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

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. 5,748 posts (5,753 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 580 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Grond wrote:

I hope they never change the core rules enough to warrant a 2.0 version. The choice is up to the GM and groups to decide which Paizo or 3pp products to use for campaigns. If I want to play a different rule system there are other companies with excellent rules out there. The Star Wars RPG and the Warhammer 40k RPGS from Fantasy Flight comes immediately to mind.

After watching Forgotten Realms get constantly destroyed/remade and Games Workshop destroying Warhammer last year I do not ever want to see that happening to Golarion. The only change I wish they would reveal is either how Aroden was killed or actually bring him back into the books and lore.

Changing the game rules actually doesn't require any change in the setting though. Even if their was a radical change in editions you could pretty much keep the setting as is. I would assume any rule change would still attempt to capture the fantasy setting genre vibe.

Put me in a group that is diametrically opposed to this theory. The game rules define the setting. You can make minor tweaks, but radically changing the game rules radically changes the feel of the game, and that completely changes the setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am so looking forward to the fantasy wizard learning physics in this season of GATE


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They could have made it interesting if the Reverse Flash wasn't already the Flash's enemy and instead Barry attacking him when he is stranded in time and then telling him that he killed him made him their enemy. If the Reverse Flash still idolized Barry at this point, it would have been a neat trick of how their timelines intertwine non linearly. Instead they waste the opportunity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They should toss its mechanics and just make it so that they can make diplomacy checks against animals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now RWBY is just going through Empire Strikes Back


1 person marked this as a favorite.
atheral wrote:

So I finally got caught up on RWBY last night...

** spoiler omitted **

Well, have you not listened to the season 3 opening song?

There'll be no rest,
There'll be no love,
There'll be no hero in the end,
Who will rise above.

And when it ends,
The good will crawl,
The shining light will sink in darkness,
Victory for hate incarnate,
Misery and pain for all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
The issue is not number of strips or quality of plot. It is his posting speed. Any plot that takes this long to resolve in terms of real time is a problem, and has me losing interest.

Okay, you got me curious, how long has this plot taken so far in real time? The Giant posts the individual strip discussion threads at almost exactly the same time as the comic, so I'll use those as a reference...

The first strip in book 5 was 947. The strip 947 thread was posted on March 31 2014, which is 652 days ago, a bit under two years.

Book five started with strip 673, which was posted on August 31 2009. Book five ended with strip 946, on February 18, 2014, for a total running time of 1632 days. That's almost exactly two and half times as long as book six has been running so far. The author said we are about a third of the way through book six, so at this rate book six will run a little bit longer than book five. Although, when he said we are "a third" of the way through, he probably meant in number of strips, since he plans what happens in each strip really far in advance, but doesn't plan when they get released, so estimates of how much longer it will run in real time are likely to be wrong.

Yeah, but Rich got injured and was dealing with the Kickstarter towards the end of book 5, and that added months onto end of the book as things slowed to a crawl.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your date doesn't say yes to Deadpool on V-day, do you really want them to be your date?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
Caineach wrote:
]Unfortunately, this plug and play approach you describe is terrible for new players. It requires tons of system knowledge to weed through optional rules people may or may not want and to know what is actually worth your time.
Yes, complexity is daunting, especially if veteran players fail to shepherd in new players properly or if green groups decide against starting with the beginner's set and launch directly into the dozens of supplements available. I suspect, however, much of Paizo's base support and emergent fans do not fall into either of these categories. Many of those who find greater simplicity a draw are already playing 5.0 or will eventually do so just for that reason. PFRPG's strength lies in its multiplicity of choice and complexity; the competition already provides the alternative.

I think you would be wrong.

First, what system the group decides on in my experience is based entirely on 1 person: the GM. Many beginner groups start with an experienced GM who want to run in the system he is most comfortable in, regardless of which one it is.

Second, new groups wont know enough about different systems to accurately evaluate if one is the proper complexity for them. There are multiple reasons for this. 1. All of the mainstream games look the same level of daunting to new players. They all have hundreds of pages of rules to look through. 2. They don't know what actually makes the system complex (as is shown by people arguing in this thread about what constitutes complexity), and they will have no baseline with which to judge their first system against. 3. Being new, they don't actually know what they want yet. For many people it isn't until they branch out of their first system, which they may take decades to do, that they even see things that were bothering them with it.

For this reason, I think you need to do major system overhauls every once in a while to keep the core uncluttered enough for new players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to wonder how much of the dialog is just for the previews. I mean, its not like Deadpool wouldn't narrate his own previews.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Errant Mercenary wrote:

While we're at it, I would like to point out how a rules light-option light setting might differ and what I would look into a rules-light one.

