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

Kirth Gersen's page

24,459 posts (25,275 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 13 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find the game is a lot more fun if everyone's characters cooperate, instead of trying to kill each other.

After you've been playing 10+ years, you can maybe try something experimental like having player characters being enemies. Until then, though, I'd stay away from that.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I killed the thread!

Also, for the record, that should have been "ASL," not "ALS." Sign language, good; Lou Gehrig's disease, bad.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
It's a war crime under protocol I of the Geneva Conventions to shoot someone descending via parachute... unless they are paratroopers. Then it's perfectly legal.
Geneva Conventions, Protocol I, Art. 42 wrote:

Article 42 -- Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

In other words, as soon as he hits the ground, he's fair game to shoot, as long as you can make the case that he is "engaging in a hostile act." Even if not, if you demand that he surrender and he doesn't, you can shoot him then, too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Are you thinking of Arya Stark's weapon master in Game of Thrones?

Miyamoto Musashi. Philistine!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laiho Vanallo wrote:

Once again, really it boils down to what kind of game you are playing.

Dare I adventure saying that mechanically, yeah a lot of weapons are inferior when you compare them to other ones.

Now imagine the weapons were more or less equal, with equal investment. Not the same -- some would have a bigger crit range, others do more base damage, others have fun properties like trip or whatever -- but more or less even.

In that case, it wouldn't matter what kind of game you were playing. The person who wanted a swordcane could select that, without that choice gimping his character. The hard-line optimizer that The Sword so hates and despises would have no obviously superior choice, so he'd have to go for something that fit the character/story. Everyone wins.

Having some options be blatantly better than others (again, given the same investment), is a potential impediment to choosing something thematic but incredibly sub-par, and serves to fuel the "by the numbers" character creation that makes people like The Sword froth at the mouth. It serves no purpose other than, ultimately, to divide the community.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to admit, no one has ever called me "cis" in person. When I attend a party thrown by gay friends, I have been called the "token straight guy," and stuff like that -- usually in a friendly, joking manner -- but that's a far cry from what some of the {cis, straight} people here seem to be complaining about.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
And there is my biggest problem with the optimisation... People who see the rules as being something separate and divorced from the campaign or setting. 'I'll design my character to fit the mechanics I choose' and screw the story.

Blame the game rules, not the player. Let's say the story and the setting insist on me being really cool, and having sunglasses. Paizo probably has a Shades Dude archetype for that, with the following ability:

Ultimate Awsome wrote:
Cool sunglasses (Ex): You own a pair of cool sunglasses. This replaces all of your spellcasting ability, and reduces all class Hit Dice to d4s.

Now, sunglasses in real life provide retinal protection from UV rays, but since UV is not quantified in Pathfinder, this has no game effect. They also make you look cool, but since appearance is meaningless in terms of game mechanics, this also has no effect whatsoever.

To compound the problem, we open Ultimate Equipment IV and notice that any character can just buy a pair of equally cool sunglasses for 1 sp.

Now, we can ask "why would someone take this archetype, even for the flavor?" Or, someone could ask, "Why would you punish them for not taking it, and just buying the sunglasses?" But those are secondary questions. The main question is, "Why should wearing sunglasses, in the context of the game, be such a lousy option?"

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:
I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest...

oh noes! And now I say I am VERY OFFENDED by you being offended, and so on...

Charlie Hebdo pretty much convinced the world that "I'm offended!" is no longer a viable argument among civilized people.
If you want to convince people, back your argument with logic, not drama.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I've done in my home game is make ALL weapons have "simple," "martial," AND "exotic" stats, depending on the proficiency of the user. For example, someone with Exotic proficiency with the rapier will be far more effective with it than someone who only has Simple proficiency with the rapier.

13 people marked this as a favorite.

One problem with establishing a "baseline" is that the game itself lacks any semblance of one. Pathfinder is littered with "trap" options, and choices that require equal investment but with a radically lopsided payoff, etc. Shoot, compare the capabilities of a 17th level wizard vs. a 17th level rogue or fighter.

  • Some players look at this and say, "Well, duh, I'm not going to pick the crappy options, given a choice."
  • Others say, "I refuse to think about it. I'm going to pretend they're all equal, and if anyone says they're not, I'll put my fingers in my ears."
  • Still others say, "I'm no dirty munchkin min-maxer! I'm going to pick all the lousiest options I can possibly find, to prove what a great role-player I am!"

