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

2,081 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,081 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

DonKeebals wrote:
I saw someone mention GM's and cheating, so I figured I'd add my $0.02. A GM can not cheat. GM's are the god at your table and they can do what they want. I almost always roll behind the screen and if I think a miss would have been a hit, it will be. Especially if I need to knock a player off of their high horse. To me this is no different that adding the advanced template to creatures.

OLD SKOOL! (Yes, the "K" is correct.)

I've found a healthy flogging of players before the game starts goes a long way towards a good game, as well.

Just make sure the nails are extra-rusty.

(And if you're not at least occasionally kicking them in the crotch, can you really be sure they're enjoying the rest of the game, when they're not being kicked in the crotch?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Every single time they announce an AP, no matter what it is, people say "I'm cancelling my subscription!" By the time they've announced it, it's already way too late for them to change it because a few forum denizens threaten to cancel. I don't know what people are attempting to accomplish.

LOL. You don't possibly think the messageboards are actually for accomplishing things do you? LOL again.

Even the hint of trying to stifle the expression of opinion on an internet messageboard is bad form - and reflects poorly on you. Stop that.

Rynjin wrote:
...and remember that imaginary people doing imaginary evil things doesn't hurt anything in reality.

Turns out, that's not an excuse. (And even Paizo admitted there are actual lines, and they wouldn't cross them.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cheliax again? Hell again? Bad guys?

Big load of meh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
I'm wondering here - was I in the wrong for speaking up?

Absolutely not. Everyone in the group is playing in the game, and players need to 'police their own' - the DM isn't solely responsible for that (and may not even need to be responsible for it at all), since everyone is playing the game. Everyone might have different views on the matter. (And, I'll reiterate: IMO, players need to step up to the plate and be just as responsible about things in general.) AFAIC, you were right to do so. (Though it still might not be "cheating" - some people really are that incompetent.)

With that said, the group dynamics could be different, so it might work differently for your group (doesn't sound like it though - just because a single player thinks something "was the job of the DM", doesn't mean it actually is).

Quote:
So I decided to bring it up to my friends, and when one responded with "if someone has to cheat to have fun, then so be it," I decided to bring the question to the forums to see if my anti-cheating attitude is antiquated.

I doubt your view is antiquated.


Spoiler:
Well, one riot. In Vancouver. And everyone in Vancouver is an idiot, anyways.

;)


Serpent's Skull, no question.

The whole Vol #3 (and #4) could be vastly improved with adventure add-ons for exploring the city (do mostly interior locations so you don't step on any IP...) As a further benefit, adventure add-ons within the city could be used by those not using Serpent's Skull, because who doesn't like Indiana Jones-like lost city locations to adventure in?

Also, more adventure locations in #5 and #6 (with a greater variety of opponent types) would go a long way.

So... yeah. Serpent's Skull.


My personal opinion only, based on only my experiences:

RoboPorthos wrote:
Are we the exception? Are the rest of you gents all functional social butterflies? And if not, if this sort of stupid conflict is unavoidable, is it really worth putting up with?

I have no idea if you're the exception or not, but yes, my group at least are all functional social butterflies.

If your experience is how you describe, then NO, it is absolutely NOT worth putting up with. At all. In any way. Ever.

But, that's just my experience - to paraphrase another poster above: player conflict is definitely not the norm in my experience.


Bluenose wrote:
My observed experience is that without any representation of position people spend as long asking where they are and what's within reach as they do fumbling around working out where to move with the battlemat. Speed comes from something more abstract rather than anything which has precise positioning that then doesn't get implemented. YMMV.

Exactly so with us.

Once we put in a battlemat 20 years ago during 2e, combats immeasurably sped up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

'Murica!

Or, if you prefer:

'Doran!

(graywulfe - are you American? That might explain your response. To a number of non-Americans, Andoran is pretty hilarious.)


