|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Again, it is not that it does not make sense to me. It is simple biology.
You're right. It's simple biology. It's very simple biology.
A more complex nuanced understanding of biology shows this to be a common behavior pattern and suggests reasons for it.
Because risking our lives for no money wasn't worth it and wasn't fun.
Perhaps not solely, but money seems to have been a big part of it.
See that seems sloppy to me and not at all a good thing. A sign both that the GM/other players are ignoring your background and description and that you're not doing anything to highlight them either.If you spent the entire campaign married with kids, did you ever visit them? Talk about them? Ever bring them up at all after writing up the bio?
Josh M. wrote:
Shocked and surprised is one thing. Noticing the demographics and trying to figure out how to shift them is another.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If sex was strictly for procreation, we'd have an estrus cycle.
The big difference between Harry Potter and the OP's example is that Harry was playing in an all children game. The adults were all NPCs. That's pretty common for child protagonists.
The other fairly common approach in literature is a child as sidekick, in which case they're usually much less skilled and effective than the protaganist. That's not normally what players are looking for in a game.
That's because in the real world you're not an impossibly strong and skilled fighter up against a horde of 3' wimpy reptiles.The game isn't simulating reality. It's simulating heroic fantasy fiction. Characters being able to take on hordes of mooks single-handed is part of the genre. If you don't like that, don't blame the players for realistically assessing their characters abilities,
Similarly, a real person would never think he could fight a 40' giant with a sword or attack a dragon or even go one-on-one with a rhino. But we're playing fantasy heroes. Gritty realism gets left behind pretty early on.
(Note: I am assuming for the purposes of this argument that the player is correct about mechanically not having to worry about the 200 kobolds. As the OP said, "This is completely true.")
Vancian casting: Memorize spells and cast them later, then "forget" them after they're cast? What? Uhg Wizards make no sense! Magic should just work like Sorcerers. Or better yet, you should just have mana. That way better spells cost more mana so you bottleneck attempts to "alpha" an encounter and avoid spellcasters feeling useless if they can't rest to regain spell slots.
It's funny because the words "memorize" and "forget" haven't been used in the rules for preparing spells since at least 2E. Even in 1st, the language made it clear it wasn't really normal memory involved.
But people still keep complaining about how forgetting spells is so stupid.
But Power Attack isn't mandatory. Plenty of characters don't take it.
It's only mandatory for certain (admittedly common) styles of melee combat.
But by that standard, TWF is OP because it's mandatory if you want to TWF. The various Combat Maneuver feats are mandatory if you want to do those combat maneuvers.
It's not OP, it's just how you do that thing.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Of course, it's not even that much more realistic.
Every injury I've ever had has either been immediately incapacitating, at least to the body part in question or something that only really became a problem at least a few minutes later. Broken ribs, hairline fractures, some pretty deep cuts, all were things I could ignore for at least a couple minutes, especially with a good surge of adrenaline.
5 or 10 minutes later, things start to swell and hurt and then I'd hard-pressed to do anything serious.
Or you've got a major broken bone or you're losing serious blood and you're going down.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I think the mind-brain interaction is more complex than that.
First of all, obviously some cases that "were caused by completely external forces" will be treated with drugs. When someone presents with symptoms of depression, you don't know the underlying cause. As far as I know, there isn't a diagnostic test that will tell you whether they really have neuro-chemical abnormalities or not. At least not for all conditions.
More subtlely, I think that's all nonsense, at least as a hard and fast dividing line. External causes can change your brain's neuro-chemistry. Drug therapy can compensate. In some cases, non-drug therapy can also change the neuro-chemistry.
Somethings probably can't really be fixed, just compensated for with drug therapy, but to suggest there's a hard and fast line where nothing than could theoretically be fixed without drugs would ever, or even should even be treated with drugs is nonsense. It varies too much from person to person and from doctor to doctor. We're certainly not good enough to completely distinguish and probably never will be.
<backs away slowly>
Simon Legrande wrote:
No one is asking you to.
As I said before, "white privilege" isn't about making whites feel guilty. It's about acknowledging the prejudices still going on and being aware of when you benefit from it, even if you don't actively do anything to do so. (Hiring discrimination, for example, isn't your fault, but you might still benefit. And never actually know it.)
If you really "don't see race", then you also can't see racism in anything but the most blatant form. If you don't pay attention to race, it'll just be a strange anomaly that your co-worker Bob gets stopped for minor traffic violations more than anyone else and usually searched when he does get stopped.
You can't fix racism by ignoring race. It just makes you blind to it.
Ok so what if you look white, others assume you are white but you do not self identify as white? Should you "check your privilege" or can you live as what you think of yourself as without the guilt?
What if you look black, others assume you are black, but you do not self identify as black? Can you just live as what you think of yourself without the discrimination?No, obviously not. It's a stupid question.
For white privilege, you should "check your privilege", since you're going to get it as an apparently white person, but that doesn't mean you can't live without guilt. Even if you identify as white. "White privilege" isn't about guilt. It's about recognizing the institutional prejudices and not reinforcing them, even if that's just by not denying that they exist and effect others.
