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

Bill Dunn's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,942 posts (4,114 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 11 aliases.


1 to 50 of 343 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Halfling Paladin 2 | HP 18/18 | AC: 20 /T: 12 /FF: 19 | F: +8 /R: +5/ W: +8 | CMB +3 | CMD 14 | Speed 15 | Init. +3 | Perc. +3 | S.M. +6 |

Know: Religion: 1d20 + 4 ⇒ (8) + 4 = 12

Odo gives Tanselle's question some thought before coming up with an answer. "I bear an iron scimitar because it is effective against demons, not for its utility against the undead. I do not believe it will be either more or effective against such creatures as any blade of steel. Of silver's effect, I know relatively little. I have some silver bullets for my sling that I bought for suitable emergencies, but I figured that would be more an issue with devils than undead."

"I will say this - the forms of undead suggest certain things. How do you make a walking skeleton bleed or pierce it's lung with an arrow? A deep penetrating wound would do little, I expect, compared one that smashes its bones. And against undead without solid form, ghostly apparitions, I fear nothing short of magic will do for how otherwise do you cause bodily harm to that which is without a body?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I don't believe that black people or women are less intelligent or intrinsically less capable than white people or men. This used to be believed, but we've moved beyond that.

So, why do black people (for example) need extra help? Why do they, as a group, get lower grades? It's not because they are less intelligent, but because of social, economic and cultural factors.

I fully support the idea of levelling the playing field by providing programs that allow a good education for all. But it would be wrong for this help to be aimed at 'black people', it should be aimed at those whose socio-economic circumstances would prevent them getting that education, since that is the problem not skin colour. And I support this even knowing that the majority of those who would benefit from such programs are black.

Because the skin colour should not be the basis of how we treat people.

But since skin color did determine how we treated people, leading to centuries of negative discrimination that has a real effect on people today, we set up ways to ameliorate those problems targeting the people who are affected. That's not "reverse discrimination," which is pretty much just a privilege-protection whine. It's remediation. And considering there are still areas of the United States working pretty hard to marginalize black people despite the deranged assertions of the Supreme Court, I certainly don't think we're past the point where we can consider those remediation programs no longer necessary or appropriate.

Now, it may well be that the poor people, in general, deserve remediation as well considering the exploitation they've suffered (and continue to suffer) at the hands of economically and politically dominant classes. But you may notice that most industrialized countries have programs for that too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I see the backlash is alive and well with some posters on this message board.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I don't think the way forward is to replace those things with a Good Ol' Girls Club, or to deny marriage to straight people.

We are also so ridiculously far away from either of these things that bringing them up really is propping up a straw man.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lost in Translation is probably my favorite.
I'd say Ghostbusters probably ranks second.

I have to say I really admire him for not only stretching beyond his comedy roots but also really being in control of his career. He seems to be enjoying his life, not mired in some rat race of feeling obligated to work or do jobs he doesn't want to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dazylar wrote:


Who knew a Marvel blockbuster would enlighten me to American military history? I like that...

Some of those Marvel guys are pretty literate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:


Because a large segment of the boards (e.g., all the Americans) haven't had a chance to see it, and might come here expecting discussion in anticipation of the movie.

You have to expect that's the risk you take - stumbling on to an unobscured spoiler - whenever you get into these discussions. If you really want to avoid spoilers, you have to take the responsibility for doing so.

I was just involved in a discussion about this on another site where someone felt that the latest developments in Walking Dead were spoiled for him before he had a chance to watch the episode in question. Personally, I found it simple to avoid the spoilers because I don't watch the show at all, am not interested in it, and don't participate in message board discussions about it (which was ultimately his downfall). So whatever surprise it has remains unspoiled for me (not that I care). The main point is - his own behavior is what put him at risk of having the surprise spoiled for him. If you want to be serious about not having something spoiled, refrain from discussion groups about it until you've seen it or are ready to risk having it spoiled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Right the point was it had a cartoon, several print magazines, news articles good or bad that indicated people were interested. Whether it was kids buying the product and magazines with a much bigger proportion of their disposible income or parents concerned about what their kids were doing it was the thing. It was the 'it' happening.

