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

Bruunwald's page

2,171 posts (2,278 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I had been under the impression that "grognard" was a dismissive and somewhat ageist term, and thus I try not to use it. Am I mistaken?

Yes you are mistaken, it is a badge of honor.

Hm.

Sure doesn't seem that way when used by folks who don't self-identify as such. But I'm glad to see this thread is going in a more positive direction than I first feared when I saw the thread title.

Carry on, then.

:)

Seems to me that the term used to be hung on any older player too inflexible and bitter to adapt to changes to systems (or certain new systems or game types) without at least constant complaining, if not outright rejection of same. The sort of secondary definition was somebody old enough to have been playing when many of the games and gaming conventions we take for granted, were first introduced.

Whether a person fits the first definition is largely objective. You can see them acting that way. (That is not to make any judgment on whether they are right or wrong in their opinions).

Whether a person fits the second definition is relative to their age and length of experience in the gaming community. I, for instance, already fit the second definition back when I first heard the term, because I was already a mini-painting, map-making freak before 1st Edition AD&D hit its greatest heights.

And by that definition I began to humorously refer to myself as a grognard some time back. But I have never identified with the original definition. I don't as a rule automatically like or dislike any new development out of some weird devotion to the good old days (even though I have very fond memories of those days). I tend to approach new things without the baggage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What? No Gene Simmons jokes?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The third movie's action really bored me. It just sort of dragged. Good action requires stakes.

Agreed. Much if the emotional impact had been lost by then and with it, the sense that anything important was much at stake.

I would add that for some if us the butchering of the thing up until that point made the action even more exasperating and tedious. Like finding a beloved pet had been run over and then trying to salvage the situation by "enjoying" watching the corpse being dragged around by a car


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cauthon1987 wrote:
I am super excited for this Bestiary more than any before it for one simple reason. One word even. KRAMPUS! I cant wait to see what Paizo comes up with for stats of this legendary creature. I hope they do some other holiday creatures. Samhain maybe. Also interested in a lovcraftian player race. March cant come fast enough.

Samhain? That's a festival, not a creature.


It's not FAQ worthy. The penalties are clearly different and both apply.


RE "Railroading," "Freeway."

Well, I would like "route" and "destination" to be clearly defined.

If we're using the terms in the abstract to mean "means of discovery" and "unavoidable conclusion" then, yes, that's railroading.

If we truly mean "road" and "location of castle at the end of the road, etc." then, no, this in and of itself is not true railroading. There can be a single physical path that characters must follow to a specific important destination within a world, and still have the freedom to make important, world-altering and personal decisions within that context.

You can frame an adventure in such a way as to create a boundary that increases challenge and actually provide MORE freedom of personal choice within those boundaries. It depends on the sort of world you're building.

But there are also worlds that MUST be built with these sorts of boundaries, or they cannot accomplish their goals. Real horror, for instance, demands some measure of what most call "railroading." Inevitability is part and parcel to the genre.

I think "railroading" is too broadly applied a term in most quarters. Most players and GMs are casual enough that they don't have the depth of experience with multiple playing styles, that they really can honestly apply the term or understand it in any context other than the negative. So the knee-jerk reaction prevails, and it is applied to situations that, if you look closely enough, are more complex than that, and it is avoided at all costs, rather than treated like the useful tool it can be (when applied rarely and judiciously).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Delightful wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.

Given that Trump was able to win this election, I don't think he does.

A bunch of paranoid nutjobs agreeing with their lead paranoid nutjob cannot vindicate a lie.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
The Norv wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
I'm suggesting that a Secretary of State who has sold/peddled influence to numerous foreign entities and governments for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which the FBI is currently investigating (unlike the emails) is deserving of incarceration if her guilt can be proven, which I believe it will be.

She has been investigated. Again and again and again and again and again. And NOTHING has been found.

So yes, you're free to believe that, and there are MANY problems with HRC, but I cannot understand this line of thinking.

Those investigations were inadequate, and continually hampered by Clinton and her cronies who didn't play ball, and an Obama DOJ who didn't even attempt to seriously investigate her. If Trump wants to go after her, the evidence will be found. Hell, 20% of US uranium is now going to Russia, and investors donated millions to the Clinton foundation. That example alone (out of many) ought to do it.

Again, the "information" you flush into our world through your toilet portal is less actual and more a confection of your lower bowel.

You need to PROVE your wild accusations. With a better source than some paranoid right wing blog.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
The USA is done with the corrupt Clintons, who have no solution for 20 trillion in debt and how to pay for this failed socialist utopian dream.

