|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I am still not sure what the droid is suppose to ... do. I mean, R2-D2 was a repair droid. His trashcan shaped body had various tools in compartments for repairing things. C3-P0 was a protocol droid. What does this thing do? Rolls. Okay. Looks cutesy. Right. But what function does it have? It looks like it still speaks in bit-code (or whatever droid speak is called), so it couldn't even carry messages from one place to another (well maybe holograms). No tools to speak off, at least that we can see, I don't even think it could interface with a computer. Is it just a companion
My thought ...
I found the Kingpin pretty blah. He was too much Sonny and not enough Michael or Vito Corleone. I didn't really ever see him make a decision that was "criminal mastermind" level. He basically got pissed off a lot and beat people up and/or killed them. I think they had his character and Wesley's backwards.
I would guess that it might be a toss up on which is developed first, assuming both are possible within the setting. I would wager that which ever is discovered first would be the only one that would be used assuming it continued to work. Once you have a technology that is able to work, there is little reason to explore alternatives and research and money would be diverted to the working method.
For creatures/dangers that would exist in these forms of travel, I might point you to movies like Event Horizon and From Beyond.
Though I would caution using language that could be taken as threatening even on a site like this and even if it is just hyperbole and/or joking. Sounds like the poster is still attending school, and with the current climate of over reaction to any kind of threats they should avoid setting themselves up for extra harassment from authorities. I mean when a kid gets suspending for biting a pop-tart into the shape of a "gun", you can't be too careful.
No one, for example, has pointed out that one may be able to use the Klar with other weapons when TWF and still get the AC bonus from it. Wonder why?
Because that would be an incorrect reading of the text.
You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.
The feat allows you to (1) use an E.B. as a one-handed weapon, without limitation, (2) treat the klar as a light weapon only for two-weapon fighting penalties, (3) allows you to retain the shield AC from a klar even when attacking with it as long as it is used with an E.B. The feat does not allow you to keep the shield bonus when fighting with a klar a different weapon.
Thank you Kalindlara.
@thaX: Let's compare the original text to the current text. We see that the sentence from the descriptive text, "As you swing at foes with Thunder (your earth breaker), you slash at them with the Fang (your klar)." was removed. This would seem to support the idea that they wanted to change from the idea that you had to use the two together, instead of that you could use the two together. On the other hand, it may have been that they thought the wording was awkward, making it sound like you attack with both weapons at the exact same moment.
In the mechanics text, they changed the discussion from the weapons working together as an effective double weapon to instead treating the earth breaker as a one-handed weapon. Why do this? The view as a double weapon would make a lot more sense as these two weapons need to be used together. As a double weapon would mean that the "on-hand" end would be treated naturally as a one-handed weapon and the "off-hand" weapon would be treated as a light weapon. You wouldn't need to "clarify" that the earth breaker is treated as a one-handed weapon, as that is implicit by the nature of a double weapon. So why change the text, unless they wanted people to have the option to use them one-handed in all contexts?
The only possible reason I could come up with is that they didn't want people to benefit from the single good thing about double weapons, they can easily switch between two-handed mode to double-weapon mode. That is you can use just one end as a two-handed weapon (say in the situation where you can only make one attack) and then on a later round use it as a double weapon (when you can make multiple attacks). This is the only reason I could see changing the text, but in that case it seems a pretty short sighted change.
I guess I would ask, let's assume a player wants to use two e.b.s or one large e.b., do you consider the fact they have to invest in four feats (1. TWF, 2. WF[e.b.], 3. WF[klar], and 4. T.&F.) as making this choice game breaking? Seems a pretty poor choice to me, in fact the reason to ban it may have more to do with protecting players from falling into a "trap" then because it is over powered.
I need to look at my player's guide where the feat first was placed. I have the feeling that the line about wielding the earth breaker one handed was not in it. If that is actually the case, and the line was added later without the "fluff" text being changed, this might be a case were it wasn't edited very well.
Again, assuming the line wasn't originally present, then this would seem to indicate to me that the feat was changed to in fact allow for using the weapon one-handed, two of them, or a large one two-handed. If that is the case, then the player wouldn't be "abusing" anything.
