|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You all realize that he constantly rubs people the wrong way, enough so that they are constantly trying to kill him?
And low intelligence? The guy who figured out that the west didn't drop off a cliff, and who spent his time learning a second language because he had the knowledge and forsight that it might be useful has low intelligence?
As to him being a slayer, that's out of bounds, O.P. specifically said Viking, which fits.
I'd probably go:
It may not seem that impressive, but when you thinkabout the fact that most people top out at 13 before racial, then you see he's pretty tough. I might even trade my feat in for another bonus somewhere. (Racial is already in str, con maybe?)
Can I make a suggestion for a rule in future editions of the rule book?
"If you cannot ask a rules question with a straight face, or if the DM laughs so hard on hearing it s/he can't breathe, the answer is no." I can't help but feel that would take care of so many rules threads that pop up just because the writers assume that everyone is smart enough not to try and twf with a bow.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Good to know. Interesting that in normal circumstances death threats are only enough to rate suspended without pay. And that even though (former) Officer Jiminez was enough out of line to get fired, they keep trying to make the officer the victim and the crowd the bad guy and pushing the us vs. them mentality. Do they ever think statements like that are the reason this crap is happening?
I also love the whole "they're waiting for something stupid to happen" rather than "they're trying to protect themselves and their rights" or even "they're waiting for something illegal to happen".
Angry Wiggles wrote:
If it is arcane, than this becomes the only race indifferent way to use early entry to qualify for the arcane SLA. Following the banning of Aasimar and Tiefling in PFS, this would be the only way for PFS theurges to use arcane early entry.
I do believe this is incorrect. Seems that at least one of the wizard schools grants a spell like ability that works.
I was just wondering if anyone else plays War of Omens, the deck building game online. If you do, who do you play? Feel free to share your play experiences.
I mainly play the E people (whose name I can't remember the spelling of). Love me some magic. But I also only play against the AI.
Both half-celestial and half-fiend though technically those are inherited templates, so it'd take an appeal to a pretty high power (*cough* DM *cough*) to get those. Then of course monks turn into outsiders (without a template) at level 20, but that doesn't really help you.
A lot of it would depend on the story, becoming a full fledged outsider would work and sounds like it would be more in keeping with your character than becoming undead. (Although, they are not called out as being immortal / ageless in their creature type, the idea of an old Solar with a cane and grey hair telling about "back in his day" seems too comedic to exist.)
I haven't been following the events (or this thread) super closely, but I saw this and needed to remark on it:
So, police threatened to kill a member of the media (on camera), while pointing a gun at them.
The police version of the event: "The media person refused to cooperate, and in an attempt to keep the public safe, my officer used profanity with the public and told the media person that he was going to kill him if he didn't move."
Anyone care to guess what would happen to someone who was pointing an automatic rifle at a police officer and said "I'll ****ing kill you"? I doubt it would be "counseled on his choice of words." Also, how do death threats and pointing an automatic firearm at someone in the middle of the crowd work to keep the public safe?
Video of death threat here.
You know where this crap isn't happening? States with legalized marijuanna. Just saying. . .
And once again, everything is Israel's fault and Hamas can do no wrong. My bad. Much better to spend your efforts making tunnels that will get your people killed than to spend those same efforts saving your peoples lives because, obviously, if you can't make everything perfect for anyone you shouldn't try and make anything better for anyone.
Since they're being killed at about 500 times the rate, thousands of palastinians are also flee.. oh wait they can't!
Bet they wish they'd use those building materials building bunkers rather than tunnels.
First, I have to ask why is this in the rules question forum?
Under a Bleeding Sun, the bane weapon property doesn't work like that. When you add the bane enchantment you have to pick,one type and subtype for the bane to work against.
Let us say you pick the elf subtype for bane, which is also your biggest favored enemy. You run across a non-favored enemy and cast instant enemy and suddenly they count as an elf for you, including your bane weapon. Totally legit.
You have a very odd set of assumptions, highly favorable magic item (which is not in pathfinder proper, just 3.5) and the same ability stacking with itself with very unfavorable assumptions of a 15 point buy.
My build would probably be dwarf monk 1, warpriest X. I doubt the gains from monk 2 would be worth the loss of a caster level.
Interesting story here.
A couple of highlights:
So it sounds like the police force is alienating people of both races. However:
According to a 2013 report released by the Missouri attorney general, African-Americans are highly over-represented in crime statistics. They accounted for 93% of arrests after traffic stops, 92% of searches and 86% of traffic stops.
A police officer from L.A. has some advice for protestors:
Ever hear of the Patriot Act? The constitution is on life support, at best.
Which goes back to best judgement. Just like the police can derail a protest to protect people from a gasoline spill, so to can they derail a protest to protect it from mob violence. Or protect it from traffic. etc.
Now if you're willing to take the cases to court, you might, MIGHT, be able to convince someone worthwhile that your right to protest was subverted by police because they didn't like what you were saying, but that's 6 months + down the road and gods know how much in lawyer fees, at which point someone in the police department gets a couple hours sensitivity and/or riot training.
Could you, for the love of all that is polyhedral, explain to me how that is remotely different from denying it?
Functionally, probably not much. I suspect there is a law that requires an assembly be allowed within so many days kf being filed for, but very likely there are an equal number of ways around that.
While I'm not a fan of giving up an inch of liberty for safety, letting the police have time to arrange for detours and close off streets is in everyone's best interest.
True, but as we have seen they can often violate the rights of suspects and criminals alike so again, there is not a big difference between the two.
