|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Oliver's dumber than a sack of hammers... and so is Slade.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - I know, that Mirakuru makes Slade all sorts of idiot. But still.
That whole Shado thing is just dumb, and entirely senseless. That's his villainy motivation? Lame. (And that doctor using his 'words' to confuse people was... not convincing. "You killed her by choosing the other!" Ummm... what?)
Oliver (the right answer): "Actually, I chose ME, dumbass. And what did you do then?"
I totally agree with you. Thankfully, that's not what I'm arguing.
I don't see HOW you can disagree on this.
Then try harder. Because you're not right now.
The only intelligent course of action, from a realistic standpoint, was for these guys to open fire on a potential threat they have no way of verifying is not a threat.
I agree. I have no qualms with mook guard #1 and mook guard #2 shooting at these unknown dudes, if that's how they felt they should best handle the situation they're in. Obviously, of course, they should expect to be popped back.
The guards didn't fire the first shot- Coulson's group did. They shot out the security cameras. Hostile intent.
*shrug* Not enough to be labeled "evil". The first shots fired at people, after attempts at diplomacy first, were made by the guards. Fair game. Shoot back and pop 'em, please.
Crying out "Really- we just want to talk!" after the fact seems somehow not quite so sincere.
False. Not after the fact. They even talked outside the doors, without brandishing any weapons.
We won't be agreeing on this.
Lord Snow wrote:
It could be that the guards have no choice but to defend the place with their lives. They might be under strict orders not to engage in dialog with anyone. Or, worse yet, there might be a serious reason that they need the place guarded. Some magic/technology in the facility that must never, ever be exposed for any reason. This is the Marvel universe and such things exist.
I'm totally with you there.
Killing the guards is a very questionable move.
"Questionable"? Definitely not with you there.
The guards opened fire first - after diplomacy was attempted. Whoops on their part! Now they're fair game.
I don't know about evil. The security guards did open fire first. And were not interested in any sort of dialogue. One could argue that breaking in was questionable, but after that, it was pretty much self defense. It didn't even seem like the guards would've allowed a surrender (although that's debatable).
Totally agree. The guards ignored dialogue and opened fire first. That's the bottom line, AFAIC.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
If you break into a locked facility - while visibly armed, hacking through security devices and shooting out cameras on the way in - I don't think you get to claim self-defense. Those deaths are on them.
Meh. They identified themselves, wanted dialogue, and even asked nicely. That's that.
And why the hell were they barking at people in FR novels and games...
Because of this:"and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping),"
3) An admission that one's own creations are somehow 'not good enough' to stand beside old classics.
Even if it might be true. (And is absolutely true, AFAIC.)
But then, I still play 3.5, so I still have all these monsters (and every one listed on this thread so far) in 3.5 format.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
If a players wants to seduce you farmers daughter/son, barmaid/bartender, merchants daughter/son, etc how do you like to handle it? How/what game mechanics do you allow/use for this type of thing? Is it strictly a RP thing in your games?
A mix of Diplomacy and maybe a "yeah, sure, whatever", since we're not really all that interested in that in our games.
Some people may call that "unsatisfying". Our group is thankful.
How about just making friends and contacts?
This is almost always through long-term RPing, with Diplomacy checks at certain 'appropriate' times (which we won't know until they come up - it always varies).
No, not really. 3.5 recognized that and had specific ship-building rules in the Stormwrack book. (Pretty good.)
I don't blame them at all and it's not the classification of picks that's the issue with the underwater penalties. I think they could just have dropped the underwater combat modifiers completely (for simplicity's sake, since they don't represent reality anyway) or made them closer to reality (for realisms sake, to make weapon choice more relevant) by stating that penalty is gained dependant on use motion rather than damage type. Now I feel it's neither simple nor realistic and it just feels like the worst of two worlds.
Fascinating. I cannot relate... at all.
Vice-versa for me. I like Arrow, a lot. But it sure can't contend with Agents of Shield. So I look forward to see what Marvel has to offer (and am thankful it's not on the wretched angst-ridden CW...).
Viking Frog wrote:
Thanks for looking into this!