Now it's just another hobby and most of the kids that were playing d&d are now playing ghost ops or halo or surfingporn.

It's not bigger now. Even with the OSR it's fading. When d&d puts out another weekly cartoon I'll consider it to be growing.

It's not a question of raw size. It's a question of how niche or mainstream the hobby and its related activities are. There may have been more players in the 1980s fad stage, but it was never a mainstream hobby, nor were its related activities. The MMORPGs didn't exist. Fantasy, D&D-ish movies were few number. There was only the D&D cartoon on the television. Those several print magazines all had relatively little reach.

In the decades since, while active players may have declined, there's a much wider body of former players than there was in the 1980s, extending the familiarity of the game in the public at large. Fantasy movies are a lot more common. Fantasy conventions and cosplay are more common. RPGs have appeared in at least 2 sitcoms in recent years. There are regular TV shows that are fantasy-based. Kids engage in a lot of free-form role playing on internet forums. Millions of people play MMORPGs and games like Diablo.

From where I'm observing things, the difference between when I started playing in 1981 and now is huge. If we think of the RPGing and its influence as a shadow, the umbra may be a little bit smaller since the current player base isn't as big as the big fad heyday, but the penumbra is much bigger.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

I have no hidden agenda. I doubt Kirth does either. My only point was Monte Cook admitted in this article that certain choices in 3.0/.5 were presented to players that are better than others, on purpose.

The piece I quoted supports it, and nothing else said further down refutes it either.

So, really, how is it taken out of context, since the context IS some options in 3.0/.5 are better than others, on purpose?

And since the value of many choices depends on context, I would expect there to be some choices better than others. The wrong inference to make, and the point at which Monte's text is taken out of context, would be that those choices are the D&D equivalent of "Timmy" cards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Deth, are you honestly arguing that everyone stays 1st level, and therefore 3.0 Toughness is a good feat for the game as a whole? That it's design is superior to the PF Toughness feat? If so, I don't know what I can possibly say to you.

I've read the Alexandrian's response you quoted, and view it as Apologetics, not analysis.

I think the PF toughness feat is superior to 3e's, but it does so at the cost of additional complexity. That complexity isn't hard for most of us to handle, but it's certainly not as simple because you're no longer simply adding 3 hit points. You can also no longer apply it more than once, something you could do in 3e.

What you don't seem to recognize is that not every campaign nor every creature in a campaign is the same or put to the same use. For example, for a one-shot convention game with pre-gen characters, simpler options for feats and other game choices are superior to complex and conditional ones. The player doesn't need as much system knowledge to handle the character.

Similarly, for a GM who has to handle or build multiple NPCs and monsters, simpler options and options that can directly add to the calculated bonuses are easier to deal with than situational and conditional choices as well.

Some of these choices that are dubbed weaker by the internet peanut gallery can also be good choices for a GM to use for NPCs because they're not at the higher end of power. They provide a utility without creating the overpowered combinations that we don't really want our NPCs to have. So if some exotic weapon is, rule for rule, weaker than a martial weapon - that doesn't really matter to the GM when his NPC uses it. That NPC is unlikely to survive the encounter anyway - he doesn't have to live with the consequences of having a weaker feat for multiple adventurers. He's there to play a particular role now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:


If a player with a weakness to lead is a minor one and gets 5 extra points to spend during character creation. Either he roleplays the disadvatage or loses the 5 points. Having to alter his character no exceptions. Or if a player has 5 experience points can buy off the disadvantage. That's why I tend to like point based systems more. No loopholes like roleplaying to get around a characters negative aspects.

Where's the loophole? There is no loophole. The PC with the lower charisma has paid for something to compensate and continues to pay because, if he had a better stat, his investment in diplomacy would pay off even higher than it does.

