Abraham spalding's page

So got playing around with the Tian Xia options and realized that if you take the Leungli heritage sprites, go monk, then take Kaiju stance you basically have the magikarp to gyarados evolution. Since sprites can get permanent flight and Leungli heritage gives amphibious and a swim speed this matches Gyarados as well. A couple of ki focus spells and you can thrash around to your heart's content, and even utilize ki blast as your breath weapon.

Anyways, felt that should be shared.

That is what I expected the answer to be. I will admit to being a bit disappointed, as it seems a clunky mechanic that means any time a feat or ability comes up they have to spell out if it has to specifically mention all the move speeds.

Thank you for your responses!

Abraham spalding wrote:

I like the fact ancestry is a thing that is not simply a quick skin at level one and then rarely matters from that point forward. I like the general set up of the action economy in combat. I do not like the "everything scales" nature of proficiency, but otherwise like the proficiency system.

If you're not a fan of how dramatic the proficiency system scales, might I suggest these rules? It may still not be entirely what you're looking for, but still.

Abraham spolding wrote:

I do like how healing has generally been handled and every class having a subclass system (except you fighter, you get nothing, sorry).

For what it's worth, I think that this was intentional. The lack of a clear style path or whatever, plus the fighter's ability to get more class feats than any other class, strongly point to an emphasis on mixing up tactics as the situation requires, which feels a lot more fightery to me than previous iterations tended to. This also has the side-effect of making the fighter one of the friendlier classes to slap archetypes on, which I think is another good niche to have.

I am a fan of the non-scaling proficiency alternate rules. I get why they did what they did with fighter, it just stands out compared to everyone else. I think there was a little room for a main focus for the fighter but at the end of the day I will still play one on occasion so maybe they were right.

Heck they probably were, they are selling books and I am not so what do I know?

All in all it is a solid system that I have minor issues with, so a great effort.

MREs are not rations in the traditional sense.

Each package of MRE is 1250(ish) calories. A "typical" diet could survive on 3 MREs every 2 days (3700 calories) easily.

MREs are rather bulky because they aren't preserved in the ways traditional rations are; a beef stew MRE when opened is already stew, not a concentrate to be mixed, and fully cooked. In addition you will have some form of drink mix, eating utensils, a wet wipe, coffee, some gum, a desert, et al.

What you dirty heathens call "the drift" is simply the warp, and your "starstone" beacon simply yet another cheap heretical chaos copy of the true Emporer!

Weapon upgrades

It drove me crazy that if I wanted a shotgun toting dwarf I had so many levels between better gear.

And no underbarrel grenade launcher? In fact I want lightning spewing guns, and Sonic wobblers that hit a cone... Cryo weapons that entangle you in a layer of ice...

So I make a system for developing such.

Next I am going to revamp the light and heavy armor because it's video game +1 chasing bad right now.

First off this is very much a work in progress. So use as you like, but if something doesn't really work let me know.

Second the why I made this. I didn't like buying a shotgun at level 1 and not having another avialable until so much later. With all the tech available and skill it seems really odd to me that there is no way to actually improve an item. I imagine that Paizo will eventually get to this but for the time being I figure this should help.

Finally as I mentioned its still not finished. I have not put in a DC for skill check because I am uncertain what it should be. I am thinking the (new item level x 1.5) + 10.

Now I apologize for taking so long but here it is: Upgrading Weapons (for fun and profit).

It's a level 1 item.

Each weapon fusion has an item level, and a fusion can’t be placed on a weapon that has a lower level than the fusion’s item level. Once it is attached to a weapon, a weapon fusion uses the weapon’s item level for any of the weapon fusion’s level-based effects.

You can place multiple fusions on the same weapon, but only if the weapon’s item level is equal to or greater than the combined total of all the fusions’ item levels. A weapon cannot hold or benefit from additional fusions beyond this limit. A fusion that applies an effect to attacks applies it to all targets for spread weapons, automatic fire, explode weapons, and other effects with multiple targets.

So no, not really.

However my personal short term solution is simply to use the weapon design system from Pathfinder.

My homerule is you can upgrade an item to the next item level for the cost of the item. This gives you a points you can use to improve the weapon characteristics of the weapon (improving the damage or such). Each weapon can only be upgraded 4 levels over it's original item level.

This will also allow better/more fusions to be added on.

I intend to do something similar for armor.