Troodos wrote:
The "Singularity" in the show doesn't seem to reflect the real world concept.

Very little in the show seems to "reflect the real world concept". (A "real world" physicist would be dead in the street, their heads exploded from essentially-no-actual-physics-working-whatsoever.)

I'm not sure that's an excuse for Dr. Snow's weird lack of knowledge on something even the audience could figure out in a nanosecond.


Lemmy wrote:
Remember in Amazing Spider-Man 2 (ugh) when super-science-genius Peter Parker has to look up how batteries work on Youtube? ><'

No... because I have avoided that movie like the plague (the first Amazing SM was terrible). I see that my avoidance was wise.


I'll definitely be getting it eventually (PS4), but not for a little while.


MMCJawa wrote:
I'd rather get more Marvel Netflix shows that I can watch at my leisure, than a station I will ignore or forget about most of the time, assuming I even have cable.

And assuming that if you do have cable, your cable package has that channel (i.e. you may have to pay even more for the re-run filled channel and a smattering of new shows, that will also quickly be re-run)... or even if your cable provider has that channel available at all.


ryric wrote:
I don't think he's completely wrong.

I absolutely do. "Very specific"? Nope.

Quote:
But I'm not going to tell anyone that their play style is "wrong" or "gibberish," because that invalidates their experiences.

Neither would I, until he started spouting off that. (But then, I didn't say anything about anyone's playstyle being gibberish. How did you manage to mess that up?)

Tacticslion wrote:
The fact that you are insisting on this only shows that you lack the capability to understand that anyone plays things differently from your preferences in this regard which is... poor form.

"Poor form"? "Insisting"? "delusions and ignorance, 'cause, really, at that point, you're just being obtuse." "You're just wrong." "You have a really, really weird sense..." I find your ideas as terrible..." How 'bout you back off? I don't think you understood much of what I posted. And I certainly don't need a "poor form" from you.

I don't think my posts are for you, Tacticslion. I think you might be a bit prone to misinterpreting them, and then getting a might abusive about it. Sorry if I wasn't very clear in the first place.


Mark Hoover wrote:
Basically I'm a big fan of #2's. That probably didn't come out right...

Me too... me too.


Krensky wrote:
Then mayhaps you should avoid comic book adaptations... Science is not their strong suit.

Some are materially/noticeably worse than others.


Tacticslion wrote:
Wow - glad I don't play games with you.

Likewise.

I don't agree with a single thing you said. It was almost like reading alien gibberish, to me.

Quote:
The assertions you make are only true for very specific styles of gaming.

And you are completely wrong on that front. Yikes.


Hama wrote:
Barry got closure.

I admit that was a great scene, but I'm not sure if personal closure is worth a black hole.

But that's just me.

I'd probably need more closure after causing that event, too.

And what might that closure cause? A supernova? ;)


jemstone wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:


Loads of reruns combined with a couple of shows you can't get anywhere else, so you're still stuck with buying the channel if you want to see any of them (before they're out on DVD).
I don't see an issue with this.

*shrug* Weird. Pointless channel is pointless.

Mark Moreland wrote:
Yeah, this isn't so different from Netflix.

It's totally different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I... didn't like it that much.

First, the cliffhanger. Cliffhangers suck. If it ended one episode before, it would have been far superior.

And, the entire episode's storyline didn't make sense.

Spoiler:
All the reasons not to go back in time:
- Mess with the timeline, changing who knows what
- ...including possibly yourself (no Flash?)
- Your dad (with a fantastic - and correct - feels speech) thinks it's a terrible idea
- The villain thinks it's a good idea
- You could die
- And... AND... you could open a black hole (which you did)

And reasons for:
- Save your mom... which you STILL didn't do after all those shenanigans.

Sooo.... all you did was open a black hole. Woo!

What the hell was the point? WTF? The whole thing was so full of dumb it hurt. You could have kept Reverse in the tank o' villainy, continued on with your lives, yay. The whole idea was just put in to try to create drama, and give a vehicle for the cliffhanger.

