Hoplophobia's page

This is not about whether or not blinding critical is good or not, but about if it's a L/G approved tactic to perform on an opponent. Would blinding an enemy mid-combat not mesh well with a paladin of Iomedae and, if that's the case, what are some good critical feats that are paladin approved?

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with swords. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for that goblin, and you curse paladins. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the goblin chieftain's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at Andoran dinner parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think of my methods." -Paladin Jessep

Well, the professional way to do something like that (reverse the FAQ to make room for a replacement) would be to announce the change, explain how it's necessary in order to clear the road for a better fix, and time it to make the least impact on the player base.

Instead, they made an unannounced change to the FAQ on a Wednesday afternoon, there was one vague comment from an individual developer buried in a player created thread that isn't even in the Rules forum, and the only product I can see this change clearing the road for is two months out (and doesn't mention anything about prestige classes.) You've also got the creative director on the record as hating the previous rule and taking credit for creating a prestige class almost a year after the ruling was created with requirements that can be met for early entry despite the fact that he is vehemently against it.

Paizo's treatment of this specific situation does not inspire confidence in me that they will address our concerns at any time in the future. Much less do so soon.

Best post in the whole thread. I can't favorite this enough.

That is the correct rules ruling. But I would talk to your GM about making it not expend when you miss. I've GMed for many Monks and that and several other tweaks have helped to make the class feel more balanced and fun.

@Green

The possibility of something really weird and uncomfortable happening is high, really really high. Especially with ideas like casting uncontrollable lust on the one guy.

Consider the likelihood that something funny and entertaining will happen with the right spell choice. Everybody gets a good laugh.

Then consider how likely it is that something that makes somebody really uncomfortable happens. Then consider the consequences of that in the group dynamic.

The risk/reward is way off. It's such a bad idea.

This is a really bad idea.

I played a Wizard. Divination Specialty. I had to hold back constantly to keep from obviating whole encounters, especially as levels went on. I designed the character to be a noble pompous person who disliked doing any real effort, so mostly my character barely ever cast spells to keep me from utterly dominating the game.

I concentrated primarily on buff and utility spells while keeping a few of the encounter enders around. Crafted for the party, etc.

My cue to action was whenever the fighter or the rogue went down to start tossing out the power and save the day and end the encounter within a turn or two. Occasionally I would summon if I knew it would be a difficult fight and have them guard me to have a flexible force later to hold back enemies and drag the rogue/fighter away from danger.

I purposefully kept from using spells that would obviate whole plots or alter the narrative.

The judgement after the game was "Wizards really are not that powerful."

I had to stop myself from rolling my eyes.

Reading this thread is like chewing glass. Like...isn't this game supposed to be fun, or something? So let's try to be constructive.

The Kingmaker Kingdom in my game is ruled by a tough, no-nonsense but fair druid. Protects their people, and negotiates treaties and builds consensus within a multi-species kingdom.

Also the Druid is female, as is her player. That's never come up once.

There is a whole lot of squick factor coming out with stuff like this. Some of the depictions of monsters and creatures weird me out. Can we just stop with the Bioware 'romance' paths and sexual monsters of all types? Like that one monster in the mythic bestiary that almost made me loose my lunch. Cripes guys!

Sexual mores are so highly specific that when and how to introduce these things should not be the province of a monster manual or an AP but rather it's own, separate book that advises the GM on how to integrate these topics into their games. It's so easy to make a mistake and mishandle something and accidentally deeply offend my mixed race, gender and sexual orientation group, or creep somebody out accidentally.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible, or that it can't be done. What I am saying is that having the explanation for how to handle stuff like this buried in the statblock of a monster or in the sidebar about a relationship subsystem is not the place for it.

Instead help me and others as a GM make these people seem realistic without being stereotypes and caricatures. Get some actual real authors who are of these differing backgrounds and have them give me some real material to work with. Right now it's just something I won't touch with a ten foot pole.

Here is how I solve this problem

1) For any art that is too highly sexualized I go and find replacement art for that character/monster. If it a part of a monster's dealings I replace it with a different temptation mechanic (Power...Money..Respect, etc.)

