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

Tequila Sunrise's page

3,480 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 3,480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Aranna wrote:
Hopefully after I yelled at her my mom will spend more than 5 minutes vetting future matches for me.

Sorry to hear about your breakup and terrible date, Aranna. I've had some bad ones, but wow, yours was a winner! :/

I'm curious, does your mother set up most/all of your dates?

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Edit: Y'know, Ash was right, this is pretty off topic.

I've personally had enough of blurry rogues and near-sighted fisticuffs, but I'm also curious to see which bizarre direction my thread next takes.

What about precision damage + brilliant energy weapons vs. the greater fortitude armor enchantment? Has PF resolved that debate one way or another, or can my thread possibly go down this dark rabbit hole?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Thankfully, the dark times draw to a close, as my shorts are out of the dryer, I don't know how people wear pants all the time.

We learned from the Aes Sedai.

(Also, some of us are paid to wear pants.)

I get paid to wear pants too, but it still sucks, even if it is only for 10-15 hours a week.

I work in a desert. I would pay to get to paid to work with pants on for only 10-15 hours a week. ;)

Freehold DM wrote:

best. Response. Ever.

Also, pants rule.

...Also, I belatedly realized that there is a double meaning in my response.

Oh well, happy accidents. :D

2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Thankfully, the dark times draw to a close, as my shorts are out of the dryer, I don't know how people wear pants all the time.

We learned from the Aes Sedai.

(Also, some of us are paid to wear pants.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Can we get synthetic teeth implants already or better bloodstream full-body-repair-and-maintenance nanies already, so we don't have to bother with such trivial details in our lives?


Why is it that sharks have the gift of continual tooth-regrowth, but we don't? Get on with the crispring already, I'm ready for my pointy teeth!

I have a root canal scheduled for Monday. :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Yesterday, Brut Squad wrote:

Speaking of work.

I get to work tonight, yay!

Or something.

I anticipate a lot of surly people upset that we don't have an infinite supply of school supplies, which we are most likely out of, except Paw Patrol, we're never out of Paw Patrol.

Also Lego blind bag gropers, we always get a lot of Lego gropers on Thursday.

I'm about to have a veeery long night at work.

Oh well, at least OT pay...

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I just woke up from a dream that ended with me sliding down a really high spiral staircase, and airplanes being blown up left and right as I try to navigate to safety thru a tarmac under fire.

Funny, I don't remember inviting Michael Bay to direct my dreams.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My gf has introduced me to Oregano's Pizza Bistro, and their amazing cookie dessert -- a big half-baked cookie with ice cream on top. I am not a cookie guy, not at all. There are a thousand things I would prefer to most cookies. But oh my gawd, these things are amazing!

What I want to know is: Why is this not the standard way of eating cookies!?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I still have people who believe that Clinton is no different than Trump, because they believe that she'll back out of any promises she made to the Sanders crowd, they pretty much see her and Trump as two sides of the same coin.
I'm probably one of those. I think Clinton is perhaps even MORE dishonest then Trump...BUT....

If it hasn't been mentioned yet, those concerned with candidate honesty -- or the honesty of any popular figure -- should check out PolitiFact fact-checks all kinds of claims made by politicians and pundits, and includes sources with their judgments in case you want to look into things yourself. Not only that, they have honesty scorecards for many public figures, where you can see how many true v. false claims that figure has made. It's pretty damn convenient.

While Hillary's scorecard doesn't quite compare with Bernie's, she's had a whole lot more scrutiny than he has. We voters should absolutely be holding our politicians accountable for their beliefs and claims, and pulling them toward honesty rather than convenient lies and half-truths. But there are degrees of honesty, and Hillary comes out miles ahead of Drumpf. Frankly, it's the difference between a somewhat-more-honest-than-average politician and a compulsive liar.

And lest anyone think that PolitiFact is part of some insidious 'liberal media' that Drumpf and many conservatives like to winge about, PolitiFact nailed Hillary to the wall for her email claims, and the scorecards for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not flattering at all.

