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

BigDTBone's page

4,370 posts (4,415 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 4,370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not the most powerful for their levels, but the one's I've had the most fun casting are wandering star motes and damage loins.

Set wrote:

I'm not sure a new character, gay or otherwise, would be all that welcome, given that the old crew are, IMO, already getting short shrift from screentime, with Kirk, Spock and Uhura pretty much dominating the show, with a side of Scotty and Bones, and might-as-well-be-cameos from Sulu and Chekov. This new Trek doesn't even have 'room' for Lower Decks type characters like Rand and Chapel and M'benga, adding new characters seems like just throwing more straws on an already overburdened camel's back.

Yeah, ensemble casts work far better on TV. Preferably 26 hour-long episodes a year. Also, I'm sad that we don't live in that world anymore.

I do find some of the newer, popular shows to be insanely slow paced. I just can't watch The Walking Dead anymore (I find that every half-season stretches 1 episode into 3 and then smashes 3 episodes into 1 episode finale, which basically leaves me pissed off because neither of those is satisfying in any way.) But, I do find that episodic shows don't frustrate me. I feel like even if you are telling stories in long arcs (which I greatly enjoy) the each episode should have its own plot thread that rises and resolves

Krensky wrote:

Sulu's daughter is in Generations.

As for sexuality, ignoring the mirror universe, where he was hitting on Uhura, when drink on polywater Sulu the musketeer was treating Uhura like a damsel in distress. Certainly not conclusive, but it's still suggestive.

Also, I know several gay men who have children (both their own natural progeny and via adoption.) I think given the politics of the 23rd century that "being gay" and "having a daughter" shouldn't be considered exclusionary statements.

Awesome! Thanks for the head's up Owen! I really like you #1 bullet points, and the talented class guides. It will be fun to dig into the rest of your work!

Jaçinto wrote:
Honestly I just don't think the Sulu thing matters at all. I just hope beyond is a good movie since into darkness was just trash, even ignoring the canon. I hope they get new writers and a director that actually cares about Star Trek, not a schlock action movie.

Given the box office numbers that isn't likely. It is far more likely that they will continue to milk their cash cow in its current form.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:


George Takei calls decision to make Star Trek’s Sulu gay 'really unfortunate'

Linked article wrote:
In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Takei said he’s glad they’re adding a gay character to the Star Trek canon — but would prefer they didn’t fundamentally change a player from the original series. Takei officially came out in 2005, and has spent the past decade as an advocate for LGBT rights. But he also respects what Gene Roddenberry created with the original series (with Sulu played as a straight character), and actually asked the film’s creative team not to make the change.

I could be misremembering, but I don't recall any time from the original series or the movies where it was explicitly noted that Sulu was straight. I think the idea that "straight" = "default" is one we should fight against, even if that idea was pervasive when TOS was created. We don't have to interpret the work through the lens of the time it was created. And unless someone can point me toward a time where it was explicitly demonstrated the Sulu was straight, then in my mind he will have always been gay, and we just didn't know until now.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
What would you think of a feat that allowed my reach fighter to attack enemies from 100s of feet away with his polearm. It has a lot of prereqs like combat reflexes, power attack and weapon focus.
I would be totally fine with a 3 feat chain that ended in increasing the thrown distance increment of a pole arm to 50ft. So you could throw it 250ft with a -10 to hit.
So to follow the analogy, you think improved snap shot should also cause you to lose your bow when you use it? That sounds like a pretty big nerf.

No, but I do think it should lose the arrow. You should carry more pole arms if you want to throw them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
What would you think of a feat that allowed my reach fighter to attack enemies from 100s of feet away with his polearm. It has a lot of prereqs like combat reflexes, power attack and weapon focus.

I would be totally fine with a 3 feat chain that ended in increasing the thrown distance increment of a pole arm to 50ft. So you could throw it 250ft with a -10 to hit.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Yeah, bows being a better reach weapon than any actual reach weapon is a problem. And while martials need nice things, archery is already high on the power scale and not limited to just martials.

