Kelsey MacAilbert's page

Woo, tangent - there's no Sappho in Golarion, as of yet, nor an actual isle of Lesbos. By extension, lesbianism would be an in-universe misnomer.

That assumes that the Common language is English. Since the Pathfinder rules come in multiple languages, I like to suppose it isn't, and us playing the game is the same as English being spoken in movies like Gladiator and Troy: it's what is easiest. In this case, the word Lesbian isn't a misnomer, as it's just a translation anyway.

Also, a great many common English words have geographic and historical origins, and removing all of them would make it impossible to play the game easily.

I love that if you go to NASA's website and type my grandfather's name (Leo Hall) in the search bar, you'll get a bunch of technical memorandums from projects he did when he worked at NASA in the late 50s, 60s, and early 70s.

You know what really grinds my gears? Sexism, as well as the continuous arguments about which gender is the one society is discriminating against. Personally, I think everybody need to read this, and realize that our system of sexism in incredibly convoluted and harms both genders, not just one. NEITHER gender is the one being screwed over, because they BOTH are, and if I hear one more argument about which one has it worse I am going to rageflip something or someone.

This is why I sometimes wonder whether being transgendered is good or bad. On the one hand, I can understand both the male and female sides of this issue. On the other, I can never see anything simply. It always has to be complicated.

Samnell wrote:

Society treats men and women very differently.

This is no evidence for your point. The reverse is equally valid.

Society treats men and women differently. Therefore, female privilege.

The truth is, BOTH genders have privilege, and BOTH are discriminated against. TV Tropes did a good job of explaining this in Double Standard. Sexism is a two way street, not a one way street, and both genders both benefit and suffer. The sooner we learn that instead of arguing about which gender is the disadvantaged one, the sooner we can work on solving the problem.

I say that if you want to go with a non-lethal form of self defense such as this, that should be encouraged. I'm not anti-gun when it comes to self defense, but guns aren't for everyone, and if we can provide for another tool that doesn't kill the assailant, I'm all for it. That way, if somebody isn't comfortable with a gun, they can still have at least some protection.

As for issuing it in a school setting, I'd much prefer it over a firearm. At least if a teacher misuses spray (and I do think there will be inevitable incidents of misuse) there won't be corpses. As pro-gun as I am, I can't say the same about a pistol or shotgun.

A Pathfinder equivalent of D20 Modern has been brought up more than once on these boards, and, inspired by some pictures like this, this, this, this, and this, I've done some thinking on what I think would make a good modernized game based off of the Pathfinder system.

If you viewed the pictures I linked to, you have no doubt noticed what they all have in common: an example of magic or a fantasy trope in a modern environment. This brings us to my first thought on a modern Pathfinder: the fact that I think it needs to be a fantasy game. A big part of Pathfinder is the fantasy elements, and I've grown quite fond of them. I want to keep those elements for this project. Personally, I rather like the idea of elves in jeans and t-shirts and wizards keeping their spellbooks on touch screen tablets.

On to the class system, one of the biggest parts of how D20 works. I like the D20 Modern Advanced Class system, but not the basic class system. Rather than have basic classes for each stat, I'd like to go with Warrior, Expert, and Mage. Furthermore, I'd like to have a variety of archetypes for the advanced classes, allowing a large array of customization without having a whole mess of classes.

As for D20 Modern's background system, I'm looking towards a hybridization with the Pathfinder trait system. I'm looking towards making backgrounds a trait category and having players select one trait from each category at character creation. I want to tie class skills to this system rather than classes, so that how you grew up effects what skills you've developed. Each trait would have five associated skills, and you'd pick three from each trait you have.

Combat needs to encourage movement more, perhaps by making Shot on the Run something built into the system. The cover system should encourage players to use it, while allowing for cover to be destroyed or penetrated. Fixed DC reflex saves for explosions and automatic weapons are simply a no-go. They don't keep up with level changes. I'm not sure what to do instead yet, but something different needs to be done.

