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 Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,401 posts (4,881 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 14 aliases.


1 to 50 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

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

I generally consider it a tendency or preference to respect authority - all other things considering. That doesn't mean that the current authority will always be preferred. I expect a lawful character to be uncomfortable with bucking legal authority without the justification of an authority with a higher priority. And even then, I expect them to try to reconcile them and respect both whenever they can.

That's my take on lawful as a GM.


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

Having been playing a summoner for a while, early access to some spells doesn't seem problematic in adventure time. Haste a little early is a win for the whole party so it's not a question of overshadowing the other players.

The problem that keeps cropping up, as I see it, is the issue of magic item creation. And since that keeps coming up as a problem in many class imbalance issues, my inclination is to see that as the root of many problems in 3e and Pathfinder. Without the ability to make haste as a wand as a 2nd level spell or improved invisibility potions, the issue of summoner spells is contained to adventuring use and, in my experience, is not much of a problem.

It's not for nothing I'm happy to see 5th edition D&D severely curtail magic item creation and availability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Hetherington wrote:
If you keep reading to page 2 of the thread there is another important post from SKR on the topic.

Personally, I think way too much is made of the "directly toward" phrase. Comparing the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, I assume that the "directly toward" phrase was meant to replace 3.0's declaration that the charge must be in a straight line and disallowing running past to strike from another direction. The interpretive focus that leads to the idea that the squares must be "head-on" at the end (clearly contradicting the possibility of ride-by attacks as well as standard jousting tournaments) is far too myopic to be reasonable.

My rule of thumb: If it can be interpreted to make the game break or product foolish results, that's almost certainly not its intention.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.
Maybe you should try an experiment. Have a friend quietly observe you for a few sessions, jotting down expressions you use frequently. Then spend the rest of the campaign not using them under threat of being kicked out.

I don't know... If swearing is such a deeply ingrained behavior that you simply cannot control yourself, then it will probably cause problems in other areas of your social interactions.

-Skeld

Edit: what I mean by the above is that swearing can be situationally dependent; there are times it's more socially acceptable than other times and that's dictated not only by the setting but by the audience as well. Swearing in the wrong setting and/or audience can leave others with the impression that the swearer lacks self-control. Whether or not it's ok for others to make those types of judgements is another topic.

The point is - what polite society calls profanity is part of the vernacular in some parts of society. People who think it's easy to change the way others speak have probably never tried it themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.

Maybe you should try an experiment. Have a friend quietly observe you for a few sessions, jotting down expressions you use frequently. Then spend the rest of the campaign not using them under threat of being kicked out.


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


I can't believe Paizo thought that extending the duration by a factor of 10 wasn't broken!

It's not particularly broken. As others have said, most combats are over long before that duration comes up. And if PCs are looting and searching areas, the monsters will finish up their durations faster than you think. If they want to use them for multiple combats, they need to keep the pressure on and that probably undermines healing between combat as well as other buffs.

The main overpowered aspect of the master summoner for a PC really is being able to use the summon monster SLA concurrently. The main summoner can't and can't even do so with his eidolon around. I'm playing a summoner in Skull and Shackles and there are quite a few times I wish I had been able to do multiple SLA summons at the same time but have had to settle for sequential.

The master summoner has a role in PF but that role isn't right for every game. He's great for war-oriented campaigns since he can spam a lot of troops that the GM can deal with narratively rather than roll dice for and he's great as an enemy for PCs. But his summoning powers and how they work don't work with traditional 4-man dungeon-crawlng very well.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
The guy's a bard, there is literally no way he could be useless in an encounter unless he is making a deliberate attempt to do so.

But that usefulness is probably not related to how the player saw the PC as he was building him and that means the interests he built into that character aren't being served. It's like playing Johnny Storm in a fist-fight. He can do it, but he's the Human Torch, man! If you are denying him any chances to "Flame on!", you're going to make the game suck for him.


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

Construct-heavy adventuring areas may be thematic, but they can also be monotonous, particularly for PCs geared up for other kinds of enemies. Include a bit more diversity in your encounters.

