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

ShadowcatX's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 4,818 posts. 9 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

So not letting someone have concrete (which they seem to have had in the tunnels) makes it acceptable to fire rockets at someone, but someone firing rockets at you doesn't make it acceptable to return fire.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Fathi Hammad: [The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Assuming the translation is accurate, your youtube video is hardly the smoking gun you seem to think it is. "They" have formed human shields, not "we use them as human shields."

Look, I am not a fan of Hamas. You can look through my post record in this thread and the one Lord Snow started last time. It wouldn't surprise me if they did use human shields; at the same time, I'm not just going to accept the word of you, Lord Snow or, particularly, Doug's Workshop.

As for abolishing religion, no, I'm pretty sure my comrades in the region don't have a plan for that. It would be rather anti-Marxist.

Because Hamas has absolutely no reason to lie about committing war crimes, amIright?

Andoran

Lord Snow wrote:

o I asked him if racism was ever so rampant ... and (despite him being much more pro Israel than I am), he answered that no, this is new to him.

It seems that the adults of today - the children who grew up with the occupation, have finally started to snap. I don't even want to imagine how things could look a decade from now, if the conflict wouldn't end.

That's not good. Not surprising but not good.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hmm, well, I'm nowhere near looking through all of the links yet, so it is quite possible that I am falling victim to Islamist propaganda, but I'll link them anyway:

Five Misconceptions About the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Hessam Akhlaghpour

In particular, I was interested in the assertions in Point 4:

Misconception 4. Hamas uses human shields.

Israel tries to explain the high civilian tolls by blaming Hamas for using human shields. The claim is that Hamas stores weapons and launches rockets near residential areas, leaving Israel with no choice but to bomb those locations.
That Hamas launches and stores rockets near densely populated residential areas must inevitably be true, since Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth and if Hamas had designated an area for military operations, it would be instantly pulverized by Israeli forces. But, this does not necessarily qualify as using "human shields," defined as "intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective." So, for example, the weapons that were discovered in one UNRWA school last week (an incident described as "the first of its kind), does not confirm the "human shield" allegations, because the school was vacant at the time.

Amnesty International investigated Israel's previous claims in 2009 and found "no evidence Palestinian fighters directed civilians to shield military objectives from attacks, forced them to stay in buildings used by militants or prevented them from leaving commandeered building." The same report found that on several occasions the Israeli forces, however, "had forced Palestinians to serve as human shields," as also confirmed by Human Rights Watch and the UN.

Amnesty's report acknowledges that Palestinian armed groups were endangering civilians by "firing rockets from residential areas and storing weapons, explosives and ammunition in them," but also acknowledged that mixing with the civilian population "would be difficult to avoid in the small and overcrowded Gaza Strip, and there is no evidence that they did so with the intent of shielding themselves." The report also points out that Israel behaves similarly by placing military bases and headquarters in or around residential areas of Israeli cities and conducting military activities "close to civilian areas in the south of Israel."

Anyone who paid attention to the twitter account of Hamas' military wing (recently suspended) would have noticed that whenever they announced they were launching rockets at Israeli cities, they would claim they were targeting military bases. It would be absurd to blame potential Israeli civilian casualties on the Israeli Defense Force for placing military bases close to residential areas. But blaming Palestinian civilian casualties on Hamas is quite normal.

Furthermore, forcing civilians to act as human shields for military objectives should not be confused with activists voluntarily acting as human shields to protect hospitals and homes. The former is a war crime and should be condemned, but the latter is a courageous form of nonviolent resistance and should be praised.

How about defining the word "close to" as relates to both Israel and to Hamas?

Regardless, you acknowledge that Israel has designated military targets and non-military targets, where as Hamas does not. The claim is because if Hamas had dedicated military targets they would immediately be crushed, and that is undoubtably correct. However, it would help reduce civilian casualties, would it not? Hamas chooses to fight the way they do because they value fighting more than they value the lives of people around them.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Dude, why do you think I said "for what it is worth"?

