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

meatrace's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,935 posts (6,938 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


I was calling into question inaccurate statements from someone else. I don't care if someone else said something, that's not attributable to me. Just because I'm pointing out Meatrace's inaccuracy, does NOT mean I'm disagreeing with his overall sentiment, just that I find some of his "facts" to not actually be facts.

No, you were pitching a fit because you continued to willingly misinterpret what I said. Something no one else seems to have had a problem understanding.

I never said Arab Israelis were disenfranchised, I said half the population of Israel, of which I am counting the population of Palestine. Or at least the territory of palestine entirely surrounded by Israel.

Feel free to continue to represent my rather clear statement though if it makes you feel superior. Seems to be your only motivation for being on these boards anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Well, voting is a legal matter. If you aren't legally part of a country, why should you vote in it?

Well, when you live in an area under military control by a power that won't recognize your state's sovereignty, and you commute to Israel every day for work for your entire life, yes you should be able to vote.

By your logic, all the US would have to do is declare minority neighborhoods in the US to be part of a different country to disenfranchise entire swaths of our country. No dice.

There's NO WAY you would tolerate a policy that granted citizenship to US residents based solely on their heritage.

I find it telling how willing you are to take the imperialist side of this argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Arab citizens are allowed to vote, though they do face other restriction. I suspect, especially given the "more than half" bit, that he was referring to the adult population of the whole territory Israel controls. Both Israel itself and the Occupied territories.

That's correct. Israel doesn't recognize the state of Palestine, and thus the population of Palestine is de facto part of Israel. They are not citizens of Israel, of course, because that would be democracy and the racist war-mongers in the Knesset would be voted out in a week.

Can you imagine if the US decided that all Native Americans (probably the closest analogy, but you'll forgive since there isn't a perfect one) were not US citizens and were denied the franchise? Being able to pick and choose who among your population are considered "citizens" and thus allowed the privilege of participating in democracy is fascism at its most pure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The 5 steps to running a low-magic campaign

1) Don't give your players any useful (magical) treasure.
2) Watch your players flail helplessly against the weakest enemies with DR, or become frustrated when they need to sneak in somewhere and (surprise) the warrior isn't maxed in Stealth.
3) Cackle maniacally and rub your hands together as your players are slaughtered.
4) Wait for your players to drop due to frustration, and find a new group.
5) Repeat


3 people marked this as a favorite.
zauriel56 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?
Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?

As someone previously stated you don't have to have sex. So women have a right to not get pregnant right? You know how you can do that? Don't have sex. If you want your cake and to eat it too you're gonna have to pay. Why is it there job to pay for something elective?

Look I'm a libertarian. I believe individual rights are paramount and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infinite on another's rights. And glad to provide some diversity.

You don't have to eat, so why should insurance cover lipitor.

And by the way THEY ARE PAYING!!!!!!!!!!111eleven
WHen you say "you gots ta pay" they are PAYING by exchanging their labor for a compensation package that includes comprehensive reproductive healthcare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't call your business christian and accept credit cards (usury).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
meatrace wrote:

95% of the population couldn't have been land owning white men. I'm guessing 50-ish % were women and a significant portion black.

You should stop lying.

HA! Silly old bear. :D

The answer to your self-induced conundrum would be 95% of people were represented by those who were eligible to vote.

Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!

But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crisischild wrote:

I don't really see the problem. It's a few specific products, they still cover all other forms of female birth control. Also the birth control not covered generally costs less in-store than the co-pay for many of the forms that are covered.

Why is this a world ending issue? Do I not understand because I'm a sexist racist patriaricle capitalist pig?

Because your medical care should be between you and your doctor, not your employer, and this sets precedent for far worse intrusions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

Quote:
And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

Ah, yes. The old "Just think about it!" counter. Right up there with "But it's common sense!" and "But I totally saw it on Facebook so it must be true!"

Quote:
It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists.
I don't think you know what "propaganda" means.

Except that it IS bullcrap. 1-1+1-1... is a non-converging series, which means it does not sum to 1/2. Without that bit of mathematical misdirection the whole calculation falls apart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

And I'm pretty sure there are two movies called "The Gate".

I'm talking the one where the kid used a model rocket (no, I am not kidding) to kill the demon and save his sister.

That's the one.

It's awesome. Nuts to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Let me guess, you're volunteering to be the first to go in the suggested program of euthanasia then?

You only prove my point. People don't have the intestinal fortitude for what has to actually be done.

