pres man's page

Mazra wrote:

Wealth is EARNED! It is not something taken from those that earn it, and given to those that don't. Currently the top 10% of wage earners in the US pays nearly 70% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pays less than 3% of all taxes. I think the distribution of wealth is plenty lopsided as is.

Later,

Mazra

Wealth can also be inherited so NO IT IS NOT ALWAYS EARNED!

As for the top 10% paying most taxes, what percent of the nation's wealth do they control? What percent of the total wages does that top 10% earn?

Well it was earned by someone at sometime (assuming we are excluding Royals here), and that person worked hard to leave that wealth to their decedents.

Is it really right for someone to come in when I die and go to the stack of PF miniatures I have left my children and say, "Yeah, you didn't earn this black dragon miniature, from the very first PF miniature set, that your father left you. So we are going to confiscate it. We'll be nice and let you keep all the dire rat and gnome miniatures though. You have no right to the dragon though and your father had no right to leave it to you."

Actually the real kicker would be to discover that they'd actually traveled into the FUTURE.

That was my guess. The whole alternate timeline thing was just a red herring to fool everyone. This actually takes place millions of years farther in the future, after humanity has died off and the world has recovered from the destruction humanity did. The "dinosaurs" are just new creatures that evolved since then that resemble (due to convergent evolution) dinosaurs.

I thought the carnotaurus was done pretty good, but the more I saw of those lasher dinos the worse they seemed. Limiting to short quick shots would have worked much better. Maybe the graphics just don't work very well for night time shots, I don't know, but often less is more.

And yes as the commander was welcoming everyone, I couldn't help but jump back to Avatar.

Also keep in mind that Paizo.com tries not to undercut a lot of brick and mortar stores, so their prices tend to be steeper on somethings than some other online stores. It might be possible to pick up a case or singles (on the secondary market) for substantially cheaper elsewhere. I know I'm looking at around $2 per miniature on the purchase of the case I'm getting (and that includes shipping and black dragon).

I think my ideal pair on the Republican side would be Romney for Prez and Cain for Vice-Prez. Romney's "flip-flopping" isn't really a negative for me personally, I see it as political pragmatism, which I believe is really necessary to get things done. Sure push for your ideas, but you got to be willing to bend to get things done.

Now if say, Perry-Bachmann was the ticket, I'd probably vote for Obama.

Kryzbyn wrote:

I just looked up ENDA on wikipedia, and I dunno that I'd be cool with it either. It just seems to create another "protected class" when discrimination is already against the rules, and is just common sense.

I'm generally against passing laws for the sake of passing laws, or passing laws to enforce existing laws' enforcement.
In Nebraska (which I would argue is one of the more conservative states in the union), we have no such law on the books at a state level, and theres no massive anti-gay firings going on here. Course, we tend to look at things based on merit of character rather than other factors...

The rhetoric seems to be if we don't pass that bill on a federal level we're just like Iran or something.

just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it does not happen.

And if something is already against the rules and still happening, what makes you think that putting more rules in place is going to stop it?

bugleyman wrote:

And while the far right does seem to be at the wheel right now, I believe they will fundamentally reject Cain based on his stubborn refusal to budge on the issue of being black.

Yup, I said it.

Thanks Bugleyman. It's been all of 3 or 4 hours since I've heard "Republicans are Raaaaaacist!!!111!!"

<sigh>

Cain at the Republican Convention.

And for homosexual marriage, he's stated he personally believes in "traditional marriage" but thinks it should be left up to state legislation to make laws about it.

Sure sounds like he "loves guns" and "hates gays" to me. lol

But nice try on the hate-mongering. Really. <eye roll>

I believe candidate Obama said something pretty similar. Yup "hates gays" sounds about right. LOL

I will agree that the concepts of "grim", "two-weapon fighter", and heck even "halfling" are not dependent. You can have a grim character that doesn't use TWFing and isn't a halfling. You can have a TWFer who isn't grim or a halfling, and you can have a halfling that isn't grim or a TWFer.