We're incredibly lucky here in the USA to have a say in who governs us, and it kills me that so many people seem to buy into the sh!t-flinging, say "Well they're all liars and crooks," and then throw up their hands.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grognardy Dangerfield wrote:
I think the Paladin went wrong and lost its respect when it stopped being a prestige class.

^^ Sometimes satire is truth. ^^

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:
In these days of absentee voting, and early voting, it would work wonders to get everybody voting.

While I don't think compulsory voting would work here (the fine would serve as yet another tax on poor people who *can't* take a day off to vote, for whatever reason), the notion of making Election Day a federal holiday (if it replaced Labor Day, every Republican would vote for it!), and giving a lot more people the day off, could be an option.

That said, the people who are most hindered from getting to the polls by their jobs and financial situation would be the one's least likely to get the day off anyway, since McDonalds and Bob's Auto Repair don't generally give holidays off (let alone paid holidays), so I'm probably just re-arranging deck chairs...

For a country that prides itself on being the world's Shining Bastion of Democracy/Republic, it oughtta be a crime that voting isn't an all-business mandatory holiday. Paid day off for everyone, unless you provide some essential service like power generation. In which case, employees can take shifts so that everyone has the true freedom to vote.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
You know I think the worst part about bringing up 4e is that it's not even that well balanced.

Before 2010 the balance issue was "Pick one of 3 simple math hole fixes sometime before 11th level." But as soon as Mearls took the wheel and tried to go retro with 4e, yeah, the quality really tanked on the PC side.

Also, so glad to see that my undead thread has been hijacked by 4e complaints.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Paul Ryan: I'm running for reelection.

Trump: I'm not ready to endorse you.

PR: I never asked for your endorsement.

Me: *Lmao*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thread got necroed!

...Does that make me the tormented soul trapped within the husk of my former vessel, or just a hapless bystander about to have my brain eaten?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MageHunter wrote:
These justifications feel a bit like evil excuses to me...

People are frighteningly good at excusing convention without even realizing it.

Golem-making and -commanding have no moral consequences because 1) unlike the D&D golem, the mythological golem is a benevolent protector ensouled by wise rabbis, and 2) golems are not icky or scary like undead are. And as JJ says below, nobody with their name on the inside cover of a MM has thought much about it.

Philosophically, making and commanding golems in D&D probably ought to be evil, given the default fluff about binding earth spirits who occasionally go berserk.

James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:

Why is golem crafting not evil?

You basically kidnap an elemental spirit from it's home plane, strip it's soul from it's body, torture it until it loses it's mind, imprison it in some man-made shell, and then enslave it to follow your commands.

Bestiary - Golem wrote:

Golems are magically created automatons of great power. They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental. The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.

Being mindless, golems do nothing without orders from their creators. They follow instructions explicitly and are incapable of complex strategy or tactics. A golem's creator can command it if the golem is within 60 feet and can see and hear its creator. If uncommanded, a golem usually follows its last instruction to the best of its ability, though if attacked it returns the attack. The creator can give the golem a simple command to govern its actions in his absence, or can order the golem to obey the commands of another, but the golem's creator can always resume control by commanding the golem to obey him alone.

If I were designing the game, and if I were making that call, I would do one of the following:

1) Make golem crafting evil, because it requires the enslavement of a spirit.

2) Change the flavor of how you animate the golem to something less evil sounding.

Golem crafting is not evil because that bit slipped by the designers edition after edition, essentially. I have not yet been a designer of an edition, but addressing this discontinuity is something I would like to see cleaned up. It's not something that'll happen now though.

Wait, haven't JJ & Co in fact been the designers of a new edition? Or was this comment written pre-PF?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's because the Law vs. Chaos axis isn't really an ethical spectrum; it's a collection of personality traits. Whereas many cultural and philosophical beliefs can be projected onto the Good vs. Evil axis, Law and Chaos are collections of personality traits*. And because personality traits are not at all mutually exclusive, determining what's Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful can be nigh-impossible unless a creature falls neatly into one of those three boxes.

