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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 12,619 posts (13,390 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Hamas chose to make those cities targets. If you're launching missles at a foe from a building, that building is not a civilian target anymore.

Israel is launching settlers that take their land from israel. Therefore israel isn't a civilian target anymore.

This logic is horrible. Launching a missile from granmas roof does not turn grandma into a legitimate target. The west bank is one of the most dreadfully overcrowded areas on the planet: there's nowhere to shoot from that ISN"T next to civilians.

And so far in this conflict Hamas has a better combatant to civilian ratio than Israel. (probably more to incompetence than will but still...)

Hamas (and by extension any Palestinian group) literally cannot fight against Israel in any way that falls under the normal laws of war. The power disparity is too for that. An attempt to do would result in the immediate destruction of amy such force, leaving only the less scrupulous militants alive. Their alternatives are to simply give up any armed resistance, die, or take up terrorism. That's the nature of asymetric warfare. Even if they managed to only attack Israeli military targets (which their rockets don't have the targetting ability to do.), they'd still have to do so from "behind human shields".

The Israeli military on the other hand, since they're operating from an area they control, that the enemy can't simply obliterate as soon as they find it, can do things like establish military bases away from civilians. They have the capability be more selective in their choice of targets.

If this wasn't true, I have no doubts that the remnants of the Israeli forces would behave the same way as Hamas. Hide among the civilian population. Attack soft targets of opportunity. Not because they're evil, but because those are only avenues left to them. Because it's what you do when your land is occupied and oppressed by a foreign power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:

No doubt it was for a vocational training program for electrial engineers.

I'm sure this was for studying orbital and escape velocities.

If neighboring countries really cared about the Palestinians, they would open their borders to refugees. But it's much better anti-Israeli propoganda to refuse to help refugees and instead blame Israel for the violence.

Furthermore, those calling for "peace" need to define what they mean. Because to Hamas, "peace" means the destruction of Israel. I'm no expert, but I would suspect that the average Israeli has a considerably different definition.

Yes, if the neighboring countries really cared about the Palestinians, they would help Israel ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank.

Has there ever been another war/occupation/whatever you want to call it, where that was the suggested solution for allies of the oppressed? Don't try to help them fight, just evacuate the country?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Clearly the work of (pretty big) purple worms.
Very big...

Actually it's the work of a baby dhole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.

*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.

Just because that is how you see it does not man that is how the rest of us see it. Some of us believe Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use terror tactics
Whats the definition of a terror tactic?
Quote:
and eschew the rules of warfare. Ie because they're f*$&ing terrorists. Religion has nothing to do with it.
When they're not muslims using these tactics they're either freedom fighters or founding fathers.

Ya, because we'd never say white christians are terrorists, right? Except that is for neo-nazis, kkk, and the IRA. And maybe it is different fwhere you're from, but I've seen plenty of shirts with pictures of old Indians on it captioned with "Fighting terrorism since 1492".

Also a terror tactic is a tactic designed to cause terror. Kinda like kidnapping or shooting missles at civilian targets. If you need any more definitions supplied to you, may I suggest using a dictionary?

Or, just as an example, dropping bombs and missiles on inhabited cities.

But it's okay as long as you carefully explain that you're really trying not to kill civilians. And your thorough, but classified, internal investigation shows that you were justified.
(Note that this applies to the US in many cases as well as Israel, and many other countries military operations.)

Sometimes I think the only difference between Hamas and the IDF is that Hamas is more honest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:


But that really isn't fair to the new character or Thor. Take Freya or the valkyries or one of the existing side characters and give them a chance to sink or swim on their own. No need to use an existing character to try to feed them life support, especially, if as you say, that character barely has pull to begin with. And you are assuming a fair bit when it comes to the writing; perhaps it will be decent, perhaps not, but it certainly won't pull in new readers who are just as familiar with the Norse version as they are the Marvel version and are likely to be as confused with Marvel using the same name as they are impressed.

In the end, I don't think it necessarily bad, I just don't think it's particularly necessary or helpful. If you want female role models, support new female characters that have great stories, don't be content with warping existing male characters because they are afraid the new character won't take without external help. If they can write that good of a story, than the new character doesn't need the benefit of the old name; if they can't, using the old name isn't going to be all that useful in the long run, so it ends up being pointless and a short term gimmick, nothing more.

Sadly, it's a little naive in the comic book market to think that good stories will be enough all on their own. Without them of course, you're sunk, but even with them you need the buzz to get people to read them in the first place and/or the built-in audience that the classic characters have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


Steven Erickson's Malazan wizards are definitely more psionic, Jim Butcher's Dresden, Ed Greenwood pretends to be using Vancian magic but isn't, Brandon Sanderson's stories always use pool based casting, Robert Jordan's channelers are much closer to psionics than Vancian, Brent Weeks favors pool based casting, pretty much any comic book caster is closer to psionics, Marion Zimmer Bradley's casters typically come off as pretty psionic/pool based... It's early yet, I'm sure I can think of more.

In comic books, magic is just another super power. Bradley's stories are psionic based to start with, if you're referring to the Darkover series which was her bread and butter. It's not surprising that her other works reflect that same style. When TV does magic such as Dresden and Buffy, it tends to be heavily influenced by DC comic book styles.

Elric doesn't spam spells psionic style, in fact he rarely casts at all, but when he does it's a long drawn out ritual full of extremely precise intonation and incantation, and only done once. you don't get much more Vancian than that.

Except without the prepared memorization, now that I've done it I can't do it again aspect. And it tends to drain him physically. It's really more formal ritual casting than either spontaneous/Vancian/psionic magic.
Actually it DOES have the prepared memorisation, can't do it again aspect in ADDITION to draining him physically. Elric never casts any spell twice. When Elric is facing the problem of sieging Yrkoon in Imyrr, he laments that Yurkoon has access to all of his favorite spells, Elric not having any spellbooks on him, is considerably hampered in that department by comparison. Most of the summonings he does in fact, are by calling in the stored up favors in his hereditary Ring of Kings. by the time the series is done, he's pretty much used up all of them.

