Drachesturm's page

I'm gonna have to admit to tearing up a bit when Yoon learned to fly.

It might help if the sentence in the First Lesson section included either a parenthetical reminder of which skill corresponds to which spellcasting tradition or a specific reference to page 238 of the core rulebook, as it is easy to forget or never have known if you are making a witch as your first character.

I concur. The witch is the first character I have ever made for 2E (I usually just GM but our party just lost two members so I'm making an NPC cohort to fill in until we can recruit some new players) and had no idea that there were specific skills connected to each spellcasting tradition. It has just never come up before at our table. So I had no idea where to look for this until I came to the forums looking for that information.

I find it terribly ironic that someone who can neither spell, nor punctuate feels they have the authority to discuss whether public schools, home school or private schools provide higher quality educations... Please, stop killing my brain, and those of others, with this stupid idea.

Have a superiority complex much? You know, most people will tell that resorting to name calling proves you don't have a leg to stand on in the argument.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Something that thread brought up is what does "Feminism" mean now-a-days?

The reason I asked there is that there have been many instances were extremists - on both sides of the issue - have pulled and distorted the meaning of the word Feminism that it may no longer mean what it says in the dictionary.

I think that those radical elements have distorted the view society has of it, otherwise we wouldn't have the term 'feminazi'.

True, but using a term coined by Rush Limbaugh is just troubling for me. :(

A term which has a very specific meaning and has never been applied to all feminists. A feminazi is a member of the feminist movement who's over all goal is to see to it that as many abortions as possible occur. You know, like the ones who protested CBS running an ad during the Super Bowl where Tim Tebow's mom says I had a choice and I chose life. Those type of people don't have a pro-woman, pro-choice agenda, they have a pro-abortion agenda. You can count the number of feminazis in this country on two hands.

On the other side, you have idiots like Sarah Palin who actually do an interview where she actually said that she was glad she was able to choose whether to abort or not, but other women should not have that choice. The problem with defining a "femenist" is that even self-described feminists don't agree on what it means. Both Sarah Palin and NARAL define themselves as feminists, but they do not agree on most issues.

The dictionary definition only describes one type of feminist, the Classical feminist. There are also Liberal feminists, Post Modern feminists, Postcolonial feminists, Marxist feminists, Hyper feminists etc. A more complete discussion of the major subgroups is found here Until feminists can agree on what being feminist means, I find it highly doubtful that we will be able to. Ultimately, the sad thing is that you will find at least some subgroup of feminist that embodies and holds to every stereotype of feminism, both positive and negative.

I'm not sure if the OP's rant is supposed to be anti-femenism, anti-4E, or both. In any case I doubt this is the right forum for it.

I admit to being a sock puppet.

David Fryer wrote:

Mr. Fishy cracks me up, just by always refering to himself in the third person.

He's like The Rock, but ten times funnier.

I'm serious...he deserves a cult.

Now he has one.

We love Mr. Fishy!

Yah for infections!

DMs are nothing but Nazis trying to keep creative players down. We don't need them. Isn't that why the DM guide was done away with?

This is me. :)

Well it's been fun. I have to get across campus to my class on the political psychology now. Have fun you guys.

Drachesturm wrote:

Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?

See Russell's teapot.

Familiar with Russell's teapot, but I'm not sure how it applies here. I'm not demanding anything involving the burden of proof. I am simply saying that there is a certain degree of, well faith for lack of a better word, in atheism because of the lack of proof either way.

So, presuming you are a Christian, you're saying you're an anislamist? You have an active belief that islam is wrong, correct? Or an azeusist? An athorist? An afairyist? etc etc.

Atheists are prickly on this issue because from long experience when people try to classify atheism as a belief or having any component of faith, they tend to immediately make the leap to atheism=a religion just the same as any other religion, which it isn't. Basically, this has been used as a trap...

Actually I define myself as a Nordic pantheist. Where Catholics wear a cross necklace, I wear one that has Thor's hammer on it. Beyond that though, my big objection is the idea the some how belief and religion are the same and therefore atheism is somehow beyond the realm of belief. It comes across to me as if they consider themselves somehow morally superior to the rest of us because we just have belief and they have something else.

Matthew Morris wrote:

ok, we're having fundamental language problems here.

Per Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If you deny the existance of a supreme being or beings, you believe there's no such thing.

The same as not believing there's a Santa.

Believing there is no such thing and not believing there is such a thing are two different syntaxes.

Please explain how they are different in anything other than a semantic manner?

vagrant-poet wrote:

Drachesturm wrote:

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

Note the mental qualifier. If it is mental, it is a thought, without evidence or proof.

Athiesm isn't believing that your god, or gods, or ancestors, or any metaphysical quality can affect the world.

