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

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,183 posts (6,032 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 19 aliases.


1 to 50 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are no obvious access points into the building directly from the rooftop. However, a short drop can get them into the hallways of the second floor right about where the stairs on the outside of the building end. In a typical build of this style, the second floor is usually all personal apartments - the ones in front having windows, the ones in back being cheaper and windowless. The ground floor usually has shops in the front, more apartments in the back. Each apartment would have a number but very rarely any other identifying feature - names are not typically on display. Cassandra and Amira could easily find access just dropping down to the level of one of the stairs reaching the second floor.

The customers standing in line make way for Tolenn to stand against the wall in the entryway and they especially make way for Wednesday and his freaky scythe. One old lady swoons in a faint for fear some grim reaper has come for her soul. That draws a few dirty looks Wednesday's way.

The guard at the door looks Victor up and down as if assessing him. "Cure's 2 gold per dose and the end of the line's that way," he says, gesturing toward the end of the line 4 blocks away. But he also raises an eyebrow and flexes his hand in the universal sign of "I'm open for bribes".


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

I think there is and most people would perceive a difference between a person drafted, handed a gun, and told to kill the enemy and a person drafted, handed a rake, and told to rake up a minefield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I think the diplomatic mission (which was probably just a cover story anyway) was from the Senate to Alderann.
They were attacked over Tatooine, so if they were going from Coruscant to Alderaan, they went the wrong way...

It's not the wrong way if you're on your way to pick up a dignitary like Obi-wan Kenobi for a state visit to Alderaan.


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

Maybe you should lighten up a bit. I don't see how one event is going to affect their alignment at all. What they did was dumb - but unlikely to actually have an effect (at least in most games). While it makes sense that good characters would be horribly offended at these yahoos trying to invoke an evil goddess in the raising of their comrades, a bit of berating them is probably all that's really necessary. They're not clerics, they won't wield powerful divine spells - there's a limited amount of damage they can really do.


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

Part of the problem with all of this is the fact that the nauseated condition really hasn't received a significant revision since the dawn of 3e - long before there were such things as swift or immediate actions to complicate matters.

Personally, I think it excessively rigid to not allow free actions while allowing any actions at all - in this case a move action. Moreover, earlier versions of staggered, while allowing swift and immediate actions, didn't allow free actions either. That came with later revision. With that in mind, I'd venture a guess that nobody really envisioned denying free actions when PCs have their actions partially reduced. My expectation is that if there is a clarification - free actions would be allowed - barring, of course, GM adjudication.


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

Can we consider giving it a rest about doing this in the homebrew forum? The question that started this thread was about the rules and that makes it legitimate for the rules question forum. That it digressed a little shouldn't matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Mark Moreland wrote:


Alternatively, it's a place where you can see some of the "cool things" that you can use in your game as you see fit that you otherwise wouldn't find in a new book we put out. Just because Paizo changes course on canonical matters doesn't mean that the original is forbidden at individual GMs' tables, just that we won't be retreading the topics in future products.

So if there's something you see in this thread that you like, feel free to run with it. Ultimately no idea is bad if it makes your game more fun, but doesn't mean we can't work to perfect the unified vision of what our campaign setting is in our own products.

Indeed. Had I not checked this thread out, I probably never would have even noticed the changes to Taldor. I would have gone with the 2009 Companion volume which has the banning of Sarenrae and the beard fixations. Frankly, I think getting rid of those two things gets rid of two of the most interesting and distinctive aspects of Taldor - old, decadent, crumbling empires being sort of "old hat" in RPG campaigns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then I have a theme to explore as the campaign advances...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wednesday Daud wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

Davaulus cries out in dismay, "Rolth?!? ROLTH! You bastard! ROLTH!" But he doesn't surrender - he jabs at Wednesday instead.

And though he misses with the first, his secondary attack finds a vulnerable spot. Six points of damage to Wednesday.
Davaulus's eyes narrow looking at Wednesday. "What are you?" he asks.
This becomes fridge brilliance/comedy now that we know what the rapier does.

I may drop in some deep or not-readily-apparent references from time to time. If I get too obscure, don't be afraid to tell me. But I'm glad you made the connection. I figure it's not that easy to tell when someone's an aasimar and Davaulus would have been very disappointed his expensive human bane enchantment wouldn't have paid off like he had hoped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
trollbill wrote:


Yes, but this can actually perpetuate the problem, or at least, the perceived problem.