The only real balance issue with RPGs, as far as I'm concerned, is balancing the focus each PC gets in opportunities to have fun, to hold the spotlight and shine, and be treated as an equal voice in the game. So give the bard something to do that is as worthwhile as fighting constructs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joey Virtue wrote:
I got screwed out of mine cause i had Left over dungeon and dragons subscriptions that I rolled over to start them but I have been here since the start.

That's weird. Changing my Dungeon sub to PF was what got me my charter subscriber title.


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


I truly believe that the AoO on a prone person trying to stand up happens BEFORE the person trys to stand up. I believe this is the reason a trip lock is not possible. I believe that is the point of both the 3.5 and Paizo FAQ's on the matter.

If this is the case, then what provoked the AoO? What did the prone target do to provoke the AoO? Apparently nothing since it was before he tried to stand up. Does this really make sense to you?

The mainstream interpretation (and I'm going to boldly say, the correct one) is that the prone target starts to move in a way that provokes the AoO. Now we get into a situation in which they must be resolved in a particular order. That doesn't mean they fully occur in that order - since the triggering move action starts before the AoO (otherwise no AoO could be provoked) and finishes after - just that they are resolved in that order. And if the AoO's result makes the rest of the move invalid, bye bye move action. If it does not, the move action continues to its resolution.


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

I could've sworn I remembered seeing an age suggestion on the Beginner Box. Amazon says 13+.

When a company tells me what age range their product is for, I believe them.

Reconsider that. For most physical products, including games, the age suggestions are set substantially because of product safety regulations. Products for kids under 13 are expected to go through more rigorous (and expensive) testing. So even if a product is suitable for kids under 13 (like the Beginner Box), many will say 13 just to avoid stricter standards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Uwotm8 wrote:
Obo wrote:
If you are gming you are not paizos copyright police. Your job is to officiate a game.
GMs in PFS are specifically tasked with these duties. Yes, they are Paizo's copyright police, as you put it.

You know, I really don't think they are. The requirement for a player to have the appropriate resources at the table is pretty much written in terms of making sure the rules are there so the GM has a source to review for running the game, not strictly to enforce copyright or ferret out rule-breakers. The PFS guidelines are pretty softball on the issue to the point that I think taking a hard nosed approach is setting a dissonant tone and is probably bad for PFS in the long run.


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

I broke down and bought HeroLab a little over a year ago and it really makes things a lot easier to manage - particularly at the table with a live HeroLab app going (although, on the iPad version, my iPad 2 is a bit crashy with it). Buffs and other niggling details make PF a lot easier to manage, particularly as characters get level up and get more complex.

That said, I only use materials in HeroLab that I also have in other formats and I tote my PDFs around on my iPad. If I paid money to attend a convention event (where marshaling a table is difficult and chaotic enough) and was turned away because of either the iPad or HeroLab, I'd be pretty pissed off and the event organizer and Venture Captain/Lieutenant would be alerted.

If PFS at Gen Con can get along with the PF Character Creation Station at the Lone Wolf booth, then I think pretty much any PFS GM should be able to do so as well.


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

When most people say 'it is not a rule' they are not saying 'it is a soft rule' or something similar.

The problem is that when some people say it is not a rule and then call it a guideline (if they even do that) they are dismissing it as if guidelines are completely not worth their, or anyone else's, time. (I have seen this time and again in any discussion regarding WBL.)

I disagree with that assumption. I suspect it has more to deal with encouraging people to not slavishly follow the table because it's a guideline, rather than get hung up on the rules as written fetish that's common across the internet. At the very least, that's why I refer to it as a guideline rather than a rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mirror Polish. Spend a 1st level slot to do only one of the things Prestidigitation already does. Yay?

It does seem a bit specialized, but I wouldn't assume prestidigitation could make a mirror out of any substantial metal surface area. Cleaning something isn't the same as giving it a mirror-worthy polish.


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

Overblown complaints about Drizzt clones far outnumber actual instances of real Drizzt clones. They're more obnoxious as well.

And it's been that way for over a decade.

