Justin Rocket wrote:
I can only imagine you went to school in the south, because that was absolutely not my experience. In a public school. In rural Wisconsin.
From what I can tell, build is and has been a perfectly cromulent noun for some time.
See also build as a term in both computer programming and and as description of physical stature ("the rugby players are of a strong build"). The confluence of these concept seems to fit perfectly into that of an RPG character.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Supply and demand is something taught on the very first day of a Macroeconomics course.
And you got it wrong. You have a gross misapprehension as to the use of those terms. But it's okay, EVERYONE misuses "supply and demand".
It's clear you THINK you know an awful lot about economics, but when put to the test, all you can do is parrot commonly held misunderstandings.
As the counterexample, see TOZ. He used the right terminology. Health insurance is an INCREDIBLY inelastic good, especially for those who already have a condition and are covered.
One of the goals of the ACA was to relieve that inelasticity by establishing competition of perfect information, and forcing insurance companies to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions.
But, whatever, your contempt for the poor is only outmatched by your contempt for the educated, the well-tempered, and the kind.
My previous employer had a really good health care plan, but if you wanted to you could opt out and you'd get an additional $125 per paycheck, or $250 a month. A friend of mine, who was a marine vet, did this since he had free basic medical for life from his service. Works out to like $1.50/hr for a full time employee.
The company decided to get rid of the stipend as a cost-cutting measure, but didn't allow an employee to enroll in healthcare if they were receiving the stipend. Basically, they just took $125 out of his paycheck without so much as a thank you.
All things being equal, I'd rather just have the extra cash, but at the time purchasing individual insurance was more than the combined personal+company contributions because they were able to bargain as a unit. In other words, it's not a zero-sum proposition.
But any benefit is like this, it's part of your compensation package. Which is why, here in Wisconsin, I got so annoyed when the right-wingers kept talking about how teachers didn't pay enough for their healthcare and didn't pay into their pension. Their pension and healthcare are PART of the compensation package! Taking those things away is the same as cutting someone's pay.
Jeff Erwin wrote:
CALL YOUR LANDLORD!They need to get a professional in there toot sweet.
Killing the bugs isn't enough, the eggs can be anywhere, and are invisible to the naked eye, and can lie dormant for up to 18 months.
You're going to need to
I had bed bugs 3 years ago and it was THE WORST! Such a hassle.
Justin Rocket wrote:
I think you have your analogy backwards. The teabaggers were the ones trying to harm the country, and the sane people rallied and wrestled the gun out of their hands.
Now you're trying to poison them! A new low! ;-P
Justin Rocket wrote:
Are you sure you weren't lobotomized?
What amazes me is that, in countries governed by individuals with a spirit of public service, who have a (perhaps irrational) faith in the power of government as a tool of its citizens and in democracy itself, the government functions and the will of the people is (by and large) done.
When you are governed by people who show outrageous disdain for democracy, the government, and its people, and who say time and again that the government is an incompetent behemoth, shockingly, the government is dysfunctional.
I wish we could get our act together and be the former instead of the latter.
Don't the politicians know that they are risking that people actually notice they don't need the government that much?
This might be true for a few days weeks or even months, but wait til Jan 1. And remember that while our servicemen work for no pay, our congress is paid for no work.
We've had these threads before, so I'll just drop in my 2cp before the inevitable flame war erupts:
I would much much rather live in a country with no or severely restricted gun ownership. I grew up around guns, my dad was an avid hunter, but I never had a desire to play with them or even go hunting with him. Other kids dads were...less responsible and would shoot in their backyards recreationally. I was the only kid in my grade school class (same kids k-5) who wasn't shot by a relative in some fashion during that period. Sometimes just pellet guns, sometimes a bit of buckshot. Yes, I'm talking about 10 year olds; it was like a rite of passage.
I respect the right for hunters to own rifles or shotguns to hunt with, but I think there's an illusion on the right as to how much respect and responsibility is reflected in the use of your average yokel.
I respect, as a general thing, people wanting handguns to protect their home from invaders, even though the idea of having a gun in my apartment with me seems wackadoo. I also think people tend to be delusional about the level of safety it provides vs. the likelihood of accidents involving those firearms but that is any adult's risk to take.
As far as policy, I don't think we should have assault rifles. I think guns should be registered and licensed, and I think there should be NO scenario in which a violent felon should be able to legally obtain a firearm. We need to license and register the firearms so we can hold people responsible who make their weapons available for violent felons to purchase or use outside the guidelines of a registered gun dealer, and we need to close the gun show loophole.
Of course, I know none of this will ever get done because there is an extremely powerful, vocal minority of wingnuts who think guns=freedom and no guns=tyranny. And because we have a retardedly interpreted amendment that gives people an absolute right to have those guns.
There will be no effective change until that ammendment is repealed, and especially in the current political environment there's no point in even attempting to do so on a federal level.
I'm with Bill Maher: we will forever be the crazy country that lets people have guns, and we'll forever pay the price for that in human lives.
*throws hands in the air in defeat*
On this specific issue I tend to not buy the narrative that those against it are representing their constituents, because they're also actively working to misinform the public about the ACA itself.
They call it a government takeover of healthcare, which it isn't.
You can be damn sure that WHEN it works, the conservatives will try to take credit.
Um...no. I guess I'm one of those crazy people that thinks government has a role to play in creating a better society and we're not better off letting corporations run everything.
I'm leaning pretty heavily towards yes, the US should get involved.