    Still worse, the reasons people pick the options they do vary. Compare:

  • "I'm going to pick the more powerful options because I want a more powerful character!" vs.
  • "I'm going to pick the more powerful options because I don't want to let down my teammates."


  • "I'm going to pick weaker options because I don't want to accidentally upstage the other participants," vs.
  • "I'm going to pick weaker options because I don't care if my incompetence kills the whole party -- it's the DM's job to fix that anyway!"

    In turn, that stems from the type of game experience the participants want. Compare:

  • "I just want a laid-back beer 'n' pretzels game that lets me frolick and role-play. I don't want to have to deal with hard challenges and fighting and stuff," vs.
  • "Man, we just curb-stomped that last AP. Can we try one that's like super-duper difficult, so we can see if these same characters can actually survive an apocalyptic grimdark end of the world scenario with all epic challenges? I really want to crank the tactics up to 11!"


    With that much disparity within the rules, between tables, and even among participants at the same table, the term "baseline" needs to be much more narrowly defined, if we're going to have a meaningful discussion.

  • 4 people marked this as a favorite.

    So, I was cooped up in a hotel room Saturday night, and Mrs Gersen seized the remote for the giant TV, and she tuned in to the "Twilight" movie and jacked up the volume, so there was no escape. And I realized what I dislike so much about it.

    The main character has no agency. She doesn't have to make decisions. She doesn't have to expend any effort for any reason. She doesn't need to be smart, or brave, or skilled, or charming, or anything -- she doesn't even need to be sentient. She doesn't drive the plot. She just sits around, and for no apparent reason, everyone wants to dote on her and protect her and maybe magically give her super powers.

    See, when I watch something like "The Maltese Falcon," and I think about how cool it would be to be just like Sam Spade, I can only blame myself for not being more like him -- I'm forced to realize that I'm not that smart. But if Mrs Gersen watches "Twilight," and thinks about how cool it would be to be just like Bella, she can always blame me -- because I'm not a hot, rich, immortal teenage superhero. "Twilight" teaches you that you just inherently deserve everything, without doing anything. It's all about entitlement.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Krensky wrote:
    They're much better than In-N-Out.

    If by "better" you mean "more expensive," then yes. Otherwise I, too, disagree.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    I've trained myself to be obsessive about patting my pocket for my keys whenever I step outside, and before closing a car door. This habit has saved me quite a bit of inconvenience.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

  • Barbarian - absurd disparities in usefulness of rage powers - rebalance
  • Bard - out-skills rogue - remove versatile performance
  • Cleric - access to entire spell list - limit based on domains (a la 2nd ed. spheres)
  • Druid - full caster + wild shape + pet - change casting to bard progression
  • Fighter - no out-of-combat utility - add Leadership/intimidation abilities
  • Monk - everything - scrap and start over
  • Paladin - "paladin falls" arguments - replace/remove that mechanic
  • Ranger - can't track teleporters, etc. - change discern location, find the path, etc. from spells to ranger class features.
  • Rogue - spells >> skills - bard casting progression, but only skill-like spells, tied to actual skills
  • Sorcerer - staggered casting - move bonus 1st level bloodline spell to 1st level, 2nd to 3rd, etc.
  • Wizard - too wide a spell selection - take away free spell acquisition and drastically increase cost for transcription from scrolls, etc. Or force specialization and completely remove all access to barred schools.
  • Magus, bloodrager, slayer, warpriest, mystic theurge, etc., etc. - need at all - fix multiclassing

  • 3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Yeah, nothing's been officially updated in over a year. Coincidentally -- or not -- Baby Gersen is just over a year old. Go figure!

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I don't know anyone who likes hot sauce as much as I do. Mrs Gersen accuses me of putting it on ice cream.

    That said, what makes hot sauce great isn't just the heat, it's the flavor. Tabasco is arguably just as hot than Cholula, but it tastes like bile, so I'd never use Tabasco unless there were no other alternative. Seeing a kickstarter for hot sauce that brags "trust the numbers" doesn't fill me with the desire to contribute.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Alric Rahl wrote:
    And to the rest of those that want to refuse to let the refugees into your countries, congratulations for falling victim to another of their traps. By refusing to let the refugees into your country you will all be branded racists, which might actually turn more of those refugees to the terrorists side.

