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. 13,746 posts (14,545 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,514 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Ummmm... what does any of that have to do with the characters being motivated solely by financial reward, as stated in the post I quoted and responded to?
That's not what was stated. They were motivated by survival.
Quote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blood_kite wrote:

I’ve played both genders a number of times over the years without much incident from other players, but I don’t make a habit of making characters of any race/gender that are very sexual in nature. Having a deep voice and never doing character voices probably has an effect as well.

I’ve had more than one campaign have a moment where a player goes, ‘Wait, your character is female?’ This was very amusing when playing a female Oracle with charisma in the mid-20’s and the player of the frat-boy wizard realizing he’s been missing on all sorts of roleplaying opportunities of failing to seduce my character.

My favorite was the plot derailing it caused. I was playing an aristocrat in a sci-fi campaign. Near the GM had written a plotline of my king needing to step down with the intention of having my character replace the king by marrying the king’s daughter. Then I point out the glaring hole in his plan, I’m female AND I’ve spent the entire campaign married with a couple of kids. He thought I was messing with him until he reread my character bio from the beginning of the campaign.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:

Just let players play, and treat and players like you would treat anyone else.

If we stop singling people out for playing because of their gender/race/etc, maybe it'll stop being an issue altogether. Acting shocked and surprised whenever a non-neckbeard is interested in something geeky, just reinforces the stereotype and wards others away from the genre.

Shocked and surprised is one thing. Noticing the demographics and trying to figure out how to shift them is another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

For humans, at least, sex is 'for' more than just procreation; it's also about pair-bonding.

Since becoming sentient, humans have had increasing control over both reproduction and other aspects of sexuality. This doesn't mean that we control everything about it, but this is true with all aspects of humanity. We are still animals and still have instincts, but we have the ability to make choices. We should make these choices with the full knowledge of what our instincts are, while not being limited by them.

For example, one of the things that sex is 'for' is procreation. But if procreation were the only reason to copulate, then we wouldn't desire it if pregnant or if all potential mates were pregnant. This is not the case, I'm glad to say! If procreation were all sex is 'for', then we wouldn't need birth control because we simply would have no need to have sex if we didn't want to create a child. But we do want sex, at the very same times that we don't want a child. This very fact simply illustrates that, without any conscious philosophising, we naturally want sex for reasons other than procreation.

Other, *ahem* harder evidence also exists: the lack of a bone in the penis requires a larger organ than is strictly needed to inseminate, and this has evolved alongside the female orgasm response that is absent in other species. These adaptations have absolutely nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pair-bonding.

Sorry to witter on, but every time I see someone claim that sex is only about procreation (usually followed by claims that sex for any other purpose is somehow 'wrong') I get an urge to...*ahem*...'put them right'.

If sex was strictly for procreation, we'd have an estrus cycle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
That's essentially what the child rules were designed for as far as I can see.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
So.. Why aren't all casters going insane with their minds being scorched with spell energy they're keeping stored in their brain?

... what makes you think they aren't? Have you ever met a reasonably high level mage who didn't seem at least a little bit off?

thejeff wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:
Two-Hundred kobolds attack, "who cares were level 9 they can't possibly hit our AC unless the roll 20s lets mop them up." This is completely true but it is a decision based on paper not on what an actual person who wants to live would do.
Why not? Would it make more sense if they said exactly the same thing, but not in game mechanics terms. "These creatures are no threat to a mighty warrior like me. Such puny foes will need great luck to even scratch my magic armor. I will cut them down with ease."

I think the problem in the example is actually a mismatch between real world appropriate behaviour and mechanics appropriate behaviour. If you tried that in the real world with a mob of people you'd kill a few before they got hold of you and dragged you to the floor. Then they'd either take you prisoner of stick knives through your eyes. It's not a winning proposition, no matter how good your armour is, because it doesn't help you stay upright against a tide of bodies.

Whereas in game it can be a winning proposition. And that is Gnomezrule's problem.

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.")


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep. It's all a nefarious conspiracy to take away our rights.