The biggest thing, however, is that it needs to have it's own campaign setting while being easily modable to a homebrew effort, just like Pathfinder is. You need to be able to pick this up and play it without having to spend forever building your own setting first.

This wasn't a very long OP, as there aren't a giant number of steps necessary here. They are, however, some rather big steps. Still, I think a Pathfinder D20 Modern can be an excellent game rather than aspiring to D20 Modern's mediocrity.

More thoughts, regarding to specific campaign setting details, later.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

So, instead of doling out more guns, wouldn't it be better to try and become more like Canada? It seems like they have fewer problems, how is that not something to strive for?

I'm fine becoming more economically and culturally similar to Canada. I quite like Canada. I just doubt that in our specific case severe restrictions on firearms will work, because we have circumstances Canada doesn't, which requires a different approach.

Yes, you have a lot of people who cling to old legislation, which gets misrepresented and clearly is outdated. And in spite of it being very clear that some people can't handle that responsibility, they are still not willing to concede any points. That IS a problem.

It's not, however, an unsolvable one. And still, no one is talking about a total weapons ban.
What approach would you suggest then?

First off, if you get caught not practicing proper firearm safety, police should be allowed to confiscate the weapon even if legally owned if they feel that a ticket would not be effective punishment. Secondly, if you do not practice proper firearm safety and somebody gets hurt, there should be felony criminal liability. Third off, if you do not properly lock up your firearm and your child or somebody else not allowed to legally own a firearms gets ahold of it and shoots something up, there should be felony criminal liability on your part. Essentially, people who did not act in a safe and responsible manner would be held accountable for their failure to do so. In many areas of the nation this is already the case, but not as often or as universally as it should be. A gun is a tremendous responsibility, and people who do not act safely with them should be dealt with strictly and consistently.

Secondly, when you have a background check to get a gun, your mental health history should be able to be checked.

Third, get the mental health field a ton of federal funding (maybe by taking the money away from that bloody drug war) and work to treat mental illness more seriously. Also, recognize that mental healthcare does NOT just mean dealing with mental illness. It also means dealing with issues like anger management, depression, and impulse control that do not mean one is mentally ill but that can lead to violent crime or suicide. Ideally, most people recieving this federally funded mental healthcare wouldn't have mental illnesses.

Fourth, do the same to Child Protective Services and related organizations so that there can be more supervision of at risk families and educational resources for substandard parents who are actually trying to get better.

Fifth, tell schools that if they do not crack down on bullying offenses, they will lose funding. This sort of behavior needs to be jumped on early before it develops.

I love many things, but two stand out in particular.

I love the Trapper Creek Job Corps center. Job Corps has a lot of very bad centers, but this isn't one of them. There's a lot of stupid stuff, but it's free, it's safe, and the center staff are generally good people. I actually learn useful stuff in my vocation (Office Administration), with our program being the only one in Job Corps with the latest office software available. I have a cool work based learning assignment as a librarian with the freedom to run things as I wish. If I need something that's actually important, I generally get it, even if staff has to go out of their way to do it. It's also a place where the staff try to make you a better person, and I feel I've become less annoying, less anxious, and a harder worker in my time here. I've made friends since I came here who like me for who I am, faults and all. I'm definately glad I came here.

I love the University of Montana. I don't meet the enrollment standards because I didn't take the right classes in high school, but they admitted me into the Fall 2013 term anyway. The school has good programs for the majors I settled on taking, and cool electives to take on the side. The people are friendly and the campus is pretty. The school itself is always helpful, and is quite accomadating with my transgendered situation. I love the fact that there are other transgendered students there, and many D&D/Pathfinder players. I love the free cable and high speed internet that comes with a dorm room. I love the city of Missoula, aesthetically and culturally. I love EVERYTHING. I love the school so deeply I can't wait for August to come.

Here is a document that asks at least 100 questions all fantasy writers should ask about their setting... that should help!

http://www.sfwa.org/2009/08/fantasy-worldbuilding-questions-peoples-and-cus toms/#0.5_gestures

Very useful. I have much of it on my laptop.