Because you put a LOT of stock in what Israel says and its justifications, buying into some really, really bad arguments.

I don't, actually. I put a lot of stock into the fact that Israel ignores tons of missiles yearly, but as to what they say, I know better.

Quote:
Quote:
They are saying the shell didn't cause any casualties actually. An airburst shell designed entirely to kill the most people possible...

When you use the word "Actually" you're supposed to be correcting someone. You don't appear to be doing that, and you appear to be hinting at something without outright saying it. Out with it.

So why not just come out and claim a false flag operation? Because thats ridiculous with the un sitting right there. Of course they can't admit how often these things go off course, because then they couldn't use them around civilians.

ACTUALLY, they are admitting the shell went off course. They don't deny that it hit the school. They are saying that DESPITE it hitting the school they don't believe the casualties at the school were from the shell. So yes, in a round about way they are saying that the deaths there are a false flag operation.

I said, for what it is worth, because I find it hard to believe that a mortar, launched by one of the best trained and best equipped militaries in the world, specifically designed for killing as many people as possible, could hit an occupied civilian target and not kill anyone, despite the IDF's claims.

Andoran

Doug's Workshop wrote:

In other ME news . . .

The US has abandoned its embassy in Libya.

1000 people were killed in Syria last week, with ISIS carrying out beheadings, crucifixions, and other wonderful tortures as described by sharia.

Kurds fighting ISIS got bumpkis from the US in terms of support, so their victories will likely be for naught.

But yeah, let's focus on the boogieman that is Israel.

Let's not pretend people can only be outraged by one thing at a time. Just because country A does something bad that doesn't mean country Q gets a pass just because they aren't quite as bad.

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Note "complaints about civilian deaths" by CNN as if both sides were equally killing civilians. This is the "anti isreali" american media.

BBC Gaza death toll over 1,000 - Israeli toll up to 42

The palastinians have killed TWO civilians in this flare up.

Look at that bomb crater that used to be a house and tell me with a strait face they're trying to minimize casualties.

I think this describes Hamas' attitude towards the civilians they "govern".

Israel is still responsible for the deaths of those civilians, but Hamas plays a role and it isn't the one of savior.

Ok, let's not equate mental illness with terrorism.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Also, for what it is worth, the IDF has said that some of the Palestinian casualties aren't actually from their fighting, (the UN school for example, they claim their mortar caused 0 casualties) implying that HAMAS might be purposefully killing their own just to be able to blame it on Israel.
OR implying that the IDF is lying their freaking donkeys off. Your entire argument is based entirely on my alleged bias but somehow this isn't even a possibility for you.

Dude, why do you think I said "for what it is worth"? Even I find that a bit of a stretch. That said, Hamas purposefully amtagonizes Israel for the purpose of making Israel kill civilians and thus look bad, so it isn't like this would be outside of their comfort zone.

Quote:
Dear gods man, they admitted launching the shell but say its not their fault. To you that equals a false flag operation rather than implausible deniability .. HOW?

They are saying the shell didn't cause any casualties actually. An airburst shell designed entirely to kill the most people possible...

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Note "complaints about civilian deaths" by CNN as if both sides were equally killing civilians. This is the "anti isreali" american media.

BBC Gaza death toll over 1,000 - Israeli toll up to 42

The palastinians have killed TWO civilians in this flare up.

Look at that bomb crater that used to be a house and tell me with a strait face they're trying to minimize casualties.

Whose fault do you think the civilian deaths are, the ones pulling the trigger, or the targets who are hiding behind the civilians and hiding weapons in civilian targets?

Also, for what it is worth, the IDF has said that some of the Palestinian casualties aren't actually from their fighting, (the UN school for example, they claim their mortar caused 0 casualties) implying that HAMAS might be purposefully killing their own just to be able to blame it on Israel.