(I'm not going to go into the whole running "Mach 2" (??) to collide with a particle to create a stable time wormhole, because that ship sailed a while ago. "Speed Force", I guess (note: I'm not a comic fan).)

The fight near the end in the accelerator was cool, though. And it felt "super-hero-y / comic-book-y", so I really appreciated that. And hey - helmet! Awesome visions! That stuff was really great.

(Oh, and fantastic observations, Damon Griffin.)


A whole channel? Probably unsustainable.

Loads of reruns combined with a couple of shows you can't get anywhere else, so you're still stuck with buying the channel if you want to see any of them (before they're out on DVD).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
My solution would always be to buff the martials instead of nerf the casters. But that's just because I like stuff.

Yeah... not me.

AFAIC, nerfing the casters is the way to go, not buffing martials. Casters are already problems - moving more things to the level of 'problems' is a bad solution, IMO.

1) Casters can already 'solo' or 'one-shot' encounters. Moving more classes to be able to do that simply makes it a race now as to who can one-shot an encounter first. (And, one-shotting encounters on even an uncommon basis sucks.) Bad.
2) Because of the above, the CR system would have to be entirely rebuilt.
3) Because of the above, a significant number of monsters would have to be entirely rebuilt. Bad.
4) Niche protection. While some people (inexplicably) don't care about that, it's still a problem. Most people don't like other people stepping on your toes, and that's what casters do. If that happens regularly, why bother with certain classes? Just have one class. Bad.
5) Campaign-type changes at higher levels. As noted earlier, the types of campaigns that can be run change significantly at higher levels (caused by casters) - one might even say the number of possibilities is reduced. That's bad. (I'm not sure where I, personally, stand on this one. On one hand, I think it can be good to have varying types of problems to overcome at different levels; on the other hand, some groups really like sticking with a certain 'style'...)
6) Related to the above, casters can make it difficult (or time-consuming) for DMs to come up with encounters/stories/games at higher levels. ALWAYS ALWAYS BAD.
7) Casters can potentially reduce world verisimilitude, making world-building more difficult, mess with player expectations, and make decision-making for players more difficult as they try to interact with a world. Bad.
8) Casters are more likely to be the ones able to put characters right out of the action (so the player sits there on his/her thumbs and waits). Suck.

For the may-or-may-not-be-inevitable PF 2.0? Nerf casters (or, rather, nerf their tools). HARD. Into the ground. In many ways. Often. Twice on Sunday.(Outright removal of certain problematic spells, and weakening others, wouldn't even be noticed much, and wouldn't even be considered the 'slaughtering of sacred cows', AFAIC.)

Uh... is my post wildly off-topic? Or do nothing but contribute to the 'caster-martial disparity' debate? Sorry... :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Macross (whole saga)
2) Ghost in the Shell (all of it)
3) Cowboy Bebop
4) Record of Lodoss War (OVA & TV)
5) Evangelion
6) El-Hazard
7) Howl's Moving Castle
8) Gundam (UC only)
9) Full Metal Alchemist
10) Bubblegum Crisis (and Crash and AD police files)

Honorable Mention:
- Darker Than Black
- Samurai Champloo
- Magic Knight Rayearth
- Tenchi (TV & movies only)
- Spirited Away

(I have not yet seen some of the 'newer' stuff, like Psycho Pass and a number of others mentioned here.)


Definitely glad she's not a teenager... I'd have no interest in watching that.


It's kind of a weird CW thing, actually (one of the many CW fails that I love harping about).

The CW (for whatever strange reason) seems to be really 'anti-secret'. Of all types. Regardless of the situation.

Have a look at various other CW shows... you'll see it. "Secrets are bad. Always."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I would very much like to know why this change is happening. I look forward to seeing that blog post.
Is inflation really that much of a mystery?

