Paul DiAndrea's page

I agree with Nightwish that HOVER requires a MOVE action. The FLY skill clearly states that use of the FLY skill is either as a REACTION or as part of a MOVE action.

HOVERing is clearly not a reaction, so therefore it is a MOVE. It is a flight maneuver (just like sharp turns) and requires some amount of concentration and coordination on the part of the flyer.

This means that if you want to FLY and do a FULL ATTACK action, then you need the HOVER feat (which allows the user to HOVER without a FLY check) or you need to use a spell like AIRWALK which treats air like solid ground in regards to movement.

I know someone will say "What about a 5 ft step?". Taking a 5 ft step while flying means you are no longer HOVERing, but you are now moving less then half your FLY speed which also requires a FLY check as part of your 5ft step.

Anyone notice that the financially stable governments like Canada and Sweden are also the ones with the higher tax rates? And countries with 0% corporate tax like Ireland are financially unstable?

You're cherry picking examples. Greece, Italy, and Spain have pretty high tax rates and are all on the verge of financial collapse.

The difference is efficency of their government, not the rate at which they tax.

Caineach wrote:

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

And actually, when people only get to keep 9 cents on the dollar they hire more. A lot more.

Why would anyone invest in anything if they only got to keep 9 cents on every dollar of profit? You're not thinking rationally and have absolutely no clue about the basic principals of economics.

Businesses would collapse en masse.

Too easy. Once you get so far in debt, creditors stop loaning you money because you are increasingly unlikely to pay them back. No one loans money to a government that can't pay them back. So your idea of unlimited government borrowing is flat out wrong. Just ask Greece. At least the EU can bailout Greece because its so small; there is not enough money on this earth to bail out the US if it goes bankrupt.

So if the government is so in debt and can't borrow anymore money, then collapse is not a gloom and doom scenario, its an actual reality.

Now if you cant borrow money, you can always print it, but then those dollars you print become worth even less, so eventually daily items like milk cost $20 bucks a gallon and people's retirement savings become completely worthless.

Paul DiAndrea wrote:

I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.

Arcane Mark could be a Symbol of Death when you tell your companions to hit the guy with "D-Bag" written on his forehead! :) Fireballs away...

Not ridiculous at all if you read some the absurd interpretations people stated in this thread. Its a 1st level spell, there's only so much power the designers intended for it to have, or else it would be far higher in level.

I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.

Paul DiAndrea wrote:

You are right, the succubus absolutely could ordee the mother to kill her children if the mother was convinced/deceived they were demons. But the succubus could not just simply tell the mother to kill her children outright without deceiving her first, because the charm will not invaildate the charmed individual's (the mother) prior allegiances. (as stated on page 561 that you should read)

I'm looking at the rules for charms & compulsions. It doesn't say what you say it says.

Charms & Compulsions wrote:

Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.

Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.

A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go

...

What part of what I wrote was wrong? As stated in the rules, a CHARM will not invalidate the target's prior allegiances and retains his original alignment(try readiing the rules you just copied and pasted before calling me out). Meaning, charmed or not, mommy still loves her babies and if she's good in alignment, and killing her babies KNOWINGLY is against her alignment. She would also be violently opposed to harming her own children. So without deception of some sort, you're gonna have a hell of a time just asking mommy to do it outright with your first level charm spell.

Selgard wrote:

Again with the Ally thing. Drowning your children? A no go.

Using charm to get you to murder strangers, rob from people and all that- fine. But using charm to get you to kill your loved ones, friends, and such?
I guess it depends on how you define "ally".

Dictionary.com says as its 2nd definition:
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

IMO? It wouldn't work.

-S

See that's the thing. The Succubus is using the skill Diplomacy to convince the mother her children aren't children, that they have, instead, been replaced by demons. Once she is convinced they are demons, then the Succubus orders the mother to drown the demons, not her children.

You are right, the succubus absolutely could ordee the mother to kill her children if the mother was convinced/deceived they were demons. But the succubus could not just simply tell the mother to kill her children outright without deceiving her first, because the charm will not invaildate the charmed individual's (the mother) prior allegiances and it is an action that she would be viloently opposed to. If you want people to do crazy crap against their alignment and allegiances with CHARM, you basically need to lie to them first so you alter their perception of a situation. OMG..that might lead to ROLE-PLAYING.