But he never goes and prepares some spells and casts them later. I'd assume he needed the spellbooks because he couldn't do the more complicated rituals without them at all, not because he needed them to prep a bunch of spells for use that day.

And most of the spells he casts weren't things you'd cast twice anyway.

I'm not arguing it's psionic casting mind you, just that it's not particularly Vancian either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:
I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.

Sounds good to me. I also hope fighters get to learn to cast spells. I'm not sure where this trope of the swordsman being inept at magic came from, but it needs to be put down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
I think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.

As the good Comrade Goblin says, it's hardly separated if the employer is still paying for it. Do you still lose it when you lose your job?

Even more importantly, much of the advantage the employer has is buying in bulk. They have a pool of employees to bargain with, some of whom may be in better shape than others, some who might need more care. When you go out on the individual market, that's when many people get screwed. It's when you start running into pre-existing condition exemptions and steep price hikes (or denials and cancellations) if you actually make an expensive claim. You also get the people who don't buy insurance until they need treatment.
So for it to work, you'd still need bans on considering pre-existing conditions and you'd still need a mandate.

You're right that the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely, but you do that by turning to government, putting everyone into one big insurance pool and financing the thing with taxes, not premiums. Because that works.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Martial Shapeshifter. No or minimal casting, but designed to both fight and deal with other challenges in other forms from level one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And, as I've said before here, I'm not willing to cede the birth control argument. Birth control is health care. Going without sex, except when you actually want children is just not going to be a reality for the vast majority of women. Not just, or even mostly, single women, but especially women who are married or in long term relationships. Without birth control, women have children every couple of years at least. Without birth control, women die much younger, childbirth is still dangerous and carrying a child to term is a huge stress. Without birth control, women have much more trouble having independent careers and lives. Reliable access to birth control changes women's lives. It is health care.

And the better, more reliable forms are the more expensive ones. Condoms break. Women have much less control over whether condoms are used. IUDs (which HL didn't cover) are much more effective, long term and also work for women who can't use the pill for health reasons.

I am in total agreement with you, but we're arguing with someone who clearly has it in his head that sex isn't part of health and that contraception isn't important enough to warrant government involvement. Not a brilliant position, but not one that I expect he'll budge from, either.

I'm going to keep saying it, because it's easy for some to think of birth control in terms of girls who just want to sleep around (not that they shouldn't have birth control too) and not in terms of responsible couples who just don't want to have a dozen kids.

Maybe that'll click for someone.

Maybe not, but I'm still not willing to retreat to the position that the pill might be okay for other medical purposes, but not as contraception.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
I disagree with the stance of the business but not the ruling. Why should rights be infringed upon because they own a business?
Why should a employee's rights be infringed upon because they have a job?
As someone previously stated you don't have to have sex. So women have a right to not get pregnant right? You know how you can do that? Don't have sex. If you want your cake and to eat it too you're gonna have to pay. Why is it there job to pay for something elective?
So you are utterly ignorant of the fact that a huge percentage of those women taking birth control medication are doing so for reasons other than to avoid pregnancy? And you've somehow managed to completely gloss over all of the people who have explained that to you countless times in the past few years?

And, as I've said before here, I'm not willing to cede the birth control argument. Birth control is health care. Going without sex, except when you actually want children is just not going to be a reality for the vast majority of women. Not just, or even mostly, single women, but especially women who are married or in long term relationships. Without birth control, women have children every couple of years at least. Without birth control, women die much younger, childbirth is still dangerous and carrying a child to term is a huge stress. Without birth control, women have much more trouble having independent careers and lives. Reliable access to birth control changes women's lives. It is health care.

And the better, more reliable forms are the more expensive ones. Condoms break. Women have much less control over whether condoms are used. IUDs (which HL didn't cover) are much more effective, long term and also work for women who can't use the pill for health reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

Actually, in this case, I'm only talking about a normal distribution because I'm specifically not talking about a sample. And I always define average as mean when using descriptive statistics.

I don't see how a "sample size" of everyone-in-the-USA will be anything but normally distributed as, by definition, it will be descriptive of all potential sample lots together.

Could there be a skew such that Mean, Median and Mode don't line up? Slight (very slight) but with a population of 314 million the skew won't be significant.

You're showing your ignorance of statistics. Sample size has nothing to do with whether the distribution is normal or not.

Consider income distribution. If you use a "sample size" of everyone-in-the-USA, that will be descriptive of all potential sample lots together, as you say. And yet there will be far fewer extremely high incomes than extremely low ones. The median income is much lower than the mean.

Those differences have nothing to do with the sampling size or method. They have to do with the actual distribution of income.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergurg wrote:
At risk of sounding harsh, did NOBODY see this coming? This was the ENTIRE POINT of socialized medicine - that someone else pays for it and that same someone gets to make the decisions about what is and is not covered. Or are the liberals just upset because they found out that it wouldn't be them making the decision?

1) It's not socialized medicine.

2) Employer based insurance already lets somebody else make the decisions about what is and is not covered. It's just that those making the decision aren't at all accountable to the people. Instead it's the whims of the employer or the money saving decisions of the insurance company.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aceDiamond wrote:

The Technology Guide is going to release within a month and half the people here are going to have their jaws drop to the floor, I think. But in the interest of being fair about how muskets are unrealistic in a high fantasy game, where does it explicitly say that the muskets they use in the setting reload similarly to the way antique muskets really worked? Or where does it explicitly say how muskets are loaded at all? If the method isn't the same, then it shouldn't be held to realistic standards.

Plus, I've got to hit the high fantasy part more. In your modern action movie, people fire automatic weapons for much longer than the magazines of those guns are capable of, yet people are lost in the suspension of disbelief enough to not care. I'd think there should just be a handwave to circumvent the speedy reloading and get on with the game.