I'm interested in the classes, will it have a luck reroll system?

I'm not using classes, I'm going with a point based system. I have no plans for luck rerolls.

I can have that for you tomorrow afternoon.

The election results are in. Three states (Maine, Maryland, and Washington) had measures on the ballot to legalize gay marriage. One (Minnesota) had a measure to ban it. Wisconsin had an openly gay woman (Tammy Baldwin) running for Senate. Maine and Maryland legalized gay marriage. Washington has yet to finish counting all the votes, but the results counted so far lean towards legalization. Minnesota's effort to ban gay marriage failed. Tammy Baldwin got elected. This election is without a doubt the most inspiring thing I have yet to see in American politics.

After looking through some of the books (namely UM and UC), it has occurred to my group that PF has pretty much given up on being a fantasy game and just gone "screw it, let's go Steampunk". Especially after UC. I mean, just look at the picture of the Spellslinger Wizard... Not that this is a bad thing, just an observation and a thread to see if anyone else has noticed this and what people's thoughts are on it. Personally, I quite like it.

Steampunk IS fantasy.

I've no need of divine casters. It's a thematic issue, not a mechanical issue. I just don't like strong religion.

Pounded a 24 ounce Rockstar in less than 5 minutes. Monster would have been better, but I am still bouncing off the bloody ceiling. In other news, we finally have another trans person on campus, and it's somebody who's pretty cool. This makes me happy.

Hopefully getting my Bachelor's in either Animation or Illustration. I've got some obstacles (a complete an total lack of experience and therefore lack of skill), but I also know full well that I want to build the experience and skill and earn that damn degree.

Did the gunman think they were Muslims?

Probably, and it's b%+%!#!*. Not only are Sikhs not Muslim, it wouldn't make them the enemy if they were. Look at Indonesia. The biggest Muslim country around, and they haven't blown up any Americans, nor do they seem inclined to.

If that's your first reaction to hearing your child is a suspect odds are you knew something was wrong and should have called the cops before they did anything.

To tell them what? She thinks something is up with her son? The cops won't do anything. Unless she actually knew precisely what she was planning, of which there is no evidence, the cops would have neither cause nor inclination to do anything.

Build my campaign setting.

It depends on the players, the GM, and how the GMPC is run.

I try to be very lenient with what homebrew, supplemental, and 3PP materiel players may have. If they homebrew something or find a homebrew online that they really like, and it doesn't look horribly balanced or unsuited to the campaign, I want to be able to let them use it. Same with supplements and 3PP, including 3E/3.5 materiel alongside that for PF. At the same time, just because it doesn't look unbalanced at a glance doesn't mean it isn't. So, what I do is make the first house rule on my list read "If the GM allows something that later proves to be unbalanced, the player may be asked to modify or replace the option in question.". So, I'm very likely to let you try out that homebrew or 3PP thing you really want so that you can have the character you want, but it balance problems arise, I will either fix them or ask you to find another option to replace it. I think this is a reasonable compromise. The players get the leadway to try out all sorts of stuff, and the players have been fairly warned that I will handle balance issues if they crop up, including possible revocation of what I previously allowed.

I've said more than once that I hate resurrection magic. I just don't want death to be cheap, and I don't want to deal with the implications of resurrection common enough for PCs to utilize. On the other hand, I also don't want to put the players in a situation where a few bad die rolls will take their favorite character away forever. I think I have come up with a workable compromise between these two desires:

If a healing spell is cast on a corpse that has died within 1d3 + 2 minutes, and this spell raises the corpse's hit point total above its constitution modifier in negative hit points, the corpse returns to life. The corpse may not have more hit points that half it's constitution score in negative hit points when it returns to life, and resumes the dying condition normally, though it does not get an attempt at stabilization until losing a hit point. After 1d3 + 2 minutes, this can still be attempted, but it will likely fail to revive the corpse, and if it succeeds there will probably be brain damage. Whether or not such a late revival attempt fails, whether it does brain damage, and what this brain damage does is up to DM fiat. Once a person has been dead for 1d3 + 7 minutes, the individual can no longer be brought back to life, as resurrection magic does not exist.