But since you're asking, sure. If, at some point in my future, I become a financial liability because of the resources I'm consuming for medical procedures to keep me alive outweigh my utility, put me down like a sick dog. I won't pretend I'm not afraid of death, but I fear being too frail to take care of myself even more.

We have a culture that is obsessed with the sanctity of "human life" even when that human life is basically just a sack of flesh hooked up to life support, or, on the other end of the deal, a smattering of cells. Furthermore we pretend that human life is the only life that matters, all the while causing the extinction of untold numbers of species of plant, animal, fungal, and microbial life.

I don't hold human life as sacred the way most people do. What I want to survive is our culture and our civilization, which means finding a sustainable model for industrial civilization.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

It's hilarious how people can heatedly argue about something as pointless as rinsing the dishes before putting them in the dishwasher.

I love it.

Or about rules minutiae in a recreational fantasy game...

<.<


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Generic Villain wrote:

Someone in my life, whom I'll call Dick, feels that rinsing dishes before putting them in the dishwasher is a "waste," and that if he were to do this, he may as well just go whole-hog and hand-clean them. I feel differently. This is a matter of contention.

Any thoughts?

Why on earth would I wash my dishes before I wash my dishes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Skepticism without evidence is just being a contrarian.

No it isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
And you wonder why I would question the "current" scientific process or any peer reviewed (re:echo chamber) data presented on these boards?

Peer-review is the very opposite of an echo chamber. It is review of data and findings by people who are rivals in your field and may very well lose face or grand money due to the findings.

Nevertheless, it's always smart to doubt what you're told and do your own research. It's not, however, intellectually honest to dismiss something out of hand because there is a infinitesimal chance of it being a sham without doing said research.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:


If you are conservative walking into an otd on Paizo, you might as well come strapped like Bill Burr did, walking into this rude heckling audience in Philadelphia. It's not like you're going to convince nobody of anything.

Funny, that's precisely how I feel as a progressive. From BOTH sides. At least the conservatives on the boards don't give each other endless crap about not being conservative enough. Not that I've seen anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


Remember, all creatures occupy the 5' square they are in COMPLETELY. Every square centimeter of it is filled by the object/creature so 3 dimensional space is ignored.

CITATION NEEDED.

Anyway, by this logic no one can ever fall into any pits ever under any circumstances as long as they're adjacent to a wall.

If grabbing onto a slope to prevent yourself from falling is a DC 10 check, then certainly grabbing a flat surface is even easier. If a pit trap opens underneath you, all you have to do is grab the ground 5 feet away from you with a DC 0 check.

Anyway, your interpretation jumps through several logical hoops (I'm not sure the "keep yourself from falling" rules were meant for when a pit OPENS UP beneath you but rather if you're already climbing) to completely obviate a spell. Yes, turning a DC X reflex save or fall into a DC X save or have to make a completely trivial check that almost all monsters will make on a 1 is very different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
It's more of an issue that the solar roads need to a) be able to store energy, or b) carry power, in order to melt snow when there isn't any real solar generation (snow generally happens when it's pretty overcast...) and it seems to me that both will be prohibitively expensive and dangerous to boot. I mean... for the insulation on those cables to be known to work, there would have to be some pretty extreme testing done. After the first people responding to an accident get electrocuted by damaged high voltage cables in the road itself, do you think opinion on the solar road might, shall we say, swing a little?

In the 1800s, when railways were being built in the United States, there were mass movements to stop their development. When trains were first invented, people thought that the very sight of seeing an object going more than 15 miles an hour would literally drive everyone mad.

People are f@$%ing stupid.

Do you realize how much crap people have thought was going to solve every conceivable problem? How many beyond-the-horizon visions that turned out to be brilliant only when seriously stoned? And you know why many, even most, of these were never implemented large-scale?

Because not EVERYONE is f!!#ing stupid.

Every point you bring up is addressed in the FAQ.

I crazily assumed you were able to read.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
It's more of an issue that the solar roads need to a) be able to store energy, or b) carry power, in order to melt snow when there isn't any real solar generation (snow generally happens when it's pretty overcast...) and it seems to me that both will be prohibitively expensive and dangerous to boot. I mean... for the insulation on those cables to be known to work, there would have to be some pretty extreme testing done. After the first people responding to an accident get electrocuted by damaged high voltage cables in the road itself, do you think opinion on the solar road might, shall we say, swing a little?

