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. 12,561 posts (13,332 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 12,561 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Ok the more I hear about Elric the more he sounds like a 4e casters.

Doesn't cast the same spells twice, doesn't prepare spells, needs spell books for rituals/complex spells, spell casting is taxing on him (that's the justification for encounter powers).

This just sounds SUPER 4e, which is neither Vancian or Pool based.

Except for the part where he essentially doesn't use Daily or encounter spells. Almost all of his spell casting is ritual. Or item and/or general lore based. Mostly he's the guy who carries Stormbringer around :)

Those spells that he only uses once are things like "Summon an Elemental King". And it's not doesn't cast the same spell twice in a day or without resting. It's doesn't cast the same spell twice.
Spoiler:
Though I'm not sure that's actually true. Doesn't he summon Straasha twice? Or am I misremembering? It's been awhile

He doesn't act like any kind of D&D caster as far as I'm concerned.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I havent read comics in years but is Peter Parker still spiderman and/or are there still clones with alternate spidermen?
Last I heard a dying Doc Octopus traded bodies with Peter Parker, but Parker forcibly downloaded his memories into Ock in order to enforce upon him a conscience. His ego still present Octopus resolved to make himself a better Spiderman than Parker had ever been... a Superior Spiderman. That was where it was last time last time I read the comic. That was long enough for the plot line to have reversed the situation by now, even if Doc Ock's original body is dead and buried.

I believe Parker's back now. The same thing happened when Ock took over. All kinds of todo about how they couldn't have killed off Peter and replaced him with a villain, even one with a conscience jammed into him.

But of course, it was just a story arc. Not a bad one at that, the little bits of it I saw.


Slaunyeh wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Blondie isn't being turned into a woman. (although that HAS happened in the comics) There actually is a different person, possibly Sif? getting both the hammer, powers, and the name of Thor. That's happened to. A stuntman once was found worthy and he was given Thor's mythological belt and glove of strength to help him wield Mjolnir.
In Pathfinder terms, that's like stealing a fighter's +2 sword and then you become that fighter. I don't care how you twist it, it's silly. :p

Except that's been part of the Thor mythos since the comic started. It started when Don Blake first slammed that stick he'd found down and became Thor. It started with the words he read engraved on the hammer in that first story.

It was years later that the backstory of Blake actually being Thor stuck in a lame mortal body to learn humility got retconned in.

Over the years more than one other character has wielded the hammer and the power of Thor - generally taking on a modified Thor costume and appearance.

It's not like someone stealing the the fighter's +2 sword and becoming the fighter because Mjolner is not a +2 sword and because Odin is a bit of a jerk. (Primarily for reasons of plot though).


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:

The problem is that a lot of the audience they are trying to grab may very well be more familiar with Thor the Norse God, not Thor the Marvel Superhero, whose backstory happens to include being a Asgardian. This is where it just doesn't work for me, and wont' work for a lot of people.

Those who are familiar with, and accept, Thor the Norse God, are not going to find it any easier to get into the character because they made Thor a female, and are likely to be turned off by the seemingly random and entirely political correct nature of trying to use an established male character's name for a female character on a story that may or may not end up being decent.

So, when Thor was replaced by a horse-faced alien, that was apparently completely trivial to accept alongside the existing Thor mythology - but Thor replaced by a woman, on the other hand, is just too far?

Thor wasn't actually replaced by Beta Ray Bill. Well, for the length of an issue or two maybe, then Odin had a second hammer made to satisfy his claim. Thor kept being Thor. The comic kept being about Thor. Beta Ray Thor remained a supporting character. And an awesome one. :)


LazarX wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Oh. The belt and gloves are a thing in Marvel too?
They haven't appeared since then, but in Norse mythology, Thor actually NEEDED both to wield his hammer properly.

They've shown up a few times since, but rarely.


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.


wicked cool wrote:

so how long before Steve Rogers become Captain America again and Thor becomes a man again? At one time wasnt Thor also a Shazam type character where a kid got to become thor?

Is this just a 6 month publicity stunt to add more characters to a bloated universe and both Steve/original Thor return before the next movie?

I havent read comics in years but is Peter Parker still spiderman and/or are there still clones with alternate spidermen? Same goes with Hulk. Arenet there a bunch of them now including a red she hulk and a blue hulk plus 2-3 other people with hulk like powers and some hulk kids from other planets? Same with multiple wolverines?