    At the same time, look at the numbers. The population of France is roughly 66 million; of those, 18 million have at least one parent born outside France, generally in the Middle East/North Africa. Pretend France does the big noble gesture you want them to do and accepts all refugees with open arms, so we add the population of Syria (23 million) to the mix. Suddenly the nation of France is only half French, and half unassimilated or only partially-assimilated Middle Eastern. Given birth rates, in one generation the population of France would be majority non-assimilated Middle Eastern. Is that your vision -- to make France a suburb of the Middle East?

    That's why I maintain that the U.S. needs to be actively accepting the lion's share of the refugees. We already have 322 million people, so we'd still be only 7% Syrian if the entire population of Syria came here overnight.

    It's time to face facts: the unchecked immigration policies of Western Europe, if they remain unchecked, will destroy themselves within our children's lifetimes. Their hearts are in the right place, but their heads aren't really facing the reality of things. So I don't blame the "far right" from wanting to question those policies. On the other hand, the U.S. can accept and assimilate large numbers of immigrants fast enough to rebound and be ready for more in the future, so it behooves us to step up.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    CBDunkerson wrote:
    The rest of the GOP presidential contenders are all saying NO Syrian refugees.

    This is stupid. The U.S. is far better able to absorb the large number of refugees than are any of the Western European countries.

    I know it's considered evil and right-wing, by European standards, to refuse to allow infinite immigration, but if it outstrips assimilation by a wide enough margin, your country in essence becomes a suburb of the the ones the immigrants all left. The U.S. has a larger assimilated population and a vastly larger area, so it can absorb a lot more immigrants without any real problems.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Megan Robertson wrote:
    These scum from the UnIslamic State have brought shame on the faith they claim to profess but signally have failed to understand.

    No True Scottsman?

    I'd counter that ISIS clearly understands fundamental Islam very well -- they seem to be following the Hadith to the letter.

    The more moderate majority of Muslims are worthy of respect precisely because of how much of their scriptures they actively ignore -- and not so much for the parts they follow. The same applies to Christians, Jews, and almost anyone else whose "holy" books are rooted in the days of tribalism.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    One day TOZ will read a book that doesn't have any pictures in it ;P

    7 people marked this as a favorite.

    Nothing has happened to me. I've been too busy goofing off on Paizo to do anything yet.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Baby Gersen has turned 1. She can walk, scurry, climb, and apply a mean leg-lock. But when she wants to tell us something, instead of making sounds, she waves her hands in a variety of intricate, incomprehensible patterns, and makes weird faces.

    This totally baffled me until I stayed home one day and realized that Mrs Gersen has been showing her "Signing Time with Alex and Leah" every day.

    I'm fine if Baby Gersen's first language turns out to be ALS, but I'd rather she didn't learn to make that horrible rictus smile the signing lady uses.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jiggy wrote:
    You like wizards to pass fighters at some point? Great! You don't need to convince me it's not bad (something you pointed out repeatedly in your post), because I already believe it's not bad. I wasn't saying it was bad.

    I think it is, if only because it seems like two people who have the same number of XP, the same GP value of gear, the same level -- and (officially) the same CR -- should be of equal power (hence representing an equal challenge, which is what CR is supposed to mean). If the actual threat they represent has a huge variance, then CR is meaningless, we can throw out XP, character level becomes irrelevant except within the same class, and the whole numerical basis of the game needs to be scrapped.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Hitdice wrote:
    Oh, hey, that's how I got a reputation as a "Gotcha DM"; you give a Displacer Beast a Vorpal Sword one time, and no one ever lets you forget it! :P

    I totally threw stuff like that at him, too, but with the understanding he'd be smart enough to run away.

    Which didn't always 100% work, although it usually did.
    In one instance, they tracked down a monster that was like APL + 6 or something, and I said, "This is the most powerful monster in the hemisphere; it's been asleep for 500 years because nothing can even come close to threatening it," and, thanks to Andostre's insane urging, they attacked it anyway. And the monster kept rolling 1s. Missed attacks, failed saves... it was pitiful. Meanwhile, the souped-up barbarian on crack and houstonderek's sneak attack monkey were whaling on the thing. At that point, I decided the monster would run away!

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    But every time we came close to that, you still made the choice not to change things. To give us the chance to succeed on our own. And you did that before we even started when you tried to craft a winnable situation. You allowed us that.

    That was the social contract -- if I hadn't consistently followed it, houstonderek would have walked out, and probably most of the other participants, and I'd have had no game at all. The deal he and I made, before you and Jess even started playing with us, was that we'd make up semi-reasonable villains, play them intelligently and ruthlessly, and let the chips fall where they may.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Balance in an adventure is when the PCs' capabilities, and those of the bad guys, are close enough that the victor is determined by which side is more ruthless, resourceful, cunning, and/or lucky than the other side.