2) NPC sexuality is if brought up, only done so in passing and without comment. Nobody in the world cares who you sleep with. (within some reason.)

3) PC sexuality is also virtually a non-factor. Monsters and NPC's react to people just about the same except in very rare cases. Both sexes and others if they are in a society that permits/encourages it dress provocatively and act as such.

4) I would be interested in reading and learning more, and being given tips on how to implement certain different themes well into my games in long form explanations written by people with good knowledge of the subject. I want to hear how best to handle a transgender character from the members of that community, etc. (EDIT: That is also a player or GM, obviously)

No idea Soluzar. I've been looking everywhere for this as well, almost all of the outdoor ones are out of print. But we keep getting more indoor locations. It makes me sad.

No offense, but I disagree that religious symbols should not be allowed on public property. As long as preferential treatment is not given to one group over annother, I have no issues with things like nativity scenes being put up in public squares. The problems come with things like these 10 commandments, which got specific approval from the legislature to be put up without accommodations being made for other faiths.

While ordinarily I'd agree with you, the problem is here that it would create all sorts of bickering and nastiness rather than being a place to celebrate diversity and freedom of religion in my state. It's best just to take the ball and go home and nip all of that in the bud.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Taking religion out of it, the 10 commandments are at least law-related.

Er...

1) I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other God before me.
2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven above, or things which are in the earth beneath.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

I'd agree that 6-10 are "law-related", though as people have mentioned, proving 'covetousness' in a court of law might be kind of hard...

It's kind of hard to avoid interpreting (1) and (3) as religious. (2) is a ban on art, so I can't argue it's not law-related. (4) is definitely a labor law. But (5) is another one that's hard to call law-related.

Are you SURE there isn't one in there about barbecue? It seems to be at every church related function.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The tyranny of the many can be just as bad as the tyranny of a few.

Well said.

Ain't that the truth? Oh, on a side note I'm fine with the statue of Baphomet. Can't say I've ever met a Satanist. Be interesting to talk to. Even talked to those crystal people, one of them owns a bookshop downtown. I don't think she convinces anybody.

I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about all of Oklahoma. Though I'm not from Oklahoma myself, I am from Texas, the D/FW area to be more specific. My grandfather is from Tulsa, and my cousin went to OU. Obviously some places and people are better than others. You obviously have mostly dealt with rational people, and that's good. But there are a bunch of religious nuts from there who get nuttier when a camera or microphone gets stuck in their face.

Don't worry yourself none. I wasn't taken offense, more just making a statement of fact. Heck I'd rather people keep looking at us that way simply so they won't bother us here. Too many east and west coasters coming out here these days for my tastes. Soccer Moms with their macrobiotic nut loaves and whatnot.

I swear she was trying to poison us.

It'll get overturned and it will get taken down and like somebody said before, a minor win for both sides so everybody can go home happy.

I bet Bob Stoops saved his job with that win.

I live in Oklahoma. I'm not Christian. I have friends of various denominations and beliefs. Nobody has ever told me I'm wrong, they have church and mind their own business, and we have our own various beliefs.

Nobody has ever really bothered me about it. When pressed I don't try to tell them they are wrong simply that I believe differently, but I believe that everybody has a right to believe what they want. They think about it for a moment, and then nod their head and then we change the subject to football.

How 'bout them Sooners?

Actually, in looking at it...Elves are a really good choice. There is an alternate race thing for Resist 5 Cold, as well as a +4 on Fortitude checks to resist a host of environmental stuff. Also add in weapon familiarity with a Longbow and low light vision and a bonus to perception.

I think I might settle on an ice elf alchemist who wants to catch 'em all (Preservationist archetype)

Draconic, Gnome also caught my eye for Druid because of the favored class bonus of getting 1 point of energy resistance per level Cold being the obvious choice.

I was also looking at the Grippli. Getting proficient in Nets and a climb speed probably isn't a bad thing.

My dwarf ranger bit the dust in the first game. So now I am looking at either a Druid, or a Summoner to be a bit of a melee tank.

The Wild Caller Summoner caught my eye, as sort of a Summoner/Druid hybrid type Eidolon. 25 point buy, so I'm not sure...

