|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
And going back to the original post: An alchemist couldn't, which is kind of a shame, since the flavor goes nicely with alchemy, but Alchemists don't get any Metamagic. They're not casting spells.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Yeah, I've got no problem with breaking it down for you. I just don't see the difference between showing the dice and explaining it verbally and writing it all down in enough detail. Other than that the 2nd will waste even more time.
And to some extent, unless you require a calculator, you're still going to have to double work the math or trust me. And with the calculator, you're still going to have to check that all the numbers are actually right from the dice or trust me. And frankly, that's the easiest way to screw up and the main reason I like to work directly with the dice.
But they'll also probably miss some of it, so it all roughly evens out. At least that's the theory.
Buri Reborn wrote:
I really don't understand the objection.
Are you really just requiring a calculator to show the math is right?
Because me showing you the dice (6,4,4) and saying these multiply to 96, really isn't any different than me writing on paper 6x4x4=96.
Mind you, I'd also be perfectly happy with just banning the feat because it's stupid and broken. :)
Buri Reborn wrote:
As a GM, I'm not going to sit there and read your dice. That's your job. I only care if you're claiming a natural 20 when that's clearly a 2. I'm also not going to read your dice AND do math. Again, that's your job as it's your character and you took the feat.
But you'll make me write the same numbers that are on the dice down and then you'll check that?
That'll slow things down more. I'd be perfectly happy to walk you through it, it's just the copying the dice onto paper and showing the work that seems silly to me. Basically, I'd be showing you the work with the dice, not the paper. Also makes it easier to say "and this pile cancels out".
Example: 15 ranks, 8th level spell, target =83, 89, 97
6x4x4+1 + (3-3)*(2+4+3+4+2+6+6+2+1+2)=97
I'd pull the first 3 out and say "These multiply to 96", bring out the 1, "Add 1 to get my target 97", then the two 3s "Subtract these to get zero", pointing at the rest of the pile "Which you multiply the sum of all of those by to cancel them out."
Has the big advantage of making sure I don't screw up copying onto the paper or use one number twice or something simple and easy to do like that.
To be honest for Sacred Geometry, once you figure out the tricks, it's faster to just do it by grouping the dice rather than writing it out or using one of the calculators.
BTW, how is that chart calculated? Does it use the calculators and thus ignore parentheses? If so, I suspect it's even more reliable than that.
Edit: If you do take Calculating Mind, make sure you have enough d8s for it. :)
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Zoroastrianism or pretty much every Western depiction of the undead from Medieval legends up until we started playing with trope reversals in the modern era.
James Martin wrote:
Did he have anything to do with the house bursting into flames?In general though, unless he put himself at more risk, or at least had to drop some of the loot, to rescue the kid, he doesn't get a lot of Good points for doing so. Not leaving a toddler to burn to death is a pretty low bar to clear.
Or more to the larger point, whatever his moral status, the guy who sent him to rob the house isn't any better of a person because it happened to turn out this way.
And those were all back in the glory days of American Capitalism, before we succumbed to the socialist lure and decided that government should actually try to do something about hunger and poverty.
But how much can you refluff and still have it be the same? If you change all the classes and monsters and gear to be different fluff, without changing the mechanics (or with minimal houserules as you say), is it really PF? If it's all high tech knights with nanotech "magic", following the same rules, is it really the same game?
But it's mostly semantics at that point. What do you actually mean when you say "I'm running Pathfinder."? If someone suggested a PF game, I certainly wouldn't expect an entirely reskinned game. Any more than I'd expect a hugely houseruled one. A few things reskinned to be something more appropriate and it wouldn't surprise me, but giving the whole game a facelift seems out of line. It's like houserules. Changing a few things leaves the basic game in place, but at some point you've changed enough that you're not meeting expectations.
Absolutely agreed. It's just a thought experiment prompted by claims that "You can play a game of Pathfinder without any fluff whatsoever and it will still be a game of Pathfinder."And I still want to know what he thinks that would look like.
I'd also say the reason we don't have bread queues isn't so much the better food production technology, but food stamps and other safety net programs. Capitalism didn't magically make food cheap enough for everyone to buy, we have give those who couldn't afford it enough money to buy it anyway.
Of course maybe if we stopped such socialistic programs, capitalism would finally work its magic and food prices would drop to the point where even the poorest could buy bread with whatever cash they could scrape together.
Thejeff: Google and wikipedia are your friends.