In the 1800s, when railways were being built in the United States, there were mass movements to stop their development. When trains were first invented, people thought that the very sight of seeing an object going more than 15 miles an hour would literally drive everyone mad.

People are f+!#ing stupid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
If they could combine this project with some hover cars, I'd be all about it.

I think that's a stretch goal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
What's the difference between an intergalactic collision and a galactic collision? :P

Intergalactic


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
British adages are neat. Swedish are better. :-)

Only Swedish I know is Swedish Chef.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:

You might want to reread that article about witchcraft, since there is no mention of the Catholic Church spreading the belief. Not all Christians are Catholic.

The Archbishop said that infected condoms are spreading AIDS, not the condoms themselves. To be honest it wouldn't be the first time that Europeans spread disease.

You're just being disingenuous now. First off, the missionaries being talked about are indeed catholic, not some other mysterious denomination of christianity. Catholicism accounts for about half of christians worldwide.

I guess I'd consider ANY belief in demon possession and exorcism to be akin to witchcraft, and when you use your supposed magical powers over the supernatural to keep the ignorant in line, you're a petty tyrant not a good priest.

As for the AIDS thing, I'm not sure why you're making a distinction between crazy and lunacy here. The idea that condom manufacturers are intentionally or accidentally infecting condoms with AIDS is absurd and would fail to transmit the disease at any rate. Refusing to repudiate such ludicrous claims has the effect of reducing condom usage among a population that could benefit from them to prevent the actual spread of AIDS.

You're right, it wouldn't be the first time Europeans spread disease, but the supposed agent (infected condoms) is so beyond ludicrous that I have to assume an educated bishop or cardinal knows precisely what he's doing when he spreads that misinformation: playing on the superstition and mistrust of an unsophisticated audience to advance the church's stance against prophylactics at the expense of human lives.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
There are no loop holes, only the law as written. There is no fine print only the law as written. I kind of get tired of people saying a business or person is taking advantage of a loop hole like they are dishonest. Now there are unintended consequences of laws, that does happen. And sometimes the unintended law was not unintended.

...what you're describing is what the rest of us refer to as a loophole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
So we layer on rules and regulations to starve americans of rights, resources and jobs in the name of being green while they burn the rest of the world about us. We can suffer under the name of saving the planet for nothing then, and when we weaken ourselves enough by doing so another nation will take us and see that those resources are used. We need to be smart about this, it is a global game and we lose if we self destruct. "green tech" is a laudable goal but we cannot cripple the economy in its name before it can do what we need it to.

OR...

We toss money at it, investing in renewable energy and develop the technology to the point where it is of comparable cost. We lead the world in the production of green energy, we get Europe and other big economies on our side, and then force China and India to comply by way of trade sanctions, offering them for FREE the technology we've developed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Seriously, a major cause of medical costs is the cost of malpractice insurance, whether you like it or not. That money has to be taken from somewhere, and if it is, it's going to be too expensive to give people socialized health care.

FWIW I don't think you're lying; I think you're arguing in good faith I just think you're wrong and/or misinformed.

After a quick google searchthis studycame up that seems to indicate that, in the US at least, medical liability costs (which include malpractice insurance, legal fees, etc.) accounts for some 2.4% of the overall cost of medical care in the country.

Just like other types of insurance, you pay for the actuarial value of a third party assuming your risk. Thus, while a heart surgeon whose minor screwup costs a human life may pay malpractice insurance of 30-50k a year (well less than their average salary of $522k/yr) the average costs are actually between 7 and 15k a year.

Even this seems like a lot (still <10% of their salary), but remember that we're comparing that cost to the salary of the doctor, not the overall cost of medical care which includes all kinds of infrastructure, administration, overhead, and a sizable profit margin.

TL;DR- In actuality, medical liability costs are trivial and don't appreciably affect medical costs in the US.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Well, you can make them specific I don't see the value in a lot of them, and think our schools could do with a little less well rounding and a bit more point, as well as doing more to encourage education thats more practical.

While I can see where you're coming from, you have to at least entertain the opposite: there are PLENTY of right-wingers who wouldn't see your degree as in any way practical. You environmentalist hippie! Get a real job, like running a fortune 500 company or border patrol!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:

This is one of my favorite on how people come to believe global warming

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00042.1?af=R

Hey look, a study about public opinion on climate change.

Has nothing to do with the hard science of it.
Stop dissembling.
Correct assessment. But why people believe what they believe is just interesting to me.