The Dwarf Ranger is a good choice. Even have a good picture of a Dwarvish Mountaineer to be their guide into the northern reaches. It's a good mix of combat ability and skills with a definite weakness in playing nice with others.

I'll just keep my Paladin on hand for a more traditional AP perhaps. Thanks for the input everybody!

I'll toss in another vote for that position, for what my opinion's worth. What really bothers me about this issue is that the Devs seem to keep make this same mistake over and over, without learning from it or taking steps to address it. Everyone can make a mistake once, but when they keep making the same mistake over and over, it says to me that there's a bigger issue. Free actions, wielding, spell-like abilities, and breaking the mounted combat rules to stop Rage-Lance-Pounce are all obvious (and infamous) examples I can think of at a moment's notice, and I'm not even especially active on the boards.

Sure, a reasonable GM can work around the problematic FAQs, but most reasonable GMs also know how to deal with ridiculously overpowered builds without needing an FAQ in the first place.

I'm starting to suspect there might be a groupthink issue with the Paizo Devs, and they're in need of someone whose job it is to look at potential rulings and go "Maybe we shouldn't..."

Seriously wish I could double favorite posts.

A Paladin would depend on how he or she is played. Lawful Stupid won't survive. Good and with a strong dose of obeying the dictates of the church probably will.

You might be better off with either a Ranger or a Barbarian. The cold environments you're in will make work with a Ranger, and Barbarians tend to do well with this environment thematically as well. Also, don't underestimate the usefulness of a Wizard or Sorcerer in the game; though if your undecided player goes that route then definitely go with a combatant-type.

A Ranger could be interesting for sure. I guess the favored terrain choices are obvious!

EDIT: Looking at a Dwarf Ranger type for sure then.

Hello everybody! I was just recently invited to a group to start playing Reign of Winter. The problem is, I'm not quite sure on what character would work out for that. The group currently consists of a Rogue and a Cleric, with one other player undecided and me.

My current thoughts are, either a melee focused Paladin (Lay on Handiman build) or either a Zen Archer monk, and I was wondering how Lawful Good can do during this campaign.

Thanks a bunch in advance for any advice or tips.

Yes, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Run by students, dedicated (explicitly) to exploring the conservative and libertarian side of legal issues. What an incredibly balanced article you've found. Kates and Mauser represent a tiny minority viewpoint on the subject - the journal they chose to publish in (or the journal which chose to publish them) is telling. Don Kates used to teach and conduct research at The Independent Institute, a conservative think-tank. He now works as a civil rights lawyer representing complaints against gun control. Mauser's academic pedigree is a little more balanced, but that may just be my own bias speaking. He and I are products of the same Criminology department at UCI.

What's important is that the academic community has come to a clear consensus on the subject. The fact that four or five researchers (with obvious ties to overall conservative ideology) disagree doesn't change anything.

So, not even bothering to read it, or to point out flaws in their arguments. Just throw a little mud, since they believe differently from you any evidence they quote must be wrong, and not worthy of review or consideration.

No, what is important is that you've neglected to refute anything, or to bring a substantial burden of actual proof in arguing for an abridgement of rights. Instead it's dismissing any proof, be it Switzerland, the studies of murder rates in European countries cited in that review, or anywhere that a position held dear *might* possibly be wrong.

I keep telling myself I have to stop posting on these forums. It's not worth the time or the effort. Have a good day everyone.

They're not "A few trained men with rusty AK's, and minimal supplies". They're a few experienced men with a good deal of support from the local population, in their native countries, with a good supply network from outside. The AKs are almost incidental. The main weapons are IEDs, mortars, SAM and similar toys. The AKs are for terrorizing civilians.

And in both Vietnam and Afghanistan, they weren't just civilians who took up arms. In one case they were a nationalist anti-colonial revolutionary army that had been fighting for decades before the US was directly involved and controlled half the country. In Afghanistan they were, against both the US and the USSR, the remnants of the former government forces.

But keep playing your Red Dawn fantasies. I'm sure you'll save us all from tyranny one of these days.

My "Red Dawn" fantasies are nothing of the sort, it would be a nightmare of a struggle. Nobody sane wants a civil war, it would be an ugly affair, as it has always been.

