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

3,833 posts (3,872 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 3,833 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Confession: I stopped playing MTG after they changed to "the stack," and I stopped playing BECAUSE they changed to "the stack."

Lord Snow wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I thought the math was that we were OVERpopulated, despite the fact that birth rates are down?

Low birth rates have their own set of problems, such as an aging of the population (the average age goes up if there are less young people to balance out the old people, who's lives are getting longer and longer thanks to technology), which could cause for serious strain on the economy is the ratio between pensioners and workers gets worse.

But that issue is ultimately self-solving and will be completely off the radar in 50-60 years (for modernized Western nations, plus Japan anyway). Plus it is a good thing for the future of humanity. There are many projections which predict that global population will cap out somewhere between 11-12 billion (over the next 100-120 years) and then see a gradual decline back down to around 3-4 billion in just a few generations. As the totality of the world becomes industrialized (and subsequently post-industrialized) there will be a swell of population because local economics will allow for larger families and then those children will have less children and the children they have will come later in life.

Linear Fighter > Combat Expertise > Dodge > Mobility > Spring Attack > Whirlwind Attack

Quadratic Wizard > Jump > Levitate > Fly > Dimension Door > Teleport > Plane Shift > Wish

Now imagine if the wizard could only know 22 spells throughout his entire 20 level career.

Now imagine that the wizard HAD TO CHOOSE Jump, Levitate, Fly, Dimension Door, and Teleport as prerequisites to Plane Shift.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
87. Cluelessly throwing around profanity with 8 year olds at the table. It was in-character, but we tried to subtly warn this guy a few times.

It's been my experience that guys who cuss in front of 8 year-olds don't do subtle. It's best to just directly say, "language dude, 8 year-old."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

If there is a possibility that your animal will attack me as a guest then you should be a good host and see that the animal is secured before your guests arrive. If your animal attacks me in your home where I was invited then my reaction send the animal across the room in an attempt to prevent further attack and harm to my person does not make me the unreasonable party.
Yes it does - if you're scared of (of all things) cats, then leave them alone. Easy as pie.

It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with not being attacked by an animal in a place where I was invited to enjoy an evening of gaming with friends. This wouldn't be my reaction to a cat approaching me, nor would it be my reaction to a cat batting my pant leg with its paw, but my reaction to having a claw hook my flesh and drawing blood. It is completely unacceptable as a host and irresponsible as a pet owner to allow an animal around strangers (to it) that it may attack. It isn't fair to put the animal in an environment where it feels stressed to the point of attack and it isn't fair to your guests to subject them to your unsocialized violent animal.

We have a dog rescue and get all kinds of dogs with socialization and emotional issues. I know within an hour of working with a dog if they can be around when strangers show up, you should know your cat at least that well.

I am absolutely gob smacked that saying, "prevent your animals from attacking my person in your home," is meeting such strong resistance.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
navel law

Is this where they define the difference between inies and outies?

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

"Excuse me, your toddler bit me. I think we can all see who the real victim is here."

No offense, but you're a lot bigger and more dangerous than a housecat.* As my good mother often said in my younger years, "[KC], don't hit your sister. I don't care if she hit you first, she's smaller than you."

Downright unreasonable woman.

*Wait, are you a commoner? What level are you?

If you have a biting toddler I would expect you to have it out of the way as well, though if your toddler was roaming the floor, pounced, and scratched me, then I would probably just slap you.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
That's an improbable scenario, and it still doesn't give you the right to abuse animals.

If there is a possibility that your animal will attack me as a guest then you should be a good host and see that the animal is secured before your guests arrive. If your animal attacks me in your home where I was invited then my reaction send the animal across the room in an attempt to prevent further attack and harm to my person does not make me the unreasonable party.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Cat scratch =/= dog bite. If you're too sissy to tolerate a cat scratch, leave them alone.

Ahem. My mom almost lost her left thumb.

Oly wrote:
Godwyn wrote:

For a feat, though, it is great. In that sort of focused campaign, everyone spends their first level feat on it. And Voila, we have a Power Rangers team, or Batman and Robin, any number of the Sailor Scouts. As a feat, this ability works, as the focus of a class it does not.

If "everyone spends their first level feat on it," even if only in specific types of campaigns, it's OP. A non-OP feat always has people thinking, "Should I take this feat, or is it better to take this other feat?"