This system is inspired by IRL emergency resuscitation, the idea being that, if we can pull it off at times in the real world, why couldn't magic pull it off more consistently? This system makes it so that a fallen PC has a very good chance of getting back up (especially since every spellcaster can heal), yet at the same time there is a sense of urgency involved, as the intended healer only has a few minutes before it's too late. After that, you have either crippling brain damage or, more likely, permanent, irrevocable death. The risk of death is still there, and the revolving door afterlife I despise isn't, but dead PCs will still probably get back up. I can tolerate it under this system, because there is a short timeline in which it can be done, and because it is also possible (though much less reliable) in the real world.

Any thoughts on this system? Any balance issues I haven't noticed?

Yes, yet another version. I'm still trying to perfect things. As usual, these are written with a view of firearm heavy campaigns.

.
.
.

If the GM allows something that later proves to be unbalanced, the player may be asked to modify or replace the option in question.

Alignment is not used. See here for how this changes the rules.

Casting a spell causes you to lose your defense bonus to AC until your next turn. Defense bonuses are the replacement to armor, and are based on BAB.

Spontaneous casters do not increase a spell's casting time when using metamagic.

Two Weapon Fighting and Vital Strike scale with level. This means you gain the improved version for free as soon as you meet the prerequisites, provided you possess the earlier version.
All Characters get Vital Strike, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, Point-Blank Shot, and Precise Shot for free.
Sneak attacks may be made from any distance within the first range increment of the weapon.

No time stop, wish, or miracle spells, including limited wish or minor miracle. Time Stop does not exist, and wishes and miracles are the domain of powerful outsiders, fey, and magic items.

You may reroll a failed knowledge check if you come across a source of additional information such as a book or an overheard NPC comment.
Each character is entitled to two traits, selected from a setting specific list presented by the GM.

Ability scores are 25 point buy.

When leveling up, you may either roll HP in the presence of the GM or just assume an average roll (which is half of the maximum dice roll, not a fraction).

Witches have a choice between summoning a familiar and forming an arcane bond. Witch familiars work the same as wizard familiars, as does the arcane bond feature. A witch writes spells in a grimoire, which functions like a wizard's spellbook but holds a great deal of ritual significance to the witch. A witch who loses a grimoire is treated as a witch in another Pathfinder game who has lost a familiar. A witch coven does not need to posses a hag. Bluff is on the list of witch class skills.

No communing with deities.

Ammunition, food, and water is not tracked unless scarcity is important to the adventure. Spell components are only tracked if they have a specific cost or scarcity is important to the adventure. If the GM decides to track resources, she will inform the players ahead of time so that they may prepare for this.

Ultimate Combat called shots are allowed.

All spells with the healing subtype belong to the necromancy school.

If a healing spell is cast on a corpse that has died within 1d3 + 2 minutes, and this spell raises the corpse's hit point total above its constitution modifier in negative hit points, the corpse returns to life. The corpse may not have more hit points that half it's constitution score in negative hit points when it returns to life, and resumes the dying condition normally, though it does not get an attempt at stabilization until losing a hit point. After 1d3 + 2 minutes, this can still be attempted, but it will likely fail to revive the corpse, and if it succeeds there will probably be brain damage. Whether or not such a late revival attempt fails, whether it does brain damage, and what this brain damage does is up to DM fiat. Once a person has been dead for 1d3 + 7 minutes, the individual can no longer be brought back to life, as resurrection magic does not exist.

Undead are treated the same way as living creatures where healing spells are concerned.

Teleportation magic is only allowed for summoning, spell like abilities, or supernatural abilities.

All classes except the fighter get an additional 2 skill points per level. This applies to archetypes that modify skill points.

This version of the fighter replaces the original class.

This provides the basic gist of how firearms work, though there will be some tweaks made, and the cover rule will not be used.