Deficits go down under Democratic presidents and go up under republicans.

Tax breaks cost money

Wars cost money, and only make money for defense contractors and oil companies, not tax payers.

THIS is what's frustrating to me: a complete lack of a reality based throught process.

Thank you.


Fergie wrote:
Looks like the market lost 4% of it's value in the last couple hours...

Yes, hilarious headline on CNN right now: "Global markets tank, currencies go wild and gold rises".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
The USA is done with the corrupt Clintons, who have no solution for 20 trillion in debt and how to pay for this failed socialist utopian dream.

What planet are you flushing this paranoid delusion from?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Crisischild wrote:

I voted for Harambe, but why is everyone here acting like misanthrope Clinton would be better than crazy Trump? They're both terrible people who are terrible for the US and terrible for the world.

I know this site is hyper left wing (by US standards) but seriously. Pretending she's any better than Trump is willful ignorance and denial, which is exactly what got us in to this situation in the first place.

The painful truth is we US citizens really hecked up this time, even more than usual.

I do have to say I didn't think the US would ever see another republican president. The US right just doesn't hold the same values that the rest of the western world does, and the millenials and 90s kids certainly aren't voting right. I'm totally floored right now. But Brexit happened and they killed Harambe. I guess anything is possible.

Also, stop being so dramatic. This is not the end of the world. Maybe in four years we'll have learned something and our prime candidates won't be members of the oligarchy.

One of the hardest things to tolerate throughout this crapstorm has been the lame equivalency argument. Hillary Clinton is nowhere near as bad a candidate or even human being that Trump is, and is supremely more qualified, resume-wise, to hold office.

This whole equivalency thing is just a short cut to thinking. Makes people feel better about not actually giving a crap enough to pick up a newspaper and actually read it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There's been a lot of talk about the Republicans being in implosion.

But we seriously looking at the Republicans holding the majority in Congress, the Presidency, and all but extinct in state and local offices.

You have to remember these things are cyclical and they boomerang, ultimately driving trends farther and farther afield over time.

The Republicans are imploding. They are aging and their mindset is outdated on the world stage. Their general policy is to accomplish very little and to be destructive when they do act. Their status quo (rich getting richer and power concentrating with the wealthy) is not something society can tolerate forever.

However, political trends boomerang. We tend to see a conservative backlash every eight or so years, as voters whip themselves into a frenzy and conservative elements take advantage of the unrest. Each time, they come back worse than ever; more repugnant, less honest, more determined to maintain the status quo.

But, eventually the anal clench relents, the country realizes that things always suck under a Republican president, and the vote swings back to the middle, and during this time, progressives move the "middle" just a bit more left and more progressive ideas become the norm.

I think we will continue to see this boomerang trend for decades, but over time the country will align itself in a more and more progressive way until we are more on par with the rest of the world. We might not see it in our lifetimes, but it will happen; the Republican party will one day be forces to either make a paradigm shift to keep up with the advancements of a more enlightened world, or it will have to die.

If our country cannot make that happen, then frankly it doesn't deserve to survive.


There are RPG topics that bother me, when brought up again and again, but not many RPG terms actually really annoy me.

There are terms from other tabletop formats (wargames) and related (hobby) that rankle me to no end.

Like "batrep" instead of battle report, or "make it pop" when describing a painting technique that causes a mini to stand out. One makes the speaker sound like a pretentious clown and the other just sounds perverted.

One new term that has sprung up in recent YouTube videos, is "cav" in place of cavalry. One guy must have said it fifteen times every two minutes all through a twenty minute video. My comment to that video represents the sole time I have ever threatened somebody physically on the Internet, if they didn't shut up (comically, of course).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what thread I'd like to see resurrected? The one where the werewolf dragon born monk/sorcerer/barbarian (or whatever he was) was complaining about his companions falling into the 10 ft. deep pit he dug all the way round their 20 ft. wide camp every night before tucking in, because they lacked the Dexterity to leap over it when awakened by the GM's nightly raids.

Gold.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the next time one of them has the back of your favorite head up against a wall, and you've just told them Jack Burton has their check in the mail, just look 'em in the eye and remind them:

"Concern for life is not weakness. Contempt for life is not strength."

It won't change anything. But it might confuse them for awhile, and that's good for a laugh or two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's another version of the same question: doesn't everybody replace core with splat?

No.
And no.

Most people I know don't know what a slayer is and don't care.