Again, I will check later and see if I am right that the line wasn't present originally.
Some semi-random thoughts.
Fluff & Crunch. Crunch (mechanics) is the skeletal and muscular structure of the game. Fluff (flavor) is the skin and nervous system of the game. Both are important, of course. The crunch gives you tools to do things, but the fluff tells you what you want to do and how it will look.
Still, one can "reskin" the game, say playing a pseudo-Star Wars game with PF mechanics. Likewise, one can graft the "skin" on to another frame, say playing a game set in Golarion using the 4e system. Yet, not all frames and skins fit perfectly, and some due to the design choices fit better with each other than something else might.
When I might indicate that mechanics are more important than flavor is when someone says something like, "I want to play a paladin, but I'm not sure I can trust my GM." I suggest reskinning a ranger, for example, and playing that as a paladin. Since there is no alignment restriction, you can play it as you see fit without fear of your GM making you lose your abilities. Basically you can be a paladin without having levels in the class "paladin".
But this doesn't mean flavor in general isn't important, just that perhaps one particular flavor is not all that important.
By the way wookies would be bugbears. Gamorreans would be orcs.
I think it is pretty cynical to assume that they made the comment in the belief that it would cause people to give them property and death threats so that a website run by a conservative pundit (Glen Beck) would set up a fund raiser for them and it would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will of course get 100% of it despite it being set up by someone else. I mean, that kind of planning would be a level of genius that frankly the owners in the interview did not convey, which I guess is just more proof of their genius.
Most likely the reporter mentioned the other wedding related cases (florists, bakers, photographers, etc) and the owner then responded with her comment about not being willing to do that as well.
Frankly, I would wager that most people would much rather continue living their lives without death threats, than to exchange that for almost any amount of money. "I live everyday in terror as to what someone crazy will do, but hey at least I got a few bucks in my pocket."
As to the Hobby Lobby case, I think the Feds had already dropped the ball there before case came up. The Feds already been handing out waivers to the birth control requirement and say they or insurance companies would take care of it. So when the case had to face the Sherbert Test, it had already weakened its position. The Sherbert test says that a government can't burdened a person's free exercise unless (a) it is for a compelling state interest AND (b) it is the least burdensome, on the person, method of doing it.
The government had no problem proving (a), the problem was (b). Why? Because the government had already proved that there were less burdensome ways for them to handle it. That is why the choice went Hobby Lobby's way. In a sense this can be viewed a punishment for trying to make reasonable accommodations. It might have been better if the Feds had just told religious groups, "Let's let the courts decide if this meets the Sherbert Test or not."
Matthew Morris wrote:
I find it a bit humorously hypocritical that the white house made a statement that they felt this was a sign of moving in the wrong direction, given the person currently occupying the white house voted for a similar measure. Like the marshmallow calling the salt white.
So I guess the question is it worth it to protect those individuals that the intended consequences did, if it means also "protecting" those that weren't? Would it be better to discriminate against Native Americans as long as Hobby Lobby had to hand out birth control?
pH unbalanced wrote:
Given that these laws in the Feds and other states have been used to protect people like Native Americans wanting to smoke peyote or a Muslim prisoner wanting to grow out their beard. Cases that don't tend to get a lot of big press, I find it a bit ludicrous to claim that there is absolutely 100% certainty that there is no religious people currently being persecuted in Indiana. There may not be, but without knowing 100% about all the states interactions with every single individual, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making that claim. Christian bakers being asked to make same-sex marriage wedding cakes are not likely to be the people this law would protect.
Okay, here comes the Monkey Grip rant.*Deep breathe*
First let's understand what MG did actually do.
In 3rd edition, there wasn't weapon sizes like there is in 3.5 and PF. There was no halfling longsword, all weapons were sized for medium creatures and halflings had to be satisfied with a shortsword (no penalty for using them though). What 3rd edition MG let you do then is to choice 1 specific weapon that was two-handed and use it as a one-handed weapon in ONLY your on-hand. The feat did not allow you to use a two-handed weapon one handed in your off-hand, so no double-wielding greatswords. Oh yeah, and you took a -2 penalty when doing this, this penalty plus the burn of a feat made this more than balanced.