Oh yes, Afghanistan had plenty of "former government forces." The Afghan army fell apart the moment the soviet invasion happened. The central government infact requested soviet support to deal with the guerrillas inside of the country. Only when the Soviets believed that the central government was doing such a bad job, did they invade. Most of the regular afghan army stayed loyal initially. But hey, that's okay. No need to know any history. It wasn't the clan loyalties, or the poorly equipped religious fundamentalists that flooded into Afghanistan to fight the godless soviets.

And how exactly did the Vietnamese come to control half the country, and force the French withdrawal and American intervention? I'm sure a regular North Vietnamese army just appeared, fully equipped and ready to fight and well trained. Not to mention we'll just ignore the completely irregular Viet Cong. Mortars and Improvised Explosive Devices can be manufactured rather easily, that is why of course, guerrillas love to use them. IED's having the word "improvised" right in them.

EDIT: Here is the Free Syrian Army, a Guerrilla outfit, manufacturing their own Mortars and Shells in a small garage:

http://www.military.com/video/guns/mortars/fsa-mortar-manufacturing-plant/2 101216796001/

Tell us about it.

I think you're the one arguing for an abridgement of rights. So you're going to have to bring some real evidence, and not just name some studies and provide an interpretation of them for us, and not give us access to these studies you are positing as proof for denial of rights.

For instance, it might do you good to actually read an entire scholarly article and not just quote the splashy byline that is on Brady webpage. For instance, actually reading say...the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.p df

Is a real good start.

Switzerland is very different from the US, and trying to claim that they are the same is rediculous.

1. They are not paranoid with their militia. They give training through mandatory service to the military for use of their firearms, and are not an unorganized citizen mob, like it would be in the US.

2. The citizens are considered an active part of the national defense. The US has a national defense force in its standing military. Switzerland's neighbors could realisticly field enough forces to attack them, and an armed mobilizable infantry would be useful.
In the US, first none of our neighbors can field a significant threat to our military. In fact, it would take a combined global effort with years of manufacturing to do so. If a hostile nation invested enough resources to do so, the US would notice and be able to mobilize its active military, and if necessary recruit into its active military, long before any threat that a citizen militia could influence could actually surface.

Next, you bring in the argument that an armed citizenry could do anything against a government that has stepped out of bounds. Short of assassinating leaders, which would only justify the anti-gun laws to most people and solidfy the government's power grab, no, we cannot. The only hope we have to prevent such a power grab would be if the military itself defects away from the government, as has happened in pretty much every revolution in the past 100 years. If they don't, any armed citizen wouldn't stand a chance. It is delusional to think that citizens armed with the trivial weaponry that they can afford would be able to be much more than a speed bump to the modern military.

Finally, you bring in the rediculous slippery slope argument. In case you haven't noticed, having gun rights hasn't prevented bad things like indefinete detentions or warrantless surveillance. The government is proceeding with ever encroaching powers in other areas regardless of if you have guns. Those are different battles, and ones I will gladly be on your side for, but we do not need guns, nor do they help, in arguing for those rights.

Are you kidding me? "They are not paranoid with their militia?" What does that even mean? That somehow if a person owns a firearm they are paranoid somehow?

A few trained men with rusty AK's, and minimal supplies have and continue to play merry hell with the American military. This has happened since Vietnam. The Afghans forced the Soviet army to retreat with minimal supplies and weapons, often using WW1 era weapons versus an enemy who routinely employed advanced technology and chemical weapons.

The lack of appreciation and understanding for history is astonishing.

Reading this thread makes me think that government could press for any restriction of freedom after a "crisis" and people would just go along with it regardless of whatever facts, and historical precedent is brought as evidence.

It's depressing to see people so ready to throw away liberty at the illusion of "safety", let alone the reality of it.

The "rediculous" slippery slope argument. That is funny, because how have your legal and political options done so far on that front either? Just as ineffective. A popular revolution is not something that would happen at a moment's notice. Right now, such abridgments of rights are "selectively" applied to certain persons, but nobody can guarantee that it will remain that way. Force is not something to be used at the drop of a hat, but as an absolute last resort against a regime that has lost it's legitimacy and is acting abusively.