If a character doesn't buy up his Dexterity in Hero (or even sells it down), he's going to suffer by having a lower combat value than other characters. Are you going to prevent him from buying combat levels to compensate for it? It's the same basic thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
The unrealistic isn't the idea that a character could do that, it's the idea that it's at all common for a player to build a face character with a heavy charisma dump.

Because sometimes that's how the game develops organically and someone takes on the burden of being the faceman even if they aren't naturally charismatic? Because sometimes players roll their stats rather than use point-buy to generate them? Because sometimes playing a dwarf faceman is fun? Because sometimes playing the guy who had to earn his skill is better than the person with inborn ability?

Not everyone plays to optimize a positive Charisma mod and high diplomacy skills.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Its not an either or thing. You snag a scoll, you put it in your bag and you're good to go.

Sounds to me that the problem is less the spells obsoleting skills than the easily obtained scrolls and wands. When you had to be 7th level and go on a quest to get the necessary and wacky ingredients to scribe a scroll, you were a lot more judicious what you put on that scroll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:


They can both roleplay. The one with a lower cha has a penalty to his diplomacy skill. Sorry getting around the penalty of low stats with high skill points does not get used at my table. His diplomacy skill would be at 5 as I add in a -5 penalty to the skill roll. The character with the high cha also has less of a chance to succeed at diplomacy because of a lack of skill points.

I love these almost unrealistic examples people use. How often does the player with a cha of 5 boost his diplomacy skill with so many ranks. How often does a character with such a decent score in cha not boost his diplomacy. If people want to make characters with low attribute scores go right ahead. Don't expect every DM to allow you to ropleplay with them effectivelty. Want to cheat the system by ignoring low stats through roleplay and skill points go right ahead. I'm not the DM to do it with.

What's unrealistic about it? The low charisma character has invested in training to overcome his natural deficiencies. He's not getting a better modifier to use diplomacy for free or just because the player role plays better - he's getting it because he sunk a lot of work into it in the form of skill ranks.

Piling on an additional -5 seems pretty shady to me. The low charisma character is already hampered with the lower modifier compared to someone else of similar training. If the naturally talented guy with the high charisma decided to just get by on his good looks without actually spending any effort, that's his hard luck if my diligence enables me to excel past him despite less inherent talent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Udinaas wrote:


We were fighting an Orc cleric and some of his minions in the ruins of a tower. The Cleric managed to blind our magus. A couple of turns later the cleric, with his minions falling around him, retreated the only way he could: up the stairs and out of the tower. The magus, full of rage at being blinded, followed while the rest of us were still engaged with the minions. He got to the top of the tower and listened to try to figure out where the cleric was. The DM made him roll perception, and he failed. He went tearing off towards where he believed the cleric was, and ran right off the top of the tower. The fall brought him to negative hit points and he was bleeding out. We ran outside to save him, and the cleric got away.

Certainly nothing wrong with that. But then, the magus did set himself up for it by blindly running off the edge of the tower.

Contrast with this situation:
The characters encountered an skeletal dinosaur. The rogue tried to maneuver around it on her first action and failed on her tumble check (which was, admittedly, ungodly high compared to the thing's CR). The AoO was a crit threat and I confirmed it. Then I rolled the damage and, without knowing how many hit points the PC had left, I decided that the damage was really just too high for the first attack of the encounter so I decided not to add a few points of the skeletal dinosaur's strength bonus and didn't roll the negative energy damage the thing also had. The rogue limped away with a couple of hit points left when she otherwise would have been killed, trying to do handle the combat intelligently, because I happened rolled a 20 on my first attack roll.

