|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What are the outcomes everyone hopes comes out of this?
Don't have much hope, sadly.
What I expect to happen, is insurance rates (home, auto, business, life) are going to shoot up in the area. This is going to cause prices of consumer goods to also go up as businesses compensate. Consumers are going to have less money to spend locally, reducing businesses. Property values are going to drop, this will lead to higher property tax rates to compensate in order to continue paying for local services. Those that can afford to move, especially non-African Americans, will do so further reducing the wealth of the area.
Humans that are anatomically male didn't start off as female and become male. Instead they, like people that are anatomically female or indeterminate or what have you, start off as asexual. There comes a critical point when those hormones are introduced or not. If that doesn't happen, then the default is to develop into an anatomical female.
But just because that is the default development doesn't mean a male was female and became male. You could say all people started with the potential to become female, but it is incorrect to say all people start off as female.
Are you talking about a trans-person who practices transvestism? e.g. A trans-woman, who feels more comfortable living publicly as a man.
So has anyone looked at the iconic [feral] Hunter [archtype].
I really dislike this type of armor.
Slimmer build (though still not slim enough I would argue) and hip outline, I think some folks are going to like that.
Why the hell is he so fugly? Of course, I don't know what people find attractive in men, since obviously Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler and others are found attractive by some people.
So I'll call it a good first attempt at a sexualized male, but still needs work (slimmer build and better face).
Several women that could fight were not initially interested in Conan. But it should be noted that as soon as the two met other people, Conan often told them the woman was his and the women often had to go along with it.
Now sure there a couple of women this didn't happen to Sonja (I don't think she ever hooked up with Conan) and Belit (who died shortly after hooking up with him), but most other women that were capable of fighting often had their agency still taken over by Conan at the first opportunity.
I know when I game, the character I love to play is the useless tag-a-long.
GM: What does Halgar the Violent do this round.
Fun times, fun times.
"Vibes". Really, a lot of the information we pass on is non-verbal in nature. While we don't always pick up vibes correctly, that doesn't mean that we don't ever pick them up accurately. I'm not trying to pick on Phithis, it just seemed as if he was saying that admitting to finding Katherine Moennig attractive was due to him being "comfortable in [his] own skin". I'm suggesting that there is nothing actually surprising about a straight guy finding her attractive.
The funny thing is that I always perceived the Conan cliché as more of a woman's fantasy preference: big dumb barbarian does all the work (moving boulders, defends against hostile wildlife, etc.) and the wise/literate princess/priestess/whateveress gets to go into vacation mode. Power? Looks more like slavery from where I'm standing.
Sure, if you know, the slave gets to make all the calls and the master is treated as a witless child that must be protected and kept from getting itself killed. The master has absolutely no agency of their own, but instead is treated as a prize and/or luggage by the slave. Then, yeah I could see how it seems like slavery. I mean, young children enslave their parents all the time.
TL;DR: I do not think it means what you think it means.
That was more Jock(Strap) Samson.
And the armor bonus you'd probably get from that is ...
Though, maybe you can convince your GM to give you a +1 shield bonus, if you are lucky.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Well if Crowe had been drawn first, then I might give his art work some weight. Since it was drawn long afterwards, with people talking about how silly the original female artwork looks, Crowe's artwork might be a real effort to have meaningful armor or it might just be an attempt to justify the previous choice. "See guys can dress like that too. See, not silly at all."
What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.
Yes, I know armor bonuses don't stack. Good missing the point.
So since someone started talking about game mechanics, let me ask this. Since armor isn't gender specific (even full plate is individual specific, not gender specific), if a female foe is killed and male character takes her armor and dons it, does it still have the boob window and/or missing midriff or does the fantasy powers make those cover up?
Andrew R wrote:
like classic conan, he might wear next to nothing running around but plated up if he knew he was going into battle
Most of the time, Conan being in only a loinclothe was due to losing the rest of his armor or clothing (saying having to cut himself out of his metal armor stuck to a rock that some creature was coming down to consume him). The other times tended to be him being caught in a compromising position (how you doing sexy lady, oh crap ninjas!).
I just want to know why the Iconic Shaman is wearing a WWF wrestling belt on her head?
"OH YEAH!" -Macho Man voice
What you are calling "looking tough", I might call looking like a douche.
LOL, Sandpoint Shore.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Right, because adventurers are worried about appearing "empowered" rather than just you know protecting their lives.
*Dying of a gut wound* "I might not live, but I definitely looked tough not doing it."
How about the crazy idea that characters dress appropriate for their life style and current situation and not worry about appearing "sexualized" or "empowered"?
I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.
What is funny to me is I showed my wife the picture of Kess and didn't say anything. She looked at, looked at me, looked at it, and then rolled her eyes. "Yeah, leaving your stomach open to have your guts cut out makes a lot of sense."
I responded, "Are you suggesting you think she is sexualized?"
"Of course she is. Not as bad as some I've seen, but yeah."
"What if I told you that some people thinks she is 'desexed'."
It took her a bit to catch her voice from laughing so hard.
As we looked at some of the other new iconic females, we noticed that Jirelle is either double-jointed or has broken her leg. LOL
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
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.
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.
PENIS MEASURING CONTEST GETTING READY TO START!
MY COUNTRY HAS A BIGGER PENIS THEN YOURS!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.