Well, they don't go into great detail, but
early firearms wrote:
Early firearms are muzzle-loaded, requiring bullets or pellets and black powder to be rammed down the muzzle. If an early firearm has multiple barrels, each barrel must be loaded separately. It is a standard action to load each barrel of a one-handed early firearm and a full-round action to load each barrel of a two-handed early firearm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:

Game balance.

I mean, really, why would an enchantment that teleports/shifts the powder, shell, and etc. into the firing chamber be weird compared to a magical stick that shoots lightning bolts?

Why would a world with the capacity to create matter from nothing and create industrial automatons have a problem creating metal-cased bullets?

And why would world which can contact other planes and steal/purchase knowledge from beings from beyond the stars not be able to learn metallurgical tricks?

The answer is, "because they just didn't," and "because game balance."

It's got nothing to do with game balance, since they do let you reload guns fast. They just describe a gun that can't be reloaded quickly and then let you reload it quickly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In fairness, the Dragonlance modules really were the first of their kind. Experimental. Like a precursor to the AP concept. Yes, there had been linked modules before. Giants/Drow in particular. But this was much more character and story driven. Heavily railroaded and poorly done in many ways, but very ambitious.
A definite step forward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

This choice of design is exactly like some computer games, that ditch the reality and the rules of what is involved in loading these types of weapons. Why? So that you can take a shot, or many shots all without following the actual procedure that would be required. No need to go through the steps, no hair-raising duration of you loading your very powerful firearm - it is done, and getting it ready to unleash smoke, fire and shot, simply skip to the end, you can shoot again. No or very little time passes while you do that. Rush to the result.

Yay, pew pew.

Now some hiss at house rules, but I've run games with more realistic firearm rules, and it worked. The players simply carry more of them, and don't load in combat. Players could still be gunslingers or a daring shootist, but their slow loading firearms were more tools they used, generally at the start of combat, before they closed or did other actions. They couldn't spam fire with a pistol in each hand, because loading these types of weapons and preparing them to use simply takes time.

Why do I care?
Well my players all used them in the pirate setting, and had fun. There was one player who thought the time should be shorter. So I explained what I had seen and found out, and how that translates to the dnd round. They wanted it faster, no they didn't want multiple rounds of loading. So I broke it down for them and walked them through it, so they could grasp just how long it can take.

Some want the spam, and they like that actual steps are skipped, so they can spam out more shots. Damage over planning or paying a time cost to use a high technology weapon. If paizo is bringing firearms into their setting, the weapons put into their games should actually be somewhat like what they are claiming to be. That is what I am getting at. Archery isn't really very relevant to this point, while some bow abilities via feats are silly, the basic bow rules are pretty solid for representing drawing arrows and shooting people. Some archers are even quite capable of shooting a lot of arrows in short order.

Why?

Because a bow is a far simpler and quicker to use weapon than a flintlock, matchlock or wheellock firearm.

Yes and no. Even an early firearm is a much simpler weapon to learn to than a longbow (or even a regular bow.) Sure you have to be taught to reload it, but other than that it's point and shoot. Especially when you're aiming at something like an army in formation rather than picking specific targets. Bows, especially heavy draw longbows, take years of practice to build up the muscles you need to use well.

That's one of the main reasons early firearms took off. You didn't need such elite training to use them effectively. Crossbows were similar.
This isn't really reflected in PF in any way, though I've long thought that the longbow might be best as an exotic weapon.

Beyond that though, I disagree that PF's take on guns owes anything to video games. It's a straight derivation of the 3.x iterative attack/6 second round approach to combat. For them to be effective primary weapons for a class in that game, they need to be able to fire in that time scale.

If your players are willing to play a class in order to use its class features once or twice at the start of a fight and then be a second rate fighter the rest of the time, you've got a different set of players than I've ever seen. Or you've got more house rules than you're talking about that make it more viable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
thejeff wrote:
boring7 wrote:
Historically speaking, the widespread deployment of the musket ended the usefulness of swords and armor. There was still a value in pikemen, until they invented staggered firing lines and paper cartridges, but only because pikemen were cheap enough to train.

It's that part that bothers me. Golarion gets around it by saying they weren't widespread, essentially just because. But then crams hundreds of years of military technological development into one small country in a short timeframe with no one outside bothering to care. And apparently no one ever actually using these things in war to see how effective they are.

Well, while it is possible for shoot a lot at once (with a lot of extra damage since you shoot so well-dex to damage), that takes several levels and feats (and that is just for pistols; you have to be a specialist to do this with muskets). Combined with their extraordinary cost, and it is hard to get very many people with that skill. So you mostly have people plinking 1d8 or 1d10 every other round (remember, it takes a standard action normally to reload 1 handed, and full round for 2 handed), and it only hits for touch at a rather close range. Past that, they are just terrible bows.

Now compare that to the various rays from casters can do. I use rays here, since they work somewhat similarly (touch AC, only works at a certain range, standard action, etc). Even bad wizards can shoot rays of frost infinitely (2 rays of frost means 2d3, or 3 damage over 2 turns, which is fairly close to a pistol's 1d8=4.5 and musket's 1d10=5.5, and it is completely free to use. And moderately good wizards (survived to level 3) can blast out Scorching Rays, which is a straight 4d6 or 14 damage. And those rays can have other purposes, such as the ray of enfeeblement.

And beyond that, casters have a much longer history of changing entire battlefields. It would take a very, very long time before guns could properly take a similar role on the battlefield,...

Because Paizo arbitrarily set the cost for firearms ridiculously high to produce that result.

And well before the tech level of PF guns (at least in terms of firing speed) they'd completely changed the face of war. But I think you're right. In PF, they wouldn't do that. And that's without even considering casters. Longbows are better. And easier to use.

So essentially my problem with Paizo's approach to firearms is that they aren't guns. They don't work like period firearms. They don't play the same role in the world as firearms did (and still wouldn't even if took magic out of the picture.) I'm not sure what they are, but they're not guns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Te'Shen wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
. . . Can people not just enjoy the stories as they are told without moaning?

Then dead/fallen characters would actually stay dead.

thejeff wrote:
It won't be as bad as the Spider-Man Clone Saga. And that was 20 years ago.

