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

Kirth Gersen's page

25,639 posts (26,582 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 14 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 25,639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

The birds settle down, although the big parrot yells "Eat yer kiester!" before commencing to pull out its own feathers. (Evidently the pirates' ideas of what would be fun to teach it to say were not that creative.)


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Probably not much fun, but there's plenty of overtime to be had, so that's something.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Just a heads-up: starting tomorrow a.m. I'll be out in the desert and unable to log on, through the end of the month. Hopefully we can pick back up when I get back.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Just a heads-up: starting tomorrow a.m. I'll be out in the desert and unable to log on, through the end of the month. Hopefully we can pick back up when I get back.


Firewarrior44 wrote:
Killing Stroke wrote:
Benefit: You can perform a coup de grâce against a helpless opponent as a standard action.
Rogue Sneak Attack wrote:
Synergy: You can add the effects of any one strike you know (see “Combat Feats, Strikes” in Chapter 5) to any sneak attack that successfully deals damage, even if the normal activating conditions are not met. You cannot add Vital Strike to sneak attacks in this manner, however. Also, this synergy does not apply to sneak attacks made with splash weapons using the Grenadier talent (Appendix C).
I read the effects of killing stroke as Coup de grace the target under X conditions, rogue sneak attack states I can ignore those conditions.

No; you're trying to ignore prerequisites there, not activating conditions. Activating conditions are spelled out in the preamble to [Strikes] - standard action (or sometimes full-round action) attack, or confirmed crit with Improved Critical, or on a grapple with Improved Grapple, or AoO with Combat Reflexes.


Firewarrior44 wrote:

Is it intended for a rogue to be able to coup de grace on every sneak attack he successfully makes via Killing stroke? This seems obscene as a rogue 1/fighter x (or even pure rogue) could trivially mince everything that isn't immune to precision damage.

Also can Eldritch Blast scale off of your highest available SLA (like say via magical talent) like a [Reserve] feat can?

1. Sneak attack at BAB +1 doesn't magically make people helpless, you're never getting BAB +21 equivalent except by spending time, and Staggering Strike has a save. Is there some other exploit I'm missing?

2. Yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm totally coming here as a refugee from the election thread, because I'm finding my political views this cycle bizarrely aligning with a lot of what Comrade Doodlebug was saying over there, which really sort of makes me think.

Evidently I'm now only a very bad stooge of the plutocracy. (And strangely glad of it.)

EDIT: And if I spend too much more time in that thread, Citizen Robespierre Betts' obnoxious, humorless zeal will coerce me into voting for Trump just to spite him, which is a piss-poor reason at best and not to be contemplated.


Samnell wrote:
Is The Man the one where Jesus is hopping around the planets and this one guy is trying to catch up and see him?

That very one.

Samnell wrote:
I think it's one of the most anti-religious things I've ever read, though it was clear to me even at age fourteen that Bradbury thought just the opposite.

Very nicely put.


Bandw2 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Does anyone else in the thread realize that this exact discussion has been going on since 1983, or even earlier?
pointing out the obvious here, but discussions on how to say things have been around since people could talk. Hell it might have been one of the first subjects.
Squiggit wrote:
Yeah to a degree, but Pathfinder is the first game I've seen where daemons and demons are separate things entirely, which makes the distinction a lot more important to make.

The context is D&D, so the 1983 date is not one I picked out of a hat.

Look under "D"

Evidently the answer to my question was a simple "no."


Does anyone else in the thread realize that this exact discussion has been going on since 1983, or even earlier?


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Caspian up.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Will save: 1d20 + 9 - 1 ⇒ (19) + 9 - 1 = 27
The monster is either too tough, too dumb, or too hard-headed to be dazed by the blow; in any case, the effort fails. You also notice that it keeps rotating its head and body to track your movements, preventing you from flanking it.


Scott Betts wrote:
So then I'll repeat the actual question I asked: who did you want to win?

And I'll repeat what I answered: this election? Not applicable. I'm worried about the next one now. I believe that how people vote in this election, and how many, actually matters in the next one. You do not. That's OK. Time will tell. Yelling at me will not.


Scott Betts wrote:
It sounds like you're really just bitter and disappointed that Sanders didn't win.

Nope; I used his name as an example, not as "my" candidate. Certainly he would have been more palatable to me on what I consider to be the big three key issues, but that's not saying much; Trump's and Clinton's views on those three are pretty much the same.