It was still a hit. It was still a crit. It just didn't do quite as much damage as it could have based on what I rolled. The PCs still got the message that the skeletal dinosaur was a dangerous enemy and simply rolling out the damage was not going to work well for them. I didn't know how many hp the rogue had when she got hit so I figured the damage could still take her down… but it would be more likely that she'd still be alive if unconscious and would be savable… if the skeletal dinosaur didn't manage to gore them all to death first. But by fudging, the point was made and the rogue could still move away under her own power and no TPK ensued.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Kill pounce as a PC ability dead as a doornail or limit it to only applying to non-iterative attacks (i.e. multiple-weapon attacks, not single weapon repeatedly).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
But that's using rules-based interpretations to create an effect in-game that the rules don't anticipate and aren't made to reproduce. How "friendly" a person has to be in order to give a very large amount of money to a guy they like for a dubiously-useful item is entirely up to GM discretion - there are no explicit values given on those sorts of things. basically, it's how much you want it to happen.

Realistically speaking, that can describe just about anything in an RPG like Pathfinder. If you want to make the game about bartering up gear you find, you can certainly do that. The campaign horizons are completely unlimited in this regard, limited only by what you and your players want to do. The half-price sales rule, however, is there so we don't all have to do this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eridan wrote:


Professions have two main benefits by RAW. You have an income per week and you can answers questions and teach others in your profession. Most professions can be replaced by some other skills that are more usefull at all.

architect -> knowledge engineering, craft
barrister -> knowledge local, knowledge nobility, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy
clerk ->knowledge local, knowledge nobility, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy
courtesan ->knowledge local, diplomacy, bluff, perform
driver -> handle animal
engineer -> knowledge engineering
farmer -> knowledge nature, handle animal
fisherman -> knowledge nature, survival
gambler -> Sleigt of hand, bluff, diplomacy
gardener -> knowledge nature
herbalist -> knowlege nature
innkeeper -> knowledge local, knowledge nobility, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy
librarian -> knowledge local, knowledge in general
merchant ->knowledge local, knowledge nobility, sense motive, bluff, diplomacy
midwife -> heal, knowledge nature
miner -> knowledge nature, knowledge geography
porter -> high STR
sailor -> Acrobatics, Climb, knowledge geography
scribe -> knowledge local, ability to read and write, scribe scroll
shepherd -> handle animal, knowledge nature
stable master -> handle animal, knowledge nature
soldier -> be a fighter?
trapper -> survival, trap class ceature
woodcutter -> knowledge nature, engineering, craft

cook, tanner, miller, brewer, butcher, baker -> craft

Notice that most of the professions you list are replaced by multiple skills? Admittedly, those skills would have broader application, but the profession skill would be quite useful for issues involving those skills as they relate to the profession itself. Exactly how useful that profession is, however, is highly campaign dependent. For example, Profession: Sailor is extremely useful if you're running a nautical campaign. If I were running a Roman Legions campaign, I'd make Profession: Soldier useful in fortifying the camp (which the Romans were highly skilled at), leading troops, and analyzing and managing the overall battlefield or likely battle terrain. In the Shackled City campaign I ran, I made sure that the half-ogre barbarian's short order cook profession (seriously) was useful - he ended up making quite an impression at the Flood Festival with his meat pies stand.

Professions are, generally, as useful as the GM and player make them. If neither of you can be bothered, then they aren't useful. You're simply not using that part of the game. There's nothing wrong with that. But if you want to put them on the character sheet (or want your players to do so), then make it worth everyone's while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Is this thread related to this one: Dealing with CN Player characters?

I'm having trouble figuring out the POV here - are you DMing a group of insane players or are you one of the insane players or are these two different games?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
J-Gal wrote:
I'm talking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. These days everyone is playing some anthropomorphic animal or some elemental being or just something that is essentially a dark and edgy human. The obvious solution to this issue is just to limit the races... But alas, this only leads to complaints upon complaints. -Sigh-. Does anyone else feel similarly?

No, everyone isn't playing some kind of oddball anthropomorphic animal or whatever. Hyperbole doesn't really serve this argument. But even in games where someone is doing so, it's not like this is different from D&D 20 years ago or 30 years ago because you had players trying to play something off the wall even then. There just weren't as many rules amenable to it.