I'm not some camo wearing frothing at the mouth anti-governmental type. I'm worried about the direction of things over the last decade, the excessive concentration of power in the executive and lack of respect for the constitution's restrictions on such power.

It's not a "different" battle. It's the exact same thing. Where one man or woman's rights are ignored or abused, my own rights are diminished. Especially when it is done with hysteria, and quickly and without thought. For it is far too easy for such laws to have unintended consequences.

Hoplophobia wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Hoplophobia wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?

That actually already exists, my friend. Many many states bar persons found to be some degree of mentally ill from firearm purchases. The exact wording depends on your state, but many are for a person who has been admitted to a mental health institution, willingly or unwillingly. However the detection and preventative mental health measures are awful.

Often, a person goes untreated for so long and self medicates with things like drugs or alcohol, which only makes the problem worse. So when it finally boils over it is much more likely to be a catastrophic event than something that can be treated and dealt with.

And many states don't send records to the national database. And the NRA fought long and hard to keep those checks as weak as possible. Though, in the wake of Newton, they're pushing it as a panacea, probably to forestall any more serious measures.

And of course, private sales are excluded. And no records are allowed to be kept.

No, you are wrong. NICS is reported to when a person is adjudicated as mentally defective, or has been committed to a mental institution. Psychologists and Hospitals as well as other state agencies call into NICS all the time to report a person.

My first job was selling firearms, and more than once I've had NICS not give authorization to sell the person a weapon.

How does your argument that your state laws on firearm sales in whatever 1 state you are from negate his argument that many states do not require background checks for firearms? Because many states have no significant laws on firearm sales, especially when not...

It's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people don't even know the facts and make wild statements about the NRA and other people. NICS gets calls from Psychologists, Law Enforcement, Hospitals, all the time in ALL states. ANYBODY can call into NICS and present a case to deny a person the purchase of a firearm.

This frequently happens on an emergency basis. The person who then wishes to purchase a firearm must file an appeal, to get the NICS ban overturned and to purchase their firearm.

"In addition to local, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily contributing information to the NICS Index, the NICS Section receives telephone calls from mental health institutions, psychiatrists, police departments, and family members requesting placement of individuals into the NICS Index. Frequently, these are emergency situations and require immediate attention. Any documentation justifying a valid entry into the NICS Index must be available to the originating agencies. "

From the FBI NICS page.

Hoplophobia wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?

That actually already exists, my friend. Many many states bar persons found to be some degree of mentally ill from firearm purchases. The exact wording depends on your state, but many are for a person who has been admitted to a mental health institution, willingly or unwillingly. However the detection and preventative mental health measures are awful.

Often, a person goes untreated for so long and self medicates with things like drugs or alcohol, which only makes the problem worse. So when it finally boils over it is much more likely to be a catastrophic event than something that can be treated and dealt with.

And many states don't send records to the national database. And the NRA fought long and hard to keep those checks as weak as possible. Though, in the wake of Newton, they're pushing it as a panacea, probably to forestall any more serious measures.

And of course, private sales are excluded. And no records are allowed to be kept.

No, you are wrong. NICS is reported to when a person is adjudicated as mentally defective, or has been committed to a mental institution. Psychologists and Hospitals as well as other state agencies call into NICS all the time to report a person.

My first job was selling firearms, and more than once I've had NICS not give authorization to sell the person a weapon.

And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?

That actually already exists, my friend. Many many states bar persons found to be some degree of mentally ill from firearm purchases. The exact wording depends on your state, but many are for a person who has been admitted to a mental health institution, willingly or unwillingly. However the detection and preventative mental health measures are awful.

Often, a person goes untreated for so long and self medicates with things like drugs or alcohol, which only makes the problem worse. So when it finally boils over it is much more likely to be a catastrophic event than something that can be treated and dealt with.

Hoplophobia,

So you're basic argument is that Americans are just more violent and bloodthirsty than the Swiss which is why your crime stats are so much worse, even thoughthey also have guns. So it's not the guns that are the problems, it's that Americans have them. Ok, I can go along with that but I don't think it's helping your case that much.