Scott Betts wrote:
So who did you want to win, Kirth?

Ideally, I'd want such a low turnout that the election is considered null and void. Practically, I want such a low turnout that the big Democrat donors say, "Ya know, we should have backed Sanders; he would have been a slam-dunk instead of a barely-made-it. Let's think about that for next time." And the big Republican donors say, "Let's not back lunatic reality show hosts next time; it's a no-win deal."

To get candidates worth voting for, you need to convince the people with the money to donate to the right candidates. To do that, you have to show that the likes of the current batch are NOT competitive. To do that, you have to show that there are a LOT of voters -- an electable margin worth -- who will actually stay home rather than back your dog.

None of that has anything to do with 3rd party anything.


Scott Betts wrote:
The fact that you, personally, don't like the people we nominate doesn't mean that the elections are a sham. We have democratic elections between democratically-selected candidates. You just don't like the outcome.

Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees. That's like saying Iran is a liberal democracy rather than a theocracy because Ahmadinejad was elected.


Scott -- I didn't specify third-party. You did.


bugleyman wrote:
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?

If it's that one the one hand, or vote for an increasing wealth gap, more foreign wars, more mass imprisonment domestically on the other? Yes, it would be preferable. If our elections are shams anyway, we might as well be honest about it.


bugleyman wrote:
I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.

And again, I accept I'm stuck with someone I won't like -- this time. My hope is that enough people abstain this time that one or both parties realize they have a golden opportunity in 2020 -- to rally voters to an actual candidate, instead of an "at least I'm not Satan" one.


You know what happens to countries that have a voter turnout so low as to be meaningless? The elections are considered a scam, and the rest of the world takes notice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of us maybe just aren't that resigned to the fate our corporate masters have decreed. I KNOW I'm stuck with Clinton or Trump this time. It's next time, and the time after, that I'm looking at. And in my estimation action needs to start before the 2020 primaries. It needs to start now, with unprecedented numbers of people saying, "Look, give us someone we can vote for, mkay?" And you don't do that by agreeably voting for whomever you're given.


Ray Bradbury's The Illustrated Man. It was one of my favorites when I was maybe 12, but I'm not sure I have the same opinion now. Some of the stories ("The Rocket Man") I'm finding quite moving now that I'm an adult with a kid of my own; others ("The Man") I'm finding overly-preachy to the point of being obnoxiously grating. My favorite as a kid ("The Veldt") just seems not to have stood up very well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not convinced that a third-party vote or abstention (arguably the same thing) is either pointless or irrational. If Clinton is elected, but receives only, say, 5% of the popular vote instead of 50% because of low turnout and/or write-ins for Cthulhu, don't you think some bright political strategist will look at that and say, "Hey, we can clinch the win next time by taking this into account?"

Saying "vote major-party candidate, no matter how bad, or you're a traitor!" sounds like the voice of someone who is desperate to see that the economic and foreign policies of Bush, Obama, et al. not be questioned, and be continued at all costs.

Yeah, I know, the primaries, blah blah blah. Who gets into the primaries? Sure, the ones with the money, but the donors aren't going to eager to back a sure loser if there's a potential winner out there.


thejeff wrote:
In fairness, they were kind of inventing this out of whole cloth without much in the way of working systems to base it on.

They had the Iroquois confederacy as a blueprint if they'd chosen to use more of it, but that was a [5 (or 6) x 9] system as opposed to straight 2-party system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
And yet, the assertion that refusing to back HRC to oppose Trump is "stupid, short-sighted, and selfish" merited no backlash on an infamously active thread apart from one person, so far.

I seem to recall that both Comrade Anklebiter and I had things to say about that stance. And when he and I agree on political stuff, that's news.


Gruumash,

What happened to the Scotch thread? It was awesome. Having people not posting in it anymore is not awesome.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
The problem is that he continues acting even when it's in his own worst interests, which means that he's genuinely untrustworthy with serious impulse control issues, which in turn means that he's utterly unfit for the presidency.

Taken out of context, you could be describing JFK.

EDIT: I'm not saying the two are in any way equivalent as candidates, just that "poor impulse control" and "acting against own best interests" are hardly unique to the Trumpster.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
He's threatening reprisals against his opponents, foreign and domestic, while on the campaign trail. Do you really think he would suddenly stop that habit if he were elected?

