Burrowowl

Many moons ago, a company called Privateer Press released a book called the IKCG after years of teeth-gnashing delays, setbacks, consternation, and a change in the core ruleset from d20 3.0 to d20 3.5. In the scramble to convert 400+ pages of content to the new rules, a fair amount of quality control issues slipped through the cracks. Some of the numbers don’t add up, some of the tables contradict the text, there are some rather amusing typos, and so forth.

But hark, news arrives via a mailing list:

Actually we are working on an official errata document for the IKCG to be released at the first of the year.

Paraphrasing the upcoming errata, the Gun Mage will be able to avoid spell failure in light armor as part of his spell focus ability with his pistol. This means if you are not holding your pistol, you will have a chance of spell failure for being in armor. This is different than the wording in the Bard class concerning casting in light armor.

-Nathan Letsinger

Nate Letsinger is the director of the Iron Kingdoms RPG line, and hence in a position to authoritatively make such claims. Since an online errata document isn’t subject to the vagaries of the printing process, and the Privateers already have a tried-and-true FAQ-and-errata web interface (here), I have higher hopes for this “first of the year” release date than I might have for other Iron Kingdoms products.

Proposition 83 is an interesting expression of how public sentiment and hundreds of years of legal principles can butt heads. The rule of law generally holds that if you were to behave in a manner that is explicitly outlawed, you are subject to the punishments proscribed at the time of that behavior. If you violate the speed limit, you are subject to fines as described in the various traffic laws. If you steal somebody’s television, you are subject to certain maximum or minimum jail sentences as proscribed in the criminal statutes. Proposition 83 seeks to retroactively lay a series of punishments onto a subspecies of criminal: sex offenders.
Read the rest of this entry »

No, not that Bond; I’m talking about certificates of debt. Every election cycle, the shortcomings of the state budget are dangled in front of Californians. The state legislature, as a body, cannot bring itself to bring in revenue at the rates necessary to fund the projects they want, and the executive branch cannot bring itself to manage the funds it is allocated properly, so we the people have the opportunity to force their hand.

I’m generally disinclined to vote for bonds, they are the governmental equivalent of credit card debt. This year, we get Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 84 to consider. If they pass, we’re looking at 6% of the general fund, the state’s discretionary income, going to interest payments in 2010.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pardon the sophomoric pun; it’s inevitable given the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District acronym. Measure R, at its core, is a sales-tax hike of $0.0025 for every dollar spent in Sonoma County and Marin County for twenty years. For the duration of the twenty years, this sales tax increase is to be used for subsidizing a passenger rail system from Cloverdale to Larkspur.
Read the rest of this entry »

In California, we have a voter-referendum system by which ballot initiatives can introduce laws that the state legislature, for a variety of reasons, cannot or will not act upon themselves. Large bond measures, constitutional amendments, and the like are required to go before the general public for approval. Other issues, such as legalization of marijuana, denial of services to undocumented immigrants, or dealing with the notion of same-sex marriage are simply too sensitive for our assemblymen and state senators to address in a straightforward manner. This can result in a bewildering array of issues laid at the feet of the electorate.

Read the rest of this entry »