It's totally different. You seem to be assuming athiesm is the opposite of religion, i.e. beleiving that metephysics cannot affect the world.

That is not athiesm, you argument is true, but does not apply to athiesm.

Athiesm is seeing only physics and nature, there is no metaphysics, because anything that can be proven is actually natural, not supernatural.

Thus not a beleif in anything, the key error seems to be that athiesm is the disbeleif in the divine. This is not the case.

Let's go to the dictionary again.

distionary wrote:

a·the·ism NOUN:

1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

So you are trying to tell me that disbelief in the existence of one or more gods does not equate to the belief that such does not exist? Because my English teacher would disagree.

Furthermore, since you cannot prove using science that God doesn't exist, doesn't the disbelief in such a being qualify as a mental acceptence of the idea?

Drachesturm wrote:

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

Note the mental qualifier. If it is mental, it is a thought, without evidence or proof.

Athiesm isn't believing that your god, or gods, or ancestors, or any metaphysical quality can affect the world.

It's totally different. You seem to be assuming athiesm is the opposite of religion, i.e. beleiving that metephysics cannot affect the world.

That is not athiesm, you argument is true, but does not apply to athiesm.

Athiesm is seeing only physics and nature, there is no metaphysics, because anything that can be proven is actually natural, not supernatural.

Thus not a beleif in anything, the key error seems to be that athiesm is the disbeleif in the divine. This is not the case.

a·the·ism NOUN:

1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

So you are trying to tell me that disbelief in the existence of one or more gods does not equate to the belief that such does not exist? Because my English teacher would disagree.

What about SMU?

Drachesturm wrote:

vagrant-poet wrote:

No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...

Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.

I do not believe X = I believe ~X.

Qualifier: I am not trying to be snarky.

But, did you actually read the rest of my post, or just pick up on that bit? If not, I made it pretty clear why it isn't actually a beleive, or a faith.

That's right, it's not even a beleive. Because an athiest doesn't consider religion, and the question of the existance thereof, any more valid than the question will I fly to work this morning with my super powers? Or should I purchase some spray for the magical elves in my teapot?

Now, I'm not actively trying to ridicule religion, who can beleive whatever the hell you want, put beleive requires an absence of proof. There is no absence of proof for the non-existance of the divine, because it is not a concept which is provable, thusly is not 'beleif', and by the shoddy logic which is casual inference, (the backbone of the athiesm is a faith argument), if not a beleif, not a faith, then not a religion.

be·lief NOUN:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. [/b]Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something:[/b] His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

By the second definition, atheism is most certainly a belief.

By the way, belief is not the same as religion.

Firstly I beleive its the same us vs. them nonsense to imply that it would be silly for conservatives to be more charitable than democrats. no matter which way that statistic swung, who cares what political party they were? Wouldn't it be better to simply say how many americans give to charity? That actually means something.

That said, the sharper you reply to such things, the more you look like the bad guy.

Fair enough, but at the same time I was simply rebutting claims that conservatives are hypocrites for following the teachings of Christ because they do not care about helping the poor. That is demonstrably false, and I pointed that out. The second claim was that all conservatives who donate to charity did so for selfish reasons, whic can not be demonstrated as true by the poster, so I pointed that out as well and that even if there was such selfishness involved, it still doesn't explain the dichotomy between those who supposedly don't care about the poor but donate a lot to charities to help them and those who supposedly do care about the poor but don't donate as much of their own money to help the poor. It may be more of us vs. them, but us didn't start it, we just stood up for our selves.

Finally the bad guy is always going to be determined from the point of view you are coming from. Tom Brady may be a great guy, but as a Ravens fan he is always going to be the bad guy, especially when he is at his best.

But seriously, it's not the amount that counts; it's the sincerity of the action that matter; whether it be down to your last penny or an amount of your time helping out those in need.

But then the question becomes who appointed you the judge of a persons sincerity? You took it upon yourself to decide that conservatives who donate money to charities, most of whom I would guess you have never met, are not sincere in their actions. How can you know that? And personally, I believe it's the fact that the poor get helped that matters, not the motivation.

No actually, your quite totally wrong. Atheism isn't a beleive...

Actually it is. It's basic logic: a nonbelief is a belief.

<cough>and because it can be a taxable deduction</cough>

Funny thing, it still doesn't explain why the cold hearted bastards are more generous with their money than the soft hearted, caring people. Maybe some people just find it harder to share their own money then they do other peoples.

Its understandable, that religious people would see athiesm as a religion, but its not. It's like saying bald is a hair colour.

According to the DMV and the FBI it is a hair color.

