Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sinspawn Axeman

Arnwyn's page

1,919 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,919 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Orfamay Quest wrote:
tony gent wrote:

I quite enjoy low magic games as it often forces the players to be more creative in there game play.

As I've often found players become very dependant on there magic user having just the spell for this occasion , to often have i witnessed interesting and well thought out encounters bypassed or walked over because one of the casters in the group pulls out a wired spell which he's never cast before and probably will never cast again.
... which raises the question of how/why the caster bothered to learn/prepare that specific spell.

Because learning is negligible in cost, and scrolls are insanely cheap.


That was the best episode yet.

Felt pretty "Batman-y" to me (as subjective as that is).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:
Why do so many people

I think your beginning premise is false.

My group would consider all your examples to be asshat players.

Pirate captain in a dwarven underdark campaign? Bugbear thug in a human courtly intrigue campaign? C'mon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GregH wrote:
I've always wanted to re-run Against the Giants, but don't have the time or patience to convert it. So I'm really interested in this. Problem is, I play 3.5 and don't have the disposable income to move to Pathfinder. I've read that Pathfinder and 3.5 are "close enough" that you can run an adventure from one "as is" with the other rules. Is that true? Are there any serious caveats to that? If I do get this AP, I'd want to run it with minimal to no conversion.

We play 3.5, and have had almost no problems with PF adventures.

(It also depends on how optimized your group usually is... PF monsters are a little bit tougher for their CR compared to 3.5 - but if you have even somewhat optimized characters in the party, the differences are minimal.)


Very first? It would be the Dragonlance Classics. (I was a player.)

The next published one we went through would be Shackled City (Dungeon Magazine then hardcover a quarter of the way through), and that's what really hooked us on published APs. (I was the DM.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I don't know about "don't like", those gamers who I don't like to play with is mostly:

- Those who will not conform to a particular group's dynamics.

... And that's about it (admittedly, the above covers a huge number of smaller items).


Jaelithe wrote:
Which of these do you espouse?

We do most of those; but only half of certain lines.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
But banning a class because you don't like their flavor is "ludicrous", precisely because a class is a collection of mechanics, not a flavor.

I'm not sure how true that is. (Or rather: some have a lot more inherent/built-in flavor than others. PF is especially bad for it, AFAIC.)

I never said re-skinning was impossible. I do believe, however, some classes have flavor built in, and the system as presented isn't just a 'list of abilities' as much as some people think it is.

Quote:
For example, allow me to introduce /snip/

I already covered that in my previous comment.


Aratrok wrote:

...flavor? You understand that flavor is mutable right? A monk (especially with archetypes) could just as easily be a bouncer, wrestler, or really any unarmed fighter, right?

Banning a class because you don't like their flavor is ludicrous.

Not really. Flavor matters. For our group, it's one of the major points of playing the game. Without the right flavor, it's nothing, and we all would have dumped the game a long time ago.

(With that said, I'm sure many reasonable DMs will allow a class if the player puts in the work of re-flavoring it to an adequate degree - "adequate" being defined as being acceptable and agreed to by both the DM and player.)


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Which makes me ask, why are you here? I mean that not in a snarky, "Ew, why is he here?" sense, but just out of legitimate curiosity.

My guess is probably the APs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
I mean, it's cool if you want your speculative fiction and games to be escapist fun. But if that escapism means erasing or ignoring the parts of history where white imperialism destroyed, exploited, and stole from other people around the world, then that's not something that I'm interested in.

*shrug* Everyone's entitled to their preferences.

I certainly don't share yours.


James Langley wrote:
So... Like I said: how does everyone else manage it?

To specifically answer the question (which will probably sound blunt and unhelpful): I (and my friends) don't live like you. ;)

Kolokotroni said it well - you need a group who have close to the same schedules... otherwise, you'll just end up in failure.

My friends and I all work Mon-Fri, 'banker's hours' (really a mix of 7-3, 8-4, or 9-5), comparatively short commutes (no more than 1/2 hour to work and 45 minutes to get home), and always have weekends off. Some are married (4/6), some are single (2/6), some have kids (3/6).

So, we game once every 2 weeks, on Saturday, from 2-10.

But we still need to make it a priority, and keep a reasonably clear and consistent schedule. We just do it, I suppose.


Caineach wrote:

Obviously you don't understand people.

People aren't rational.

Meh. Nice try. I understand people well enough. "Obviously" you don't know what you're talking about.