And it's all starting on Cracked.com.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CommandoDude wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think there's two kinds of OP, both legitimate uses of the word.

1) So powerful that it causes problems with balance at the table. Maybe it invalidates a lot of monsters or encounters, or it makes one class better than other classes at those other classes' nominal niches.

2) An option so much better than the other options you can pick from, that it's almost mandatory. Like Power Attack.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
the secret fire wrote:

Hit points are the worst, in my opinion.

The idea that one can get jacked up by all manner of awful things and be perfectly functional right up to the moment that one falls over and begins dying is just bizarre. I prefer Rolemaster-style systems where HP loss rarely adds up to lethal damage, and death more often occurs due to catastrophic wounds, which can be delivered even by low-level characters, with sufficient luck.

Gnarly critical hits tend to make the game more lethal, in general, though, so they're not for every table or every story.

Personally I like how World of Darkness actually has penalties associated with damage.

If you have so much damage (it is compared to your HP, not a set amount) then you start taking penalties to everything... because you are actively hurt xD

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
In regards to what Alex has said, I might be unaware of changes newly added in the DSM V, but I don't recall "can't benefit from talk based therapy" or "has neurochemical abnormalities" as diagnostic requirements for major depressive disorder. If we assume that talk based therapies can have no effect upon depression, one must wonder how anyone ever recovered before the advent of anti-depressants.

There are conditions that talk-based therapy as you call it can help but they are either someone who doesn't really have a mental disease or helping those with illnesses cope rather than actually curing them. You can help a depressed person deal with suicidal impulses through therapy but you can never make them go away. You can try to motivate them to overcome their lethargy and lack of energy, but you will never remove the hurdle from occurring.

Take for example schizophrenia a disease that afflicted more than one person I know. You can help someone realize their hallucinations aren't real or that their delusions have no basis in reality but you can never make them go away without drugs. Drugs which I might add due have huge negative consequences due to usually including dopamine inhibitors. Hence why for mild cases like someone who just has to deal with conversation word salad and a persistent scratching noise it makes sense to not want medication, but for someone who is convinced their house is alive and wants to eat them there isn't realistically a way for them to be happy without drugs.

Also though a digression. Whenever someone's symptoms completely disappear with non-drug therapy that means those symptoms were caused by completely external forces. Things like suffering abuse as a child, living in a hostile environment, going through a war, having no social interaction. These are all legitimate reasons for a person to need help. I'm not trying to diminish them, but they aren't something that would be treated with drugs to begin with.

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.
So the only way you can really tell if it was "caused by completely external forces" under this definition, is to see if can be cured by non-drug therapy. If it isn't after any given amount of therapy, then it still could be with more or better, but if it is, you know it wasn't a real neuro-chemical problem in the first place.

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.
There is no mind-brain dichotomy. It's all 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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EltonJ wrote:

Think about it. First of all, I'm a Christian so I can only give of my experience.

Living in that time, testing the myths about the birth of Helen and Castor would be a natural extension of what Philosophers would probably do. They would want to test to see if it's possible and if Man can duplicate what God has done.

They would destroy the myths about Helen and Castor with these tests, because animals are genetically different from human beings and so chimaeraism is not possible. This dispels the foundation of Greece's epic poem. And so you will have people going out and expressing their disbelief in the pregnancy of Leda (people did anyhow, but they would have proof!).

Fast forward to today. People laughed, or probably found it disbelieving when Paul of Tarsus said that in our day, there would be scoffers and disbelievers who would say that there is no such thing as a Second Coming of Jesus, and many are saying that Jesus didn't exist.

However, the prophecy has come true. Christianity is attacked, and most astrologers believe that this is because the Church is linked to the Age of Pisces. This isn't true, the symbolism of the Church is linked to Virgo, the virgin, which is opposite to Pisces. But the result is the same.

The difference between the two scoffers is that scoffers in the above Alexandrian setting would say that Zeus couldn't have impregnated Leda as a swan; which is biologically true, thus they are scoffing something that is false. The scoffers and unbelievers in Christ today are scoffing something that is True, saying that its false.