They're more obnoxious now because we've been taking care of the Drizzt clone character players (who have been around for over two decades now) with a vigorous aerial spraying campaign. It's the only thing that works...


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


That's because Smaug himself was never made to be a final 'boss monster' that the main characters defeat, the story was more concerned with the journey and interaction between the characters. Like many old fairy tales, the big evil monster is defeated by exactly the thing needed to do so at the very end almost as an afterthought, and the story is brought to a happy conclusion.
Also, Speak With Animals is kinda a thing, and this is why. ;)

And, to my personal dismay, so much of the journey and interaction from the book ends up poorly represented on screen - swallowed up by too much action filler. In order to support the pacing and break of 3 movies, Bilbo has to win over Thorin's admiration too soon - necessitating a bizarre confrontation in the pines - rather than wait for Bilbo to take the leadership role in Mirkwood and Thranduil's dungeons.

Beorn and even the spiders drop to secondary status in the overall story to make room for dragon-targeting A-Teaming and a barrel thrill ride. Kili and Fili's sacrifice (briefly described but poignant in the original) is transformed by the cross race love story that, at once, justifies the presence of a female character while also making her dependent on a relationship to a male character for her significance.

Meh. I'm glad it's done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Again, why look at the rules when you are aiming for a certain fluff?
I wish I knew. I have had discussions with this guy in my group about stuff like this all the time. His answer is, "I just don't think Pathfinder is a 'refluff it' kind of game." WTF does that mean?
Maybe: "Look, you are coming dangerously close to openly revealing my lack of imagination. Do not do that!"

Or he prefers it when his fluff and crunch have a unified meaning. Let's think about other possibilities before insulting the man.

Personally, I think fluff and terms have significance too, not just mechanics. They're what forge a shared vocabulary between different gaming tables so I take as much care in reviewing, using, and revising them as I do for mechanics.


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

*sigh*

I understand the importance of not getting one's hopes up especially in light of the last trilogy, but YEESH..tough crowd.

Well, the lower your expectations, the more likely they will be exceeded. The higher they are, the more likely you are to be disappointed. I figure this is why Attack of the Clones appeared to be so good at first viewing despite its horrible shortcomings (I think it is the worst in the series by far). Phantom Menace had calibrated expectations to be very low.


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


Or we could turn it around. Have the players say what kind of games they are looking for, and have the GMs come to them--kind of like it works in real life sometimes.

There are people who try that - and a very few may actually succeed. If their request is fairly standard like wanting to play in an AP or other particular modules, I imagine they can have fairly decent success. But I also expect that the further from the mean the player wants the game to be, the less likely he is to find a willing GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trigger Loaded wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I had a 1e character once say OUT OF CHARACTER a word that would cause instant death. The DM said it didn't matter, that it "transcended realities" and no matter who said the word would die, even if someone in another dimension said it, such as my "alter ego in this universe". I believe that was the last game I ever played with him as DM.
Something campaign-specific? Or the old Call of Cthulhu standby Hastur?

Appearance Check: 1d100 ⇒ 58

Whew!

I actually do make rolls when my players say that name regardless of what game system we're running and the context. It's been a running joke for some years now. Or so they think...


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

There are all sorts of issues that may have come up that have made the DMG's support of 4e-style play (or any other edition's style) not reach the same result you were hoping for. That doesn't mean they lied to you or stabbed you in the back, OP.


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

In my experience, they don't fight as well as the PC fighters and other fighter types. But they do serve to increase the number of actions targeting the enemy, which can make a single BBEG very sad very fast. Of course, in a turn-based game, solo enemy encounters are usually going to be overwhelmed by multiple PCs anyway, this really just increases the tendency.

One other thing they can do is bog down play with one player, the player whose PC summoned the monsters, getting a lot more play compared to everyone else. So it's incumbent on the summoning player to have his crap together and work swiftly and efficiently as much as he can.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
And instead of using the Thrawn trilogy, and digitally de-ageing the stars, he chose to disregard 30+ years of extended universe. Nice job. JJ. You putz.

Best move he could have made. Unequivocally. Cleared the slate as much as possible.


