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

Auxmaulous's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,842 posts (2,924 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 20 aliases.

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Q:Martial / Caster disparity: What are you going to do about it?

A:Tried fixing it and then deciding not running PF or 3/X derivatives has been the best fix so far.

Otherwise, a complete game re-write of the:

- Skill system (and manipulation)
- DC system (and manipulation)
- Item creation (and stat manipulation/poorly gauged stat & meta power expectations)
- Standard Action vs. Full actions as they relate to attacks
- Almost all the spells/Magic Items are spells
- A few dozen other problems: Casting in combat, core class functions overridden by spells items, default power level hard coded, WBL (Bleahhhhh!) and so on.

Just too much work for me to do to enjoy the game.
Went back to 2nd ed AD&D and the Martial/Caster disparity disappeared. This problem is a construct of the d20/ 3.X systems.

My opinion and view on the matter, I'm sure that others will disagree.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congrats guys! I wish I could have been on this one, once I get back on my feet I will try to pick this up from the FGG website.

Good work!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Haladir wrote:
I feel like something has been lost. Complex rules can be a constraint to creativity, and tactical positioning can make combat feel like a board game.
It hasn't. People are just lazy. I never, ever felt constrained in my creativity of either creating characters or creating a campaign.

No, it has.

See the thread about the GM who is afraid to modify a creatures DR because it isn't currently in the rule set as an option. This is the typical mindset of RAW GM or Player, something that was fostered by the 3.X/d20/OGL movement.

The more codification and expectation that "there needs to be a rule for that" the less wiggle room you have as both a player or GM to create something that comes from your imagination - it has to comply with the current gaming toolset.

This is an aspect/side-effect of hypercodification/MtG of the D&D rules that occurred in 2000 and 2003 and onward with every other 3.X clone (PF included). Aka "you need a rule for that" or "is it in the rulebook"? This is also the primary reason why a "Build Your Own Monster" book using a codified, game-legal toolkit has not been made in 15 years. Even the game's creators and those that followed can't figure out how to codify such wide ranging and subjective data - so they don't/can't put it out because it would cause the hypercod gaming community to go into apoplectic seizures.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Due to my current employment situation this is going to be the first FGG pre-order/Kickstarter going to ToHC/Tsar that I cannot back. Which is a bummer.

That being said I will do what I can to spread the word and make sure this gets funded.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barely in:
For Shub-Niggurath
Graveyard set (just the fences)

I would pick up the mythos set, but really would have preferred that the Dark Young was sold as separate pick.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I will place a suggestion here, even though you expanded upon this in the GM Experience thread.

Instead of just rolling or picking through CR appropriate encounters maybe another method would be to focus on core ideas and themes and write/fit the encounters around those themes or ideas (and motivations).

So in your goblin write up the theme would be: Hunters.
Or another variant (if you keyed one random encounter to follow another) The Hunted. Or another variant for the Fey encounter would be: Aid. Basic and core words and terms that form the focus of the encounter while keeping the encounter on point.

So if you dropped one into your game you could either run it as the PCs meeting the Goblins first, or maybe they can meet the Fey (as it fits the environment) first who thinks its being stalked by creatures trying to catch it or kill it, then shortly followed by using the Goblin hunters encounter.

A method (just an idea really) is to start with a series of basic words/themes. Then see if you can randomly roll or just pick a creature that fits the word/theme to create an encounter. Some you can combine - then let them swirl around in your head. Some combined will not make sense, those are usually the most fun to try to put together.

Some sample words/themes:



BTW, I stole a few words from Cal's post to add to my sample list.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had a funny "go with it" situation arise in my last Gamma World playtest game night. The characters are low level, armed with crap (xbows, short bows, spears, etc) so they are always on the look out for better weapons or even ancient tech gear while they are on their quest.

So they are exploring a small ruined town, checking some rubble of what's left of a few houses and some businesses. In one of the buildings they find the skeletal remains of an expired mutant (killed by some rubble spiders) - on the body they find some keys and the rest of his gear. No big deal. They fight the rubble spiders in an insane battle for a low level fight with players falling into walls (and almost through them) with a constant threat of the building collapsing (made their luck checks).

Another house over they find a very well hidden cache of survival gear and small locked strong box (they rolled the highest difficulty while searching). Now there are no potions in GW, but there are plenty of fragile items - so they are trying to figure out how to get it open or pick it without damaging the contents. When I wrote the building/loot up, I put the lock in as a challenge - did anyone get lockpicking, is there another way to open it without destroying the contents, etc. Basically a reward for those who invested the right skills or creative problem solving.

One of the players says - "why don't we check the keys we found on that skeleton?"

So I think to myself - "damn, I should have wrote that into the module".
I had them roll luck checks (easy) to see if the mutant had stashed the box before he got killed - they made the check and one of the keys worked. Inside they found a dose of Antitoxin and an Accelera Dose (like a potion of healing, works over a few rounds though) and some New Skin patches (healing for light injuries). So a good find of tech healing (all new to them) and all of it was intact. As a bonus they got a sturdy strong box and its key.

Sometimes the players string together good ideas because they see things from their pov - which is always a nice thing to have when writing (and then re-writing) adventures.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It just comes and goes Hoover - that being said, if the stuff doesn't fit into your "simple encounter" project SAVE IT FOR LATER!

As far as 30 days of 30 simple encounters - start with a guideline and layout. Focus on the basics - the creature(s), a hook, the terrain, the time of day/night - and then confine your encounters to "sort of" fit those parameters.

If you come up with something deeper, set it aside (still work on it though) and focus on generating encounters for the project. Even though its simple in scope and by contrast detailed encounters are great, there's something to be said for sticking by your own rules on a project.

The modules are in you though - if generating encounters serves as a tool for creating bigger things then by all means use it! Even if they just become notes that get set aside.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shem wrote:

Steve, I said this in the other thread where you asked me about this.

