1
Handbook Discussion / Re: X Stat to Y Bonus Discussion Thread
« on: December 07, 2019, 02:39:48 PM »
Everything that isn't a feat has been added. I don't have time for those now and will have to add them later.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Off Topic Fun / Re: Awesome stuff you have to share, V4
« on: December 05, 2019, 05:07:43 PM »
The money stuff isn't about him being too rich, it is about foreign dignitaries spending money at resorts and hotels that his family owns.
There is no such thing as too rich for a politician in the US.
Edit: Also, there's a public 300 page report that is being used to draft the articles of impeachment if you want to fully get into it
There is no such thing as too rich for a politician in the US.
Edit: Also, there's a public 300 page report that is being used to draft the articles of impeachment if you want to fully get into it
4
Off Topic Fun / Re: Awesome stuff you have to share, V4
« on: December 05, 2019, 08:29:46 AM »
To be fair, Clinton wasn't impeached for the sexual misconduct. He was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of Justice because he lied under oath and covered it up.
5
Off Topic Fun / Re: Awesome stuff you have to share, V4
« on: December 04, 2019, 09:25:21 PM »As someone whom has lived through two presidential impeachments (and the left here has been threatening to make the third a reality) it is somewhat amusing to me to see americans losing their shit over what passes for Trump's impeachment proceedings.
I mean, really: what are the charges there?
Here's a guide from the BBC.
Basically, he's mainly being accused of attempting to get political favors to help him against political opponents by using some of the things he has control over as bargaining chips. That amounts to breaking at least two federal laws.
However, technically there are current zero charges as of right now in terms of why he might be impeached (which is doubtful given the politics of the situation, he'd never be removed from office and surviving an impeachment trial after being impeached would help his re-election campaign). Articles of Impeachment haven't been drawn up yet, that committee just started today.
6
D&D 5e / Re: 5e Psionics
« on: December 04, 2019, 11:54:59 AM »
I think that psionics has the most support out of any subsystem before 5E because it's the only one that survives edition changes. 
Hooray for civil discourse!
Hooray for civil discourse!
7
D&D 5e / Re: 5e Psionics
« on: December 04, 2019, 10:46:45 AM »
We obviously have very different definitions of limited support. A 2E UA book and some monsters in the fifty different monster manuals they put out does not significant support make.
IMO Dark Sun is the only part of 2E that had actual psionics support but since the setting was so different from normal D&D that it had its own stat generation system it was never considered to be mainstream (and it wasn't helped by how fucked up 2E psionics were).
I also want to say that Dragon and Dungeon haven't been considered official material in any edition.
IMO Dark Sun is the only part of 2E that had actual psionics support but since the setting was so different from normal D&D that it had its own stat generation system it was never considered to be mainstream (and it wasn't helped by how fucked up 2E psionics were).
I also want to say that Dragon and Dungeon haven't been considered official material in any edition.
8
D&D 5e / Re: 5e Psionics
« on: December 03, 2019, 05:21:54 PM »
A) All of the other editions (at least starting with 2E) had many more books released annually.
B) One (or maybe two) books per edition is what I define as "little official support".
It wouldn't surprise me if they took a hint from Paizo and decided that it wasn't needed in the first place. PF and PF2 don't have psionics and neither does Starfinder.
B) One (or maybe two) books per edition is what I define as "little official support".
It wouldn't surprise me if they took a hint from Paizo and decided that it wasn't needed in the first place. PF and PF2 don't have psionics and neither does Starfinder.
9
D&D 5e / Re: 5e Psionics
« on: December 03, 2019, 02:14:13 PM »My guess is that there will be a book with a handful of psionic archetypes and feats mixed in with a bunch of other stuff and that will be it.That is what I mean (also). Why is it taking so long for that book?
They're releasing about 1-2 books a year and Psionics has always been a fringe subsystem with little official support.
Paizo doesn't even print psioncs material at all for any of their three games.
10
Handbook Discussion / Re: X Stat to Y Bonus Discussion Thread
« on: December 03, 2019, 01:19:14 PM »
You and I look up traits very differently. I look up by what they give you, then I pick ones that are in different categories.
Since every trait should be manually looked at anyway and every trait entry tells you what category it is then adding the categories to the entries won't reduce work unless people are just using entries without looking them up which nobody should ever do.
I'm on my phone so won't be adding entries until later.
Since every trait should be manually looked at anyway and every trait entry tells you what category it is then adding the categories to the entries won't reduce work unless people are just using entries without looking them up which nobody should ever do.
I'm on my phone so won't be adding entries until later.
11
Handbook Discussion / Re: X Stat to Y Bonus Discussion Thread
« on: December 03, 2019, 09:44:29 AM »
Added.
Also the same argument could be said for alternate racial traits or for archetypes (Paladin for example has a lot of entries). This guide has never been intended to be a primary source for character building, the first post even says that every single entry should be double checked before used because I only write down the parts that are about adjusting stat usage.
I just don't see a compelling reason to give traits special treatment.
Also the same argument could be said for alternate racial traits or for archetypes (Paladin for example has a lot of entries). This guide has never been intended to be a primary source for character building, the first post even says that every single entry should be double checked before used because I only write down the parts that are about adjusting stat usage.
I just don't see a compelling reason to give traits special treatment.
12
Board Business / Re: 503 errors
« on: December 02, 2019, 02:54:55 PM »
There was some PHP code which was fucking up and there are a few reasons why that could have happened.
Turning off all hostname resolution should fix the issue, which was mainly used for banning spambots by hostname.
Turning off all hostname resolution should fix the issue, which was mainly used for banning spambots by hostname.
13
D&D 5e / Re: 5e Psionics
« on: December 02, 2019, 12:34:37 PM »
Probably never for a full on dedicated book. My guess is that there will be a book with a handful of psionic archetypes and feats mixed in with a bunch of other stuff and that will be it.
14
D&D 5e / Re: 5e Psionics
« on: November 30, 2019, 07:29:38 PM »
It came out this week, I count that as just came out.
16
[Pathfinder] Goblins! / Re: Goblin Talk - OOC
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:23:59 AM »
Note: brain using is not required at any point in this adventure.
17
[Pathfinder] Goblins! / Re: Behaving Like Goblins - IC
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:23:33 AM »
Reta hits him with a thwack and the other goblin by the log draws a sword and swings at Reta but misses.
(click to show/hide)
18
[Pathfinder] Goblins! / Re: Dice are for rolling, not eating!
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:22:48 AM »Rolled 1d20+4 : 4 + 4, total 8
Rolled 1d4 : 3, total 3
19
[Pathfinder] Goblins! / Re: Dice are for rolling, not eating!
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:21:45 AM »Rolled 1d100 : 86, total 86
20
[Pathfinder] Goblins! / Re: Goblin Talk - OOC
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:15:19 AM »
I know that at least one of you characters has a brain.
I don't know if it will ever actually be used though.
Don't worry, everything is still within expected parameters.
I don't know if it will ever actually be used though.
Don't worry, everything is still within expected parameters.