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

1,874 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,874 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely, totally would play in a game that the OP suggests.

In fact, it would probably be one of my preferences. I have zero interest (less than zero interest) in Mos Eisely.


Just had a chance to see it. One of the creepiest movies I've ever seen.

What an awful, awful potential future - and I can totally see society going that way, if 'mass market' AIs came out that reacted the way these do.

The downfall of society... loss of human interaction on a massive scale, increased isolationism and introversion... *shudder*

Oh... and innumerable (overwhelming) tech support calls. My AI did this! And did that! And disappeared! Gimme my money back!


You waited too long to see it.

The internet moves fast. ;)


Yeah. Vudra and the Impossible Kingdoms. (Starts there, ends there. No travel.)


StrangePackage wrote:
How many of you as GMs allow evil characters in your standard non-evil campaign?

Almost never/never.

After a couple of attempts, it has been determined that my particular players can't really handle it and/or figure it out.


Well done, OP. Well done.

The balrog comment was gold.


Captain Beaky and his band wrote:

Mag (and others), if you did nothing other than give the mythic dudes x 5 hit points, what would that do, in your opinion, to the book as written?

I'm trying to gauge what effect that single change would make and how much more would need to work on.

NobodysHome covered this earlier in the thread already:

NobodysHome wrote:

Just upping hit points isn't a reasonable solution because it eliminates the effectiveness of the other party members (blaster caster, fighting/buffing cleric). Do I just tell them, "Sorry, but the fighter does so much damage I'm afraid I have to make you even more ineffective than you already feel."

It's far more complex than just hit points. I liked Eusteryiax because his incorporeality reduced the fighter's damage by half, but didn't affect the blaster's mythic magic missiles. It ended up being a balanced fight where party members did roughly equivalent damage.

That's the kind of solution I'm looking into; more of a, "How do I make sure everyone can contribute?", rather than, "How do I make monsters so tough the fighter can't one-shot 'em, and everyone else should be focusing on battlefield control 'cause they're not going to get in enough damage anyway..."


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Most of these items are not show stoppers that will make me quit a group.

Heh. Well, you're a better man than I! A few of those things would be show-stoppers for me (and for my friends).

And while there is certainly no "onetrueway" in an objective sense, there sure as hell is a onetrueway for our individual group. Conform, or GTFO. ;)

Damon Griffin wrote:
So I'm supposed to page through a dozen print sources to look up something he could pull up on his phone in a few seconds?

"No. Use your own device right in front of you (beside you) and look it up yourself." ;)

(My friends - and myself - would be pretty intolerant of this kind of thing. Such questions after a couple of times would be summarily ignored.)


Sprain Ogre wrote:

You know, I'd take Mags complaints more seriously if he'd stop trying to compare issues with Mythic and Wrath to car failures and errors in math and language books. It's a faulty comparison for product liability, as well as in scope of potential and real damages.

While I guess it does illicit an emotional response, I don't think it's the one that is intended...

You are free to peruse the myriad other lists of issues surrounding Mythic.

Pointing out one single post and then talking about not taking complaints seriously is pretty disingenuous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
The thing is, I've only seen entitled DM behaviour in person, yet only hear about entitled player behaviour from others.

*shrug* Limited experience on your part then, I suppose?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad it's not as dire as the original report made it sound.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Michelle Yeoh.

(But really - Cynthia Rothrock won this thread already.) :D


Marc Radle wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
The writers of Lost did pretty much outright admit that they were making it up as they went, almost episode by episode with no plan.

That's actually not true.

The main writers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse (along with JJ Abrams), had a definite plan for the major series arc as well as how the show would ultimately end.

They DID make things up as they went on smaller, episode to episode cases based on what worked, what didn't, fan comments etc (like any good write does). But they always had a master frame-work in mind which they stuck to.

The problem for the writers was that, until the network finally agreed to pick an end date for the series (instead of keep running the show year after year until some time in the future when rating eventually dropped) they were forced to improvise and add filler episodes. Otherwise they might have "run out of story" before they were ready.