Other shows (and - wait for it - real life) does it better. Your statement isn't an excuse, and apologist remarks don't get very far with me (you're probably better off simply not responding to my posts).

I'm sorry you don't know any rational people. How sad for you.

(But, yeah - I get that not everyone is rational. However, the CW does not get a pass here, because they are victims of their own history: Almost everyone is irrational almost all of the time in almost all of their shows. It got tiring 5+ years ago. I know why they do it, but it's still bad. They can't really be defended.)


1. I see the CW is continuing with its fine tradition of having at least one female character (in this case Iris) be a complete idiot, annoying, useless in almost every way, and an actual detriment to the quality of the show. She hurts the show in every scene she's in.

2. I also see that the CW continues to like to have emotion and irrationality rule their arguments/disagreements, instead of of normal rational behavior:

The CW (wrong) way: "You're not my dad! You're not the boss of me!"

The rational (right) way: "You know, I think it's probably a good idea if I really do save a little 9 year old girl from horribly dying in flames. Do you actually disagree with that?"


JoelF847 wrote:
just hire the team behind Arrow and The Flash and I think it would be good - they've shown they know how to embrace and mine source material.

Gah.


After just one episode, it's 100x better than the morose Arrow.


Lemmy wrote:

And how exactly do they think that of your character before she can make any Cha-based check?

"Hey, this guy who I met 1 second ago has low Cha! He's a wallflower!"

If it's bad for players to ignore the Cha-based checks and try to use their RL "charisma", then why is it okay for the GM to do exactly the same thing and arbitrarily decide that the character failed on a non-existent Cha-based check?

1) Because it doesn't impact outcomes. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

2) Because it isn't feasible (nor a good idea) to roll checks for every little interaction when outcomes aren't impacted. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

Str 16: "You seem kind of strong". (No check made at this point.)
Str 7: "You seem kind of like a wallflower." (No check made at this point.)

I understand your issue, though. But it's entirely a style thing. (Your style, for example, isn't for me or anyone I know. YMMV for the circles you hang in.)


Cormyr (FR) - as others noted, under Azoun IV. I like the Camelot-y / knights / 'traditional' feel.

Sometimes that traditional feel can go a long way...

Runner up:
The (mostly) unified land of Zakhara, under the Grand Caliph in Huzuz. We have no Fate but the Fate we are given!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Dude. The show is for kids.

So was Gargoyles. Your statement is neither a reason nor an excuse.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

The math says it's not nonsense. From 1st level to 3rd level, you'll have 2 DC less on all of your saving throws, which is 10% less chance of successfully landing a spell. From 4-7, it will be 1 DC (5%) less, then it returns to 10% at level 8, et cetera.

So in the long run, it gimps your casting by roughly 7.5%. (This number is slightly misleading -- it actually means that about 15% more opponents will save against your spells. Normally about half your opponents will manage to save, but instead 57.5% will.) Attempting to avoid this (by restricting yourself only to spells that don't allow saves) will also gimp your casting by taking the majority of the spells off the table.

In addition, you have one fewer spell per day at level 1, which is a hefty percentage of your low-level spells. At level 8, you'll probably have two fewer spells per day, but this depends on your equipment as well.

I'd say both the lowered effectiveness and reduced number (dropping from 2 spells per day to only 1) are both meaningful.

I don't. At all.


Lord Snow wrote:

An example that I think every one of us can understand and sympathise with. A GM opens a group and starts a campaign. The players are excited about it, the game is fun and for two years the gigantic epic that is the adventure of this Pathfinder group is played out over hundreds of hours.

Then the GM gets tired of the campaign. His enthusiasm for it is long gone, the ending is no-where in sight and he has been having less fun with every session, even though his friends are clearly still enjoying themselves.Does he "owe" it to them to see the campaign through?

It depends on what the GM is willing to accept in terms of consequences. Is he prepared for potentially never GMing for this group again (once bitten, twice shy and all that)? The GM can decide from the consequences if he "owes" anything to the players or not.


zylphryx wrote:

Seriously, nice picking and choosing there. ;)

Do you care to acknowledge this part of my quote?

zylphryx wrote:
EDIT: And to be clear, as I have stated from the beginning, I personally believe there is no obligation on either party's side. The author owes the fan
...

Yes. I do acknowledge it. I generally agree with it, thus I had no comment on it.