Peter is Spiderman again. (Though Miles Morales is over in the Ultimate side of things.) I've got no idea what's going on with Red hulks and blue hulks or whatever.

I don't recall a kid Thor, but I skipped a good bunch of Thor in the 90s and 00s.
I assume that both of these storylines will run there course, probably over the course of a year or maybe two and the original characters will return to the roles. That's not a bad thing or even a publicity stunt necessarily. That's a story arc. It all depends on what they do with it and how well it's written. Nothing wrong with adding more characters to the universe, though Falcon is already a well established character and the new Thor replacement may be as well.

It's possible they'll let the movie release influence the timing of the return. Maybe they won't. Either way it won't actually be influencing the fact that Steve will be Captain America again and that Thor will wield the hammer again. There's no real question about either. The interesting part is how the story plays out.


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.


LazarX wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I'm interested in Falcon as Cap. I have no problem with someone else being Cap. I loved US Agent before he became a *complete* jerk. But whatever happened to Battlestar? I mean his appearance in comics beats the Origin story by more than a decade, and he's as black as the inside of a fist. Bring back Battlestar, I say. And Demolition Man! And VANGUARD!!!!
Wasn't US Agent originally the fascist "Captain America IV" who with his Bucky spent some time in a freezing tube before getting his clock cleaned by Steve Rogers?

No. He was originally the Super-Patriot and then Cap's government appointed replacement for awhile. Not as vile as the 50s version, but still violent and abusive enough to need to be taken down by Rogers when Rogers took the identity back.


Andrew R wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.
That defeats the ability to pool risk, unless you are prepared to accept a nationalized single payer system.
the insurance company pools risk within their clients

That's risk for the insurance company. The insurance company also tries to minimize that risk by not insuring people who are likely to need expensive care and/or by charging them more. That's where people get screwed on the individual market, without heavy government regulation.


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.


Logan1138 wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:

I love the advantage system and dislike the ability score cap, seems like a needless restriction. Do dragons and titans have 20 strength, or more?

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.

2) The ability score cap is really not "needless" at all. One of the core design concepts of 5E is the notion of "bounded accuracy" which is in place to keep number escalation to a minimum. Attack bonuses and armor classes are all in a much tighter range now than in 3.X/4E/PF and a limit on ability scores (which would influence attack bonuses) is essential. Large monsters can have STR scores higher than 20. The cap is just for PCs.

3) Mages have the same attack bonus (for the weapons they are proficient with) as every other class. Their overall attack bonuses for fighting with weapons might be slightly lower as their STR and DEX scores probably won't be as high as more martially inclined classes since they will likely be focusing their ability score increases on INT. Personally, I don't like this change at all. I think Wizards should be worse at fighting with weapons than other classes because they spend their training time focusing on spell casting.

2) Even more so since you can get even more stat boosts than in 3.x.

3) They will be worse. As you say, they likely won't have the same stat bonuses, but they also won't be getting the various special abilities the martial classes get. Their Base attack bonus is the same, but that's very different than being as good at fighting with weapons.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
I'm honestly not sure. I don't know exactly what were the terms purposed by Egypt and it's very hard for me to assess the inner politics of Hamas. Maybe they just couldn't afford to accept the terms, I don't know.

Unless Egypts plan was a withdraw from the west bank and issuing passports to the Palestinians then hamas' best bet is to fire the rockets and try to keep attention on their situation. Even a ground invasion is better than the slow inexorable division and de facto annexation of what little territory they have left and it is in fact better than any alternative short of genocide. They are the " I hate isreal more than you do" party and because of that you can't shoot them out of power. Israel is getting what, 1 hamas agent per 50 civilians on a good day? Those 50 civilians have families that are going to be voting for the most anti israeli party they can find.

Strike them down all you want, you only make them stronger.

The terms, as near as I can tell, were "Stop shooting rockets and Israel will stop bombing and won't send troops in yet." Go back to the status quo before the latest flare up with nothing resolved and no lessening of the conditions in Gaza. Which isn't surprising since the deal was negotiated between Israel and Egypt and the current Egyptian government is not exactly friendly to Hamas. (For internal Egyptian political reasons, Hamas being linked to the ousted Muslim Brotherhood.)