I agree on the other hand that it's definitely too weak to be the focus of a class.

The way it becomes "Should I take it or not?" is if you need to take a chain of feats to get all the benefits.

It's true that no one would take Secret Identity, even as a single feat, in a hack and slash campaign with no intrigue. But in certain kinds of campaigns giving all the benefits in one feat is way OP.

It isn't OP, it's a theme. You could make a party from a troupe of flying trapeze artists that all take skill focus: acrobatics, but that doesn't make skill focus: acrobatics an OP feat either.

Haladir wrote:

77. Incessant Monty Python jokes after being told to tone it down.

78. Kicking the host's cat. Happened at a game I was thankfully not hosting. Granted, the cat did scratch him, but you DON'T DO THAT!!

79. Casually taking your actual real-world handgun from its holster while arguing with the GM, and only returning it when the GM backs down. Heard about this one from a friend. According to the story, the GM called the cops and reported the incident after the guy left, and the player got arrested and charged with menacing. He also got his handgun permit revoked.

80. Throwing a full-on temper tantrum at the gaming table (for getting killed/not getting the best magic item/GM says 'no'/etc). These are annoying with three-year-olds, but just pitiful with thirty-year-olds.

81. Regularly calling the GM at odd hours with "awesome ideas about my character!" Including in the middle of the night when the guy KNOWS the GM has young children who don't sleep soundly.

82. Bringing illegal drugs into the host's house. I don't care if you use drugs, but I don't want that $#!T in my house!

83. Showing up for the game while having a full-on psychotic episode. That was one of the scariest nights of my life.

If you have a cat that scratches people then you should have that animal closed off in a bedroom for the DURATION of the game. I reserve the right to flip an animal across the room that attacks me. I also reserve the right to drink your beer if your cat attacks me.

Full disclaimer: I have a dog that bites people, and a full 30 minutes before game time he gets to be in my bedroom so my house guests don't get bit. It isn't just a curtesy, it's also avoiding liability.

56. Doesn't respect my special snowscape! I already told you, half-elves are sterile just like donkeys! That's how it is in my snowscape, and you must not challenge it!!

Add another +1 to this should be a feat that ANY character could take.

Soilent wrote:
Was that the one with Time traveling whales?

That's IV, which I personally can't stand but was very well received.

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

For the most part, actually playing the class isn't needed.

I think that pretty much says all anyone needs to know about you.

If you're not willing to even play the freaking class, why are you wasting anyone's time in the playtest feedback forums?

That's a pretty empty argument.

After you've played the game for many years, 3.5 and Pathfinder, know the rules, know the classes, and know how well they play in an actual game due to playing a variety of characters you reach an understanding with the game.

For straight forward and simple classes like the Vigilante you don't need to play one at all to know what it's like. You've already seen and done almost everything it's capable of and you know how it's gonna work out in play.

If the Vigilante was a complex class like the Bard or Witch that would be a different story, but it's not. It's a simple and obviously under performing class.

It only has one specific niche. A campaign where maintaining a secret identity is such an important baseline that you can't simply run it out of disguise.

This is a huge point that gets overlooked and dismissed as "theory-crafting," the 3.x/PF ruleset is 15 years old now. Savvy players have A BUNCH of experience with new content and material. Playtesting is a vital part of working out the kinks of a class or settling on a nuanced power curve. This class isn't refined to the point yet where playtesting is the only way to reveal valuable information.

Joe Hex wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

For the most part, actually playing the class isn't needed.

I think that pretty much says all anyone needs to know about you.

If you're not willing to even play the freaking class, why are you wasting anyone's time in the playtest feedback forums?

He is willing to play the class, as soon as it is worth playing. You dont have to see it hit the table to know there are serious issues. Watching those issues unfold over a 6 hours time frame wont make them go away.

DM Beckett wrote:

I guess the part I'm finding really difficult is why not just make Dual Identity a Feat, or probably a Feat Chain that any and everyone can take?

On one hand, the existence of the Vigilante is one of those things that basically takes away options from everyone else by existing. There are already things like Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, and various Illusion-ish style magics. Why not just focus on highlighting those and finding ways to allow skill starved classes, namely the Fighter, Cleric, and Paladin archtypes to pull this off rather than making yet another option that removes flavor options from everyone else?