I'd guess that he's a genuinely vindictive SOB.

I sort of feel that way about HC as well, except that she unconvincingly semi-pretends not to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)

I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
I definitely don't agree that PF has ever stated that all classes are created equal. I don't recall ever seeing Paizo write that in any of their books.

The XP chart sort of disagrees with you. The entire CR system strongly disagrees.

If a 10th level fighter BBEG is an equivalent challenge to a 6th level wizard BBEG, and is supposed to be, then they should both be CR 5. By claiming the NPC fighter is CR 9, Paizo is explicitly stating that a fighter is equal to a wizard. Not hinting; not implying -- stating outright.


Dragon78 wrote:
I just hope there will plenty of CR20+ non outsider based creatures.

I'm sort of in the opposite camp. If I see a monster that is basically, for example, a small frog that spits mud at people who approach its pond, I'm NOT wanting to see jacked-up numbers and a CR of 15+.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Your dazing strike is a [strike], so you can do either sword/punch or dazing punch, but not both.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
she panders to anti-vaxxers. she has a tendency to waffle.

Yeah, she's a politician. Pandering and waffling is what they do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My version:

(1) Play a human or elf.
(2) Under "description," write a lot of wordy crap about how magic symbols float in the air around you for no apparent reason.
(3) Pick traits and/or favored class bonuses that do what you wanted your sigils to do.
(4) If glowing sigils is a big deal, play a class that gets light as a 0-level spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stein isn't anti-vax; she's anti-"FDA is run by corporate pharma lobbysists."
Longer description, with quotes.


Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Counterpoint: No monsters that looked like someone grabbed random letters out of a Scrabble bag.
Why do people always get stuck on the names?

I have no problem with actual mythological names. I have huge disdain for made-up ones full of pointless apostrophes, hyphens, and unpronouncable letter combinations because they look "more fantasy-y." I would much rather see an urdarkottur than a "Ybbggg'th'waaaaak'lk-thg."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Overall: I like having actual rules for stuff. Even if those rules are incomplete or aren't really doing what they're trying to do, at least it's something. As a DM, I despise making up rulings arbitrarily when a unified mechanic is more appropriate.

Specific Feats: Leadership. I LOVE how much this adds to a campaign. I wish more players were less afraid to take it.

Specific Races: Humans. I'm tired of dwarfs and robots and dragon-people and furries and intelligent tapeworms. I would love to play in or DM a human-only campaign sometime.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

The pantry begins to make more sense; the southern door opens into a mess hall (~30' E-W x 20' N-S), dominated by a long banquet table. A large cage filled with listless tropical birds stands to the northwest, and there's a door in the south wall, near the west end of the room. As you open the door, the birds begin variously tweeting and squawking, and one of them very clearly yells, "Up yer mother's bum!"


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Kelgan finally lands a bolt home. Even after damage reduction, the fiend reels a bit from the force of the impact, and it now has a bolt protruding from its torso, like a sixth arm.
The monster is lightly wounded.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

The western door opens easily -- into a pantry. A mouse, gnawing a hole in a sack of grain, is surprised by the opening door and scurries for cover. The whole room is maybe 5 ft. x 10 ft.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Knowledge (Warfare)
J: 1d20 + 8 - 3 ⇒ (1) + 8 - 3 = 6
K: 1d20 + 9 - 3 ⇒ (5) + 9 - 3 = 11

Something is bothering you about the way the two claw misses scrabble off Jaegr's armor, but in your impaired state it's too hard to puzzle it out.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

The monster continues to mindlessly attack Jaegr with three of its claws; the other two claws, on the other side of its body, continue to attack Wyvurn.

1d20 + 17 ⇒ (18) + 17 = 351d6 + 7 ⇒ (6) + 7 = 131d20 + 17 ⇒ (9) + 17 = 261d6 + 7 ⇒ (3) + 7 = 101d20 + 17 ⇒ (4) + 17 = 211d6 + 7 ⇒ (1) + 7 = 8
1d20 + 17 ⇒ (1) + 17 = 181d6 + 7 ⇒ (1) + 7 = 81d20 + 17 ⇒ (18) + 17 = 351d6 + 7 ⇒ (6) + 7 = 13

Jaegr: 1 hit, 13 -4 DR = 9 hp damage. Wyvurn: 1 hit, 13 damage.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

Wyvurn remains frustrated. His first blow connects, but the edge is turned away by the monster's hide, and only half of his ki gets through to affect the fiend.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi, independent voter here. I've voted both Republican and Democrat, sometimes for/against the same candidate when hindsight benefit applied (e.g., against Bill Clinton when he was 1st elected, but for him when he ran for re-election; for Obama when he was 1st elected, but sat out his re-election in disgust).

