|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The Fox wrote:
You have misidentified the problem. Lack of winter is not the issue at all. It is that Gen Con is at the end of July. That is Summer in most of the northern hemisphere. In Phoenix, the end of July is an entirely different season. I think it is called Damnation.
Here is someone enjoying a pleasant July stroll in Phoenix.
Admittedly we're mostly poking fun at the concept because the idea that we should all just learn medicine and not need hospitals is so insane.
Wait...are you gay? Give me back that scalpel!
Nope. Everyone knows it's either Mad Max or 1984.
Except I'm not. I'm completely serious.
Or are you taking the position that refusing people service because they are gay cannot affect their health and well-being? Because they most assuredly can.
Since a civil conversation cannot be had online without people deliberately taking what one says out of context, being fascetious and sarcastic of opinions differing from there own, and otherwise not contributing to the conversation at large without displaying some manner of civility, I will withdraw from this thread.
There is quite a bit of difference between refusing to sell a cake/bouquet/whatever for religious reasons and refusing to take into account another person's health and well-being solely due to greed.
And if my religion sanctifies wealth, am I then justified in "refusing to take into account another person's health and well-being?" You know, as opposed to run-of-the-mill, secular greed...
The right to refuse service to gays is like the right to refuse service to black people, or women, or old people. That is, for the good of society it must give way to people's right to be treated equally. Sure, you can refuse service to anyone for no reason, but you can't refuse service to someone on the basis of race, age, sex, or other protected class. Of course, the ultimate (and obvious) answer to the inevitable "sexual orientation isn't a protected class" response is to simply make sexual orientation a federally protected class. It's only a matter of time, so let's just do it already.
Edit: Some people are arguing that we have effectively already done so.
Expecting the free market to weed out charlatans -- especially before they do plenty of damage -- simply isn't realistic in a modern, hyper-specialized economy. Most consumers lack the means, time, or ability to perform, say, independent trials of experimental drugs. That's why we have an FDA.
Why is this even a discussion?
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Arguing about a new edition is a thread derail.
Speaking from a position of no insider knowledge whatsoever, I expect Unchained will be completely ignored by the Core Campaign, and I hope Unchained's reworked classes will exist side-by-side with their "classic" versions in the Normal Campaign. But again, I know nothing.
I think it's pretty ludicrous to assume that wizards, who are among the smartest people around, would sink thousands of gold pieces on materials for spell books -- including inks -- without checking if that ink is water soluble. Or subsequently using their reality-warping powers to WATERPROOF THE BOOKS which are the source of said powers.
Diego Rossi wrote:
what matters is who goes first and who goes second.
Exactly. But in order to preserve that order when characters change their initiative, you have to track the spell separately. There is no allowance in the rules for doing this; the rules use the number, with is not sufficiently granular.
The problem with the rule is that every place else, order is what matters, but the rule explicitly references initiative count (rather than order). As a result, one must effectively give the ongoing effect it's own initiative score ("or a tag in the combat pad," as you put it) in order to keep the order straight.
In other words, "interpreting it correctly" requires NOT following the rule (which explicitly references the initiative count). That's the hallmark of a problem rule.
Well, first of all, initiative counts down, so it would end on 17 if we're gonna be lawyering.
You're correct of course.
Second of all, it's a jerk move by the GM IMO.
The thing is, how would you fix it without fractional initiative and/or giving every ongoing spell an initiative score?
Abraham spalding wrote:
This is absolute the RAW. However, I would submit that would mean that if you acted right after a foe, but on the same initiative count, then any one-round affect you apply would never do anything.
R1 init 16: Bad guy goes.
R2 init 15: Daze ends (15 is the last whole number before 16).
Obviously that isn't RAI, so I think that particular bit of text is problematic. YMMV. :)
Amusingly, the easiest way to keep someone from dying to a shadow is to hit him with another form of Str damage that puts his total to higher than his score. Then he is paralyzed and not dead from Str damage.
Wow. But I'm not sure the adjective I'd select to describe this situation would be "amusing."
Ran it twice today. I'll probably give another read through before writing a review (I'm running it again next Sunday), but my immediate thoughts:
First and foremost, this is a great scenario; probably my favorite 1-5 since Night March. There are several opportunities for fun role-playing. However, there are some gotchas:
1. It's easy -- and understandable -- for the players to get hung up on solving the riddle. Be prepared to give them a gentle push.
2. Both tables asked about the dare which sent Virml into the archives, so at least have a name or two ready in case.
3. Both tables also asked about the name of the fey lord who trapped Caught within the scroll. Have something ready for this as well.
4. The map. Oh gods, the map. Drawing it was bad enough, but we had a lot of "is that a legal square?" and "how many squares to go through a diagonal of deep bog?" (six, I think).
5. A few of the monsters do not appear in the appendix -- refresh yourself on the ju-ju zombie, void worm, and nixie before running.
6. Be ready for players who don't want to put Caught back in the scroll. By my reading, the easiest way to get the 2nd prestige is to re-imprison someone for the crime of being arrogant, meaning you might as well toss Kreighton in with him...
We know IQ conforms to the standard distribution. Further, we know that half of the outliers will be low, and the other half high. Armed with this information, we can pretty easily match IQ to Intelligence score based on the probability curve generated by 3d6:
IQ 115+ = ~15% of the population is roughly a 13
Of course, once you get above 160 or so, it's very difficult to accurately assign scores, because there simply isn't enough data.
I also think RPG fans skew high. I would guess that half the people on this board probably hit 115. Likewise, plenty of us are at or close to 130. It's the folks around 145+ (or at or below 55) who stand out in a crowd.
TLDR: A genius is int 19+. A score of 18 is simply too common (1 in 216) to equate to an IQ of much more than 140 or so.
Genius is 145+.
Also, the IQ = int * 10 doesn't really work; the distribution is all wrong.
Zak Glade wrote:
OMG that sucks. It sounds like you rolled with it, though!
For those of us who have never and will never be able to go to one, GenCon is of no more interest than the national holidays of a nation on the other side of the planet. I know that it's a huge convention, but do GenCon attendees really make up a significant portion of the player base?
Probably not, but that likely doesn't mean missing a big GenCon release wouldn't be problematic from a marketing, scheduling, or sales point-of-view.
Edit: Also, if you do someday get the chance to go to GenCon, take it. :-)
Mark Seifter wrote:
@Errata progress—As I mentioned previously on this page, it isn't done yet. It is through one step of the process, though. To draw a parallel, however, if being through the design team meant something was "completed" and released, then Occult Adventures would be releasing very soon (this doesn't change anything for OA; it's still releasing when it's releasing, just using as an example). As you can see from Erik's post quoted above, Erik also ordered an entire reproof as well. That will need to be added on top of the development errata the PDT took care of and may be equally as substantial, if not more so (I don't know, I only know what our team's looked like since I was tasked with consolidating it).
I see. To be clear, my opinion was simply that ACG errata shouldn't be held for a 2nd printing. A resource constraint in the production pipeline is an entirely different matter.