For example, I keep my word and largely tell the truth. When I'm on a team, I play for the team and can be relied upon to do at least my share. I can also be slow to react to new situations. However, I also strongly believe in personal freedom and don't particularly like being part of a team in the first place. I have a facile mind and imagination, and understand new concepts quickly. I don't believe in change for the sake of change, but nor do I believe in continuity for the sake of continuity. I have near-endless patience for putting things in order, but almost none for things that I consider trivial or politicking.

Am I Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? I think you can see the problem.

*2e Law and Chaos are more philosophical/ethical, but the only vestige of this in 3.x is the "dedicated to balance" option for True Neutrals.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Yeah, nobody thought Trump could win the primary, and laughed at the very idea... you all seem to laugh at the idea of him winning the general, and think it's going to be historic landslide?

You seriously underestimate how utterly horrible the average American is. He's run on a platform of hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, and insult after insult after insult...and his fans don't just like him, they absolutely love him.

Yeah, no doubt we'll all look back on this election with 20/20 hindsight and say "How could it have been any other way?" But I'm not at all confident that Hillary is the one with the election already in the bag, as half the country seems to think. We are after all talking about a con man brazen enough to blame his tax audits on religious persecution -- yes, of him, as a "strong Christian" -- and a whole lot of marks who want so desperately to believe they're being persecuted just like their savior that they eat it up and ask for more. Trump is a genius at telling people exactly what they want to hear in order to get whatever he wants.

Anyhow, I'm writing Bernie a letter to thank him for running and for endorsing Hillary. There may have been a time when I too would have wanted him to go down in a brilliant explosion of liberal glory, but now I think that playing the hand he was dealt is the best way to fight the good fight.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

My question is what is this metaphysical force? It doesn't seem to do much except empower Paladins. It's never even mentioned except in the context of Paladins!

I'm not sure why this seems particularly weird to you. In this game system magic can be powered by

Training to channel words, gestures and bits of matter into arcane forces (wizards etc.)
Deities (clerics etc.)
Your ancestors having contact with just about anything (sorcerers)
Being good at performing?? Nothing at all?? (Bards)
Mysterious concepts (oracles)
Undefined Spirits (shamans)
The Force (psychic magic)

just to name a few.

Given all that, what is the big deal about one group being powered by Honor and Righteousness?

It seems particularly weird because there's little/no mention of the powers of Chaos and/or Evil. It's not about the many and sundry ways that other classes are powered. It's about consistency, because inconsistency is weird for some of us.

I say this as a fan of cosmic ethical forces.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

TS's response to GM's question "Is there anything you want to do before the other PCs arrive?" during the first scene of TS's first Rifts scenario:

"Er...I hide my stash of blow, and wait for everyone to show up."

In my defense, I probably wouldn't have chosen the cyber-knight, had I known that that pregen had the Dudley Do-Right alignment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
"historians claim this is false, but there's always a bit of truth to some rumors"

This reminds me of statements like "22% of the time, I'm right every time."

I have nothing to constructive to say, I just thought that was funny. :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Yesterday wrote:
Darth Terrigan, Sith Marauder wrote:
Darth Yesterday wrote:
Bah, All hail Darth Stewie Vader!

Force Choke


I find your lack of respect . . . disturbing.

I can understand that you would be upset that Seth MacFarlane did a better version of Star Wars.

But it's better if you just accept the truth.

Seth's is the only version of SW that I own or have watched more than once.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I do. Me and TS are having dinner tomorrow night. It's gonna be cool.
raise a glass for me!

We raised hell for you.

Dinner was great, looking forward to gaming with Mr. and Ms. TOZ!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

Breaking News, high level caster causes balance problems. More at 11.

The fact that your group is entirely casual should have been your first clue to tone things down. This DM clearly has bigger eyes than his stomach if he thinks he can handle an 18th+ campaign.

Ayup, I've been this DM. I thought that starting at 20th level would be fun, had no idea how broken the game is, said "Anything official goes!," angry words were had, it happens.