Yes, it's reasonable to argue that Hamas should have taken the deal anyway to stop the casualties. And frankly you can't expect too much more from a ceasefire agreement than "Stop shooting". But it's usually "Stop shooting while we work out a larger deal to settle our differences" and there's no chance of that.

Previous ceasefire deals have involved at least some relaxation of the blockade, at least on Egypt's side.


DM Sothal wrote:
Yet to this day we find new tribes in some remote parts of rain-forest that haven't had any contact to the outside civilization.

True. But these cultures in Golarion are sitting right next to each other.

And if they did publish some remote uncontacted tribe in some completely isolated area they'd be sure to have some special feat or be a new race that would become the cornerstone of some new build so in the blink of an eye everyone would be playing one in games set continents away from the uncontacted tribe.

I'm sure I don't have to list examples.


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.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Seranov wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Martial Shapeshifter. No or minimal casting, but designed to both fight and deal with other challenges in other forms from level one.
Totally want this. One of the roles I've wanted to play most is shapeshifting brawler, but there's so much potential in Druid that I can never bring myself to make one that's based entirely around Wildshape, especially since it can't even keep it up all the time until like level 8 (and the campaigns I play in almost always start at level 1 and VERY RARELY go beyond level 3! :/ )

I keep thinking about ways to hack it out as a Ranger archetype or alternate, but the things I want to trade out for it don't match up level-wise.

Though I'm tempted to trade out martial weapons and/or armor proficiency.

The Shapeshifting really needs to start at first level and it needs to last long enough to be the primary combat and still be usable out of combat.

I think the Beastmorph alchemist sort of fits that bill.

That's probably the chassis I would build onto. A 3/4 BAB class that gets a 'shifting' ability that functions like a mutagen. Perhaps they eventually get a Ranger-style FE or Inquisitor-style Judgment.

Except the Beastmorph doesn't actually change into things. He just gets bestial and picks up abilities.

Plus it comes with all the elixirs and bombs and other alchemist baggage.

A person who can turn into animals and run (or sneak) around and kick tail. Is that really so powerful that you can't get it with full BAB? And then it comes with full casting most of the time, so power really isn't the question.


Scavion wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
You can still be a cleric of an ideal, it's specifically called out as a thing in the rules. I believe the statements otherwise were in reference to Pathfinder Society because the domains for a Cleric of an ideal are way too subject to table variance to be viable for that type of game.
No. That's specifically a Golarion thing. Though obviously you can ignore it in home games, it is canon for Golarion that all Clerics have gods.
Text? I must have missed this.

It's not on the SRD, since it's Golarion specific. I don't have my books in front of me and I'm not sure where it's explicitly stated anyway, but this might suffice.


Seranov wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Martial Shapeshifter. No or minimal casting, but designed to both fight and deal with other challenges in other forms from level one.
Totally want this. One of the roles I've wanted to play most is shapeshifting brawler, but there's so much potential in Druid that I can never bring myself to make one that's based entirely around Wildshape, especially since it can't even keep it up all the time until like level 8 (and the campaigns I play in almost always start at level 1 and VERY RARELY go beyond level 3! :/ )

I keep thinking about ways to hack it out as a Ranger archetype or alternate, but the things I want to trade out for it don't match up level-wise.

Though I'm tempted to trade out martial weapons and/or armor proficiency.

The Shapeshifting really needs to start at first level and it needs to last long enough to be the primary combat and still be usable out of combat.


Arachnofiend wrote:
You can still be a cleric of an ideal, it's specifically called out as a thing in the rules. I believe the statements otherwise were in reference to Pathfinder Society because the domains for a Cleric of an ideal are way too subject to table variance to be viable for that type of game.

No. That's specifically a Golarion thing. Though obviously you can ignore it in home games, it is canon for Golarion that all Clerics have gods.


6 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.


Misery wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

I like this take on i the most I think:

"A whole bunch of little kids can now play as Cap or Thor without weird looks, so maybe it’s not all about how bitter you are this time?"
— Writer and artist Jason Latour, Wolverine and the X-Men, Edge of Spider-Verse, Southern Bastards, The Winter Soldier

And that's fantastic and you might even have a hard time finding that many people who disagree with how awesome that is!