The Frogs on the boards have said they are not going to do subscriptions again, but they did say someplace that there would be more RA material but they have not talked about those plans yet that I have seen. I try to read all the Frog threads.

That was my understanding also - no more subs, but more due to the time pressures and obligations (plus the potential of being late). I think their concern was more of a method of purchase and delivery - aka - the subscription model.

That being said - they still can come out with an Expansion II, III, (Un)Living Rappan Athuk (Campaign guide, plots), Rappan Athuk - The Lost Levels, etc - without putting themselves on the spot or a forced time table that a subscription would require.

I know that FGG wants to expand their Lost Lands Campaign world and that is what gamers want and GMs need to run a long term game, but to me RA is a gold mine of potential material that needs be revisited time to time. I think those opining for it in this thread are going on the information that RA would still be getting some product.


RA is the Lost Lands Castle Greyhawk and Temple of Elemental Evil (combined). It was one of the supplements/mods that hooked people back in the NG days (along with Bard's Gate, Lost City of Barakus, Vault of Larin Karr) and much like Orcus and Tsathoggua it is an iconic dungeon that people remember. To me it would make sense to keep RA in the minds of Lost Lands GMs and players as an important locale of the Lost Lands (much like Tsar).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I suspect the Yellow King plot thread might be one and done for this season. My guess would be next season we will get some thing else with nods to cosmic horror but not specifically the Yellow King. Lots of other material to draw inspiration from. devoured my post, bleah..

I think this is going to be tied to a sex-cult, possibly mythos related. Possibly Shub-Niggurath. Soon there will be whispers around the water cooler about who or what is the Dark Goat of the Wood with a Thousand Young, just like they did with the Yellow King....maybe not, but possibly. Lemme esplain...

This thing reads like a Delta Green op, but instead of federal agents we have a city cop (the city is supposed to be much like the City of Vernon near LA), Sheriff and CHP and an underworld criminal - so they have all the research points covered.

So my theory on the Shub-Niggurath cult angle -
Each of the characters have a sex/relationship issue - Ani, can't be or stay in a relationship. Ray doesn't want one anymore and shows no interest. Also, he was "trying" to have a kid when the incident with his wife occurred. The CHP guy has some functional issues and Semyon is trying IVF treatments to have a kid...more on him in a moment. So I think it could be a factor or underlying theme with the GOO.

The crime and the icon plus some peripheral players (the Russians) made me think of the Skoptsi -as written up for Delta Green but could be based off of the real thing, and then the black idol in the car with Caspere made me again think of the Skoptsi and their black icons (and their search for them/importance). So Caspere may have been part of this cult and had his bits and pieces removed because in some way he offended the cult or put a resource at risk. Maybe a track of land? Maybe he found an icon?

Santa Muerte can also be considered an avatar of the Dark Goat - all those found bodies in the field with markers in the opening shot. Missing women, and no doubt they may play up missing children/adoptions from Russia. So this can go a 100 ways. Or maybe a 1000 - Young.

The monk's name who started the Skoptsi - Semyon. Maybe a coincidence with our underworld character in TD2, but the whole thing seems suspect.

Skoptsi/Shub-Niggurath FTW. I'm sticking with that theory until at least the next episode. much xp do I get for cracking this thing wide open?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thedmstrikes wrote:


There are the usual tricks, give them some levels. make lots of traps and they have intimate knowledge of the battleground, so can snipe or sneak attack at will with such knowledge. Another idea to steal from Dragon Mountain is to morph a bad ass into a goblin and add it to the horde, that will be a big surprise. In the adventure I mention it was a fire giant changed to a kobold, but that is not allowed in the current rules. Maybe make some alchemists or golem builders to beef up their numbers with some low grade golems. Necromancers...the dead rise again. Did I mention traps yet...there is always that route...Also, give them a leader capable of teaching them how to make use of teamwork feats...that will surprise them too...(crap, do they even have those in Pathfinder?)

This pretty much right here. I would not write off the quirky Goblins of the keeps so quickly. I think if you added some levels, added in some extra support you may come to like the setup.

I actually have an expansion of the Castle (Beyond Castle Calaelen - original, isn't it) that adds a small secret dungeon and a few entrances throughout the complex (primary one is in the sealed library).
There are a few other areas that I added to the module: Rubbled Stairway in area 7, Courtyard Well - area 8, and of course some secret stairs in the library (area 15) in the eastern wall that all provide different access points to the new areas.

The reason for me is that I always use slow track xp, I tallied up the xp for the entire complex and felt that I still had a budget to work with to add a few more encounters. Going through my written notes in my little blue notebook (have not converted it to word yet) I have added:

Added to Roster:

- A Fiendish Orgekin-Gnoll cleric of Crocutus (level 2, but that's assuming the original mod) - with Fragile and Oversized Maw as features.
He works with the Goblins as the leader of the Gnoll mercenaries but has his own designs and visions of conquest. This also ties in with the local Gnoll threat and adds some plot points and back story.

Unbreached Crypt (not yet accessed by goblins, entrance is in sealed library):

- Petrified Zombies and Skeletons (increased AC +4, flat DR 5/-, Resist Fire , but move slower). Regenerate 1 point per minute.

- Bat Swarm (Fiendish Bats) I call "Strip Bats" - fly around like a bat swarm at first, then start attacking PCs trying to strip flesh from bone.

Torture Chamber:

- Animated Gibbet (I have a full write up and history of this monster if I ever get the courage to post it).

Advancing the story: Since becoming a cleric of Orcus, Jedra has been given visions of undead by her demon god. She has started to dig around the complex (and is looking for slaves to do the work) to find and free the Petrified Dead. While they are particularly slow monsters, nothing would prevent her from controlling them, rounding them up in a wagon and deploying them on an unsuspecting camp..or town. Somewhere strategically where their slow speed wouldn't be a problem and escape would be difficult.