So I considering a single level of mechanic on an icon soldier to have an automated camera so he can live stream his firefights without having to worry about a weapon camera or shoulder/helmet mount that might miss the action.

Magical checksums using the magical version of ssha3 (spell secure hashing algorithm).

...
Peasants.

Yeah, it is really going to come down to setting material and such support...

I did jump in on the jumpstarter for this one. I am really looking forward to seeing what I get from it.

I won't pretend to fully understand it. Wizards kept most the IP, but the name and something similar in mechanics were allowed. They have their beta rules out, it's functional and suppose to allow for more narrative based story telling and action sequences... so I would imagine a bit more like AD&D in that regard. Of course that's always GM dependent too.

Sasquatch Game Studio

Alternity was an excellent setting with working mechanics. There is a company doing a new version.

With GenCon over I wanted to stop by and say hello to the wonderful people I finally got to meet and play with thanks to GenCon. If we ran into each other and I didn't recognize you or say he it wasn't an intentional snub. I hope everyone had a good time.

Frogsplosion wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Frogsplosion wrote:

Larkos wrote:

The half-casters usually have class features to help them along. Bards and Skalds have bard song to boost their attack and damage. Inquisitors have bane, judgments, teamwork feats, and possibly inquisitions. Summoners have their Eidolons which the player controls. Magi have their arcane talents and touch attacks. Hunters have their animal companions and teamwork feats.

Really the Warpriest is the only one who relies on his spells to boost attack and damage. They have fervor to make things easier. Their sacred weapon and armor does alleviate things but they're limited. However, after playing a Warpriest from lvls 12-16. I can say that I used spells outside self-buffing and had a fun time. I was valuable outside of combat.

but how many of them were offensive spells that required enemies to make saving throws? That's kind of the issue, there aren't any ways to make a viable offensive spell-using half-caster (except magus because they rarely use spells with saves) without potentially ignoring their physical combat focused abilities. The average half caster builds I see have a 14 in their casting stats, other than dex magus builds that try to split dex/int 18/18 or higher and dump str/cha. You're almost never going to get a failed save with that stat unless they're really bad at it.

This is niche, but it is quite effective.

I have a currently 10 Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor/2 Viking Fighter that is a nasty debuff machine.

He can move-action Intimidate for Shaken condition (with a +42 to Intimimdate)
He follows that up with a Swift Action attack from Hurtful on his Vicious Bardiche, inflicting Sickened.

where does the sickened come from? I checked vicious and hurtful, didnt see anything

I'm guessing it's a cruel weapon.

It's also completely ignoring the "spells" portion of what we are talking about.

No one said it isn't possible to make debuffers or battlefield control with martial means.

It's a non sequitur.

Abraham spalding wrote:

I would argue the only 4th level caster that honestly suffers is the Bloodrager.

They are loaded with offensive magic and suck at using it.

Eh, they have more than enough buffs on the list to never take spells that need a save.

My argument isn't that they can't be another buffer, my argument is when I think"raging magic" with a spell list full of blasting spells using blasting magic shouldn't be a trap option.

I would argue the only 4th level caster that honestly suffers is the Bloodrager.

They are loaded with offensive magic and suck at using it.

System has been cleaned, with dust found in places that I didn't even know dust could *get into*.

So far, so good, with idle temps down to 45C (a far cry from the 80C yesterday) *fingers crossed*

Thanks for the well-wishing, hope folks are having an awesome day!

This good news on page 256? I would call that an auspicious sign.

Lesbians rule!

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

But I think I could get behind your model.

John Napier 698 wrote:

And now, for a bit of nostalgia, Windows 1.01

Sigh

I didn't work with Windows until 3.1
Does anybody remember the Atari ST?
Or even 'GEOS' for the Commodore 64?

I had a commodore colt growing up. The screen would roll. I made it to level 98 on Tetris with the screen rolling before dad messed with it and cost me the game.

Bob I am happy to see things going well for you.

Selene I hope your friends come around and it's just jitters on their behalf.

I would like to ask a favor of everyone for a friend. She and her partner are trying to get pregnant through invetro.

I don't want to hand out her personal information to everyone in the forums but she has a GoFundMe page. If you are interested pm me and I will give you the link.

Thank you everyone for your forbearance.

Not to cause a panic but then there is the fact he is putting Bannon in a position of power too.