Tels wrote:

Paul DiAndrea wrote:

Alot of good points in this debate. I try to follow the rules as closely as written myself, but I find CHARM PERSON to be written a bit too vague to cover all possible situations. I house-rule it this way to keep it balanced and clear for the players to understand:

CHARM PERSON will allow you to influence someone like you were their trusted ally, but you can't make them knowingly violate their alignment. For example: if you CHARM a Paladin and you want him to kill his mother, you would first need to convince him that what he is seeing is not really his mother, but a goblin in disguise and so he should kill the goblin who looks like his mother. But you couldnt simply say "kill your mother" or the Paladin simply wont do it because it violates his alignment. CHARM PERSON makes people susceptible to your suggestion, but it doesnt change who they are alignment-wise.

DOMINATE PERSON gives you complete control and will allow you to force them into performing actions that are against their alignment. In this case, you can actually just tell the Paladin to kill his mother, no lying or convincing needed. DOMINATE effectively suspends the targets alignment when receiving your orders.

This method/interpretation has always worked great for me as GM and its easy for the players to understand.

That's a fair house-rule, though it is a house-rule. I do like it though. I may adopt this as my own, do you mind?

However, when debating rule mechanics, house-rules aren't a factor.

Feel free to steal it. Even as a house rule, you'll find that it's remarkably within the boundaries of the rules for "Charms and Compulsions" on page 561 of the core rulebook. Although I admit, it is still a house rule, but I wouldnt be surprised if the dev's decision isnt remarkably similar in interpretation.

You are right, the succubus absolutely could ordee the mother to kill her children if the mother was convinced/deceived they were demons. But the succubus could not just simply tell the mother to kill her children outright without deceiving her first, because the charm will not invaildate the charmed individual's (the mother) prior allegiances. (as stated on page 561 that you should read)

Paul DiAndrea wrote:

Alot of good points in this debate. I try to follow the rules as closely as written myself, but I find CHARM PERSON to be written a bit too vague to cover all possible situations. I house-rule it this way to keep it balanced and clear for the players to understand:

CHARM PERSON will allow you to influence someone like you were their trusted ally, but you can't make them knowingly violate their alignment. For example: if you CHARM a Paladin and you want him to kill his mother, you would first need to convince him that what he is seeing is not really his mother, but a goblin in disguise and so he should kill the goblin who looks like his mother. But you couldnt simply say "kill your mother" or the Paladin simply wont do it because it violates his alignment. CHARM PERSON makes people susceptible to your suggestion, but it doesnt change who they are alignment-wise.

DOMINATE PERSON gives you complete control and will allow you to force them into performing actions that are against their alignment. In this case, you can actually just tell the Paladin to kill his mother, no lying or convincing needed. DOMINATE effectively suspends the targets alignment when receiving your orders.

This method/interpretation has always worked great for me as GM and its easy for the players to understand.

That's a fair house-rule, though it is a house-rule. I do like it though. I may adopt this as my own, do you mind?

However, when debating rule mechanics, house-rules aren't a factor.

Feel free to steal it. Even as a house rule, you'll find that it's remarkably within the boundaries of the rules for "Charms and Compulsions" on page 561 of the core rulebook. Although I admit, it is still a house rule, but I wouldnt be surprised if the dev's decision isnt remarkably similar in interpretation.

I think you guys should all go read the section titled "Charm and Compulsion" in the core rulebook on page 561. It clarifies many of the points being argued. For example:

A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming character as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions. (So asking someone to kill their loved ones wont work because he retains his allegiances).

It also states that if a charmed character is commanded to do something he would be violently opposed to (such as harming a loved one), the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.

Go read it and you'll likely get some new insights on the discussion.