Ok. ...you'll probably think I'm an idiot (...and I might be), but I actually liked Ben Reilly and Kane and some of the Clone Saga.

You got to see, or at least hear about Ben Reilly doing the Bruce Banner/Kwai Chang Caine thing. Kane was fun as an evil-ish Peter Parker, the broken mirror bit. I like the fact that Reilly did more invention/innovating with his gear (even just a little) with the impact webbing and paralyzing spikes...

I love Spider-Man. And that in itself is like being in an abusive relationship. He always makes the same stupid mistakes and never really changes. I suppose that's just a problem with comics in general, but it just felt even worse on Peter for some reason. He's very intelligent. He invented a biodegradable compound with a tensile strength greater than steel in high school, but its like he stopped there. He pulls out his genius only every now and then, as if using his brain first is f*@#ing cheating.

It's why I eventually quit reading Spider-Man comics, but I'd still go back every now and then to see what's going on. It's why my favorite What If comic is What if Peter Parker had to Defeat Spider-Man. I like Spider-Man. However, there are much more egregious examples of writing within the lines than the Clone Saga. Twenty+ years down the road, it just feels like a story of wasted potential.

The problem with the Clone Saga, which certainly had good bits, was largely editorial. They kept changing where they were going with it. Apparently threw away the intended ending at least twice.

Along with the base presumption that the Spider-Man people had been reading about for some 20 years wasn't the real Spider-Man and no one should care about just writing him out of the story. Which was at various points a red herring and the actual intended ending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
Historically speaking, the widespread deployment of the musket ended the usefulness of swords and armor. There was still a value in pikemen, until they invented staggered firing lines and paper cartridges, but only because pikemen were cheap enough to train.

It's that part that bothers me. Golarion gets around it by saying they weren't widespread, essentially just because. But then crams hundreds of years of military technological development into one small country in a short timeframe with no one outside bothering to care. And apparently no one ever actually using these things in war to see how effective they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Let's get upset about useful muskets, just like crossbows, they were never used in real life, right? History is full of Zen archer legolas types firing off nine arrows in six seconds from their +4 strength mod long bows, everyone knows that.

9 arrows in six seconds? Which army is that? What level are they meant to be at?

:D

In a game I am in around tenth level, the archer certainly isn't pumping out nine. For actual real-world archery, I can do two in six seconds, (just as an intermediate archer), and I've seen it done faster, so I can tell you that it isn't ridiculous to shoot multiple arrows in six seconds. Impossibly fast musket loading is true folly though. There are many steps to go through. It isn't draw, knock and shoot, smoothness doesn't matter in fitting it into the time of a round as there is a whole lot more to it, and it simply can't be done at the speeds paizo allows it to be at.

If you hear about any reenactors give it a look. I was privileged enough to see some Japanese matchlock reenactors go through the whole process many times. About 27 seconds between each shot, and these chaps knew what they were doing (and were doing it in armour).

Besides, are you telling me that you, as an intermediate archer, could fire nine arrows in under six seconds that would have enough draw strength to penetrate plate and chain armor (with related padding) from over 100 yards away? We're not talking short pulls to hit a foam target 20 feet away. Oh, while using something like a wooden Welsh style bow no less.

Of course he's not. He's also not saying he's a 20th level archery specialist.

As an intermediate archer getting 2 in 6 seconds? He's probably closer to second level with Rapid Shot. Nor, most likely has he pumped Str enough to use the heavy bows. (Not that Str has anything to do with firing speed in PF. If you can't get off nine shots with the heaviest bow you can use, you can't do it with a basic shortbow. Nor range or accuracy (other than penalties for range/Rapid shot and your iteratives.))

And he's still as close to a 20th level archery specialist (in firing speed) as the best real world musketeers are to a 1st level Musket Master.

And frankly I have more problems with the low level gunslingers speed than with 6 shots at 20th level or whatever. High level characters are supposed to be doing things we think impossible. 1st level martials are supposed to be more realistic. The base firing speed for a musket is ridiculous. Even a 1st level warrior (or commoner!) can fire much faster than anything historical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

The problem is, as much as we're fond of it and all, Goalrion is just way too small an IP for an AAA+ game to be based upon.

And Paizo likely wouldn't settle for some indie studio doing a PF game in a basement.

So it's bit of Catch 22 here.

I don't know. They did the MMO, so obviously something is possible.

And I agree, I'd much prefer a non-MMO RPG. While I'm dreaming, something heavily modable like Neverwinter Nights was back in the day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drock11 wrote:

Add me to the people that has no problem with somebody else taking over Thor's powers because he messed up, but thinks taking on the actual name and not title of somebody else dumb.

Hasn't this been done before? It's been a long time since I was hardcore into comics, but from my vague recollection I seem to recall other points where Thor was found unworthy or was being taught humbleness and had his powers taken away. At some point you think he would learn, and the writers wouldn't keep coming back to it.

From what I remember comics have always had gimmicky things to draw attention to themselves, but am I the only one that seems to think they rely more and more on gimmicks as the years roll on and not on good old fashion quality story telling? Is it actually getting worse or is my memory working through a nostalgia filter and it has always this bad?

It won't be as bad as the Spider-Man Clone Saga. And that was 20 years ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:
Keldarth wrote:
pachristian wrote:

DCC!

DCC!
I've got my group playing Dungeon Crawl Classics on 'off' days, and like your group the loved the funnel (16 commoners went in: 6 adventurers came out). They're having a great time building up their characters - lousy stats and all.

Highly recommended; for a change of pace if nothing else.

I wholeheartedly agree. There's a lot to recommend in DCC beyond the character creation process. The cool and simple Mighty Deeds of Arms makes playing a fighter (or a dwarf) a blast, without burdensome and constraining feat mechanics. The magic is weird and not always reliable, clerics feel like they receive their power from their god and he/she/it may not always be happy with the cleric's abusing it. Caster-martial disparity is obliterated. Cool system, but I admit it's not for everyone (nor it tries to be).
I have not yet had a chance to play DCC but I purchased the rules just on the strength of the cool magic system. However, I am not a fan of the 0-level funnel concept to character creation because you can end up with a beet farmer (named Dwight?) who is suddenly transformed into a wizard after just one short adventure. I prefer to think of PC's as having lengthy training periods in the profession they are going to pursue.