But the downside is that instead of just GIVING people something, they're also taking away something. Why not two hammers? Two Thor's? Two people possessing his gifts? They once talked, I believe, that the hammer just helps Thor channel his powers now and it's pretty much all him. If that's so, someone else getting the hammer shouldn't take his Thunder God status away ... but it's being talked up like it will so we'll see. If it does, you're taking away from the people that enjoy the stories of Thunder God Thor Version 1 for whatever version we're on now for this one. It sucks for me a bit as I just started reading Thor with God of Thunder series, getting into the character because of the movies and I've adored it all. I pick up all of like 2 to 3 comics a month for myself and that was one, dropping Wolverine (Thor and Wolverine are now tied for favorites) due to the whole hype of "LETS KILL WOLVERINE CAUSE WE CAN!! WOOOHOOO!!!"

And here's something that bothers me and worries me over the future Thor comic that's focusing on THOR Thor (as in, the actual son of Odin). He does something ... screws up ... and is not worthy.

If Thor screws up bad enough that he's not worthy of the hammer? That scares the CRAP out of me. I like reading about heroes being heroic and selfless acts and all that stuff. Thor's pretty great with that while also being a character that feels very fantasy in a modern world which I adore. However, if he does something that screws him up with the hammer and it stays that way, it...

Don't worry too much. It's almost guaranteed to be a redemptive storyline for the Unworthy Thor.


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.


Guardianlord wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:

GM says (to an evil cleric): "Is your skeleton still with you?"

GM means: "There is a high level paladin coming up, and you're not going to be able to bluff that the skeleton is just a remarkably thin human."
Always buy a hat of disguise for your undead/demonic minions.

Problem.

Disguise Self wrote:
You cannot change your creature type (although you can appear as another subtype).

Exactly. Go from deadly Formerly- Orc Skeleton Champion to a formerly- harmless medium bunny skeleton.

Who would want to hurt a (Skeleton?) bunny?

What does that mean in terms of disguise? Aren't there undead that can pass for human or close enough to it?


I suspect the same thing won't happen until 5E is retired. Or if someone does, which they actually probably will given the number of people on the net, it will remain a tiny niche. Is there a 4E clone out there competing with 4E? Even now that they're not really making 4E products? What's its market share?


Regardless, could we please not do that?

Thanks.


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.


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?

Look I'm a libertarian. I believe individual rights are paramount and I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infinite on another's rights. And glad to provide some diversity.

Well, that opinion is pretty common around here. :)

But you do agree that it's fine for the government to mandate contraceptive coverage, even if the company doesn't want to cover it as long as their objections are not religious, right?

Libertarian notions of it not being the company's job to pay for something elective are not what this case was decided on. This is strictly religious freedom.


Rub-Eta wrote:

In general good game design, you don't do this. I've read books that state that it's not good to penalise players for taking a beating. Having lower hp and being closer to death is enough.

Rachel Carter wrote:

At 75% hit points players take a -2 to attacks, AC, combat maneuvers, and any strength, dexterity, or constitution based checks, maybe a speed reduction too?

At 50% this penalty changes to 3, and at 25% it reduces further...maybe to 4?

This would tilt the odds against anybody who takes damage. Already at 75% they would start to take damage more frequent and do less damage them selves, aka not killing the thing doing damage to them before it can do even more damage.

And if both parts go down equaly quick (applying the penalties to both players' and enemies' AC and attack rolls) the modifiers won't matter. If you have -2 to hit and they have -2 to AC, then there's no point in having this system.

This would only result in your players having to heal as soon as they get close to or below 75%, or they're doing it wrong (from a strategic point of view).

In conclusion: This either tilts combat, giving more advantage to the already stronger side OR it doesn't do anything at all.

I think the effect is more subtle. It strengthens numbers. It gives more of an advantage to larger groups. A single opponent, even when he doesn't go down right away, will quickly rackup penalties. A large number of weaker opponents will start to drop, but the remaining ones will still be at full strength.

Whether this is to the PCs advantage or not depends on whether they're the group ganging up on the one BBEG or the few facing a horde of mooks.


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?

