Simon Legrande's page

So this has been a big story today.

Here's what I'd like to know: why do these people believe they've found a possible way to treat autism instead of coming to the conclusion that autism is over-diagnosed? With only seven cases, and the doctors saying no conclusions should be drawn, why is it such major news? Is it really, truly that necessary to tell parents to pay attention to their children?

They say 1:68 children has some form of autism, am I the only one who sees that as utterly ludicrous? Am I the only one who thinks too many people just want a drug to make the problems go away?

To be COMPLETELY CLEAR - I am not saying I don't believe in autism. I'm sure the severe cases prove the existence of a disorder. What I'm saying is, I hate the concept of autism spectrum disorder blah blah blah because it detracts attention from a real serious issue.

Relevant, non-snarky, serious discussion thoughts?

Disclaimer: I'm 41 and I have ADD (not ADHD), my 14-year-old son has ADD (not ADHD). This is another thing that I have accepted has a name, but do not really agree that it is something that needs to be treated.

So I'm a bit of a philosophy buff. I find myself mostly aligned with existential/absurdist thought, but I always enjoy coming across those quotes that make you think a littler deeper. I'll give a couple of my favorites, please pile on.

"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M C Escher

"Speaking and writing is an ever renewed struggle to be both apposite and intelligible, and every word that is finally uttered is a confession of our incapacity to do better; but each time we have finished saying something and let it stand, we tacitly imply also that this says what we mean and should mean it therefore also to the listener or reader." - Michael Polanyi

As an experiment I'm doing a complete overhaul of the classes, just starting with the core classes for now. This experiment involves throwing out all of the current character classes and remaking them into four new base classes. There will be two full martial classes and two full casting classes. Now to the point where I'm seeking opinions.

I'm finding it a bit redundant to have both animal companions and familiars. The two casting classes will be Holy Mage (cleric, druid, some paladin) and Mystic Mage (wizard, sorcerer, some bard), my questions are this:

Would it make sense to keep only the animal companion feature available to any caster and remove the familiar?
Would it make sense to keep only the familiar feature available to any caster and remove the animal companion?
Would it make sense for the Holy Mage to keep animal companions and the Mystic Mage to keep familiars?

I'm just seeking feedback and am willing to hear all positions/suggestions. I don't want this to turn into a shouting match, it's really just some input on a major house rule.

Why wouldn't the Magus have some protection spells on the spell list? I get that he's basically a blaster but he gets Stoneskin, Blur, and Mirror Image. Here's hoping Protection from Energy and Protection from Alignment spells get added by release. Or would that give them too much protection?

The question is: why put more than 1 rank in a perform skill? Distraction and Countersong are the only two things that rely on the perform check, everything else is a level + Cha check. So, is there a reason, other than fluff, to put more than 1 rank in any perform skill?

I know the RAW say the rogue's Bleeding Attack cause the target to bleed for 1 point per sneak attack die and that the bleed is untyped damage that bypasses DR. My group recently house ruled that if a caster/rogue hits with an elemental damage spell with a bleeding attack we would have the bleed damage be the same type as the element used (mainly because we couldn't see being splashed by acid or scorched by fire causing bleeding). I'm just curious if anyone else out there uses a similar house rule, or maybe something else. Or does everyone just stick with RAW?