Alot of good points in this debate. I try to follow the rules as closely as written myself, but I find CHARM PERSON to be written a bit too vague to cover all possible situations. I house-rule it this way to keep it balanced and clear for the players to understand:

CHARM PERSON will allow you to influence someone like you were their trusted ally, but you can't make them knowingly violate their alignment. For example: if you CHARM a Paladin and you want him to kill his mother, you would first need to convince him that what he is seeing is not really his mother, but a goblin in disguise and so he should kill the goblin who looks like his mother. But you couldnt simply say "kill your mother" or the Paladin simply wont do it because it violates his alignment. CHARM PERSON makes people susceptible to your suggestion, but it doesnt change who they are alignment-wise.

DOMINATE PERSON gives you complete control and will allow you to force them into performing actions that are against their alignment. In this case, you can actually just tell the Paladin to kill his mother, no lying or convincing needed. DOMINATE effectively suspends the targets alignment when receiving your orders.

This method/interpretation has always worked great for me as GM and its easy for the players to understand.

Oh, and before it was called "Mexican American Studies", it was called "La Raza Studies". "La Raza" stands for "the Race" in Spanish. And here's another video that shows the racist agenda they were teaching in this class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Ha5ZQGJ-w&feature=related

You guys should stop taking headlines at face value and look a little deeper. Just from the headline, it makes it seem that Arizona schools are trying to deny these children the chance to learn based on some fascist agenda.

What you don't understand is that the teachers who were teaching these Mexican Studies programs were actually teaching these kids to hate based on cultural differences instead of giving them a proper education about Mexican culture. Unfortunately, the only fair way to stop these whacko teachers from delivering their message to impressionable youth is to suspend ALL ethnic studies so no one can claim MExican Studies was unduly singled out. You can't fire the teachers because the teacher's union wont let you. Here's a few of the topics being taught under the guise of "Mexican Cultural Studies":

1. Hispanic students refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance
2. Hispanic students accuse America of stealing Mexican land (claiming Nex Mexico and Arizona are stolen Mexican lands)
3. Hispanic students calling White Americans racists
4. Hispanic students refusing to speak English

Do these seem like healthy topics to teach impressionable children? These facts of the curriculum are not in dispute. Here's also a video link to testimony from a teacher in an Arizona school who witnessed these behaviors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT4FHUet988

You see, they gave the class a benign name (Mexican Cultural Studies), but they are actually teaching more than just Mexican Culture, they are teaching a political agenda geared dividing people through racial hatred. Its no different than if I started a class called "White Cultural Studies" and then taught that Jews were the cause of white folk's problems. So before you all jump up and down and swear that Nazism is sweeping back into style, you may be surprised to learn that the people preaching racial hatred are actually some of the teachers in this class and not the administration. WHat you are seeing is the administrations attempt to stop kids from being indoctrinated into prejudicial behaviors. SO you may not lilke their approach, but you also need to come to terms that what was being taught was not just "Mexican Cultural Studies", it was racial division and prejudice.

Gailbraithe wrote:

I also think it's going to be very, very hard to find decent GMs for 4E. There doesn't seem to much reward for running the game. Almost all of the creative power the DM traditionally has has been stripped away, and there no support for doing any of the things that players can't do in computer games.

Gailbraithe, can you elaborate on the above statement? I thought 4th was meant to give the DM more power the easy create adversaries (easy monster creation) and social & skill based encounters (skill checks).

I do not have the books, so this is a real question.

I consider 3.5 to be a superior game system in all aspects, but one critique I have of 3.5 is that the rules were not organized well which increased the learning curve for new DM's and I think frustrated some people. In 4e they did a good job of organizing things cleanly.

I ran 4e for the 1st time the other day. Its not bad, but its not great. If you like a game with lots of depth, play 3.5. If you just want to sit down and play a hack and slash WoW-style, than play 4e. Its a simplified version of 3.5 IMO with some tweaks to encourage faster play.

I ran 3.5 since it came out and played WoW for 3 years as a raiding guild leader. It's way too much like an MMO for my taste. I personally think that 4e is just a setup so Hasbro can eventually start their own MMO.

All the abilities remind of the bars you set up in your WoW interface. The old school players will play 3.5 and Pathfinder. The new people will play 4.0.