Ravingdork wrote:
kamenhero25 wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's pre-written unless for some reason you have to run it exactly as written.

I pride myself in running modules as written, unlike other GMs who change so much at times that people begin to wonder why they invested in the module in the first place.

The only reason I'm even here is because the module clearly stated that she takes steps to counter the PCs' specific abilities.

It's respectable enough, I suppose, that you have a personal code you like to stick to.

But it sounds to me, from everything you've said, like the PCs are too overpowered for the module in question.

You can't run an adventure for level 10 - 12 characters taking equivalent level 15 characters and expect a challenge. You have to make adjustments.


It is a story hook thing, not a game mechanic.

Ever see "Stir Of Echoes?" The horror movie with Kevin Bacon? The "voices" are sometimes whispers, but more often visions which give the recipient clues, which he follows to unravel the mystery of what happened to the deceased.

There are many movies and books that use this form of storytelling. But the point is, you can find a class that can "hear spirits" technically, but it's probably not going to give you any mechanic that effectively describes or plays out what is actually happening to your character in a meaningful way.

That's up to you and the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Probably all of this could have been bypassed with an acknowledgment that, for most of us, it is a given that the PCs are exceptional, and because of that, and in line with standard fantasy tropes/mythological tales/fairy tales/legends, their colleagues, opponents, foes, rivals, and mentors and special tools are equally rare, especially magical tools and spellcasters.

The exception would be higher magic campaigns, which can range widely.

That isn't to say that I don't enjoy reading through post after post of increasingly angry pedantry, bordering on a flamewar. Because I do, in a sad, sick way. But it is a long way around to go, to point out something that has been an instinctive go-to default for most GMs' campaigns for more than forty years.


Anytime somebody is repeatedly asked to explain his situation specifically so the forumites can help, and consistently ignores the request, and then finally just decides he is right, I know he is basically wrong.

About everything.


Malwing wrote:
CaptPostMod wrote:
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.
I doubt it. Spelljammer is less technological than what's been described so far. The descriptions seem to suggest at the most a 60%/40% tech/magic ratio. Also Absolam Station looks more like a techno-crystal sky palace than the old-timey and animal-based design in Spelljammer. I would say it would be at least closer to He-Man/Thundercats than Spelljammer.

No. It sounds like Spelljammer.

No doubt.


CaptPostMod wrote:
I assume it'll be most like Spelljammer.

From the write up from Paizo themselves, this is exactly what it sounds like.

It certainly does not read like a generic, modern SciFi game.

Personally, I would have preferred a modern ruleset, closer to d20 Modern Future.

You can make a Spelljammer thing out of existing materials with just a little work. You don't need a whole new division/edition to make that happen.

Oh well. I'm already hip deep in my own Pathfinder Modern mod, anyway, so I guess I'll just get back to it.


You know, there's actually a flat earther who posts to YouTube, who, if I understood his bizarre ramblings correctly, believes that it is dark at night because the sun moves so far away it cannot be seen and cannot sufficiently illuminate the Earth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess my players are an exception. They don't seem to have any problem using it in combat; either finding opportunities, or giving up their moment of glory to do it.

I used to have a player or two who you'd never catch "wasting" actions to help anyone else succeed, and while that sort of behavior might have been taken for granted when we were teenagers, it became pretty lame to see full grown men with gray in their beards still acting this way. Fortunately, the Natural Selection of our gaming group has weeded those fellows out.

I think it was partly an incident with a party paladin and a demon of some sort that convinced much of the group that Aid Another was still viable at higher levels. Those +2s might not seem like much in some situations, but when you are aiding a character who is made for combatting a particular foe, they add up quickly to a neat and tidy combat with much fewer resources wasted amongst the entire group.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What stuns me are the people claiming it's "getting worse." Since the core is the same as it's been since Day One, I can only imagine these poor unfortunate souls live amongst oppressive, fascist-like dictatorial Game Store owners, or a fleet of Satanic GMs who force them to play with every new splat book that comes out, and that they cannot decline to play the game at all because a Paizo-paid assassin has fitted their beloved pets with explosive collars programmed to detonate if they don't sign in electronically at their weekly game.

How can a thing that is the same get worse due to expansions if you are not required to use the expansions? OH... IT CAN'T.

For my part, I love Pathfinder for the same reason I loved 3.5: monster building. I love making monsters, and I love a system that defines them clearly so that they can be made to be balanced. I'd played D&D since 1981, and I saw no reason to give up what felt to me to be a system that had finally arrived at a place where I could fairly create the menaces I had long dreamed of building. I don't deny that the system overall can be cumbersome. But being old school, I don't let it drag down the flow of the game. If things need to move, then I just move them along, and the rules can be bent to do so... nothing different from how we always played.