The answer to that is: Yes (and I'm an accountant).

There are, actually, many reasons for inflation. "Inflation" itself is not an answer - what specifically is behind the inflation, for Paizo, is an answer.

(Your response was strange... and a little thoughtless.)

Do you really think Paizo is going to give a more elaborate answer than 'our costs are rising'? They're not going to go into detail about which costs, precisely, have risen and by how much, exactly.

*shrug* Beats me if they will.

I was just responding to the nonsensical comment of "Is inflation really that much of a mystery?"

What you just said above is something different. Stay on target.


Is that castle map taken from the Giantslayer AP? Or designed specifically for whatever adventure the group was on at the time?

(It's a great map...)


Ross Byers wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I would very much like to know why this change is happening. I look forward to seeing that blog post.
Is inflation really that much of a mystery?

The answer to that is: Yes (and I'm an accountant).

There are, actually, many reasons for inflation. "Inflation" itself is not an answer - what specifically is behind the inflation, for Paizo, is an answer.

(Your response was strange... and a little thoughtless.)


As others have said: A bunch of crappy Ogre and really crappy Barbara episodes/scenes, and then a one episode quick lame ending with a bunch of out-of-character actions?

Ugh. Not good.


Orthos wrote:
Yeah I honestly don't know how to respond to the few highly-critical posts

It would probably be wise if you didn't.

This thread isn't a dedicated love-in, and the movie isn't immune to criticism (of any sort - whether specific individuals think they're "mindless" or not).


I like the idea, but the book seems a tad... misnamed.


Does anyone know if Paizo has ever statted out unique daemons/daemon lords?

(And if so - what book(s) they might be found in?)

Thanks in advance!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_JD wrote:
I haven't started the game just yet, I am just getting them to create characters. He already stated his character would sit in the bar, depressed and drink and nothing else.

I read the craziest things on the internet.


MMCJawa wrote:
Exactly! Although the last one on the list...I loved the hell that the character got powers, but hated that they decided those powers = evil.

Me too, me too... she would have been (and maybe might be in the future, if they don't go too gooftastic on us) an awesome, kick-ass member of the team.

/hijack


Hama wrote:
Sorry, but High Fantasy for me

For you.


Don't feel too bad, Digitalelf.

I get what Irontruth is saying, and he said it better on a subsequent post: "telling your players that it isn't a realistic and technical campaign... then turning it into one... is bad." I don't think this is unreasonable at all.

It's just his original example ("If you tell them it's a high adventure story with action and excitement, then call for saves due to carbon monoxide poisoning") was a very poor one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

Ah, you mean someone kept the hack from killing a puppy just because he wanted a cheap emotional shock Fromm the audience and doesn't know how to get one otherwise?

Yeah, no wonder he's pissy.

I like Whedon, and even I agree with this.

Whedon: It's getting old, man.


MMCJawa wrote:

Gotham is the third show I have seen this season that in it's final episodes has decided to inexplicably make a not very popular (former or current) love interest of the lead turn..evil/evilish.

Man did a bunch of writers attend a workshop or something? This is sort of weirding me out.

Spoiler:
Ooo! Ooo! Let me guess!

- The aforementioned awful Barbara from Gotham
- The execrable Katrina from Sleepy Hollow
- The once somewhat cool, understanding, and supportive Juliette from Grimm


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
I don't know... Maybe because some people are interested in playing a game of heroic fantasy rather than a game of fantasy dynamic entry?

"Some people" being the operative words.

Don't pretend everyone likes to play the same way you do.

Quote:

What possible purpose does that serve other than getting your jerkholery on?

That's pretty much a textbook example of how not to design an adventure.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Again: Don't pretend everyone likes to play the same way you do.


Can anyone further explain the map glitch?


Game Master wrote:
I definitely see a lot of GMs who think that if someone surrenders, you have no choice but to give them the royal treatment.