Freehold DM wrote:
More dangerous today because obvious racism generally isn't accepted. I'd think that obvious, widely and openly supported racism is more dangerous.
On the individual level, yes. When an individual is victimized because of their race, it doesn't really matter which race they are or whether it's the dominant or the under class committing the crime.
But those are exceptions for us and day-to-day life for them. Not always violent of course. But even the violent abuse is more likely to target the minority. There is also much less likely to be any legal recourse. Often the violent abuse is under cover of law.
Whites still are far less affected by black racism against them, than blacks are affected by white racism against them. That's on a statistical population level. There are outliers on both ends. Whites who've been badly hurt and blacks who haven't.
Simon Legrande wrote:
No. But talking about "White privilege" isn't in the same class as actual discrimination.
It would be great to just treat people as actual human beings and not worry about race or gender or any of the other things that have so often been the targets of prejudice. But arguments for that, coming from the group that was unarguably until recently the dominant racial group, smack of just trying to ignore the racism that still exists. The actual prejudice and discrimination that is still directed at minorities in this country.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Every race is racist, of course pointing this out only gets you called a racist.
Even assuming this is true, given the power structures in the US, this still works out to white being a major advantage and black being heavily discriminated against.
Because there's a major difference between the dominant class being prejudiced against you and an underclass being prejudiced against you.
The U.S. is in a "danged if we do and danged if we don't" position when it comes to the rest of the world. If we don't come to the aide of a group of people, no matter what the cause of the distress, we are accused of being inhuman monsters. Yet if we come to their aide we are accused of being imperialistic warmongers. Do any of you who either say "we should be involved" or "we shouldn't be involved" have any solution to this conundrum. I know I don't.
Now here's something for everyone to think about. How many of the organizations and nations that are hostile to the U.S. have received aide from the U.S. in the past? I can name one such organization that received covert aide from the U.S. in the 80's and returned the favor by attacking us 13 years ago today.
It's the price of being a superpower. And it's generally accompanied by a lot of abuse of that power.
An awful lot of those actions were not really motivated by coming to the aid of a group of people, but by larger strategic or economic concerns. Painting the US as just "Coming to help" is disingenuous at best. Though it is often how things are portrayed in the mass media, so it's not surprising.
The root of the current crisis is the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation and power vacuum. (Though there are even deeper roots.) That's on the US. I'm just not convinced that letting IS consolidate a power base and continue to expand is the best response.
I'm glad you accept America's responsibility in spreading war and death around the world. That's progress!
Who cares who's bashing Obama? When he arrogates the powers of war to himself, bypassing congress (who are pathetically supine, that's true) then he deserves every syllable of rebuke. ISIL poses no threat to the US - why get involved? What's the strategic interest here? Neutralizing a "future threat"? Protecting Israel? Keeping the money flowing to the "defence" industries?
Congress is not supine. That's not the point. Congress is actively avoiding responsibility while simultaneously attacking the President for taking the responsibility and not doing so.
As for who cares about the bashing, that's the motivation for the fearmongering you linked to. Far more than attempting to drum up war, it's about attacking Obama.
What's the strategic interest? Shutting down a force that's disrupting an entire strategically important region. Or at least knocking them back down to terrorist threat/Syrian rebels, rather than allowing them to become a terrorist state, which they're in the process of doing.
The best bet, of course, would be for the U.S. to stay out of this conflict altogether. ISIL is a direct result of America's wars and policies - just as al-qaeda, the previous bogeyman, was. Have we learned nothing from history, here?
Everything is of course the US's fault. I know.
Most of those fearmongers cited are committed to bashing Obama for not doing enough to stop ISIL yet, while trying to avoid having to vote on authorizing anything, so that they can bash Obama for doing too much later on.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Which is still better than full scale war. I know some people think that drones are somehow especially evil, but I'd far rather see drones and the "JSOC assassins machine" used than a hundred thousand troops.
Scott Betts wrote:
No. He wasn't using it as a metaphor. Or if he was, it was very poorly done and well hidden. It's even in the the thread title.Far more concern about the agenda and the cabal of academics and the Social Justice Warriors and oppression olympics and the poor oppressed Straight White Males than about the journalistic corruption that is the supposed problem.
Scott Betts wrote:
Zoe Quinn is not the news here. She is a footnote in this. Her conduct (if even half-true) is morally reprehensible, but is not, itself, newsworthy. The conduct of video game journalists, whose currency is their credibility, is newsworthy, and there are a lot of people who don't want that to receive more exposure out of the misguided belief that it's the best way to defend Quinn from further harm.
What is the actual accusation?
I gave up about a 1/4 of the way through the exe's rant and am not going to sit through accusatory youtube videos.
The only accusation I've actually seen is the bit about her sleeping with a reviewer. Which might be bad, if he'd actually reviewed her work or had some other effect.
Is there a relatively unbiased summary out there somewhere?
The difference is that none of the physical ailments change who you are. The effects and side effects of psyciatric medications can.