Frankly, I despise the character funnel concept enough that I can't get past it see if the system has any other strengths. It's everything I hate about "old school" gaming distilled and concentrated into one mechanic and I assume the same attitude infects the rest of the system.

This is said as someone with very fond memories of AD&D and in many ways a preference for it over 3.x.

But I prefer characters with personalities and actual life to them, not disposable tokens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it amusing that this thread started out with another iteration of the usual unworkable over-the-top proposal from yellowdingo, veered into an actual interesting discussion about how just giving money, with help, but no conditions might work as well or better than the current approach. With actual, non-anecdotal evidence even. Especially interesting to me were the experiments with a Basic Income, which I wasn't aware of, though I knew of the concept.
Sadly we focused more on how some homeless are too crazy for that to work, and now we're arguing with Andrew about whether it's feasible to control the poor anymore than we already do.

It's kind of a sad turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

So are they going to make Movie Thor Katie Sackhoff now?

No. No they are not.

Well... just yesterday, Sackoff did tweet a pic of herself in a full-body plaster mold from three weeks ago. :) But if it's for a Marvel movie, I'd bet on it being Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel and definitely not Thor, especially with Hemsworth still under contract for Avengers 3 and Thor 3.

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Because this is just Marvel Cheezy Marketing Gimmick # 5,812, and like when DC "Kills" Batman or Superman, it will all be back to normal in 6 months.
They let SpOck run over three years as Superior Spider-Man, but in the end, Parker's back in the Spideysuit. Odinson will be back as the 616 Thor before too long, likewise the recent changes in 616's Captain America and Iron Man.

Which is generally a good thing. It's always going to be reversed whether they plan it that way or not. I'd rather have the character replacement and return be a coherent story arc than have it last until a later writer/editor decides to bring back the original years later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Booze? Cigarettes? Get real.

No cookies for you, taker!!!!

Don't worry about the cookies. The Big Cookie lobby will keep them on the food stamp list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Larkos wrote:

You mean who the new Goddess of Thunder is.

I don't mind a female with Thor's power; it's the name thing that bothers me and a lot of other people. Thor is Thor. It's a name, not a title.

It'd be like if when Steve Rogers died and Buck became Captain America, he also changed his name to Steve Rogers.

"Now that Steve's dead, Bucky, we'd like you to take on his mantle. Here's his costume and his shield."

"Of course, Director Hill. I'd be honored. I only hope I'm worthy of his name."

"Oh good, someone already briefed you."

"About what?"

"Now that you're Captain America, you're also Steve Rogers. Don't worry we already got your name legally changed."

"What?"

"Also you're gonna have to dye your hair."

"Wait, if I'm Steve...then who the hell is Bucky?"

Isn't that basically what they did (retconned) with the Cap of the 50s? Except with a bit more brainwashing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Te'Shen wrote:
Larkos wrote:

You mean who the new Goddess of Thunder is.

I don't mind a female with Thor's power; it's the name thing that bothers me and a lot of other people. Thor is Thor. It's a name, not a title. . . .

Agreed. But apparently people at Marvel have confused naming with branding.

“This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe. But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before," Aaron said.

I'm... already not a fan.

I can't even say I'm attached to Thor. I believe Marvel should have more female heroes as opposed to eye candy. This, however, confuses me mightily. They should allow her an individual identity, and starting by giving her someone else's name doesn't work.

“It’s a huge day in the Marvel Universe. Thor, the God of Thunder, he messed up, and he’s no longer worthy to hold that damn hammer of his. For the first time in history, that hammer is being held by a woman. That’s right. Thor is a woman!”

By the way, someone needs to educate me. If Mjolnir has been wielded by a select number of other individuals: Korbinite Beta Ray Bill; Avenger Captain America; Storm of the X-men; Eric Masterson; Odin (Thor's father); Bor (Thor's grandfather); Buri (also known as Tiwaz, Thor's great-grandfather). . . then how can Thor ever be not worthy? Odin is very cold and pragmatic, or at least comes across to me as so in the few myths I've read. That he ever held the hammer erases the concept of worthy to me.

Odin may have been cheating. It's his enchantment after all. :)

Similarly with Bor and Buri. They may be able to just override it.

But yeah, I'm not to fond of the concept. I like Thor. I like the character. This other person, I don't know who it is, I have no emotional connection.

Why not just make new cool female characters instead of replacing old ones? I know, it's because it's hard to get people to follow new female characters, but it's not easy to get people to follow these kinds of changes either.

OTOH, it's probably, despite everything they say, intended as a storyline, not a permanent change. I hope they follow the new Thor trying to become worthy again as much as they follow the new Thor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
GregH wrote:
thejeff wrote:

He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.

But, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?
Not at all, it is the cost of expecting others to pay for you

Or, more accurately, paying for it yourself while others are paying for anything for you.

Exactly what programs should make it illegal for you to buy alcohol? WIC? SNAP? Housing assistance? Medicaid? SSDI? Medicare? Standard retirement Social Security? EITC? ACA subsidies?
Tax breaks on your mortgage payment? Business tax credits?

After all, all the money is fungible, so if you're getting any government money at all, it's like you're using it to buy booze.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.

Exactly how do you plan on enforcing this? How do you keep people who get assistance from using any other money they have to buy alchohol or cigarettes? Shall we stamp a big red "W" on their foreheads? Set up a database that every store has access to that determines who is allowed to buy what and then require identification and tracking of every purchase?

Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Compared to the money "wasted" currently?

And especially in the case of cigarettes, given how addictive they are, will just push smokers into a black market anyway.

And seriously, tobacco and booze aren't anywhere near the most expensive vices. That's why they're poor people vices.