For example:

Player A picks up Hero Lab. The program is new to him and his proficiency is low, and he may not understand certain concepts about it such as the fact it isn't a legal PFS source. So initially, he is disruptive at the table with the product. Eventually his proficiency with the product increases and his misconceptions about it are cleared up, and this no longer becomes a source of disruption. That is, until Player B then gets Hero Lab and the whole cycle starts all over again. If these cycles continue to happen periodically, it can create the perception that Hero Lab is constantly disrupting the game.

I don't see how this is any different, really, than getting a relatively new player at the table in the first place. Chances are they'll have some problems with rules if new to PF, they'll have trouble understanding the character if playing a Pregen of a class they've never worked with before. They may even have trouble distinguishing between whether d20pfsrd.org is an official source or not.

Keeping it away just means there's another barrier to people becoming proficient with it when what we should want is for each player's transition to be quick and efficient.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TOZ wrote:


That would be due to the fact that I have already had ample warning not to play at Nefreet's table.

We all do now. The trouble is, getting to another table isn't always an easy option. That leaves players expecting to be able to play, and having everything legally necessary to do so, may be faced with a barrier from an idiosyncratic GM or other player.


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

Even with a digital character sheet that can roll the dice for you, like HeroLab, I'd recommend bringing physical dice. People get awfully twitchy about being able to see the dice being rolled on the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry I haven't posted sooner. I was a little under the weather yesterday. Thought it might have been food poisoning, but it seems to be more like a little stomach bug and exhaustion.

Cressida Kroft is clearly shocked at the full extent the cultists had gone to. "Rolth again?!? It seems that worm has gotten more ambitious." She gets up from her desk, grabs her sword belt off its peg on the wall, and buckles up. "Show me. I'll bring a detail of guards to secure the hostel. If the priests can't make it safe we will raze it. Whatever evidence you've got, keep it together. Keep it pristine. The arbiters are tough - they won't accept just hearsay, particularly against a noble family. We will have to do this carefully."

Once she makes it to the main garrison floor, a few shouted orders and a detail of 15 men is on hand with a couple of legal clerks. "Men, we've got a death cult active in a local warehouse converted to a sick hostel. Priests are on the way. Do not touch anything. We will secure the property and let the priests do their job."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
It should be noted that Obama was younger (and arguably *healthier*) than Palpatine.
It should be noted that I was making a joke. But good point I guess? Let's not get into Palpatine Health Care implications here during an election year.

Yeah, I had to hear enough about Reagan's polyps back in the day. I don't need to hear any more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Hama wrote:
I've actually gotten angry with cancer. I know it's stupid, but it has taken so many good people in a space of 7-8 months.

I lost 3 classmates in 2015 to cancer (2 brain, 1 bile duct). Granted, I graduated 25 years ago, but it's still a bit of a hammering since we're only in our 40s. Then a good friend of mine got diagnosed with it and now has to try to live without the esophagus he was born with. So I'm right with you on being pissed off at cancer for savaging people I know close to home as well as people I've been a fan of and respected.


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

Someone call bulgeyman. Things could finally be going his way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Your preferences are not universal. Some players want consistent mechanics, and expect the DM to provide them. If you fail in that, you might be a very, very good intermediate DM, but are not an expert one.

Orfamay Quest posted his GMing tip. I suggest you follow your own advice here, recognize that not everyone has the same preferences in giving advice at each of these levels of GMing experience, and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:

A few things I can't quite wrap my head around:

1) The riot baton. It's awesome, but why the hell would it be needed? If storm troopers wanted to quell riots or take prisoners, why wouldn't they just use the Stun setting on their blasters? Remember those weird blue circle-waves they knocked out Leia with in the first few minutes of A New Hope? They all have those. We've never seen them use them since. "Oh, dude's got a g%*+*@n lightsaber! Better stay the hell away and switch to blue-ring knockouty wave." Nope. "Dude's got a g+!#!$n lightsaber! Better hit him with my twirly stick."

For a brutal regime like the Empire or First Order, there may well be a difference in preferred tools for capturing high value targets safely and making an impression on lower value targets without just killing them


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

R2 was more Anakin's than Obi-Wan's.

You're hung up on "I don't remember owning a droid." But you're cool with "Darth Vader killed your father."...

Fans.

Lying about Luke's father is understandable. How do you tell a kid his father is a brutal murderer? It makes perfect sense he'd try to dodge past that topic. But why lie about the droid?