Just submitted by support request.
I've been running with the assumption he's meant maps intended for combat.
Me too. My post doesn't change. I hope the request is rejected.
(James already mentioned what I'm talking about earlier in the thread - e.g. giantish architecture.)
Some things just have big architecture. I expect to see them, mapped/gridded and all. 10 ft. squares... or even bigger, if the area demands it. For combat.
Agreed. Possibly sending in the character late (not a big deal on its own) combined with having a tendency to argue with that particular DM combined with already being separated (twice!) during something as relatively conflict-free as character generation... well... that doesn't sound all that promising.
Really - if you have to ask whether you should play, it's usually not a good idea.
I feel your pain, Dragnmoon... I still haven't gotten my Rappan Athuk sub #5 yet, when loads of people (everyone else?) has... :(
Indeed. In fact, refer to Kirth's own post, seen previously in this thread:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
In fairness, I have noticed that when the conversation veers to "Reeking-of-Privilege Barbaric Men should cross the street to avoid women on the sidewalk, and bow their heads so as not to subject Perfect Women to their Evil Lustful Gazes" (generally posited by a sycophantic male participant), we do get the rest of the White Knight cheering squad full-on telling everyone to STFU if they believe gender-neutral sidewalks could potentially be a thing. And they're supported in that. But -- so what? With no sarcasm -- totally seriously -- that's OK. Because, as noted many times, Paizo is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "present both sides" of ANYTHING. If people don't like that, there are plenty of other threads to debate things in, if that's what one is after -- so why make oneself look like even more of a boor by complaining?
Paizo does indeed have "stealth rules" on top of their normal messageboard rules, and it would do people best if they try to figure them out as fast as possible to avoid future pain for everyone.
A kobold zombie is a bit different from a human zombie, but not much.
Both the wolf skeleton and kobold zombie exist in Pathfinder (and the PRD - sort of). D&D 3.5 just did the presentation better by already making a bunch of templates for you.
You just have to apply the templates.
More on topic: Haven't seen it. How does it end and what is the problem with it?
I think he means in general terms - a problem some people might have with 'historical' movies is that you already know how it'll end. History, and all that.
So, for example, Pompeii. You know everyone's in for a world of hurt, because, you know, Pompeii. (My guess with Pompeii, though, is maybe you watch to see if the protagonists are one of the 'few survivors' or something...)
Brain in a Jar wrote:
No thanks. I won't be looking it up, and my players especially won't be. TBH, I suspect the vast majority of players won't be doing so either.
If that's what's required, then it's a failure of the AP's writing. Again - bad design.
James Jacobs wrote:
*grin* I know you were. And I specifically put that in my post because I, personally, bet that back then you wouldn't have accepted it! People change, and over time get different priorities and/or get... engrossed... in certain things that may be different than what they were engrossed with before. (And I keep my time machine in my garage, just so you know.)
Brain in a Jar wrote:
my snowflake idea
If this encounter is "trash" (your word, no one else's, and too strong), then it's because it's an unfun encounter (bordering on obnoxious) - and I can confidently say would be unfun to the vast VAST majority of players.
And, if it's true that the vast majority of players 'wouldn't be affected by it', then it's a "trash" (again - your word and no one else's, and still too strong) encounter because far too much wordcount was used on something that most people supposedly won't experience (when it could have been used on setting the scene and helping the DM portray, you know, a god).
In the end, it was comparatively poor encounter design that likely wouldn't have survived a Dungeon magazine submission.
The Beard wrote:
Nah. It could be that that side of the debate just has generally craptastic arguments. It happens.
(Not that I have an opinion either way, but your response was hilariously defensive and, well... poorly argued!)
Unfortunately my Razor Coast game is suffering from lack of enthusiasm.
Any particular reason for this? (Don't feel like you need to answer.) I only ask because I'm looking for potential pitfalls should I ever run this (I was considering jamming this thing into my next campaign - Skull & Shackles - based on our slow XP house rules).
For example, I read a scathing review of Razor Coast that pointed out a host of problems with how the Tulita were portrayed in the book... and yeah... the review was absolutely right. I'd have to make wholesale changes to the Tulita - and adventure - for it to work with my group and I. (As written, that's an enthusiasm killer right there.)