Personally, I try to keep the Mos Eisley Cantina effect to a relative minimum because I find being a bit more mundane enhances the effect of the fantasy that's there. But there's nothing wrong with taking a more "Guardians of the Galaxy" approach with the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would definitely not recommend making the players wait the time out in real time. The whole point of taking 10 and 20 is so that the players can get the results they want without taking up too much game time by rerolling again and again until their rolls don't suck.

Maybe consider doing it once so that they have a context "You really want to spend 2 minutes checking every 5 feet of dungeon corridor? OK, here's what it's like trying to go 5 feet... <time 120 seconds>... now think of how much time that gives the monsters to find you. Mwah hah hah!"

But really, doing it every time to discourage the tactic? I'd probably have to murder my GM if he did that to us.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Basically, it sounds like the barbarian wants the fact that he didn't dump his strength to be validated. I can't see anything wrong with that, personally. I too get a little tired of people dumping stats thinking they can safely compartmentalize their low stat away.

So, yes, being an 8 strength bard can suck if you try to carry a lot of stuff. There are, however, ways around it. The handy haversack, the efficient quiver, masterwork backpacks, and bags of holding all work to counteract low strength and needing to carry lots of stuff. So does a pack mule (although it is vulnerable to predators) or a henchman porter or two (or even a base camp with most of the gear). The 8 strength bard might also consider the cantrip summon instrument so he doesn't have to carry his instrument everywhere - he can summon it.

As far as perception disease goes, let them examine anything they want, just try to keep them organized. Once you've set the scene, go around the group asking them what they're doing. And if they're all looking about, then have them all roll their perception checks and feed them whatever additional information you deem appropriate based on their results. In many cases, it won't be anything significant because they either didn't roll high enough or there wasn't anything significant to be found. But it is kind of fun to try to refine your descriptions based on their results so that they think the check has had some value, if only a more evocative description. And don't forget the senses of touch, temperature, and smell in your descriptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:


Also, we like our interns very much. They often go on to do awesome things :)

Some of them even for pay and benefits?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ShinHakkaider wrote:


Reed close to the same age as the Storms isnt that big of an issue for me. The protrayal of a strong willed but compassionate Sue Storm is. Jessica Alba wasnt able to pull that off so Kate Mara hopefully will. I think that she's a good enough actress to do it.
....

And who isn't too afraid of a physical scrap. Rereading very old FF comics gives you an appreciation for Sue's physical courage back when her only power was to turn invisible.

And I find it interesting that the comics are all over the map on the age difference between Reed and Sue. Sometimes they grew up as neighbors, sometimes he boarded with the family as a student...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:


The money I spend on their products says "thank you" louder than my mouth ever could.

No, it doesn't. Buying a product just puts your impersonal tally on a balance sheet somewhere. While that's good for their bottom line, it's not personal. It's not going to have anywhere near the impact of a personal interaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sebastrd wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
My experiences because of my race and living in America have molded and shaped who I am. Because I'm raising a little boy I have to prepare him to survive in a country where people simply view him as a potential threat no matter how good of a person he is.
In what God-forsaken hell did you grow up? I'm not denying your experiences in any way. I'm genuinely curious.

The same country as Trayvon Martin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

To the question of bashing a foe over the head with a musket: if a musket had game stats for it's use as a melee weapon, I would not allow it to be used in melee as an improvised melee weapon. Since it doesn't have melee stats, then it's not an object designed for melee combat, therefore the improvised weapon rules apply.

A longspear is designed for melee combat, I'm trying to use it in melee combat, therefore, do the improvised weapons rules apply?

<snip>

So, I'm asking if I can deliberately circumvent that certain 'No!' by asking if I can use a rule designed to adjudicate how non-weapons are used to use a weapon to break the rules governing the use of that weapon. Furthermore, I'm asking if, while using the improvised weapons rule, I can take the clause, 'To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match', and not rule that the most reasonable match for a longspear....is a longspear!

