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

pres man's page

7,456 posts (8,148 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,456 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The whales are calm in the deep.

Go the f**k to sleep.

Just FYI, Rob Ford is Canadian not of the US.

Rebels are very good at shooting down aircraft, this proves they didn't shoot down this aircraft.


Mental gymnastics, got to love them.

That exactly what the Fascists want you to think!

You can always think about using something like this.

It is looking like Russian Separatists have murdered an entire plane full of innocent civilians.

Weirdo wrote:
But what would such a character actually care about?

Feel your pain.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
pres man wrote:
I don't quite get the Viagra and birth control connection. One is trying to help your system function, the other is trying to circumvent your system functioning. Viagra is more akin to infertility treatment than birth control.
So you're okay with paying for men to have sex but not women?

First off, I didn't say that birth control shouldn't be covered. I said that I don't see the connection between Viagra and birth control. Birth control tries to prevent pregnancy, Viagra creates opportunities to get pregnant. They seem to be counter examples. As I said, Viagra is more akin to fertility treatments, though I would also concede it is also akin to medication like ospemifene (and these should also be covered by the health plan), used to help older individuals stay sexual active, while not relating to pregnancy at all.

I don't quite get the Viagra and birth control connection. One is trying to help your system function, the other is trying to circumvent your system functioning. Viagra is more akin to infertility treatment than birth control.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
No, they said their religion trumps law, facts, and women's health. They said we will invest and make profits off of products that offend our religion but won't pay for a prescription given to a woman by her doctor because of our ignorance. The Supreme Court upheld their assertion that you can ignore parts of laws that you believe are doing something against your religion even if it is provably false. Now comes the fun part where that ruling is tested and we see if other religious beliefs are allowed to trump laws or if only legitimate beliefs (read: Christian) can.

Well that and if the government has already conceded that part of the law and is covering other people in similar situations, then there isn't any reason the government can't cover these people.

Government decided to try to be reasonable and let some groups slide by, this opened up the precedent that others could also claim the government should cover them as well.

GentleGiant wrote:

Quark, you haven't been outside the US much, have you?

Doesn't seem so if you think everyone else has "systems" so much inferior to what the exists in the US.
I guess you think massive homelessness, highly expensive medical care, weekly shootings, rapidly rising inequality and, as this thread is about, religious interference in medical care is better than... well, pretty much none of those.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you missed the fact that it was my wife's character. Yeah, it was a bad call. ;D

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well to be fair, there are still trans individuals that are using the phrase.

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

One of the worst rulings a GM did to me was in a 2nd edition game. I was playing a gnome illusionist/thief. We were sneaking past a bunch of sleeping goblins. The GM ruled that I made so much noise that I woke the goblins. It wasn't the paladin in full plate (his best friend) or anyone else. It wasn't the prisoners we had just freed. It was the completely silent, unarmored, no metal carrying or wearing character trained to be silent. He used it to cut me off from the rest of the party.

Had that been the only bad ruling I would have been upset but I would have given him another chance. Unfortunately it was a series of rulings like that that made my character swallow a chromatic orb and end my time gaming with him.

Earlier in the same session we had found a minotaur who was looking for a fight. It was just myself and another thief so we ran. The minotaur yelled, "I smell dwarf!" and started chasing us. We hid in a small whole and I cast an illusion of a dwarf down the corridor so he would run past us. Instead he turned to us and attacked. No rolls to see if we were hiding in shadows. No rolls to see if he disblieved the illusion. Not even initiative. He simply attacked me. He didn't even randomly decide if he was going to attack myself or the other thief.

One of the worst GMs I've ever had.

I don't know how scent worked in 2nd edition, but in 3e it would have been pretty legitimate, especially if the minotaur was adjacent to the dwarf's hiding hole.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Story immersion is a beautiful thing but all it takes is one videogamey player that calls your story and development attempts meaningless fluff and too combat inefficient to bring the whole thing crashing down and make the game just a boring chore for everyone else. Negative and pessimistic mindsets are strongly contagious and pushing people to the video game aspect is somewhat toxic to real character driven stories.

Deep in mind that one drama-queen can also ruin the game experience for the group as well.

Also while justifying character design choices is great, it is a pretty douchey thing to do to try to force someone else to meet our own perception of legitimate justification. The general rule is worry about playing your character well, let others play their character as they see fit. Not everyone is a simulationist, some folks are more of gamists. Neither is better than the other despite some views of "If you don't play my way you are doing it badong."