Or of course, realize he didn't lie about that at all ... At least not until Lucas's revisionism took over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Coriat wrote:


And there are plenty of other tactics that might buy one round and that are just as nonproblematic as readying is.

If the kobold chucks a javelin from a distance and then runs away screaming his head off, it might cost his foe the very same round of actions, or maybe even a couple rounds, to catch up.

That's fine. So is this.

It's not really the same thing. The difference with readying the action is the target stays in place and then exploits the segmented nature of action resolution to generate a sure miss after there attack has been committed. The kobold chucking the javelin and running isn't waiting for his opponent's attack to be committed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Wait, so, if I understand correctly, for "Mary Sue" to apply, three separate requirements need to be fulfilled: (a) she's better at all plot-relevant skills than all the other characters, and (b) the other characters love/trust her for no good reason, and (c) she's a stand-in/wish fulfillment for the writer. Again, all three have to apply. Is that right?

Let's take a look:

(a)

Spoiler:
She's a better hyperspace pilot (Han's impressed), better sub-light pilot (through a wrecked ship), and better mechanic (capacitor override) than everyone we've seen; she's better at hand-to-hand combat; and she's she's way more powerful with the force. And she can talk to droids. Anakin/Darth Vader had only 5/6, and unlike Vader, Rey doesn't need a ventilator, and has less angst. She's pretty much got a wider array of awesome in everything than any Star Wars character ever. Even if they took one or two things away and gave them to Finn, she'd still be stupendously awesome (which, lest I be misunderstood, is not a bad thing for a protagonist to be).
.

Let's take another look at (a) because we have very different impressions:

Spoiler:
Rey may fly through a wreck - one that she knows the layout to. But Han flawlessly pilots the Falcon along asteroids never encountered before and Lando pilots her through the Death Star 2's superstructure. And though Lando breaks off the dish, it's Rey who pilots the Falcon like she's driving a bumper car. That's two better pilots of the Falcon we've seen. She is a better mechanic than Han, though. So I'll give you that one. She also talks with droids, but Anakin was building them at 9 and being a better pilot, also at 9. So he blows the roof off any comparison on those factors. Until she taps the force in the final fight with Ren, she's getting her ass handed to her by a petulant Vader-wannabe with a critical injury in his side. We've seen better fighters in the saga multiple times, including, I'd say, Obi-wan as a padawan under Qui-Gon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Quintain wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
Or you could interpret the readied action to not waste your attack.
Why waste a valid tactic. Stepping out of range of an attack, causing your attacker to miss is one of the most basic defenses since the beginning of time.

Of course, the beginning of time doesn't include grids and turn-based action economies. In real life, an attacker gets to react to their target trying to step out of range and adjust their plans. Moreover, the act of trying to make an attacker miss is already incorporated into the D&D family's combat system through a Dexterity bonus to AC and tactics like fighting defensively. That someone exploits a poorly written rule within a turn-based abstracted combat system isn't a use of good, historical tactics. It's an exploit of a poorly written rule.


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

Bad decisions are sometimes the most memorable things to happen in campaigns. Example: We were in a campaign, carrying a valuable map to some McGuffin and being pursued by a powerful wizard and her minions. One PC was a half-ogre named Brol (based on stats from some Dragon article, probably by Roger Moore bases on his John Grond character) who dual-wielded scimitars (a good 4 years before Drizzt hit the scene). He was strong, but dumb. We wake up after he's been in watch and the map is gone.
Us: "Brol, what happened to the map?"
Brol: "I gave it to the pretty lady." <this was the wizard, visiting our camp at night>
Us: ..."Why did you do that?!?"
Brol: "She kissed me."
Us: "You had better have gotten more than a kiss for that map!"
Brol: "There's more?"
Us: "You stupid half-ogre!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Finn really isn't framed as an ex-criminal*, so I still do not think that claim holds any water. Otherwise, I agree. In that I think both should be okay.

*Basically, yes, he's technically a "criminal", but he does not meet any stereotypes of "black criminal". The First Order may be a "criminal organization", but it's big enough to have treaties with actual governments. It's not even a mere organized crime syndicate. It's basically a terrorist organization, or a nomadic militant force like the Huns. The Stormtroopers are organized and indicated to be vestiges of the actual Empire. They aren't criminals for any practical or thematic purposes.