I know who Lysenko is. I even know his connection with famine.
I suppose in your mind that proves conclusively that capitalism will always resolve shortages by lowering production costs and prices so that everyone has abundance.
Communism's failures do not prove capitalism is infallible.
No idea what he would say, but it's pretty obvious to me that one example doesn't disprove a pattern. Anecdotes aren't evidence.
I'm in fact sure that there are plenty of sex workers who like what they do, particularly in the higher end of the industry. There are also a lot who are desperate, trafficked, addicted or otherwise miserable with it and see no way out.
Thoroughly debunked, let me guess, by a foaming plethora of anticapitalist think tanks? Colour me not impressed. For starters, you have no clue how bad it would have been with a market that did not self-correct. Such as... The old soviet union. Capitalism has many flaws, but if bread grows too expensive, someone will produce it cheaper and outcompete the previous companies. There has to my knowledge not been bread queues in the US. Consider yourself blessed that you did not grow up in the old eastern bloc, my friend.
Capitalism has many flaws, but if bread grows too expensive, people will starve, reducing the population until the demand for bread shrinks and the price falls to a level everyone can afford.
See the market self-corrects.
Obviously an extreme example, but theoretically correct. There's no magic in capitalism that guarantees cheaper stuff as the answer to every problem.
Dustin Ashe wrote:
I'm not sure about the "tip", but both porn and even more prostitution are definitely linked to both direct exploitation and some damn creepy attitudes towards (usually) women.
Which isn't to say they create such attitudes or exploitation in general or that all porn, or even prostitution, is necessarily creepy or exploitative. There's definitely a correlation though.
Don't do anything about this in game. Tell the player that loot is meant to be equally distributed and if they cannot play well with the rest of the group then they are not welcome.
Exactly. This is a meta-game problem. The player was breaking the group's social contract, at first apparently in ignorance. He's been informed. If he continues to do so, talk to the player. If that doesn't work, boot him.
Assuming that is the group social contract and not just yours. If others are okay with it and in particular if the GM is okay with it, then maybe it's you who have to adapt or leave.
And any description. No "There's a door at the end of the corridor with some light coming from underneath it. What do you do?"
That's all fluff. No plot. No roleplaying. No anything but mechanics.
I think you could have races, classes, and monsters, but there would be no names or description. Just bundles of stats.
I could see, barely, running combats like that. I couldn't see running a game like that. There's stuff in between the combats - even if it's just dressing to set up the fights, but that's all fluff.
Edit: That's actually a little farther than I'd go. "Attack roll" and "AC" are mechanics terms. Those would be okay. But you wouldn't be wielding any particular kind of weapon or wearing any specific armor - though it would still have AC bonus, check penalty, weight and all the other mechanics definitions.
Perhaps, but I think it's bigger than that. Undead being evil is a Core Rules thing, not a Golarion specific thing. (Obviously, you can house rule it).
Alignments appear to be a feature of the rules. They are detectable and manipulateable. I don't think there's any evidence they're a creation of the gods. That doesn't really make much sense in world anyway - Did the various gods get together and decide "You're Evil and I'm Good"? In most real-world religions, even historical polytheistic ones, there's a creator or ruler god who sets those rules, even if he doesn't always follow them. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in PF.
Also, do they renegotiate these definitions from time to time? Like when new gods appear or old ones die or change drastically? Or was it all set back in the dim depths of the past, by some previous set of gods, many of whom might not be around anymore?
I'm still curious what this game of Pathfinder with no fluff whatsoever looks like.
DM Barcas wrote:
Are you actually suggesting there is no wide scale opposition to same-sex marriage (or in fact civil unions or pretty much any gay rights in general)? Or that such movements aren't supporting these new laws?That this entire thing is about worries over a few cases of government overreach?
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
True, but it's gay marriage that's brought this to a head. Abortion and contraception has had a slow but steady movement in favor of the right wingers. Gay marriage has had the opposite, especially in the last few years.
Well, Hobby Lobby was an abortion case. (Really birth control not abortion, but that's what they claimed.)
