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. 4,104 posts (4,329 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 11 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Farmer Maggot from The Lord of the Rings would be a fairly high level commoner. Don't know about 20th level though. Farmer Cotton would be no slouch, either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Tomos wrote:

Socrates.

Gandhi.
Gandhi was a lawyer before he lead his people, Socrates was a great teacher. Definitely not commoners. Experts at least.

And probably a little warrior for Socrates as well since he was supposedly a Peloponnesian War veteran.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Well, I'd say it's a quite a big cat that ate WotC's market leadership for lunch, but YMMV.
Paizo has been the market leader... while D&D was all but dormant. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo finds themselves kicked down to #2 very quickly after 5th edition's release.

I expect it will, for a time. How long depends on how well 5e does. Even 4e had its hands full with the Pathfinder competition since PF was showing up well right during Essentials, before D&D 4e was dormant.


The sign above the Pixie's Kitty, a winking faerie sitting cross-legged with a kitten centered in her lap, is just suggestive enough to indicate the nature of the establishment. A tall Shoanti bouncer stands beside the open doorway, giving you a nod as you pass inside.

The appointments inside the brothel are quite classy and tasteful with well-upholstered divans and settees scattered about the first sitting room. A stairway toward the rear of the room, which heads up to the rooms, has another Shoanti bouncer stationed at it. A pair of couples of settled in this room for quieter discussion and a young woman acts as receptionist. Of course, she recognizes Piper and waves him in.

The more active common room past reception is well-attended with louder conversation, music, and a couple of dancers in risque (but not all-revealing) outfits performing a burlesque number. A number of working girls and boys move about the place bringing drinks from a small bar and attending to the clients who have picked them out for rented companionship before retiring to more private quarters. A third Shoanti bouncer eyes the crowd from the bar. That is where proprietress Kaye Tesarani can be seen in a serious discussion with a young man (who looks quite abashed) about an account that seems to be in arrears.


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


If the players have the books containing the extra options they want to play with, what's wrong with just looking over their books? This is how my group did things for years. No one DM was expected to own everything. So long as the player has a copy on hand, what would be wrong with that?

Sometimes that isn't as convenient or the analysis not as thorough as being able to review the new material in detail and at leisure. Depending on the nature of the option to be added, I might take a while to really dig into it. If it was just a feat or new piece of equipment, reading over the text once or twice would probably suffice. But if the player wanted me to add a new class like the summoner, I'd want more time with the materials and that requires more than just skimming it over at the gaming table the night we play. In such a case, I would require photocopies of the pages at the very least, and perhaps a loan of the book for a week or so.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yuugasa wrote:
Just for the sake of education I must ask: Is there a more PC way of expressing the feelings my brother in law or the woman in pres man's article feel than using the "I'm y trapped in x body." phrase? I would never tell my brother in law what he feels or how to say it but I would prefer to give him a heads up in case he might get negative feedback from any new trans people we meet.

I would think the most politically correct way to describe it would be the person's own words. Of course, I got ninja'd on that one, but we really need to let people be in control of their own narrative rather than press one upon them.

And as far as the whole issue of WotC's wording, I know the person who was responsible for that wording and they're certainly not ignorant of transgender issues. In fact, they've been dealing with such issues pretty closely for a while now. Some people may not like the wording, but they shouldn't make too many assumptions about what the person who wrote them knows or doesn't know.


"Ah, of course I sell that here. I carry many sorts of medicinal herbs and preparations. And you can also count on my discretion as well. The instructions are on the packet--be sure to follow them carefully."

The price for a sufficient dose is 1 sp. (in other words, pretty inconsequential for an adventurer)
She seems to have it in considerable bulk and you can buy as many doses as you want.


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

Hmmm. How about having cast a true strike?

Quote:
You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
Probably not...

It runs into the same problem - inability to see the target. Attacks of Opportunity events presume that the character can see that their target has dropped their guard, enabling the free attack. Keep that in mind and these questions become fairly easy.