I would add that enforcing a rule that you have to rolelplay all design choices actually leads to people doing a lot of character building out to level 20 versus making more "natural" choices as they progress. Seems to be a counter-intuitive approach to those that value roleplaying versus gaming mindsets.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also keep in mind that Paizo is both a roleplaying company and an online store. Any 5e materials will be sold here as well, so Paizo wins either way.

Once you leave a game, you really don't get any say on how characters (un)develop in the game setting at that point. Your former character becomes a mindless drone, oh well, if you didn't want that to happen you should have stayed in the group (or had the character commit seppuku before quitting).

Now if the group claims you have to hand over your character sheet (assuming you made it up yourself in the first place and weren't given it), then I'd say bull. They can ask politely and I might, or I might scan it or take a picture and sent it to them. But my property is mine and I can do with it as I wish.

Honestly as a GM though, it is easier to just remove the character from the group and move on.

"I have known gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by Nemedian skeptics, or Crom’s realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains of and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer’s Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." – Conan of Cimmeria

Options, don't use them? Yes and no. If you play in society play or run officially published adventures/modules, then your choice might be more limited to not include them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Imho even the concept of a stat block for Cthulhu means you've already missed the point. Does not compute.

If you have a visual and/or physical representation of Cthulhu that doesn't immediately drive you insane, the point has been missed.

I wouldn't say that sorcerers are more brilliant, they might be more intuitive, but they are limited to only using magic they are intimately tied to. Wizards on the other hand have no limit on learning and using arcane magic.

Now for an exotic spell, a sorcerer might just "stumble" on the ability to do it. A wizard ally could then study them, how they cast it, perhaps have the sorcerer embed it into a scroll and whamo! Suddenly the wizard understands how it works.

I would suggest most arcane spells were actually originally "discovered" by sorcerers (or other spontaneous arcane casters, e.g. dragons) and classified, defined, and quantified by brilliant wizards.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't call someone more brilliant that thought up something new that nobody else did, but was incapable of learning other things. As compared to someone that can not only learn from the first person and recreate their discover, but also learn an unlimited amount of other things.

Jaçinto wrote:
Is it just my group, or is it common for pathfinder groups to not actually use a spell's full description and effect? By which I mean, fireball not catching you and your gear on fire or doing anything else other than just damage?

As TOZ points out, it doesn't really damage your gear (except in the case of a natural 1). It damages creatures and unattended objects. The last paragraph is in reference to those unattended objects (and items due to a natural 1). Otherwise it should just harm the creature.

Jaçinto wrote:
Heck, I have even argued that you have to repair your gear and clothes cause after a while they will be falling apart, due to being full of holes from the amount of hits they took.

Again, this is something people can get into or they just hand wave, it really depends on the individuals. Keep in mind that some people have very limited schedules and spending too much time on mundane matters for the characters can seem as wasting that limited time. Dungeons and Dragons vs. Stitching and Shining you might say.

Jaçinto wrote:
After all, why should the sorc spontaneously know a spell developed by a caster across the globe to deal with a situation they had to deal with? If your character has no logical reason to know of the spell, then you should have to research.

Probably not the best example since sorcerers are suppose to be magical naturally. They don't really "learn" spells so much as "awaken" them. The magic is in their blood not something they tap into.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I know I try to use every bit of the rule when I play, but for things like that, some people don't realize everything that the spell does, especially if it has been changed from 3.5. Coincidentally, I don't think fireball catches your gear on fire, just unattended items.

Also if you roll a 1 on your save, some of your gear can get destroyed/damaged.

Worst mistake I made involved a 7-headed hydra, a surprise round, and my wife's character.

The party entered a partially flooded room in which a hydra was swimming in. The party failed to spot it and it charged at them (full attack due to hydra-ness).

The party was clumped up and I had to decide how many heads attacked each character. Brilliantly I decided to start with my wife's character and roll a d8. The number would be how many heads attacked her character, and then I'd work down the line. Of course, you guessed it, I rolled a 7. All 7 heads attacked her character and she was killed outright before she even got to roll initiative. LAME! "I guess we know who will be sleeping on the couch tonight." :P She was joking, but it was disappointing. We did joke that the hydra should have knocked itself out by all heads slamming into the same spot simultaneously.

Later I realized I should have assigned a number to each player and just rolled for each head separately. What a goof move.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I hear that repeated often. About the only time I've seen someone offer up a solution was the Multi-Class Archetype, which parallels pretty closely what Paizo is doing with the Advance Class guide hybrid classes. Do you have a third way?

Trailblazer simply treats spellcasting and so on more like BAB, so that a fighter 10/wizard 10 not only has BAB +15, but also has caster level 15th (or whatever, I don't have it in front of me). That's a third way.