No. My argument would be that we have a mental health system in this country that is downright abhorrent (One of my friends went through it) and the only reason he has anything like a normal life now is because his mother refused to give up on him for five years of therapy and meds and of course, his family was rich. He now lives as a normal, well-adjusted person while on his particular cocktail of medications.

He fears however, telling anybody about it because of the stigma associated with mental health.

That's an irrelevant question. However the militia got it's weapons the key phrase here is "well regulated" which means a militia that's policed with rules regarding usage and conduct. Something other than a gun toting lynch mob.

Interesting. So people who own firearms are immediately part of some racist mob? That's fascinating. Please, tell me more.

Hoplophobia wrote:

And of course, we all known that Switzerland which lets young men carry home fully automatic assault rifles, subsidizes the sale of ammunition to the civilian populace and sponsors gun clubs, the gun murder rate in Switzerland is off the charts! Bern is even worse than Chicago!

Oh wait...except, it isn't. Strange that.

And on this day, Hoplophobia single-handedly dismantled the gun control movement by mentioning Switzerland, which had definitely never been done before!

Globally, lax gun control and widespread firearm ownership are positively correlated with levels of violent crime.

Oh yeah! Gosh darn those inconvenient facts getting in the way of my anti-gun arguments! We'll just ignore those, and anything else that complicates the issue. A nation with a strong gun culture of ownership, with that 'paranoid' militia concept that seems to be despised so much by Caineach.

And then we'll make a definitive statement with no sort of evidence to back it up, about those evil black folding stock barrel shroud assault banana clip weapons do evil evil things, and nothing bad would ever happen to anybody if we just gave a little more of our rights to the government to deal with this one *emergency*.

And then, for the next *emergency* well, then we'll have to have permanent detention without trial in a place like Guantanamo. And then maybe we'll have warrantless surveillance, or extrajudicial drone killings of US citizens without trial.

I mean, the government would never abuse the power it's been given, obviously. That's never happened before in human history, or say within the last ten years. Nope.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Youre right, one's usuage of one's rights is limited. One cant yell "fire', just like one cant murder people. What we dont do is straight up ban certain words from ever being spoken

Actually we can and do... in public spaces, such as media. ergo the Seven Forbidden Words for TV and Radio.

And again, the Second Amendment does not address bacon, and I really don't care to address strawman hypotheticals. This is the text of the Second Amendment.

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In both versions the right to bear arms is specifically defined as being justified in the keeping of a "well regulated militia". You can't selectively ignore that part of the Amendment. The Amendment was never written with private ownership and carriage being it's primary target.

Then pray tell, where was the Militia supposed to get their arms and equipment? A militia is meant to muster with it's equipment and arms at a moment's notice to respond to threats, foreign and domestic. The whole reason of having a militia is to have a reserve of equipped men or fighting age that are not in the regular army. Militia units routinely provided their own equipment, even including more expensive items like horses in some cases.

The Militia in Switzerland has all members keep their weapons at home, for obvious reasons.

And of course, we all known that Switzerland which lets young men carry home fully automatic assault rifles, subsidizes the sale of ammunition to the civilian populace and sponsors gun clubs, the gun murder rate in Switzerland is off the charts! Bern is even worse than Chicago!

Oh wait...except, it isn't. Strange that. Or that the anti-gun paradise that was the Soviet Union with it's all powerful secret police had one of the highest murder rates ever seen, despite it's ban on evil black assault clip folding stock baby killing dum-dum rounds.

That is because both of those fears are not valid or reasonable.

Caineach, Tuvia Bielski would like to disagree.

Hi there, I'm looking for anybody who has suggestions for a good riding donkey mini, or perhaps another mount for a small character? Perhaps a small pony that I could pass off?

The pathos!

Oh, okay Cheapy. I was just wondering if a Dev somewhere had actually said they were for NPC's or something. But you are right, it really does not make sense.

Yeah, that is what I saw blackblood, I may just stick with Gozreh.

NPC Focused? Does somebody actually spend the time rolling out what an NPC Alchemist Shopkeeper would be able to produce in X time?

Also. Are the mundane alchemical item crafting rules really as bad as they appear to be? Like taking ages to craft basic alchemical stuff while spellcasters are cranking out potions and scrolls all over the place?