Your regular attacks may ignore the concealment, but in order to make use of the opportunity he gives you to make an attack, you have to see that he gives you one in the first place.


Hannah's small shop is almost easy to miss being nearly sandwiched between two considerably larger buildings - the shipyard and The Pixie's Kitten (brothel). The noise of laughter, music, and general revelry can be easily heard from the Kitten but Hannah's is positively serene. Glass and earthenware jars surround the shelves and sheafs and bundles of other plant parts (leaves, stems, flowers) are placed about and give the location a surprisingly natural feel. The air is filled with the smells of flowers and savoy herbs.

Hannah herself is a willowy half-elven woman who has obviously seen quite a few summers but is still hale and healthy. Bits of leaves and other plant debris litter her frizzy hair and her nose and cheeks have seen a bit too much sun recently, but she beams when you enter the shop.
"Be with you in a moment, dears. I found a great source of ephedra today and I want to make sure I get it preserved properly."
Some jars rattle and you hear the sound of some quick snips from her scissors. In a moment or two, she's back and ready.

"Now, what can ol' Hannah do for you? If you've got an ailment, I've probably got the cure."


But, on the note of getting a caravan ready, how many of you have reviewed or read over the rules for caravans that appear in the Player's Guide? I'm willing to hand-wave a lot of that consideration off unless people want to be able to stat out a caravan with its staff. If people are willing to hand-wave most of it off, I'll still build a roster of NPCs filling various jobs so that you have people to interact with.


Sorry. Work has just been draining me. I've been researching how much we need to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and what that will require in tagging PDFs of medical records so that they can be understood by a reading application. And this is for a BIG customer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


On a side note, I just ran across an ENworld thread in which a bunch of fans are dogpiling a 5e DM for wanting to eliminate the hard cap on ability scores. A desire that I sympathize with, even if it has obvious balance implications.* I would have expected more replies with constructive ideas to eliminate the cap and maintain balance, or at least a few more "Yeah, rulings not rules!"

But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)

I would say that's a highly... let's use the word creative interpretation of what's going on in that thread.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:


Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.

It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.

As someone who was disappointed with 4e, I can say that I think you've got a point. One of the reasons I think 3e got a less negative reaction than 4e is that while it made significant changes to the system, it drew attention to how it drew on D&D's roots and traditions. Moreover, some of the biggest structural changes, such as in magic items and their creation, were modular and easily ignored or modified to fit the older assumptions.

Basically, how WotC positioned its new changes mattered. And I don't think 5e will make the same mistakes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While I think most GMs unwilling to look at a build as complex as described by the OP are worried about cherry-picking power options, I might be reluctant to endorse such a character because it could take so long come to fruition and be weak until that point that it could lead to player frustration. There's a certain value in keeping things relatively simple - you're not always waiting for what's coming over the horizon - you're more able to live in the now.

Basically, as a GM, my job is to enable each player to succeed and that includes watching for weak options as well as strong.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
The main issue with Leadership is when a Player uses him as a source for crafting, like say Wands. Gives the Cohort Craft Wands, so that the cohort can sit home, cranking out wands while the main PC doesn;t have to burn a feat nor take downtime. This is abusive.

Frankly, I haven't found it to be particularly abusive at all. The most limiting factor I've seen has been money. Of course, characters in my game tended to take the winter off from adventuring (and I encouraged them to do so) so time crunches weren't as big a problem for them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Josh M. wrote:


I'm looking at wizards.com now and can't find anything. I know the physical set isn't supposed to come out until later, but I read on their website that the online rules would be out today.

The link: D&D Basic Rules


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

I generally ban anything I don't own on the basis of "if I don't have it at my convenience, I'm not going to be able to review and understand it appropriately enough to run with it."