    Balance in a game is when the written rules allow me to set up scenarios like this and let them run, as opposed to tampering with the results willy-nilly to make them work.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    OTOH, the same argument would apply to nearly any form of regulation - no need for FDA testing/approval of drug safety, since it would be in the companies best interest to avoid such problems.

    My understanding is that the FDA itself said, basically, "we don't need to do the tests ourselves, but they need to be done, and we need free rein to review them." So it's not that we're relying entirely on the producers' self-interest in the quality of their product (which I agree would be naively foolish) -- if that fails, we still have review of the testing by the FDA. That said, a lot of people, realizing the FDA is a bunch of overworked government employees, probably very rightly question whether their review of the tests is at all adequate.

    In any number of cases, independent testing has been done as well -- in some cases by people anxious to show the harm of these products (Erin Brokovitch complex), in some cases by people who just think it's cool to look at genetic stuff and maybe had a grant so they could write a thesis on it. In all of those instances, no lurking harmfulness has been detected (or, once detected -- like the potential for the peanut thing -- subsequently corrected).

    On top of all that, we have the fact that the scientific understanding of what we're doing is a long shot past the random, blind tinkering we're often told is going on.

    When we put these things together... overall, I tend to conclude that there are other, more immediate problems that probably require much more of my attention than crusading against GMOs.

    Again, if any part of the above is egregiously wrong, and factual evidence is produced to indicate such, I'm very happy to review it and re-evaluate my entire stance. Until then, I'm pretty comfortable ignoring people like Orfamay who (on this topic) presents only the most bizarre, contrived excuses for logic, but more rely on emotional scare tactics, repeatedly telling me I'm "wrong, dangerous, and stupid," and ordering me to "STFU." (Let me also hasten to add that I don't hold it against him -- we, all of us, have some topics that strike a nerve to where we're unable to think clearly about them. Don't get me started about Wal-Mart, for example -- I've recognized that, where they're concerned, I'm unable to separate emotion from logic.)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Todd Stewart wrote:
    The testing during development for GMOs is orders of magnitude greater than that for conventionally bred plants.

    Gee, this sort of contradicts everyone who's assuring us that GMOs aren't tested, doesn't it?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Arakhor wrote:
    Intelligent personal weapons are probably specific to Gary Gygax's febrile imagination.

    Moorcock, Michael. Stormbringer (1965)

    Also Glirendree, in Larry Niven's "Not Long Before the End" (1969)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    In that case, it becomes "please explain why I would want to read this."

    Then again, I'm not a teenage girl.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    "A 1,000-year-old man seduces an underage girl and turns her into an undead monster. Please explain why he is an ideal boyfriend, in 3 volumes or less."

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Sorry, I don't have to convince you of anything -- GMOs are already in use. If you want to call anyone who opposes banning them wholesale as "dangerous" and "stupid," go ahead, if it makes you feel superior, but it doesn't accomplish anything. If you want me to "STFU," make me. On the other hand, if you want to actually convince people of the veracity of your viewpoint, and thereby enlist them to help change things, you're doing a really piss-poor job of it. So far you've told me the problem is allergies, and the all rest has been veiled hints of cosmic evil from beyond the stars, peppered with personal insults.

    GMOs have been on the grocery store shelves since 1994. That's over twenty years of widespread consumption, and no one has even a tentative connection to any potential problem other than not being aware of a potential allergen. (In contrast, the first large-scale nuclear reactor went on line in the U.S. in 1957, and the risks of a meltdown were made clear by direct observation at a different reactor in 1961). If we're looking at widespread health repercussions on otherwise healthy people, the story of some instance -- connected to any GMO at all -- should have broken a long time ago. With the number of people eager to Erin Brokovitch themselves into fame, then short of a massive conspiracy that makes Area 51 seem likely in comparison, the risks, realistically, can't be anywhere near what the doomsayers claim.

    Now, If you want to name a few GMOs and advocate a series of clinical trials on them, I'm all for that. But if you want to ban them all because scary, I'm totally unconvinced. At the risk of sounding callous, if little Bobby looks at anything that was ever in the same county as a peanut and suddenly dies from it, his genes seem like more of a risk to humanity than the peanut's, so he's not a good poster boy for your crusade.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Then link, don't just allude.
    Already done. Look upthread. And, yes, unexpected allergies are a danger and can even be fatal.