Regardless, it was terrible.


We draw the battle-map as the players explore. We like doing it this way for a few reasons:

1) We have a massive gridded white-board that covers the entire tabletop that we play on - which happens to be a custom-built pool table cover. So we have lots of room available.

2) While the drawing occurs, the players have a chance to digest what they're seeing; further, at the same time, the DM describes the room at the same time he's drawing the features and the players can ask questions about what they're seeing right then. (This covers both the 'boxed text' section of an area description and all the players' questions at one time.)

We've discovered this method is (on average/overall) the most efficient and time-saving method of drawing maps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Do Your Players Expect Treasure?

Well... yes. It's sort of one of the points of playing. ;)

But apparently, they don't "expect" it to the degree that your players do... Do they expect treasure? Yes. Do they expect it every encounter? No. Do they expect it every session? No, not even that.

As to your problem... you could talk to them about it. Explain - as specifically as possible - why you give out treasure they way you do, and why giving it out other way(s) will cause problems (and how it will cause problems). Again - specific.


Wait... what?

Are people saying that the full RA sub PDF is available? Like, the whole, complete, final thing?

/checks/

*sobs with joy* Sweet jeebus, it is! 165 pages of RA expansion. WOOO!


Picked it up day 1.

Just like Itchy, I didn't like Alpocalypse that much (but really liked Straight out of Lynnwood).

Mandatory Fun, however, is one of his best albums in years.


Tangent101 wrote:
Your complaint is basically saying "I don't like this book because it builds before introducing the villain instead of starting with the villain blowing up the building and revealing his presence. It's like saying "The start of "The Lord of the Rings" is boring because Tolkien didn't start with Galadriel narrating to everyone about the Last Alliance of Men and Elves and the Ring of Power."

Not really.

In any case, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that some APs/adventures provide better motivations than others. (And, IMO, the best APs are the ones that do this better than the others. The worst are the bait-and-switch adventures; i.e. the extreme end of providing poor motivation. See Second Darkness.)

AFAIC, Peter Stewart analyzed this AP (so far) perfectly. The motivation is poor and it didn't have to be.

Quote:
Likewise it makes SENSE for the first two tombs to NOT be directly related to the final plot because first you have 1st level adventurers who could die quite easily and thus negate any reason for the players to be involved, second you allow the players to build up treasure in preparation for future levels, and third the real world doesn't work like stories.

I reject these as nothing more than invalid excuses that the better APs avoid anyways. I understand YMMV.


Andrew Turner wrote:

At what age do you (Paizonians with children) plan to allow a computer in your child's room?

OWN computer? In their own room? Likely not until at least 16. Maybe later.

Not internet connected? Maybe earlier. But probably not. They don't need one of their very own - they can use one of the myriad available computers (in open and accessible areas) around the house.

(Or so I say now, when my little girl is just 2. My comment is subject to change based on constant evaluation.)


If you're going to turtle, you're going to get ignored.

And that's a good thing.

Squishies get hit first. As it should be.

(To answer the question: Doesn't the Antagonize feat do something along the lines of what the OP is hoping for?)


Azmyth wrote:
Whenever I talk to anyone about the game, I deliberately avoid calling it anything other than D&D. I believe that deploying that kind of language perpetuates the mentality of edition wars and community polarity around them.

Huh. That's quite the belief. Not sure if it's shared very widely.

I'll be sticking with 5e/Next, thanks. Differentiation provides clarity and clarity is good.

Quote:
(Yes, btw if you're interested, I am playing the new D&D)

I would never have guessed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
What purpose do the Iconics serve?

To get in the way of otherwise good art.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
How about banning a book, or possibly many books, based on not wanting to go through each book in a massive library (that you may not even own) and analyze each option in combination with every other possible option?

Exactly so.

I'm glad other people are made of time, I guess. *shrug*


James Jacobs wrote:
pres man wrote:
It is pretty unusual for a not fully calked window to endanger anyone's life.
Missing the point of my metaphor entirely, of course...