Andoran

And Israel is willing to call a cease-fire in order to allow Humanitarian aid into Palestine, if Hamas, and the rest of Palestine is.

Quote:
"We are now maintaining an unlimited humanitarian cease-fire," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told CNN on Monday. "Our troops will only fire if they come under direct attack."

Andoran

Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Interesting article for the "no faction of the Palestinians wants to work with Israel" crowd to consider:

Operation Protective Edge: Reading between the lines

It was surprising to see how quickly they were able to set up an operation to arrest hundreds of people, including many of the ones who were just released in the prisoner swap. That is a lot of people to track.

It seems likely Netanyahu had the plan ready and waiting.

When the s%+% hits the fan is a bad time to start planning.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shadowcat wrote:
So a simple question I asked, how many 5 pound rockets are you ok with having fired at your house?
You asked a deliberately misleading, intellectually dishonest talking point that you are unable to justify with anything other than rote repetition. Are you anti Palestinian or just pro helicopter? How many helicopters firing rockets at your house would you be ok with? Simple questions.
I haven't rockets at anyone. If I were to start firing rockets at powers greater than myself I'd fully expect to be blown back to the stone age. Nor have I kidnapped anyone. Nor dug tunnels under foreign soil for neffarious purposes.

I haven't launched missiles at anyone. If I were to start firing missiles at angry, deprived people I'd fully expect to be blown back to the stone age. Nor have I kidnapped anyone. Nor carved their land up to give to people I like and stolen their water.

The biggest, if not only, difference there is the argument that might makes right.

Or not to blame the current generation for actions taken by their grand parents and great grand parents. But can't expect to hear anything pro Israel from you.

And again, Israel didn't start this spat. They might have wanted it but Hamas, independent cell or not, gave them the reason.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shadowcat wrote:
So a simple question I asked, how many 5 pound rockets are you ok with having fired at your house?
You asked a deliberately misleading, intellectually dishonest talking point that you are unable to justify with anything other than rote repetition. Are you anti Palestinian or just pro helicopter? How many helicopters firing rockets at your house would you be ok with? Simple questions.

I haven't fired any rockets at anyone. If I were to start firing rockets at powers greater than myself I'd fully expect to be blown back to the stone age. Nor have I kidnapped anyone. Nor dug tunnels under foreign soil for neffarious purposes.

Andoran

Andrew R wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
. What did I say that was an insult?
ShadowcatX wrote:
And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

You called me blind and biased. That is an ad hom, not an argument. Note the complete, total, and utter lack of substance to anything you've said to actually make your argument.

Do better.

Quote:
Merely pointing out that your argument is hypocritical

Which you haven't done. You didn't even mention hypocrisy, much less demonstrated it.

And you are. Wanting Israel to be ok with something you'd certainly never be ok with, ignoring the number of rockets fired into Israel, etc. And I don't have to say the word hypocritical to show your argument is, obvious hypocrisy is obvious.

But you are vehment in your hatred and I doubt this will get through that any more than anything else I have said will.

So are you ok with bombing detroit to get the criminals there?

Who is Detroit at war with?

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowCatX wrote:
And you are. Wanting Israel to be ok with something you'd certainly never be ok with

So your charge of hypocrisy relies on your ability to look into an alternate reality AND read my mind to see what I'd be ok with.

Quote:
ignoring the number of rockets fired into Israel

This has not been ignored. Its been addressed and refuted.

You cannot explain why Israel is justified for retaliating against rocket attacks but the Palestinians are not justified for responding to the helicopter attacks. Your cherry picked argument to limit the conversation to JUST the rockets demonstrates that you're either anti Palestinian or just pro helicopter.

So a simple question I asked, how many 5 pound rockets are you ok with having fired at your house?

And tell me, what came first in this conflict, rockets beng launched into Israel or Israel attacking?