In 3.5 edition, due to the changes in weapon sizing (now all creature sizes had special versions of the weapons made for them), MG changed. Now MG allowed you to wield weapons sized for a creature one size category larger than you with the same effort, as long as you wielded it ONLY in your on-hand or two-handed. Again, just like in 3rd edition, MG does not work for your off-hand only. So again, no double wielding large longswords (~greatswords). And again there was the -2 penalty, though you didn't take the size penalty as well thankfully.
Goliaths do not benefit from the use of MG, sorry Inlaa as per the RAW you are doing it wrong. Both the feat and the goliaths special ability allow you to wield a weapon sized for a creature one size category larger than YOU. The fact is goliaths are still medium, so both allow you to wield large two-handed weapons two-handed, but even together, they do not allow you to wield huge two-handed weapons since they overlap and do not stack. Obviously the oversized build features is the better option, but doesn't work with MG I'm sorry to say.
This is much of the problem with too many things from 3rd/3.5 that are complained about as being unbalanced. GMs didn't actually understand how they worked and so they complained they were broken, when in fact they were fine if used correctly. 3.5 spiked chain, Improved Trip, and Combat Reflexes was another common example. Some GMs thought you could retrip someone that was trying to stand up, problem is you can't trip a prone target and the attack occurs before the action that draws the AoO (in this cases the act of standing).
The Fox wrote:
I think the point was with Jim Crow laws, even if you didn't want to have a segregated business, you weren't given that choice. These were laws that forced business to behave in certain ways. So you can't say, "See it wasn't fixed by market forces" because market forces weren't allowed to be played at the time.
"specific out ranks the general." They have an alignment listed specifically.
Your argument is circular.
If someone is interested in having that necro feel without all the moral issues, might I suggest animate object + permanency, I mean a dead body is an object.
DM Barcas wrote:
The most powerful consequences of any law are the unintended ones. What have been the unintended consequences of similar state laws? Have we seen any denial of services, mass or otherwise, in the states that have similar laws? We do know that we have the government forcing people out of business in places like Oregon for non-compliance, so we have those examples to work with on the one extreme. Do we have any examples from the other extreme, or is it still a hypothetical game of libertarian vs authoritarian theory?
DM Barcas wrote:
Well if he is correct, then there have been some of these cases where people are running business and claiming they should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws due to religious issues, in these states with these religious protection laws have passed, and the people have still failed in their claim. So basically it looks like this entire issue is a non-issue.
Still, no actual lawsuit or legal challenge, despite some very dubious claims.
True, but that is only because they were proactive and changed their business to a religious one as the legality of same-sex marriage changed. In the article it mentions at the end that a woman had filed a complaint because she was denied a same-sex marriage at the location and it was only the fact that the business was now religious in nature that protected them from litigation.
You don't see anything different between "We're gay and going to get married" and "You're going to Hell"? One is someone actively attacking others. The other is just people trying to go about their lives.
Do you see a difference between "go find another business that will work with you" and "I want you sued and put out of business because you don't want to do business with me"?
EDIT: "... do business with me in this one particular instance, even though you were quite willing to do business with me all kinds of other situations."
The situation was much more grey than that. Here is an article with a good timeline of events.
While I obviously don't know the exact motivations of the individuals involved, I am going to try to extrapolate a possible position for them.
The individuals who were involved were "ordained", whether that makes them "clergy" I would say is an issue for debate, but I think one could claim they do fall into that area (barely). They didn't "rent" out their wedding chapel, they were the only ones they allowed to perform ceremonies there, so that were not just not supportive of their religious beliefs (i.e. secular ceremonies) but were in opposition to it were not allowed there (e.g wiccan wedding ceremonies). So the options were secular wedding or Christian wedding, either one performed by them. Their "ministry" as they saw it was to try to help people leave their sinful relationships and enter into a god accepted one.