Other than that, I'm pretty open with what I allow. I do, however, support any GM's effort to ban anything they want as long as they have a rational explanation for it other than "because I said so". I think GMs should have a lot of leeway in establishing what works with the setting since they will be the one dealing with it the most.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:


But as a player, I would be peeved if the GM insisted on designing the cohort instead of me. So peeved that I would insist on dumping leadership and taking something selfish instead.

Players should be given maximum leeway in making decisions, and designing a cohort seems to fall into that category. After all, what dangers could there be from the player designing a "junior PC" cohort? Surely no worse than the player's own PC-optimisation plans.

YMMV.

Oh, it could be much worse than the PC's own optimization plans for his single character because now he builds two, each with their own set of actions to unleash in combat. That said, what I'm mostly looking for is an indication that the cohort isn't simply an extension of the PC's own power and not built for entirely selfish reasons. Building a cohort to increase one's own power, to me, is no less selfish than taking a feat that contributes to your own attack bonus. That's why I usually prefer to build them based on the player's input or reserve approval rights over what the player builds.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:


When he became high enough level to take leadership he used the follow slots to count as "loyal" crew. Ie, those crew that would stick with him even if the stuff hit the fan. Now that they are 9th level he has a stupid high leadership score (many of the plot points in skulls and shackles will add modifiers to leadership) so that basically his entire crew now is "loyal" particularly when you consider the other PC's as crew/officers. He took Sandara Quinn as his cohort which has helped quite a bit.

I'm playing a half-orc summoner in our Skull and Shackles campaign. I also took leadership but I made Rosie Cusswell, the first NPC I really connected with, my cohort and sent her out with her own ship. That gave me a second ship for my (hopefully soon to grow) fleet with a captain I knew would be loyal (unlike a certain nefarious pair we mutinied against in the first place).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arakhor wrote:

So, maybe whilst ability scores can continue to increase, they are all capped at a maximum bonus of (say) +4. Each class would have two exceptions to this:

Bard: Dex & Cha
Barbarian: Str & Con
Cleric: Wis & Cha
Druid: Wis & Con
Fighter: Str & Con
Monk: Dex & Wis (alternatively, all stats capped at +5)
Paladin: Str & Cha
Ranger: Str & Wis
Rogue: Dex & Int
Sorcerer: Int & Cha
Wizard: Int & wis

As I see it, adding exceptions for primary stats would defeat the point of the caps in the first place. One issue that caps would help fix is the single attribute dependent classes pumping their offensive casting stats into the stratosphere and outstripping the primary bonuses that can be obtained for multiple attribute dependent classes as well as outstripping the defensive bonuses that boost saves.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kwauss wrote:
Quote:
All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell.
This would also make me assume to use the 8x multiplier for weight, since no other is given. Not that I'm saying that's necessarily right...

I think that's a good argument for why it's not unreasonable to make that judgment initially. But once a recalculation of the encumbrance leads to trouble, the default assumption that the spell is supposed to be beneficial in normal use should guide the GM's decisions. The spell-caused change in encumbrance is not supposed to make the spell act like a weapon against the recipient it is supposed to buff.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To the OP: Suggest to your GM that she should assume that spells are intended to work in beneficial ways by default and aren't built to be "gotchas" by the publishers. If it's a buff spell, it can be expected to buff the target, not cause hardship if used in as simple a way as it can be used. Really convoluted player rationalizations and half-baked schemes are when she should consider spells going wrong in bad ways, not simple uses for which the spell seems to be intended. And, clearly, gaining a relatively minor melee buff is exactly what the enlarge spell is intended to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


I wasn't aware "buy a wand and have a single person put a single point in UMD" was system mastery. I thought that was the basics.

It's really not, particularly when dealing with players who used to play lots of older-school AD&D when wands were decidedly more difficult to make.


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

Jason, could the orcs and Smaug be guided and kept in the loop by Sauron from afar? His powers are greater than any other in Middle-Earth, and we know that only such as Galadriel possess the might to block his vision. The dragons are a creation of Melkor, thus Sauron might well have insight into communicating with and controlling them.