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
. What did I say that was an insult?
ShadowcatX wrote:
And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

You called me blind and biased. That is an ad hom, not an argument. Note the complete, total, and utter lack of substance to anything you've said to actually make your argument.

Do better.

Quote:
Merely pointing out that your argument is hypocritical

Which you haven't done. You didn't even mention hypocrisy, much less demonstrated it.

And you are. Wanting Israel to be ok with something you'd certainly never be ok with, ignoring the number of rockets fired into Israel, etc. And I don't have to say the word hypocritical to show your argument is, obvious hypocrisy is obvious.

But you are vehment in your hatred and I doubt this will get through that any more than anything else I have said will.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Are you some how less dead if you die to a 5 pound missile than a thousand pound one? Do your loved ones grieve less? Would you be ok with someone shooting 5 pound missiles at your house? Or at your family perhaps? How big does a missile have to be that you wouldn't want it shot at you?

And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

Your argument is either narrowly framed because its the only way you can possibly support Israel or just incredibly random.

Either way its not good enough to warrant insulting me.

What did I say that was an insult? Merely pointing out that your argument is hypocritical is not an insult. In fact, you're the one who erronously accused people that supported Israel of hating Arabs.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

This should be interesting:

Turkey to send another Freedom Flotilla to Gaza

I have absolutely zero percent problem with humanitarian aid going to Gaza. I don't wish the Palestenians ill, but I certainly wouldn't want people firing rockets at me or my country, and I think the expectation that Israel should be ok with any non zero number of rocket attacks laughable.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

Again. Can you show me I'm wrong or can you just insult me with some passive aggressive pseudo wisdom? If you demand that I count a 5 pound home made rocket the same as a thousand pound high explosive rocket, AND I don't count any of the other forms of ordinance Israel might use then you're obviously biasing the question, on purpose.

I don't have numbers for how many rockets israel has fired (thats probably classified) What I do have are the casualty figures that show Israel Is killing a heck of a lot more Palestinians than the Palestinians are killing Israelis.

Are you some how less dead if you die to a 5 pound missile than a thousand pound one? Do your loved ones grieve less? Would you be ok with someone shooting 5 pound missiles at your house? Or at your family perhaps? How big does a missile have to be that you wouldn't want it shot at you?

And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

75

Mind you, weighting it for size and deadliness seems appropriate for a fair comparison.

And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}

By that logic the Palestinians need enough land to put most of palastine out of range of Israels helicopters, because they need security from the attacks.

Thats the problem with your arguments: they cut equally both ways but you only want to aim them in one direction.

If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

Andoran

Stinking Cloud would be my choice.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:

welcome to the neocolonies

The plan is to build a billion population city one square mile village at a time. By dividing up that square mile into 640 acres, allocating six hundred as one acre residential lots, twenty acres for roads, leaving twenty acres for commercial development. That means companies can pay a billion dollars for the hundred year lease of twenty acres of land in each square mile village and build their five four acre megatowers and those funds can be used to provide six hundred families with an acre, a solar powered shipping container starter house, a Tesla electric car, and five hundred thousand dollars in the bank. Companies will no longer need to pay taxes, there wont be a need for pensions and unemployment benifits, and best of all homelessness and poverty can be ended. The four hundred million remaining will pay for schools and hospitals.

Don't listen to the nay sayers, I think this is a great idea! So good in fact it is probably worthy of being your life's work. And actually, it is definitely worthy of being your life's work. You should probably get started on it right away, and remember to devote ALL your time to it, no more free time to post on Paizo, that's time you could be calling companies to get their billion dollar donations. . .

Andoran

Quote:
Also Wednesday, Ban announced he was ordering a review of incidents where rockets were placed at United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools. Ban demanded that militants stop endangering civilians by putting rockets at the schools.

Link

Better late than never I guess. . .

Andoran

Mark Sweetman wrote:
Situation for civilians in Gaza at present

So if rockets, launched from Pakistan damage the ability of Pakistan to receive electricity, it is Israel's obligation to fix it immediately. Yup, that's totally fair.