We really do not need more classes. Not when all the flavor side of it can already be done just fine already.

This, so much this.

We don't need a new class that treads over the ground of 20 other base classes across 6 years of game design just to add a quirky option.

That is the very definition of what a feat (or chain) is for. This isn't a class, this is a feat masquerading as the "every" class. PDT needs to get away from this like a hot potato.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
I would invite those who are interested to look at the site . If nothing else just look at all the news stories that are being spiked because they don't support the desired narrative.


Ice Age Now Whois
Robert Felix Bellevue WA

Steve Geddes wrote:
I don't think the content of a book is the same content as a PDF of that book.

Which one has the Easter eggs?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Quiche Lisp wrote:

I think there's a special layer in the Abyss dedicated to game designers who implement "trap options" in 3.x D&D and PFRPG.

I regularly fall for trap options, which might explain the above sentence.

There are no "trap options". (well maybe some errors like "Prone shooter"). As long as you understand them and they fit your character concept, then they are not a trap.
There are no 'mysteries,' so long as you understand everything.

Pretty much. With sufficient system mastery there are no trap options.

Without it, there are things that look good, but really aren't. Whether those are intentional or things the designers didn't understand is another question. There are certainly some options that combined with other options to be better than the developers expected.

Just because you make your spot check doesn't mean it isn't a trap.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

I like Deep Space Nine not because it's "realistic" (it's still Trek), but because it had, IMO, very good characters (even poaching some from TNG like O'Brien and Worf), and generally high quality of episode (the stinkers are few and far between, unlike Voyager where mediocre to crap is the average, or TNG which lived on a rollercoaster where each week it could be either complete s@@@ or absolutely brilliant or somewhere in between).

It's just a very good show in general, not just for Trek.

Agreed. I believe DS9 was the best written and acted trek not because I didn't like the others but because DS9 was truly stand-out in those areas. The production quality and music was also very good however I believe that Voyager and Enterprise are equally good in those respects.

But what many people dont realize is that DS9 was the originator of long-drawn story arcs over more than 2-3 episodes. Before DS9 TV was considered a media for episodic story-telling and that epic scale narrative was meant for the theater where you can give it up to 3 hours of film time. DS9 destroyed that paradigm and showed that you can really tell deep stories when you have ~20 hours a season to give it. The modern paradigm of arc-heavy plot-driven drama on TV began with DS9.

I also think that DS9 was better than the rest because freaking Berman was off playing with his other toys and left them alone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think James is suggesting that if you were to limit the class to 4th level casting it would not have to give up half of it's talents.

Logan Bonner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Logan would you mind expanding on this "no". Saying "no" won't make the idea go away. If you have some behind the scene reasons that have not been revealed that would be nice to know, even if you can't give us details on it.
Sure. It's pretty simple, really. Many of the talents are built to be more effective than a feat. Even setting aside spellcasting, there are options like signature weapon that are worth two feats for the cost of one talent. Some previous Extra _____ feats have also been better than other feats, but we'd rather not continue that unfortunate trend, especially since the vigilante will have a really large number of options.

Sad Trombone

pH unbalanced wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

**Not objectively false. It is subjective. Food is an art, not a science. Treating like a science will only lead to epic failure.

This statement is, actually, objectively false.

Look up molecular gastronomy some time. It is literally the science of making better tasting food.

Certain foods taste better prepared in certain ways. Whether that's thickness of cut, fattiness of meat, how it's cooked, what seasonings best complement the natural flavors and so on varies by dish, but it IS a science.

Personal taste may still vary, but generally speaking well prepared food tastes better, regardless of outliers who prefer something less so.

In this case, thinly sliced deli meats have more flavor.

That may be true. But taste is not the only factor in food enjoyment.

I like my deli meat sliced more thickly because I enjoy the feel of chewing thicker meat.

Same reason I dislike cuts of steaks that are typically "tender" or "melt-in-your-mouth".


Rynjin wrote:

That's not a different reason. Molecular gastronomy is largely about chemistry.

Flavor is all chemical reactions.

Hrm :/ Voltage-gated Na+ channels, CYP enzymes, and G-protein receptors, while technically chemistry (because everything is chemistry) really isn't about reactions so much as it is about pathways.

For sandwich shops it's all about Schlotzsky's, Lenny's, and The Great Outdoors.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I didn't even say it was bad, but Firefly is overrated.