With 3 feats though. It isn't just "being a better reach weapon than any actual reach weapon," it comes at a high cost in a combat style that is already feat heavy.

Autonomous robots know where you live

Please stop inventing skynet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
I like less is more for most things, but in a high tech society it can break my immersion a bit if all tech use falls under a single knowledge or profession heading. That being said, it can get unwieldly to have to track "Kn: Computer Programming, Kn: Senors, Kn: Communications, Kn: Warp Drive, Kn: Ship Repair..." Especially if those are tacked onto the existing list of knowledges.
Sure, I feel like most of that can be handled by the addition of "trade" (replacing profession) trade: electronics, trade: programming, trade: mechanic/repair, etc, and three knowledges science, magic, lore. For a total of 10. Then add pilot, athletics, acrobatics, artistry, social, perception, stealth. (Really, all-in, no more than 20 skills and the closer to 15 the better) Then encourage GM's to "average checks" where you tell a player to take the average of two skills and roll to get the granularity needed to allow for good immersion.

Its an interesting idea to roll two checks, i am not sure i like the extra rolling and math involved in it though... Granted it isnt much more work but i am not sure its the best way to tackle the problem of a complex task. It requires you to maintain multiple skills to be good at one thing as well which is frustrating for players. Not to mention the mix and matching that a GM can come up with might leave huge gaps in what your character is capable of.

You only roll one check. Example would be something like noticing something is out of place in the filing system of a computer. You have a +4 to perception, and a +8 to trade:prog. The GM tells you to average those two skills and roll a check. So you would be d20+6 to notice something amiss.

Scientists teach robots to hunt.

Please stop inventing skynet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much. The New York Post is a tabloid rag.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:
I like less is more for most things, but in a high tech society it can break my immersion a bit if all tech use falls under a single knowledge or profession heading. That being said, it can get unwieldly to have to track "Kn: Computer Programming, Kn: Senors, Kn: Communications, Kn: Warp Drive, Kn: Ship Repair..." Especially if those are tacked onto the existing list of knowledges.

Sure, I feel like most of that can be handled by the addition of "trade" (replacing profession) trade: electronics, trade: programming, trade: mechanic/repair, etc, and three knowledges science, magic, lore. For a total of 10. Then add pilot, athletics, acrobatics, artistry, social, perception, stealth. (Really, all-in, no more than 20 skills and the closer to 15 the better) Then encourage GM's to "average checks" where you tell a player to take the average of two skills and roll to get the granularity needed to allow for good immersion.

I hope they go toward unchained with skills for this system. Less is more IMHO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

If of race is a medically useful concept, define it. Particularly how many races are there and what are the significant differences between them?

Edit: Note that any definition that requires genetic testing is worse for costs than simply testing for multiple conditions.

Well, full genome sequencing can be done for about $1000 and in less than a day's time. Right now, that information is about as good as a detailed medical history of immediate family.

But all of that is getting better by the day. Soon it will be more expensive to store the genome data than to sequence it. And the information we get from it will be so precise that we will only need to squence a handful of codons to get at what we want.

But while you are being high and mighty about individual evidence in medical treatment, there are liver transplant recipients of African descent who are thrilled their doctors/pharmacists insisted they receive a higher dose of anti-rejection medication because they are ultra-fast metabolizers. Not to mention all the Japanese folks with Hep C who are thrilled to not be getting telaprevir because they have grown fond of functioning kidneys.

AI that is better at dog-fighting than USAF combat pilot instructors.

Please stop inventing skynet.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

My apologies for the lack of clarity. I wasn't explaining what books were, I was agreeing with 137ben.

My only point of disagreement in this thread is that it doesn't cost money to access the information when a reprint comes out. Other than that, I'm not disagreeing with anyone (nor glossing over anything).

No worries. What was coming across from your post (which I now understand isn't your position) is that you thought people wanted books to be as flexible/updateable as electronic formats. I was just trying to affirm that people just want books that don't NEED to be flexible/updateable regardless of whether there is a free option for doing so.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
137ben wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, the auto-update thing is a definite advantage of PDFs over hard copies. Not really any way around that though (other than to not update either, which seems perverse).