Maybe so, but it was a strange metaphor since nobody in this whole thread suggested that editing was comparable to putting someone's life in danger (well, other than possibly yourself).

The original comparison that was made was more than fair.


No, you're not wrong in noticing the pattern.

I don't care to speculate what Paizo's reasons are(if I did, it wouldn't be very flattering).

Yes, IMO the situations come up too often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.

So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?

Time is an investment. My friends and I have precious little time as it is - we have it nicely set up to meet once every 2 weeks and play in our long-running campaign that we enjoy, using a system that fits this campaign perfectly - a system that we really like and know well.

And as others have said - to what end? We're not interested in learning a new system (in fact, that's the LAST thing any of us want to do, it's the antithesis of fun), we're already having loads of fun playing something that is suited very well for us... with a new system, could we have "more" fun? What is "more"? It is measurable, or even relevant or material? (Very likely not.)

Why not try it? Why would we even bother, given the above? Time is a real investment... and it's a HUGE one.

(I find your "don't really understand" pretty strange, when it's pretty obvious AFAIC - I don't think you've thought about it as hard as you should have.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't pick one. My favorites:

- Final Fantasy VI
- Chrono Trigger
- Final Fantasy VII
- Xenogears
- Final Fantasy Tactics


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sprain Ogre wrote:
Why wouldn't you modify the tactics for both to deal with your party?

Then why waste precious space in the adventure by including them at all?

Quote:
Mythic is EASY to deal with.

Yes, it's very easy to deal with thing by ignoring the rules.


KarlBob wrote:
I agree with tbug. Only one NPC has mythic abilities, the PCs aren't told that the NPC's abilities are mythic, and it's very easy to re-stat the NPC without the mythic abilities. I definitely wouldn't avoid this plug-in based on one easily-avoided use of the mythic rules.

Okay, that also is really good to know. These, especially:

- only one NPC has mythic abilities
- the PCs aren't told that the NPC's abilities are mythic

(and if mythic abilities are kept FAR AWAY from the PCs), then I can easily work with that.

Good thread - these are really helpful for me to make 3rd-party purchasing decisions (since the adventure-type plug-ins are what I'm interested in from Legendary Games... especially for Skull & Shackles - even if I think they've gone a little nutty with the mythic stuff, which I consider to be bad rules overall).


bugleyman wrote:
My point remains: Boycotting WotC over 4E (if that is in fact what is happening here) seems like boycotting Ford because you didn't like the 2008 F150. People certainly do that sort of thing -- I'm just not sure how rational it is.

If we're going to use silly analogies to try to declare things being irrational, let's at least attempt to get a little bit closer:

It would be more like "boycotting" Ford because you didn't like a single vehicle from the company between 2008 and 2013. The 2008 Ford F150 (the 2008 Monster Manual?) is just one drop in the bucket.

You may be surprised then, it seems, that people have dropped companies (including car manufacturers) for a lot less. I also doubt anyone here is in a position to determine if that's "rational" or not.


tbug wrote:

I'm really on the fence about offering up a mythic tier. I know that a lot of work has already been done with regards to making Skull & Shackles mythic, but I hadn't decided to go that route. This is just so cool, though.

What's everyone else doing?

Avoiding mythic like the plague, and now wondering if I should buy the plug-in (which I was otherwise interested in before).


We love XP. We'll never be getting rid of it. We like seeing that 'tangible' form of progression.

(And, we still use 3.5's [superior, in our opinion] item creation system, so XPs are used there, too.)


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If you're experiencing your favorite setting via organized play, you don't have the luxury of ignoring what you don't like, but at the same time...your favorite setting has the greater luxury of supporting organized events, right?.

Not if the organized events include the majority of what you don't like.

What would possibly make you think that organized events is valuable in and of itself? (I.e. what makes you think it's a "greater" luxury?)


Can it with zombies?

Never, I hope.