When a player asks me if he can jump over the ledge, grab onto it, scurry to it's side, drop down to the balcony there behind the sniper aiming at a team member and trip him/disable him/point a gun pointblank a say "move and your brains'll do some out-door decor" I dont want to ask "did you take the Ledge Jumper Feat for the extra 7.3 feet, the Good Grip trait from Numerian Cat People Adventures, and the If I Shoot Point Blank It Actually Matters feat chain?". Sure, I can bend rules and omit some others, but then we're in 100% house rule territory, and we're talking about rule systems so everything can be standardised and therefore universally easy to assume things.

To summarise:

Question/Player - I would like to do this and that.

Answer - Roll X with Y modifiers and apply you Z to it. When XYZ are any number of dice, any fixed attribute, any spendable resource.

Yes it is simple, but with enough options that dont come down to "when they moon is half full apply +2 circumstance bonus if you're talking to butterfly people, round down, and if your bab is 14-28*2 then it is doubled but for rounds/level".

I admit that I dont know many systems apart from PF (Shadowrun, D&D), so I am open to suggestions! I heard the Starwars system is quite easy and with enough depth, albeit quite story-telling driven.

I keep seeing this problem coming up but in the context of Pathfinder I've never really had this problem so it's hard for me to relate.

Besides that, I was under the impression that rules-lite meant that the engine was different as opposed to the amount of codified options. having a lot of options does kind of inherently create the Magic: the Gathering rules problem. (What I mean by that is that Magic: the Gathering is pretty easy to learn and there aren't that many rules. However with so many cards that thrive...

I see this problem with new players all the time. Old players are jaded and know that the rules don't support their ideas so they don't try anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love ginger(s). In college I would put 1 inch of fresh ginger through a garlic press into a cup of boiling water. Was delicious. Did the same thing with Ramen to make it palatable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hibiscus ginger sounds good, depending on the strength and style of the ginger. A lighter flavor more like candied ginger I can see being very tasty, while if it goes too sharp I don't think it would really work.

That being said, I don't really care for hibiscus in my tea. It oversteaps before the other flavors have finished and drastically overpowers the other flavors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Yes, if you allowed ONLY Variant Multiclassing, you would get rid of a LOT of options people have now. To some extent, this is also true of prestige classes.

Edit: Also, as of now, the VMC options are of REALLY uneven quality, such as VMC Fighter, VMC Magus, and VMC Wizard being pretty good for a decent fraction of builds (but VMC Magus has a big trap in the midde of it for non-spellcaster buids), and VMC Gunslinger, VMC Monk, and VMC Witch being just BAD (and various others in between).

For prestige classes, I think that one problem (inherited from D&D 3.x) is that for the most part, they don't actually have any PRESTIGE in them -- they are just advanced classes that you can't start in at 1st level. By the way, nothing is wrong with the concept of advanced classes that you can't start in at first level, but these should be a separate category, labeled as such (I have actually been toying with ideas of making what are now considered base class ito advanced classes of this type but with low entry requirements, and getting rid of the rule that creatures of <2 HD have no racial HD -- instead, EVERYBODY has at least 1 HD, but for civilized creatures racial HD correspond to traditionally NPC classes, which get rebuilt into background classes . . . But I diguress). Anyway, actual prestige classes should be things for which you have to pass some kind of entry exam/membership initiation/rite of passage. Hellknights (both types) are an excellent Pathfinder examples, although these pretige classes (especially Signifer) need updates for use with more modern material. The Prestige Paladin of D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and Kirthfinder is an example of something that is actually a base class now that SHOULD be a prestige class (as with Hellknights, what religion in their right mind would trust some random worshipper or even priest with their Smiting power, among other things, when they haven't yet proven their loyalty or steadfastness? Same thing for Inquisitor, by the way, although I love the Inquisitor...

Prestige classes with organizational requirements were a terrible idea. They force fluff into mechanics for no reason. They break the moment you try to play in a different sandbox and they almost never have abilities that make sense being restricted.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On a different note, I finished the first season of Durarara!! It was awesome. Probably one of my favorite series now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The episode was cool but had bad pacing. Too much exposition in the first half, second half was all action until the twist. The action was awesome though.

Spoiler:
Too bad it is unclear if he let her win


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I need to watch the newest episode. check


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to point out that we already had this exact discussion about 600 posts ago. CBDunkerson already disproved this claim that AGW is only used by politicians by pointing to google search terms and Scott Betts posted a link of published science journals that use Global Warming.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2se0s&page=9?Conspiracy-theories-surroundin g-human#438


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
This has caused some weird things. For example, if I see AGW or Global Warming...I instantly know it's not really a scientific debate (though it still doesn't prevent people from indirectly insulting the science or scientist, which this thread shows)...it's a political one. If scientists use the terms of AGW or Global Warming (and they still do) it is NOT used as a broad term, but in a specifically and pointed manner to a specific and defined item. There are other terms used in science these days for broad application to the field as a whole, or to specific broad theories. When they refer to it in a broad manner, that is the clue that it's basically going into the political arena instead of a scientific one.