It was indeed "nice picking and choosing" on my part, because I only felt the need to quote the one particular statement I thought needed a comment - in which I said it was a "very good thing" (and that the word "force" was a bit of a misnomer... especially since you yourself admitted a line or two later that people "should" vote with their wallets... so those together sounded a bit incongruous to me).

I didn't really disagree with anything else (so, it doesn't get quoted to avoid obfuscating the conversation - which is a pretty common occurrence on messageboards...). So... yeah. In general, I agreed with you, and felt only the first couple of sentences warranted a comment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
zylphryx wrote:
Actually, by taking the stance of "if an author does not finish a series that she no longer wishes to work on, folks should no longer purchase her work", you are in essence forcing the author to continue a path she does not want to follow or lose her source of income. It is not holding a physical gun to the head, but it still is a means of force. So, explicitly no one has said anything about forcing an author to do any such thing, but implicitly, yes, yes it was said.

And this is a very good thing. Nobody is entitled to money from the consumer market if consumers don't want to give it to them. Nobody.

And no, there is no "force". The author chose his/her vocation, and chose the consumer market. They will meet market needs, if they want money. No "force"... they can decide. But they're not entitled to money, or do 'what they want' and expect money.

(I have to say... your statement above sounds suspiciously like: "Oh no! I'm somewhat beholden to the people who give me money!" Uh huh... You don't say?)

Quote:
Granted, people should vote with their wallets.

And there you go - you said it yourself. That's all that needs to be said.

Now, with all that said, I do think it is foolish for fans to 'demand' authors to finish what they started. It's closing the barn after the horses have fled. If authors not finishing stories becomes prevalent in the industry, fans should simply smarten up and quit purchasing series until they are complete... that'll smarten up the authors pretty fast once that happens even over a short term. Might properly shake up the industry a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fantastic read, James. And absolutely correct. I found this statement particularly cogent:

James Sutter wrote:
If we as authors want to take a no-strings approach, then we can hardly turn around and beg readers to support the early books in our series. And if we instead want to ask people to be our patrons-to have the faith to invest both emotionally and financially in a series before it’s complete-then we need to keep our side of the bargain and do our damnedest to see things through.

Exactly so.

Now, I'm not sure I like the word "owe"... I don't think the author necessarily "owes" the consumer anything.

But then - does the author want to take consumers' money and make a living? Oh, he/she does? Well, then. I don't have to spend a red cent on anything the author releases until the entire series is out.

And good luck making a living, dear author, if a certain number of consumers begins to think that way.


Freehold DM wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
The awful music.

The music (background, much-less-so the vocals) for BGC 2040 was stunningly incredible. Perfect for a cyberpunk-y type show like BGC.

One of the best BGM soundtracks ever, for any anime. (Barring the supreme leader Yoko Kanno, of course.)

wow. You think 2040 music better than the original?

Different strokes is all I will say here.

For the BGM, yes.

In fact, I can't even remember/think of how the original BGC BGM sounded like. At all. (Meanwhile, I can hum almost every song of every Yoko Kanno soundtrack, as well as the majority of BGC 2040.)

When I think of the music of original BGC, I think of all the fantastic vocal stuff. But the BGM...? Was there any BGM? (Which equals BGM fail in my book.)


Freehold DM wrote:
The awful music.

The music (background, much-less-so the vocals) for BGC 2040 was stunningly incredible. Perfect for a cyberpunk-y type show like BGC.

One of the best BGM soundtracks ever, for any anime. (Barring the supreme leader Yoko Kanno, of course.)


It was only... okay.

Spoiler:
Completely ludicrous conversations at certain point - especially the "we killed an innocent man! We could get fired! blah blah blah". What? You've emphasized how corrupt everything is, that you "immediately shoot a guy if he has a cop's gun" and that beating someone under arrest in the middle of a precinct is a-okay... but when somebody has a gun, opens fire on you, evades arrest, attacks you, then tries to kill you with a knife... you get in trouble for shooting him then?

Argh. Bad bad bad.

Penguin was awesome.


This thread is a fun read.


Yeah... Bhal Hamatugn.

My players got brutalized so badly in there.


Bill Dunn wrote:

I think people are getting a bit overly emotional about his issue right now. I can totally see where the secret fire is coming from. If a player takes no effort to role play - and like he said, we're not talking rhetoric here - when other players are willing to make the effort then I think the game suffers for it.

And here, I'm not talking about always talking in character or with flowery speeches that exactly fit their Charismas. I'm looking for an effort to put together the major points of an attempt at diplomacy, the tactics used, and all fitting with the PC's perspective and what they could and would understand of the situation. If the player can do it in character, all the better.