Therefore they were able to operated entirely within the secular workspace and fulfill this mission as long as marriage was defined as one man and one woman. Marrying two heterosexual atheist while not as desirable as marrying two heterosexual Christians, still it was better than having them "living in sin" out of wedlock (i.e. the total sinfulness of the individuals was reduced in these people's eyes, and if the atheists later became Christians, then they would be in a god accepted marriage already).
This is not true for these people for same-sex marriages. They view homosexuality as a sin, well so is atheism what of that. But in the case of same sex marriages they see it as a distortion of a god's idea of marriage, thus it is also sinful. Thus, even if the homosexuals were somehow "cured" later, they would still be in a sinful relationship and would have to get divorced which I image they view as sinful as well. In that case, by performing a same sex marriage, they would not be reducing the sinfulness of the individuals, but increasing it (in their eyes of course).
When same sex marriage was legalized and in addition to that city officials had said that a recently passed anti-discrimination ordnance would apply to secular business run by "ordained" individuals. They had to change their business into a religious one in order to be safe from litigation. In effect, they had to become more discriminatory in order not to be charged with breaking an anti-discrimination law.
George Takei should become the gay Al Sharpton. Show up and begin the protests for any of these business.
FYI, pedophilia is being attracted to someone that is prepubescent. Excluding individuals living in an area of famine, it is rare for a 14 year old to be so. That doesn't make it not creepy in a cultural sense, but it would not be pedophilia.
GenCon isn't going to move, at least not anytime soon. I read the letter linked at the beginning, it never made any threat of moving, it merely said that they would have to figure it into their future decisions.
The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.
I don't know. Does that happen?
Not really relevant, we are talking about the implication of these laws and approaches. What is your opinion, should our hypothetical photographer be forced by the long arm of the law to have to work baptisms or be sued possibly to the point of closing of their business?
Do you really think that if the gay agenda had only gone as far as marriage, but not bothered the bakers, photographers and florists, everybody would have been happy and there wouldn't have been any backlash?
Any backlash? Sure there would be backlash (and has been), but it would have been different backlash.
And again, I would ask, if a Jewish photographer was willing to take pictures of Christians in all kinds of settings (graduations, weddings, family gatherings, etc.), but wasn't willing to take pictures of a baptism, would that mean they weren't treating Christians "like normal people". Does it have to be 100% or 0%? I am not talking about this law specifically, just our society in general.
Which is a fine house rule. In the game as written, that's not a requirement for alignment.
I'm not sure what "game as written" you are referring to, but I will assume PF. In that case might I point out:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Need it be an all or none situation? Could a Jewish photographer be willing to work with Christians in general, but refuse to photograph a baptism specifically and it still be okay with the 14th Amendment?
It is pretty well known this (and similar efforts in other states) is a response to cases like:Some bakeries and same sex marriages.
Some florists and same sex marriages.
Some photographers and same sex marriages.
True, but since they are mindless, they are no longer capable of moral or ethical judgments, thus an alignment other than neutral is not appropriate for them. They still have the evil subtype (and lawful) which is evidence of their spoiled soulness.
There is a difference between evil as a force and evil as an alignment. Alignment is based on the beings ethical and moral choices, if a creature isn't capable of making said choices, then they shouldn't have an evil alignment. That doesn't mean they can't be embued with the evil force, that is what the subtype [evil] is for.
Within my own games, skeletons and zombies, as well as lemures, all have the neutral alignment (is essences no alignment), but all undead and obviously devils, have the [evil] subtype. To my mind that is how you "square the circle".
I will say that I am honestly conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, I believe too many of these religious business owners get worked up about stuff that they shouldn't be batting an eye at. Photographing a same-sex wedding isn't like they are asking you to come photograph an orgy or something. And I definitely thing denying someone the service of dinner over their orientation is utterly ridiculous.
On the other hand, the idea of using the government to hold a figurative gun to people's head and say, "Either you be involved in this wedding or we will put you out of business" rubs me the wrong way as well. On some level, I feel as if I would rather know who doesn't want to do business with me than not. I mean, wouldn't you rather have a wedding photographer that was excited about doing your wedding than one that was in effect forced to do it? What would stop the second one from taking pictures where the tops of your heads were all cut off ("I guess I wasn't having a good day, oops.")