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't cost any money to keep abreast of changes, that's all. The information is provided free of charge. (The cost of reprinting the book is a function of the medium, not a result of paizo policy).

It costs time, convenience, and energy. Moreover, if someone is already comfortable referencing all the rules from Paizo's website, then they have no reason to buy the rulebooks at all. In some sense, everyone who buys Paizo's rulebooks is doing it for convenience. Referencing a hardcover book alongside a poorly-formatted errata PDF is not convenient, negating one of the primary reasons for buying the book in the first place.


I can't imagine any plausible counter to the claim that hardcovers do worse than PDFs when it comes to reprints/updates. The fact the rules get updated is a definite downside of buying hardcovers, if you care about having the most up-to-date printing.

Steve, I think what you are glossing over with this (and similar) replies is that most of the people you are talking to WANT hardcovers. Full stop. Given their druthers, they would buy the hardcover and love it and never look back. Indeed, many of us did that for 2 - 3 years. But we just got burned too many times. You can't drop $40 on a book to only have editing errors make it difficult to use on day one, then at the exact time that those issues get cleared up a good portion of the book gets functionally changed. In many cases those two overlap. You have an interesting option that isn't clearly written so you avoid using it then when they fix it they rewrite it to be virtually unrecognizable. After the 4th, 5th, 6th time you spend that kind of money you start to feel taken for granted/advantage of. Vic's statement about "no second run if you don't buy the first," really reinforces that feeling of being taken for granted. (Really though, the entire subscription model is centered around literally taking sales for granted, so that probably influenced his attitude here.)

Long story short, people want books, but they want good books that hold up after the first print. We understand the nature of books. You don't have to explain how books are static entities to us. We are saying we wish they would do better on the first go, and that we feel our trust in their QC has been violated too frequently to buy any book from them sight unseen or first run. Trust us, we wish it were different.

Jafar and Iago?

7 people marked this as a favorite.


Ok, so you need a clean car to do anonymous things in. You don't need security cameras and PI's tracking you by your car. You value your privacy. This is a proposed method to legally (mostly) obtain a totally clean and untraceable (to you) car. Please point out the holes in the plan so they may be corrected! Plan costs approximately $15,000 that we will assume you also got from a clean method. (For this, I'm in favor of breaking $100 bills from your bank at different gas stations around town by buying a pack of gum. Will take a while to accomplish, but if privacy is paramount then it is worth the time.)


idea wrote:

First, go to a mall. Find a group of teenagers. Teenagers should match your outward gender appearance to decrease public suspicion. Ask the teenagers if they want to make $1000. They will presumably say, “yes.” Say, “OK, let’s go to Best Buy.”

Once you get to Best Buy give them instructions to go inside and buy a Chromebook. Give them $500. When they come back out trade them the Chromebook for $1000. Tell them to keep the change.

Take your new Chromebook and go to local community colleges until you find one with open access visitor Wifi that you can access from your car. Hit up craigslist and find a car from a private seller for about $5,000 in a city at least 100 miles away and preferably in another state.

Head down to the place in your chosen town where day-laborers hang out. Hire one who has a cell phone. Tell them to arrange to buy the car you found with a public meet up for later that day. You are going to give them the money and you are going to give them $7,500 when they bring the car back with the title. Drop the day-laborer a few blocks away from the arranged meet. Tell them to haggle but accept the $5000 if the seller won’t budge. Tell them to bring the car to a Walmart parking lot. Park your car in another large parking lot a few blocks away. Walk to the Walmart.

When they show up with the car, keys, and the title give them the $7,500. Tell them to keep the change. Take the laptop, wipe it down, and run it over with the car a few times. Put on cotton gloves, pull the hard drive out and throw the rest of the laptop into a lake. Preferably the middle of a lake, but spillways, or long docks will be OK. Take the hard drive, beat it with a sledge hammer until you split the casing. Squirt lighter fluid in and light it up. Take it to a wooded area in the middle of the night, dig a hole at least 4 feet deep somewhere without grass. Toss the hard drive in. Soak the cotton gloves in lighter fluid and burn them in the bottom of the hole. Fill the hole back in.