The only systems I've ever played, where monster creation felt more Game Master-friendly, were the ones I, myself, created.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to make sure I understand the consensus. At least as it seems to stand.

That is that the only people who DON'T know how to design something for Pathfinder, are Paizo themselves, because they've never even glanced at all the work they've done for it.

Did I get that right?

Seems like that's all I've really taken away from this discussion.


Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock.


kevin_video wrote:

So I've read a few things that I'm getting a bit confused on. Namely, how CR works when it comes to multiclassing NPCs with NPC classes and regular base classes.

What I know:
A warrior 4 is CR 2 and has the basic stat array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 1650 gold.
A fighter 4 is CR 3 and has the heroic stat array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, and 2400 gold.
A fighter 4 with PC wealth is CR 4.
A fighter 4 with PC wealth and 20-25 point buy stats is CR 5.

So, this where it breaks down to what I don't understand.
What's a warrior 4 with heroic stats? +1 CR? Is that even allowed? Or are you better off just adding the Simple Advanced Template for a proper +1 CR?

Break the two examples down into their attendant ability score bonuses:

A warrior 4 is CR 2 and has the basic stat array/bonuses of 13 (+1), 12 (+1), 11 (+0), 10 (+0), 9 (-1), 8 (-1).
A fighter 4 is CR 3 and has the heroic stat array/bonuses of 15 (+2), 14 (+2), 13 (+1), 12 (+1), 10 (+0), 8 (-1).

Those bonuses, depending on where they go, represent a better chance to hit, to deal more damage, to avoid being hit, more hit points, etc. If this were a spellcasting class, they would mean more spells, higher DCs, etc. This can merit a +1 CR depending on how they are applied. This is less like making a character and more nuanced, like making a monster. But it can be done. My recommendation is to become as accustomed to the monster creation rules as possible. The more you do so, the less these odd situations will perplex you. They're more art than science.

The rules are written as they are for ease of use of novice GMs. That's why they're so cut-and dry, and why they encourage coloring within the lines. But there's no reason you shouldn't be able to - carefully - draw up some lines of your own.


Milo v3 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Also, if you are playing Pathfinder or high fantasy in general, then everything Pathfinder fits the theme. All fantasy concepts are equally fictional.
So... your saying that if we're running a stone age campaign, that the technology guide still fits the theme? That's ludicrous.

Until your cavemen accidentally stumble upon the Barrier Peaks.

>:D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

125. Because there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.


Huh... I don't collect many modern day pregen adventures and I never play them. I write all my own campaigns. So I never noticed this.

I guess I assumed every GM eventually used a Master-Blaster villain concept (small smart guy, giant dumb guy) as that is a common trope in film and books. Or, that more people remembered Qesnef/Fenseq from White Plume Mountain (though he was actually not really... well, I'll not spoil it). Or that more people used the archetypal tiny mad scientist (another villain trope).

I have, and do.


MrConradTheDuck wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I like it because it's fun and interesting (and because it's from a bygone era which I quite enjoyed and want to hold onto as long as I can). Different strokes and all that - I dont find "character power" to be a significant part of whether I enjoy a game or a specific PC - so ending up as a superhero or a sidekick doesnt really bother me (most of the time, of course, you'll end up a little bit better than average).

I agree it should be part of a game's 'advertising spiel' - it's a very different thing.

I suppose, really just want to know the appeal. I see no point in playing if I'm literally worth less then the goblin we fought two levels ago.

Worthless is as worthless does. My motto, since 1981, has been, "roll me up a little girl with a butter knife and I'll slay you a dragon with her."

I think the difference is whether you are playing the game or letting the game play you.

I call it a challenge, but I understand challenge to be a difficult concept for some people nowadays.


Alynthar42 wrote:
I simply disagree with the game designers. As for the undead being evil, that's impossible, based on the principle that they're mindless. It's impossible to have an alignment if you don't think.

Yeah... Okay.

I think you probably understand that evil in the game is generally a force acting upon the world. Thus, artifacts, items, undead, and other mindless things can be evil, without regard to INTENT, which is usually the qualifier of evil for real human beings.

Acting cute and pretending you don't know that won't help you win your case, since it's been a given in the game since about... oh, say... 1974. Specific alignments of creatures may have changed over the years, but evil has always been a... thing on some level... not just a decision. But a force.