Do not give them a card like they get now. attach it to their ID and simply check ID for all purchases, many stores do already to avoid sales to minors.

Not expensive as vices go. Take up heroin or cocaine (not crack, but the good stuff). Or a good gambling habit. And the average is far closer to 1 pack/day than 3. They're poor people vices, precisely because they're cheap. Poor people don't wallow in the most expensive vices. They're poor.

More importantly, you're proposing a revamp of the entire ID system, probably requiring a national ID card, and a giant database accessible by any corner store containing not just id information, but also allowing access to their benefits. All to make welfare recipients buy their cigs and booze on the black market.
We all love Big Brother.

And for the record, I haven't been carded buying booze in a decade. I suspect it's the gray hair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.

Exactly how do you plan on enforcing this? How do you keep people who get assistance from using any other money they have to buy alchohol or cigarettes? Shall we stamp a big red "W" on their foreheads? Set up a database that every store has access to that determines who is allowed to buy what and then require identification and tracking of every purchase?

Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Compared to the money "wasted" currently?

And especially in the case of cigarettes, given how addictive they are, will just push smokers into a black market anyway.

And seriously, tobacco and booze aren't anywhere near the most expensive vices. That's why they're poor people vices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

I may have criticism for his leadership and his unwillingness to find peace with Palestine, but Netanyahu is a very careful and competent military leader. His previous operation in Gaza was relatively short, restrained and didn't end up with a ground invasion. During the current little war, when right wing politicians called for scaling up the attacks and to invade Gaza with ground forces, he publicly denounced them and said they were "nothing more than background noise".

He gained my trust in his military decision making, basically.

Publicly denounced the idea of invading Gaza with ground forces, then went ahead and did so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm a little confused. What exactly is the point of blowing up a building if they know the bomb is comming? I mean the entire point of those rockets is they DON"T take a base or infrastructure to set up. Its easier to get down the stairs than grandma.

I've been wondering that myself.

It seems a horrible way to target militants. I suppose it could be for targeting larger weapon caches.

It is however, a great way to spread fear and punish the populace without killing too many people, which would make for bad PR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadalready wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Deadalready wrote:
My overall suspicion is through it's many balancing flaws, *players* like Rise of Runelords because it makes them feel really powerful. At the end of the day Rise of Runelords offers an straight forward experience that will be palpable to a casual crowd and not the hardcore.

You made some excellent points until you insulted anyone who likes the AP as "casual".

Different people, different tastes. Calling people who like something you don't "casual" gamers because they obviously don't understand "real" gaming is pretty darned condescending.

My personal definition of casual vs hardcore:

Casual: you play and you win.
Hardcore: play hard and you *might* win.

I don't consider one better than the other, they cater to different crowds.

This distinction could easily change a person's choice in purchasing or playing this AP. While I didn't intend to insult anyone, as a person who likes hard fights + difficult choices, I don't feel like RotRL caters to me. On the other hand these reasons might be the exact criteria someone would love to play this AP.

We understood your usage, but simply objected to the terminology.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Work is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.

Unless of course you have the legal right to do so. Like collection agent or Repo Man.

And once we concede that, we see that it's not so simple. The guy on welfare of course is not taking "any resource from another they are not willing to give." He's getting his resources from a government that is willing to give them to him. And the government has the legal right to collect taxes to get those resources.
So where's the problem? Other than that you don't like it.

Which is why we keep coming back to "taxation is theft, but only when it's for things I don't approve of".

On the flip side, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your general attitude if we were living in a time where our major societal was a lack of labor. Right now, our problem is much closer to the opposite. We have an oversupply of labor and not enough employment. If all these lazy leeches got up off their butts and really started looking for work (or for second or third jobs, "Uniquely American, isn't it?"), we wouldn't suddenly have a booming economy, we'd just have more people filling out applications for each position. Jobs wouldn't magically appear for all of them. There'd just be more people competing for them. And if we cut all the benefits and unemployment (oh wait, we've done that bit), we'd just have more lines at the food pantries and more homeless people, because we're not providing jobs for them!

If we were at full employment and wages were rising because businesses were desperate to find workers, and we still had all these layabouts, then it would be a different story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Where did that happen? I don't think that happened.

Not only did it happen, it happened in a post you favorited. Do you even read the posts you endorse?

Caineach wrote:
I don't think you understand english if you think that is what was said.

Before you jump to insulting someone, perhaps you should make sure you understand english. And I quote (not for the first time):

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
What is the definition of a "job" in your book? Does it mean you get paid for some amount of labor? If so, then we can say that being on government assistance counts, since in effect the benefits are the "paycheck" for the labor of applying for the benefits.

On the face of it: Yeah that's stupid.

But I think he was aiming for a subtler point: What a job is seems like a pretty obvious concept, but it's really a lot more complicated than it looks. What is a job really, other than something someone is willing to pay you to do?

I can think of things that people get paid for that are a lot worse for society than just doing nothing. Some of them are even legal and pay very well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GregH wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Already largely answered up thread - may poor people have a job, but it pays minimum wage, so they still need assistance to afford to eat...
Walmart assists it's own employees in making applications for food assistance programs, because even the corporation realizes that in most stores it does not pay enough to make a living wage. Simmilarly, most food drives in Walmart stores are for the benefit for the employees living the most precariously on the edge.

This kills me. If Walmart understands that they don't pay their employees a living wage, why don't they pay them a living wage?!?!?!?

(I know the answer - it'll cut into profits!)

Why should they? Just out of the goodness of their hearts? The entire business model is cut costs at any expense.

The real question is why does anyone shop there? Despite the reputation, it's only marginally cheaper than other options at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
I wonder what position within Hamas the 7 kids (4 died, 3 injured) on a Gaza beach who were hit by Israeli bombs yesterday held.

According to the IDF: (my own translation)

Israeli army wrote:
Initials details from our inquiry of the event show that an attack was made in the area, where terrorist dwelled and from which they carried out attacks. If indeed civilians were harmed, that is a tragic incidence. It is important to remember that the cynical use that Hamas makes of the people of Gaza held hostage by them often leads us to about attacks against terrorists, as have been proved many times the last few days. We have no interest in harming citizens who got caught in the circumstances.
Make of that what you will. For whatever it's worth, there is some truth in it...