If I were Alzrius, I'd swallow my frustration with having the rug pulled out from under me for the time being. Re/make a simpler and lower-powered PC, show up, have fun, show that I'm a sport. Then after everyone has had a blast with the second session and has realized that I'm not out to tank their fun, apologize and explain things just like Alzrius has done here. Assuming I'm cool about it and the group is halfway reasonable, they should understand and may even apologize.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Was hoping I'd get out of work early today, but I'm stuck here.

Reading the CFR. :(

Code of Federal Regs

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
You might be looking at poor examples, Tequila Sunrise.

Entirely possible. I bow to the community's greater knowledge of there's-a-feat-for-that feats. :)

Pan wrote:
OP have you considered trying 5E? Do you find the same pitfalls in that system?

I'm unlikely to try 5e anytime soon. Recently I've been feeling very ambivalent about D&D, and am honestly more interested in tinkering with my fantasy heartbreaker than playing.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

“I hate feats, because they implicitly exclude PCs from doing things that they’d otherwise be able to do without feats.” It’s been a complaint since 2000, and I can understand it. For example, the Call Truce feat sets up a specific mechanic for parleying with enemies. If you take the feat and abide by its circumstantial restrictions, you can make a Diplomacy check to temporarily cease combat. For a core example, Power Attack sets up a specific mechanic for taking a wild but powerful swing.

This is the internet so I’m sure someone will disagree with me, but I think that most of us can agree that attempting parley and taking wild swings are both things that any character ought to be able to do. (We’ll have different opinions about which situations exclude the possibility of parley, and which if any mechanics ought to be used for it, but we can agree that parley ought to be possible in at least some situations with or without a feat.)

That said, I don’t remember this ever being an issue. I’ve never played in a campaign where a Call Truce type feat excluded the possibility of anyone attempting parley. (Or at least, I wasn’t aware if there was.) And I’ve never heard a player without Power Attack say “I want to swing wild and powerful. Can I get modifiers to reflect that?” (Admittedly, players may have assumed that the existence of PA would shut them down, and so not bothered to ask.)

If this sort of thing has been an issue for you, how did you deal with it?

As a DM, it occurs to me that these sort of feats can be used as guidelines for universally-accessible house rules. For example, if a PC without PA takes a wild swing, I might rule that she gains all the penalties but only half the bonuses described in the PA text. If a PC without Call Truce tries to parley, I could rule that it works as described in CT except that it takes two turns instead of one to attempt. Or that trying to parley without CT increases the DC by 5. Or that CT simply allows parley attempts in situations which I would otherwise tell a player “Parley is clearly futile here, you have no chance of success.”

Of course, if I’ve been handling a certain action with my own house rule, and then discover that ‘there’s a feat for that,’ the feat may create a prickly dilemma. If my house rule uses a different mechanic than the feat, do I change my house rule to mirror the feat, or vice versa? If my house rule is better than the feat, do I buff the feat or nerf my house rule? But it is hypothetically doable.

Perhaps all there’s-a-feat-for-that feats ought to be accompanied by an official universally-accessible rule? Much like Combat Expertise is accompanied by the fighting-defensively rule, and the total defense rule.

So, ideas? Experiences? Snarky comments?

Yes, the title is click-bait. I’m looking forward to the pitchfork-mob replies from folks who reply without reading the OP. ;)

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Apupunchau wrote:
Alignment does not dictate personality. Which is something I talk about in the article. Also alignment does not dictate actions. it is quote frankly the other way around. Your actions dictate your alignment, I know we all start with a given alignment and try and play into it but that's not how it really works. By picking an alignment we're saying the characters actions up until this point have brought him here. But that is not to say that he has to stay there. The actions you take after will determine where you fall on the alignment scale.
I do not understand: I said I don't like having a label because a label makes me feel like I have to live up to it. It doesn't matter that's not the intent I still feel that way.

Thanks for your perspective! I wonder how many gamers know that alignment is meant to be descriptive rather than proscriptive, but nevertheless feel obligated to live up to the label?

Judging by every alignment debate ever, probably more than a few.