Neutral Good. Nethys is an interesting idea. Hrm. Thanks for that link, Cheapy.

I need some help. I am currently playing a Ratfolk Alchemist and can't decide on a god for him. Which god would you think would appeal to an Alchemist more? Right now I'm on Gozreh, but open to suggestions. Is there somebody obvious I am missing?

For instance, there are plenty of light Monk weapons that the Monk is already proficient with that either have a bigger damage die, or have other abilities. Such as the Nunchaku, Siangham, etc.

It's just an odd design choice. It's like somebody thought that a monk being able to TWF with short swords would be OP, so they had to make a nerfed monk shortsword. But then made a bunch of other weapons that are just as good as a short sword.

It's not so much it not making sense to the actual weapon. But more than it occupies a niche that seems to serve no logical purpose that even more than that, requires the one class that might use it to spend a feat on it.

Oh, sure enough. My bad on that. Still...I don't understand the point of these weapons. The only thing still going for them over the bog standard dagger is the monk quality. And the monk would have to blow a feat on them just to be proficient with them.

All Pathfinders are required to be Vegans?

While the OP was unnecessarily confrontational, they do sorta raise a good point. Why even bother making stats for this weapon and naming it when anybody with good sense would just use a dagger or a short sword and call it a "butterfly sword."

It is literally worse in almost every single way to a dagger. It costs 20gp to the dagger's 2gp, it does only slashing, while the dagger does piercing and slashing and can be thrown. The dagger is a simple weapon, and the butterfly sword martial.

The single thing it has is the monk quality, and something about being able to separate them as a free action. What is even the point of this thing? Does anybody even use them? If so, why?

Also: The Butterfly Sword isn't a light weapon. So you can't even TWF with something that seems to be implied to be used in pairs.

I've already addressed these questions with the Devs, and they are all in agreement: any natural attack provided from magic items (helm, ring, cloak, or whatever) would all gain the benefits of the amulet of mighty fists.

Really? I would greatly appreciate a link. Mostly because I am hoping this might shed light on the AOMF and bypassing DR with natural weapons, etc.

master arminas wrote:

Quote:

Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists allow unarmed strikes and natural attacks to bypass DR based on its enhancement bonus like magic weapons do?

One word. Three or two letters. That is all it would take to put this to bed.

Ha. Yeah, that's all it will take.

That is all it would take here too. My DM currently does not allow AOMF to overcome DR because there is no yes or no answer and the one dev comments that it does not. So I have to put my monks and more importantly natural weapon fighters on the shelf and go back to playing what PF wants me to play. A guy with high strength wielding a weapon in two hands with power attack.

This comment makes me happy ;)

Shock I know, STR Ranger made a guide that is not about TWF.
But in my defense Magai kinda do it via slash/slash+spell.

I'm glad. People who do guides are a big help to those of us who are optimizationaly challenged.

Magus is basically the ultimate TWF fighter, just in a different way. That build dipping White Haired Witch from Mathwei is very interesting for sure.

Me and Mathwei did a hexcrafter guide. Check it out and you'll see why

Reading this now. Why isn't this on Guide to the Guides? You've been holding out on me, Str Ranger! My TWF Ranger would never of worked without your help.

This is good stuff about the Magus that I hadn't considered. I always thought the Black Blade was weaker, but in looking at it...it may not.

Is the dervish dancing dex based scimitar Magus still the best choice?

Jessica Price wrote:

That won't ease the pain of last night.

Greenbay fan?

I'm a fan of the game of Football and last night hurt. It was a joke, an insult to the players that put their bodies on the line every single week. To put them at risk like that after the constant trumpeting about player safety to now have things like incompetent refs missing call after call after call when it comes to things like late hits.

Refs blatantly missed cheap shots in that Hawks/Greenbay game. Chop blocking was going on all over the field and in other games. It's an embarrassment

Even more of an embarrassment is the way the NFL pretends like we're too stupid to know what really happened on that play. That statement about "yeah it was pass interference, but other than that the call was a-okay" was a joke. We love the NFL but eventually, a breaking point will come.

If you put money on these games, it might of already come.