Thanks. I think you may be the first to post here that actually agrees with the Court.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
thejeff wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:
I am coming late to the party I know, and don't have time to go through 10 pages of posts and am in the minority BUT I believe the Supreme Court did the right thing. People have talked about friends who would've died without birth control, that isn't what this is about. It's mainly emergency birth control that this would affect I believe and I don't have time to look up all the details but this means preventative measures would/could be covered but not after contraception has occurred would not. And I personally am ok with this. Birth control pills to regulate periods isn't' the same as destroying a fertilized egg to me. I believe life begins at conception ( yes I am one of those types). But also people know hobby lobby is a Christian run business. They have other options if they want a job from a place that will cover that sort of thing. Why should people be forced to compromise their beliefs? If you don't like it don't support that business and give your support to another company so they have a reason to hire those people who want to have those contraceptive options.

Well, I would take my business elsewhere, but I've never actually shopped at Hobby Lobby in the first place, so it's hard. :)

But just to clarify, you agree with the law the way it stands now after the decision? That the federal government should be able to mandate contraception coverage, but only for companies that don't object on religious grounds?

Does it change your opinion at all to learn that the Court extended the decision in another case (by letting a lower court's ruling stand, I believe) to cover all forms of birth control, not merely those where the company believes them to be abortifacients?

Just to add...

Does it change your stance that Hobby Lobby was factually wrong, and none of the birth control methods caused an abortion by the scientific definition? How about the fact that three of the four did not qualify based on Hobby Lobby's definition of abortion?

But that really is irrelevant. It's a religious belief. It doesn't have to be right and the Court shouldn't be in the business of determining whether religious beliefs are correct or not. That much I agree with.


zauriel56 wrote:
I am coming late to the party I know, and don't have time to go through 10 pages of posts and am in the minority BUT I believe the Supreme Court did the right thing. People have talked about friends who would've died without birth control, that isn't what this is about. It's mainly emergency birth control that this would affect I believe and I don't have time to look up all the details but this means preventative measures would/could be covered but not after contraception has occurred would not. And I personally am ok with this. Birth control pills to regulate periods isn't' the same as destroying a fertilized egg to me. I believe life begins at conception ( yes I am one of those types). But also people know hobby lobby is a Christian run business. They have other options if they want a job from a place that will cover that sort of thing. Why should people be forced to compromise their beliefs? If you don't like it don't support that business and give your support to another company so they have a reason to hire those people who want to have those contraceptive options.

Well, I would take my business elsewhere, but I've never actually shopped at Hobby Lobby in the first place, so it's hard. :)

But just to clarify, you agree with the law the way it stands now after the decision? That the federal government should be able to mandate contraception coverage, but only for companies that don't object on religious grounds?

Does it change your opinion at all to learn that the Court extended the decision in another case (by letting a lower court's ruling stand, I believe) to cover all forms of birth control, not merely those where the company believes them to be abortifacients?


Zhayne wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
2. Hit Points are abstract. It is completely narratively possible for you to go from 200 HP to 1 without taking a lick of physical damage.

I personally really dislike that version of HP. It really screws with healing magic, injury poisons, bleed effects, failed saves on AoE damage, being on fire... a host of things in the game are predicated on the assumption that HP damage is actual physical harm. Not only that, but the Core Rulebook actually says:

"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."

So Pathfinder's hit points actually really do represent physical health/injury (even if the author of UC's "Wounds and Vigor" system missed that memo).

I prefer it that way. To me, it's less immersion-breaking to just say that my flying, dragon-slaying, world-altering fantasy heroes are just that tough that to try and work around all the bajillion things that just don't work with nonphysical HP. YMMV.

This is why I said 'narratively possible'. Obviously, some things will require physical damage to be dealt. But I've no issue with two swordfighters parrying the entire fight until one finally gets in the one and only thrust that draws blood.

Or most of the cuts just being small scratches, until the final one that cuts through. As opposed to each of a dozen hits delivering cuts that are as deep as the one that wound have laid him low at first level.

That's the "ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" part of the rule.


Quark Blast wrote:


No? Then what I propose is perilously close to what the FFs thought was possible. Educate people on the merits of liberty and responsibility. They go together. Each without the other is self defeating.

Where I differ from the FFs is that one must demonstrate responsible attitude through responsible action. The capacity to act responsibly will not be assumed upon the completion of a public education.

How? If you don't have a how, then you've got nothing.

You're just waving your hands demanding that people live up to your standards in order to have a voice in government without actually having any way to know whether they're doing so or not. Or in fact any real evidence only allowing people who meet your standards to vote will improve life in any fashion. Frankly, however much you feel like bashing people who don't live up to them, the times you harken back to with such longing were miserable hellholes and we're really much better off today. Even more so in the recent past, before we began the backlash that you're so much a part of.