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

To people defending the GM:

You realize he is basically saying "I demand that 50% of your turns are wasted, no matter what.

<snip>

It's like being under a non-removable Bestow Curse, and also only having half the normal number of spells per day.

You know, this is kind of what high level spellcasting was like back in 1e/2e days. Saves were based on the hit dice/level of the target and couldn't be made more difficult by the PC. LOTS of save or lose type spells failed and left the caster with an unproductive turn. And, frankly, PF could use a bit more of it than it has now.


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

Looking forward to it - I hope it's up to the challenge Anthony Daniels laid down. I don't think any other actor has had as much contact with Star Wars at as many levels as he has so I think he's got an informed perspective. A lot will depend on editing and post-production but I've been cautiously optimistic since Lucas sold out to Disney.


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

Entitled or have a right to?

Entitlement always seemed like a kind of a bad word.

Ultimately, they mean the exact same thing. It's just one has been spun into negative connotations.


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

Hmmm...so I canceled my DMG pre-order over on Amazon today, mentioned it on [redacted], and was promptly called a liar.

I think I need a new hobby. :-/

That's kind of what you get from some users who spend a fair amount of time on [redacted]'s sister site - the less moderated messageboard. And this user also swore up and down that the sister site wasn't toxic (psst ... it pretty much is).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Spook205 wrote:

In certain situations I let my party get away with pre-casting haste, just so the summoner doesn't need to 'waste' his initial turn with the requisite buff and can get into the 'fun stuff.'

When you feel like its your job to cast that spell, and you need that spell, thats when something starts feeling a bit off.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea that haste may be a dominant strategy, I'm not entirely convinced that it's bad that a character feels it's his "job" to cast it. Welcome to the burden of effective teamwork, summoner, and stop your whining.

Plus, that summoner probably already has an eidolon out there giving him an extra action anyway. And even if he doesn't and has to use his summon monster ability for his combat effectiveness, he'll get plenty of game time actions to make up for losing one to casting haste. I play a summoner in a Skull and Shackles game and I'm quite familiar with the trade-offs. My sympathy for any summoner complaining about wasting an action by hasting his fellows is very limited. It does my group a lot of good to have the ranger, inquisitor, rogue, and eidolon hasted up as soon as I can manage it.


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

The way they've developed Tony Stark in the MCU, I really don't see him easily supporting the superhero registration act. He's been played up as highly distrusting of the government - would a switch in favor of registration be credible? I don't see that being likely yet.

Maybe they could spin Stark's openness about being Iron Man into heroes being open about their identities. But I think it's a stretch to see that turn into a pro-Feds Stark. They'd probably have to kill off Pepper like with the Civil War's Nitro-school detonation to accomplish it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:


The first time I herd toon I immediately understood why it was used. I did not think it silly. I can't control what people think. What I can control is what I intend. If someone insists on inferring something not intended, then that's their problem.

Unless there are other entirely understandable inferences that are made that are not intended or that lead to misunderstandings.

I find "toon" a jarring bit of jargon for a character for a number of reasons:

- it has been used before in the Toon RPG - specifically related to cartoon characters so every time I see someone using the term, I'm thinking along the lines of a bunch of Animaniacs and not D&D or PF characters

- it refers to a visually animated medium whereas most pen and paper RPG characters are fundamentally imagined or represented with miniatures or counters that are static images

You may not be able to absolutely control what other people think but you can do a lot more than just throw your intentions out there and that's because many of the implications of the words you use are predictable. Descriptive language pretty much depends on it.


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

Marc, there is space in between "I'm have a conscious, intellectual desire to choose the most efficient terminology in all cases in an effort to shave a few seconds off of my conversations" and "I'm lazy".

<snip>

People using shorthand for common terms is normal, and you do it too.

People do, and misunderstandings often ensue depending on the context. I work with ROI - but if I say that at different areas of the company I work for, it means two different things. Using the abbreviation POC is even worse because it now means three things.