Drive the car back to a place near your town. Find a major strip shopping center. The kind with a Home Depot, Grocery Store, Hobby Lobby, you get the idea. Lots of heavy traffic stores. Preferably with one or two open 24 hours. Park the car toward the middle-back of the lot, between the two biggest stores areas. Don’t park it near a cart return.

Walk a few blocks away and try to find a pay phone. If you can’t then go into a non-corporate gas station and ask to use the phone and phone book. Call a taxi. Have the taxi take you back to the Walmart in the other town. Give the cabby $1000. Tell them to keep the change. Walk the few blocks back to your car. Drive your car home.

You now have clean car. If it will be a while before you need the clean car you should make sure to move it every couple of days. Always walking up to it from a few blocks off in a relatively busy time and then leaving it in a busy parking lot.

This is actually for a modern game I'm running, but the thought experiment is more interesting than the game so I posted it in the off-topic on purpose.

Steve Geddes wrote:

FWIW, I didn't get the impression that the playtest was going to be "invite only". I think James Sutter said something like "including some playtesting from members of the community so look out on the messageboards for how to be involved in that".

I got the impression there'd be an application process rather than some people being invited.

My guess is they want to keep it wrapped up behind an NDA so they can get the benefit of a big reveal at Gencon. They may even strongly favor folks who plan to attend Gencon 2017 so they can run demo tables.

standaloneghost wrote:
lowericon wrote:
Mark Norfolk wrote:
This where the DM is going to have to decide a ruling.

I adjudicated this once as GM and although my answer had no real basis in written rules, all the players were satisfied with this answer:

1) I roll fall damage for you as normal. Let's say you've fallen 40ft. I roll 4d6 and get 2+5+3+4= 14

2) Falling character must now make a DC 14 Strength* check to keep hold of the rod. They will still receive the full 14 damage, but they'll hold on.

3) If they exceed the DC of the Strength check, they can reduce/negate the damage at a 1:1 ratio. So in our example, a Strength check of 16 would mean he only takes 12 points of damage instead of 14. A strength check of 28 would mean he takes no damage.

*in place of a Strength check, and Acrobatics check can also be substituted. The PC has to pick one (can't try the 2nd if the 1st one fails) but they do get to pick. This way both brawny and nimble characters have a chance of success.

Did you really need to necro a 2+ year old thread?

Meh. Thread necros aren't as frowned upon here. Particularly as they added something to the existing discussion rather than asking a new question on the same topic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Enterprise E

Battlestar Galactica (James Edward Olmos version)

Discovery One from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:

The problem is that we see slavery in the context of either how America enslaved blacks, which involved massive amounts of racism that deemed the slaves sub-human and denied them any rights, or modern human trafficking, which is nearly as abusive. As Finlanderboy pointed out, slavery has in fact existed in forms that weren't nearly as abusive, and thus would most certainly not be "evil", in those forms.

That said, perhaps the OP should re-examine why they want to play a slaver; if it's just to get a rise out of your fellow players, keep in mind that could actually genuinely upset them, meaning it could basically put them in a mood that kills their enjoyment of the game. Don't be that guy.

Otherwise, I'd still recommend playing it low-key.

"The problem with slavery" is that it exists.

Slavery is evil. Stop defending it.

Take away the racism? Well slavery still treats slaves as sub-human by dehumanizing them. When you're a slave you're not a person anymore, you're glorified property. You don't have rights or will of your own.

"Oh, well this institution of slavery over here wasn't as bad as other institutions" and "Oh, well this institution of slavery gave the slaves cookies once a month" makes it okay?

Slavery is an abomination. Stop trying to justify it. Stop trying to defend it. In any form or culture, slavery is evil.