Does that mean those concepts are irrelevant to the specific character that is a grim TWFing halfling? Not at all, they help to define the character. But those characteristics are not dependent on each other, they all just influence the end product (the character).

Yeah, I'd have to say sometimes the weapon is closely tied to the concept. Han Solo is a "space cowboy". He's a gunslinger, and as such his weapon of choice is a gun he can draw and get off a couple of quick shots. Skipping the whole Greedo thing (which would be hard to accomplish with a larger weapon), just think of the scene with Vader in cloud city. The door opens, Vader stands and Han tries to unsling his blaster rifle from his shoulder? Nope, that doesn't work. Han whipping out his pistol and taking a couple shots from the hip makes that scene much more iconic.

Sure, you toss a blaster rifle in Han's hands for a scene or two, no big deal, he's still Han. Gunslingers know how to use a variety of weapons, especially if they have to disguise themselves as storm troopers. But what is their preferred, default weapon? The pistol.

Now if you replace Chewies bowcaster with a blaster rifle, you lose a little uniqueness, but functionally it works exactly the same. In fact, I can't remember any scene where the bowcaster acted any differently than a blaster rifle would have. The bowcaster is all flair.

How bad is it that my wife and I watched the SNL debate skit and after the guy playing Cain did his whole "government should be like pizza" bit finishing with, "If I get elected I will Deliver." Both of us looked at each other and said, "That was funny, but it actually didn't sound half-bad too."

"Climate Change"

Typical Rep: Yeah, this are getting hotter, that doesn't absolutely mean that it is man-made and not just a natural cycle of the environment. I still don't find the evidence for those claims (it is man-made and not a natural cycle) to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Typical Dem: See, you are science stupid!

And a lot of the pushers for acceptance of man-made climate change fall into the no-true-scotsman trap. "There are some scientists that are not convinced, what do you have to say about them." *rolls eyes* "Yeah, they are really 'scientists'. If they were real scientists they would agree with our position 100%."

Anecdotally, I have seen loads of 'min-maxed' non-combat characters that despised getting in a fight and would use cheaty 3.5 diplomacy. No roleplaying. Just rolling the dice, declaring a result north of 40 at level 2 and saying 'They have to do what I say. I got a 40+; No, I'm not going to RP talking to them.'

The other side of that coin is the player that neglects all their social skills and abilities and believes that they should be able to roleplay around those weaknesses and thus not be affected by them.

Frankly social skills and abilities are a tricky thing. Do you:
a)ignore them entirely as a group as this is something that should be handled entirely by acting out the scene
b)only roll the dice and let the GM decide how the outcome was reached.
c)roll the dice first and then roleplay the situation as to approximate the already known outcome
d)roleplay the scene first and then roll the check to see how effective the character was truly (perhaps putting in a circumstance bonus/penalty based on what was actually played out)

Just to be clear, I'm sure Mr. Cain's view of a candidate would be the first thing he would consider before nominating a candidate. Not that he would nominate a candidate and have that person go through all the back ground checks and senate hearings and only then would Mr. Cain say, "You know, I'm not sure. Prove it to me."

I just wanted to clarify that because thejeff's statements kind of had the latter feel to them.

In capital murder case where one of the possible punishments is the Death Penalty, [some] Catholics (and others) that don't believe the Death Penalty should ever be used are routinely removed as possible jurists? Is this a religious test or a test of their ability to apply the law independent of their religion?

And, yes, I would think that if someone was strongly against abortion to the point of not doing their job, then they would probably be disqualified from holding a position where they were required to defend such.

Frankly, any candidates that worries about Muslims needing a loyalty test is kind of silly in my mind. If we were looking for a group to be need extra scrutiny it should be nationalized Americans from China and Russia. How many times have we heard about classified information leaking out due to "moles" sent over or recruited by these countries. Al qaeda just don't have the subtlety to look that far down the road to really be worry about them getting someone in a high ranking position.

As for the people that are complain loudly about Mr. Cain's statements about Muslims, I have to wonder, how do they feel about Mormons given the Prop 8 situation that occurred. How many really are so independent of viewing others truly independent of whatever religious group they are part of?