Are you accidentally describing anything that is "not death" as "royal treatment"?

Whoops on your part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
That was one of the issues with 3.5's splat explosion. A lot of new material that all got no/minimal support past the book it was released in.

I highly doubt that was any "issue" at all - at least, not a material one.

In fact, it was probably a benefit - TSR-then-WotC learned fairly quickly that forcing people to own other books to make use of a new book was fantastically stupid.

In fact - the only way Paizo is getting away with this right now is because the majority of their rules are free, on the internet. Without that, you'd see things very differently from what they are right now.


Brother Fen wrote:
Then why respond?

1) Messageboards. That's what people do. (Duh)

2) Because I thought it was pretty interesting what you did (i.e. show them the covers of all the modules). And I thought I'd say so. I found it fascinating what different groups do and how much information they divulge. I learn something new all the time. (Maybe add a dash of a small lament that I wouldn't be able to do anything like that...)

Quote:
Has your group ever had a sense of anticipation for the next part of an adventure? "I can't wait til we get to the dungeon or get to fight the next batch or undead or finally make it to the Golden City of Death".

Yep, to a degree. But they're strange folks - they would hate to see the actual published module being shown to them (or even know that they're going through a published module). They like everything to be more... 'natural' or 'flowing', I guess? Overall, it seems like they value surprise, more. I can't account for their tastes.

Quote:
If you want to sit at my table and say "boring" you may move along because we won't get along.

I have no idea what you're blabbering about, here. I'm not saying anything. (Like I typed before: *shrug*. I guess my players wouldn't get along with you. Or whatever.)


Brother Fen wrote:
There's no point in having a group of cavaliers have to slog through a series of dungeons without their horses or guys without sail experience stuck on a ship for a year. In all of the companion books, it literally says, "ask your GM if your campaign will involve XYZ".

Totally agree. So would my players.

Quote:
I would allow your group to excuse themselves from my table.

*shrug*


Convenience is never an excuse.


Brother Fen wrote:
When I started my campaign, I opened the first session by showing the players the covers to every module they would play form level 1-20. I gave them a brief breakdown of the types of adventures involved: dungeoneering, wilderness exploration, demon hunting, dragon slaying, so on and so forth.

That's very interesting, and cool that it worked for you.

(My players would hate that. "What the hell are you giving away everything up front for? I/We don't want to know that! BORING.")


thejeff wrote:

Depends on what you want. You could neuter the casters to get a grittier more human game.

Or you could boost the martials to get a more wild super powered game.

They're both valid approaches.

Possibly - depending on how it works within the CR system.

(It's my opinion that one is more valid than the other, needing fewer CR changes.)


Seranov wrote:
The problem, KC, is mostly that the work required to make mundanes punch at the level of spellcasters pretty much involves neutering the spellcasters entirely. THAT is the problem.

And that's a load of horsecrap. Neutering "entirely"? Pffft.

(Yeah, I know it was hyperbole, and I'm acknowledging that. But deeply, deeply inappropriate... and also part of the problem.)

Quote:
Well, it's been years and there have been attempts made.

Horsecrap #2. The closest 'attempt' that was every made was a bit of 4e (kind of successful - but with consequences) and 5e (even more successful).

Neuter. The. Casters. (Or to be more specific: neuter the caster's tools.) Because that's where the problem lies. Not the other way around.

(I also get that the retort will be "but we're talking about Pathfinder". Well... that ship has sailed. Boosting the martials to the power needed to be equivalent to casters is just as unrealistic/not-going-to-happen as neutering the casters.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Except it does affect what we have available, because the "realism" restrictions on martials are why martials don't have tools.

I instead chalk it up to: martial's tools are fine... it's the wizard's tools that were badly designed (and they didn't have to be).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice to see a mention of Cyclopean Deeps 2!

I ordered/paid for that one on FGG's subscription thingy ages ago...

1 to 50 of 2,081 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.