But if someone wants to just say "I use diplomacy on him" and roll... they can do that at another table.

Bang on. And people like that exist, regardless of the protestations certain people are (poorly) attempting to make.

Jiggy wrote:
I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept that this category of people exists.

*chuckle*

***
For our group, we expect at least some effort. If a player can make their own decisions on how they move on the battlefield or what spell to use (even if they're not tactical geniuses), then they can put at least a bit of effort in explaining how they're going to use Diplomacy. (Any suggestion that this requires "method acting" is a silly strawman. Stop it if you want to retain a shred of credibility.)

By allowing players to make their own decisions of how their characters will act in battle, they've already made the concession that they are accepting players' abilities will impact their characters' abilities. Any suggestion otherwise is demonstrably false. So let's not go there, either.

I understand different groups may want to play differently - play styles vary widely, and some people may not be a good fit for certain groups. A shy player (to the degree of not being able to come up with a reasonable effort when using Diplomacy) insisting on playing a "face" character in our particular group probably wouldn't last long, since they just wouldn't be a good fit in our group's long-since-set dynamics and expectations (as to what we consider fun for us), just as a player who is consistently lousy at complicated rules probably would be encouraged to not play a wizard. (Thankfully, nobody is shy or have poor rules knowledge in our group.) That's just the way things go sometimes.

(Our group and I also don't make the mistake of conflating and comparing "physical" skills to "mental" skills in a "mental-based" game - so any of those comparisons are immediately dismissed as nonsensical. We're not at a LARP - we're sitting around a table making wholly 'mental' decisions. We absolutely make that distinction.)


AlgaeNymph wrote:
...with information they wouldn't have known unless they were keeping an eye on my posts...

I think this may have already been noted, but you realize that anyone can see everything you've ever posted - all in one spot - just by clicking your username, right?


Vagabonds. wrote:
My question is, should DM's enforce the child ruleset on their players?

Yes.

Alternate answer: DMs are within their rights to do so. Find a different DM if you don't like it (or don't play children under that DM).

My players would find it ludicrous if it wasn't enforced. (Though, truthfully, such a character wouldn't even be allowed by anyone in the group, since none of us are cool with the whole 'children in peril' thing and/or are equal-to-adult-adventurers thing.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to be sticking with themes, because music overall is just too much. (I'll arbitrarily choose 10, but I can't possibly number them...!)

- Inner Universe (GITS:SAC)
- Seventh Moon (Macross 7)
- Tank! (Cowboy Bebop)
- Yakusoku Wa Iranai (Escaflowne)
- Kiri (Ergo Proxy)
- Sea of Miracles (Lodoss)
- I'm a Pioneer (Tenchi Muyo)
- Cruel Angel's Thesis (Evangelion)
- Full of Memories (Ranma)
- Mad Machine (BGC)

Freehold DM wrote:
*Lynn Kaifun* that claims FIRE BOMBER!! is a rip off of their original music. If you know who that is, I'll give you a million internets.

You mean Minmay's cousin/erstwhile manager? Where's the hard question (unless I missed it)? ;) (Reading the liner notes in the various CDs are great fun, especially the Galaxy Network Charts.)


We're a group of long-time friends playing in a (very) long-running group.

For us, the DM expects the players to know the Player's Handbook (we play 3.x) and whatever abilities they're using if not from the PHB. Nothing more, but also nothing less. That doesn't mean full memorization (obviously), but it does mean that one needs to know the topics included in the PHB, and how to find it quite quickly. Players aren't expected to know anything else. We generally phrase it as "you're responsible for knowing the Player's Handbook and your character's abilities".

On the DM side, as above but also include the DMG and MM and whatever other rules they're using at the time. We also have an expectation that the DM owns whatever sources they're allowing in the game (so they don't slow the game down trying to figure out what the heck is going on and how to adjudicate things and can reference it at any time in order to stay on top of things).

Mikael Sebag wrote:
At what point does a player's lack of rules knowledge negatively impact (or become an impediment to) the fun of the other players at the table?

Immediately. We understand that new players will need some time to get up to speed, of course, but that doesn't stop the lack of knowledge from immediately negatively affecting everyone else's fun.

Quote:
Would you say that it's part of the social contract of a tabletop RPG that one ought to enter into a game/session with a certain degree of knowledge?