I can't but notice that the people that tend to scream the loudest that, "Bachmann won't get elected because she is a woman", "Cain won't get elected because he is black", and "Romney won't get elected because he is Mormon" tend to be Dem supports.

I actually don't want everything revealed. Well on Friday I am ordering a case, and it is a little like Christmas. So far I know MOSTLY what I am going to get, but maybe there are some cool surprises.

Like 1983 Christmas, I KNEW I was getting Soundwave, Sunstreaker, SIdeswipe, and Thundercracker. What I didn't know was I was getting Ratchet as well. Even though Ratchet was not asked for it was cooler because it was a complete surprise!

How about you then just avoid threads that have details and go in blind? Why does everyone else have to be forced to not know what they are buying merely because you don't want to know?

Seems similar to the thinking of those people that say there shouldn't be random because they don't like random, even though they can get non-random on the secondary market just as easily (if you are already purchasing from Paizo, just go to their singles page when it comes up).

The ettin is very cool but I think the Human Ranger is my favorite mini so far! Very nice action pose!

I know it is nitpicking, but that knife on his leg just annoys the hell out of me. I just look so silly. Tucked in the boot, ok. Two straps holding it pressed against the leg, ok. But one strap so it can spin and get caught on things, nope. I might have to cut it off and/or reposition it.

The issue isn't necessarily playing a car-train. It is choosing to do so in about the worst way possible. If there was a better way of modeling for that concept, why would you purposefully choose a worse way? Now maybe there is no great way, that is sometimes the case (and why you see "class creep" in game systems) doesn't mean that some ways aren't worse than others.

Cyderak wrote:

So, like I said, I would'nt be surprised if Paizo farmed out the work that Wizkids cannot do to other companies all the while keeping the business that WizKids can do, with Wizkids.

The only problem with that theory is that Wizkids can handle miniatures on that scale, and have in the past with Heroclix. They've done Fin Fang Foom, Galactus and the Spectre which would all be in the Colossal scale.

By the way, if you are looking for stand ins for Rune Giants, the Iron Rain Hill Giant from the Mage Knight line does a pretty good job and they can be gotten pretty cheap at places. The base is a little smaller so you might need to glue them to something as a bigger base, but otherwise they work well.

I think what you are talking about is "closing the circle".

1. Come up with a character concept.
2. Try to come up with the best way of representing that concept using the tools of the system in use to design the character. [Note: Concept may be tweaked if the tools of the system don't support a particular concept.]
3. Roleplay the character in actual game play.
4. Evaluate if concept should be continued, tweaked, abandoned. What has "worked", what was "interesting", how have things progressed. Return to #1.

Ron also was optimized for strategy, see game of Wizards Chess that he overcame at a young age.

Cartigan wrote:

InVinoVeritas wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Fine, you can define effectiveness however you want, but something can't both be effective and ineffective at the same exact thing at the same exact time.

True. But I never said that.

Then to judge effectiveness, you have to draw an arbitrary line where certain things fall on one side and other things on the other.

Or, you can establish a continuum of values.

Then I don't think you are discussing the difference between effective and ineffective.

You may be discussing levels of performance but that is not the same thing.

Velcro Zipper wrote:

I thought the party was going to be level 8 so a 3HD/4lv Bugbear Ranger along with a bunch of mooks sounded okay to me. If they're going to be higher level, make the bugbear leaders tougher and, maybe, give a few elite bugbears a level or two of rogue or barbarian.

Thank you, I did say 8th sorry about that. I think by the time they finish with the nighthag they will more than likely be 9th level.

So how many bugbears do you think? The leader his 2nd in command and a sgt. Then like 10 others?

Thank you for all the help and being a sounding board.

Frankly, as a GM, I tend to be a bit lazy. I don't want to have stats for 3-4 different types of NPCs attacking the party. So I wouldn't worry about different stats for the leader, other officers, and grunts. I'd just get one set of stats and define their position by their personality. Maybe roll their hit points and put them in rank by highest number of hps to lowest. As for the level, I'd say 4-6 bugbears with 4 levels of warrior each (plus racial HD of course).