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.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:

The D&D economy is something that has never made sense and trying to justify a setting point with it leads to even more silly things to consider. The cost of a magic sword can equal that of several thousand weeks wages of normal soldiers. The diamonds required to ressurect someone increase whenever the price of diamonds goes down relative to the price of gold.

So basically what's being said is that either the prices of needed materials are constant with respect to gold period, in which case you just need to crash the gold economy with inflation to make everything affordable. The other possibility is that these prices are an abstraction and could be lowered in theory with higher volume/more developed infrastructure. Either way one would think that after a few thousand years of these spells existing most unchanged at least one nation would mass produce magic items or advance technology to out compete all the stagnant nations. If nonmagical technology is slowed down by magic then magic must be practical. If magic isn't practical there is no reason for it to slow the development of nonmagical technology.

Viva the people, down with the wealth by level tyranny.

The price of diamonds doesn't change relative to the price of gold. Anymore than the price of a longbow or the price of a +5 flaming burst sword.

Furthermore and even more disturbing, the cost of raw materials to make anything, is exactly half the price you can buy it for.

In other words, the D&D economy isn't an economy, it's a set of rules for adventurers to use to buy gear and sell loot. Treating it anymore seriously than that just leads you down the rabbit hole.

But more generally, you can't mass produce magic items, because you need casters to make them. You can't have half-trained laborers on assembly lines doing it by rote.
But even so, it slows down non-magic tech because the early adopters who would finance such things can already get the cool magic versions.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


Let me put it to you this way:

By definition, with any given measure, half of all Americans are below average.

Assuming you think you're fully right on these issues and I'm wrong (or just a troll), well...

The fact that my vote counts as much as yours ought to give you pause. And, most importantly, it rather proves my point beyond dispute.

So you're basically opposed to the very concept of democracy? Not just the mob-rule version the FF were worried about but even the representative version they created.

Either that or you think that there's both some foolproof (or even mostly reliable) way of getting only the qualified people to vote and of having them actually consider the interests of the rest of the population.

"Owns property" certainly isn't it. Any version of "Literacy Tests" actually used certainly wasn't it.

Do you have a proposal? That isn't just rule by self-selecting elites?

I'm saying we have mob rule today. Mobs as a democracy tend to do stupid stuff like elect Adolf Hitler. The fact that you and I have equal power in the system, or the fact that my uncle and his loafer former coworkers have equal power, rather shows that to be the case.

The only way it could get worse is to give convicted felons the right to vote.

Means testing? No, that won't work either because someone always controls the testing.

Rule by self-selecting elites? You mean like the FFs? :D Though one must admit they put up in a proper way. It would have been a death sentence for all of them had they not succeeded.

A proposal? Yeah, that citizenship be seen by all as not just a right but a responsibility. And that we implement it in such a way as to avoid the issues that my Lit Prof ran into when he went back to the land of his Peace Corp days.

That's not a proposal. That's a platitude. You've got no suggestions for how to get there.

You say you're opposed to mob rule, but I'm saying you'd have the same problem with the founder's original system. Unless your uncle was a property owner and his "loafer" former co-workers weren't. Or the same for you and I.

The distinction you want to make is, as you suggest, not one anyone is capable of making. So obviously that's not what changed.

I'd suggest that what changed is that as the working classes got the franchise and thus political power they were able to demand that government address their needs as well as the needs of the elite.
The elites could of course always find ways to enjoy themselves on the government dollar. It's somehow more offensive when poor people manage to do so. Probably because they can't hide it so well behind tax dodges, nepotism, bloated contracts and the like. Besides, rich people are supposed to take it easy. It's only the poor who are supposed to struggle for every penny.

I'm also all for the vote for convicted felons. At least when they've served their time.


Quark Blast wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
By definition, with any given measure, half of all Americans are below average.
This is true if (and only if) you define "average" as "median." It's not true if you define "average" as "mean," and it's false by definition if you define "average" as "mode."

Actually, with a sample size as large and as diverse as the population of the United States, those three numbers (mean, median and mode) should be inconsequentially different. That is, approximately the same. That is the measure of a normal distribution after all.