For us - not really. For a beginner (or even someone new to the group), we have virtually no expectations of proficiency at the beginning. (With that said, if we do invite someone into our group, we do have expectations that they will learn 'quickly' - i.e. one of the criteria (out of a bunch) is that they are, in general, quick learners. No, there is no specific definition of 'quick' for us. It will vary based on the personality of the new player and what else they are contributing to the game during the learning period.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lord Synos:

Spoiler:

Lord Synos wrote:
Charisma/Diplomacy is the only skill set where GM's punish you for not having those skills in real life. Of course no one is inclined to take them.
Arnwyn wrote:

Absolutely false.

Do you let players make decisions for their characters at the table? Oh, you do? Even if the player playing a fighter isn't a tactical genius/great warrior? Even if the player playing the wizard isn't a spell-casting genius who has never cast spells in combat or even chosen spells before? You let them make those decisions on their own?

Uh huh.

So you do allow real life Intelligence and Wisdom to play at least some role.

The suggestion that Charisma is somehow separate (and that making people at least say 'how' they're talking to someone else - just like making people say 'how' they're combating those monsters) is inconsistent laughable nonsense.

Lord Synos wrote:

I can't say what I let players do. (A) I wouldn't use the phrase "I let my players do this", because it speaks to a kind of condescending, arrogance that I dislike, and (B) I've GM'ed all of 2 times. I don't really consider myself as having "players". However, yes, a player's attributes do affect their characters to some extent, mainly their mental attributes. However, you're arguing the reverse of my position, which isn't the same as my position. A strawman, effectively.

I am saying, if a player is less skilled than their character, their character should still be able to use their skills. If a player can't cast Magic Missile, the appropriate character still can. If the player can't wield a Greataxe, the appropriate character still can. In this, we completely agree, it appears.

However, if a player isn't very Wise, I won't prevent them from playing a character with high Wisdom, or restrict their Cleric's spells because their real life Wisdom isn't that high. If a player isn't the brightest, I won't prevent them from playing a character with a high Int score, or limit their Wizard's spellcasting. This is a different point from the above. This is the point I am making about Charisma. If someone isn't a great talker, isn't particularly social, doesn't read social cues the best, I wouldn't punish their high Charisma, high Diplomacy character for that, because the character can still do those things, even if the player can't.

Thanks for arguing against a strawman and then calling my actually point inconsistent, laughable nonsense on that basis though. That was a very pleasant thing to do."

Since this topic is still being covered...

Sorry for coming off way too strong. Do you know how you mentioned how you have "frustration" with the above and that it "bothers you intensely"? Ditto on my side. I'm not a big fan of erroneously conflating and comparing physical actions and mental actions within a mental game. It doesn't make sense, and is unhelpful. No one explains climbing because that's a physical action - this isn't a LARP... it's sitting around a table playing a 'mental-based' game making 'mental' decisions. Anything physical is entirely and completely irrelevant. It should never even be brought up. If one allows players to make their own decisions (regardless of their actual real-life knowledge), then the line is already drawn.

With that said, I do understand your position of advocating for those who are new (an understandable situation) and those who aren't as eloquent as others. I can certainly see making some concessions for a new person (assuming they want to keep said player) and even on those who are less eloquent who might want to maybe try out a character with high diplomacy/charisma. It's definitely important to give those people a break.

But it is dependent on the group - I'm not sure I entirely appreciate the suggestion - or even faint implication - that those who expect a little bit more out of certain game interactions are somehow doing it wrong (rearing its head in the questionable comment [among others] "of course no one is inclined to take them" - Oh? No one? A strong statement indeed). It may not be a good fit for everyone, of course, but it is a good fit for certain groups who want to have fun a certain way. In those groups, a shy/non-eloquent person always playing a "face" and always saying "I diplomacize!" instead of any attempt at further interaction may wear thin somewhat quickly. In the end, some players are simply not a good fit for some groups.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

LordSynos:

Spoiler:

LordSynos wrote:
Charisma/Diplomacy is the only skill set where GM's punish you for not having those skills in real life. Of course no one is inclined to take them.

Absolutely false.

Do you let players make decisions for their characters at the table? Oh, you do? Even if the player playing a fighter isn't a tactical genius/great warrior? Even if the player playing the wizard isn't a spell-casting genius who has never cast spells in combat or even chosen spells before? You let them make those decisions on their own?

Uh huh.

So you do allow real life Intelligence and Wisdom to play at least some role.