But it's all part of the larger movement. The whole "America is a Christian nation" thing, which is really just part of the backlash to the 60s and the unholy alliance of the Republican party and the religious right.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
It's not just gay marriage though. There's also the whole birth control and abortion thing. And more generally the line that Christians are being persecuted and need more legal protections in this country has been growing for awhile now. See the "War on Christmas" for a particularly silly angle, but generally the right wing Christians see their ideas losing influence and are fighting back. They perceive not being in charge as being persecuted. If they can't keep using the government to attack, they can at least keep it from protecting their targets.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Not to mention Indians.And peasants too - laborers and menials and the like.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Actually I expect all of them would just be flabbergasted. Complete culture shock with no ability to comprehend how our economy or culture works. Not that they're dumb, but the world is such a different place. I suspect the smart ones would be smart enough to realize they couldn't judge.
I also suspect (and this is really just my theory) that they'd be shocked we were still trying to use their Constitution to run the country in such a different world and probably offended by the reverence we have for it and them.
It's certainly not accessible. You're not really supposed to read it, you're supposed to study it. That's not a bad thing, there's a lot of amazing stuff going on in both of those, but it takes a lot of work to access it.
Well, it doesn't speak to the Indiana law directly, but Democrats in Georgia appear to have killed (or at least stalled) a similar bill by adding an amendment stating that it doesn't allow "citing religious liberty as a reason to subvert state non-discrimination laws."
This led the bill's sponsors to table the bill saying "that amendment would completely undercut the purpose of the bill."
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
He's right though. In the sense that it's all internal politics. It's not even so much putting pressure on the administration to make a better deal with Iran as painting the administration as soft on Iran.There was a time when this kind of domestic politics stopped at the water's edge.
The "bluff" in the original letter
Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years.
They never said they'd be canceling this year's convention, just that the law would affect their future plans.
pres man wrote:
Maybe. Laws often have unintended consequences. The people pushing for this law aren't looking to protect Muslims and Native Americans. They're looking to protect Christians who they claim are being persecuted by liberals and gays. They're playing to an ignorant, bigoted political base.
That said, the original Religious Freedom Restoration laws did protect minority religions and were twisted to do things like protect companies' rights to not cover birth control. It's quite possible this will also be reversed and used to protect the actual right to practice religion rather than the right to discriminate on religious grounds.
This entire controversy rests on false pretenses. The law doesn't protect business owners that discriminate people. It just says a government entity can't burden a person or organization's right to exercise religious freedom. It explicitly says this law operates to protect rights granted by the First Amendment. Discrimination is not protected under the First Amendment because it infringes on the rights of others--that's absolutely clear. Finally, a violation of this law requires an individual to prove the violation caused a significant loss or stress. Even if a private business got fined for refusing service to a gay couple and tried to weaponize that law, they'd have to conclusively prove the government was unjustified in the court of law and they wouldn't be able to sue the gay couple for the fine since the law explicitly says they'd have to sue the government entity.
But when the person being discriminated against sues the business under the existing local non-discrimination law, the business invokes this law to claim the local non-discrimination law isn't valid.Sure, the gay couple doesn't get sued, but they also get discriminated against with no redress.
Exemptions to the drug laws for the use of peyote as a sacrament in Native American religions.
More generally though, that's something of a trick question. It depends largely on your opinion of the law in question. If you're opposed to birth control, religious exemptions permitting pharmacists to refuse to sell it may seem like a great idea. Banning its sale entirely may also seem like a great idea. If you think birth control is a basic part of healthcare, allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill a valid prescription seems insane.
This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.
Thinking more about this: There isn't a "new surge of discrimination". What there is, is old discrimination. Long established prejudice and discrimination being challenged by new laws, often in more urban, liberal enclaves, to protect LGBTQ rights. Those protections are now imperiled by this new interpretation of religious freedom.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
This is all the argument I need against allowing businesses to discriminate. I'm perfectly happy letting people's ability to know they can shop as they desire regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or nationality override the freedom of businesses to decide not to sell to certain groups.
But that was 50 years ago. We're now a post racial country. There's no housing discrimination today.
Christianity isn't under attack in the US. Other than not being allowed to set the rules as much as they used to.I know it's fashionable for Christians to think they're persecuted, but it's also nonsense. Christians are still easily the dominant religion in the country. If anything, they're on the advance.
Or, from another angle, So that's why the Disciples of Christ are protesting the law, they want to tear down religion.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I'm just amazed in the number of non-US citizens posting here. I mean the law compliments a 20+ year old federal law, so to be consistent, I'd guess all the people who oppose the law can't be in the US, right?
Compliments, but isn't exactly the same. And that law recently got a new interpretation in a Supreme Court ruling, which also took a lot of flak here.
It's disingenuous to pretend it's nothing new.