And, to me, there is not a good candidate this time. Hillary represents a continuation of the policies of increasing the wealth gap, sending more of our young people to fight foreign wars, and putting more of our citizens at home in prison. These policies represent, to me, grave evils against the American people, and I unequivocally oppose anyone who champions them, from either party. Stuff like upholding Roe v. Wade and supporting gay marriage are things I strongly support, but -- at the risk of Godwinning the thread -- Hitler also liked dogs, and he made the trains run on time. By themselves, they aren't enough to make up for the big three, and if you're voting based on them, you're basically getting a consolation prize for agreeing to lose.

I find it incomprehensible that the Republicans have redefined their entire party as a carrier for the above-mentioned evils. I find it nauseating that most Democrats are so determined to seek consensus that, being denied someone like Sanders as a candidate, they all run skulking like curs to Hillary and lap her hand, hoping she won't kick them.

I don't expect anyone in either party to agree, but hopefully one of them might understand that refusing to support Hillary is not automatically an act of Republican partisanship.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

The door opens into what seems to be possibly another defensive feature: a short (10-foot) hallway running south, with a door in the west wall and another at the south end.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Baby Gersen is now almost two, so actually a toddler, and is beginning to enjoy linguistics -- specifically, constructing sentences. She's also obsessed with Minions, so when she sees me with a pencil, she invariably cries, "Dada! Draw Bob! King Bob! Draw more Bob! Poochie Rat!"

Thankfully, she is sometimes inclined to more matter-of-fact utterances, rather than simple demands. Last night she dumped her water on the bed, then ran to get me and proudly explained, "Wawa! Big bed all wet."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I also started an experiment that may or may not work out. I checked my dwindling stash of Weller's 12-year-old and found a third of a bottle, which was perfect for my purposes. To the contents I added half a bottle of Weller's Old Antique, closed the bottle, and set it in the top of the closet. 40/60 Weller's 12/OA is the formula I'd seen for so-called "Poor Man's Pappy" (per an article in Bourbonr) -- the rumor is that the result tastes a lot like the much-vaunted Pappy Van Winkle. My batch has been sitting for 10 days now; I'll let it alone until this weekend, then try a small taste, then probably let it sit another 2 weeks, etc. I'm told 6 weeks' time to fully blend is optimal. And I will of course report the results here. Best case, it works out as claimed; worst case, I wasted 1/3 bottle of precious Weller's 12.
Update: Tasted the blend after two weeks, and found that the high-alcohol heat from the WOA was masking the subtle excellence of the W12. So (with some reluctance) I added a bit more of the 12, and a very tiny dash of high-mineral-content spring water, and let it sit again. This weekend will mark 4 weeks since the initial blending; we'll see if it's improved.

Another update: Six months later, the blend is fully mature and the stuff is GOOD. I've had two people so far tell me that it actually does taste like Pappy's. Sadly, with Weller's 12 now totally unavailable on the open market, this was a 1-time experiment.

I've also been trying to blend Larceny with Weller's OA, but the results so far are a lot less promising.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To the OP: Because Paizo does not want tripping to be a thing. That's why it's hidden behind two feats, and why half the critters in the Bestiary either get huge bonuses against it or are simply outright immune. Making flying creatures immune, too, is par for the course.


Aimless wrote:
Considering many Americans are pretty bad at geography, this should not come as a surprise.

When the "geography" survey has questions like "In what U.S. city did the original CSI TV series take place," it's really hard to take it seriously.


M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

The door is unlocked. It opens into 10x15 chamber with four large wooden casks standing against the west wall; judging from the scent in the air, they're filled with rum. It seems odd that this room in particular would be unlocked, but then again, this is a thieves guild headquarters, so locks are probably meant to slow intruders rather than guard stuff internally.

1 to 50 of 25,639 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.