3.5 had a lot of multiclass feats like Devoted Tracker and so on. That's a fourth way.

Similarly, my houserules provide a lot of class synergy features that you can choose when multiclassing, to make almost any class combination viable without gimping the PC. They're broader in scope than the 3.5 patches but more costly, as they're talents rather than feats. That's a fifth way.

I'm sure there are others as well.

In my own games, I made a feat to do something like this. 1/4 of the sum of all other classes count towards the spellcasting. If the other class is a spellcasting itself, the player can give up the spellcasting and count 1/2 of them towards the primary spellcasting class.

e.g. Bard 4/Fighter 6/Wizard 10 with the feat would cast as a Bard 8 (4 + 1/4*16) or Wizard 12 (10 + 1/4*10). If they give up their bard casting, they could cast as Wizard 13 (10 + 1/4*6 + 1/2*4).

GregH wrote:

Oh I know its a sin, (I was brought up Catholic - got better) but I thought that profits were the most important thing.

It seems to trump other "sins".

In publicly traded companies you would be correct. That is why this decision was limited to "closely-held" companies and wouldn't apply to publicly traded companies.

GregH wrote:

What I find the most puzzling about this is that it is actually in the employer's best interest to provide contraception in health care coverage because access to contraception means less unexpected pregnancies and that means less maternity/paternity leave. Of course in the US, I think you guys get all of a week or two* of parental leave so maybe its not a big loss?

*hyperbole - I know its more than that, but I don't know the exact number and I do know it doesn't even come close to the 52 weeks we get here in la belle province...

Yes, but if they are truly conservative Christians, then they also believe "be fruitful and multiply".

It does seem they do support parental planning though, just not certain types of birth control that goes against some fundamental belief (personhood begins at conception not implantation).

Not sure about the laws. My wife would have had 6 weeks with a normal birth, but she had a C-section, so she got 8 weeks. I didn't take any time off officially, though I scheduled my work time so that I could care for the new sprout during the day while my wife was at work for the next 2 months at which time we started with daycare.

I am actually glad he has gotten to go to daycare and interact with other kids all day. Being at home all day with 2 introverts is probably not the best for social development of many youngens.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the goblin was unaware of your character, you character should have been treated as invisible to the goblin. In that case you should have gotten +2 on your attack roll and been able to sneak attack (assuming you were within 30 ft) the goblin. If you were at least 10 ft from the goblin you could have also tried to hide after attacking (at a -20 penalty).

Also if you are using a back hallway you wouldn't have to make hide checks while moving and you don't stack the move half speed for both hiding and move silently.

Lissa Guillet wrote:
pres man wrote:
So nobody is going to play female dwarves (who are already played rarely) except for a few guys who do it for chuckles.
I play female dwarves. O_o I have at least one and I know Crystal has at least 1.

And would you be playing them if you had to be bearded female dwarves? I didn't say nobody was currently playing them (which your character would counter), but that they are currently played rarely (which your character is not exactly evidence against). Still I think they are played rarely and adding beards on them is just going to reduce them more (I was being hyperbolic when I said nobody but guys playing for chuckles, but I think it is going to be insanely small).

From my experience, people that want to play a female fall into three charcter camps: beautiful and graceful (play elf, half-elf, or human), petite and cute (gnome or halfling), or tough (half-orc or human). Playing a short, stocky, woman about as wide as she is tall just doesn't seem to appeal to many women, in my experience of course. Like I said, I could be wrong, but without some kind of evidence (say a % breakdown from the latest Con) I don't really think I am.

BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
Well the company could always choose not to pay. The employees would then get none of it and the government would fine the company directly and again the employees would get none of it. How is the employee's money again?
Compensation is compensation. Yes the company could not pay, and on top of the fine the government would apply, the employees could sue and receive damages from their employer for not providing minimum compensation.

Pretty unlikely as there are already avenues (exchanges, medicaid, tax credits, etc) that people who don't get health care from their job already have. These employees would just fall into that group.

Let's be clear, the law doesn't require companies to give insurance. It doesn't give anyone a "right" to insurance. Instead it says the government will tax companies of certain sizes if they don't provide it. So giving insurance to their employees is a way to avoid a tax, not a right of the employees.

So it would be a little hard suing for not getting minimum compensation. That would be if they weren't paying overtime or paying minimum wage or something.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Hama wrote:
Because PF is a marked improvement over 3E and so much better.

He said 3e not 3.5. I mean let's not be ridiculous.

Well the company could always choose not to pay. The employees would then get none of it and the government would fine the company directly and again the employees would get none of it. How is the employee's money again?