So putting people in prisons is evil? Taking their rights and making them human cattle? Replacing their name with a number(very dehumanizing look at the standford prison study)? Making them work to repair the debt they damaged upon society is evil?



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

So, if you say yo do not need rule books any longer, only HeroLab. How do you know how combat works, how a combat round works, what actions are, how combat maneuvers work? How magic works, how schools interact? How to craft magic items?

This is just silly.

I have access to the 3.5 SRD

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old Grognard wrote:

Back In My Day - Accurately map a dungeon thanks to having a 10' Pole.

Pole-Armed - Take Catch Off-Guard just to be able to fight with a 10' Pole without penalty.

You Should Have Bought A 10' Pole - GM Award for repeatedly putting needed quest items just out of reach of the players.

That's not a pole, this is a pole! Craft an 11' pole.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I guess this undermines the classic technique of casting silence on an arrow or dagger and embedding it into the caster, thus avoiding giving them a Will save.

That's what tanglefoot bags are for...

Charm Person
Comprehend Languages
Floating disk (maybe?)
Feather Fall

See Invisibility
Make Whole

Dispel Magic

Dimension door
Detect Scrying
Emergency Force Sphere

Mage's Private Sanctum
Summon Monster V

Varun Creed wrote:

Does this AnyDice program use the right DPR calculation?

Don't think so, since I get 111DPR with Harry Hacker.. Not sure what's different though!
Edit #2:
Ah overlooked this rule:

Target AC of 24. This is the standard for AC at CR 10, according to the Bestiary monster building guidelines. Target touch AC, when relevant, is 12 because that seems as good as any number.

Versus AC24, Harry Hacker gets 105 DPR, closer to Shakalaka calculation. Still wondering what's different! :)

output [{23,18} vs 24 crit 17 3 dmg 2d6+35] named "Hacker Harry 1.1 Furious Falcata +23/+18, 2d6+35 dmg (17/x3)"

DPR Calculator that works

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eldritch Heritage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

To me, "optimization" is a disparaging term used when a player chooses traits/feats/equipment/options that are "obviously" in conflict with the setting/mood/story, solely because they improve the PC, without regards to storytelling.

My favorite example was a post of a barbarian build. The PC was a Shoanti barbarian from the Cinderlands. The player chose the "rich parents" trait, and used that to purchase a masterwork nodachi and breastplate.

I might have even excused the breastplate, but a nodachi?

"Oh, I can write my way around that," was the player's response.

"I abandon storytelling and 'realism' in favor of making my PC as powerful as possible," is my 'negative definition' of optimization.

If you're choosing stuff that fits in with the campaign, fits in with what your character has done so far, and fits in with what you're trying to accomplish, then no problemo, no matter how advantageous/disadvantageous your choices are.

But if your PC is a mishmash of wildly variant traits from a dozen different sourcebooks and your excuse is, "I can write around that," then I have an issue...

EDIT: I mean, I can list simple facts:
(1) Fact 1: In the last 4+ years, I've run 13 players (as a GM) and played with 7 others (as a player) through 33 AP books.

(2) Fact 2: In that particular experience, there is a strong correlation between "problem players" (players with whom I or another GM have a problem) and "number of source books used for the PC".

So while I would reject the assertion that "multiple source books" = "bad", I would say that "multiple source books" is a strong indicator that the player in question is choosing more powerful options without regard to their character concept or the storyline as a whole

TRANSLATION : You must play stereotypes to evade my rancor! I have a zero tolerance policy for characters lacking a staunch drudgery that locks in all their choices based upon MY conception of what is appropriate for them!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

In short, there is no upside to an errata preview.

The upside is being the same company and maintaining the same product that we all fell in love with 8 years ago.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Printing lead times don't allow that.

This is actually a big part of the problem. The "lead time" for this errata was three and a half years. So if this really is the case, then they crunched themselves in and it likely affected the quality of the product. As in, "Oh crap! We only have 4 copies left in the warehouse! Better get that errata knocked out this afternoon so we can get the new order in. Where's my list of PFS complaints for UE?"