BigDTBone wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Finn should get more than that.
Yeah, having to say "the black man is a janitor... oh, yeah, and he's a reformed bad guy, too!" really bugs me.

I'm seeing a different take on Finn. Keep in mind he's been under conditioning, taken from a family he never knew. He's not a member of a criminal organization who's now reforming - he's a slave who has broken his chains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:


The moment Leia remembers happened at the end of Episode 6. Just because it happened at birth doesn't mean it didn't happen. After they were born, Padme says "Luke... Leia..." and touches baby Leia. That's what she remembers.

That's baloney. Babies don't remember that sort of thing and being force-sensitive shouldn't justify the writing failure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


How about the fact that there is no story reason to keep her alive beyond this point? Padme finishes her story purpose by giving birth to twins. By canon, both Luke and Leia were raised as orphans and there's no Padme appearing at the end of Episode VI.

Unfortunately, that's a George Lucas writing fail right there. In Episode 6, Luke asks Leia what she remembers about her mother - clearly fishing for information about his own mother. Padme was supposed to survive at least a while so that Leia could remember an impression of her as very sad before Leia is raised as an orphan. Padme dying in childbirth wouldn't do that, nor would the scene have any poignancy if Leia is reminiscing about her adoptive mother, one she wouldn't share with Luke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope everyone is having a Merry Christmas (for those of you who celebrate it). I got a nice bottle of Jameson whiskey, aged in beer barrels. I'll be trying that later...


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

It's probably not the mechanics - it's probably the sexual theme. Adults with lust phantoms around young kids also playing (or running) the game is going to creep a lot of people out.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:


I would agree that all of this is still a little weak though. Regardless, Luke being a Gary Stu or not is irrelevant as to whether a different character in a different movie is one or not. I also don't see it as something that's directed at the character, but rather the person who wrote the character/directed the movie. There is some lazy/sloppy writing surrounding this plot thread.

But who really thinks of Luke as a Gary Stu? That's not a common conception out there. How about John McClane? Neo? Batman? Indiana Jones?

No, they aren't Gary Stus. They're action heroes. They have broad competencies, super-competencies in some areas.

Female action hero comes along... she's a Mary Sue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:


Luke had just been part of a team that helped to rescue Princess Leia where his mentor gets killed to allow them to escape, and brought the droid that held the technical readouts of the Death Star which was already on the move to destroy the Republic. Luke volunteers (we assume) to help out flying one of the absolute cheapest star fighters available on a suicide mission, and gets off a lucky, once in a lifetime shot, but only because Han, Chewy, and Ol' Ben show up to help him out when he needs it.

That's a pretty big difference. As in the exact opposite thing.

Spoiler:
Well, if we're gonna spin - Rey is part of the team that helped bring critical information to the Resistance (and keep it out of the hands of the enemy) - so there's the base level of trust. Meanwhile, while doing so, she semi-competently bumpercars a starship through a chase and into orbit, gets easily captured by the original owner, accidentally releases some dangerous creatures that nearly kill her new friend, can barely handle a blaster, gets captured by a Vader wannabe with internal conflicts, manages to use a force power on the third try to escape, then holds off the same critically injured (by a shot that would have killed a lesser man) Vader wannabe until they're forced apart and she's rescued by Chewbacca. Nothing anywhere near as improbable as a one-in-a-million torpedo shot through a 2 meter hole at attack speed in a sophisticated starfighter on which he has no training and has never flown before. Maybe not the exact opposite, but a lower magnitude for sure.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
With Luke, there was a lot of cases where he failed. He had to earn it. It cost him his hand, and he ran the risk of becoming the very thing he opposed on multiple occasions. He also spent years, making hard choices, and sometimes the wrong ones to get where he was. That's what we don't see with Rey. At all. Instead, and gender is 100% irrelevant here, just to nip that crap in the butt up front. Rey, instead, seems mostly to have all the rewards just handed to her. She doesn't work at or fail. She out performs basically everyone else, often at their own specialty, but without any plausible reason that we can see or is even suggested may exist. There is some fan speculation, but it's not really supported at all in the movie as we are presented it, so to me, at least it comes off more like an attempted excuse, and one that they are almost now required to make a fact for later, weither it was ever their intention or not.