Also I think Hobby Lobby has a special situation with regard to the health care insurance they provide. I don't know all the details, but I don't think it is the same as going to a regular insurance provider.

Most companies are going to get their insurance from a regular insurance company. Those companies aren't going to be interested in a 500 different specific policies. Instead they will say you can take A, B, or C (all of which will provide the coverage required by law). A company can say, we don't like X in plan A, Y in plan B, or X in plan C. But the insurance company will probably just say, that is nice, so do you want A, B, or C?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jaçinto you mention that the players don't want to upset the GM. Why not offer to GM yourself? Invite the current group, GM included, to a different time/day game you are running. Demonstrate how you think the gaming should go.

The free D&D 5e rules might just be the thing to get people to try something new, despite their current preference for PF. Alternatively, just stick with PF and institute some house-rules needed to meet your expectations. One thing I did was give xp whether there was combat or not, so players didn't have to feel they have to go kill something to level up.

One thing I would caution you is to make sure that things you find enjoyable are also enjoyable to your players. Just because it makes sense to you to roleplay out a character learning a new language, it won't be for some players, it is just a needless hoop they feel they have to jump through. Get everyone on board and realize that just like exciting combat encounters should be kept to a minimum to stay interesting, so should doing things like making players roleplay out purchasing a new magic weapon. Some is better than none, but less is better than more.

Sometimes you just roll badly. You don't need a racial penalty to get a bad stat, it just makes it harder to get a good one.

So nobody is going to play female dwarves (who are already played rarely) except for a few guys who do it for chuckles.

To the issue of the bless weapon spell, easiest solution would be to use the align weapon spell in its place. The more complicated solution would be to rewrite the spell to have it apply appropriate to the particular exemplar.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not getting things done is a feature not a flaw of the system.

Irontruth wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:

Here is my opinion:

-You don't have a right for other people to pay for your stuff.

(Also, Hobby Lobby covers most contraceptives, it is only a subset of those, like the morning after pill, that they objected to covering)

Here's my question though...

Is an employer allowed to impose their religious beliefs on employees?

This isn't a blow for "religious freedom", it's just a declaration that people who have more power and money get to impose their religious beliefs on others. That actually sounds like the opposite of religious freedom to me.

I get the point about not wanting to pay for something because it violates your beliefs. At the same time though, I don't think religious beliefs are a valid reason to impose that restriction on someone else who might not share them.

As for not having the right for other people to pay for your stuff, these are employees. They are providing labor to the employer and in return receiving remuneration, one aspect of which is health care. Hobby Lobby wasn't being forced to pay this to random people on the street, these were employees.

This decision didn't say the company could fire people for using these products. Nor did it say the government couldn't provide it to these people as the government already did in other cases they had made exceptions to this rule for.

Was I the only person that ran around and talked to the folks in town, repeated in Diablo (I & II, haven't played III yet)? I mean you got Sean Connery as your trusted advisor, who doesn't love that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well given that I think part of the reasoning was that the U.S. government was already giving other groups a pass on these requirements, so claims of the requirements being necessary are not supported (otherwise the government wouldn't be giving exceptions already).

In a sense it was the administration trying to be reasonable that caused in least in part caused this decision by setting a precedent.

Now to the other ridiculous issues raised in this thread, well if you could find cases of the U.S. government allow those things, then you might have a case.

Star Wars Saga had skill allocation similar to PF Alpha. Anybody remember how that turned out?

Re: mass phantom steed

I think it is suppose to be communal phantom steed.

"There is not enough material."

In the trimmed down version of the rules that haven't even been released yet? I'd be worried if there was. Talk about rules glut right out of the gate.

"Nothing original enough here to make me buy it."

*Looks at shelves covered in 3e and 3.5 material with no PF or 4e material.* I wonder where I've seen that before.

Another repaint of sasquatch heroclix miniature. Wodewose (inspired by Mossman from He-Man early 2000's cartoon).

It is pretty unusual for a not fully calked window to endanger anyone's life.

Well looks like I'm done. Call me again in 4 years and I'll start caring about soccer (football) again then. Take care all.

"Normally"? Depends on what one considers "normal".

I hope it becomes a thing with Mexico's youth, that they start videoing themselves "Robbening", like U.S. youth were doing LeBroning. LOL

FranKc wrote:
Could someone remind me why these errors are never corrected on the released pdf files?

I don't know for sure, but if I was to guess, I'd say it was the layout of all of the other stuff. Once a product is laid out, if an error is found then, it is often ignored due to it not being worth the man-hours to relay everything out.

1 to 50 of 7,456 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.