft = Championship.

And since we're on topic for this, do you know the German word for ace?

And Paizo also did a funny one. Queen Domina. It's not as funny in English because in English, the word is dominatrix. But the first time I read about that queen, I wondered what kind of "court" she had :D

KaeYoss wrote:

du du DUH, du du du-DUh

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I have several.

Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)

Not that I can see.

This is a momentous day in RPG board history. We are not divided and bickering. We aren't insulting each other and trolling. All are as one voice. Today, we stand together.

Good of you to point it out. I was wondering why I have been hiding behind the sofa all of last night.

I'm sorry, but "The Poni and the Bridesmaid" simply doesn't have the same ring to it.

I went with the Asus in the end. Ordered it earlier today, should get here by the end of the week.

Now I'll just have to go hunt down some nice apps.

Necromancer wrote:

I'm playing through my sixteenth character in Fallout: New Vegas, twenty-something-th Torchlight run, Hawke #9 in Dragon Age 2, but I've only made three characters for Saint's Row 2 and I consider it to be my favorite out of those listed.

Whoa! I think the only game I played that much was Super Metroid back in the 90ies. Seriously, how old are you to have so much time for gaming, you lucky guy?

And you only did that to see if that one myth is true. You know, the one that if you finish the game quickly enough, Samus takes off the bikini.

Admit it! ;-P

One of the main goals of the system was to help GMs, or players with GMs oversight, create races that were relatively balanced with the core races.

And I mean relatively.

In many ways it is impossible to make it entirely balanced, partially because that kind balance is a mythical creature of RPG design from the land of hopes and dreams

We know that perfect balance is a myth. That doesn't mean that the system should try its level best to to try everything to make the system as balanced as reasonably possible.

After all, we are talking about a crunch-heavy system here. I mean, the system puts point price tags on language choices! It doesn't get more crunchy than that! (in fact, I consider the languages section to be not even near a reasonable approach)

but mainly because the core races were built on many assumptions about the races in the default setting and general fantasy tropes. They were not built using a point system.

Because of that we decided to zero out the system at 10 points as a baseline and use the core races as our benchmarks.

There is a really significant disconnect between these two statements.

First, you admit that the basic races weren't built to be mathematically equal, and then you say you have a system that is built on the assumption/definition that the races ARE equal.

That simply cannot work. Either go with "races won't be perfectly balanced, we'll only give you some general guidelines", or introduce a complex system that really crunches the numbers, but if you do the letter make sure the numbers check out.

Having flawed numbers to make square races fit the round system makes for a useless system.

The playtest system is basically the worst of both worlds: It's overly complex with too many price tags, but it tries to support a system that merely ballparks stuff.

So throw away the shoehorn! Freely admit that not all races are created equally, and let the numbers show it.

Set the RP costs so they are consistent with each other, so 2 RP will get you 2 RP worth of stuff. If the seven core races end up going all over the place with the points, that's okay. After all, we all know the races aren't created equal. So one of the core races will end up with 5 points and the other with 15? Doesn't matter.

And then, when GMs (or even players) create their own races, tell them that total point costs don't always have to be the same for all races - but if they want to create a roster of races that is created equal (or close enough to it), they can do it with your system.

Of course, there will always be some "synergy" that isn't reflected in the costs (like dwarves who get a lot more out of their 0 RP standard modifiers than any other race), but that isn't a reason to go completely random with the numbers.

The way things work now isn't really helpful. Some abilities were given away, while you have to pay for others through the nose - just to have a nice, uniform 10 under the races we all know and agree on aren't equal. That means it's easy to pick the abilities that are underpriced to make a joke out of all the numbers.

If we want a system where the numbers are a joke, why have numbers? Just allow each race X lesser, Y normal and Z greater abilities and not even have any numbers. Because having numbers will raise the expectation that the numbers make sense.

I'm sure that some min/maxers will always want to pick the Xenophobic language choice, but they'll pay some price later on to speak with other creatures.

Why? The only important thing they miss is Common as an automatic. If you have int 12, you can get it. If you need more languages, Linguistics is the way to go, anyway, and that is not limited at all by your racial preferences.

Plus, the fixed number of bonus languages the system has now is quite limiting, and not in line with existing creatures out there.

As I already said, this is one of the things where point costs make no real sense.

Could we make the dwarf more points? Sure. Could we make the gnome or the halfling less points? Sure. RP are constructs toward a design goal. But how does that accomplish the main goal of the system, which is to provide GM with a useful tool to create races relatively balanced with the core races?

I think you are missing the point. The fact that with proper prices, the races will have different point costs and thus the numbers will reflect the fact that the races aren't equal is not what we really want here. It's just a nice side effect. Icing.

The main accomplishment will be that the abilities will have proper prices. And this is exactly what will GMs allow to create races that are relatively balanced with each other and core races, because they don't have to read any subtext about whether something was over- or under-priced to satisfy the need to get 10 for the races.