I wonder how many people in this thread would hold the same ideals if the government raised their taxes by 50 or so percent to pay for things for in Mexico.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics
Whats the definition of a terror tactic?
Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.
When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

Or, just as an example, dropping bombs and missiles on inhabited cities.

But it's okay as long as you carefully explain that you're really trying not to kill civilians. And your thorough, but classified, internal investigation shows that you were justified.
(Note that this applies to the US in many cases as well as Israel, and many other countries military operations.)

Sometimes I think the only difference between Hamas and the IDF is that Hamas is more honest.

Hamas chose to make those cities targets. If you're launching missles at a foe from a building, that building is not a civilian target anymore.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics

Whats the definition of a terror tactic?

Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.

When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:


I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f!$*ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Andoran

yellowdingo wrote:
Do you still believe the taking of a life is not an assault on the state and therefor treason?

Prove that the taking of a life harms the state, especially when it is the state that orders their execution.

Sometimes the best thing a person can do is die.

Andoran

Short answer: Yes.

Andoran

BigDTBone wrote:
Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.

Not only did it happen, it happened in a post you favorited. Do you even read the posts you endorse?

Caineach wrote:
I don't think you understand english if you think that is what was said.

Before you jump to insulting someone, perhaps you should make sure you understand english. And I quote (not for the first time):

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
What is the definition of a "job" in your book? Does it mean you get paid for some amount of labor? If so, then we can say that being on government assistance counts, since in effect the benefits are the "paycheck" for the labor of applying for the benefits.

Andoran

Freehold DM wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filth
Countryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.
It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.
once you get to an area where you are asking people to accept name calling in the name of accuracy, any sort of dialog is officially over.

Dialogue ended when your side insisted that filling out forms to get benefits was a job.

Andoran

Coriat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Anyone caught selling a card should be cut off for life. that is just stealing from tax payer, worthless filth
Countryman, "worthless filth" is an ugly thing to call a human being, thief or no.

It may be an ugly thing, but that does not make it inaccurate.

Andoran

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
What is the definition of a "job" in your book? Does it mean you get paid for some amount of labor? If so, then we can say that being on government assistance counts, since in effect the benefits are the "paycheck" for the labor of applying for the benefits.

This, right here, is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with the system, and what is wrong with the generation of people who don't believe there is anything wrong with the system.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically, people were excited because it went from entirely 100% suboptimal to being a solid contender. The right build can get into it at 4th level and only miss out on 1 spell level from his or her class of choice, putting their primary casting at the level of a sorcerer (unless, of course, their primary casting is that of a sorcerer).

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Of course it does. It also makes it difficult to criticize the Palestinian "terrorist" organizations for targeting civilian targets. As much as accepting this leaves a dry taste in my mouth.
I got no difficulties. It serves no purpose, is probably counterproductive, and just makes them look like the a!#!&@@s that they are.

While I agree it's probably counter productive, I'm not sure what the alternative is. Israel has shown itself in the past to be quite happy with the status quo, quietly expanding settlements and dividing Palestinian territory further with Israeli controlled roads even at the lowest points of Palestinian violence. As far as I can see the only thing Israel wants from the Palestinians is more land for settlements and an end to violence.

Things are almost certainly worse for Palestinians now, but there's never been any sign of a long term solution. The only bargaining chip they have is stopping the violence and that's always been a precondition for any real negotiations. So "Give us what we want and then we'll start talking about making a deal."

Meanwhile, while everyone moans about how evil the Palestinian terrorists are, far more Palestinian civilians get killed than the other way around.

The alternative is to lay down weapons and go to the table and actually discuss things like mature boys and girls.

And do you think that maybe the reason palestenian civilians die is because they are being actively used as shields, not because they are being actively targeted?