On the other side, some of people in favor of it are in favor of it on grounds that would invalidate 60 years of civil rights law (businesses should always be allowed to discriminate, as long as the actual law doesn't). I suppose they can't possibly be in the US either.
But it's easy to image a judge taking homophobia seriously. Because that's how he interprets the Bible.
And that's the basic problem with this approach to religious freedom laws. Originally the federal version and other state versions were used to keep the government from banning religious practices - keeping people from practicing their religion.
Now they're being abused to permit people to use religion to discriminate.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Race is protected from discrimination on the federal level. Sexual orientation is not.
I know. Isn't it horrible how the Federal Government oppresses people for their religious beliefs?
Obviously they wouldn't. The point was "It says so in the Bible" is disputed. There are sects that believe blacks are a lesser race and purer races shouldn't marry them. There are sects that believe women should never be in a position of authority over men. All of them think it "says so in the Bible". And that's just looking at Christianity. Other religions have their own texts and dogmas and schisms and theological disputes.Personally, I think it's all nonsense. What I don't want and what the religious shouldn't want is for the courts to be determining what is valid religious doctrine and what isn't.
As for the Catholics, you may not have a choice but to do business with them. Roman Catholic hospitals are common and in an emergency you might wind up at one unintentionally. They already try to claim exemptions from rules about offering "morning after" pills to rape victims, for example.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Not seeing how pointing out how the government works is an illegal transgression or how attempting to call it out as something else is a 'punishment'.
There is a difference between "pointing out how government works" and promising not to honor any agreement the government makes.
As the Iranian foreign minister* pointed out in his response, an awful lot of diplomacy takes place below the formal treaty level. While that may make it legal for the next government to annul the deal, it still does serious damage to the country's credibility.
Leaving aside questions of legality, it's horribly irresponsible.
*I believe that's who wrote the response.
This is where we bring up "Do you really want the courts to decide what is a Christian belief and what isn't?"
Religion has long been protected (more or less and sometimes in name only).This is different. This isn't protecting the right to practice your religion, which we all agree needs protection. That's what the federal law was intended to do and was until recently used for.
This is protecting the right of the majority to discriminate against others in the name of religion. I'm a lot less happy about that.
We're essentially there now. In states that allow same-sex marriage, anyway.
You can get married by a Justice of the Peace or by the religious official of your choice. That religious official can choose not to marry you if you don't qualify under the tenets of his or her religion - whether that's because the couple is the same sex, divorced, different religions, whatever.
None of this satisfies many of those opposed to marriage equality. They want the laws to reflect their religious beliefs. They don't just want to not have to participate. This is easily seen if you look back at the opposition to civil unions.
John Lance wrote:
It's really not quite that simple. The recent Hobby Lobby case changed the practical definition of person used in such cases. The federal law had been, prior to that, used to defend individuals and religions from government action - laws against peyote interfering with Native religious ceremonies as you say. The intent of this law is to keep local laws from stopping businesses from discriminating against individuals.
Admittedly the federal law can now be used for the same purposes and I think you'll find that the same people concerned about this law had similar concerns about the Hobby Lobby ruling.
We'll see how it plays out. The backlash has already been significant. We won't really know how things work out until cases start making their way through the courts. I predict quite a few of them. If nothing else, it'll likely embolden those looking for an excuse to discriminate, even if some of those will eventually lose in the courts. There is now far more uncertainty over what the law really is - which protections will survive challenge.
There are two ways out of this situation. Either the definition of marriage changes to accomodate other constellations than one man and one woman, or, marriage is stripped of legal meaning and the legal importance is moved to a legal process. Making another separate but equal ceremony is like solving the problem of benches only for whites by making an equal number of benches only for blacks. Like it or not, the end result will be one of the two options above.
The first solution is in progress. Much as the definition of marriage has changed so often in the past.
When it comes to selling flowers and wedding cakes, stripping marriage of legal meaning won't have any effect anyway. People will still want ceremonies. Many religions will oblige them, making them "marriages". Other people will still object to that and not be willing to contribute.
pres man wrote:
Different case than the one I was thinking of.Still, no actual lawsuit or legal challenge, despite some very dubious claims.
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.
Beyond that, there's a good deal of established law limiting those absolute rights "not to do business with anyone for any reason". Federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion or gender, for example. Some state and local laws add orientation. Similar laws prohibit discriminating against customers for similar reasons.