Well, there's the rub. I'd allow someone to use a longspear as an improvised weapon to do bludgeoning damage like a 'long club' but it would still be a reach weapon simply because it's a really long pole and that's just not going to be particularly useful as an in-close weapon, even an improvised one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I wonder what would've happened if a white actor had done the best audition/screen test for the role of Nelson Mandela in the latest biopic.

Big difference. Nelson Mandela was a real person. Johnny Storm is not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

According to posters here, in the Ultimates universe he is the dumbass of the group. Since they're using more of an Ultimates approach, that will come across badly if they do play him that way in the movie.

Disclaimer: I haven't read Ultimates enough to know if that's actually true. They could also not keep that part for the movie.

I've got most of the Ultimate FF run and the term dumbass still really doesn't apply. They raised the bar with Sue a lot by putting her on a closer to intellectual peer relationship with Reed, but Johnny is no dummy. He's a wise-cracking rock star, ergo still kind of immature and shallow. But he's a teen and the human torch. Who wouldn't go all rock star and be a bit immature and shallow?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
One of the things I loved about The Cosby Show, groundbreaking at the time, is that although they were proud of their cultural heritage, their race was not a 'thing'.

But it was within the milieu in which the show was created. The Cosby Show made a statement (a couple, really) just by being there. Yes - African-Americans can anchor and set the pace for a successful night of comedy on a major network. Yes - African-Americans can be well-educated and highly-paid professionals and not give up their credibility as African-Americans. Yes - the African-American experience doesn't have to be the racial stew of The Jeffersons nor the projects of Good Times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bob_the_monster wrote:
I think most adventuring parties wouldn't think twice to slit the throat of an evil outsider in their midsts... PC or not. The player stormed out and is refusing to play again until the DM "punishes my stupidity" lol

I shouldn't be laughing so hard, but I am. Oh, the schadenfreude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I might have a cool concept about wildshaping into a wombat, but I'm not really expecting to be a combat monster with it compared to other options. And it's not the game punishing me for it, rather, it's my concept not being up to the power I want it to have or that another alternative concept might have as expressed by the game mechanics.

The game's not simply about putting up the highest numbers or all concepts having the same raw power. If you want to wildshape into a bear, then wildshape into a bear and have fun with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's ok to have your preferences, but at the end of the day, you play what games you can arrange. If the GM prefers 4e but his players prefer PF, what's he gonna do? Stop playing? Maybe, but then he's got no game. Same for the players. If you want to play together, you need to find some common ground.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeven wrote:


It was very effective though. People who complain the loudest usually get the most attention.

Not all of it positive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
necromental wrote:


But DR 30/+2 in 3.0 ed didn't apply to every attack, it was amount of DR for the whole round. So if first person dealt 30 damage on his whole turn, he didn't do any, but second person wouldn't be affected by DR at all.

I do not believe that is correct. The 3.0 SRD does not describe it like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Reading ahead doesn't need to be a problem. Some people just can't handle not knowing where the story is going very well. They're the types who wait for a book series to be finished before starting to read it so they're not left hanging for years waiting for the next installment. They may be able to handle it for a 2 hour movie, but for a campaign that may last months if not years? They'll never make it.

If he's that kind of person, roll with it. Tell him you know he's reading ahead and that you'll toss in enough changes that he still faces surprises. But make it clear that if he starts to be too good at using the information to make the game easier, other than getting the game moving if genuinely stuck, you'll have to give him the boot. There's a real difference between defusing suspense anxieties and reading a walkthru because you want to know how better to finish the game.

Hopefully, he'll be abashed enough about you confronting with him and giving him that out or excuse that he'll make himself that kind of player.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:


In any event, doing something like this in real life would likely get you arrested, which means it's probably either chaotic or evil, or both. I could see a paladin taking issue with it no matter how you slice it.

I would caution people that using real-world arrestable offenses isn't necessarily a good metric for whether something should be evil in D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's not significantly evil. And by engaging in public charity works, you're painting yourself, overall, as a non-evil guy - Lawful Neutral should be just fine. Now, if you were enabling or aiding people to screw each other over in a significant way, then the spider's good works would start to diminish compared to the proportion of harm you'd inflict. Then, the slide to evil would really begin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

No, it's mechanics. That is how the spell WORKS. It is a 20' sphere of Fire damage.