For me it's because my parents are both science professionals and I was raised to be scientifically literate. I've seen the data and, actually, participated (as an adolescent) in tangential research. Specifically, a geological/limnological study by my mother which used fossilized microbes as a litmus for lake health.

To your previous comment, yes climates always change, but never in human history has there been this rapid of a trend. Heck, not even in geological history, though I'll grant that the data on that is less conclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:

This is one of my favorite on how people come to believe global warming

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00042.1?af=R

Hey look, a study about public opinion on climate change.

Has nothing to do with the hard science of it.
Stop dissembling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:

How about this one?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

Have you read it? Because it seems to confirm what we've been saying:

Meteorologists’ views aboutglobal warming wrote:

Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists

who publish mostly on other topics,were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence.
The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the non-publishing climate scientists and non-publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%,respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric
scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively.

Basically, when weighted by number of published climate science studies, there's a pretty clear and overwhelming majority of climate scientists that think climate change is PRIMARILY of human creation.

No one doesn't think it's happening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing that always baffled me about the tort-reform proponents, i.e. the right wing.

The same people telling us "well, we don't need regulation because we have a legal system in which individuals can sue for damages" are also telling us "we have to stop individuals from suing for damages because it disincentivizes innovation and inflates operating costs."

If you are neither able to rely on the government to regulate businesses (or individuals) behavior in a way that prevents them from damaging your livelihood, nor able to expect the courts to force those that harmed you from compensating you, what are you meant to do other than die like a peasant?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Like my repeatedly calling philosophy (a rather liberal pursuit) completely worthless, deriding psychology, put forth a plan to cut all liberal arts majors, face palming on how women's studies has become nothing more than politically correct and rabid insistence on terminology they made up themselves ...

I don't think that term means what you think it means.

"Dictionary wrote:

lib·er·al arts

noun
plural noun: liberal arts

North American
academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects.

I'm not sure you want to cut the study of mathematics and physical sciences. That's a pretty broad net you're casting that is going to catch us both, as well as the next Einstein.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Exactly. Then people can't sue. And in the rest of the world, we would consider that a GOOD thing. The effects of a lot less people suing others would be dramatic and largely positive. Still, Americans usually have a blind spot right there. They usually can't even think the thought that this might be a good thing. I guess it's the everpresent dream of being able to sue McDonalds for eight million dollars for having too hot coffee.

If this was instituted, lawyers could still work pro bono, right?

Before you go any further about the mcdonalds hot coffee case, you might want to educate yourself about the matter rather than making yourself look stupid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwolf wrote:
Now to be fair, I am biased. My family makes their living by coal and oil. When people talk about banning it, they are talking about taking the livelihood away from my family. And I grew up listening to people in the 60s and 70s talking about us entering a new ice age. They also showed pictures to us in school of New York and coastal cities being underwater by the year 2000. In the 80s the ozone layer was going to kill us. And it turned out all those things were false.

This entire post is 100% lies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Boris the Lovehammer


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:


If magic exists then yes, people will adapt to being able to fight it.

Look at the history of the IED in the Iraq war if you don't believe that when a new method/equipment/technology is introduced to a society that no matter how limited, over-matched, ect the enemies may be they will find a way to develop new tactics/equipment/technology of their own to combat it.

If magic exists, everyone will learn to be casters so they don't have to worry about mundane stuff AAAAND it's Eberron.

You're talking about humans who are at war, as opposed to goblins not at war. Goblins who are chaotic by nature, don't form civilizations, are fundamentally opposed to writing things down, and have short, violent lives.

But by all means, have goblins be as organized and regimented as the Roman legion in your world. Heck, maybe goblins are great scholars and playwrights.

What you do in your home game isn't really germane to a conversation about the game in general, or about goblins as they're written to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

That's fine. The discussion was about 1st level.

My arguments and situations were about 1st level.

So stating that 6th level Wizard makes my 1st level goblin's tactics obsolete doesn't have any purpose.

Obviously I know that my 1st level goblins 1st level tactics for 1st level encounters don't do anything to help them against 6th level PCs.

You seem to still be having trouble understanding plain English.