Klara Meison wrote:
For example, what do you think about the allignment effects of each of the possible actions in this situation?

I literally loled when I read that, thanks. I like the author’s sense of humor. :D

Personally I call these sort of catch-22’s morally neutral. That is, you can’t win, so your decision has no effect on your alignment. Unless of course you instigate a bidding war between Leftie and Jones, with the winner getting to live. ;)

Of course if I force your character into a catch-22 and then change his/her alignment no matter what, I shouldn’t be using alignment ‘cause I clearly have a dysfunctional perception of it. Or maybe I shouldn’t be DMing in the first place. :p

Thrawn007 wrote:
There is an old dragon magazine article in Dragon 173 called Get Your Priorities Straight by Royce Wicks, that to this day I still think is the best take on the alignment system I'd ever seen. It basically argued that each alignment can be broken down into a mix of seven priorities, factoring in that you might be most loyal to your race, your deity, your liege, or even your family. Being chaotic didn't mean you had no loyalties, you just valued a much less.

Hm, how do the 7 priorities work? Are the same 7 priorities arranged in a different order across the L-N-C spectrum, or does each alignment have different priorities? Does a chaotic person have weaker/fewer loyalties, or different loyalties? Assuming you can remember properly. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lynora wrote:

Nothing says summer like sitting out on the balcony with a nice iced coffee. :)

Today is a high of 72 with a nice cooling breeze. I love it. I wouldn't even hate summer if it was always like this.

It is not-quite the hottest hour of the day here, and it is 42C (107F), with a breeze whispering directly from the gates of hell.

Sooo jealous.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:


...Didn't want to bump the other thread with a return greeting. ;)

I'm living in Arizona, working at a solar power plant, and enjoying a gamer girlfriend! What's up with you?

Man, I miss a lot of things skipping hundreds of new FaWtL posts.

When do I get to buy you a drink?

How's Saturday? Drop me a PM, I'd love to chat with another Paizonian. :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Owl Pacino, Vrock Star wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

90 degrees at 1am.

F##@ you Florida.

Hmn... From what the thermostat says, it is on cool. I think I will turn it up to normal.

Edit - My wife hates the humidity combined with the heat here in the South.

If everyone's air conditioning went out in Florida, 10% of the population would be murdered in angry rages in just the first week.

My boss here in Phoenix has told me homicidal horror stories that I never heard the likes of back in the northeast. I'm convinced that the climate plays a part in pushing people over the edge.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I don't get having 1d3 weapon damage, there is no three sided dice! "Just ignore the four" they say. Four is the best number on a four sided dice, do you know how frustrating it can be to roll four after four after four, and then they say "Oh, well, that's a three" It's clearly a four!

Who says that? That is objectively false.

A d3 gives even odds of getting a 1, a 2, and a 3. "Roll 1d4, treat 4s as 3s" gives 50% odds of getting a 3 and 25% odds of getting 1 and 2.

/math nerd

Though I never had much objection to d3s, it seems enough people share your objection that 4e eliminated them. :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

He finally came up with the idea of releasing her, then killing her. Considering the corner he's painted himself into, it's really not a bad solution, as long as he warns her, gives her time to prep, and then tracks her down and kills her. "I promised I'd let you go, and I will be true to that promise. But in our time together I have learned that you are a vile vermin who needs to be exterminated. So once you have been free for 24 hours, I will stop at nothing to track you down and destroy you."

I actually kind of like it.

I like it too. It's great drama, and also a great demonstration of why NG is the goodest good. A NG hero doesn't have to compromise the protection of innocents with honor.

"I promised I'd let you go, but that was before I knew you were a scum-of-the-earth villain. So that's why I killed you immediately and without hesitation, before setting you loose on who-knows-how-many innocents." Much less dramatic than your player's solution, but also much Gooder. ;)

that's...anti climactic.