Andoran

Ditto. :(

Andoran

Around here, from what I understand, food stamps are generally worth half value in cash. If you know the right person, or catch them at the right time it can be more than that. Even drug dealers have to eat, and they're happy to get their groceries at half off and free delivery. Hard to cheat the system? Please.

On a side note it is a disgusting feeling to watch someone buy prepared or frozen food on food stamps, then spend our weekly grocery budget on liquor in cash. (We'll, beer, our crockery stores don't carry liquor.) And while it is disgusting, it is not uncommon.

Eta: Crockery stores? Damn auto correct, still, it amuses me so it will remain.

Andoran

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
The only argument for Vampires seems to be "I want to be pretty and have nerve endings in my naughty bits." Though a valid argument, I still don't think all the downsides of being a vampire make it worth it.

Vampires can create minions inherently, liches can't. Vampires can dominate mortals, liches can't. Vampires are inherently physically superior to mortals, liches aren't.

Also, it is relatively easy for a lich to have lost its spellcasting prowess during or because of the transformation. (A cleric whose deity abandons them for example.)

Andoran

If I say vampire, do I have to sparkle?

Andoran

7heprofessor wrote:

Disagree. Contingency is set to an event. Becoming targeted by Mage's Disjunction is an event and your contingent goes off; just like a ready action to counter a spell. I don't see any difference other than you don't need to ready an action.

If it's debatable, tie your contingency to "enemy spell caster tries casting Mage's Disjunction."

And somewhere, half a world away, a mage who is working for a government that wishes to conquer your continent and enslave your people casts mage's disjunction and your contingency randomly goes off.

Gotta be careful with contingency triggers.

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I don't even know how you would compare two feats that do completely different things. How would you compare, for example, the ability to command undead with the ability to use improvised weapons without a penalty?

Fortunately, I don't need to compare Leadership with anything. A feat is broken if it decreases the degree to which the players and GM are entertained. Leadership, handled properly (as the OP does) can be very entertaining. Therefore it isn't broken.

By going "Oh look, this one is useful and this one isn't"?

And your definition of broken is not only vastly different from the generally accepted definition of broken (as in significantly over powered) but also entirely subjective and therefore entirely useless.

My definition is no more subjective than yours. "Useful"? To whom? And under what circumstances? All the feats are useful. Any one of them could mean the difference between success and TPK in the right situation.

Are you saying that Leadership is less or more useful than Command Undead?

First, some feats are only useful in EXTREMELY specific situations that are virtually 100% under the DM's control, while other feats are virtually always useful. Think of the past 100 combats your characters have been in, which has been more generally useful, power attack or skill focus: underwater basket weaving.

Second, I can use leadership to gain command undead, along with a host of other feats, spells, etc.

Andoran

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Lets put it this way.

Weapon Focus is burning a precious feat to give you a mere +1 in what likely amounts to roughly 1/2 of your combats.

What I'd expect out of a feat is either +3 to a single weapon, or +1 to all attacks.

Its great to say "I want more out of a feat than feat X gives" but if there simply are not feats that grant more than feat X gives, your argument is pointless. We deal with what we have, not what we wish we had and if we look at real feats (not imaginary la la land feats) we see that weapon focus is solid.

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:

I don't even know how you would compare two feats that do completely different things. How would you compare, for example, the ability to command undead with the ability to use improvised weapons without a penalty?

Fortunately, I don't need to compare Leadership with anything. A feat is broken if it decreases the degree to which the players and GM are entertained. Leadership, handled properly (as the OP does) can be very entertaining. Therefore it isn't broken.

By going "Oh look, this one is useful and this one isn't"?

And your definition of broken is not only vastly different from the generally accepted definition of broken (as in significantly over powered) but also entirely subjective and therefore entirely useless.

Andoran

137ben wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Saying Weapon Focus is solid is wrong in so many ways.
Oh really? I just googled guides to the fighter, rogue, and magus, and monk. All 4 have weapon finesse listed as green or better (and only the monk listed it as green, the other 3 all had it blue). The paladin and inquisitor guide also ranked it green for melee builds (and orange for archery builds due to how feat intensive archery builds are). So 3 green and 3 blue, out of 6 guides. Sounds like a solid feat to me. . .