Now, if you don't WANT to play that way, that's fine. You're going to find yourself doing a lot of rewriting and revisioning. You might want to prepare a fully-edited PDF for your fellow players to study, since treating Evil as a non-force in the game world will affect a lot of rules. But it can be done. With work. With lots and lots of work.

But that's you choice, and you needn't dabble in trolling to make it. Just do it.

As to the question itself, if I choose to take it seriously, I think a lot of fun could be had playing a non-evil character dabbling in evil things and finding himself corrupted by it. It's an old trope, but a good one. I prefer to keep necromancy evil for my own games because then I don't have to do all that revisioning. And it's gross. And it's unnatural. But mostly, because when you create undead you are enslaving something. Whether it be a soul, spirit, body, whatever. You are enslaving helpless remains and possibly binding somebody's soul. That's pretty wicked.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I had one guy in the game who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and used it to his advantage in every situation, tried to impose rules on non-rules and story situations, argued often, stopped the game at times, was completely inflexible when it came to ad hoc rulings, killed momentum and spontaneity, and re-interpeted the rules to his advantage each time it suited him without a hint of irony.

Bad rules lawyer. (Bad! Off the couch!)

I had another guy in the game who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and used it to help me clear things up when there was confusion, who helped his companions choose good spells and feats, sped up the time it took to find obscure rules, set the rules aside when really fun things were happening, liked ad hoc rulings for the spontaneity they provided, and waited until after the game to keep me honest by bringing up anything he thought might be problematic later, or might have been a questionable ruling.

Good rules lawyer. GM's helper.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

You might want to back up a second and recognize that you are essentially saying we should outlaw people being wrong.

Think about that for a second.

Nope. People can be wrong all they want...until that wrongness impacts someone else.

More to the point, who decides who is "wrong" on these matters? From an objective standpoint.

"I hate black people" is an opinion. It is a bigoted opinion, but it isn't "wrong". You can't prove to the man that he does not, in fact, hate black people.

Perhaps it is morally wrong, but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).

Clearly, nobody is wrong about whether or not they HAVE an opinion. That's just dodging the subject. Everybody has an opinion. We all know that.

But I call BS on the old, tired, lame, wrong-headed argument that keeping jerks in line makes the rest of us the bad guys. An editorial on CNN recently opined that people ought to be allowed to think and say all the stupid crap in their minds, and then they ought to have to face the consequences for doing so. And I totally agree with that.

But when you make that thought and that speech into a physical thing that affects the lives of others, you are crossing a line. You are now doing real harm in the world. And there is nothing - no phony "objectivity" shield in the world, you can hide behind, that will make that okay or mitigate your guilt. Objectivity is great for science, and it's all nice and well in an online argument. But in the end, we human beings HAVE to set standards and we HAVE to agree upon a mutually understood standard of respect and civility, or we won't last as a species.

Did everybody here take Critical Thinking 101? Yep. We all are duly impressed with each other's ability to debate objectivity and subjectivity until we're blue in the face. Hoorah - we're so damned smart.

So what?

How does that apply to actual human beings? How would you like it to be applied to YOU?

And by the way, this "Freedom of Religion" nonsense isn't new. Back in the 1960s an almost identically-named law was floated (and killed by the Supreme Court), based on the right of Christians to freely practice their religion by discriminating against, and banning black people from businesses, on the basis that the Bible advocates slavery, amongst other awfulness, and so they ought to have the right to avoid them, blah, blah, blah...

My response to this is simple: if you're not adult enough to be a part of the human race, you don't have to. Stay at home with your doors boarded up. Pout in your closet all you want. But the rest of us have every right to make the world better for ourselves. ALL of us. And we're too far along as a species to keep acting like little children.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RyanH wrote:
Ok ... starting my petition to get GenCon to come to Seattle ...

Too late! Been bombarding their Facebook page since this afternoon with bids to come to San Francisco.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This again? There really needs to be a button for voting down a post and maybe even killing a thread.

As some have noted, Charisma in the game stands-in for BOTH physical beauty and power of personality.

The Core book says so. In actual words. That are printed in English.


BaconBastard wrote:

I read the thing on death that makes the lack of healing make sense. Things were worded stupid with people telling me that I become an object when I'm dead.

Does destroying the shadow before I raise as a shadow prevent me from doing so?

Yeah, that other thread was a mess. Lots of confusion going on there, though the outcome was ultimately the same.


It is a long standing trope of Fantasy that dwarves and orcs hate each other to the core of their beings. I am assuming you are trying to avoid that tired trope.