Lead ins/hooks: Missing farmers or traders in or around Zelkors Ferry are being used as slaves to dig out the Castle or being used as sacrifices by Jedra to give her more "visions" and guidance.

I loved Mr. Clatworthy's original module, my only regret was that it was not longer. So I made it longer.

silverhair (or anyone else interested) PM me if you need ideas on expansion or some of the stat blocks for any of the these additions.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tay Tay wrote:
A GM who kill players is a piss poor GM. Usually these GMs are rather sadistic a&@~&%#s who are devoid of any social skills in real life. Also it demonstrates a complete lack of imagination or extreme laziness on the GMs part.


These forums, I tell ya!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
What's ironic about it? Are people at science fiction conventions incapable of racism (I feel required to specify:Racism against people of color.)

I guess its just hard for me to digest this form of racism with the stories of the ones I grew up with - parents in concentration camps, my dad having to give up his house (as a kid) to a Wehrmacht Officer, people being burned alive in their homes because of their race - you know - that kind of racism.

Maybe I am just too privileged to see this softer insidious (and stealth/Sith-like) modern racism that occurs at Science Fiction cons. You know - where a woman of color (who also happens to be a published science fiction writer) advocates reading books along racial gender lines and feels threatened enough to create a safe space for POC. Maybe the racism she fears is as legit as the ones facing POC 40 years ago - lynching, murder - killed by bombs or even just being barred from private spaces?

Barred from privates spaces...hmmm, reminds me of something.....?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, technically (at least according to RA) the 2nd level of MoD is the Demon's Gullet (2B) which is easily accessible via MoD.

The thing is (and this may help you), both of them are probably lower level/higher traffic dungeons that frequently get restocked by denizens - so the survival rate is higher than normal. Higher survival rate - means you can use rumors, survivor stories, etc, to communicate what you need to the players.

Of course it doesn't all need to be true.

Example (Info, plus rumor plus potential encounter)

Jacob the Walker (retired level 2 Ranger):
- "I wouldn't say it was all just mindless vermin down there - just by what we saw. The easier parts weren't too big to explore though - the main level that is, but you could dig - go down deeper if you have the courage. We didn't.
The Mouth leads to the Gullet, the Demons Gullet - naturally of course. Though there's nothing natural about that place.

I can say that even on the first floor of the place it marks you (looks down at his mangled leg), not just your body...the leaves a stain on your soul.
Yes the vermin, the little things....they sort of have a mind for the place - like it calls to them.
Nothing natural about it.

I remember the bastard monster who took my leg - the local tribes called him Druhgin Bloodjaw, a local villain with a massive war hammer who controlled the Mouth of Doom- don't know what he was - maybe a very large orc, a half-breed or even an Ogre. Normally I am good at figuring out things like that - awfully hard when you can't see for the blood in your eyes.
He kept the tribals and humans who threw in with his lot in check. Yes, he took my leg - nearly my life if it wasn't for Otto and Renark who drug me away while he was distracted. Mouth of Doom indeed."

Of course Drughin was murdered by his own men a few years back - and being an evil bastard he was reanimated as a zombie by the dark forces that fuel that place. Maybe an Ogre zombie that matches the description of Drughin in room 1C-24 (Empty room).

So with the above rumor/story I am:
- Letting them know that there is one level (Mouth of Doom)
- Letting them know that there is a level below that is more dangerous (The Demons Gullet)
- Detailing some potential encounters there that fit the told story: Giant Rats and Ants (vermin), Bandits
- Hinting at a potential foe (which is altered - but still rewards players for research). How our Ogre villain ended up also tells a story about the violent and evil nature of Rappan Athuk.
A saying I use in Gamma World which also applies to RA:
The Ancients used to have a saying - "Only the strong survive, ...but in Rappan Athuk even the strong die".

Silverhair, I wrote out the above details in bullet points as point of record for others not because I think you don't understand. I would like this to serve as a one-stop shop for RA DMs.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
The constitution and courts have said ....


Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Dice only exist to make noise, the GM should ignore them.
I see this way more in the "scripted death" games of today than I ever did back in the "let the dice fall where they may" sandbox days.

I'm guess that wraith is weighting the "do whatever it takes to make a good/engaging game" attitude of the earlier editions vs. the general harshness you (and I) are associating with those systems HD.

But I am with HD on this one - only in the post 2e era has their really been a push for "make the players happy, even if it means running a death-less game/ignore bad dice rolls" vs. the older style of "just roll up a new guy".

So ignoring dice as it factors into player potential death/unhappiness seems more new school than old school. To this grognard at least.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope FGG continues to offer a "Herald" option on the KS (PF and S&W backer). I'm not running PF anymore, though I would still like the complexity and write-up to convert over 2e. I also like having the OE (S&W) version as a good comparison, baseline and final proof for my 2e conversion.
Weird, yes - at this point being able to get both with one KS offering works the best for me.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Pence has signed the bill into law.

Story here.

By signing it he willingly revoked his right to be treated as a human being.

It is this kind of hyperbole that adds up incrementally and guts the credibility of social equality movements.

Painting people with different sociopolitical views as subhuman monsters is eyeroll worthy no matter which side it comes from. It becomes impossible to take anything that rolls out of your mouth afterward seriously.

For me it's simple: Nazis treat other people like they are not human or at least subhuman. For that I treat them as not human. And this bill is clearly Nazi territory.

Wow - how ignorant. All because some idiot doesn't want to put two plastic grooms on a cake = entering Nazi territory.

I wouldn't wish "Nazi territory" on my worst enemies.

Read a book or talk to a survivor (if you can find one) before you spew hyperbole. It just makes you look really bad and undermines your argument.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.
If those uppity gays hadn't demanded to be treated like normal people we wouldn't have needed to pass laws letting us discriminate against them. We could have just continued doing so without any new laws.
And again, I would ask, if a Jewish photographer was willing to take pictures of Christians in all kinds of settings (graduations, weddings, family gatherings, etc.), but wasn't willing to take pictures of a baptism, would that mean they weren't treating Christians "like normal people". Does it have to be 100% or 0%? I am not talking about this law specifically, just our society in general.