So I was looking at some of the cone diagrams and I looked at what it says in the dragon breath weapon about the cone shaped breath ones and something just doesn't jive.

A cone is as high and wide as its length.

This makes me think that 30 ft cone should be 30 feet at its widest, yet in the 30 foot cone diagram, it hits a maximum width of 40 feet (8 squares).

Are dragon breath weapons different than other cones?

Well if you are sticking with core, I am assuming you are also using xp penalties. So you will need to consider what race you'll use and what martial class in addition to your bard class in order to qualify for EK. You have:
Human, half-elf, gnome: bard and any martial class
Dwarf: bard and fighter
Half-orc: barbarian and bard

Elves and halflings don't really work for this build, though you could ask if NPC classes could be treated as favored (they were in 3ed, but they left out the text in 3.5 for some reason). If the DM will allow it, they could use aristocrat or warrior to qualify for the class for the halfling or elf.

My suggestion would probably be either half-elf or human and go ranger and bard into EK. The flavor works nice with that combo (of course those are my favorite two base classes so I could be prejudiced).

Keep in mind the earliest you could possibly qualify for the class is 9th level (7 bard levels to have a chance to cast 3rd level spells and 1 level in martial class to get martial weapon proficiency).

As for the two shield, I'm not sure if that is the greatest choice. Maybe heavy shield in on-hand a light weapon in off-hand? Remember you'll need a hand free to cast spells. And you don't want to have to unstrap a shield to get that hand free. Also shield bonuses don't stack (though other magic abilities might). Sword and board works in 3.5, it just is very weak, but if power was what you were worried about, you wouldn't be using bard.

My personal preference is not to buy in too deeply to the flavor already assigned to creatures and races. It is great as a starting point, but if something doesn't work for you, change it. Maybe the flavor describes the majority of the type of creature, but the ones the party are encountering are unusually members of their species. Don't let someone else's flavor text get in the way of a good adventure.

So if you want troglodytes in the swamp, put them there. There is no reason they couldn't live in the swamp. They don't have any special ability that makes it easier to live there for them, but they don't suffer any more penalty than say a group of humans would.

You might want to post this higher up in the Pathfinder section. You're more likely to get an answer from people that use the text in question.

They have human intelligence so they could be working with just about anything. Given their aquatic nature (though amphibious ability) I'd try to pick allies with a similar nature. So if I was going with hags, I'd choose them to be teamed up with sea hags, even if the entire combat was taking place on dry land.

Instead of sending 2 at them, how about 1 along with a group of skum it is working with. Perhaps they are all working for some powerful aboleth that resides elsewhere.

Actually further up Erik Mona actually confirmed there will be 2 goblin minis and a skeleton.

I'm waiting until we actually get some kind of picture before putting something on the list. Though I'll try to remember to put the skeleton on the list of other possible miniatures.

Make shift list: 9/18/11

Night of the Creeps

Detective Cameron: I got good news and bad news, girls. The good news is your dates are here.
Sorority Sister: What's the bad news?
Detective Cameron: They're dead.

I dont think thats how it went. I distinctly remember tuvok saying he had sorted out the array and that he needed something like half an hour to activate it (this was after they had fended off the first wave of kazon's ships with a suicidal run by chakotay(sp?). If she didnt have a choice, it wouldn't have been as interesting a premise as it was.

Actually he said it would "take several hours to activate." To which Janeway said to the caretaker, "Unless you help us." He doesn't and dies. There were still Kazon attacking Voyager at this point. In fact when Janeway tells the Kazon she is going to blow the array up, she tells them them "to move your vessels to a safe distance." She was also told that additional Kazon had been called, no mention of how far away.

I just rewatched the ending again. If someone else wants to watch it again and correct me I'd be happy to look at it another time.