Skeld wrote:
I also think this product suffers from "all level maps must fit on a flip-map." That seems like unnecessarily restrictive. Flip-maps are nice when their generic locations, but the dungeon ones are less useful.

I was afraid that might have been the case, after reading the details about this product. Can't say I'm surprised.

Another reason why I don't do flip-map products. Good to know that what I suspected is true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
I've never understood the hate for the SW prequels.

Hey - it's great that you liked the prequels. I'm sure lots of people do.

But... are you really sure you don't 'understand' the hate/dislike of the prequels? Really? I find that somewhat hard to believe.

Because I'll be honest here - it's really not that hard to at least understand the dislike for the prequels, even if you don't share it.


baron arem heshvaun wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I rather agree with Neil Gaiman's quote regarding people telling him to hurry up.
As Neil Gaiman eloquently put it, "George R.R. Martin is not your biitch."

Indeed. And true.

I've solved that particular problem for myself. GRRM (or any other author) does not get a single red cent of mine until he/she/they finish whatever series they're working on.

Hey, Gaiman/GRRM - I'm not your "biitch", either. See my money? Not for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
roguerouge wrote:
Unfortunately, since Hollywood will never ever kill a kid in these kinds of movies, those scenes have no dramatic tension whatsoever.

Fortunately, of course. I'm good with no dramatic tension by not killing children.

I feel sorry for those who aren't.


Zolanoteph wrote:
How do you deal with race in your games if at all?

We don't. At least, not consciously, anyways. Skin color is of no bearing to anything.

(We don't homebrew - we've played in our FR-based multiverse for years and years, so we don't need to worry about "where black people come from".)


I don't know if I can pinpoint it. I liked the characters, I liked the 'background' story (Arks, Earth Republic, all that).

Seemed like they captured this: "frontier like Firefly, diverse like B5, and lethal like GoT" bang-on, AFAIC.


Loved season 1, so I can't ask for much more other than "more of the same, please".


Legendarius wrote:
I think the Flash looks really good and shows promise. The real question I have is whether or not Warner Bros/DC Comics will really manage to do some connections between their properties in the way Marvel has done (at least in terms of Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Avengers/Agents of SHIELD). It would be great if at least some of the new movies had links to Arrow and The Flash.

I suspect not. I think DC still considers the TV shows to be 'poor-man's versions' of their properties. As much as Arrow has been doing pretty good things for DC, it's still mired on the second-rate CW, and is filled with bad CW tropes - something AoS got to avoid entirely (and is superior for it).


Fake Healer wrote:
So you watch a movie and then wait for people to make opinions for you? / If you need a committee to help you form an opinion

That's not what he said, or even implied - and it's pretty much impossible to even come to that conclusion unless you're being willfully obtuse... or purposefully insulting.

What's wrong with you?


Sticking with 3.5. Don't need another system when the one I have works perfectly for my group and I; and I have neither the time nor inclination to learn a new rule set.


PsychoticWarrior wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:

I don't get the rabid, mindless hatred for the Star Wars prequels either. And I thought that "Attack of the Clones" was WAY better than "mediocre". The chase scene on Corruscant was not only awesome, I think it was indispensable. I mean, we've seen high-speed flying-car chases before, but this time, we see one in a fully urbanized city filled with thousands of other flying cars. I don't know why science fiction movies don't do that sort of thing more often.

The action in the droid factory was cleverly made, too.

And who can forget Yoda flying into action?

It's amazing how you randomly picked out 3 of the worse, most cring-worthy scenes from AotC. I mean really - Yoda hopping around like a mad frog? The hackneyed cliched tripe in the droid factory? Yeesh!

Suppose it explains how he doesn't "get" the dislike. (Even though it's really not that hard to understand.)

Marc Radle wrote:
The new Star Trek movies weren't fiascos by any definition of the word. The were actually highly entertaining and extremely successful - might want to look 'fiasco' up in the dictionary ...

I just did... and got a picture of "ST: Into Darkness". Yeah, I said it.

1 to 50 of 1,874 << 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.