Iron gall ink (the ink that bonded so well to parchment that we still have texts older than 1000 years that are still perfect) required technique to prepare properly, but still was fairly cheap to produce... Only spurious "gold rush economics" justify a single vial of it costing more than a year's of a farmer's revenue.

The average farmer earns significantly more than 16gp in a year.

Truth

That's why I don't tell people to stay or be brave.

My Great Uncle was Jewish when his family immigrated to the USA from Germany.

I can't and won't blame people for fear. I can't and won't blame them for getting to safety when they can. Maybe their fears will be for nothing. But I understand not taking the chance when we have the history we have not only in the world but in the USA too.

Even if their lives aren't threatened (and I wish that was less likely than it is), the desire to not going back to being the target of gross discrimination (instead of the "soft" discrimination of today) is enough to understand trying to get somewhere where the poem on Lady Liberty's tablet is still true.

My biggest worry as a custom white male is my friends that are not will not trust me anymore and my life will be duller and less full for that loss.

Selfish I admit, but I would hate to lose all that is good and beautiful that the entire LBTQ community brings to my life, culture, and the world.

What if I don't want to continue fighting? What if I'm tired of getting my ass handed to me? What if I don't really want to be a part of a world that doesn't want me here? This has been a struggle for nearly 40 years for me. It's tiring. I'm so close to being done.

In the military we go on ruck marches. "Full kit" 12 miles plus affairs.

We stop for breaks occasionally of course. When we do no more than half the unit breaks at a time, the rest pull security. Then we trade places.

So take a break Bob. You've earned it. Just be you. All of you including Cindy. We got your six. And when you are recovered we'll keep moving. No Soldier left behind.

Don't think that just because you got your butt kick that we think less of you. You can do everything right and still lose sometimes. That doesn't make your efforts any less and should not diminish the pride you take in doing the right thing to the best of your ability.

Rest, recover and do so knowing people have your back

People stay safe and know you aren't alone.

Tangent:

On the Illinois Senate Race:

It was also groundbreaking in some ways because *both* candidates for the spot have disabilities and fought through them to campaign.

Mark Kirk had a nearly catastrophic stroke and fought back from it dramatically, and Tammy Duckworth lost her legs in Iraq flying an Apache on a combat mission.

Mark Kirk literally tweeted Duckworth didn't stand up for Illinois back in March. He can get bent at that point.

Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.

Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?

After all you were obviously paying attention so you are aware they both actually released information publically instead of had some after the fact inadvertent possible spillage?

And you are just as vehement in chasing down the AOL account of Powel (that he admitted was for avoiding public scrutiny) and the RNC servers the Bush administration used right?

Also Hillary didn't lose her ability to practice law due to corruption.

She lost it because she didn't keep up the maintenance needed to do so.

Bill Clinton was temporarily suspended but he can be reinstated now if he wanted to be.

Most lawyers that are elected president let their license lapse while in office.

Hookers and Blow.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

I am curious who went to jail for doing the exact thing Clinton did. I mean, how many people are even in a position to set up their own email server with a government address? I suspect that most of those talking it don't actually mean the "exact thing", but some other thing involving classified data which isn't nearly the same thing at all.

We know of people who didn't get prosecuted for what was actually the same thing, Colin Powell, for one.

Also the RNC who ran servers for the White House and destroyed the evidence rather than turn it over to Congress as required by law.

But I'm noticing a distinct lack of calls for Gowdy and Issa who both did actually release material to go to jail as well.

Yeah... unless O'Keefe releases all of the unedited film I have no reason to even watch the video.

Quite frankly as a source of information he is shot. Nothing he has produced has been even close to what actually happens once the unedited paperwork is released.

Basically he is bad and if he's your source then you should feel bad too.

HOW THE HELL DID RED BULL GET AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH BIOWARE

Money, and that worries me even more for the game being worthwhile.

In other news, Trump is now trying to tell the people of Nevada how to pronounce their state's name.

Which explains why Nevada went blue in the polls recently.

Even if Pence doesn't come across as ass backwards, he'll still get plenty of questions about Trump being ass backwards, and even if he's still able to pull a halfway cognizant performance out of his ass, it won't matter.

Trump will just undermine it with more b$&$+!@ crazy conspiracy theory midnight tweets.

WWhat would be worse is if Pence does significantly better than Trump did then Trump might shoot him in the foot for making Trump look bad. I could see Trump shooting off at the mouth because his second fiddle guy out plays him.

Honestly for a very long time I was a believer in the "thin blue line" and as a concept I still believe it has merit and value.