The difference is telling. Zeus religion is Ancestor worship, pure and simple. Zeus couldn't have lived long enough to impregnate Leda. That, and Castor and Pollux represents both Peleg and his brother -- who founded two Civilizations -- one in the West (Peleg) and one in the East (his brother).

Christianity is the real religion. It existed in the Age of Leo (Adam and Enoch), in the Age of Cancer (Noah or Nereus), in the Age of...

Okay.

<backs away slowly>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Oops, is my racism showing again?

Nope...just your defensiveness. Acknowledge our differences is not racist...just realistic.

If you really want to be part of the solution, take a step back and try to picture yourself on the wrong side of centuries of ingrained racism. You won't be able to do it -- any more than I can -- but you might get enough of an inkling to help with that chip on your shoulder.

That chip up there is called collectivism. I keep it there as a reminder that even though I wish to be treated as an individual and strive to treat others the same, that will usually be considered bad because many other people would rather identify themselves by the group they belong to. Every now and then someone comes along and tries to load some guilt up there too. Because for some reason I should be held accountable for the actions of people I've never met just because we have the same skin color. Well there's no room for the guilt so don't expect me to feel any.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Frankly, as a white male, I find the idea of "white privilege" offensive. Especially the damned if you do, damned if you don't thinking behind it.
You're in good company. People who aren't white find the idea offensive too.
While I think white privilege is a thing, I also think the concept is a very crude, unfinshed bludgeon when on such a sensitive topic an obsidian scalpel is needed.

Y'know, I've been think that majority privilege might be a better phrase since the last thread on this subject.

I've also gotta say that, having read the CNN article (and I'm going to quote here, but I hope the profanity filter is working) however much of an eye-opener an minority majority experience is, calling black people pickaninnies and Puerto Ricans spics, or wiping off a soda can because you don't know if a black person touched it are not subtle examples of racism. I mean, there are members of my extended family who are that racist, but they're not confused about what they're doing.

Racism can be obvious, but it's more dangerous when it's subtle. That's just my experience, though.

More dangerous today because obvious racism generally isn't accepted. I'd think that obvious, widely and openly supported racism is more dangerous.


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

Unless that underclass is taking its frustrations out on you because of your race. Easy to say whites have it easy until someone close to you is victimized

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So, did anyone actually read the article or are we just going to knee-jerk response to "white privilege" and the one quote about seeing race?
Given the title of the thread, I wanted to do my part to fight the ugly face of racism.

So the "ugly face of racism" is talking about "White privilege".

Actual racism isn't so bad, then?

Racism against whites isn't "actual racism?" Or is white not a race so it's impossible to be racist against whites? Is it too much to ask to just treat people as human beings? That’s a rhetorical question.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, did anyone actually read the article or are we just going to knee-jerk response to "white privilege" and the one quote about seeing race?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

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?

thejeff wrote:
Fearmongering the US into yet another war.

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.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

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?

Fearmongering the US into yet another war.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Also frankly, given that this thread was the first I'd heard of it and the opening post included
Quote:
what if a group of academics decided to use social pressure and selective censorship to slowly change the culture and aesthetics surrounding a particular hobby (while the majority of enthusiasts didn't care for the interference). It would be wrong on so many levels. It would also be a conspiracy worth keeping an eye on.

I'm really not predisposed to this kind of conspiracy theory.

As I said earlier: Oooh the scary academic cabal

He was using it as a metaphor for what was being done by the games journalism community (overtly - this isn't a secret plan, nor is it even one whose goals I personally disagree with regardless of what I think of its methods). The parallel is that most people have an expectation of integrity and disclosure for both communities, and these are examples of those expectations failing on a massive scale.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I pretty much just file anyone using the term "Social Justice Warrior" in the Anti-Social Justice warrior category. And then ignore them.