The Cleric, Oracle, Druid, Paladin, and Inquisitor are banned. Rangers shall take the Skirmisher archetype. The gods no longer provide humans with divine power do to many, many instances of misuse.

The Magus adds these spells to it's spell list.

Sorcerers, Wizards, and Witches add these spells to their spell lists.

This last one isn't so much a rule as a flavor choice, but whenever a hit is scored with a weapon, a card from the Gamemastery Critical Hit deck is drawn. The effect on the card is NOT applied. Instead, the card tells the GM where on the body the attack struck, allowing the GM to quickly come up with a description of the attack based on amount of damage possible and amount done. Hopefully, by being more descriptive with combat, martial characters will be able to have more fun, since they can visualize what that 11 points of damage did.

The initial idea for this system was taken from Sword and Sorcery’s Advanced Player’s Guide, but I modified it a bit for my own use. My version of the system aims to control magical power through the implementation of spell failure chances and making spellcasters somewhat MAD, while increasing arcane versatility and ease of bookkeeping by eliminating spell preparation and spells per day.

This system lacks divine spellcasting. This is due to the campaign setting I built it for, in which the gods do not provide mortals with divine power. The Druid spell list is folded into the Witch and Sorcerer spell lists (Not the Wizard one). Witches cast spells using grimoires, which are spellbooks with great ritual and personal significance and are treated like familiars when it comes to the consequences of losing one. Witches maintain their familiar or can gain a bonded object as a Wizard. The CRB rules for how many spells a Wizard can write down in a book and how this is done is monitored and restricted (many groups don’t actually do this), and these rules apply to the Witch as well.

Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, Oracles, and Paladins are banned. Rangers must take a spell-less option.

The three main 0-9 level spell casters are the Wizard, Witch, and Sorcerer. Wizards gain their magic via studying and experimentation (heavy on experimentation, as Wizardry is a new art in this campaign setting), Witches through manipulation of spirits (superficially similar to Japanese Kami, but they lack sentience), and Sorcerers through their bloodlines. The Patron ability of the Witch comes from their favored type of spirit to manipulate.

Sorcerers learn spells as normal. Witches and Wizards write down spells as per the rules for Wizards in the CRB, but they cannot ever have more than their level times their Intelligence modifier. In order for a Witch or Wizard to write down a spell, they must be of a high enough level to gain that spell under the spell per day system (determining if you can write down a spell is the only thing the spell per day system is used for in this system). If the spell is not written down, you may not cast it. You do not need to prepare spells, you must simply have them written down. There are no wands or scrolls available.

When it comes to ability scores, spellcasters require a variety. Wisdom determines DC for non-mind effecting spells and Charisma the DC for mind effecting spells, Intelligence determines bonus spells, and Constitution modifies spellcasting checks.

Metamagic feats do not increase the casting time of a spell for anybody of any class.

To cast a spell, a caster makes a class level check. This check measures the ability to physically force magic to bend to one’s will. In order to attempt to cast a spell, one must know the spell or have it written down. The caster adds their class level, their Constitution modifier, and 1d20. The DCs are based off of spell level:
0: 10
1: 13
2: 15
3: 17
4: 19
5: 21
6: 23
7: 25
8: 27
9: 30

If the check fails, the spell is not cast. If it fails by 5 or more, the caster takes non-lethal damage equal to the spell level. If it fails by 10 or more, this damage is equal to twice the spell level. The DCs to cast spells increase by 1 for every 10 spell levels casted (not counting failed spells unless they did damage) in a day.

Since this system kills every advantage the Sorcerer has, Sorcerers get a ¾ BAB, medium defense bonus (An AC bonus that goes up with level. My system uses guns, not armor, so people get defense bonuses to make up. Defense bonuses are tied to BAB, just like HD.) and 8 sided HD. Sorcerers may lack the versatility of Witches and Wizards, but the magical blood coursing through their veins toughens them a bit, and the fact that they spend less time learning to use magic means they can spend more time learning how to fight.

Do the DCs and the way they increase look right, or need tweaking? Is a better BAB, more HP, a better AC, and access to both the Wizard and Druid spell lists a good trade for the loss of the Sorcerer's main advantage?