And that is merely your assertion, one with which many discerning fans do not agree.

Just as a reminder...

The name of this thread wrote:
Confessions that will get you shunned by the members of the Paizo community

The righteous indignation isn't required.

Nigrescence wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Would anything break if I made MWP a trait?
Scythia wrote:
I deal with it by making Martial Weapon Proficiency feat grant all Martial weapons, like it does as a class feature.
PrC would break suck less.


Greatsword is two-handed weapon so it doesn't work with effortless lace.

James Gibbons wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

The problem here is the difference in power between 1st level powers.

And possibly the already-late access to bloodline spells (I like the houserule that says you get them two levels early - before you can otherwise cast spells of that level, once per day).

Given that those two things exist, bloodline familiars are a great choice for bloodlines with sub-par 1st level bloodline powers, particularly the Elemental Bloodline (which also gets uninspiring bloodline spells).

They certainly don't need to be made stronger (ie a better trade) in order to match the overpowered Arcane Bloodline.

I argue that they do.

Despite that you may think it's overpowered, the Arcane Bloodline is THE Sorcerer Bloodline.

It is the default, and therefore presumably the Bloodline all other Bloodlines were balanced around.

If a Familiar is OP for Arcane it wouldn't be any more or less OP for any other Bloodline, especially since the Familiar is really the least of its power (the extra spells known and great Bonus Spells list is that).

Trading a sub-par power for a somewhat better power for gimped bonus spells progression is a bad trade. Trading crappy claws fro a Familiar might not be an EVEN trade, but it's a FAIR trade, IMO.

I'd argue that arcane bloodline is the opposite of THE sorcerer bloodline. It's more like a cop out for when you want to make a wizard but like spontaneous casting.

What I see immediately though is the opportunity this presents. Honestly getting your bloodline spells one level later is more of a boon than a hinderance

think of it this way, if your bloodline has great spells you can pick them as a spell known on the first level you'd gain spells of that level because two levels later when you'd get it as a bloodline spell just switch it out for something else because it's an even numbered level!

edit for an example: picture this, you're a Celestial sorcerer who doesn't wan't to wait till level 7 to get magic circle against...

Arcane is definitely THE sorcerer bloodline. It is the only bloodline in core to carry over THE ONLY sorcerer class feature from the OGL. Arcane is definitely the default and the developers should have balanced the others around it.

Irontruth wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Roleplaying means taking on the role of your character, which includes any and all decisions you make when you put yourself in the character's shoes, which includes things like combat, selecting feats and dialogue.

Based on that definition, almost all games would be role playing games. Is Pac Man a role playing game because I'm playing the role of Pac Man and making decisions on what he does? Is Mario Brothers a role playing game because I'm playing the role of Mario and deciding which enemies to jump on, and which ones to shoot fireballs at?

If that is how you're using the term, then "role playing" loses its meaning.

I was really hoping we could get past ridiculous hyperbole. Guess not.

If your definition includes what you consider to be hyperbolically opposed to the meaning, then you should come up with a better definition.

Malag wrote:


It doesn't work like that in the long run. I personally think that it's lame to min-max bad guys in the same way as PCs in order to reach DC 42 Mass Charm Monster or other spell, but my opinions completely aside, it's ineffective due to time spent in building such opponents. While it might be okay to build it once or twice, stating these NPCs/monsters in order to make them viable becomes a chore.

Which is why you build alot of encounters by fiat.

You can min max a couple of options and then take the resulting numbers and plug them in where you need them.

I dont have to build a diviner VMC kitsune arcane sorcerer (blah blah blah) everytime, all I need to know is that for an attack spell that a caster specializes in I will set the DC around 40.

That is one of the best parts of being a DM and not a developer. I dont have to show anyone HOW I came to a build, I just need the stat block.