If you're discussing things face to face, it's easy to ask for and gain immediate clarification when unknown jargon is used. But when engaging in written communication, clarity is important. On a messageboard, it may take hours to get a clarification if your readers don't understand what you meant the first time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dennis Harry wrote:
Interesting. I have been running 3.5 for a long time and my players have always looked at their surroundings for advantages to assist in what they are doing.

That's the case with me too, but I will acknowledge that the presentation of a game, its tone, and other elements around it can profoundly change a player's orientation toward the game - and not always in rational ways.

Some groups found that 3e's focus on rules caused their players to do so as well - even myopically. Some groups found that 4e's focus on powers turned the game into a skirmish board game of shuffling power cards. And in both cases, some groups found the structure of those games liberating from problems they found with previous editions (that many other players never even had).


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

How does the economy work in the REAL world?

Anyone who claims to know is lying to you.

Q: What do you when you take all of the economists in the world and lay them down end to end?

A: Everybody pointing in a different direction.


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


I've never seen anyone try to get away with less. Ever. Rather, what you describe here is the group of people who are feeling (accurately or not) pointed at when certain posters talk about people who don't care about roleplaying.

I've seen it and didn't like it, so that's why I push any player trying that to do more when I run games.


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


There are people who want to play a character that they themselves are not capable of representing completely, who nevertheless care a great deal about roleplaying, immersion, and the fun of the other players; and are interested in far, far more than just "diplomacy-ing people", punching faces and counting loot.

I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept that this category of people exists.

I think people are getting a bit overly emotional about his issue right now. I can totally see where the secret fire is coming from. If a player takes no effort to role play - and like he said, we're not talking rhetoric here - when other players are willing to make the effort then I think the game suffers for it.

And here, I'm not talking about always talking in character or with flowery speeches that exactly fit their Charismas. I'm looking for an effort to put together the major points of an attempt at diplomacy, the tactics used, and all fitting with the PC's perspective and what they could and would understand of the situation. If the player can do it in character, all the better.

But if someone wants to just say "I use diplomacy on him" and roll... they can do that at another table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:


This

This what?


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


Casting Purify food and drink is enough to make it kosher?

I wouldn't think so. Process is extremely important. Taking something processed in a non-kosher manner and using magic to purify it doesn't change the process involved.

Now, purifying the food/drink could be an important part of the process...


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

You may notice that diplomacy says it enables characters to change the attitudes of non-player characters. It doesn't say you can change the attitude of the other PCs - for that you need to succeed on your real life diplomacy and powers of persuasion.

That doesn't mean that diplomacy, bluff, and other skills aren't useful in portraying how the PCs perceive each other. A good diplomacy check here might lead a GM to tell the moonshiner that "the other character makes a passionate argument that distilling that alcohol will make Baby Erastil cry that you find emotionally moving, bringing an unbidden tear to your own eye - but the choice is, of course, up to you."

And I still don't understand how copying a recipe for poteen would be evil.


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

It looks to me, from the boards I frequent, some people are still fighting the previous edition war.


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

I voted Star Wars, but really you could drop the Force and lightsaber stuff as it BORED me. I liked Star Wars cause there was so many cool places to go, races in universe, and the ships.

For me, the Force and the Jedi are what make Star Wars really distinctive as a space opera setting. And I don't mean the superhumanic BS that appeared in Attack of the Clones/Revenge of the Sith. I'm talking about the mystical philosophy and modestly defined powers of the original trilogy.

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."

That's one of my favorite passages of the whole series of movies, particularly the line in bold. Star Wars without that loses half its character.


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


But see I love Trek too as long as it's not Shatner. (TOS is fine just I don't like Shatner's take on Kirk.) I grew up with TNG and loved it, as I loved the politics and 'feel' of it.

But then there was DS9 and I hated it, it was soooooooo BOOOOORRRRRINGGG! Nothing happened until the Dominion stuff started up otherwise it was Space CSI.

Voyager was the best of the best, crème de le crème series. As they had no Federation support. (Many times Enterprise had to go in for repairs or even complete rebuilds with a competent captain like Picard at the helm.)

It's like I've found my polar opposite here on the boards. I'll dub you my Bizarro Bill Dunn and you can dub me your Bizarro KingmanHighborn.