Meh. It would depend on too many suppositions that the movie will never explain. Sauron isn't supposed to know about the ring being found until he captures Gollum and that won't happen for some decades yet. Thorin and Co. are just not important enough for his attention. It's all just padding for a trilogy going too long and with Jackson and co-writers working well below their potential.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:


1. The natural spell feat.

Non-essential for the game because it's far too good a benefit. What druid wouldn't take it? And whenever that's the case, it's probably a problem. Would be better as a metamagic feat or with some other cost imposed.

Zardnaar wrote:
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.

Buffs, including stacking buffs, have always been in D&D (bard inspiration, bless, prayer, chant, strength, etc). PF could stand to prune them back though.

Zardnaar wrote:
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.

Could stand a lot of control. Making more of the utility spells caster level dependent helps curb the abuse we saw in 3e, but I'd cut most down. Wands had the traditional role of allowing a caster to throw an offensive spell without letting his guard down in combat - and that should be their role again. Limit mostly to some form of blasting spell so the caster can be offensive without provoking AoO with the tradeoff of limited caster level and low save DCs.

Zardnaar wrote:
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.

This has been an important element of 3e/PF's experience, but I try to assert more control. It's the single biggest change in D&D's rules that affect how it actually plays - and not always for the better.

Zardnaar wrote:
5. Number bloat/complexity.

Unavoidable. And I think that's fine.

Zardnaar wrote:
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.

Dropping attack bonus is important to the game's balance when taking all attacks at once. With 4 attacks all at high bonus, that's a HUGE spike in damage dealt out at once. The dropping BAB is the compromise that makes getting all of those attacks at once palatable.

Zardnaar wrote:
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.

Is this a problem?!?

Zardnaar wrote:
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.

Weak saves are too weak. They should be improved.

Zardnaar wrote:
9. Spell DCs over 20.

Depends on how far over 20 we're talking about. Going over 20 is fine, going far over 20 is too much. I'd offer a cap around 25.

Zardnaar wrote:
10. Unlimited ability score progression.

Cap the values. The game gets less out of balance if you cap stats.

Zardnaar wrote:
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)

Increasing to 4 would hurt absolutely nothing and would be good for the fighter. It is not an essential part of the PF experience, particularly since many fighter characters end up getting that many anyway via being human and using the preferred class bonus.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think you'd really need to look at other abilities that involve surprise to see the difference. While surprised isn't really a status, if something were written (or will be written - these descriptions could be written vaguely enough to encompass future developments as well) that hinged on the target being surprised, then there would be a difference. The kensai iaijitsu master wouldn't be surprised, but the one who could act in the surprise round without having achieved the iaijitsu master benchmark would be even if he could still act.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
My2Copper wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


I think that really is a misreading of the issue that people bring up when they say that claims of fighter and rogue uselessness and weakness are exaggerated. It's not that we don't think adding a couple of skill points to the fighter would be bad. It's not that we think scaling some combat feats better so they advance with the character level would be bad.

Rather, it's that doing so isn't absolutely necessary as much as they could be reasonably welcomed options since, in our experience, we're doing just fine despite the so-called deficiencies of these classes. So we may be picky about what changes we think will actually help matters without damaging the overall flavor of the game.

If that is true and you would welcome some buffs, why fight our plea for them? Even if you think it is not absolutely necessary, only nice to have. As long as half of the player base is contrary to buffing the weak classes it is 100% sure it will not happen.

What could you possibly loose if the fighter got some more skill points and the rogue some combat prowess? What about those changes makes it worth preventing them?

There are a couple of reasons I can think of - and I'm not speaking for everybody, just for me - that put me off suggested improvements or at least make me wary of them:

1) Usually it's not just a case of improving a fighter's skill points or giving the rogue a little more offensive punch. Many solutions I've seen people bandy about are a bit more radical than that, and "fix" things that I don't think really need fixing.