Personally, I never understood why conservatives admire a guy who told everyone to turn the other cheek and give their money away to the poor :)

False sterotype much? The facts. Besides Jesus told us to do it, not leave it to the government to do.

Emphasis mine.

David Fryer wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

David Fryer wrote:

Furthermore, the Constitution is not outdated, as you suggest, but is as relevent today as it was 200 years ago when it was written. It remains that way because the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, added the ability to ammend the Constitution to deal with issues that they knew that they could not forsee, but also knew that would come up. While the process of ammending the Constitution is difficult, it is posssible, and that is what keeps the Constitution relavent.

Article Article I, Section II wrote:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Tell me again how the constitution is keeping up....

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is how the Constitution is keeping up. You would know this if you were half as smart as you think you are, particularly since in the quoted setion of my remarks, I specifically mentioned the Ammendment process.

How smart do I think I am David? Please enlighten me. Do you have some measure of how smart I think I am? Some measure of how smart I actually am?

I am certainly not as knowledgable on the constitution of the united states as i would like to be, what with being english and only having taken a relatively cursery hobby interest in it, but i also don't use language which suggests i believe that when asked why they forged the constitution, the framers answered 'god made me do it'.

I am trying to be respectful to you david. I don't agree with your politics or certain elements of the foundations of them. Rather than attacking you or your politics i have asked WHY you feel that way, asked you to justify your position. You answer well and change my mind, i don't bug you on them any more.

Ignore my questions, answer them, point out where i am wrong..but please, do not insult me as i try not to insult you.

For the record, i don't think i am smart. I can barely string a sentence together. I struggle to form a coherrant written arguement yet here i am trying, and in the company of people some of whom make me look like a babbling child. But you tell me, how much do you know about allopatric and sympatric speciation, the constitutional matters of the united kingdom, Joint European Torus experiment in nuclier fusion, the relative performance of the US and UK on numerous issues, the LHC, the poetry of Carrol Ann Duffy, the game theory, game theories applications in behavioural modeling, defensible space theory, french cinima, the lyrics of scrubbias Pip and the reproduction of the cowpea weevil. I've learned stuff about all these things and more because i don't want to be dumbest person in the room and when you can't physically understand the rules of punctuation, the only way to avoid being totally worthless is to know stuff.

Now, i am going to go re-read the amendments you cite, decide if i agree with your point or not, and either prepare a rebuttal or conceed the point to you.

I wonder what you list of thiongs has to do with anything, since David did not post a similar list of all the things he knows. Thanks to the internet and wikipedia, most anyone can learn enough about all of the to BS the average person. The only reason to create such a list is to try and convince people how smart you are, because you aren't.

I hope Gary locks this thread soon.

Dragon smurf.

Are you trying to start a flame war?

This thread kills trees.

I wish it would kill you.

Pathfinder is really WoW! It's meant to be played by munchkins! Run while you still can, they are coming for your books! D&D is dead! Dig as deep as you can so that you will be safe when the sky falls! The trolls are coming! The trolls are coming!

It should be high up in my recent history. Let me go and find it again.

Dang, Jason locked it. I didn't think I was jumping on the OP, I was just trying to make a point about thread titles. Maybe Jason meant posts other than mine, hopefully.

Happy?

Please?

Drachesturm wrote:

The game has a long tradition, dating all the way back to the Red Box which is where I first started playing, that arcane magic and armor don't mix. So I guess the question then becomes, do you want to stick with tradition or do you want a wizard that is really just a cleric with the serial numbers filled off.

Incorrect. I'm reading the Players Manual from the red box right now, and it plainly states that elves can both wear any armor and cast magic-user (arcane) spells. The Men & Monsters booklet from the original white box says the same thing. Full-plate-wearing arcane casters have been in the game since the very beginning.

Now look at the Wizard. Do they were armor? The only thing you have proven is that Elves should have a racial trait that lets elves wear armor when casting. Elves aren't a class anymore, any your comparison is like comparing apples and watermelons.

Do you know why there will never, never, never, never, be a gish in Pathfinder? Because Githyanki are not open content, that's why!

Drachesturm wrote:

Okay, so how do you want to express it? Is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities. Because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it just can't work that way.

I don't understand how you could be getting that impression....Nobody wants a full-caster with the full range of arcane powers and abilities that a wizard has, who also wears armour and knows how to handle a weapon. Nobody has suggested that at all.

You don't think a sword-swinger infusing arcane energy into every attack is enough of a concept on its own? Again, we're not asking for just a magic-user who has martial abilities. We're asking for a fighter who uses interwoven swordplay and magical energy.

He, he, he, classic.

The game has a long tradition, dating all the way back to the Red Box which is where I first started playing, that arcane magic and armor don't mix. So I guess the question then becomes, do you want to stick with tradition or do you want a wizard that is really just a cleric with the serial numbers filled off.