Dude, that was a brain fart when I was typing, I have corrected it. I was looking at weapon focus.

Andoran

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Saying Weapon Focus is solid is wrong in so many ways.

Oh really? I just googled guides to the fighter, rogue, and magus, and monk. All 4 have weapon focus listed as green or better (and only the monk listed it as green, the other 3 all had it blue). The paladin and inquisitor guide also ranked it green for melee builds (and orange for archery builds due to how feat intensive archery builds are). So 3 green and 3 blue, out of 6 guides. Sounds like a solid feat to me. . .

(Cavalier guide I found didn't have a general section on feats and it wasn't mentioned in the combat style section.)

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

Are we really back to comparing a level (pc-2) hireling, however bad he can be build, with a +1 to attack?

And don't gimme crap about how he can die, even if he only takes 1 attack he's still way more HP than toughtness, even as a level 1 warrior.

?? I don't see anybody making that comparison. What would be the point of it?

If you can't compare a feat to other feats that people actually take (ie. not garbage feats) what can you compare it to?

I don't know that it necessarily needs to be compared to anything, but if you are going to compare it to something, why pick +1 to attack specifically?

If you can't compare it to anything, how do you know if it is broken?

And +1 attack is weapon focus, a common feat (and solid). You could compare it to something like craft wondrous item, only if you do that then you get a crafting cleric, supplement his spells with your wizard spells (or vice versa if you're the cleric) and suddenly you've gained half a dozen feats for one. Really, comparing it to weapon focus with a martial character is doing Leadership a favor. . .

Andoran

Blakmane wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not seeing any real downgrade to the druid in PF, except to wild shape specifically. They got a lot of nice new spells in the PF splats, and as prepared full casters with access to their entire spell list, that's a huge boost -- in my opinion, more than enough to offset the wild shape nerf.

Most importantly, Natural Spell wasn't nerfed, so at low levels you can still fly around throwing spells down on your enemies, and at higher levels you can still spend a lot of your time earth gliding.

Wild shape and animal companion were both nerfed for druid. The wild shape nerf especially was huge. The PF spell selection is absolutely nothing compared to the 3.5 spell selection for druids, which included such wonders as rot of ages (no save concealment against target for 2 rounds with possibility of sickened/nausea, level 1 spell) and spells such as drown/entomb later on. Most importantly, PF druids lose access to prestige classes such as arcane heirophant and planar shepherd, the latter of which is considered to be one of, if not the most powerful prestige classe ever created,

Well said, and you didn't even have to go into the summon nature's ally summoning list. Anyone who thinks druid didn't get nerfed going from 3.5 to Pathfinder never saw a 3.5 druid. . .

Andoran

JoeJ wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

Are we really back to comparing a level (pc-2) hireling, however bad he can be build, with a +1 to attack?

And don't gimme crap about how he can die, even if he only takes 1 attack he's still way more HP than toughtness, even as a level 1 warrior.

?? I don't see anybody making that comparison. What would be the point of it?

If you can't compare a feat to other feats that people actually take (ie. not garbage feats) what can you compare it to?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Azmyth wrote:

I'm not trying to provoke Druid-lovers into debate...

I'm not trying to entice you to convince me otherwise...

It astounds me the number of people who don't understand what a forum is for.

If you don't want people to discuss your topic, don't post it on an open forum. Simple as that. Posting something and saying "Oh yeah don't discuss it" is like going to a restaurant, giving your order to the waitress and then going "Also don't tell the cook what I ordered".

It defeats the entire purpose.

So much this.

Also, druids were probably the most heavily nerfed class going from 3.5 to PF. (Talking about the class itself, not their items, etc.)

1 to 50 of 4,818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.