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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ovulsion wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Typically, autistic patients are helped by anxiolytics and sedatives to handle anxiety and sleep disorders, and since they do have a higher risk of other psychiatric disorders, many other specific treatments can be useful at various points. However, nobody has yet found any sort of drug that specifically and significantly helps them with their ASD problems.
Yeah, that's what I meant, not that they get meds for autism. I meant medications only happen if needed for ANOTHER diagnosis.

Which just makes the "It's a conspiracy to overdiagnose autism to make more money for drug companies" theory even sillier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:

Thanks Sissyl, you make some interesting points. I know I have a few more thoughts and questions, but they'll have to wait until I get home and off my phone.

Also, just for clarification, I'm not dead set against people taking drugs ever. I just believe that non-drug treatments should always be attempted first. I believe that informed people should be allowed to do what's best for them as long as it isn't harming others. My concern is for the uninformed who have a habit of being taken advantage of.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

@thejeff -- please note the following, from my post:

Quote:
If that county is like the one where I taught high school, it spends $0 per year on advanced programs for the brightest kids.
Quote:
sometimes I wonder if it would be wise to devote some money to training the youth who will one day...

No one is saying "write off the failures." What I am saying is, "Why do we devote 100% of the additional funding to the failures, and 0% to the 'passing' kids?" Why not 50%/50%? Or, if the advanced kids need less, 25%/75%? Or even 10%/90%?

Surely you can see that there are more ways to divide an amount other than "all" and "nothing."

Fair enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Hmmm. Let's apply some math to the math.

We've got a 33% in-county pass rate for remedials, without the program.
The program boosts that to 47%. So the net increase is 14% -- statistically-significant, but not thrilling, especially considering that these are kids who already failed once.

How much does this program cost? That key number is not disclosed, but I'd be interesting to see how many dollars per 1% increase -- not that you can put a price tag on education, but because you could compare what that money would have done for the top half of students (the ones who passed the first time) vs. what it does for the bottom half. (If that county is like the one where I taught high school, it spends $0 per year on advanced programs for the brightest kids, because No Child Left Behind takes precedence over needs of the students who are already getting at least Ds.) But, if spent, would that money have improved performance by 15% for the better-performing kids, instead of 14% By 20% By 90%? In other words, sometimes I wonder if it would be wise to devote some money to training the youth who will one day build the space shuttles, not just spend it all trying to teach algebra to the people who will one day collect their trash or mow their lawns.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Quote:
Dont' really want to turn this into a roll/point buy debate, but I kind of agree with you. I like the feel of rolling, as you describe. OTOH, I hate when one person gets your roll and another gets mine.
This is why I've gone with "roll two or three arrays, then have the whole group pick one and use it, arranged as they see fit". That way everyone's got the same range of stats, and you don't end up with one guy with four 18s and another guy with only one stat over 10.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
DaveMage wrote:


I *have* seen a few 4E fans that are bitter with the fact that WotC dropped 4E, but those are a very, very small minority.
The same thing could be said about 3.5 fans about Wotc dropping that edition as well.

Other than that they weren't a very, very small minority.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
thenovalord wrote:

A party strolling into town brings in more wealth then that village can dream off. Plus there are all these people with magic that you could tap into.

Adventurers should be very welcome

... because no-one ever resents rich people? "I worked twenty years in the fields, survived the ork raids that killed my siblings, got called up in the levy in a couple of wars, and what have I got for it? A small farm. Meanwhile these {insult redacted} walk in like the own the place just because they got lucky?"

Adventurers are somewhat like rock stars or professional athletes. Yes, they might well spend a lot of money. But they're also likely to be entitled *£&^s who are really rude, start trouble, and expect money to solve it. For some people, the money is not worth it. If you cannot be polite, your money is no good to you.

For others, the heavily armed and (potentially) notoriously dangerous people who just entered town represent a serious threat to local law enforcement and authority. I imagine quite a few settlements would require travellers to check their long-arms in with law enforcement.

I also imagine that if word gets round you're flashing pouches of gold, you're going to face quite a few pick-pocketing attempts. I don't think players would go for it, though. :)

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But of course, that's not absolute hard proof, so we can completely ignore it.