Well, I could link to a video showing an almost empty beach where they played, but you'd (general you) have to look at two dead and mangled kids, so I'll refrain from posting that link.

A Danish reporter and several other international journalists were just around the corner from the beach when the attack hit and they all came rushing to see what had happened. The Danish reporter told us, on the news yesterday, that the journalists were all horrified at the attack on an almost empty beach with kids playing on it.
So yeah, I don't really give much credence to the IDF report.

As for minimizing civilian casualties. Well, they say they do.
Like their "knock on the roof" bombs. I wonder how many people would be able to gather up kids or elderly people and vacate a multi-story house in 57 seconds - including anyone who might have been injured in the "knock" bomb impact.
Then add to that the fact that they do this during the night too.
Meanwhile there's a warning app for Israelis...

For a sufficiently broad definition of "area", I'm sure terrorists did dwell there and from which they did carry out attacks. I doubt that area was "the beach" though.

A generous interpretation would allow that the IDF and the Israeli government has no interest in harming civilians or any great concern about harming civilians. Really it just isn't important one way or the other. A more cynical take would be that they are interested and attempt to strike a fine line between causing enough fear and maintaining plausible deniability that that's what they're doing.
Regardless, they're bombing in a heavily populated area. Whatever their intentions, there are going to be civilian casualties. Which is why you don't do that, if there's any other choice.

But really, it's all Hamas's fault for using human shields. By which we mean operating anywhere near the civilian population that lives in a very small, incredibly densely populated area. Is there actually anywhere in Gaza that wouldn't count?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D Next has officially taken the "Elves mature roughly as quickly as humans, but don't consider themselves adults until ~100, so that's when they start adventuring" approach.

One approach I came up with, but I haven't actually used, is that elves mature roughly as quickly as humans, but go through a "breeder" phase, from about 20 to 100, where they have a biologically driven focus on having and raising children. They are supported in this by the older elven society, freeing them to focus on child rearing. Then, around 100, that instinct turns off and they start figuring out what to do with the rest of their life.
Children are possible after this, but very rare. Sex is still enjoyable and relationships are formed for reasons other than child-bearing.
This does mean that PC elves will likely have multiple children, mostly busy with their own breeding phase.

Generally though, I treat elves as something like the faerie are often portrayed. Time doesn't really work the same way for them. Left to themselves they just drift through the decades and wonder where the time went. They can cope with functioning on a more human time scale when wars break out or when they travel, but it's stressful and they can't do it for long: A few decades at most.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Communication works a lot better when it isn't limited to "Here's the guide" on the one hand and "Here's the character" on the other.

Unless you really plan on being wide open to any "wacky" concepts, character generation (and to a lesser extent game generation) is best done with more feedback. At least the initial setup is best done in person, in my experience. Not only does that let you knock down wacky character concepts before people get to attached to them or possibly nudge them in a more fitting direction, but it also give you more feedback to what the players are looking for. And the players hearing each others concepts are more likely to fit together.

As Drejk suggested, maybe each player thought it would be cool to play the lone misfit in your game, which could work. Won't work with 4 of them. That could easily be hashed out face to face.

Or even through email, but with more feedback throughout the process. You're complaining about a lack of communication, but the process wasn't set up to encourage it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Better yet, this ruling allows for a company run by Christian Scientists (a true oxymoron) who disapprove just about every kind of medical procedure, to run a company and essentially do an almost total end run around the requirement for insurance.

But only if the court decides they can. Based on "compelling government interest" and "least intrusive means". I strongly suspect that the religious freedoms of smaller sects with beliefs that aren't so widely shared won't be so protected. Or at least those with beliefs that aren't shared by a majority of the Court.

Even if they don't rule on those grounds:
Ginsburg's dissent wrote:
Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude. The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

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

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

You obviously haven't read all my posts in this thread.

I think this country is one of the suckyest 'western-style' democracies going. And the suck started in earnest in the 1960's.

And yet, oddly enough, most of those other western-style democracies have safety nets that put ours to shame.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm curious where you got the 95% of households number?

Re the 95% - Most people were landowners of course. And yes, the landowner did vote for the entire household. Would the wife have voted differently than her husband? Not likely. Would the adult male slaves (if any) vote differently? Possibly, and the FF set up a system where that eventually happened... Yay!

I said previously that the consequences of shirking my familial responsibilities in 1889 would get me "jail, fines, and/or hard labor" but I should also have added public flogging and/or humiliation in the town square stocks.

In other words you made the 95% number up. And counted, not just slaves, but women and servants and laborers and anyone else attached to the household as represented by the owner's vote.

Good to know you trust the boss to look out for your interests.

And that's "The FF set up a system where it took 80 years and a horrendously bloody war to make that happen legally and another 100 years for voting rights for blacks to become reality." Um. Yay?

As for your idyllic life of real personal responsibility back in the Gilded Age, I point you to the excellent photographic evidence, linked by Gentle Giant over in the sixty-thousand homeless thread

That's what you're pushing for, whether you think so or not. That's the endgame when you don't give people alternatives to scrabbling for whatever crummy work they can find. Especially when you want to take any political voice away from them.

And finally, I'll just leave this with what I said after your earlier post

Quote:

You know, when I see someone talking about how we started to slip into mob rule in the 60s when we allowed everyone to vote, I start to wonder about who exactly they think shouldn't be allowed to vote. What changed in the 60s anyway? Hmmm.

Shall we bring back Literacy Tests? They did such a great job.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's safe to say, without getting involved in debates over credentials, that AD&D games varied widely. Some far deadlier than others. Some sandboxed dungeon crawls. Some railroaded dungeon crawls. Some story/character driven quests.

I kind of suspect, especially looking back it 25+ years later that there is no "way most 1E gamers had it".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Hold on, people actually believed they could use Eldritch Heritage(Arcane) to give a non-sorcerer non-arcane class sorcerer spells?