2) Many of the improvement suggestions suffer in the delivery. I find them too often based on the hyperbolic statement that "fighters can't have nice things" (or similar) which immediately undermines the credibility of the person making the suggestion.

Personally, I think putting the monk on the fighter table, giving the fighters 4 skill points/level, putting bad saves on the 1/2 level schedule but without the +2 strong save bonus, and giving the rogue some more skill and combat-based talents would be great changes for Pathfinder 2.0 (and make for good house rules now). But I don't find the rogue, monk, and fighter classes unplayably weak now and am going to be a bit choosy about what sorts of "fixes" I'll accept as useful, in general.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
K177Y C47 wrote:
A freaking basketweaver is not going to go out and slay a dragon...

And moisture farmers aren't going to become galaxy-liberating mystic warriors, barmaids aren't going to become heroes, blacksmith's sons aren't going to become king, Civil War vets turned prospectors aren't going to become planetary warlords...


The Date

The Sandpoint Theater, run by the flamboyant, notorious flirt, Cyrdak Drokkus, has brought in a small troupe from Magnimar to perform the comedy "Slanders of the Heart" in which a young maid's honor is besmirched, misunderstandings abound, and conspirators act as match-makers for cynics.

And don't sweat the cost of the noodles. It's a pittance compared to the money you've got coming in as loot these days.


Masamune Mitsuhide wrote:
Masamune will pay for the items so that they can be fixed and he will then wait for them to be finished. After he will inspect it and go back. Listening for any news of caravans heading out.

Once Masamune mentions looking for a caravan, Savah pipes up with the question, "Why not check with Sandru? He's in town and probably looking for cargo."


Whew. So many distractions keeping me away. Sorry about that. Fortunately(?), I'm home sick from work today and I can spend a little more time on this...


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

I think its weird that people don't want better designed classes and actively promote that we shouldn't try bringing weaker classes up to par.

I think that really is a misreading of the issue that people bring up when they say that claims of fighter and rogue uselessness and weakness are exaggerated. It's not that we don't think adding a couple of skill points to the fighter would be bad. It's not that we think scaling some combat feats better so they advance with the character level would be bad.

Rather, it's that doing so isn't absolutely necessary as much as they could be reasonably welcomed options since, in our experience, we're doing just fine despite the so-called deficiencies of these classes. So we may be picky about what changes we think will actually help matters without damaging the overall flavor of the game.


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


I find it very sad when a game is structured so that one person's fun and another person's are mutually-contradictory. I'd rather the baselines were similar, so that we could all play together.

Even if the baselines were identical, you'd still have people whose game styles were incompatible. So I don't see it as a problem because baselines differ, rather, I think it's because some people have incompatible ideas of a good time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think I can say pretty confidently that relative power estimates really haven't been an issue at the tables I play with. Nor have I noticed, from either side of the GM's screen, a significant inability for any particular class to be unable to contribute.

We've faced challenges when we've been weak in particular areas - like long range magic in the Skull and Shackles campaign - but we take steps to adjust to those weaknesses rather than slavishly stick to build plans. And if that means the summoner keeps his UMD high to widen his ability to use scrolls and wands, that's fine. He's got the skill on his class list for a reason and that's to compensate for a limited spell list.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


True, but I could imagine a GM might rule a sneak attack impossible in certain situations because of being unable to reach something vital. Usually, this would be with really weird monster anatomy or special situations like a rogue slashing at a roper's tentacles because they're within reach rather than the roper's body, which is not.

I would agree, provided the GM has actual knowledge of the anatomy of a roper's tentacles.

Fortunately, because ropers are entirely fictional, the GM gets to define the anatomy of a roper's tentacles and whether or not they do, in fact, have any targetable vitals. Maybe they break off and regenerate fairly easily like a some lizard species's tails.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:


More generally, I wouldn't advise any GM to attempt to impose "realism" based on anatomical knowledge if s/he doesn't have any.