Not that I think that is literally what happened, but that is what results in the logical extension of your statement. And I do think there is SOME truth in it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Mark commented that there's apparently too many ways to get little AC bonuses. The ioun stone, this, etc... And while each isn't a problem, getting all of them puts you a good amount ahead of the expected AC curve.

And behind in other places... Why can't player choices matter? They are making this game more boring with every release. Power creep? No, power sink.

Ferious Thune wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It's not particularly convoluted.

So the linked explanation is 3 pages long because....?

Look, I love combining things, but if you intend two things to work together then for the love of pete, say how they work together. This isn't a feat from the legacy of fire players guide and the ultimate wombat race guide. Its a basic property of the magus. There's more than two ways of reading it, and in fact both of them are correct: it even works two ways (like with a pre cast shocking grasp or something that has multiple whacks like chill touch) One way of reading it is far more powerful than the other, violates (the then being made explicit) hands rule of only using a hand once in two weapon fighting like things. If you try to bounce two rules off of each other into unknown territory in the PHB you ARE going to come out with some really weird answers: especially if you rely on differentiating between the free attack and the. The 99% way of getting the right answer was to pick the less powerful one that didn't give you a prone shooter option.

Something that I really wish Pathfinder had more of is examples. Especially when a new class is introduced with complicated mechanics. Here's the Magus. Here are the major abilities he gets. Here's how a typical fight might go for the 7th level Seltyiel. I know it isn't practical for every ability or every feat, but something like a new class and its primary combat mechanic could use an example.

I also think when a major FAQ is issued, examples should be included with it. I know that backfired on them the one time they did it (the free action FAQ), and that's unfortunate. It doesn't mean that including examples will always lead to the firestorm that happened in that instance.

See, I read that differently. I see the example as a really good tool for reasonableness that should have tipped the PDT off that the FAQ was bad before they even posted it. If the lesson they learned from that was, "don't give examples cause people freak out," then I feel like they learned the wrong lesson.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Spells at the level they use them, to start. It makes no sense that you get bloodline spells a level after you can cast that spell level. Either let them skip prereqs for bloodline feats or replace them with something like the wizard has (feats spellcasters actually use instead of the weird hodgepodge that bloodlines give). But other than that, I don't actually know what would make them better. I can point out problems, but solutions (especially ones without unintended consequences) take a lot more work. The basic problem with sorcerer is that they have literally one real class feature other than spells, bloodline. And it's not a particularly spectacular one.

Move bloodline spells up a full 2 levels. Ie, Instead of getting your 5th level spell at 11th level, they should get it at 9th. Either have it count as a 4th level spell for them, or (better) allow them to use spell slots they would gain from high charisma to cast them a level earlier. Why should bloodline "thematic" spells show up a level later for that bloodline than than some other sorcerer who took it as soon as possible. They should get them earlier. And they still just get them at the same level as a Wizard.

The amount of Murcury in a CFL is about 5mg or for perspective about the same as 290 cans of tuna. It is also about 65x less than concentrations of real concern if ingested. Most of it probably got on your table cloth and your clothes. As for the floor I would just use a wet vac carpet cleaner and call it a day. (Unless you had been looking for an excuse to get new carpet, then go for it.)

Mercury is a teratogen so the pregnant niece is a concern. I think it would be prudent for her to wear shoes in the area and generally not roll around naked on the floor there until you have cleaned it up.

Toss the table cloth and clothes is a good idea.

Just as another perspective setting point, the amount of mercury in the CFL is about 1% that of a mercury thermometer.

ckdragons wrote:

either live it or leave

Did just that almost 2 years ago. Best gaming decision I ever made. Site went to crap after the reforge and kept getting crappier thereafter. No surprise that it has become a steaming pile where admins are actively opposing the user base. That's what happens when a terrible manager can't figure out why his company is failing, "it must be the customer's fault" or even better in this case, "must be the legacy users fault."