They will go "Oh, I'm at 13 here. That's okay. Gnomes are only 7, dwarves are 16 (yes, I'm randomly spitting numbers here), so it's about in line with the core races."

They could also go and say "I'd like my core races to be on equal footing, so I'll set them all to 10 (or 15, or whatever)"

Sure, there is still situational stuff, and your class choice will still matter to whether the race is powerful or not, but, as I keep saying, just because you can't have perfect balance without some unreasonable trade-offs doesn't mean you don't need to try at all.

Creating game elements is often more art than science.

We understand. Note, however, that systems involving lots of numbers feel more like science than like art, and should strive to be reasonably scientific. Or ditch numbers.

In the end, I think that a system that all but drowns the user with numbers but is still based on the flawed assumption that every core race has 10 points is destined to fail.

By the way, am I the only one who thought this was about horse races?

Ettin wrote:

Why does Hoofed cost 1 RP when its main effect is to make a whole lot of magic items useless to me?

I am trying to make my anthro-equines and this foot segregation is really confusing me.

Because of the Agony of De-feat?

I don't want to nag, but it would behoof you to just say neigh to puns!

lol, go spell check! Funny how a simple change of a vowel can make such a difference.

Look at the holy wars that are fought over "effect" and "affect". Sometimes, things get in(s)ane! :D

If you're going to compile PU and PE into one big book, are you doing it chapter by chapter or are you compiling the heck out of it? One big chapter with races (including alternate class features and favoured class options) one chapter with all 10 or so base classes (with all options) followed by all the archetypes, a chapyou get the idea.

KaeYoss wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Also, they are in the purple family ;D

Same difference. Some girlish colour.

That reminds me of the story about the weirdly coloured house.

I was to pick someone up on my way to our meeting place (we were driving to a concert), and when I asked where the guy lived, I got an address and some instructions, which ended with, "...it's the house opposite of the salmon coloured house."

I had to reply to that with. "Sorry, I'm both a guy, working in IT no less. For me, salmon is a fish, not a colour." :D

Salmon Is the Man's Man's pink for future reference. It's basically like putting a leather biker jacket on a Chihuahua.

Salmon's still a fish and a chihuahua is still a yapping rat.

Drejk wrote:

Matthew Winn wrote:

yeah... I was kind of embarrassed. I learned to use a little less slang words in my emails after that. The funny thing is, she thought it was so funny she didn't bother telling me this alternate meaning until I'd done it about ten times or so...

So, she told you what you actually done only after 10th or so time? She must have been very amused.

My poking is apparently very amusing...

;-)

Or she had high hopes for that office party where important customers and suppliers were invited and you turned out to be quite clueless ;-P

Galnörag wrote:

They have changed and lightly annotated their art selection.

It is now a dude in a shaggy costume from Dr Who.

What's this about Dr Who shagging a Yeti?

Who's shagging a doctor?

Heh, even English speakers have language conflicts sometimes.

In America, to "poke" means to prod someone to get their attention, often to remind them to do something they've forgotten.

But in England... well...

Let's just say that my British supplier was highly amused that I kept trying to poke her...

Poker? Nearly killed her! :D

There is also this humorous disagreement about what a fanny is.

And, of course, a British person asking you for a rubber is a whole different animal than an American.

du du DUH, du du du-DUh

In my game, two 2nd or 3rd level dwarven fighters get miserable failures on Swim rolls and drowned. It was a sad day. It happens.

Wait, you said that a couple of dwarves drowned. What terrible thing happened to make that day a sad day?

Between seeing flaw systems used in other games, and even in the playtesting of my own race design system for Pathfinder, I've found flaws to be... flawed. The real problem is that flaws gravitate towards either being mitigated by the player through other build choices or play strategy, or the flaw is so cumbersome that it actually makes the normal flow of play and stories harder to pull off.

That's why I love nWoD's flaw system: You can pick up flaws, and won't get any bonus points for it. Not right away. Instead, if the flaw ever comes up at play and seriously inconveniences the character, you get bonus XP.

Wanna play a character with extreme fear of heights in a campaign that takes places around a small village in the Netherlands? Sure! Your disadvantage will not inconvenience you - but neither will you get anything out of it.

KaeYoss wrote:

Iron-Dice wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

, they should provide some coverage of Pathfinder on their site as an appology.

SyFy only reports on "fntsy gyms systms". Besides, there making a Dy&Dy movie, so Hysboro is all up in their stuff.

So they're in bed with wotc over making another horrible film and still need to rip off Pathfinder art?

I guess SyFy is short for Syfylys, not Science Fiction ;-).

*cough-cough* in Polish word syfy (plural form of singular word "syf") means exactly that or 2) any veneral disease that causes skin lessions, 3) any skin lessions or 4) generic filth

With this said it should not be suprise that SciFi channel name change caused lots of related comments in Poland.