Snowblind wrote:
A +13 to will means that you have a 40% chance of getting charmed by a Succubus, or a 45% chance of getting dominated. That is a CR7 creature, and the CR20 bloodrager is seriously threatened by it. The fact that 5 of them (CR12ish) are extremely likely to turn your bloodrager into a level 20 meat puppet by the second round is atrociously bad. Like, unforgivably bad. The bloodrager is a liability. If your PC seriously wants to play like a level 20 character(rather than some low CR monster playing the character for them) they need to be sitting in pass-on-a-2 territory or very close to for minor stuff like that. It isn't even difficult. +5 cloak, luck stone, competence bonus to saves ioun stone, +6 wis bonus from headband is +10, and that costs about 130k, a fraction of level 20 WBL. Bloodrager has +6 will at level 20, so if they didn't dump wis they are sitting at +16. With Mighty Bloodrage that jumps up to +20 when raging. This makes the bloodrager borderline acceptable. Toss on a Cap of the Free Thinker and a +4 inherent wisdom bonus and the bloodrager's saves should be sufficient (not great, but enough to get by so long as they don't run into really nasty stuff). Actually investing feats makes a big difference - Steadfast Personality will boost their saves against mind affecting, and would be really good if the level 20 bloodrager actually put serious resources into improving their spellcasting stat...17 Cha at level 20, really? Did the bloodrager start off at 11 Cha or something?

Yeah, I understand the desire for capstone abilities, but really multiclassing in a few splashes helps with this ALOT.

Also SIMPLR rings of save boosting should be considered by every player at that level.

I'm aware of hero forge. Their stuff is beautiful and far beyond the level of complexity I need.

My project is actually not gaming related. Doing research this summer and I need what amounts to a worm "maze." Roughly a 4cm cube with 5-6mm thick walls and an open top, connected to an identical cube by a ~40cm cylindrical pipe with the same 5-6mm thickness.

Does anyone have any experience with basic/simple 3d printing?

I'm needing some fairly basic custom pieces for a project I'm doing and I want to know how people are getting one-off pieces made.

What is good, simple, and cheap software for design?

Is it worth it to buy a printer yet?

My old uni has a design shop with a 3d printer where students and alumni can print and they charge by "hours." Is this standard? What is a fair price by the hour?

Are there any online solutions that are worthwhile?

Can I print in a clear (or nearly clear) media?

Thanks for any help!

10 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
My adventuring wizards do not wear robes, but the appropriate outfit for the climate and situation.

I quit a game once because for the 15th time I had the following exchange:

GM: the archer targets you because you look like the caster.

ME: I'm dressed the same as everyone else in the group. We all look like traveling sell-swords. Cause that's what is appropriate for us to dress like. I'm even carrying a sword. I don't look like a Mage.

GM: You aren't wearing armor.

ME: 1, neither is the monk who is dressed exactly like me, and 2, I've been dealing with ASF% for the last 3 sessions from this stupid chain shirt I bought the last time we had this conversation.

GM: Well, you get shot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:

My personal advice is to not touch that kind of campaign with a 30 foot pole.

From what your players are asking in facts, that's not even a campaing, but sensless ego boost from butchering high level something without efforts.

I guess any player has undergone that stage in their gaming "career" where they search personal gratification in higher numbers and higer volumes of absurd massacre, but i suggest you to try and stay away from this kind of circlejerking since only bad things happen down that road.

Absolutely not true. I have done just this sort of thing with great success.

We have summer games where we take a break from our regular game to do something that is totally different. Two summers ago it was "Save the Gods!" The PCs had to break the good gods out of "God Jail."

Things I did to help this flow more smoothly:

Players were dropped into an unknown area with only their carried gear and were not able to use magic travel to leave.

Game was run as essentially as a railroad that hard extremely hard checkpoints (you must pass through this door into the next area) but had total flexibility within. [Areas were between the size of a battlemat up to several thousand square miles]

Each area could use magic travel within it, but you couldn't use magic travel to go forward (ie, you have to have been there, and you've never been here.)

Each area had a different theme that featured iconic high-end baddies AND custom stuff that I worked up.

Some of the custom stuff were altered/advanced versions of recurring enemies that the PLAYERS knew from previous games. Those were slaughtered with delight.

Liberal use of class levels on bestiary monsters. Off the top of my head, I remember using a Elder Minotaur with 20 monk levels. Another time there were mounted archers with gecko mounts and the geckos had 13 monk levels. Then the PCs captured some and got to use them.

Create cool stuff for the PCs to use that would never get into a regular game (like geckos with 13 monk levels), but dont worry about loot. Loot is just incidental and only from what you specked NPCs to fight with.

Build NPCs with as much attention and optimization as the PCs will have been built with. Dont be afraid to try out crazy ideas (A group of Magus/Cleric/Mystic Theurges using whips to do harm via spellstrike was particularly memorable.)