I wasn't talking about 1st level, or any hypothetical goblin encounter. My statement was exogenous to any such conversation.
It is in fact possible for people to talk in this topic about things other than your inane hypotheticals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is easy to adapt to as a caster anyway.
Enemies clustered? AoE damage spells.
Enemies spread out? Spam summons.
Very narrow path between enemies and you? Use a pit.
Very wide area between enemies and you? Use a wall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless, it would take a spellcraft or Know Arcana check to know anything about those spells in order to develop those tactics. Bog standard gobbos don't have ranks, and thus can't succeed in checks over 10, which any knowledge for even a first level spell would be.

I mean if we're talking rules...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

If its 3-4 goblins vs. 4 party memebers you have to do that level of encounter something like 10 times to reach level 2 on the fast chart? And since basic goblins are CR 1/3rd then even taking out all four of them with one spell is hardly impressive--

Defeating a very easy encounter by yourself is not "mvp" worthy?

Just a bit of math. For funsies.

4 bog standard goblins would be 540 xp, putting it about 2/3 of the way between a CR 1 and a CR 2 encounter. The CR system indicates that for APL=CR encounters, it should consume roughly 1/4 of PARTY resources.

Remember that the game is balanced for play at 4 encounters of APL=CR a day, and any CR above that skews it.

If it takes 1/4 of one character's resources (the wizard) to take out the encounter, that's 1/16 of the party resources. So more than 4x the purported balance curve of the game (since that 4 goblin encounter is more than CR 1) isn't impressive?

How often do you play on wide, open, featureless planes as opposed to twisty tunnels or deep, dark, claustrophobic dungeon hallways? For me it's usually the latter. Rooms usually not larger than 25x25. Except the big bad boss room.

I dunno, that's how most APs are written, and APs, modules and PFS scenarios are the best idea we have about how the game is intended by the designers to be played.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I was going to post this myself, and now I don't have to!
Wong pretty handily summarizes all of my experiences through college (thrice!) and in the job market.

Corporate hierarchy is like a toilet; s!&@ floats to the top.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:

Businesses are owned by people, no? Any tax on them is effectively a tax on the business owner, who is further taxed on his direct income from the business.

Why not just cut out the corporate taxation part (which is rife with corruption and ridiculousness) and tax the actual proceeds of the business - the capital gains to the shareholder?

Wait, if businesses are owned by people, and corporations ARE people...then the shareholder dynamic IS SLAVERY! *gasp*

But realistically, if you DON'T tax the business where it DOES business, how do you keep the shareholders or owners from declaring somewhere with no income tax as their home and getting away with 0% tax on the entire business?

You'll have to give me an example of this "corruption" re: corporate taxes you keep mentioning and expecting no one to question like it was common knowledge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do you figure it's double taxation?
Isn't sales tax double taxation, since I'm being taxed on income and what's left over is taxed again?

If businesses only have to pay taxes on profits (gross income-expenses) why am I taxed on gross income?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:

But does it benefit the economy as a whole? Yes.

Before the Delaware Corporation companies used to have to PETITION THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR INCORPORATION. It was insane. This is a good thing.

It does not benefit the economy as a whole, it benefits the few at the cost of the many.

When you have stricter incorporation laws, you have corporations that actually fear the people because they could be dissolved if they were no longer seen to be working in the public interest.

It was sane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:

The lawmakers of Iowa probably understand Iowa better than the lawmakers of the entire country understand Iowa.

Clearly that's not something that can be proven, but it's generally the rationale for the federalist system.

As someone who has spent time in Iowa, I wouldn't trust Iowans to walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone run a sophisticated government.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
This is why states have democratic governments - if people don't like that, they can elect people to change the law.

You're describing the way we want it to be, not the way it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Gallyck wrote:

I want to run an e6 campaign with mythic tiers earned depending on actions. Has anyone ran an e6 campaign with Mytics?

I may go up to e8 but NO higher.

The whole point of E6 is to avoid super powers. Mythic defeats the point of going E6 in the first place.

Couldn't disagree more.

The point of E6 is to avoid super powers that are inherent in the leveling system. Mythic doesn't change the power curve so much as act as rocket fuel; a force multiplier. Mythic Tiers aren't really equivalent to levels, they're more like a multiplier.

Doing as the OP suggests limits spellcasting and thus magic items, but gives the players free reign to add rocket fuel to the powers they have. It makes it a more crazy action COMBAT oriented game, but the higher level, plot-controlling spells are hedged out.

Honestly, I think E6+Mythic is the best representation of classic fantasy heroes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
No, the fund purchases Treasury bonds. The government doesn't raid the fund at all.

Your two assertions are at odds.

1 to 50 of 912 << 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.