I don't know, maybe it would be better in the long run to force people to treat others humanely. Maybe if a few religious leaders would take their heads out of their nether regions and recite that old saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Take the heathens money and go give it to your church and let them do God's work with it.
In my own setting, the god of death and order does animate some undead, but these are never the kind that can spawn more undead on their own and they are from the corpses of willingly devoted followers (I don't mean to sound like they willing were to be killed to make the undead, but instead were okay with the fact that corpses would be used this way upon their death). Mostly they are for the purposes of protecting the graves of those the church is entrusted to watch over. Is the use of the appropriate spells an evil act? Sure, why not, but since the deity is Lawful Neutral, as are most of his clerics, what does he care if a few evil acts are done once in awhile in his name. Heck, his follower even do good acts from time to time as well, as crazy is that is.
Ettercaps, aranea, driders, and other spider related creatures were formed initially by drow and their spider goddess (Arachne in my setting) from other humanoid beings (though they breed true). Those worthy individuals with sorcerer powers for instance where changed into aranea, while more mundane individuals were transformed into ettercaps. Non-drow elves could be transformed into drow by the same process (drows are believed to have been originally from the plane of shadow).
Drow actually have open recruiting in most large cities and this is tolerated by most groups, though frowned upon. Yet since they tend to recruit from the cities unwanted (homeless, runaways, etc), most cities are willing to allow it. They make it a point not to break any local laws, not out of respect, but as a means of forcing their presence (that and bribes, threats, etc). Drow tend to be very political (especially the ones sent to the surface world) in my setting.
Their chaotic nature is revealed in their belief that you have to choose your path. So they would not force someone to become an ettercap for example, but that doesn't mean they would feel obligated to explain all the consequences. So they might say that it will make you physically more powerful and you'd become more aware of your surrounds. At the same time, you'll be able to command giant spiders. They wouldn't point out you'd be turned into a monster or that your intellect would be damaged.
True dragons were at one point guardians of the gods (I tweeked their alignments so that there is at least one for each alignment) earthly treasure vaults (think Talos in the old Jason and the Argonauts movie). At some point the gods lost interest, dragon guardians were slain, vaults were plunder. Still the descendants of those guardians still exist and they still have the urge to guard treasures, hence the tendency to have hoards. Whether the gods created the true dragons or merely change them to suit their purposes is not clear, since it happened ages ago.
Core 3.5 feats only.
Since it has been a couple of weeks, I imagine this isn't going to be helpful, but I would suggest going the Spring Attack route (Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack). I know it seems as flurry is going to be effective, but really it is a trap. You won't have the AC no matter where you put your highest stat, nor the hps to sit there and go toe-to-toe with most level appropriate foes. Spring in, stunning fist, spring out. That should be your modus operandi.
If you had faith in your GM letting you get any magic item you wanted, wealth level appropriate of course, then I might suggest other routes, but based on what you have said about this GM, I would not assume that.
If you are trying to justify the change based on game mechanics, then you are on the wrong track. The spiked chain didn't lose the reach for any game balance issue, it lost it because Jason didn't like it having reach. Period.
Finesse was not a valuable quality in 3.5 for a spiked chain, since almost all builds were designed around tripping, and tripping in 3.5 was always done by using Str for the attacker. Focusing on Dex over Str in those builds would be counter-productive, not to mention it required an additionally feat in a feat heavy build already. It should be noted that the trip feat was more powerful in 3.5 as well.
The fact that the trip mechanics and feat were nerfed made any legitimate mechanics argument for nerfing the spiked chain's reach irrelevant. No the reach wasn't nerfed for mechanic reasons, it was done for purely aesthetic reasons.
The probability to hit isn't really relevant, unless it is extremely small. In this case it falls into the crit range and has an effect.
For example, if a character only hits on a 19 or 20 (and thus only confirms a crit on a 19 or 20), then a weapon with a crit range of 18-20 is no better than a weapon with a crit range of 19-20 (since the 18 wouldn't hit anyway).