:D

Though, to be honest, a lot of stuff means something bad in a different languages. We have these chocolate marshmallows called "Dickmann's" (Which just means "Fat man's") English speakers are always laughing about, while German roleplayers were quite amused about the word of Harn (which is a German word for urine) they did for d20.

X

If you were a GM and one of your player's wanted to play a 16 RP race while everyone else wanted to play a 10 RP race, would you consider balancing it by having them sacrifice other things?

Sure. Let's call it twenty bucks.

I know real world, with a decent amount of weight on you (for overall density), it's impossible to swim without special equipment.

You know what else is impossible in the real world? Flying. And magic. And dragons. And hundreds of other things that are vital parts of this fantasy game. :P

And even without supernatural stuff, if the game has humans that can bench press a white whale, I don't mind them being able to swim in heavy armour.

JoelF847 wrote:

, they should provide some coverage of Pathfinder on their site as an appology.

SyFy only reports on "fntsy gyms systms". Besides, there making a Dy&Dy movie, so Hysboro is all up in their stuff.

So they're in bed with wotc over making another horrible film and still need to rip off Pathfinder art?

I guess SyFy is short for Syfylys, not Science Fiction ;-).

I win because of this word:

Hairplane!

KaeYoss wrote:

You forgot to mention that many of your customers treat your avatar as eye-candy in the most inappropriate manner. That avatar is hawt. Is it seeing anyone?

She's happily married to an arcanaton.

Hm... now that you mentioned that, I went and looked something up.

It appears my avatar is married, too. 4 kids! Wouldn't have thought it by looking at him.

This is actually his wedding picture. Apparently, it was quite the circus.

Beyond all the shameful/shameless (depending on your point of view) stealing of art, the article itself is weird.

Scientists from the United States, Russia, China and other nations will be working together on a special mission in the Kemerova region of Siberia to uncover a mystery. No, it's not the secret to perpetual motion or the philospher's stone. These scientists are out to hunt the elusive Yeti.

The Yeti, also known as the Abominable Snowman, is a creature of fiction, not fact. But according to Fox News, sightings of the Himalayan cryptid have increased in the last few years.

Alleged sightings of Yetis in Kemerovo and the neighboring Altai region, about 1,988 miles (3,200 kilometers) east of Moscow, are up three times compared to 20 years ago, with scientists estimating that there is a current population of at least several dozen in the area.

Other evidence of the existence of the creatures -- such as basic twig huts, twisted branches and footprints of up to 35 centimeters (14 inches) -- also has been found in the area.

This evidence, however, is considered inconclusive until a clear photograph or video—or perhaps even a body—is produced.

Cryptozoologists, that is, people who study mysterious species, have long believed that the Yeti and its lower-altitude cousin, Bigfoot, exist. (Over a thousand people claimed to have spotted Bigfoot across the United States and Canada, particularly in the West Coast.)

Some people say the Yeti and Bigfoot exist because of multiple sightings in sparsely populated territory, where these creatures would exist. Doubters, on the other hand, say that no body or skeleton has been found and that the creatures that have been spotted are likely a species of ape or bear.

Only time, and a candid photo of a Yeti making bunny ears behind a mountaineer, will tell which group is correct.

Does anyone else think that "Doubters, on the other hand, say that no body or skeleton has been found and that the creatures that have been spotted are likely a species of ape or bear." implies that those "doubters" (which sounds a lot like "infidel") are considered to be of the Shadow Conspiracy Collaborator/Denier type? Or am I reading too much into this. Sceptics would have been a much better word, as it doesn't have the negative connotations.

Plus, I'm sure many of these sceptics in fact imply that many of the creatures that have been spotted are likely a species of drunk or attention-hogging liar. ;-)

"Alleged sightings of Yetis in Kemerovo and the neighboring Altai region, about 1,988 miles (3,200 kilometers) east of Moscow, are up three times compared to 20 years ago"

Has this been cross-checked with changes in alcohol consumption in said areas? Has the possibility that they all got together (maybe over a chatroom) and decided to troll the world a bit been discounted?

"with scientists estimating that there is a current population of at least several dozen in the area."

Scientists, eh? More like "scientists". A proper scientist would say more along the lines of "Current data would suggest a population of at least several dozen", making it clear(er) that they haven't yet accepted the existence of yetis as a fact.

"Other evidence of the existence of the creatures -- such as basic twig huts, twisted branches and footprints of up to 35 centimeters (14 inches) -- also has been found in the area."

Are such things now considered evidence? Maybe I have a wrong definition of evidence in my head, but the stuff they described is, at best, possible evidence. It could mean that there are, indeed, abominable snowmen frolicking in cold, remote places, or just that these pranksters, not wanting to be outdone by some English students sneaking around in corn fields messing with the crop, made themselves some humorously large fake feet (or bought them in a novelty store) and made some crude shelters.

Well, what else to expect from a news bit initially by Fox news (which I understand has a less than sterling reputation) and further garnished by a bunch of guys who cannot spell "SciFi". :D