Either we believe the story that military were deployed or a single day,or we are not,in which case whole show was organized by a few local leaders,and Dark One just took credit for it,because we have no proof that russian military were deployed at all.

We can't pick and choose here.

Speaking of,if i was asked by local government to aid in such a circumstance,i would DEFINITELY masqueraded as local SDF.Sudden appearance of foreign military almost guarantees incidents.
And we don't want them,right?

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.
It's great fun. It's like watching a little kid, or OJ Simpson, sure he's gotten away with something, boasting about how he did it, but still saying "You can't prove it!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I love the way you demand proof of every Western allegation about anything

That's because they never provide it,but are very trigger-happy to assign the blame,and have been for decades.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
thejeff wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Uh, no. If x=2, x-1/x=1.5. If x=3 then x-1/x=2.6666..., 4 means 3.75, etc. X=1 gets you 1-1=0, and x=0 means it's undefined due to division by zero. If you plot it you will find it approaches negative infinity in x=0.

Now its just an argument over order of operations. I put everything left of the division above the line unless brackets define the order.

2-1=1 so its 1/2 or (x-1)/x...as opposed to x+(-1/x)...or worse still x*(-1/x).

The order of operations is quite clear. You need parentheses or a different division line to do it your way.

But the order of priority is bracket, exponent, multiply, divide, addition, subtraction..

X-1/x is broken up in this order:

((x)-(1))/(x) where division separates subgroup a from subgroup b.
Then subtraction separates subgroup a(1) from subgroup a(2). This means x-1 takes place to determine above the line before the division by x occurs.

What you are suggesting is left to right order of operations.

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 subtraction and it comes out to be x-(1/x).

And you are wrong because everything above is divided by that which is below the divisor.

If it was written: (clumsy formatting)

x-1
----
x

You'd be right, but it was written on one line. x-1/x. As such, normal order of operations applies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Uh, no. If x=2, x-1/x=1.5. If x=3 then x-1/x=2.6666..., 4 means 3.75, etc. X=1 gets you 1-1=0, and x=0 means it's undefined due to division by zero. If you plot it you will find it approaches negative infinity in x=0.

Now its just an argument over order of operations. I put everything left of the division above the line unless brackets define the order.

2-1=1 so its 1/2 or (x-1)/x...as opposed to x+(-1/x)...or worse still x*(-1/x).

The order of operations is quite clear. You need parentheses or a different division line to do it your way.

But the order of priority is bracket, exponent, multiply, divide, addition, subtraction..

X-1/x is broken up in this order:

((x)-(1))/(x) where division separates subgroup a from subgroup b.
Then subtraction separates subgroup a(1) from subgroup a(2). This means x-1 takes place to determine above the line before the division by x occurs.

What you are suggesting is left to right order of operations.

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The simplest assumption is that most of the items for sale aren't "put on a shelf in the hopes that eventually an adventurer will come along who wants that particular item", but are owned by someone who might be willing to sell if approached. Not a Store, but someone's family heirloom or other special item.

That would work cinematically, the starving widow offering the item in order to pay for her muddy, wide-eyed urchins. It'd be a touching scene, the Paladin borrows the heirloom +1 Undead Bane Longsword and promises to restore the village.

On Golarion, that would be chaos. Any divine PC can roll up, cast a bit of Cure Disease and a few CLWs, chuck the poor woman 10gp and set the family back up. Meanwhile, the Orcs from over the hill find out that villagers regularly keep magic items in their hovels. It would be even worse if unscrupulous PCs knew that. It takes just 6 seconds for many classes to Detect Magic within 30 feet.

Magic items have to kept in a safe of sorts, maybe this is Abadar's deal. And most of it is useless to normal folk and vital for adventurers. The Witch's Cackling Blouse which let's you Cackle as a Swift Action. The Orange Ioun Stone which looks ridiculous and gives a +1 caster level (btw, shouldn't Ioun Stones have a massive sneak and disguise penalty?).

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.

1 to 50 of 2,514 << 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.