The suggestion that Charisma is somehow separate (and that making people at least say 'how' they're talking to someone else - just like making people say 'how' they're combating those monsters) is inconsistent laughable nonsense.


My players and I are 'fluent' in both measurements, so we're good.

However, Fahrenheit infuriates us. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2e: Guy makes an Athasian halfling (with all the Dark Sun rules) to play in the Forgotten Realms.

"Here's my backstory: I wake up on the ground, and I'm wearing a helmet with the word 'spelljamming' inscribed on it."

/sigh/


Raltus wrote:
I want to use the "troop" subtype and I have read those links a few times now, just one questions. How do I go about it? It is so vague and I feel like I might make something too powerful. Any advice would be helpful.

That's just the thing - it's essentially just making up a brand new monster (and then giving it the (Troop) subtype at the end).

That's why I'd like to see a Troop template of some sort that makes this job a lot easier. A 'unit' of x number of yeti? Got you covered. A 'unit' of y number of 5th-7th level gunslingers? Get you covered there, too.

*sigh*


Quote:
but my concern is the description makes it seem like it relies heavily on dungeons, giant-themed dungeons ala Against the Giants, but dungeons none the less.

I suspect mostly dungeons (but that's a Paizo thing for the most part nowadays, anyways - I'm surprised at your concern).


Hama wrote:

You do know that you're not obligated to use EVERYTING a gaming company churns out?

There is no such thing as bloat. Just people who don't want to put their foot down.

I totally agree. And if your post was triggered by my post, I'll have you know - that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

(Hint: It's the comparison part that counts.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Some call this bloat, me I call it being realistic

Of course you do.

Quote:
Also Pathfinder has the ONLY cool monkey race in the Vanara.

Incorrect. Vanara was first in 3e's OA.

Thumbs down again.


KingmanHighborn wrote:
Archetypes again expand these base classes out even more. So is it bloat? Meh I don't think so.

Inexplicably.

Thumbs down from me.


Tangent101 wrote:
Piccolo, there is actually a mechanism by which you can do this that helps simplify things a bit. Use the Troop template that was created in "Rasputin Must Die" whereas 8-12 small- or larger-sized creatures are considered one uber-entity. Thus you can have 40-50 monsters... but they are treated as 3-4 monsters with higher hit points, armor class, and damage output.

Subtype, not template.

I really, really, really, really, REALLY want a troop template.

(Did I mention how much I'd like one? Very disappointing that there isn't one by this point. Even 3.5 did it better [again] by starting things off with the mob template...)


Gerald wrote:
I should have known not to freak out...it is Bill and the Frog Gods, so of course my books were waiting on me when I arrived home today. Pristine shape, as always.

Yes indeed - me too. Came home today and there was the big package in my mailbox. Woo!

(They sent me the S&W version of RA instead of PF, but oh well - still nice looking books!)

My players... less pleased at their future. ;)


Elorebaen wrote:
I agree with everything you said, except for the "No" part. The OP did say "flop" and Razor Coast is the opposite of that. Endzeitgeist's review is right on the money (as usual). RC is brilliant, albeit it does have its flaws.

Flaws that could be seen as deal-breakers for some (which would constitute a "flop" for those people). And whether you agree with the "no" or not - it is highly unlikely that said individual has an "exclusive on that opinion". In fact, that's factually false (even as hyperbole).

And... that's enough of Razor Coast when this is about Plunder & Peril!

I do find it interesting that the level range for this particular 64-page module is (seemingly) less than the previous modules of this size (it is ~3-4 levels like a few of the others, but in a lower level range - and nowhere close to Dragon's Demand range, which I didn't like at all).

I consider that a very good thing.


Zaister wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Awesome! After the disappointing flop of Razor Coast, I'm itching for a good pirate module.
I think you might have an exclusive on that opinion.

No... see some of the reviews floating around. They're actually pretty accurate (it just depends on how much certain things bother you).

For Plunder & Peril - I too was a bit surprised at the '3 adventures'... but that might not be a bad thing. I'd like to see how it turns out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

thecursor is quickly becoming my favorite waggish poster.


Huh. Interesting.

AFAIC, Cap 1 was the best MCU movie, followed by Cap 2, then Avengers.

(And I'm not a Captain America fan, or really familiar with comics...)


Arrrgh! Auxmalous must have gotten my shipment!

(I'm only half-kidding - I've heard nothing about getting any physical copies of my RA or CD sub...)

Can I expect to hear something soon... or something?

1 to 50 of 1,919 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.