I think quite a few people are ignoring other directives. One is to provide aid when needed. A ship in trouble sending out a distress call will be answered by a nearby federation ship. How the interaction goes after that initial emergency is dealt with is then covered by the Prime Directive.

One such example is in the Voyager episode "Repentance", where they saved a ship load of people only to find out it was a prison ship with the prisoners going to be punished in ways not in accordance with Federation policy. Voyager could not directly interfere with the punishment, even though they disagreed with it, they could only provide shelter and transport until the people could be put on another transport.

As to the destruction to the caretaker's array, I seem to remember that the Kazon weren't going to let Voyager study the array to get sent home. So their choices were:

Minis on the secondary market will average out to ~$4 per mini. If they sell higher, it becomes profitable for retailers to open packs and sell them on the secondary market. Common figures will tend to sell for less, while rares will sell for more. But when rares get too high, people open boxes just to find them, and then they sell the commons they find too, reducing prices all arround. Now, it may go higher, as retailers know they have to include unsold product sitting on their shelves in the cost to determine if it is worth opening the packs, but prices stabalize as long as supply roughly equals demand, which it should at the launch. Later in the lifecyle that may not be true, as unopened packs become harder to find.

But we weren't discussing the average cost, we were discussing how much it would cost you to get a complete set. Yes, if I purchase 2 commons at $1 each and 1 rare at $10, that averages out to $4 a miniature. But if I just wanted one of each it wouldn't be $4 a miniature, but $5.50 per miniature.

Cole Cummings wrote:

WE DON'T LIKE RANDOM MINIATURES

We buy them because we need them for our games, but we buy them pissed off at you guys.

By "we", you mean "I". And when I say "I", I mean "you".

There is a product for you; Paizo will be selling minis you can select from.

Better yet, it's cheaper. There are 40 molds. Some are $6 each and a few are $2 each (2 Smalls in a booster costing $4). Most are $4. So even if you wanted all of them, that'd be about $160. You can pick and choose. It'll cost you anywhere from $4 to $160 depending on how many of the 40 you want.

What you want is the minis to cost less than that. Well, here's the thing. Those of us willing (and able) to buy bricks or cases are making it possible for you to buy singles. If it weren't for us, there would be no product for you, and no product for us. We happen to get a perk because we're buying in bulk and blindly; we pay less per mini.

You're welcome.

While I agree with the gist of your comments, you claim that it will cost $160 for all 40 purchased individually is most likely incredible in accurate. If all miniatures were produced in the same quantities, we might be able to claim that, but some miniatures being rare, and thus more expensive on the secondary market, we can't make such a claim. You may have medium miniature that costs $1 on the secondary market and another one that costs $10. That doesn't average out to be $4 a piece, but instead $5.50.

No, what I mean is that narrowing your concept to something that will be most efficient at killing things (and keep developing the character along that path for the rest of its career) is limiting, brushing aside all other legitimate character concepts that are not focused on killing things efficiently.

Characters should be allowed to develop organically (Treantmonk suggested 'fluidly') according to the story that unravels around them, to how their priorities and alliances change and to what obstacles adventure throws-in their way.

Its one argument you'll often hear against the opinion that optimization has no impact on roleplay: roleplay should let your character's concept evolve over time, but optimization favours builts that were planned long in advance and to which the player stick to the end.

That's why I think Treantmonk is right about insisting on optimization being about using the system efficiently to render the player's concept mechanically, and adjusting along (still using the best of the system) when the character concept evolves.

That's a quite broader definition than 'making the best killing machine you can built'.

'findel

And again, I say that is a meaningless point. If I say I only want to play arcane casters, I am just as much limiting the concepts I can play as if I say I only want to play the most effective killing machine. All choices are limiting (as is not choosing).

As for deciding to be "fluid" or "organic" or whatever with your character design, what about the player that just says, "I'm starting with druid and going to stick to that class all the way through." Aren't they just as guilty of not being "natural" as someone that says that eventually they want to have levels of W 6/X 7/Y 3/Z 4. One just lets the designers do all the planning for them while the other does the planning themselves or gets it from others.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with those, or with someone looking at what has happened "on stage" since the last level (because a lot of stuff happens "off stage") to decide or someone else does a random roll to see what to do.

pres man wrote:

Is this the one?