I don't know. Does that happen?

IDK - are the people in question (aka the "bigots") refusing service to gay people in total or refusing to provide services for a religious function that they disagree with on the grounds of their personal faith (gay marriage)?

In the case with the bakers - are they refusing to sell a chocolate éclair to their gay clientele or telling them that they cannot sit as a couple in their dining area and eat their éclair's together?

Or are they refusing to put two grooms on a custom made wedding cake - refusing to make a specific cake design?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, that's major news if that's the case.

Though from I've seen so far, what they seem to be doing is piggy backing some of their splat content with their module releases (new races, class options, etc).

Don't know if that is part of their master plan or that's just the way it turned out with their initial modules.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

I don't see what this has to do with Paladins and our modern world view of Good and Evil (or lack therof).

Also, if a Paladin falls in the woods, and no one is around to see it - does he need to Atone?

Is cannibalism evil, in of itself?

In - of itself, as in auto-cannibalism?

I cannot comprehend how biting one's nails could constitute an evil act - but it certainly breaks etiquette, so maybe CN?

I have around a 1000 questions relating to the CN alignment, let me know when you guys want me to start a thread.....

for each one.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

I don't see what this has to do with Paladins and our modern world view of Good and Evil (or lack therof).

Also, if a Paladin falls in the woods, and no one is around to see it - does he need to Atone?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam Daigle wrote:

I'm not posting this to invalidate your concern, but I have to say that we do try really hard to manage expectations. To use one of your examples, Iron Gods wasn't supposed to be "the spaceship AP." It was designed to be an Adventure Path that explored Numeria and dealt with the idea of how technology and faith interplay, and I think we hit that mark.

One thing I can't control is when people read X and want Y, then are upset that X wasn't Y. That said, we will continue to manage expectations and give as clear a vision for the Adventure Path as possible (without giving too many spoilers up front).

You may have hit the mark, but I think you should have communicated your intent a little better.

On more than one occasion this was being presented as an homage to Gamma World or more closely, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, which it wasn't. In effect those things were minor background and window dressing to a story about about divine ascendancy, which is on par with return of the Ancient Big Bad (RotRL, CotCT, etc) which has already been done in other APs. This could have gone several other ways, better ones imo - the threat of Ancient Technology that should not be tampered with as the BBEG vs. an AI, a Big Liftoff or inversely a Return of the Masters. Maybe it was the threat in the AP, Unity just didn't seem scary or nefarious as far as demented AI threats go.

And I get it it, Iron Gods being the title and all. I guess based upon how much S3 was being touted as an influence pre-release I was expecting more "Iron" and less "Gods", because the emphasis on the latter is in every other AP. I think many of us were waiting for an "Iron" that we didn't care about some of the other aspects, but the AP was not compelling. Again, this could have been the way Unity was set up as a foe - with the AI not even feeling like a threat.

I was pretty let down with IG. I held off any criticism till it ran its course, but in the end it was (for me) a big let down. After Lords of Rust I just stuck with the AP because the maps could be recycled for other games.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pachristian wrote:

The Balanced Game

EVERY encounter is "party appropriate encounter level" exactly. No deviation up or down.

EVERY treasure is carefully moderated to produce "expected level treasure".

EVERY character and NPC has EXACTLY the treasure described as "typical for their level" in the book.

aka the Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz game.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

F.A.T.A.L. has a message?

Oh yeah that's right - the message:
I should have switched hobbies when I was younger, this is getting embarrassing.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:

The Teachable Campaign

The Campaign for Social Justice

The DM has deemed their players to be hideous hate-filled neanderthal troglodytes who need the DM's glorious and inspired guidance to become better human beings. Instead of focusing on adventure, you learn how your character is intrinsically oppressing the orcs who have been forced into their position because of intrinsic unfairness. That one cannot judge the man-eating morlocks because that would be ethnocentric. That alignment represents objective morality which is intrinsically and objectively bad. Sometimes including the DM outright lecturing players in and out of character.

The irony (oh the irony) is that there are actually game publishers and not just singular GMs who promote this type of game.

"If you don't like this you must be X-ist"
Game companies with pet posters/contributors/fan club who think you are doing it wrong and will take any and every moment to tell you so. The original game may have been written by people long gone - has become a co-opted vehicle to espouse disguised/not-disguised political, socio-economic world views in a effort to change the gaming world.
Or it could be an "indie" game that no one would look at twice "but hey, it promotes/supports/social commentary on X" so we need to go Dianetics and buy this game - even it's terrible and has production values on par with a 3rd grade art assignment.
Criticize and you will be ostracized (as you should be since you are evil and ignorant).

Just fix your damn game or try to write adventures that are compelling and worth running.

Suggestion: Switch game systems or just ignore/delete the "message" promoted by their products if the system is worth playing.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Since your character isn't a person and therefore doesn't need motivation, you'll always be looking to the next room, rather than considering whether this is something Stockdwarf #13448 would actually choose to do.

Wait, characters in PF are not a bundle of stats and in fact are real people???1?!??

Or...PF characters are real characters (with feelings, sex drives and other motivations) while all other characters in all other games in every edition made (and yet to be created) are just "a bundle of stats"?
Because wands of CLW help with motivation?

Good try, fail - but herculean in effort so credit for that one.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greg, any update on the demon-god of Gnolls? I know that the current demon lord (his name escapes me - featured in Bards Gate I think) defeated another demon lord of Gnolls who wielded a triple-flail (who cannot be named) who held that title for several years.


As far as Gnomes are concerned I would go with a mix of Sylvan and civil - not rural per se (that is more Halfling territory) but something that strikes a good compromise between rolling hills and hearth. I like the last the name of Mosstone(s) or Greenstone(s) but I can't think of a first name.
Sylvan: Dell, Dale (too soft), Dal, Koll - each is a play on hills or terrain associated with hills.