But that can be flavored in many different ways without changing those mechanics.

Is it an explosion? An implosion? Does it just shoot out a sphere of bright light that burns all it touches? More exotically, does it just spontaneously combust everything within the radius? Does it generate a cloud of gas in the center of the area that is set of with but a mere spark? The possibilities are nearly endless.

A Paladin can only be flavored one way without changing the mechanics. They must be LG champions of the cause of Good. Individual Paladins have a tiny bit of wiggle room, but you can't change the flavor of the Paladin without changing the mechanics because the two are the SAME THING with the Paladin.

It is mechanically restricted to a certain flavor. Changing the name of a Paladin changes the flavor of it not a whit because of how closely interlocked the mechanics are with it.

Unlike Fireball, which is essentially a blank slate of mechanics with some flavor tacked onto it to make it look nice, the Paladin is like an icky mess of sand and oil...you're not getting the two apart without some serious work.

This really sounds like a double standard to me. Sure, that fireball could have lots of differences in flavor, but the fact that it's a big ball of flame that burns people at a distance is pretty flavorful in and of itself. Meanwhile, that paladin could have a lot of flavor variation. It could be a halfling or a dwarf or a human. It could be a stiff necked follower of St. Cuthbert, as ready to administer a little corrective corporal punishment to venal sinners as fight evil. Or it could be a follower of a peaceful redeemer, turning to violence as a last resort. He could be a proud knight or a humble soldier. He could be impulsive or deliberative.

I don't see how you're saying the fireball has so many flavor options yet the paladin doesn't. I could probably think of just as many flavor options for a paladin as I could for a fireball that don't break the mechanical restrictions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, I think the paladin got exactly the boost (in mechanics and character) that it needed. It doesn't need to be widened into a more generic holy warrior. I wouldn't have opposed a sidebar describing alignment alternatives to the paladin, but I don't want to see it replaced by that idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gnomersy wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

Personally, when I GM, I do take deficiencies in the PC party into account… when the opposition is smart enough to do so and the PCs well-enough known, I exploit them.

I could have sworn that you're not well known heroes until level 8-11 according to one of those divination spells. By that point if you don't have some way around being attacked at range either via teleportation magic, flight, or your own bad ass archer friend the 1d8+0 from your crossbows isn't going to help you and you have it coming if the DM hammers you with ranged attacks.

A lot will depend on the campaign and its scope. If the PCs are continually coming back to a home base without much geographic roving, or deliberately spreading their exploits far and wide, or even overusing a particular method, then it'll be a lot easier for anyone to get intel on them and use it against them. And smart BBEGs will probably seek intel if they find they're continually facing interference from groups with the same description.

For example, when taking on the giants in Chief Nosnra's stockade, the PCs left some calling cards - the sorcerer uses lots of fireballs modified to use acid. The puppetmasters behind the giants reviewed the site of the carnage and started putting counters in motion. They didn't have them in time for the PC assault on Jarl Gugnir's forces, but the potions of acid resistance were in place for King Snurri's fire giants...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liz Courts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


I do wish they would edit posts rather than delete them, the way other boards do (edits are noted in another color that others cannot post in, like red, so people know they have been modded), but they've stated several times that they're not going to do that.
I would generally prefer that as well. I have no idea how well their software supports it compared to the messageboard software that other sites like ENWorld have.

If we did that, it could easily (and likely) turn to posters accusing us of putting words in their mouth, or changing what they said, etc.

Can o' worms better left unopened.