    Me: "So the danger is from potential food allergy?"
    You: "Obviously there are much, much, much more widespread and worse dangers than that! Don't even try to pretend there aren't!"
    Me: "Such as?"
    You: "Maybe something bad!"
    Me: "Such as?"
    You: "I just showed you! Food allergies!"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Please understand that I'm fine with oversight. I'm less fine with proposed oversight that's transparently geared towards preventing a new technology from ever being used, even if show to be safe. I'm still less fine with people calling to outright ban stuff because they don't understand how it works and it sounds scary.

    To me, most of the anti-GMO sloganeering sounds exactly like the anti-vax campaign. "Vaccines cause autism!" "They've been shown not to." "Well, I think they're still dangerous!"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Goodness, yes. Isn't that why the FDA exists?

    Awesome -- so just show me where the FDA has banned further GMOs and/or recalled existing ones, because these genetically-modified foods keep failing all these trials.

    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    I dunno, I consider "look, there it is" to be pretty good evidence of a thing's existence.

    Then link, don't just allude. You keep saying the danger is evident, yet no one is willing to point to actual documented examples?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    LazarX wrote:
    The core combat interaction of the game was intended to be ground melee... with most of the creatures you encounter would not be flying ones.

    Then why is flight so easy for sorcerers, wizards, and druids (and clerics, as soon as they can planar ally) -- classes that can all target opponents from a range using spells? And by the time your casters are flying reliably, the monsters generally are either flying, or have ranged attacks or spells, or very often both.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'd very, very strongly recommend finding a good job first, then worrying about the rest. You can't enjoy the climate and leisure activities if you can't eat. The U.S. doesn't have the social safety net of most other developed nations, so gainful employment with good benefits (health insurance, etc.) is your key objective. Plan on going wherever the work is, not looking for work where you go.

    Because of the size of the country, it's typically not financially viable to move somewhere, look for a job, and then have to finance a move across the country when you finally find one. Most especially if you have bills to pay in the meantime, and get locked into a year lease for a place to live and then realize you have no income with which to pay the rent.

    Some other notes:

  • Be aware that when job salaries are listed in the U.S., they mean before taxes. Expect to actually have maybe half or 2/3 left once you've paid those, and paid into your health insurance plans and so on.
  • Be aware that the cost of living can vary by as much as a factor of three, but that salaries typically won't. You can live very well in Houston for the same salary that makes you a pauper, unable to make ends meet, in San Francisco. So always check the cost of living index before you evaluate a salary.

  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.
    BigDTBone wrote:
    the scientists who created it had absolutely no way of knowing that it wouldn't cause all the cell walls of the tomato plant to turn to mush at temps above 10C

    Then the experiment would have failed and they'd have tried something else.

    BigDTBone wrote:
    and no real plan for containment to prevent cross-fertilization if that did happen.

    Other than the fact that their lab experiment isn't, you know, being marketed and planted all over, until they see it works and can be sold for a profit. You can't sell tomatoes whose cell walls all turn to mush at temps above 10C. You can't even grow them, which means they're sure as hell not cross-breeding with or outcompeting any existing tomatoes.

    BigDTBone wrote:
    It was exactly luck that kept that experiment from jeopardizing a major dietary fruit in our food supply.

    No, it was exactly the difference between the R&D phase and the marketing phase of a product. Luck has nothing to do with it.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    It doesn't help when the proponents claim there's no difference between GMOs and more conventionally created plants. That implies GMOs should receive no more scrutiny than normal artificial selection in crops.

    The amount of unregulated lateral gene transfer in traditional crossbreeding is far greater than in creating a GMO from the same two plants for the same purpose. That almost implies that traditional methods should be under more scrutiny, not less.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    I'm also going to add some new skills. A Fireball skill where you can put ranks into causing stuff to explode

    In a world with black powder firearms, it's totally unrealistic that someone else could learn to use dynamite? Remind me again how we made all those tunnels for the railroads to go through. Because certainly no one in real life could have any skill at blowing stuff up, except with magic.

    a Resurrections skill where you can put ranks into bringing people back from the dead

    I'll be sure to let my EMT friends know that their skill doesn't actually exist.

    even common farmers can be dropping prismatic walls around their fields

    And again, you seem to have no idea what "character level" means.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    DM_Blake wrote:
    Except Bluff is not a Polymorph spell.

    Please read my post again, and Berinor's, and then get back to me on that.