The problems with Gnomish names, especially a gods name - is that it has to strike a balance between sounding Gnomish, and hard (because he's a God that fights Orcs, Goblins and Kobolds + giants) without the whole thing sounding silly.

I wish I could be more helpful - but I'm in the middle of a re-write of Gamma World so all I have on my mind is Central Nervous System Syndrome, long term effects of surviving radiation exposure and ammo quality & sort rates.

Everything you've posted so far is very impressive. It's just too bad that the Lost Lands are so many years away. It would be nice (and I know it would sell) if you guys could put out a small holdover item with maps. Something along the lines of a Lost Lands folio edition - maps with a booklet (36 pages) that give a very basic outline of the core world - just to get the world out so people can start campaigns not directly tied to the main existing modules (Barakus, Bards Gate, RA or Tsar).

Something like this. The 1980 folio edition.

As a holdover item for people who want to run a wider LL campaign (which is a few years off at this point) I know it would sell.

Just an idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:


Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a right wing conservative extremist and I loved the character Mr. Spock.

And it wasn't just Star Trek that impressed me with Mr. Nimoy's work - his narration of In Search of.. put him on par with such TV greats as Rod Serling (who hosted the original show/feature). The man was good at his trade and helped to create a character that is both iconic in fiction and in gaming. His impact on me and several of my friends was profound.

To me Spock transcends the Left v Right paradigm. He espoused aspects of both (the better parts) and I find it strange that a conservative - who should value logic vs. emotion (a conservative mantra) would rail against a character based in reason vs. emotion in his decision making process (which was flawed at times).

Spock was the best of both sides while being neither. Even his hippy aspects that this joker is railing against - the individual vs. the group - I just don't see it as leftist preaching. Spock, if anything was his own person - I can't remember an incarnation where he asked someone else to sacrifice themselves for the greater good - if it was ever proposed it was always his own neck on the line. So I don't see this as a leftist position.

I refrained for a few days getting in on this one - but I do feel that the writer of this piece waited a week (for the body to get cold) and then used it as a hit job on the current POTUS (who I dislike). Just a cheap shot with minimal consequence or risk. Aka Chicken s%%#.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
And you had to be a greedy murderhobo to level, as exp was determined more by how much cash you got from the monsters and the loot you sold than by defeating your objectives.
3.0/3.5/PFRPG is actually a LOT more aimed at the murderhobo style than the previous editions. There were rules in those editions for getting XP apart from fighting things...hell, avoiding combat was preferable, since treasure netted you more XP than killing the monsters stacked in front of it. If you want XP in a d20 game, good look getting it without murdering people/monsters. You don't earn XP from any of the old sources from 0e/1e/2e/Basic in the d20 systems.

2e has rules in place for awarding xp for: clever ideas, idea that saves the party, RP character, encouraging others to participate, successful use of granted power (not always combat), Spells to further ethos, making magic items, successful research, getting treasure or using Rogue abilities successfully.

Sounds like Murderhobo/Greedy system alright.

Wait, do the older systems have a WBL system or was that Pathfinder?
The later is the system where you need to finance the characters big six or casters ability to build items to skew the games power curve even more than other characters (ultimate meta-fail in system design).

Yes - 3/x is the system where money is everything - where it's really important that you need X cash/level to buy or build your own (boring) magic items to change your stats.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Mongoose wrote:

As much as 2E stoneskin is stupid broken given a reasonable reading of the rules, as I mentioned when I brought it up, it's just one spell. So let's add a second one: invisibility.

It's a second level spell that lasts literally all day unless you attack, so it's also extremely reasonable to assume our 2E wizard has it up at any time when someone wants to ambush him.

If you have bad DMs or DMs who really want casters to dominate the field then it works that way. If you actually read the spell and run it the way it's listed, it doesn't:

"Items dropped or put down by the invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature."
Flour on the floor or in the air reveal the the creature. 0-level commoner trick.

If he's flying around doing nothing then he is not much of a threat unless he is summoning creatures. Anything else constitutes an attack.

"Note that the priest spells bless, chant, and prayer are not attacks for this purpose."
The last part clarifies the spell = attack definition.
Any spell, even a debuff cast at an individual or group, constitutes an attack. The wording can be better, but they do provide spells that "do not" constitute an attack for example purposes.

Dire Mongoose wrote:
Good luck guessing where to throw darts (which actually is one of the better ways to deal with the spell as a humanoid) since there's no such thing as a Spot, Listen, or Perception skill.

Here is your perception check: "All highly Intelligent (Intelligence 13 or more) creatures with 10 or more Hit Dice or levels of experience have a chance to detect invisible objects (they roll saving throws vs. spell; success means they noticed the invisible object)."

That Int 13 was more viable in older editions because there were no dump stats (another bad gaming idea) - so you could easily have ANY character with a 13 Int just by virtue of rolls since 13 is not a high stat value when rolling stats.

So no, not that powerful.
A good utility spell but only OP if you have (which is apparent) bad DMs with poor reading comprehension.

Dire Mongoose wrote:
When people make an argument that the 3E caster is best, they often assume that the caster is prepped for the encounter at hand, which in an actual game they might or might not be. In 2E with its titanic defensive/utility spell durations you always would be ready. The 2E Wizard's Handbook even basically says you're an idiot if you're walking around without a fresh Stoneskin because there's no reason that you have to.

And again, anyone can grapple the wizard, which ignores the stoneskin and also shuts down the wizards ability to cast spells unless they are verbal. But I don't want to re-hash that one. Stoneskin has already been proven to not be the spell you originally presented and without the need of using pebbles to negate it (I would never rule that way). For what you have to spend and the ease of it coming off from any crappy attack it just isn't that good.

3e based casters are the best - they are not even playing on the same level of rules, they are playing above them. A whole set of mechanics were designed - the skill system (which is a terrible and game-able binary +X system) and then the casters just take a giant steaming one right on it - since they operate a level above. Terrible design.