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


Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.

This usually strikes me as a jealousy or competitiveness issue. I've seen it a lot, in recent years, characterized by "protagonism" and "agency" issues. The spellcasters' reality bending powers set the agenda for the game and martial characters don't get nice thing. These are all focused on what one player can do with his PC that another player cannot do with his.

But I don't see it that way. Who sets the agenda for the game? Is it a spellcaster acting as dictator or do the players have reasonably equal input? If the former, why are they playing with the jerk? And if it's the latter, then the spellcaster doesn't really have more agency, rather, his powers are at the service of the group and it doesn't really matter if it's Joe's PC who is pushing the button - he's pushing it for all of us.

Now, maybe I'm spoiled by being part of groups that have played together with relatively few changes in spans measured by decades rather than months or even years. Most of the competitiveness that comes up between players is done for role playing purposes.


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


This is the GenCon vendor map from 2014.

Note the second column, 5th one down: Belle and Blade.

So, after complaints were made LAST YEAR about these guys. They were allowed to come back.

I don't want to link directly too them. I don't think Paizo deserves links to these guys on their website. But here are some things for sale:

- Triumph of the Will
- baseball caps with swastikas on them
- a work shirt with a Death's Head emblem with the words "Gott mit uns" common Nazi imagery from the period
- Nazi fetish porn

Neither the work shirt or baseball cap are authentic to the WW2 period, but rather reflect more modern designs of clothing. They are not intended to be historical recreations.

Their website is pretty easy to find if you search Belle and Blade.

So, now I've shown that his article DOES contain evidence. I suppose you could try to argue that Nazi fetish porn isn't racist and deserves to be at GenCon.

And, having seen the booth, I'd say that most of what it is about is movies, movies, and more movies that a lot of people are interested in. Overall, the booth was a lot less offensive than a lot of the manga/anime art ones that were very teen porny.

It's possible that anybody who investigated thought that the complaints were largely minimal compared to the overall focus of the booth. I've also seen a response from Gen Con staff that they told Bell and Blade to not display the underwear. And other posts suggest that they were no longer on prominent display - though were still for sale. And that parallels what went on with the anime porn. One booth in 2013 had the art posted high up at the top of their booth so it could be seen for some distance. Clearly someone complained since after that opening morning the racier stuff had been lowered to be within the booth itself.


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


There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).

Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Suichimo wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Seems to me a LOT of people complain about the system as it is. Complaints about not enough dex-to-damage options just up your strength if you really want to melee THAT badly

And if that is against your concept?

Then you've got a few choices to make:

1) house rule it with willing GM and players
2) accept your concept can only be approximated with the rules you've got and do the best you can
3) play a game in which that concept can be achieved like Mutants and Masterminds or some other system
4) change your concept

There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
4) All of that said, the reason I brought this up in the first place is because of the part where Correia mocks George for not feeling represented in gaming. George outlines what internalized racism looks like: even in a fantasy world, George can imagine fighting orcs more easily than he can imagine a non-white character for himself. This isn't an issue of George's lack of imagination; it's the result of a culture that tells him what's normal/normative for a medieval fantasy setting is that everyone is white. The narratives present in both our history and much of our pop culture about medieval/renaissance Europe has erased the history of PoC. It is affected by the other racist narratives in our culture, and affects them in turn in a vicious cycle that has made people like George feel like he doesn't have a voice or a place in the usual cultural narrative. Even when he tries to branch out and make characters of color, it's unhelpful and discouraging when people ask him if he's trying to make a statement or send a message by doing that. And for Correia to mock George and dismiss his feelings on this is a dick move. Making a half-orc with green skin isn't the same as making a character with brown or black skin, because no one is going to call you out on "message fiction" for playing a half-orc. This is a racist action--please note that I'm not saying anything about Correia's character or his ~*~innermost soul as a human being~*~, just pointing to this particular action as racist and rude. Maybe Correia wasn't bothered by not seeing himself represented in fantasy games (or, for many PoC, almost all media), or maybe he did feel represented (which is a tricky feeling to identify, because it's the feeling of being "normal" when you engage with any form of media with characters). So, you know, that's cool for him, but he's being a huge a!%$%*! about it to George and dismissing what is a serious and widespread problem. Admittedly, it is one that Paizo art tries to address, which is awesome, and which the latest edition of D&D is trying to do as well (I got a chance to flip through it, and the example pictures for the human, fighter, and wizard are all black). But for Correia to dismiss his concerns is exactly the opposite of what he praises Paizo for trying to do! So is Correia white? It seems like he doesn't identify as such, and if he experiences racism directed toward him for being non-white Portuguese, then that's s*%!ty. However, he also says some s~+@ty racist stuff in his response article, and that's just not acceptable.