ProfessorCirno wrote:

People mostly build characters made for murderin' things because D&D is mostly a game about murderin' things. If you want a group made out of a spy, a gadgeteer, a detective, and a charming playboy, then you should probably play something that isn't D&D.

Also class-as-identity died as 2e ended. A suave debonair character is a bard. A suave debonair fighter is a bard that focuses on fighting. A fighter that specializes in survival and fighting in the wilds is a ranger.

Yeah; doesn't show up for me at all.

Not quite sure what in that post is demeaning and in need of deletion, or if it's just yet another forums bug.

It is a glitch in the boards, I found it by looking at your post history, I'm sure you'll find it there as well. I have no idea why the board decided not to display it normally, but every time I tried to click on the newest entry and it was it, it would act funny and not show it. Now that is no longer a problem (since it isn't the newest post any longer).

Is this the one?

People mostly build characters made for murderin' things because D&D is mostly a game about murderin' things. If you want a group made out of a spy, a gadgeteer, a detective, and a charming playboy, then you should probably play something that isn't D&D.

Also class-as-identity died as 2e ended. A suave debonair character is a bard. A suave debonair fighter is a bard that focuses on fighting. A fighter that specializes in survival and fighting in the wilds is a ranger.

Interesting stuff. I admit I am tempted by the extra AC with Dex or Wis and lowering Str, but I do like high Str, Finesse builds always bug me due to the lower damage output - the 3.5 monk is already handicapped by not getting a 3rd attack with flurry at lvl 6.

As well as losing out on damage I have to get Weapon Finesse, at that point, I could just keep high Str and replace Finesse with an AC Feat like Dodge or better yet Improved Natural Armour.

Although, having said all that, now that I am not going 2h, 18 Str is a bit less important so I guess it will need to be food for thought. 20 Dex could be tempting for extra initiative as well as the AC and To Hit. The Wis would only give 1 AC and 1 sv, so Dex definitely is more appealing.

Also, unless I am wrong, in 3.5 FLurry actually stacks with TWF? So I could actually flurry my two atks and make a third (all be it for a total of -3 on each attack) if I were to take TWF feat? The extra Dex could help offset that due to the higher Hit

One thing to think about with Wis is it increases the DC for your stunning blow ability (assuming you take that feat).

As for the TWF and Flurry, you'd have to talk to your GM about that. Technically I believe it does and I believe the FAQ said it did, but there may be some room for disagreement by your GM.

Building (exclusively) death-dispensing machines is limiting both in the initial concept of character and in the career choices that this character can take, which I think ought to be included in 'roleplay'.

I'm not sure this comment is meaningful. I mean any choice about a character is ultimately limiting.

Nothing remotely intelligent or consistent works like that, not even in fantasy movies (only fantasy rpgs). Human(oid) attention spans are crap - the monstrous player could save the whole nation on in front of everyone and 10 years later there will be those who question his real motives or his nature as it relates to his race.

Hmmm, I guess I must have missed that version of both the book and movie where the men of Rohan kill Legolas as soon as they see him because of their fear of the elves and the "evil lady of the woods".

Sorry, you want to play an exceptional case or unusual race - you may encounter racism your whole life.

Of course YMMV depending on the DM and how torn he is on letting you play your vision vs. the reality of his game world. If it's cooperative design or super-high fantasy, no problem. If the DM likes a little more reality or realistic reactions/emotions (even in a fantasy world) in his game then, yeah your half-lizardman/goblin/Tauren Fighter/oracle/Mystikal Blacksmith might be in trouble.

I'm not sure I would call that "realistic". In a world where shape changing is fairly common: anything from a disguise self, alter self, polymorph spell to a druid shape shifting or using their thousand faces ability. Or even a dragon changed to look like a humanoid. Suggesting that people are going to jump on the band wagon to attack anyone that looks different seems pretty short sighted and those folks wouldn't live very long to reproduce. Jump a mature shape shifted dragon and you're likely to find yourself in its claws looking down on the ruins of your village just before it drops you.