3e based casters are OP, unbalanced and one of the reasons why 3e games are terribly unbalanced (and unfun). I would rather take a jumble of incoherent rules than to play a game that was written by frustrated 2e casters trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in gaming and is fundamentally broken.

Recently went back to 2nd - some info is hard to find, some data inconstant and layout could be better but it's a 1000% better than PF just by virtue of actual game play and fun.


Legendary martials weren't Christmas Trees, eh? Let's just LOOK at King Arthur a second here...

This individual is arguing against x-mass tree affect without even understanding it (which is always fun).

Having 15 melee weapons is not x-mass tree effect. Needing six core items so you can survive due to inherent required math is x-mass tree.
That isn't a 1st ed AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D or Basic D&D invention, that's 3rd ed based invention in gaming. A terrible and unforgivable one. Done.

Pathfinder does a better job at making Martials more impressive than earlier Editions,..

No, they do not. I have yet to see it. Maybe in Unchained?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Casters are considerably weaker - less spell options, less spell use over the course of a scenario (less slots). Spell casting in direct combat is highly dangerous.

I really, really disagree with that. Wizard (in smart hands) is dominant in 2E in a way that it could never be in 3.X or PF.

It may be that you didn't play with optimization-focused players in that era but... yeah. I mean, look at 2E stoneskin: it negates several attacks regardless of what they are or how much damage they might do, and its duration is permanent until used. The terrasque manages to ambush a level 7 2E wizard somehow? Sorry, it's going to be several rounds before he can do anything at all to the wizard.

No, we actually read the rules and ran it the way it was written.

Even your 7th level wizard comment is so incorrect it needs to be addressed. You get 1d4+1/per two caster levels for stoneskin, so your 7th level caster is going to have 1d4+3 stone skins. Max 7 blocks. Tarrasque gets 6 attacks per round. So on the second round that 7th level wizard is eviscerated lunchmeat.

Also, you do know that each "attack" against a caster wearing stone skin loses a hit?
So a 9th level wizard with 5 stone skin hits is attacked by a level 1 thief with with a short bow (2 attacks) and a dart throwing level 1 wizard (3 attacks) that those attacks don't even need to roll to count against the stone skin uses. You just lost 5 stoneskin hits without one die roll.

So two level 1 characters just negated the higher level wizards spell without making one die roll. All they need to do is say I throw 3 or shoot 2, and they stone skins are marked off.

Maybe you and other players ran it differently, but when you run it by the book the spell was not as powerful as people frequently ran it (which was incorrectly).

Here is the quote from the spell entry-
"This limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th level wizard would protect against five to eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by 3 each round; four magic missiles would count as four attacks in addition to inflicting their normal damage."

So, no - not that good. Misused and misunderstood.
Would it block a single attack that did 10-120 points - yes it would. Would it block a small creature with 3 attacks that did 1 point of damage each (housecat)? Yes, for a couple of rounds marking it off without the need to even make to-hit rolls.
That's how good the spell was - i.e. not that good.

The only wizards that run roughshod over everything else are from 3rd ed + variants. 2e wizards were very manageable and required tremendous support so they could be effective.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are very different mechanically and in respective power levels of characters.

There is no universal d20 mechanic. Skill (Non-weapon proficiencies)are a roll under an associated stat with a modifier.

AC is based around a target Armor Class value of 0, with armor class starting at 10 and going down to -10 (more for ultra powerful unique creatures). So if you have a THAC0 of 15, that means you hit an AC of 0 on a 15, and AC of 1 on a 14, an AC of 3 on a 12, etc. Point of reference - Plate Mail w/shield is AC 2.

Attributes have built in detailed function and are more detailed at different values than a +1 or +2 modifiers to rolls.

Magic Items do not replicate spells (not exactly, they have some unique non-spell powers and minor differences).

Hit points and all around damage are less. So a 5th level fighter with 40 hp is decent.

Casters are considerably weaker - less spell options, less spell use over the course of a scenario (less slots). Spell casting in direct combat is highly dangerous.

Fighters are considerably more powerful, get multiple attacks with no negatives and attack rate is also tied with the weapon you are using (throw 2 daggers per round, fire 2 arrows) at no penalty.

There are too many difference to list here tbh (and I need to get back to re-writing my own game).

Just try to go into it with an open mind and if you have a good DM it should be fun. I'm sure other posters will soldier on in telling you how bad it's going to be.

It de-emphasizes character build and choices and focuses a bit more on play (exploration and combat are considerably faster than PF).

Good gaming.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Grind my gears....

Threadcrapping/badwrongfun in the suggestion forums.

We get it, you don't even like the notion that someone would want to run a Low Magic Game or even consider the mechanics behind it. But the SUGGESTION FORUMS, where someone is looking for ideas on how to do so is not the place soapbox your gameview.

And this is not specific to low magic questions/suggestions/offerings. The above comment can also be phrased with "X topic" in the place of Low Magic Game.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fencer_guy wrote:

You are the DM and have a group of people Pathfinder and you have to hand out the XP. Does it matter if its an AP or home brew?

If people show up (no matter what they do or don't do) they get equal share of the xp?

Do you reward people for whatever?

Like DE, I don't run PF anymore but when I did I gave out xp under the following criteria:

1) Xp is given out on managing encounters - avoiding, talking through or fighting. If for example they encounter a group of orcs - they get xp for evading, fighting or talking themselves out of the encounter. You don't get points for circumventing the orcs because you chose Path B over A, but if you go down Path A (orcs) and get past them without a fight, yes - you "beat" that encounter.

2) Xp for encounters are for the encounter - if they fight that group of orcs and half the orcs flee - then they get the whole allotment of xp for dealing with that encounter. Doesn't need to be a body=xp formula (imo). In many cases capturing or even just talking through encounters instead of fighting yields more - you get the xp and the info.