I entertained the idea briefly a year or two ago, and then quickly decided that that it wasn't supposed to work that way and was an unintended side effect of the eldritch heritage feats, lol.

Of course they did.

Unintended side effects are what system mastery is all about.

In my opinion, true system mastery includes skipping all the things that would make a GM say "NO, it clearly wasn't meant to work that way", lol. That's what I would have said if any of my players tried this on me. ;)

The problem of course is that some of those have been confirmed to work by developers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
thejeff wrote:

For me, it's not really about realism.

If I'm going to have gun in pseudo medieval/renaissance fantasy, I want people to use them roughly like real world equivalents in the equivalent time frame. Like pirate movies or the musketeers. Fire shot and draw steel. Or in the case of the musketeers, generally ignore them except when actually doing military duty.

At least for the majority of people. Even the majority of adventurers. The occasional high level gunslinger with magic guns or who's just so unbelievably skilled he can reload in the blink of an eye is fine.

So, of course you also disallow unarmed attacks against someone wearing heavy metal armor. That's just not how unarmed attacks were used. I mean maybe the occasional high level monk who's so unbelievably skilled that he can would be okay.

Trying to match historical usage accurately is attempting to enforce realism. You're trying to make the fantasy game element match the way that it was in (historical) reality.

More accurately, I want the fantasy game element to roughly match the genre fiction that inspired it in the first place. I can think of plenty of fantasy/historical adventures with guns. I can't think of any that mix fast guns into a generally melee weapon/bow/armor world. (Putting time travel/cross genre stuff, anything where the guns are brought in from elsewhere)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

The Democracy we have today is in fact what the FFs were hoping for. However - and this is a BIG caveat - they were of the opinion that universal education would bring everyone up to the same general level of competency. In my opinion the FFs were far too optimistic about the power of education.

What we have today is a state of affairs where the absolutely worst qualified individual has as much voting power as the very best. And this description isn't even dependent on all of us agreeing who is "worst" or "best" qualified to vote. It simply acknowledges that anyone can vote regardless of competency, however we define it.

I also want to point out that I agree with your statement,

thejeff wrote:
.giving the franchise to those educated and invested enough to use it thoughtfully. The first problem is identifying those without bias. The second deeper problem is that such people will over the long run be mostly concerned with their own problems and be less inclined to take the problems of the disenfranchised seriously.

The FF thought of this too and the system they set up represented about 95% of the households at the time. It doesn't work that way anymore. We fixed some problems over the years (women have a clear voice in the public process; so-called minorities have a clear voice; etc) but we've boogered it up big time too.

As I said in another post,
"By law, I can make myself and my dependents functional wards of the state for no other reason than I don't feel like being responsible to earn a living and take care of them. As long as my negligent actions to achieve this end aren't violent no one will hold me responsible even if I'm fully capable."

That type of attitude would get me jail, fines, and/or hard labor in 1889. Today, in certain large circles of American life, that attitude only gets me what I want - someone else to take care of the things I don't want to be responsible for.

To a man the FFs would flip if they could see what we've done.

I'm curious where you got the 95% of households number? And exactly what is meant by "represented" there. Obviously black slaves either didn't count as part of the 95% or are assumed to be represented by their owners. Either of which is a distortion.

Did 95% of white males own enough property to qualify? Even 95% of head of household types? Renters? Laborers? Everything else is less than 5%? Or is household a term designed to count all the servants and workers a s "represented" by the master's vote?

Of course a big factor that has changed is that we've gone from a mostly agricultural society to a post-industrial worker society. And we don't have a frontier where anyone with a strong back and a bit of ambition can go and claim his 40 acres and get those voting rights.

But to your other point: That very frontier also served as a release valve. Those who didn't own land and couldn't find work could always head west and claim land on which to support themselves.

That's gone now. As the frontier closed and as the country industrialized, those attitudes you prize, the "root hog, or die" approach, led to widespread poverty and misery in every economic downturn. The horrific conditions among the poor, even those who had work, both in terms of compensation and treatment, led to the movements that created unions and all the welfare state that you despise.
There's a temptation to forget that, to look around at the comfortable middle class and think that if we just stopped supporting the poor they'd start to struggle and be inspired to reach the good life on their own. It's crap. Even the middle class are workers and though we don't think much about it we depend on those protections too. Dismantle it and we all fall back down to the 1920s' slums.

And "making yourself a functional ward of the state", short of getting locked up, which is far easier now, is harder than it looks. It's a lousy life. The vast majority of people who take any assistance use it as intended, as a temporary safety net, to give themselves a chance to get back on their feet. Those in the long term are often working, but not making enough to get by on their own. Cutting them off won't boost their wages, nor are just lounging around now. They'd find a better job if one was available.
Some, admittedly, have given up. Often they have little reason to see any hope of a better life. It's just not part of the world they deal with.

It's also worth pointing out, back on the voting topic, that the poor vote at much lower rates than other demographics. They are rarely driving elections.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
The cantrip Ray of Frost eventually out-damages Magic Missile cast as a first level spell?)
I do dislike the cantrips - not their power per say, I just don't like at will shooting-sprouts-of-fire-all-day that was ported over from PF. More of an immersion thing for me plus I do feel that magic as a rule should be a finite vs infinite resource (personal preference).

Looking at cantrips a little more. It's the power that bothers me. I like the utility cantrips as infinite. PF kept the combat cantrips down to a power level where they're not going to be very useful past the first couple levels. These are much better at the start of the game and then scale upwards with caster level, unlike all the other spells.

These cantrips break their new paradigm of magic. That's not a good thing. It would be far better if, instead of autoscaling, you could cast them using higher slots for the extra damage/effects.

I'd also say the combat versions weren't ported over from PF. These are a lot closer to 4E Basic attacks than to PF cantrips. But they're Basic attacks on something a lot closer to the power and flexibility of a 3.x full caster.

1 to 50 of 2,208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.