I feel nice right now. Probably because Job Corps has me medicated now, and I have to admit it really does help with my issues.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I want it so bad.

The model or the outfit? Or both?

Both.

It's too f+%#ing early in the morning to go to school.

Either way I feel it's going to be a joyless party line vote, as virtually no one on either side is particularly excited about their candidate.

That's why I'm voting Green Party.

I have always known what the exact right thing to do is in any social situation, immediately after I have done the opposite.

That's me, too. I have excellent social awareness, but only in hindsight.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

To be honest, in some ways I consider myself lucky. My parents aren't hateful of transgenders or homosexuals (though it hasn't clicked that I am one), and I live on one of the Job Corps centers that actually enforces the rules on discrimination. I get bullied all the time, but it usually isn't related to gender identity or sexual orientation.

I would be very interested to hear your life story. If you feel comfortable enough here, perhaps you should post an in depth bit about yourself sometime.

Asking me to talk about myself? That’s something I love to do.

I’m 21 years old, and I’m both a male to female transgender (preop) and a lesbian. I’m from San Jose, California, and I first got into RPGs when I was 15 when a friend showed me how to play Dungeons and Dragons. Since then, I have expanded into D20 Modern and World of Darkness, though I have limited experience with either system despite having many books for both. I switched over to Pathfinder last year once I had the money for the Core Rulebook, after deciding that I didn’t want to learn a new system and that the Open Game License was very important to me. I also like how Paizo treats customers.

My life has been alternatively good and bad. I have severe impulse control issues, which is the main reason I have a hard time making friends. I am cool at first, but then I get excited and act stupid. This caused me a lot of trouble with bullying as a kid and right now. I’ve always felt something wrong with my body, but I didn’t really come to terms with the fact that it’s transgenderism until I was 18. My interest in a mixture of masculine and feminine activities and homosexuality made it very hard for me to tell that I was transgendered, to say nothing of others. I can’t even say how I finally figured it out, because I’m not really sure what tipped me off in the end. I just sort of grew into the realization over a couple weeks. Luckily for me, my family isn’t against trans or gay people, but the fact that I happen to be one of them doesn’t seem to have clicked with them yet.

After graduating high school, I was pretty lost as to what to do next. I never did do any college applications because I knew I didn’t want to do that, and nobody wanted to hire me for a fast food or retail job. I eventually decided to try the military, and I enlisted in the US Navy as an AECF. I loved being in the Navy a great deal, but my aforementioned impulse issues eventually earned me a medical discharge. So, to get both an education and help with my issues, I tried to get into the Job Corps program, and was accepted into the Trapper Creek center in Montana, which is where I am right now. I’m currently waiting for a slot to open up in their Culinary Arts program, because that sort of career appeals to me greatly.

I have a deep interest in military matters, as well as foreign cultures, fantasy, cooking, history, animals, nature, and music. I enjoy bike riding, hiking/running/walking, RPGs, and video games, and have a tendency to eat way too much, which I why I am quite a bit overweight I'm hoping to get culinary training from Job Corps, then move on to college, which is what I should have done in the first place instead of playing the whle "Not going to school anymore, nope, nope, nope!" game when I was a senior in high school.

<.<

>.>

I turned 21 today!

Freehold DM wrote:

Shifty, must we be on opposite sides of every issue?!??!

Because you choose to be arbitrarily contrary?

It's true, I look forward to the day when the subject becomes a non-subject in the way we don't feel the need to converse about whether the sky is blue, and indeed it becomes a general day to day non-issue where the notion of where one puts ones private parts and with whom raises no eyebrows nor interest, and indeed no one really cares apart from those who might be interested in joining in.

I'm hoping for Sexuality threads to make about as much sense as a blue eyed thread, or 'people who drink water' thread.

Now if you are saying that you would like it to remain always a conversation piece where people feel the need to 'identify' (or worse, feel compelled to conceal) their sexuality, then I would suggest you are advocating that you are maintaining the status quo.