Cautious, nervous, untrusting sure, but actively hostile on any unusual creature especially before you know their capabilities, that doesn't seem very "realistic" to me.

I do find it strange when I read someone saying something about how they all about roleplaying and not game mechanics and then turns around and complains about another player dumping Cha and Int and instead roleplaying around their character's ability and/or skill deficiencies. Seems to me, either you care what is on the paper or you don't.

You can use a double-weapon, such as a quarterstaff, and use it with two-hands as a two-handed weapon. But you can't flurry with a quarterstaff in that fashion, you only get your standard strength, even if you only attack with one end.

Personally, I'd switch the Str and the Dex, and take Weapon Finesse.

I'd also play a human over an elf, but then again I hate elves.

I'd also go the Spring Attack route. You'll never really want to flurry anyway, because you'll not want to stand there.

If you really wanted to flurry, I'd suggest going with the high Str and then at 6th level take Improved Trip and your first goal should be to trip the opponent. You can even use every attack in a flurry to try and trip, only the initial touch attack decreases as you attack not the actual opposed Str check.

If your goal is to do a lot of damage, you are ultimately going to be disappointed unless you are fighting mainly low AC mooks.

My biggest suggest is this though. Just because you will ultimately be faster than everyone else, you shouldn't run into the middle of a bunch of guys and then scream, "Medic!" when you get mobbed.

Now you need to figure out which sides are the outside and create a program to print out the right sized paper with designs where the outside edges would be to make it more detailed.

Really, the only people who still see a firm rift between being good at crunching numbers and being good at roleplaying are the people who can't do both themselves. If you are, by any extension of your ability, capable of doing both: then its just common sense to you that both are possible.

But of course, you then have the people who can't (or just won't) do both. And because people seem to have problems looking at their own deficiencies head-on, they'll blame it on some archaic "style" of gameplay that already dictated to them what their strategy and mindset should have been. Thus they can avoid taking any personal responsibility for their own failure. Likewise, a person who has such a biased mindset, will impose that mindset onto others. After all, if person A can't do both, why should he ever stop to consider that maybe person B can? Stereotypes tend to generate from this logical fallacy quite often.

Really sad thing is the people that don't realize that can't do either one well, but believe they can do at least one of them well. "Sure, I can't optimize, but that is because it is lame, but I'm a great roleplayer!"

KaeYoss wrote:

Pegicorn wrote:

I goofed before when I tried to "reply". So I'll just add my comment here. I agree that the price of the minis is too high - it's more than we paid (per figure) for D&D minis.

And DDM went belly up. After repeatedly increasing prices. And decreasing quality.

If the pictures we've seen so far and statements we got from Paizo are any indication, the quality difference between DDM and these minis is going to be about the same as the difference between Betamax and Blu-ray.

If the masters they had a Gencon are any indication, this is an apt comparison.

I'm not going to get my hopes up too high until I have the products in my hand. Nobody takes the worst item off the line and uses that as their promo piece. They always show you the best of the best and what you get usually doesn't look nearly as good. Go to a restaurant, look at the pictures of the food and then compare it to what you get. Sometimes you get stuff that looks as good or even better, but that isn't the way to bet.

..., Sherlock Holmes didn't know the earth circles the sun. ...

This is the only thing I can say to that.

"... 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. ..."
-Conan

ProfessorCirno wrote:

"The king is bigoted against tieflings."

"I just threw down a 30 diplomacy. Unless he has 20 charisma, he just got friendlier."

Diplomacy is literally based around making people who dislike you grow to like and trust you.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the king has to at least be close enough to the friendly side of the equation to tolerate the little sawed-off bastard yammering on at him for 1d4 hours in order for Diplomacy to begin working.

I thought it lasted 1d4 hours or are you talking about the 1d4 hours to gather information? Just to influence someone it only takes one minute of interaction, you don't even have to be the one doing all the talking during that one minute.