However as a concept compared to the modern practice I have several worries in how it is being executed.

I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force. I do not see how the NRA can abide by that at all if they are honest in their mission.

We have people that will state as their sincerely held belief that merely disobeying a police officer is grounds for summary execution. This is not an exaggeration; the idea that a police officer is allowed to use lethal force in order to illicit compliance with his orders is giving him carte blanche to perform summary executions to those who offend him by not complying.

The fact that we as a society seem comfortable with the idea that someone can be arrested only for resisting arrest is unfathomable to me.

I cannot be punished in the military simply for existing. I cannot be ordered to confinement and restricted rations simply as a course of action.

I must confess it worries me that behavior that is unacceptable in a war zone seems to be acceptable for the defenders of the public.

Oh, there's been all kinds of allegations of mistreatment at Gitmo.

Google search "Guantanamo" and "torture" and you'll find some articles.

Just so you know I'm not avoiding an unpleasantness; I accept that allegations have been raised and it is my hope and desire that the truth of these allegations is established and any wrongdoing is appropriately punished.

I didn't say their behavior once they detained her was proper.

I just see a lot of questions centered around, "What right did they have to detain her in the first place?"

I'd like to move past that, because exactly as both of you (Caineach and Abraham Spalding) just said, their behavior AFTER they decided to detain her is what merits discussion (and, IMO, condemnation).

Well I think the discussion certainly has room for questioning why the police felt she had to be detained as that certainly colors all further conversation about expectations from the police. This merely confirms if they were in the wrong from the start or not.

Added to this the fact that their stated cause fails in that their actions after that point do not meet the requirements placed upon them by that cause means their motives are suspect as well.

As such while their initial reasoning was sound the fact they failed to follow up on the obligations they saw for themselves followed by their actions against the person in question leads me to conclude not only did they do wrong by her but they also were negligent in their duty as well.

One or the other would be bad enough, but combined their treatment of the girl is well beyond the limits of what is acceptable.

So I guess I should have said:

A requirement to detain is not the question for me, its the activities taken after they had her in the car and the fact they failed in their stated duties towards the girl. The pepper spraying after the door was closed, and then failing in a duty they placed upon themselves willingly, is beyond the pale of what anyone could call acceptable

A requirement to detain is not the question for me, its the activities taken after they had her in the car. The pepper spraying after the door was closed was beyond the pale of what anyone could call acceptable.

She wasn't even particularly combative.

The Raven Black wrote:

I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared

Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large

for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.

Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.

What I keep wondering is where all the 2nd amendment people are each time a police officer states, "the perpetrator was armed." as if that was an excuse for an execution.

Supposedly being armed in the USA is not a crime, and yet we keep hearing how that one fact somehow changes everything and makes shooting the person okay.

In Afghanistan everyone is armed (slight exaggeration) with full automatic weaponry, and yet that is not an excuse for Soldiers to go around shooting anyone that looks at them wrong. I don't see how it's an excuse for police officers.

If I was in a warzone, in a firefight and my squad captured enemy combatants and after we had them secured I chose to then use attack the detainees, I would have committed a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions and should be brought up on charges, stripped of rank and sent to serve time in a military jail.

Realize that detainees are generally belligerent and have a recognized right and duty to attempt escape. In fact while the military force is expected to work diligently in retaining prisoners they are not supposed to punish those that attempt escape for the attempt in and of itself (the detaining force may however increase security measures so as to prevent escape).

The fact that an authority having gained control of the situation where someone (regardless of status of being a minor) who was already injured in a peaceful country and then the authority figure pepper sprays the injured and detained person angers and disgusts me.

The fact that someone would argue that what is not acceptable in a warzone with belligerent detainees is somehow acceptable in a peaceful environment with civilians for the sole purpose of not being cooperative when the person was injured in an accident, is appalling, and blows my mind.

Please note this is not questioning the detaining of the individual itself, merely the actions taken from there.

A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.

For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), androids count as both humanoids and constructs. Androids gain a +4 racial bonus on all saving throws against mind-affecting effects, paralysis, poison, and stun effects, are not subject to fatigue or exhaustion, and are immune to disease and sleep effects. Androids can never gain morale bonuses, and are immune to fear effects and all emotion-based effects...