3) If a player could not make it but we still game and run their character in fights/encounters/exploring - they get xp for the session for those events. They do not get special xp.
If a player cannot regularly make it to the sessions and it becomes an issue, I don't deal with a passive/aggressive xp dynamic - they are just dropped from the game and the group (until they resolve their schedule issues).

4) Special xp: This is done in two ways. First, I award xp for exceptional gaming - crazy ideas, good roleplaying, daring maneuvers with some lucky rolls....and daring maneuvers with some unlucky rolls. Yes, I reward some bad ideas and bad luck - if the intent was good. NPC'd PCs (players who miss sessions) do not get this xp.
Special xp part II: I let players petition for themselves or other players for small exceptional awards. These can be actions, ideas or even theories (that turned out to be true) that I, as the GM may have missed.
I do not reward xp for "whatever". Even when I reward bad actions/bad luck it is when it was memorable and entertaining for all. There is no - "here is xp just because you are here".

5) Xp awards are done at the start of the next session as sort of an opening of the meeting. This serves multiple functions:
A) Grabs everyone's attention (away from phones, other conversations, distractions) and gets them into a game mindset.
B) It helps serve as a re-cap for last session (we game every other week, so we need this). Some memories get jogged and again, it gets us (even me) back into the right frame of mind and what is going on in-game.

I run mostly open sandbox and somewhat non-linear/non-railroad games - so I feel tracking xp works for that style of game since I need to measure tasks/actions as markers vs. story progression markers. And just for the record - I have no problem with railroad games - I think it is a viable playstyle and adventure design and has its own merits and (good) value. I would have no problem running a heavy linear game.

Fencer_guy wrote:
Should XP be "fair"?

No. But my opinion on the matter is in the minority over here.

I do think that xp should be awarded evenly to playstyles. Let me explain the last one:

If I have a -
Combat Player
RP Player
Trader/commerce player who likes shortcuts/workarounds
Group player (heavy inter-party support and interaction)

I should reward each for what they do when they do it.
I, as the GM should not just focus on combat encounters and xp. I should be focusing on combat/encounter xp, RP xp, smart ideas xp, group interaction xp, and research/using resources smartly xp. In a sense - I should be trying to hit these areas as challenges evenly. It doesn't always work out that way - but I try. If there has been a lot of combat and then one research section comes up, I let that research player milk that time and I play it out with as much attention as anything else.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:

The thing that kind of bugged me was Maggie being hard on the priest. Her father was a religious yet flawed man who she loved very much. Sure the priest did a pretty awful thing and Id imagine most people would treat him like dirt but I dont imagine Maggie would. Though maybe she has just run out of sh!@s to give.

I think this was supposed to be a be an episode about faith and hope and the loss of both (and regaining it possibly). In Maggie's case she has just been burned to many times and seems to have lost her faith - yet the episode closes with a bit of a miracle. I think the priest just symbolizes that resentment she has towards putting energy and faith in a higher power - so Gabriel gets to be the punching bag.

It continues with the theme with emo Daryl at the beginning of the episode to him coming to terms about both Beth and Tyreese near the end.

Can't wait for the new nemesis to show up on scene - should be good times once the group has something to fight.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'd say it's not so much a matter of "stupid by today's standards", but trying to apply an old mechanic to a very different game system.

Except there's a reason that the game systems today are very different. They're better, which is why they won.

And old mechanics like the one proposed are part of the reason why the newer systems are better. Getting rid of them made the game more fun. (That's not merely my judgment, but the marketplace's.)

Subjective and your opinion (which to me, is worthless).

By your logic McDonalds has the best food on the planet since they are the #1 fast food chain in the world. Avatar is the top grossing movie (of all time), do you think its the best? Because if you say it isn't then by your own (herd) logic you are wrong. BTW- Two Transformers movies are in the top 10 besides it (one is #7 and one is #10). I mean, all those people can't be wrong?
And if you disagree with these assessments then you are the stupid one (by your standards - using herd preferences as the deciding factor).

This is wholly a subjective issue of like or dislike that you are trying to bootstomp into a better vs. worse issue. The mods must be asleep on this one - but you really should stop already. You are coming off like a goon.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:

So enforce the stat minimums except when you don't bother to enforce them? From experience, selective enforcement of the same rule to your players never ends well.

Player 1: "Can I run a Dwarf Wizard?"
GM: "Sure, we can ignore the stat requirements for that"
Player 2: "Can I run a clumsy Human Wizard?"
GM: "No, Dex is a requirement and humans can meet it easily."

Now Player 2 is annoyed. You've reduced his fun.

No - you are not understanding what I was saying with the Dwarf Wizard

Player 1: "Can I run a Dwarf Wizard?"
GM: "Well, for my game Dwarf Wizard stat reqs are high so many choices are not practical, with the exception of Evoker, Conjurer and Transmuters"
Player 1:"So what are the stat miniumums"
GM: "Well, a Dwarven Evoker needs needs a Con of 12, Conjurer a Cha of 11 and a Transmuter a Str of 11 on top of having at least a 16 Int to start."
Player 1: "Oh, ok - let me see what I can work out (PB)/roll for my stats and I'll play around with them so I can make a Dwarven Transmuter."

Player 2 is in the background busy making a Universalist Human wizard that is slightly less restrictive in stat requirement but of course less specialized.

I never said drop requirements at random/on a whim.
What he can do is say he wants to run an old-school game with some exceptions. So he has the stat requirement for human paladins but maybe tweaks it for someone wanting to play an Elven paladin, etc. So he needs to put in that work.

In the end - the PB values are the same and add up the same - how stats are laid out in an array in his game vs. generic cookie-cutter PF characters in every other game is where the difference lies.

kestral287 wrote:
If they get fighty about their disagreement, like the OP came off as (to me at least), then they should realize the natural conclusion of these facts.