True, but I could imagine a GM might rule a sneak attack impossible in certain situations because of being unable to reach something vital. Usually, this would be with really weird monster anatomy or special situations like a rogue slashing at a roper's tentacles because they're within reach rather than the roper's body, which is not.


Fortunately, aside from the people hit directly (about 19 homes, the school, and a guy's classic car collection), we didn't get hit too badly. I still haven't heard anything about injuries at all. I think that's one benefit of living in Wisconsin compared to, say, Nebraska and other parts of Tornado Alley. Our terrain is basement-compatible and almost all houses in the area have some form of one and that means shelter is readily accessible.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

You say that as if pandering is a bad thing

Hey, I like a little fan service every once in a while too, but every other main PC race is so much like humans that they all have females with human-like breasts. Couldn't they have had a little discipline and gone with one race, one in which it makes perfect sense to not have them, without boobs? Apparently not and it was utterly ridiculous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
anyone that is put off by the rendition of an upright walking, bipedal, human sized, Dragon headed, winged (or not), fire breathing, sentient, heroic, weapon wielding, five fingered (with opposable thumb), fantasy character, because it has breasts, is being, in my opinion, a bit ridiculous

Oh, I don't think so. I can easily see a legitimate criticism against the need to put breasts on a lizard woman to pander to juvenile male desires.


Masamune's search for someone to fix up the swords leads him to Savah's Armory. Savah tells him that she can have the blades fixed for 50 gold coins. The broken up armor would cost an additional 60 gp to fix up to its full protective potential.


I have updated Masamune's loot spreadsheet with a couple of prices.


Nasty weather in the home town. Tornado went within a few blocks of us last night. We didn't get damaged but the neighborhood grade school got hit for $3-4 million in damages.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

Our "worst GM EVER" was Champions, not Pathfinder.

- All villains MUST recur, no matter how badly you defeated them/killed them/desecrated their bodies. He MADE them come back. Presumably so he didn't have to create new ones.

<snip>
- If the fight went poorly, the bad guy got to rewrite the rules on the fly.

In all fairness, both of these are well within the superhero genre, particularly the former. Villains recur. You can disintegrate them, blast them out into space, have them captured by vastly more powerful alien entities, revert them to children, turn them into brain dead vegetables, or trap them in miniature androids of themselves and they will come back. (note - most of those examples are ones I can think of off the top of my head that have happened to either Doctor Doom or Magneto over the last 40 years - now add all of the other possible deaths other villains have escaped...).

At least Mutants and Masterminds compensates you with a hero point when the GM pulls the latter on you to give his villain an improbable win or escape.

But seriously, getting into the genre is part of playing a genre RPG like Champions. If you chafe at either of the two examples of yours I quoted, you're probably not approaching the genre with the right mindset.


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


I give JJ & Co. props for being honest with their customers, but that honesty has more or less ensured that I'll never buy a PF book. Maybe an AP that I can convert, sometime when I have more money to throw around. Paizo is responding to someone's needs, but they ain't mine. :/

Of course they're not responding to your needs. They're respoding to mine and I'm keeping them busy.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I can't imagine a game company telling anyone what they want, though I've heard this complaint aimed at various companies before. I mean, they all do their best to sell their games, but telling us what we want? Sounds like a fan-reaction to whichever company makes the game that he or she happens to not like.

You've never heard of advertising? Companies tell people what they need and want all the time.


Sure, I can handle the NPCs in the flex thread. But why are you guys still spoiler texting in it? It's a separate thread from the main gameplay one so you don't have to do that.


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


zagnabbit wrote:
The beauty of Greyhawk is stasis. It's always the same year until you play.
Um... what? I must be misunderstanding you. Greyhawk's been changing constantly. Materials like "Fate of Istus", "Greyhawk Wars", and "Die, Vecna, Die" made significant changes in the setting, requiring new editions to get all the updates. For instance, the "World of Greyhawk" boxed set was set, I think, in the late 570s CY. (My set is at home, where I can't look it up.) "From The Ashes" shows a very different world in 585 CY, due to the aforementioned Greyhawk Wars. "The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer" shows lots of changes from that, leading up to 591 CY.