You don't think a sword-swinger infusing arcane energy into every attack is enough of a concept on its own? Again, we're not asking for just a magic-user who has martial abilities. We're asking for a fighter who uses interwoven swordplay and magical energy.

Okay, so how do you want to express it? Is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities. Because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it just can't work that way. I know, I know, what about the cleric? The game has a long tradition, dating all the way back to the Red Box which is where I first started playing, that arcane magic and armor don't mix. So I guess the question then becomes, do you want to stick with tradition or do you want a wizard that is really just a cleric with the serial numbers filled off.

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

There is a massive difference between the duskblade with up to 5th level spells, spell channeling better than a 12 level character spell sword from 5 th level etc etc and a hexblade.

Hexblade might be worthwhile.

Duskblade is rort candy !!

So why exactly is the duskblade a sham?

Gish is the new Drittz.

Gish is the new Drittz.

James Jacobs wrote:

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

And I probably spoke in haste... some day we might take a stab at doing a duskblade style class, but it won't be equal in power to a gestalt fighter/wizard will be. And in the short run, I'm more interested in exploring the bard and developing it via new spells and feats to allow it to fit this role.

Blech, Bards. No singing and/or dancing crap, please.

The Vikings didn't think that singing and dancing was crap, or fruity, and they are about as close to the archtypical manly man that you can find.

Anyone?

I still think he needs some levels in monk or barbarian to allow him to survive as a unarmored combatant.

Dragons, lots and lots of dragons.

I'd be glad to come up with what I think would be a decent build for that kind of character if you could post, say, what you think would be the most important and least important stats for Dar.

He's supposed to be noble and fearsome, but how would you describe his style of fighting and his style of social interaction?

Is he cunning, wise, intelligent, devious, sassy, etc?

From the sounds of it, he wouldn't have any mental dump stats, and as a melee fighter you really don't want to dump any physical stats, which gets you kind of stuck with mediocre stats all around.

Assuming 20 point buy, you'd end up with something like:

Strength 16 (after +2 for being a human)
Dexterity 14
Constitution 13
Intelligence 12
Wisdom 13
Charisma 12

Dar has always struck me as being blunt and rather up front, but his natural Charisma lets him get away with it. His fighting style seems very beast-like, uncontrolled and brutal. Maybe a level or two in barbarian. However, he is noble and trustworthy and all that crap. I almost veiw him as Tarzan meets Captain America.

You will need 13 levels of sorcerer to get scry on familiar. You may talk to your GM about subbing a spell/ability off the ranger list in return for this ability at the appropriate ranger level(13ish)

True. However, Empathic link, while it doesn't literally let you see through your familiars eyes, seems like a reasonable substatute.

Drachesturm wrote:

I'm looking to do a build that is similar to Dar from the Beastmaster t.v. series.

With that in mind, I'd say go for straight ranger, straight druid, or a combination of just those.

From the sounds of it, Dar doesn't have much magic. I'm not familiar with the series, but just a little bit of reading mentions that he got his affinity for animals from a divine demon, but not that he has any 'magic' abilities.

Straight ranger gives you a pretty good assortment of features that all correlate to what Dar seems to be all about. I'd recommend looking up Treantmonks Guide to Rangers and considering the "Switch Hitter" build he recommends. With that, you get decent ranged with whatever type of weapon you think fits the flavor (although bows are the best mechanically) and it recommends going for a 2h weapon, which could be Dars club.

Favored enemies would definitely be the types of enemies that Dar tends to fight most often, the animal companion, track, and wild empathy fit perfectly with the character you're basing it on.

On top of all that, it's generally really not worthwhile to multiclass martial and spellcasting classes, especially when you can get the full flavor without doing so.

Multiclassing with Monk would really stunt you, because they use their Monk leve as their BAB for FOB...which means you would basically not be using FOB. The character doesn't seem Lawful, more Neutral Good than anything, so that monk requirement would be a detriment.

Going with Sorcerer would give you a few useful spells but not enough to be worth it unless it REALLY fits the character or unless you invest a lot (most) of your levels in the class.

Ranger/druid wouldn't as bad, but unless Dar has the ability to shapeshift I can't see it adding enough to be worth the power loss.

Good stuff, The one thing that led me to sorcerer is that Dar can see through the eyes of his hawk companion. In the RAW that means it has to be an arcane familiar, and since Dar doesn't realy strike me as the book reading time, sorceer with the arcane bloodline seemed like a better fit.

I'm looking to do a build that is similar to Dar from the Beastmaster t.v. series.

I like it. Just out of curiosity, what are you looking for in the 500 word submission.