So, without rearranging what you already have, I see no reason why evil dwarves aren't a good enough foe for good dwarves.

Dwarves are pretty religious. All you need do is come up with an evil, preferably Chaotic dwarf god, and pretty soon you have hordes of chaotic dwarves waging bloody war on, and stealing everything from, the good and law-abiding citizens of Gooddwarftown.

It's good enough for Warhammer and Kings of War, and any other number of tabletop Fantasy settings. The potential for crazy giant angry battle is endless.


Logical fallacies and twisted interpretations abound.

A familiar must be AT LEAST adjacent to you. That their abilities continue to work when they are in the same square does not redefine "adjacent." It's just common sense.

That Tiny creatures must enter your square to attack you, likewise does not redefine the word. The game abounds with special attacks, spells, features, etc., that are exceptions to the rule without redefining the rule.

That what the player wants to do is not entirely game breaking is irrelevant to whether he is using a word within its actual meaning. The GM may allow the strategy anyway, but still want to know the meaning of the term.

Adjacent in the game takes its meaning from these two Merriam-Webster definitions:

b : having a common endpoint or border <adjacent lots> <adjacent sides of a triangle>
c : immediately preceding or following

It does not count the squares touching the squares that are adjacent to your square. If you allow that, where does it end?

"Well... now I think the squares touching the squares that touch the squares around my square count as adjacent, too! Yeah. In fact, everybody in town is adjacent to me. I think I'll make one roll and try to hit them all at once."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
According to Internet memes, Cheeseburgers would come from the Catfolk homeland.

You got that backward.

That's who WANTS HAZ the cheeseburgers.

Somebody else -- we may never know what diabolical mind -- invented them to taunt the Catfolk.


Soilent wrote:


The individual who raised them was a child who everyone in the village raised (irony?) because he was abandoned.

Despite sounding similar to a Twilight Zone episode, this is still a good idea. I would have the kid in a state of denial. He knows what he has done on an instinctive level, but hasn't ever acknowledged it out loud.

This idea, on the whole, has appeared in a number of films and books over the years. In most cases, the people are physically-manifested ghosts - that is, they are physical, and can be touched and interacted-with, but there is something "off" about them. They are too quiet, sometimes space out, and sometimes manifest strange wounds that either reappear and disappear, or never disappear once they are discovered by the protagonists.

You don't need a specific creature to do this, nor rules beyond giving them a low NPC level. If the PCs hurt or kill them, the body just disappears when they aren't looking, then reappears later. See above about the wounds. You don't need a DC for Will saves, either. Describing their behavior in a moody, freaky way should be good enough (horror or macabre games are not about making the characters uncomfortable, they are about making the players uncomfortable).

In some stories, the dead people start disappearing in the order they died, acting as a clue to the protagonists as to what is really going on (provided they find the right newspaper clippings, or diary to match the clue to).

Most of the time, they need the protagonists to do something to help them find peace, but in their efforts to convince them to help, end up terrorizing them, instead. Shades of Sixth Sense there, but still a common trope.


There are a couple of characters like this in the Anime X and Betterman, and a few others.

They basically sit back at base, or somewhere off in a remote vehicle, usually connected up to some master computer or system, and psychically assist the people on scene, though mostly with tactical advice or psychic insight, and only sometimes with some sort of manifested power.

Per usual Anime guidelines, they tend to be very waifish, depressed young girls with high voices and brightly colored hair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

342. Two words: "Edition Wars."


For what it's worth, much fluff and novelization concerning the Plane of Shadow, especially as relates to the Forgotten Realms, back in the 2nd Ed and 3.x days, involved both time and distance passing differently in places that seemed otherwise similar on that and the Prime Material Plane.

I have never had trouble GMing similar phenomena. My players always seem to dig that stuff. Even if there isn't a hard and fast rule on this in any book, you should feel free to use it. After all, Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun trump all other rules.


Malag wrote:
You could technically choose to Sunder straps first and Disarm shield in second attack. It would require two successful CMB checks, but seems logical in it's own way I guess.

This. This is just how I would adjudicate it.

Slightly unusual requests call for slightly unusual processes. This one is not unreasonable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pack the space beneath the floorboards with black powder, install a bronze plaque into the floor enchanted with explosive runes. Tell them it's dedicated to their greatness and they won't believe what great things the plaque says.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

325. Manchester United lost again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He doesn't WANT the pants. He just wants to see if he can steal them.

1 to 50 of 2,171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.