The best solutions usually are. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

He finally came up with the idea of releasing her, then killing her. Considering the corner he's painted himself into, it's really not a bad solution, as long as he warns her, gives her time to prep, and then tracks her down and kills her. "I promised I'd let you go, and I will be true to that promise. But in our time together I have learned that you are a vile vermin who needs to be exterminated. So once you have been free for 24 hours, I will stop at nothing to track you down and destroy you."

I actually kind of like it.

I like it too. It's great drama, and also a great demonstration of why NG is the goodest good. A NG hero doesn't have to compromise the protection of innocents with honor.

"I promised I'd let you go, but that was before I knew you were a scum-of-the-earth villain. So that's why I killed you immediately and without hesitation, before setting you loose on who-knows-how-many innocents." Much less dramatic than your player's solution, but also much Gooder. ;)

captain yesterday wrote:
I just didn't think it was needed.

I'm with you, I didn't even think that PF was needed. ;)

(Feel free to not favorite this one, TL, if you feel torn about it. :) )

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

Ah, the joys of GM'ing as if you're preparing for a court case.

As you all know, we have a "problem player" who pretty much pitches a fit the moment you complain about anything he does, yet his entire roleplay is, "Whom can I screw over in order to further myself?"

He must bring really good snacks...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I think I've pointed out my reasons for hating Magic. Primarily being "anything you can get better at by spending more money, even 10% better, is wrong"

That's why I EDH, dude. I still spend more on the game than I "need to", but I totally dodge the pressure of "gots haves mythic playsets = play good cards". epic eye roll

Fun game. Heck, most of the guys I sling cards with play decks I've financed and built, anyway -- only one of the six or so in our playgroup owns any cards, other than myself.

But, I completely understand your objection. Money-grubbing ain't cool; too bad they had to do it to a good game.

I play on the fringe. Standard can go fornicate itself with a shattered axe handle.

Lol, I wasn't even aware of the different formats until years after I had quit playing.

I totally get the $ == win objection too, and sadly I don't think that there's any way around it, at least if WotC wants Magic to remain popular and profitable. Maybe they don't have to be quite so money-grubby -- Hearthstone is playable for free, and seems to be doing very well -- but there does need to be some incentive for players to keep spending money. Or a competitor will likely take over.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

NobodysHome's random thought of the day:

(1) No group (that I know of) in history has self-identified itself as "evil"
(2) The vast majority of cartoon villains (Skeletor, Maleficent, etc.) self-identify as "evil", and constantly call upon the "Forces of Evil"

Are we doing our kids a disservice by pretending that evil people will always self-identify themselves?

(I despised Captain Planet with a passion rarely seen in my feelings towards cartoons, but I did appreciate that the villains were simply trying to "terraform" Earth into a more polluted world more suited to their species. At least THAT motivation makes sense...)

I remember reading a YA novel back when I was on the cusp of puberty, and then talking about the characters with my mother. I said something like "I really like how character X does horrible things, but isn't outright evil. He has reasons for doing horrible things." "Why do you think bad people do bad things?" was her response.

*Light bulb on*

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Lynora and the GTG, you have my sympathies. Sleep deprivation and frequent infections suck! (As well as bipolar I'm sure, though I have never had to deal with that.) My thoughts are with you both.

Berselius wrote:
Do some people here feel some spells need to be on the spell lists of other classes? Like Mage Armor and / or Endure Elements?

I feel that a really good D&D edition/descendant ought to decide, and then stick to its decision: Are spells special snowflake options each tied to a different class, or are spells universal options that different classes access differently?

'Cause the problem with this issue has always been that some game writers work under one assumption, and others work under the other. In an ideal world, many gamers and game writers alike would go with the first decision. But I don't think it's happenstance or laziness that so many spells are shared between so many spell lists: Spell lists are the most time-consuming part of class creation, and each shared spell is one less spell that must be created per caster class beyond the first.

Nor do I think that different classes accessing the same spells differently is the less-preferable option. There are and always have been ways to make different classes different even if they were to share all the same spells. There are differing avenues of spell access, alternative casting mechanics, basic class stats, and other class features which can and are used to differentiate casters. And as Set points out, some spells are simply staples that can create a sucky 'choice' when only one or two classes have access.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

My wife said I didn't explain this well enough.