Dont worry about NPC wealth, give them what they need to be challenging.

Create situations where terrain is a problem. (I gave them an encounter where a 20th level sorcerer vampire had a nightshade,nightwave "tank." Which was an immense room that had ramps on either side leading to the exit at the bottom. The room began to fill with "negative energy infused water." The sorcerer spammed them with suffocation, mass. That one almost TPKd the group. Universally they said afterward the hardest part of that room was the negative-energy water. It was 20d6 a round, save for half if you were fully submerged. [we used average rolls for everything like that] The exit was at the bottom, as was the pull release to drain the room. After some time the water level rose above the ledge at the midpoint and everyone had to employ their own means of flight. Not everyone was very good at that.)

Don't be afraid to kill them, or their cohorts. Basically, give them a run for their money. Don't pull punches. Make it hard, if they win they will have earned it and will remember it forever.

Insane people with super-powers are SCARY. (The whip/harm guys had a stronghold that the only way to enter was with the password. No exceptions. The password was a 2 minute barbershop quartet performance. DC 30 INT to remember an individual part after only hearing it once, DC 30 perform check to get it right.)

If you want more particulars of how I did it I'll be happy to share. But basically, you have to set yourself up for success or it wont be as fun as you (and your players) hope for.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

That's like saying autotune is offensive because it makes singers feel insecure. Beauty will always be appreciated, and showing off one's beauty should not be a crime—nor should Caitlyn be obliged to avoid magazine covers just because she is trans*/a woman. Not that we couldn't stand to de-emphasize beauty's importance a bit, but that's not the model's fault. :P

Moreover, how is it harmful to the trans community to show off the beauty of a trans* person? There's a major stereotype that being trans* is inherently unattractive, or even gross. That's a stereotype which Caitlyn is, in her own way, helping to erode. By showing off her sexuality (which is not something there is really anything wrong with), she is offering another way to view trans* people.

Mainstream variety is extremely healthy for any demographic. Trans* people tend to be viewed through very few windows by the mainstream—mainly as part of the "trap" joke, or as part of some "hilarious" scandalous reveal in a movie or TV show. I don't see why we have to be offended that Caitlyn is doing what any model does...while being trans*. To me, she's broadening the view most people have of transgenderedness. That seems like an extremely noble accomplishment.

The Klan's still scary, though.

Using media like Vanity Fair as part of coming out reinforces a stereotype that trans-people make the change for vain reasons. Cause you know, "vain" is right there in "vanity."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
She certainly doesn't look 65!


I'll have what she's having.

It's called airbrushing with Photoshop. I believe it is inexpensive and available commercially.
... Not to mention a small army of hairdressers, make-artists, and lighting technicians.
Just like ANYONE posing for the cover of Vanity Fair... Your point?

That vanity fair is part of a disgusting media paradigm that creates an unattainable image of beauty for women?

Or that selling-out to that paradigm in order to avoid social-issues associated with being trans is harmful to the trans community and to women?

bigrig107 wrote:
But why not pay the 4 RP for +2 Strength? It adds +1 CMD, along with quite a bit of other stuff.

Or for a flex feat...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Game has 10 levels that scale in power from current 3rd to 13th level.

archetypes that should have been prc's get corrected.

Less specific, more open ended spells a la shadowrun.

A specific rule that says, "This is the rule that says you can do a thing. An (su), (sp), or (ex) ability can only be performed by creature or characters that posses them but otherwise do anything. This rule specifically exists to end internet arguments started by grognard GMs or MMO-converts who say 'it doesn't say you can do you cant.' This is it, you can do it now. Show them this rule and tell them to shut up."

Have combat feats and character feats not be interchangeable and not be balanced off of each other.

Skill tricks.

A number of feats just get rolled into the combat chapter and magic chapters as base rules:
Power attack/pirhana strike/deadly aim
Vital strike and its chain
CRB metamagic
Many more...

Vital strike and spring attack works together (actually, spring attack just works like fly-by-attack)

Fix the economics of the system.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
memorax wrote:
The auto-immune response to 3.5. material in the hobby. Everything is overpowered or broken in 3.5. While I agree sometimes their are better options and vice-versa. It's one thing if they actually read the material. More often than not they heard from a guy that it's broken. So it's broken.