I'm looking for other pitfalls.
Totally agree with these two points. Entirely.
>Opinions. I can easily watch Skye, I can't watch Laurel. And when this is about spending my previous entertainment time watching a show, that's the end of the story right there.
You don't say? A fascinating observation on your part.
You're incorrect. In any case - see (much) earlier in this thread for the reason why I stated it as such.
I know... ;) But I didn't want to specifically call you out! (Just in case you wanted to ignore me.)
What ARE the reasons you consider Arrow worth watching? What IS the good to be found? If you find this one character so infuriating it distracts you from anything else, why do you keep going back? Are there characters you like? Do you like the plot arcs? The special effects? If not these things, what, specifically?
That link that I mentioned in my previous post? A lot of that (not all of it, but a whole bunch of it) is the reason why I watch. Decent plot, DC references, "celebrates the superhero genre", reasonably high production values (notably good fight scenes), some of the flashbacks (but not all - S1 had a lot of misses, since the mercenaries were weird and lame, and somewhat inexplicable), "Arrow knows what — and who — it is fighting for". For me, those are powerful reasons to watch and enable me to choke down Laurel and the CW moments. And, there's also this stupid thing called 'hope'. Maybe it'll get better. Maybe some miracle will happen and I'll be blown away. It's not impossible - look what they did with Thea. She nearly stopped me from watching the show in S1, and now look at her... what an amazing improvement! I choked down 10 seasons of Smallville, the angst, Lana Lang and all, to eventually get the Justice League and one of the best final 5 minutes on TV EVER. So... hope.
The execution of the show leaves much to be desired (Laurel, the angsty humorless CW smear - both which majorly impact my enjoyment of the show), but there's still enough to keep watching. But Laurel is still Laurel, lame angst is lame angst, and it's hard not to mention since it permeates this show. It deserves criticism for that, AFAIC, and shouldn't be glossed over or ignored. So I'm not. It doesn't get a free pass from me just because it's a comic book related (which, admittedly, is a thing I'm not all that into) with some cool action. If others want to... *shrug* Ignore me. (But one has to admit - the time between my posts was fairly lengthy, and I only called out Laurel again when it got near-unbearable (again) and when others mentioned it first.)
I really just want to fangirl and analyze the show and I just don't know where I can find the opportunity to do that in a more balanced way. Nowhere, I guess.
Probably nowhere. But, I'm curious - you can't fangirl and analyze to your heart's content, while ignoring those posts that talk about/criticize things you don't want to talk about?
(If what you're seeing is occurring all over the place... well, there's very good reason for that, I'd say.)
I was fine with not saying any more, but since someone asked (and opened that door)...
I can't speak for the rest of the "Arrow fandom" (whoever the heck they are, and I don't care about).
But, Laurel is so bad that she overshadows all of that. ALL OF THAT. And - sorry to the fans - the show's not good enough to compensate for Laurel. Sorry.
Don't get me wrong - it's still decent (still no Agents of SHIELD, since for all the squawking on Skye, she's got nothing on Laurel) and I generally like the DC universe from what little I know of it (Superman is my favorite comic book character/superhero), so I still watch because there's still some good to be found. But it's not really that great of a show. (Needless to day - that list about how Arrow supposedly 'became the best superhero show on television'? Yeahhhhhh...... NO. Though I admit it definitely has a couple of valid points, which are some other reasons why I still consider Arrow worth watching.)
Sorry if my critical posts riles up some of the fans.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's basically a slap on the wrist to high level mythic characters is what it is. A "heads-up, pay attention" type thing.
Fascinating. I wonder why Paizo thought that such a thing (especially in this adventure) would be necessary at all? Considering what the PCs have done up to this point, it's a strange inclusion (and eater-of-supposedly-precious-space).
And really, on a meta level - what is the real point of this? As written, it's unpleasant, unfun, and even a bit baffling (and that's just coming from DM's, who get to see the big picture). What reaction were they expecting to get out of the players who are actually playing this game? (This is actually a somewhat serious question - what were they expecting players of this adventure to think? A "whoa, that was awesome"? If so, how?)