Yeah, Luke had struggles... over three movies, particularly the 2nd and 3rd in which the story continued to develop after his big Death Star-destroying hero turn of the 1st movie. We've only seen Rey for one movie. Kind of unfair to hold her to the same standard without giving her 2 more movies to tell the story, isn't it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Speculation may have been considerable, but that doesn't mean it was bad to leave mystery in there. In fact, the speculation is often quite enjoyable, same with anticipation over more revelations to come.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

It's not "anytime a character is competent", it's only when they are unrealistically and annoyingly so. Rey is the writer's beloved little pet.

Have you seen Star Wars movies before?

Spoiler:
I think you're forgetting one of the few useful things we learned from the prequels. Force-sensitive characters use the force even if they don't know about it. Anakin raced pods, something no other human could do. It was second nature of him to use the force even untrained to help himself through things virtually nobody else could do. I don't know why Rey would be different.

But notice, if Rey's a Mary Sue, and I don't think she really qualifies, Anakin was a far bigger Gary Stu and Luke's on about the same level as Rey by flying an X-wing like an ace fighter when his experience is bulls-eyeing womp rats in Beggar's Canyon on a T16. There's nothing Rey can do that other people can't and she's not competent at everything she tries - she's not a particularly good shot with a blaster and Kylo Ren captures her before she has her epiphany on consciously using the force.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

This article makes some good arguments.

An article with spoilers

I agree it does have some nice commentary.

Spoiler:
Paricularly on the issue of Kylo Ren effectively being her teacher. But what I like about her development is hitting on the serenity issue quickly. She taps the force strongest when she is calm and in control. I really liked that aspect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

You also seem to be operating from a belief that C/MD is about PC rivalry or one-upmanship, where as long as everybody gets to benefit then it's all fine. But that's not the case. There are plenty of reasons why the C/MD can still be an issue even if "everyone benefits".

What if I'm the GM and I have an idea for a campaign, but it requires being able to do a certain thing (like explore underwater for extended periods of time, or travel between flying islands, or whatever)? What if the players all want to play classes who can't cast [whatever]? Do I scrap the campaign idea and find something else to run? Do I require that someone bite the bullet and play something they don't want to (much like the old "Who's gonna play the healer?" issue)? Do I throw immersion and narrative credibility out the window by supplying conveniently-specific magic items?

Maybe you and your group can point to one or more of those solutions as something that doesn't bother you in the least, and that's fine. But that only applies to your table and others like it; it has no bearing on solving the C/MD for anyone else. I'll go out on a limb and say that for most of the people who are passionate about the "whole enchilada" of the C/MD, solving it means (among other things) that there is no "gatekeeping" of certain types of campaigns/situations where the only way to engage is by having someone cast a certain spell or play a certain class.

I don't really see how it's a problem if it's not about PC rivalry or one-upmanship. Every other part of the issue is fixed depending on how the specific campaign runs. If there's truly a gate keeper and the PCs don't have it and can't find a way to access it (really, what's the problem with them hiring one or having magical equipment made?), don't require it for the campaign to function. Putting it in there isn't good GMing, it's obstinacy. Run a campaign suited to the players at the table and their PCs. If they're all martial PCs, and that can make for a fun campaign, don't require astral projection or plane shift.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
N. Jolly wrote:


In 5e? Your actions all require more 'permission' if you're doing outside the most very basic of things. It can get tiring to ask "can I use my background skill? Can a tool do this? Can I get a bonus for this?" The system requires a lot more GM adjudication, and really, it's a system for GMs who like to have more absolute control over the game, which isn't something I'm a big fan of myself. I'm more for player empowerment in my games, which is why 5e isn't really my thing.

I think we must have different definitions for player empowerment because, with a more flexible rule system, 5e can be pretty empowering for players. As has been brought up, the flip side of a feat allowing you to do something is the requirement that anyone without the feat cannot do the same thing. I find that players tend to look at their sheets more in PF to see what they can do while 5e players are trying to do things and letting the adjudication decide if they can or can't succeed at it.

Then again, I'm a GM who tries to get his players to tell me what they want their PCs to do and then I find the rule that best models the plan, rather than treat the rules as a list of what's possible.


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

*Or belittling people who aren't up on the latest jargon that all the (apparently) cool kids use.

...please?


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

You could try the Antagonize feat.

Ultimately, I'm not entirely sure a refereed RPG needs an aggro mechanic like an algorithm-run game like a MMORPG does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Caution; I am very BIASED against bounded Accuracy...just so you know prior to reading my thoughts.