We had this problem DURING 3.5 as well.

See Psionics and Martial Initiators.

What really bugged me about this (and still does) is when you take time to scour the books for novel and interesting rules interactions and then you tell someone about it and before you even finish they are like, "yep, sounds about right for WOTC, some broken ass splat book garbage."


And you can't say anything either, because now you carry the mark of the optimizer.

Jacob Saltband wrote:
All you NEED to play the game is [...] an imagination.

Not according to some.

Ipslore the Red wrote:
I agree that seems to be the most reasonable way to rule their interaction, but I don't currently have anything more than gut feeling to base that on. Is there any specific source you have for this?

Just that I apply penalties before I apply bonuses. I don't think that is codified anywhere but it makes sense to me to act that way.

So you apply the hex first, then the war sight.

You roll 2d20, 2 times.

Each pair you must take the worst result due to the witch hex.

Of the low result from each pair you may select whichever you prefer.

Ex: 1d20 ⇒ 91d20 ⇒ 11 (you must take 9)


1d20 ⇒ 71d20 ⇒ 7 (you must take 7)


You can chose 7 or 9

2 people marked this as a favorite.
xeose4 wrote:
I've been meaning to ask: are there any suggestions for how a DM might reorient players "in character" without one of those NPC/DMPCs present? assuming the players MEAN to explore the published adventure, of course, and this isn't blocking their desire to do something else.

I will generally tell them the events that are happening around them, if they were supposed to be doing something then I will advance the news on that front to reflect that nothing is being done about the thing they are supposed to do.

Ie, players are meant to investigate a new cult that is rumored to be in town, but instead decide to go slay the great wereweasel of the cedarwood. When they get back from the woods (empty-handed, the wereweasel is a myth!) then they notice that a significant portion of people in town are wearing the symbol of Vecna.

Then they remember, "oh yeah! That cult thing. We had better get on it before it spreads some more."

Generally if you can show your players that something bad will happen if they ignore game hooks then they will go where they are meant to.

CapeCodRPGer wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

Here's the thing.

It's a role-playing game. Saying "I use Diplomacy on him. I roll a 17," is merely gaming. It's not role-playing. So it's insufficient to the required task, fulfilling as it does only one of the two components.

But " I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" Is fine in combat. Its the same thing, you are using the rules of the game for a result. So I'm have to really swing a sword to show the GM what I am doing? As a player I am unable to play the character the way i want to because me as a player sucks at social situations and I can't play the character as intended?

No, "I swing my sword on him, I roll a 17" ISNT good enough. You have to tell the GM where you are standing, you have to tell the GM if you full attack or move and attack, you have to tell the GM if you ready to disrupt a spell, you have to tell the GM HOW you are doing a thing.

Same with diplomacy, just saying "I diplomacy him," isn't enough.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Indeed PFS questions are permitted here, the reason I mentioned the board was because -in the absence of the OP calling out PFS- I assume the PFS board is the only place the conversation would automatically be about PFS.

It's not auto about PFS, but he mentions it here:


The game is Rise of the Runelords, Anniversary Edition, campaign mode for PFS credit.

GM decided, due to losing ground on both new PC options, and his sanity, to try and limit the campaign to Core, with approval on other things

That said, this is highly questionable. A PFS campaign allows everything not banned forma PFS, a PFS core campaign doesn't allow for "approval" of things.

So not sure how thus is PFS at all

It sounds like a private game that the group intends to report as PFS. There is some leeway in private home games for GM's being more restrictive than the campaign as a whole, but as I understand it, it is frowned upon by leadership.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Would you mind showing me where the OP says this is PFS? Last I checked this isn't the PFS board [I try to avoid that board, I hate the constraints of Organized Play.]

He mentions in a later post this is for ROTR Campaign mode for PFS. As it stands his GM is sticking some questionable restrictions on the players if they intend to report the sessions.

BUT, that said, the advice forum is the appropriate place to ask for advice even for PFS. The PFS forums aren't meant to encapsulate all PFS questions but only questions specific to the PFS campaign. This is a character advice question and as such is correctly placed in the advice forum.

I would disagree. If you are using the attended creatures save then that represents the creature actually moving out of the way. The conditional triggers (ie, evasion) should also apply.

1 to 50 of 3,833 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.