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and misapprehension about the plan, as it were. We're not playing kingmaker. We're not trying to tip the balance of power (though we've made no secret of wanting Assad gone). This isn't about US interests abroad. This isn't a humanitarian mission. Hundreds of thousands have already died and likely hundreds of thousands more will before the fighting is at an end. This isn't some imperialist power grab--how can we grab power or resources without an actual invasion?
The ONLY reason we would get involved is in a purely punitive action against the Assad regime. The only thing we can hope to get out of this is to enforce the UN convention against chemical weapons, which the UN has shown itself incapable of doing (thanks, Putin).
War always sucks. The geneva conventions and other agreements are not meant to put a stop to war, but to limit the means of warfare. It's an important moral imperative to protect.
I understand that people are cynical (though some of it here is well into the conspiracy theory area), I understand that people don't trust the government (some just as a general case), and I know that our country is weary of war.
If Obama had not asked for the permission of Congress, I wouldn't be in support of a strike. If Congress turns him down, I'll expect him to abide by their judgment (such as it is), and if he goes ahead anyway I won't support it. Not unreasonable charges of American hypocrisy aside, the use of banned chemical or biological agents is not something we can or should abide.
The prospect of weapons like saran or weaponized smallpox being not only acceptable, but expected, scares the living howdy do out of me more than any conceivable number of stealth bombers or abrams tanks. In a 21st century where the use of these agents, let's be frank, of terrorism, goes unanswered will quickly become one wherein every nation uses them.
I do find it heartening, in a weird way, that such a vast majority of my fellow citizens, both of America and of the world, are against any potential action. I find it disturbing that I find myself on the opposite side of the issue of so many of them (and you).
Freehold DM wrote:
Well, when people see me and how I'm dressed (I'm 6'5", have long hair, a big goatee, and typically dress all in black) I think a lot of people assume I'm a metalhead.
So I get weird looks when I tell people I'm really into Fleetwood Mac or The Pet Shop Boys or, other pop music.
AFAIK their stuff is all OGL. It's up on d20pfsrd.com at least. And the company is basically just a couple of guys who are huge Dark Sun fans, and at least one of them is very active on these boards. You should definitely have a chat with those guys; they've helped keep Dark Sun alive for a lot of us.
Well for one, I'm a good little consumer and already own all the PF books. For two, if this was at a con where fully 50-75% of people attending are in cosplay garb, it wouldn't be suspicious.
But in circumstances where I might find it suspicious, I might find it suspicious that they are wearing a crown or metallic headpiece, let alone having a floating gem in orbit around their head. Or, heck, I probably wouldn't deal with anyone with a giant weapon strapped to their back, especially a functional and lethal one.
Then again, I don't live in a world where a pinch of bat poop turns into a flaming ball of doom. All bets are off in Golarion.
Then why do you keep saying otherwise in the RULES forum.
So your barbarian has, 24/7, a significant morale bonus to all his saves vs. spells, SLA and (Su) abilities. When he rages, he makes the CHOICE to give up those benefits--just during this rage!--so that he can be healed.
The reason that restriction is there is that you're superstitious and dislike magic, but also as a balancing point. You're getting a SIGNIFICANT boost to saves against magic at the cost of not being able to willingly accept buff spells (or cures) in combat.
Since this is a thread in the RULES forum, I can only in good conscience advice the OP follows the rules of the game.
It felt like snark because your comment seemed to boil down to "duh, use common sense!"
Damage is not a "stat" as it isn't defined in mass combat army stat blocks, or the "Army Statistics" section. Damage is a RESULT of and derived from subtracting the target army's DV from your army's OM. As such having a bonus to specifically damage seems to needlessly complicate what is otherwise a simple and elegant system.
Yes, you ought to define damage as such. It IS already explained, in the section "attacking and taking damage", so acting like it needn't be defined is sophistry. It simply doesn't explain how +Damage modifiers work, and when they are applied. All you need to do is add a line that says "Some tactics, army special abilities, and the strategy track add to damage, but that damage is not applied if the army would not otherwise deal damage."
Again, I was under the impression that the +Damage column was an artifact from an earlier version of the rules in which armies attacked and did damage as separate rolls, similar to skirmish combat. Which made sense to me since getting potentially +10 to damage for a -4 to DV is crazy good. It also isn't mirrored by a deduction of damage TO an army fighting defensively, which seemed to confirm my suspicion about hit and damage being decoupled at one time. Fighting Defensively seems to be an absolutely foolish move unless said army is several ACRs above its opponent.
However, if this is working as intended, the question I then have is this: You don't do bonus damage (static or variable) if you wouldn't otherwise do damage, correct? What about if you exactly meet an opponent army's DV? Do you do +6 damage if you roll a natural 20 but wouldn't otherwise surpass an army's DV, thereby increasing your damage in such a circumstance from 1 to 7? When fog is a factor, or something else that halves damage, presumably rounding down, do you halve the adjusted damage or do you then do 0 base and thus not apply any damage bonuses?
I'm happy to re-ask this in rules if you feel that's more appropriate.
Lord Twig wrote:
It's called overland flight, and the fact that you aren't even aware of it as a spell speaks volumes as to your lack of system mastery. It's no surprise, then, that you think fighters are just fine. You are living in willing ignorance of how well and truly effed fighters are.
It is personal range spell, and thus a wizard can't cast it on a fighter. Even if he could, why should he? There's no reason to bring the fighter with to begin with.
Personally, I agree with the softball sentiment. An entire series of encounters that are on the ground is softball. And that's also part of the point: you have to play nice and put up encounters that can be beaten by a big stick or else the fighter feels useless. In most cases, doing HP damage is a substandard shtick.