I think this underscores that Greyhawkers typically take a different approach to the campaign setting and canon than fans of other published settings (with the possible exception of the Third Imperium for Traveller). With early materials being fairly sketchy for a long time, Greyhawk GMs have thrived on taking a framework of a campaign world and making it their own. And that includes feeling confident about accepting or flat out rejecting canonical developments that come later like the Greyhawk Wars or anything to do with the overuse of Vecna.


Masamune Mitsuhide wrote:
I do have a question about our exploration of the three marks on the map. Have we actually examined each of the three areas? I know we found two shipwrecks and near the second shipwreck we found a cave but was that cave close enough to one of the red dots that we would consider it the third area or is there somewhere else we need to explore?

The third mark on the map was, in fact, the cave. So, yes, all three marks were investigated.


I'll assume there's nothing in particularly to catch your fancy before you make the trek back to town.

The trip back out to Sandpoint is not particularly difficult save for a little extra weariness you all feel from fighting a more intense foe than the goblins. Once again, as you approach the outskirts of town, a troop of children escort you in, badgering you with questions.
"Did you kill more goblins?"
"Did you see the Soggy River Monster?"
"Can I ride your horse?"

Ameiko's Rusty Dragon is as open for your business as it ever is. Today, you catch Ameiko out front with a tray in one hand, serving some tankards of beer to locals who have elected to sit outside on the benches and take in the fine weather. She notices your approach right away.
"Well, here come Sandpoint's latest explorers. Have you found more of the Grand Kaijitsu Fleet?" she jokes.

Sandpoint is capable of liquidating pretty much any of the treasure you have received so far if you ever want to convert to coins. Plus, there are plenty of places to check out. See the link to Sandpoint above in the header.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:


Captain America isn't nearly as strong as Hulk. What do you think of my earlier mention of Thor as a 20th level fighter?

I'm not really feeling it. The issue that always comes up with someone like Thor and Hercules is they're not normal people - and never were. Someone could have all the combat skill of Thor, potentially, and still never come close to his abilities because he's a Norse god. Same with Hercules - in fact, most other Greek heroes come nowhere near his feats despite others having divine blood - simply because Hercules must have been the GM's favorite or something...

And I'm pretty much convinced that any game in which people want to play Hercules and his great labors really isn't the same game as one in which the players want to play Aragorn or Legolas or even Gandalf or most other Greek heroes like Bellerophon and Odysseus. They're pretty far apart and I think, unless it wants to go the generic route like Mutants and Masterminds, PF is probably better off picking a particular hill to stand on and devoting its resources there and leaving the rest to some other game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adam B. 135 wrote:

Yes they both waited. They definitely both waited. However the Fighter would have spent feats. Did the wizard get every single summon monster spell, planar binding spell, dimensional anchor, and such? Spells only have the prerequisite of level. Spells do not have the prerequisite of knowing other spells. Do I think this is a problem? I do. But in the opposite direction. There should be less feat chains. Feat chains are dumb, and feats should scale more or give better benefits. Weapon focus should automatically upgrade if you are a fighter. Weapon Specialization, shield specialization, and shield focus too.

Maybe another answer is to re-impose limits on what the wizard can get like 1e had. Alternatively, there was an interesting take on gaining magic spells back in Dragon 216 called "Paths of Power" that were, in effect, feat trees for spell access. The article was by Wolfgang Buar and Steve Kurtz.

And I think some feat scaling, particularly for the weapon focus/spec and vital strike feats, would be a good idea as well. Save the feat trees for really adding new fighting-style based options. I always did like the OA martial arts system - which were basically prototypes of the 3e feats. They were effectively trees, in a way, but very flexible and most offered a new maneuver to the style that was otherwise unavailable.

1 to 50 of 4,104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.