MeanMutton wrote:
Sagiso wrote:

Awesome, 33% less damage for the same level of spell slot.

thanks for the tip anyway.

Acid spells generally do less damage because there are quite a few creatures which are specifically harmed by them (think trolls) and very few creatures with resistances to them. Electricity has a TON of beings with immunity or resistance.

Having the option for creatures immune to electricity is a life-saver.

Hrm. Acid spells tend to do less damage because they tend to be conjuration rather than evocation (which this is) and that usually comes with SR: NO, which this doesn't. :( It's a poor trade-off IMHO. I think it would be right in line if it didn't allow for SR.

1d4 ⇒ 2

Have his result be (X+1)-dX

So, for a 20 sided die it would be 21 - roll = result.

His high rolls instantly become low rolls!

Edit: Ninja'd by mysterious stranger.

I have seen gestalt with three players before and what worked well was that the GM assigned the "other" class to everyone at character creation. So it was, play whatever you want and gestalt with ranger." (We were playing Kingmaker) it worked really well because we were all able to play a little bit squishier characters and stretch out a bit with our concepts rather than trying to fill certain roles. Ranger is actually a really good choice no matter what campaign because they have high skill ranks, good class skills, can use a wand of CLW so no healer is needed. The high BAB/HD is a bonus so the party can soak the damage that was meant for 4-6 players. But the ranger is overall a low powered class so you don't have to be to concerned with exploit builds. Plus, Rangers come with built in buddies to help on the battle field.

Lord Fyre wrote:

[mocking]As part of the effort to gain more subscribers to their All Access service, CBS has mandated that THIS will be the duty uniform of all female crew members.[/mocking]

Arturius Fischer wrote:
Didn't stop it from being the progenitor, or handling issues much better than, oh, Voyager or Enterprise.
Oh hell yes. The later series became much more about maintaining a level of ratings then using science fiction to comment on society.

I'm assuming by "later series" you are referring to Voyager and Enterprise, because TNG (overtly) and DS9 (thematically) had very strong social commentary embedded in their narratives.

Voyager premiered on "The Action Network" aka UPN and so had a different feel across the board, but still had some good attempts to keep the thoughtful commentary present. Particualrly, themes like the repercussions of death, isolation (both personal and communal), the nature of what it means to be human, the strength of axiomic beliefs outside the societies that developed them, etc. They may not have delivered on all of those but they did give it a go.

Enterprise suffered a worse fate but still had stand-out episodes like "Cogenitor," "Similitude," and "The Aenar" made good showings at using Science Fiction to deliver a message. The biggest problem with Enterprise in this regard was that Archer was a notorious flip-flopper and seemed to have ethics which matched his mood.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

[mocking]As part of the effort to gain more subscribers to their All Access service, CBS has mandated that THIS will be the duty uniform of all female crew members.[/mocking]

As long as they balance it out with beefcake.

Just for good measure.

Oh man.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
TOS pretty well borked Cochrane all by themselves. He was the human who invented warp drive and he was from Alpha Centauri. So yeah... anything TNG did with that was an improvement.
Yeah, it's totally impossible for humans to travel a handful of lightyears to colonize nearby solar systems the hard way, prior to the discovery of Warp Drive. No science fiction has ever attempted that before.

Not in the amount of time they gave themselves to do it. The original complaint was one of continuity, not plausibility.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hama wrote:
What's wrong with Cochrane?

Watch the original series, read some of the very good expanded universe novels with him as a central character, and you'd understand.

Plus the entire setup of Cochrane's camp simply doesn't make sense. If you're in post apocalypse scenario where camps are just struggling to get by, you're not going to be devoting resources to experimental space stunts.

Cochrane's just the start of the list of things I hate about the movie, and if I went into them, I'd be in full bore rant mode. In short the conduct of the entire Enterprise bridge crew made that movie literally painful to watch.

TOS pretty well borked Cochrane all by themselves. He was the human who invented warp drive and he was from Alpha Centauri. So yeah... anything TNG did with that was an improvement.

1 to 50 of 4,370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.