I'd personally like an end to the stupid 'politics' around the issue - you are suggesting you would like to maintain them.

In that case I welcome you to the opposition.

Won't be long now until the final hurdle of gay marriage gets crossed, and then thats pretty much the end of the battle won in this country.

The fact of the matter is that, as things are, it IS an issue, and there is controversy around it. It may be unfortunate, but it will take time to change. Until then,many of us in the community appreciate our own places to discuss the issues we have to deal with. Could you please respect this fact, and allow us to have this thread without having to justify it's existance to you?

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors.

How often is that actually an option with healthcare? By the time they f@&& you over, you are so sick no other company will take your business do to your existing conditions.

[

TriOmegaZero wrote:

And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?

Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.

And if I don't own a house and rent the cheapest apartment I can afford?

LazerX, there are several problems with your argument

1.) SOME, but certainly not all, corporations have a worse track record. On the other hand, all federal governments that the US has had have had a worse track record. Yes, we've only had one federal government, but that's part of the point. We have no other federal government to turn to when the one we have is acting unethical. Yes, we can change who is President, but a quick look at history will show that changing who is President has never gotten rid of the underlying problems.

Who says socialized medicine has to be governed by the federal government? It could be governed at the state level, which I personally think might be a better idea. Not sure I want a government govering as large an area of ours to try and handle the entire medical system. I'd rather the state governments do it.

2.) You've presented a false dilemma. We can certainly change our health care system without putting that health care in the hands of a government which gave us the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

Yet that keeps healthcare in the hands of those who have no reason not to refuse our treatment based off of any technicality they can find.

3.) There's no evidence that we need a national health care plan.

The inability of the lower class to gain any sort of healthcare isn't sufficient?

The fact that the current system doesn't work doesn't mean that our only other option is to turn to a government which gave us the Walter Reed scandal.

Better them than the corporations that are primarily motivated by profit. Profit is a s*%%ty motivator when it comes to healthcare.

1-5: Hair turns white permanently
6-10: Irises turn pale permanently
11-15: Skin turns pale permanently
16-20: Sensitivity to Cold (-2 saves versus cold damage or cold enviromnents)
21-25: Sensitivity to Heat (-2 saves versus fire damage or hot enviromnents)
26-30: Blurred vision (-2 all vision based perception checks)
31-35: Hearing problems (-2 all hearing based perception checks)
36-40: Gain a smell of freshly dug soil (scent of the grave)
41-45: Cannot smell
46-50: Sensitive to sunlight (Dazed in sunlight, can be counteracted by covering up with robes and hood or doing something similar)
51-55: Register as undead for the purpose of magical detection effects
56-60: Develop taste for raw meat
61-65
66-70
71-75
76-80
81-85
86-90
91-95
96-100

Would tinker gnomes be likely to enjoy alchemy?

Sorry if all the questions are annoying, but my copies of the books aren't predicted to arrive for about five days at least.

Dragonlance is really popular where I live, and it sounds like a setting I could get to have some affection for, and I happen to have need of a good medieval campaign setting (my homebrew is good, but incomplete and highly specialized, being a 19th century setting, not a medieval setting), so I got a copy in the mail.

I plan to play this with the Pathfinder ruleset. I don't see why that should be too complicated. However, it is my understanding that it has some different base classes and a different origin for sorcerers. Since I don't have my copy in front of me yet, could someone fill me in on how sorcerers work and what the new base classes are?

I want to see alignment billed as a set of optional rules instead of as a default part of the system.

I can't read it right now (I don't have access to my own computer), but I'm picking it up now so that I can download it once I do have access to my own computer.

What you guys need to keep in mind is that alignment is terribly subjective, as is the Paladin's code of conduct. The fact that we have a total failure to reach a consensus, as in all the previous Paladin threads, is a symptom of this. That, I think, is the problem here. The Paladin has a very strict code, but exactly what violates it is up to a great deal of debate. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the Paladin should do as she feels is correct. The death penalty is not evil, and a Paladin can support it or participate, but if it fits the character's personality to argue for mercy, that is what she should do.