    DM_Blake wrote:
    It's an Everyman skill. Some are better than others, but it's still just a skill that anyone, everyone, can do.

    Once you're past 5th level or so (5 ranks), we're way past things that "everyman" people can do, ever. I understand that your falling damage might be a million d6 per inch instead of 1d6 per 10 feet, but that would be a houserule, not Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, a high-level guy can fall a thousand feet onto jagged rocks and get up and keep fighting -- and with enough rest, he can do that on a consistent basis. That's not something "everyman" can just do.

    DM_Blake wrote:
    I've never envisioned a fantasy world where ordinary, even extraordinary, people can use basic skills to accomplish what can be done with magic.

    I've never envisioned a fantasy world where furries are real, but some people are into that stuff.

    DM_Blake wrote:
    Aragorn cannot Bluff Saruman into releasing his domination over King Theodin, but Gandalf can do it magically.

    Aragorn is 5th level.

    DM_Blake wrote:
    Harry Potter's muggle uncle cannot Bluff the Demontors into leaving him alone, but Harry Potter can do it magically.

    Harry Potter's muggle uncle can't use the toilet unaided. And how many fighters does Harry Potter adventure with in his party? Yeah, Ars Magica, not Pathfinder.

    DM Blake wrote:
    I know you have your Kirthfinder house rules where martial characters do stuff that looks and behaves a lot like magic.

    In your opinion. To me, having a high-level fighter deduce your location from the way your projected image is positioned, faces, and how it acts, and factoring in lines of sight, is an entirely non-magical consequence of living in a world where other people can project images.


    The substance of your stance is "magic rulez, normal people droolz!" Maybe in your home game, mundane people also roll a % chance to avoid cardiac arrest whenever they jog more than 50 feet, because that's something that might happen to a totally out-of-shape RL person (but not to Gandalf!). There are games for that. But as long as things like the fighter and the rogue and the slayer are still presented as PC classes, Pathfinder isn't one of them. Killing a dragon with a sword is totally unrealistic. Does that mean it can only be done with spells? To you, apparently it does.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

    Heh. Inspirational artwork!

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    BigDTBone wrote:
    we are still haphazardly playing with things we don't truly understand.

    Said Franklin's detractors when he invented the lightning rod.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    BigDTBone wrote:
    Evolution [is] a far cry from using a retrovirus to add genes into our expression matrix.

    I disagree. Most of the human genome is exactly that -- dead viruses. They may provide some resistance to similar viruses (much as we're often trying to do by inserting other ones into grain crops), but they have no physical expression on us. When our ancestors selectively bred wheat with other strains of wheat or even other plants altogether, they were doing more or less the same thing, except a lot more haphazardly.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    It's worth noting that almost 98% of the human genome is non-coding. Humans are overwhelmingly GMO. And to return the favor, we've been intentionally genetically modifying organisms since the Neolithic.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    LazarX wrote:

    Romance or its darker shade is a major element in Dracula. Such as when undead Lucy tries to lure her lover into sharing her dark embrace. It's also the major motivation for the hero.

    But yes, Coppola and others have woven romance into vampire movies long before Twilight. The main reason Twilight hate is a thing is pretty much because the Internet and social media provide bandwagons to jump on.

    Still, in Dracula, the title character is unmistakably a monster, not a perfect superhero fantasy boyfriend. That's not by any stretch of the imagination confined to Twilight, but it does seem to be all the rage now.

    The Oatmeal on "Twilight"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    LazarX wrote:
    It's been a genre since Dracula.

    Precious little "romance" in that, unless rape is your thing. Oh, unless you mean the Coppola movie, not the novel?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I think "Twilight" mostly just gets blamed for the fact that "vampire romance" is now an actual genre. That said, vampires-as-love-interests-not-monsters are all over Buffy and Anita Blake and so on, so we can't really pinpoint that.

    And, yeah, it's been often noted that the so-called vampires in Twilight are really just superhero love interests with long teeth, not undead monsters, but, meh (Varney, while sympathetic, despises his condition, and it's presented as an actual curse that makes him do lots of evil stuff and ultimately leads him to destroy himself -- it's not just a handy source of superpowers).

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
    Fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants. *Doodoodoodoo-doodoodoodoo....*

    Moreover, Ascomycota (sac fungi and yeast) and Basidiomycota (mushrooms and puffballs) are actual phyla of fungi. Yay, Gygax!

    1 to 50 of 2,487 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.