It's less a question of editing the post's content, more of sticking in a moderator comment in a differently colored text calling out the bad behavior and telling people to play nice. There's no can of worms or slippery slope and no need to delete it and follow-up posts leading people to wonder what just happened here. The bad behavior becomes an example which, I think, makes it clearer what the boundaries of behavior are. The ambiguity of why some posts disappear, I think and I hope you're understanding from our comments in this thread, is a can of worms itself. If you think moderating in-post is one, then it's a question of which can of worms produces better results for the board.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Detect Magic wrote:
Default martial characters (like fighters) shouldn't be bending or breaking the laws governing the universe (or multiverse, I suppose, since this is Pathfinder we're talking about). Obviously, hybrids like paladins and rangers are going to be spellcasting, and monks will be doing all sorts of supernatural things, but when I think of martial, I think fighter. Fighters should be able to do incredible things, but they should be limited by what's physically possible; no jumping seven miles, flying, or otherwise playing wizard. Leave wizarding to the wizard-folk.

While I agree that martial characters shouldn't generally be doing the high-end magical stuff that wizards, clerics, and others do, I don't think they should be strictly limited to the things people can actually do. I think we have to allow for them doing exaggerated things based on what highly trained and competent people can do even when that inevitably does bend or break the laws governing the universe. But those things, fantastic as they may be, they shouldn't really be all-out magical. There is no way any normal person can do the things Conan does, or John Carter, or Túrin Turambar. But fantasy martial characters should be able to do many of them (John Carter is a bit of special case given his environment, but his general fighting exploits make good martial character fodder for fantasy).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I usually downplay the mathematical dice rolling aspect. It's a game of role-playing fantasy adventures, somewhat akin to the stuff we used to do on the playgrounds as kids, but with more structure and sophisticated stories and rules. Players take on the roles of individual characters or heroes and a work with a referee who plays the world around them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the moderation gets a bit overzealous at times, particularly with off topic posts. Conversations drift, tangents appear and then get reabsorbed. I'd say they shouldn't really concentrate on off-topic posting with deletion, rather, just by chiming in with an attempt to redirect back to the topic at hand.

The other topic in which moderation bothers me is the paranoia over edition warring. I've seen entirely moderate criticisms aimed at 4e draw the edition war accusation from moderators. That's a bit too sensitive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Muad'Dib wrote:

The term "Choosing to be offended" is a nice way to say it's not my fault or it's them not me.

I would say it is also fundamentally true. You decide when you are offended and what you are going to do about it. I can't tell, ahead of time, what will offend you. Everyone could choose to avoid controversy but that would make life pretty boring.

Stephen Fry has a not entirely SFW statement about this: Stephen Fry on being offended


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jaelithe wrote:


It's an abomination and a travesty—which is what I've come to expect from JJ Abrams, the most overrated director on Earth.

That's patently untrue. Uwe Boll's over-rating far exceeds Abrams simply by appending "Director" to his name.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wands back in 1e days were typically found with 100-(1d20-1) charges, based on the treasure tables, although many in published adventures were found with far fewer. So the 50 charge number has absolutely nothing to do with any Gygax preference.

The 50 charge limit came with 3e D&D with the restructuring of the magic item creation system. In 1e/2e, wands were focused on either divination (enemy detection, secret door and trap location, etc) or combat (fear, fire, frost, magic missiles, etc) and were pretty rare. Not every spell could be put in a wand as far as the rules were concerned - although the magic item creation system could allow virtually anything the DM allowed and put the PCs through as far as finding appropriate materials.
The 3e magic item creation system allowed pretty much any spell to be stored in a wand, but also cut the charges down to 50, probably to make the per charge cost reasonable but not ridiculously low and try to balance with the whole new magic item pricing system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Piracy and losses through piracy are always going to be a problem. Paizo, however, has set things up to encourage people to not be pirates by setting the price of PDF rulebooks low, by not charging an arm and a leg for their other PDFs, by giving PDF copies away for free for people who subscribe to the physical materials lines, and by keeping track of all of the purchases and updating materials (from time to time) with fixes and optimizations.

Really, they're doing what they can to offer a positive alternative to piracy and I hope it's working well for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Give him a call. He accepts the charges. The Collect Call of Cthulhu.

1 to 50 of 343 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.