I think I said all that needs to be said (that being there is little benefit from raging for an android) but with that yes an android can rage, it's just a penalty for them to do so (-2 penalty to AC no bonuses). However yes you will have the use of your rage powers, so I guess that's something.

Irontruth wrote:

Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?

Can homosexual bakers refuse to bake cakes for Christian weddings?

** spoiler omitted **

They could... IF they refuse to bake any wedding cakes at all. At which point they don't provide the service to anyone and therefore no one could claim they are being denied due to considerations base on religion.

But that is a deceptive answer because the question presupposes that the homosexual bakers would not refuse a non-Christian.

And as a leftist I take some umbrage at the accusation that I "bash Christians", those that follow the teachings of Jesus Have my utmost respect. Those that try to claim a title without following the teacher get my contempt.

Again, it is the acts I judge. If you claim a faith and don't live up to the tenets then I don't owe you respect for the faith you claim.

All I can say is if I acted like that in warzone I would be spending many years in Leavenworth and rightly so.

Yet with police deaths and crime in general at an aall time low somehow police are under seige and responding as if everyone owes them obedience and their first duty is to come home alive.

It is personally offensive to me on a professional level.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Abraham --

Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.

Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.

Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.

Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."

It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.

Sounds like being a jerk.

It's a common debate tactic and what's more I owe you no explanations or apologies. If you would like to contribute then I might do so anyways but I won't wait around for it.

Abraham --

Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.

Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.

Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.

Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."

It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.

From what I have been able to glean from various conversations, there is a great deal of upset in the wake of the homosexual marriage ruling. In some cases, this "backlash" is tied directly to held moral convictions of what marriage should be (religiously informed) in their minds. In some cases it comes down to semantics: the "appropriation" of the term "marriage", as they see it, to include something that has traditionally fallen outside the bounds of the term (a subtle distinction, but one that exists). Overall, there is a narrow majority in my "sample group" that is not opposed to homosexual (or other sexuality/gender identities) couples being able to enjoy the same legal (esp. financial) benefits before the law as heterosexual married couples. Whether motivated solely by moral convictions or by a...

See I've flipped this on many conservatives. I've pointed out that my religion requires that we allow those in love be married and asked should my or their religion take precedence over the other.

Then I point out that if we were to eliminate marriage as a government institution as a whole and instead had everyone get legalized partnership contracts only then that would mean marriage would be whole defined by the churches.

What my church states a marriage is would have no bearing on what their church states a marriage is. Everyone could literally use their own definition and be correct. What they would not get to define are the terms and conditions of the partnership contract.

The only arguments I've received back from that is what I call "Christianist's Supremacy" arguments and those are easily fought back by pointing out that if that is the war they want to declare then I am well within my rights pushing for my religion's supremacy.

Which then gets us into a discussion of the origins and constitutional role of religion in government.

Please note this is not to argue the legitimacy of your statements; I believe you are correct on all points and my own antidotal experiences match yours.

How much money would businesses save if you separated healthcare from employment?

Huge amounts. It would be a big boon to our private sector especially when compared to international corporations.

This would also benefit the healthcare consumer too, as there wouldn't be money wasted on competing systems, and additional overhead for advertising, if we used a single payer system. In addition if a single payer system was used (and allow to negotiate) then bulk savings would help even more.

Even a hybrid system such as what Britain has would help significantly.

I love the ideas but how is everything supposed to be paid for? Taxes are onerous enough as it is as a small business owner. As a small business owner, it would be delightful to see the proposed reductions of red tape but most importantly the 'tax relief and simplification'. What I have yet to find is the proposed methods. Tax credits aren't worth very much. Tax reduction to employee levels would free up a great deal of gross profit to be further invested in taking advantage of...

Well we could start killing some of the subsidies for corporations. By many estimates that would account for 100 billion dollars a year allowing for one year's worth paying for the entirety of the 80 billion dollar plan President Obama put forth for free college. We would then have enough the next year to pay for a complete renovation of our national parks.

Or perhaps we could reduce some military hardware spending.

We could of course simply raise taxes too. It's insane to me that we somehow have sold that taxes are so "hard" when in actuality the final tax rate for many businesses is lower than it has been in for around half a century.

I think there is room for some adjustments and reductions in the difficulty in the tax code... but that would mean that we would have to admit some ugly truths about our government, tax system, mores, and society as a whole that I honestly don't think our nation is ready to view.

By the way that's direct subsidies, not special tax loops which account for around another 100 billion a year. We could hit those instead and leave the subsidies in place.