Of course there's a fine line between physical ailments and mental ones. Some mental problems have direct physical causes. The treatments for some physical ailments have side effects that can change who you are.
Which just makes the "It's a conspiracy to overdiagnose autism to make more money for drug companies" theory even sillier.
It's too early to criticize because there's a lack of information which you can criticize. But, for all we know, the rules portion could be spearate from the character builder could be separate from the campaign management could be separate from a persistent subscription to errata could be separate from new book releases and so on. We just don't know. Wizards also can't promise exactly how the application will work because they're not building it. The building is being done by an outside firm.
Well, if all you want is digital books, you can criticize because it would have been easy to release those (as pdfs or whatever) at release time, but WotC chose the slower approach of an all-in-one tool.That choice is keeping you from getting what you want for the indefinite future.
Simon Legrande wrote:
I hope that "always" isn't really an always, but a "when appropriate". There are certainly physical conditions where immediate use of drugs is a life-saver. There are also severe mental conditions where treatment with drugs is vastly more effective than anything else.
I say that as someone who is really averse to taking drugs for anything, even painkillers and similar minor things, and who generally agrees with the "Americans are over-medicated" argument.
Another problem is that some mental conditions really do impair one's ability to make informed choices.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Only if we can guarantee they'll design the next space shuttle, not some elaborate new financial derivative.
And where do we stop? Just with the remedial programs? Or do we decide that any money thrown at these losers is a waste and we'll just spend less and less on them and more and more on the top half (or less?)? We might as well do it by school district as well as within schools too. I'm sure the increasing failure rates in the schools that get less will provide good evidence that we were right to write them off.
Is there even a point to cackling Fortune? Once you benefit from it, you can't benefit again for a full day.
When a creature becomes the target of the fortune hex, it gains the benefit of that hex once per round, until the hex runs out, as determined by the level of the witch that created the effect. Once it ends, the creature cannot again be the target of that hex for 24 hours.
My preferred variant on that is to roll the multiple arrays and then let everyone pick whichever of them they want. Most likely it'll work out the same, if one is obviously better, but there may be cases where one is better for MAD and one for SAD, for example.
Other than that they weren't a very, very small minority.
Honestly, I'd expect most smaller towns to be completely cowed by many adventurers. A mid-level party could probably wipe the floor with small-town law enforcement without breathing hard. This isn't like a rich guy with a couple bodyguards driving into town. It isn't even like the Hell's Angels coming in, back in the bad old days. It's more like the mercenary equivalent of a company of Marines in full battledress complete with armored vehicles and air cover.And no one you can call for help who could possibly get there before the town is leveled.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Why can't we pick and choose here? Putin can lie, or shade the truth. Maybe the end was just a little too obvious so he had to fess up to the green men being Russian troops,but only that day. But the green men earlier on, they were someone else entirely. Nah, they were Russian all along. I can't prove it. But you can't prove they weren't either. So we each get to weigh the evidence for ourselves.
But your argument: Since we can't prove they were there we have to accept they weren't. But if they had been there they would have masqueraded as local SDF, not that they were of course.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
That's fine, but don't swallow everything the other sides say either.Everyone in politics lies. Especially when it comes to war. Disinformation rules.
pres man wrote:
Neocons even sent infiltrators to Crimea to make it seems as if the area wanted to defect to Russia, just so they could claim that there was proof that Russia was trying to do a land grab. Tricky ass neocons.
That explains it! The mysterious "green men" were actually special neocon troops. Their cover was so good, they actually fooled Putin into admitting they were Russian soldiers.
If it was written: (clumsy formatting)x-1
You'd be right, but it was written on one line. x-1/x. As such, normal order of operations applies.
But there are no brackets. You can't arbitrarily add brackets where every you want them to make it do what you want.
If the line was "((x)-(1))/(x)" or even "(x-1)/x)", then it does what you think. But it wasn't, it was just x-1/x. Since there are no brackets, divide has precedence over subraction and it comes out to be x-(1/x).
John John wrote:
So magic items are weird in that they have arbitrary set prices AND in that they have arbitrary set cost AND in that people buy them only at half price AND in that the people interested in them are beyond the normal world.
Other than the last, the same is true for everything in the economy. Even normal items have set costs, that are exactly twice the cost of the raw materials.
It's not an economic simulator.
Captain K. wrote:
Mostly not minor items. Or at least at the very top end. "Heirloom" pretty much means "not useful"
And it doesn't have to be the starving widow, maybe it's the town's richest farmer. Or the village priest. Or the mayor. Possibly even used by them, since some of them will have enough levels to use some things in emergencies.
Putting them in a safe doesn't really help with either the raiding orcs or unscrupulous PCs, unless the safe is some kind of uber-magic safe. Once you're sacking the village, a safe isn't really a big deal.
Also, I'd say that even small villages in Golarion aren't as desperately poor as your imagining. Hovels and starving widows exist, I'm sure, but they're not standard in any of the town descriptions I've seen. In fact, in those smaller towns we've seen laid out, magic items tend to be found as I've suggested.