"Slap on the wrist"?? An extremely unwise proposition at the best of times in any adventure, and especially so when coming from allies/benefactors/bosses/task-givers. Hrmmm... :/
Okay. Then I'd avoid pretending 200 people on a self-selecting "survey" is relevant or meaningful in any way, shape, or form.
I wouldn't. It's a self-selecting poll in a subset of an audience (Paizo messageboard users) - it's not even close. Hence my comment "does anyone know the number of unique forum accounts on Paizo? The % could then be 200 out of that number. I'm going to guess it's still very tiny.)"
However, instead of picking apart words, let's try to put things into perspective... At the moment the Crane Wing threads have amassed more posts in one week...
Indeed. Conclusion? There are some real passionate fans out there.
Respectfully, "a few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure" is not an accurate summary of the situation.
Respectfully, I think it is an accurate summary. 200/x form users is a teeny, tiny percentage. I'm interested to see if I'll be proven wrong with real stats. (The - very limited - stats we do have right now happen to back me up. But I agree - not something anyone would want to hang their hats on, either.)
VM mercenario wrote:
And why do YOU presume the silent masses are okay with the nerf?
(There may indeed be more people who "don't agree with the decision", but they're uncountable and untrackable. With the data we have available so far of those who didn't agree - it's miniscule number... hence "a few people".)
I find it supremely arrogant of any side to just assume that the silent majority is on their side. What, you have some special superpower to know that without need of them saying anything? Are you Professor X?
*chuckle* You assume I'm on a side, here. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just a neutral - yet fascinated - third party observer who wants to hear what people think of Crane Wing and whether I should adopt it in some way into my game. But, if we want to go with the comic book snark, I'm certainly Professor X compared to your Longshot. Or Cypher?
"A few people" were the words used, actually.
200 unique users, out of hundreds of thousands of players.
Why do you erroneously presume that forum posters are 'worth more' as Pathfinder players?
(There may indeed be more people who "don't agree with the decision", but they're uncountable and untrackable. With the data we have available so far of those who didn't agree - it's miniscule number... hence "a few people". We might be able to go one step further than where we are, though - does anyone know the number of unique forum accounts on Paizo? The % could then be 200 out of that number. I'm going to guess it's still very tiny.)
Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.
So... yeah. "A few".
Ugh. While mixing technology and swords maybe be wahoo fun, time travel is not. From a neutral, third-party, relatively ignorant observer to this whole "Numeria" thing, that's deeply disappointing.
Time travel always blows. Terminator wasn't great because of time travel - it was great despite time travel.
Me too, TBH. You're preaching to the converted. I've discovered, however, that different groups have wildly different styles and methods with how they communicate with each other - so communication is really important in those particular groups.
(It also makes me very very glad that I'm not in those groups, and the only [thankfully passing] contact I have with them is through this messageboard when I'm taking a breather at the office. This isn't even a player-GM issue, AFAIC, because even the players in my group are flabbergasted at this thread and some of the comments found herein. Alien to all of us.)
Not very many. Though I have seen a rather surprising number of Paizo employees taking part in various thread - way more than I thought there would be, and more than I though would have time and/or be available. Hence my measured comment above.
They have jobs to do, of which moderation is only one. Probably not their most important one either. If the involved staffer doesn't moderate there is a longer delay in moderation. Maybe much longer. More replies get eliminated as a result, the thread becomes less coherent (many posts contain a lot of information beyond replying to something in another post that initially gets moderated). More information lost due to delaying moderation.
Indeed, a possible trade-off. (Though nothing close to what Deanoth suggested, which was what my comment above was specifically addressing.)
(Please be aware that nowhere did I say they have terrible - or even poor - moderation. I do think, however, that there is definitely room for improvement.)
No. (Quite the strange question, given the context above. Are you apologizing for the deeply inappropriate - and indefensible - outburst? I certainly hope not. Further, note that managing to successfully determine the "why" may still mean that even the thought of an outburst, of any sort, is not justifiable; and the problem still lies entirely with person who made the outburst.)