Really, though, there's just too much room for interpretation here, and in fact with most Paladin debates. We can all give you our opinions, but nobody can give you a RAW answer, because there isn't one.

I want more equipment, but I don't want a whole bunch of unique magic items. I want a bunch of new and interesting types of mundane items and magic item abilities that could be used to make magic items.

I also do in fact want more character options. I can't get why Paizo is so against us players getting new things.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

Oh, wait. It isn't.

I'll leave you with your own conscience to think long and hard about whether I am wrong.

Divorcing personal and character knowledge is a basic RP skill, yet you seem to be under the impression that it can't be done. How you think GMs run characters when you believe this is beyond me.

Kelsey wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't get how reading an AP or module ahead could be cheating. It doesn't really effect anything.

Reading the AP/module in order to know what to prepare for ahead of time is definitely cheating. It affects the game play, and reduces the challenge of the encounters. It's like stacking the deck in a card game. How is that not cheating?

Just because you read the AP or module doesn't mean that you are preparing your character as if she knew what was coming. It's quite possible to divorce what you know from what your character knows. If it wasn't, nobody would ever be able to play an AP or module more than once, and people who enjoy reading such things for fun would never be able to enjoy playing them if the opportunity came up, and that's dumb.

No, it was just DA:Os time scale that bugged me. I can accept quest based event advancement but DA:O had me constantly looking at the little map going "did they move at all?" The sense of urgency that was imparted in the beginning of the game wasn't really followed through very well. Even Mass Effect 1 didn't have the same kind of "now now now" urgency in the beginning. It felt far more systematic, okay let's get the evidence that Saren is evil and leading the Geth. Up until Virmire and Ilos when things get a bit more urgent, but by then the player was likely ready to plow on ahead with the main story.

It's why I worry about ME3. Considering the game opens with the Reapers picking off Earth (echo of openning loss in DA:O) the player is getting immediately thrust into a situation of "oh no, raise an army quick before more people die." I really hope they pull it off better then DA:O "oops, they sacked a single city and then halted" while I screwed around on side quests (back tracked, farmed random road encounters, etc). They need a good excuse that explains why the Reapers take so long, or at least remind the player that the Reapers and slow and methodical entities as a whole and be devoting time to building Reapers out of the populations they harvest.

It's because the emergency flavor is fun, but urgency in the game play itself isn't. I would HATE the kind of time frame you are suggesting. I want to be able to take my time and enjoy the game, not have to hurry all the time if I want to be able to win.

So let's all just all not do anything that makes Paizo *need* to codify this crap.

It needs to be easier to see.

What if I'm both lesbian and trans? Does that disqualify me?

Massive bombings of civilian areas? I'm okay with that. It won WW2, didn't it? Wrecking the civilian manufacturing plants weakens an army severely. Torture and reprisal executions? I'm against it simply because it doesn't actually do anything useful. It's not a deterrent or effective information gathering method. Same with biological or chemical warfare. It's not so much that it's brutal as that it's too hard to control, limiting it's military utility. I don't stand against it from a moral point of view, I stand against it from a practical point of view.

War is atrocious, because atrocities have military utility. Instead of trying to make war into something civil, which can never work, let's try not to go to war in the first place.

<.<

>.>

This will either be awesome or something I wished I hid. Depends on what domains I get.

I nominate Gary Teter as lord of justice, order, and community cohesion, who refuses to allow this forum to degenerate into anarchy. His domains shall be Law, Community, and Protection.

I hereby suggest that nobody gets the Good or Evil domains. Nobody.

no offence intended to you guys over in america, but from where i'm standing (and i admit that i haven't done much research on the issue) it seems that the reason the general population allows these pointless wars to happen, even supports them, is because for some unknowable reason many americans feel that their country are the police force of the world.

you're not, and it's an attitude that severely annoys me and many people i know (likely many people across the world, but i can't speak for them).

It annoys us Americans, too.