Also, you have the definitions of "mean" and "median" swapped.

No. He's correct in his usage.

Quote:
the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.

That's where half will be above and half below.

Your first point is only true if we're actually talking about a normal distribution, which isn't a given.


Quark Blast wrote:


Let me put it to you this way:

By definition, with any given measure, half of all Americans are below average.

Assuming you think you're fully right on these issues and I'm wrong (or just a troll), well...

The fact that my vote counts as much as yours ought to give you pause. And, most importantly, it rather proves my point beyond dispute.

So you're basically opposed to the very concept of democracy? Not just the mob-rule version the FF were worried about but even the representative version they created.

Either that or you think that there's both some foolproof (or even mostly reliable) way of getting only the qualified people to vote and of having them actually consider the interests of the rest of the population.

"Owns property" certainly isn't it. Any version of "Literacy Tests" actually used certainly wasn't it.

Do you have a proposal? That isn't just rule by self-selecting elites?


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.


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?

Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about?

Clearly he means the enfranchisement of residents of Washington DC in presidential elections.

I suppose he could also be getting his decades wrong and is thinking of the extension of voting franchise to those damn kids in the '70s.

Voting Rights Act was 1965. That was the most significant change. Basically "The 14th and 15th Amendments? We were serious about those." Big changes , especially in the Deep South.

Exactly. But I'm trolling by pointing that out. So obviously he must be talking about something else. Right?

The other side effect that helped to turn a lot of people against various social/safety net/welfare programs was that black people started to be able to take advantage of them. This let them be demonized as something "other people" got, not as something you might need.


Laurefindel wrote:
Samy wrote:
The Shining Fool wrote:
I have way too often seen straight dudes playing female lesbian characters who spend the entire game trying to have sex with every female they come across.

Would it be better if we just played straight male characters who spend the entire game trying to have sex with every female we come across?

If "no", then cross-gendering isn't the problem, it's the player's sexuality level.

There are two issues at hand here:

1) player plays with themes not accepted around the table (sexuality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation)
2) player makes a ungrateful parody of cultural group (in this case gay/lesbian community)

So it's not only about the player's sexuality level but, a matter of respect of groups/genders/cultures that are different (although I agree that both are form of lack of respect).

I think the difference is self-parody is usually less offensive than parody of others. The straight male playing a straight male who spent the entire game trying to have sex with every female he came across would be disruptive if the rest of the group was trying to get other things done, but if he's making a statement, even unintentionally, about straight males, at least he's doing it from teh perspective of a straight male.

Doing the same thing playing a female is worse because you're portraying a different group offensively and you're now saying something about them, not about you.
A female playing a male character doing the same thing would also be a problem.


Mike Bohlmann wrote:

You can make any character interesting to role-play. There's no limitation in the rules about how you role-play or what you do with your character.

You can't make every character that was built to be interesting by introducing flaws or using sub-optimal builds into an effective combat character.

The former is an easier objective and doesn't screw over the other members of your community as they expend resources trying to keep you alive in difficult encounters. It's like the bard that ran away from every fight that someone described in a similar thread a while back. That player probably thought the role-play was awesome. The rest of his table probably thought he was an a*~!$*+.

Even more directly, you can make any character interesting to roleplay, regardless of optimization level.

That's the usual claim of the Stormwind Fallacy.

You can't however take any roleplaying based character concept and optimize it to the desired power level. Some concepts inevitably won't work if held to a high enough performance standard.
That's a point of view often overlooked by those who shout Stormwind Fallacy in every one of these discussions. It depends on the starting point. If you start with the mechanical build, you're likely to see no conflict. If you start with the roleplaying concept, you'll often run into characters that just don't work, no matter how much you like the idea. More so, the higher the necessary performance is.

It's one reason I prefer a lower level of challenge. It leaves more character concept space.


Diffan wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
So one interesting thing i noticed about 5ed recently, is that they seem to have acknowledged what a longsword actually is as it seems to have the "bastard sword" included this time, being 1d8 damage when used one-handed and 1d10 when used two-handed. And there is no bastard sword in the weapons list (but that doesn't really mean much on its own, seeing as the weapons list for this document is a lot shorter than the 3ed PHB list)
I really like the concept too, makes it seem and feel far more versatile than just adding 1.5 Str modifier when wielded in 2-hands.