Even if someone were to agree with you on this or take George at his word, there's still a gap between experiencing racism away from gaming to the point it affects your early forays into gaming and even having a racist incident at a local gaming table and projecting that onto the whole community and Gen Con. And I'd say it's an even bigger gap now than it would have been in the early days of gaming since there are major companies including diverse characters in their art, some for over a decade. The environment for attracting diversity in gaming - whether it's ethnic/racial diversity or gender/sexual preference diversity - is pretty much the best it has ever been thanks to companies like WotC and Paizo.

But at some point, people have to realize it's not gaming that doesn't afford people options. Gaming has no inherent horizon (though local groups may have their own limits and limitations). If George thinks gaming didn't or doesn't afford him those options, it's because he didn't (and maybe still doesn't) reach for them. Maybe he feels like an outsider - as a minority, that's understandable. But being an outsider doesn't make the experience inherently racist nor does he become an insider by choosing to distance himself from the community or events.


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

So, more to the point of the argument would you say that the experience of the experience of Spanish immigrants to the US is essentially the same as Mexican immigrants? They face the same kinds of discrimination? Both in the first and successive generation?

Because that's the distinction that Hispanic(White) and Hispanic(not-white) draws.

Or would the experience of that Spanish immigrant and his descendants be closer to a Polish immigrant and his? Both likely to face discrimination, but both considered white and not dealing with the same level that people of color face, especially after the first generation.

I expect there's going to be a lot of regional variation. Spanish immigrant coming to Arizona - or really anywhere in territory that used to be Mexico - probably have an experience much like a Mexican immigrant. Then, in successive generations, there's probably a good chance having a name that sounds Mexican will lead a lot of people to make assumptions that they're Mexican-American rather than Spanish-American.

Fun little aside. Remember when some people got all up in arms about Benedict Cumberbatch being cast as Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness? There were complaints about whitewashing Khan. Here's even a blog post from someone at Tor Books about giving a person of color's part to a white guy: The Perfect Retcon to Star Trek: Into Darkness.

But here's the rub. If a Spanish immigrant to the US wouldn't be a person of color, neither was Ricardo Montalban both of whose parents immigrated to Mexico from Spain. They're assuming Montalban was a person of color because he was Mexican, had an awesome accent, and had a good tan. Or... they understood that being a PoC isn't necessarily about obvious skin tones or technical racial origin but being part of an ethnicity/race that's not necessarily treated as being white.


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


That's actually one of the main reasons I'm not a huge fan of how the Big Six items work in Pathfinder. The Big Six are very much expected and ordinary. It's hard to get excited about getting another +1, but sooner or later you need those bonuses just to survive.

Magic items that let you do something new and interesting are far more exciting than ones that just add flat numerical bonuses. Problem is, Pathfinder is very much a numbers game; no matter how good your tactics are and what creative solutions you come up with, eventually dice are going to be rolled.

You generally need some of those items to thrive, sure. But you don't need all of them, nor do all of the ones you have need to be maxed out. Yet all 6 of these are part of the Big 6 because, necessary or not, they are very valuable compared to most other magic items. Their benefits are consistent, easy to calculate, hard to forget about, and relatively cheap. For those reasons, they kick the butt of many if not most conditional-use items, like rings of shooting stars, which are generally sold off at first opportunity to get one of the Big 6.

1 to 50 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.