This is one reason for permits. For instance, I can't get with a friend of mine and choose to assemble in front of someone's drive way just because I don't like them and want to keep them from driving to work.
Now I don't know what the exact steps for getting a permit are, I would assume it would go through city hall, and the police would be involved, though I don't know exactly how much input the police would have.
But yes, police do have the right to interfere even in a perfectly legal protest, to an extent. Imagine, for a moment, a march going down a street, all its permits signed and everything. Then, 2 blocks ahead on the marcher's route a fuel truck over turns and gasoline goes everywhere. That is incredibly dangerous and the police can, and indeed must interfere.
Unfortunately that opens up a when can and can't police interfere discussion, and I suspect though I don't know for sure that the answer is they must use their best judgement.
The government most definitely can tell you not to assemble, they're doing it as we type in Ferguson. Now if it is a big enough assembly and properly scheduled they have a duty to accomodate you, even if it meams blocking roads and redirecting traffic, but they'll impose limits all the same, limits on where it can happen, when it can happen, etc.
On a very small scale think of a policeman enforcing antiloitering laws, that is, in a way, limiting your right to assemble.
Eta: You are right, most assemblies don't need a permit, but those are trumped by local ordinances. If you need special treatment under the law (ie. Your protest is so large it will block streets) you will need permits. And that isn't entirely bad, it helps keep everyone safe (ideally).
Less of a difference than you might think actually. Even criminals have rights.
Now that Martial Law has been declared, doesn't that mean the civil/criminal code is no longer being enforced, but rather Martial Law? ie...court martial, detention, and so on?
No. That would require stripping people of more rights than they're willing to give up. Yet at least. Another scare or two on a national level and then maybe they'll ok that, in the name of safety.
And on a totally unrelated note heavily armed, self sufficient survivalist compounds look better every year.
No, it is more like saying you can't carry your gun any and every where. They are welcome to get permits and hold protests, they are not welcome to do so without said permits, nor in times or places outside of what those permits allow. Just as you can't carry without a permit and can only carry where the permit allows.
Also, when police are on the scene you are required to obey their orders for public safety. If a cop asks for your gun you hand it over, if a cop tells you to get out of the road you do so. No differentthan if a cop told you that you had to takea detour on a road.
Fake Healer wrote:
The British didn't believe their colonies had any right to revolt and were just using it as an excuse to loot ans pillage, look how that turned out.
Freedoms aren't absolute, just as freedom of speech has limitations, so to does the freedom of assembly.
As to taking guns away for the public safety, we do. Try going on a school's grounds (or a bar) while carrying.
The simple answer to that is when the truth of what is happening is worse than what people imagine is happening based on the fact that they're preventing us from discovering what is happening.
More likely, however, thinking wasn't part of their job description.
The paizo staff on the boards have stated that you cannot gain the same attribute to damage more than once. (Ie. Trying to take trench fighter and gunslinger.) I don't believe that it is ever, explicitly, stated in the books though.
That's hilarious. Also, sad.
When Egypt is like "bro, we're worried you might have some humans right violations. . . "
And just how nice do you think things are? You must be wearing some serious blinders not to recognise this as merely the eruption of a long standing problem in this town, and countless others like it.
Um. . . What? I acknowledge that the situation is bad in previous posts, and in the edit to the post you quoted (which I guess I did after you quoted me). But let us at least be reasonable and factual about what is going on, it isn't protestors getting attacked because someone threw a plastic water bottle like BNW said, there has been gunfire and more coming at the police.
You can believe the police or not believe the police, but the fact is they're there and have a better idea of what is happening than you do. 3 or so minutes of footage from a single angle by someone who may or may not have an agenda doesn't give a comprehensive vision of rather or not the police were attacked.
I suspect the Molotov cocktails and gunfire had more to do with the stun grenades and tear gas than the water bottles, but nice attempt at making the cops seem worse than they are. Not that they really need your help to look bad.
So you think it is a bad idea to give military equipment to police to handle this situation, but acceptable to send in the actual military?
At "best" this works perfectly, they handle the looting amd everyone is happy and all across America the idea of deploying our own military to deal with our own civilians becomes a little more palatable. Lose, lose IMO.
Deploying the police force with military grade equipment is one thing, but rolling out the actual military against our own people is a whole 'nother thing indeed. Bleh. From bad to worse.
I'm curious what part of his you find monstrous. I'm guessing it is the 6 shots. IMO: Once the police have deided an incident has scaled to the point where it is necessary to take a life, shooting 6 times is fine, you never know when drugs or hidden armor or what have you can make the situation worse. Not like he'd be less dead if the cop had shot him 5 times instead of 6.
The part that bothers me is the lack of powder burns. I don't know exactly how close you have to be to get them, but obviously the kid wasn't that close. Looks bad for the police officer.
I know you wouldn't make a statement like this without some kind of evidence to back it up and I'd love to see it...
I'm not sure you're aware, but this game actually does require you to read with your brain engaged. That's a feture, not a flaw.
In the case of a sociopathic murderer there is blood, a murder weapon, and physical evidence. In a looting not only are you not going to have time to dust for prints, you're probably not going to have an inclanation to do so when it means taking your attention off the crowd who is shooting at you. In a looting nothing distinguishes the guy who just emptied a register into his pockets from the person next to him except the contents of his pockets, and gods help a police officer here who randomly starts detaining people to search their pockets for stolen money.
Good try though.
Also, way to judge the cop guilty before a trial.