It's more of a replacement for adding the 1.5 STR mod, right? That isn't in the rules as far as I can tell.


Imbicatus wrote:
Eridan wrote:

You can use a 'wound' system similar to the 'Earthdawn' roleplaying system.

You define threshold for damage per hit. Everytime you get more damage than your threshold you get a wound in addition to the damage. If the damage dont ecxeed your threshold everything is fine and you only get damage. Every wound is a -1 penalty to dice rolls.

The threshold can be CON, 10+lvl, ..

A wound is healed with a healing spell in addtion to the damage.

We tested this in the past with D&D3 and it worked good. You only count wounds and use penalties. That is not much paperwork.

Try it if everyone in your group wants more realism.

Again, it hurts martials more than casters. Martials are more likely to be in combat and thus get wounded, and they are the only once that a penalty on attack rolls would hurt. God Wizards don't roll dice.

OTOH, as I suggested, they're also the ones doing damage and thus applying the penalties that normally only casters get to apply.

I do agree that penalties need to apply to casters to - probably by dropping the DCs of their spells.


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.


OTOH, something along these lines does help counter the martial/caster disparity, as long as penalties apply to casters too. Damage is generally not the caster's thing, battlefield control - which often involves applying penalties and thus degrading the other side's ability to attack - is.

Letting martials do the same kind of thing, just by doing damage does have potential. It's along the same lines as suggestions to let martials have ways of applying conditions with attacks, just more automatic. And more likely to be applied to the PCs.


Quark Blast wrote:


What happened in the 1960's - Usagi Yojimbo outlines it. It has nothing to do with your (troll-like) implication that black people can vote.

Starting in the 1960's, sometime after the Civil Rights Act was passed [having nothing to do with Constitutional Civil Rights], lawmakers and others in power began dismantling the social contract expressed and implied by the FFs in various documents - the Declaration, the Constitution + Amendments, the Federalist Papers, etc.

Usagi Yojimbo's only recent comment refers to changes after/during the Civil War. The 1860s, not the 1960s.

Unemployment insurance has been around since the 30s, as has Social Security and most of our other welfare programs (in one form or another). The only major addition in the 60s was Medicare/Medicaid.
So what are you talking about?

What did the lawmakers and others in power actually do in the 1960s to begin dismantling the social contract?

I keep making those troll-like implications because I can't think of anything else you could be talking about. Especially when you started this with

Quote:
Our system of government started to lose effectiveness (slip into Democracy) in the 1960's.
and
Quote:
By law, anyone can vote regardless of ability to hear and understand the issues on the ballot.

Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?

Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about?


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.


Gallo wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:


So,my theory is that plane was shot down by ukrainian citizens.
PROBABLY not the rebels,because it makes no sense.But possible.
It was possible in 2001,because stupid accidents happen.
Question is,why should anyone care?300 civilians is something like daily civilian casualties ATM,but everyone talks about this plane.I don't get it.

Vlad, you are either incredibly naive or incredibly insensitive. Or maybe both.

People care because 300 people in a civilian airliner were murdered by some idiot in a uniform sitting at the controls of the SA-11 who either couldn't tell the difference between a civilian airliner and a military plane or could and didn't care. You know 300 people with families and friends and lives and futures.

Plus people care because on the balance of evidence to date it was shot down by an illegal armed group operating with the covert support of a sovereign nation against the legitimate government of another sovereign nation.

People care because this was a big splashy event. People care because they can picture themselves on an airplane getting blown up.

They can't picture themselves on the ground in Ukraine. How many civilian Ukrainians have been killed already in the course of this fighting? I don't even know, because it had fallen out of the headlines before this happened. But they were all just locals on the ground in a war zone. No need to care.
They still had families and friends and lives and maybe even futures.


MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Which is pretty much the same argument everyone else on that side in this thread has made. I'm still looking for someone to agree that government should be able to mandate such care, but not if a company has religious objections.

You'll find five of them in the Supreme Court.

Well, yeah. They'll argue that, though I'm not sure they actually think it or even think that it's good law.

But I was really referring to someone around here defending the decision.

I'm wondering if they really believe it or if it was a way for them to legally call out Obama on what could have been argued to be a double-standard.

Or just a way to slap down some regulation they didn't like, combined with a slap at women and at birth control.

1 to 50 of 12,561 << 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.