Everyone advances at the same rate. YOu get a total of +4 to your attack bonus and skill proficiency increases over 20 levels. That is around a +1 every 4 levels. (you start with a +2 so it's +6 total at level 20...just to be clear).

While everyone does advance at the same rate, that's not really the main thrust of bounded accuracy. Rather, it's about getting better over time but without the massive number bloat that we see in 3e/PF and 4e. The ultimate bonuses you get are bounded - by a 20ish cap for most PCs and their stats, by a level-based proficiency bonus that tops off at +6 (some classes get a bit higher than this for special cases), and by relatively few ways to add other attack/skill bonuses (none of which needing to be substantially accounted for in game balance). Bounding the bonuses keeps target numbers (particularly AC) from having to bloat out of proportion to achieve game balance and so low-power monsters remain a more substantial threat than in 3e/PF and 4e, parties can support a wider spread of PC levels, and PCs don't have to maximize their bonuses to feel they're keeping up with the challenges of the game.

There are a number of 4e fans who claim that bounded accuracy in 5e is derived from 4e because they too focus on way all PCs advance at the same rate with their attack and skill proficiencies. But 5e's bounded accuracy, while it retained that feature, is more of a reaction against 4e's continued number bloat despite putting everyone on the same advancement rate.


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

New game = perfect justification to buy a new set of dice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
mourge40k wrote:
limsk wrote:
Keanu Reeves
GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! I hate hate hate Keanu Reeves. He can go die in a fire set off by a toxic waste dump!
Hey, whoa, chill. For all the guy may be a terrible actor (or at least regularly miscast), he's a genuinely good person offscreen. Doing things like giving almost his entire paycheck from The Matrix to the CGI crew because he felt they were underpaid, living in a simple apartment so he can keep giving large chunks of his money to charities, and so forth.

Yeah, I would prefer his acting career to end, but I can't argue with what he's done with the money he got from acting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

My point is that those players who enjoy RP and see their specific animal companion as an essential part of their PC (the character, not the build) are royally screwed.

Very similar in fact to the PC who always want to fight with the family sword he started adventuring with at 1st level ;-)

The PFRPG system is just not built this way :-(

Actually the system works just fine. You just have to not fixate on the animal companion being a pet and think of it as a benefit of being a powerful individual connected with nature. This isn't simply your dog rover, it's a resource nature gives you for the roll you play and will give you again tomorrow. You can even think of it as the same 'nature spirit' each time.


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

Hawk the Slayer

The Bad: It's cheesy. It uses some crappy jump cut special effects to make it look like the elf is a badass at archery.

The Good: Jack Palance. It's a real D&D movie, far more like any other D&D branded movie has been. And it's available on DVD. I got mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
HFTyrone wrote:


All that quote really tells me is that it's okay if you don't get caught.

If there are likely to be significant repercussions for getting caught, that kind of goes against the bit on being reckless. Again, beware the cherry picking.

That said, if someone cheated, got caught, and tried to say "But Shelyn thinks it's OK", they aren't going to be punished by the goddess in any significant way. Your typical Golarion gods just don't work that way. But it doesn't mean that person is right.


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

I don't particularly give a rat's behind whether or not a FAQ response ends up being a clarification of how players should be interpreting a rule or Paizo's development team deciding that the best answer to the question is to fix or revise the wording. I'm more interested in having one place and one process for handling these things. So, yeah, keep issuing rule changes for frequently asked questions when that is the best answer, Paizo!


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

I don't see why you couldn't have the PCs' kingdom attract elves, other outcasts, and general misfits. And by being that sort of kingdom, ruled by elves and wizards, that's just one more motivation for neighboring countries to be in conflict.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Again, like Jeff said, this will have almost no relationship to the comic Civil War story line.

Thank goodness for that. When they announced it as Civil War, I was really worried it would be them trying to distill the superhero registration story into a movie. But a split among Avengers (a "civil war") because of something to do with Bucky, I'm on board.


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

Or engaging in marketing like that is a lot more fun than the traditional movie press junket.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The two suits of armor are nearly identical in make so I'll give you the second for correctly IDing the first - they are fairly simple suits of breastplate +1.

Terri is able to determine the nature of the suits of armor, but the robe remains obscure.

The wine bottles are widely distributed about the footlockers. Apparently, it's a popular vintage and not the collection of a lone wino.

It looks like ownership of the game has been transferred which means... I can update the map links!

1 to 50 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.