At the very end of CoT, there's a point-mechanic based off of things you've done throughout the campaign. You add those to a dice roll.

The problem? There aren't enough points.

In the end, looking it up, it turns out you can, but you have to have a very specific build to get there (a charisma score of 30, leadership, and the...

Wow, that sounds like Truenamer kind of broken, but on a campaign-scale.

(Broken, as in 'Great fluff, just straight-up doesn't work as intended.')

2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

I think this is the first time they've wanted to craft or upgrade anything other than wondrous magic items, with an emphasis on footwear and clothing.

But yeah, Pea Bear has been eyeing the Chainsaw since I got the technology guide. Also since she saw me using one cleaning up after a storm.

...Was I the only one who thought that 'chainsaw' was a humorous euphemism for 'magical weapon of unimportant-for-forum-discussion specifics'?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me when people insult other peoples playstyle.

I am ashamed that I once made a habit of doing so.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Have you ever been in a situation where you wonder why men aren't staring at your chest? Only to realize that it's probably because you are wearing a gun and they are staring at that instead. The only guy at the airport today who looked me in the eyes was the policeman I was chatting with. Guys girls everyone else was staring at my gun.

Freehold will stare openly at your chest and not your gun, for only boobs will bring about world peace.
This is actually true. There are many accounts throughout histories where wars have ended because women withheld sex until the problem was solved. I'm not joking.

You have my attention. Please continue...

NobodysHome wrote:
Because, y'know, actually understanding what you're voting on is overrated.


Just last month we voted on prop 123 here in AZ. The governor (Rep) and the state congress (Rep-dominated) advertised it as the long-awaited funding that AZ schools desperately need. In fact, it's a fiscally-irresponsible half-measure that'll simply cause another funding crisis in another ten years or so.

And of course is passed, thus allowing the state government to weasel out of its lawful obligation to simply keep school funding in line with inflation.

From my research, several of the founding fathers had a dim view of political parties. In fact the electoral college was in part an effort to prevent their formation. It just happened that the EC failed spectacularly, in this regard and others.

NobodysHome wrote:

Scandals I can ignore. Some of Chicago's greatest politicians were also its most corrupt.

It's her extremely pro-big-business stance. In my personal opinion, the greatest threat to U.S. politics today (and the consumer in general) is the consolidation of companies into a handful of mega-corporations that have all the rights of individuals (thanks, Supreme Court!), none of the responsibilities ("You can't throw a corporation in jail"), and the monetary wherewithal to swing national policy ("Money = Free Speech").
My impression of Hillary is that she's never met a corporation she didn't like, and she'll be even more likely to be influenced by big...

Thanks for your thoughts. :)

I find corporations and their influence on politics very concerning as well, and I hadn't really considered that aspect of Hillary. I just figured she's more or less as married to big business donations as the next Dem. (Which is to say, slightly less than the next Rep.) I have Open Secrets open in another tab, and...bleh! Like anything to do with politics, educating myself looks like a downright Herculean task! What does all this stuff mean...

thegreenteagamer wrote:
I would agree, if primaries weren't funded with public money. If they were entirely, 100%, absolutely no public money involved whatsoever, yeah, but as long as the government funds it with taxes taken from everyone, everyone should have a right to vote in the primaries.

Did not know, thanks. :)

thegreenteagamer wrote:
This crap would never happen in a parliamentary system.

Recently I've found myself wondering how exactly politics differs across the pond. The simplicity of voting directly for who you want to see in office, not seeing a redundant house of congress slow things even further*, and avoiding these longer-by-the-term primary seasons is getting more and more appealing.

But there is the "Primaries give oddball candidates a chance to prove their potential" argument. Not sure how well this has been borne out by history though.

*The UK does have the House of Lords, but I think most parliaments just have the one house.

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I just know Hillary will continue Obama's "lets ignore the constitution and extend the power of the executive branch" pattern. Also, she won't overturn Obamacare. We need legitimate universal healthcare, not this b*!~~#~% half assed tax people who can't afford healthcare b~&*&*%+.