That may have happened when people (rynjin) basically said he was a bad person for posting his idea and it was stupid (because you know, he didn't like it). Or others saying he was a bad GM (Orfamy), last I checked the OP wasn't attacking anyone. Everyone else pretty much wolf-packed the guy with their best argument being "but it's unfun to me".

- And Ninja'd (with no stat min requirements) by Torger on the last point

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
That said, let's ask you the same thing the OP was asked: how does this make Pathfinder more fun to play?

If it makes him happy, then it makes Pathfinder more fun for him to play. And that's the only answer that matters.

Damn the people on the internets and what they think. Who cares?

As far as PB and arrays are concerned I never said 15/15/17 array. I said bump some of the lower ones to a higher stat requirements. An 11/11/17 costs 15 points. The numbers are dependent on his PB allotment. 15 point standard - then the high stat should be 15. More PB, then he can tweak the numbers.

Also - he could make allowances/required stats if the player plays a specific kind of Dwarven Wizard - maybe lowering the threshold for thematic options like Dwarven Evokers, Conjurers and Transmuters. Its all very workable depending on what he wants (what classes are more common, and which ones are rare).

But again, that's why I said he should probably discard PB since it doesn't support the system well.

This rage though needs to end.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
It's all mechanics.
And the point you are missing is that he doesn't want that kind of game - at least one that places heavy emphasis on exploiting the skill system to negate penalties from optimized stat buys. Not everyone is into that.

That has nothing to do with how cool the characters are.

What games do you play where the wizards wear heavy armor and doesn't prepare spells? Of course players play to their strengths and do not play to their penalties.

Thank you for proving my point of "not getting it".

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
It's all mechanics.

And the point you are missing is that he doesn't want that kind of game - at least one that places heavy emphasis on exploiting the skill system to negate penalties from optimized stat buys. Not everyone is into that.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Christmas Tree effect has been part of the game for a long, long time - just look at the 1E and 2E monsters that were outright immune to weapons under a certain +.

The scaling was slower, but it was still there.

Disagree wholeheartedly.

There are worlds of difference between needing a +1 or +2 to hit a creature vs. the big-six level assumed: Required Stats (items), Required Save Bonuses (Cloaks), Required Natural Armor Bonuses, Required Deflection Bonuses (Rings), Required Weapon, Required Armor.

I'm just not seeing the close similarity or "its always been there". Just not true.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MAJT69 wrote:
Here, I want to ask about the ‘Christmas Tree Syndrome’. One of the things that turned many of us off 3rd edition was the laundry-lists of magic items,

This has not been addressed in PF nor will it get addressed in the future. The core PF game has several built-in mathematical assumptions that makes the Xmass tree part of the game unless you revise it on your own - which is a product supplement/rules re-write all on its own (new bestiary also).

MAJT69 wrote:
Pathfinder has loads of 'extras', but the players concerns are that any 3rd edition style game is literally unplayable unless the characters are completely optimised, that it's irredeemably broken unless it spends every last gp on the correct combat items for its wealth-by-level.

Those loads of "extras" are a mini-game. If your players are the type who like to optimize and see CharGen as a separate challenge in then PF is a good option for your group. If you actually want to focus less on CharOp and more on playing (Combat, exploring, RP) then you are better off at sticking with 5e or going with an older system, non-3rd ed based game system.

PF rewards system mastery - and you can do things "wrong". Older systems give less options and CharGen, or those features are not as relevant to actual play - and thus greater focus is on actual game play and not character building.

My advice to would be to stick with 5e.

I would look into buying and converting as much 1e and 2e material they have online for 5e content and go with that game system instead. Even converting some 3rd ed stuff for 5e - I've eyeballed it and it doesn't look too hard to do - though tbh I haven't actually tried yet.

A "well supported system" does not always equal good. Or at least good for you and what you and your group are looking for. PF is great system for most of those who loved 3.5 - if you had problems with that system then no amount of book support or adventures is going to make it different with PF. In fact, it may just frustrate you more.

I don't have anything invested in this race - I run a modified 1e/2e game when I do run AD&D, so no 5e for me.
I gave up on PF after years of frustration and basically realizing that the work/effort to get the game I wanted out of that system was not paying off vs. the time and energy invested.
In my case - more money spent on the system was not a good investment.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people backing this - sight unseen as a KS project is a tough prospect. My suggestions to you would be to:

- Get a website for the game going
- Host a very basic write-up of what you are trying to do, either a stripped down to the bones version of the game or maybe the 1st and 2nd levels of play. List some sample encounters.
- Will the bestiary need a re-write?
- Link a dev blog and get some feedback/following going. People need to see your competency level and they need to see that you are sincere.

If this is going to be an efile than some of the KS logistics are not so hard to work out - though commissioning art and paying for it are a point of concern. Do you have other people to help you with proofing, layout and editing or is this a one-person show?

Will the book be in print (after the KS as part of a fulfillment)? Do you have prices quoted based off of color, cover, shipping, etc.

I might back a project like this if it had some momentum and history behind it - without knowing who you are and having a sample of your work I would have to say no.

Many KS have failed, even with skilled writers behind them. In many cases it's just not managing the money or pacing of the project, in others its just logistics (can't afford to ship for free after all). Many do a one-man show and encounter rl problems.

My simple advice to you - you need to set up a network, put something out there and develop a following.


Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chyrone wrote:
Auxmaulos, which punkrock band would that be?

I was (still am I suppose) heavily into early 80's hardcore punk - Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Fear, Misfits, Social Distortion- but going into the late 80s and early 90s (before the Green Day pop-punk revival) the bands that were big in So Cal and were still playing gigs: DI, Adolescents, Angry Samoans, TSOL, MDC, Agent Orange, Youth Brigade.

I suppose I was lucky that many of the bands I like were actually in So Cal and played on for many years after punk died out (for me - I would say it peaked in 82-83). There still was a vibrant underground scene in LA going into the 90's - but most shows stopped midway due to fights, riots, stormtroopers/wp skins, etc. Still - good times.

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.