Bernie Sanders 2016.

I'd love to see Bernie in the White House, with a democratic congress to not just stonewall everything he wants to do. He's definitely the two-steps forward candidate.

I do however note that Hillary attempted healthcare reform long before we ever heard the name Barrack Obama. She probably won't get America the universal healthcare that we deserve, but she'll also veto any dogmatic Rep attempts to repeal Obamacare. (Who will then either forget all about healthcare reform, or replace it with an even bigger hand-out to the insurance industry.) Sadly, I think that two-steps-forward-one-step-back is our best viable option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
  • On the other hand, this is easily the most depressing election in my lifetime. As of Tuesday (after California votes), we are almost certainly going to be presented with two (realistic) choices:
    - A career criminal and lawyer (are those redundant?) so beholden to big business that we might as well stencil, "This presidency brought to you in a joint venture by Mosanto, Bank of America, and AT&T" on the wall of the White House.
    - An egotistical, misogynistic, racist "businessman" whose track record includes FOUR bankruptcies and a net worth that is LESS than if we'd had a drunken chicken randomly selecting stocks (the Index fund) for him. Yeah, he's a "genius", all right. Just like Forrest Gump was.
    - Really, America? Is this REALLY the best you can do?
  • So I'll be voting third-party. And what amazes me is the number of people who not only say, "You're throwing your vote away", but who say, "You're helping the party I oppose because xxx."
  • I do wish that third parties were viable here in the U.S., though I'm not nearly so pessimistic about Hillary. Worst case scenario I can imagine with her is that some scandal blows up in her face two years into her first and only term, and our first female president leaves a bad taste in America's mouth.

    Worst case I can imagine with Trump is that he spends eight years mucking things up, and then installing himself as Grand Chief in Commander indefinitely after conning his fanatical marks into thinking that "I just need one more term to repair America and start winning again..." And then eventually declaring himself the United States of Trump's Grand Capitalista, thus finally dropping the charade of democracy. All the while building walls both figurative and literal, oppressing minorities, and starting all sorts of wars, while simultaneously telling his Christian majority supporters that the world and their own government is persecuting them. (Except for him of course.)

    (I know that many Christians do not support Trump. I mentioned the ones who do, because they epitomize the sheer bald-faced lies and hypocrisy that Trump is able to get away with by telling people what they want to hear.)

    All that said, I haven't looked into all the Hillary scandals so maybe I should be as afraid of her. What scares you most about her?

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    MeanMutton wrote:
    Gisher wrote:
    Haladir wrote:

    Perhaps we should shy away from referencing real-world religious figures when talking about game mechanics.

    Just sayin'.

    This game is thoroughly riddled with mythology: titans, angels, elves, gods, etc. I don't see why references to this particular mythological being should be different from those to any other. Would you have the same concerns about other demi-gods like Hercules or Perseus?

    Just sayin'.

    I wasn't aware that roughly half the world's population consider Hercules and Perseus to have religious import.

    Were you aware that the ancestors of the current religious majorities politicked, tyrannized, conquered, and murdered the former religious majorities out of existence?

    I like to think that the merits of treating religious belief as what it is outweighs the merits of treating it as a popularity contest.

    Melkiador wrote:
    Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
    And the end of Solomon's reign is marked by a staggering lack of wisdom that ultimately sunders his kingdom
    But it makes pretty good sense if you replace all instances of "wisdom" with "intellect" or "knowledge". So, maybe it's a translation issue, and "wisdom" didn't mean what we mean when we say wisdom.

    Gaming is the only context I know of where wisdom is defined as common sense, willpower, intuition, and such. In every other context that I know of, wisdom is a synonym for knowledge, skill, savvy, etc.. Basically, a combination of stuff we call Int, skills, and certain feats in rpgs.

    So...yeah. Best not to equate literary, mythological, or historical wisdom with rpg wisdom. :)

    1 to 50 of 3,480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2016 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.