Scientific papers have been linked in this thread to disprove this claim already. For once, could you stop talking in generalities with no evidence to back them up?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Hama wrote:
We haven't. Phil has.
I was pointing out that it's bad writing to have the character be so invested in a romance that is underdeveloped and that the audience didn't really connect with yet. I mean it was a blink of the eye since we were finely convinced Rosalind wasn't evil, and now suddenly her death is the most shocking event in the life of Phil Coulson, director of post-Hydra Shield? Nope.

Personally, I connected with her more than most of the other characters this season. I think she was better developed than May was through the whole first season. Fitz was the only other character I liked more this season.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
The libertarian position would not be that sewage should be untreated. The libertarian position would be that you did not actually need a government program to treat sewage. Sewage treatment could be handled better, faster, safer, cheaper, and more effectively by private industry than by the government.

No disagreement, as far as you've gone. But pray continue, because it's when they go the step further and say, "and no government is needed to oversee and/or regulate that treatment" that they lose me, because that's arguable the one legitimate function of government.

If you say "private is cheaper, safer, and more efficient," I'm on board. If you say, "and they'll do it because (reasons) even though no one has the actual authority to make them," I'll point to the near-ubiquity times they didn't, when given an out like that.

Hell, the fact that tons of companies now duck any and all regulations placed on them whenever they can, no matter how important those regulations may be, tells me that without governmental oversight, there would be 0 protections for anyone else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

X-men for me was the 90s tv show.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have the mutant sensor and Caitlin didn't make it ping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are already enough complaints about Arrow being too Batman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

This Craced article explains so much so well

I have several female friends who were abused. They watched the show and find it amazing in it's accurate portrayal of things.

JJ is a very mature show. It's not for everyone. But it should be. Everyone should watch it. Every. One.

Thank you


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Baccano! is another show I have heard good things about but haven't seen. Never heard of We bare bears.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
He's too much of a whiny b%@++ to be Pikachu.

I don't know. Pikachu is an entitled a*+~#!%. Take that away and I bet he would be a whiny b@~*$ too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Started watching Durarara!! last night. I got through the first few episodes and really liked it. Not sure what is going on at all, but I like the switching between different characters with no noticeable antagonistic plot they are all teaming up to solve (yet).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Felicity is the one who actually dies it will ruin the more lighthearted direction they started taking the show this season.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tumbler wrote:

If you put Doomsday in the movie, and he doesn't kill Superman, what is the point of putting Doomsday in the movie.

And if he does kill Superman, do we care enough about this Superman to care that he died.

What is the point of Doomsday anyway?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As to the ending, I think the only thing that could have made it cooler is if at the end Foggy was the person on the other line looking for a detective.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to leave this here


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Lex is the only thing in the previews I like.
I'm still wary about the whole project, but I admit I'm more than a little excited about Wonder Woman, especially since we haven't heard her say anything yet. Hopefully her small(?) role won't just be as an eye candyish prop/exposition delivery or some Diana Ex Machina. {fingers and toes crossed}

I fully expect your hopes and dreams to be crushed at this point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Ragadolf wrote:
Spiral_Ninja wrote:

I remembered seeing something about a speed formula and I found an entry on the Reverse-Flash wiki page.

The Jay Garrik Flash had a villain called the Rival; a fellow professor who developed a formula he called Velocity-9 that gave him temporary speed powers.

Did anyone else notice last night?

They kept calling the formula 'Velocity -6'

But I could swear that when the camera lingered on the table, the beaker of formula was labeled 'Velocity 9'.

Or was I seeing things again?
(I always miss the episode, and have to watch it later at night on DVR, so I may have been tired & bleary eyed.) :)

I didn't. I was too busy sitting there thinking "Why do you have a beaker of an experimental chemical sitting open on a tabletop?! It could get contaminated! Put a lid on that thing!"

Time to roll out my mantra again:

comicbookphysicscomicbookphysicscomicbookphysics

OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Yeah. He should know by now that random contamination is how all comic book breakthroughs happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

Jessica Jones was adapted because...it's main storyline was considered a critical success. and the only thing they cut from the storyline for the current rating was the use of F-bombs. If your trying to create 13 episodes of TV which require mature plots + super heroics, Jessica Jones is a pretty good choice.

And the Netflix series...were always intended to be the dark and mature side of Marvel. I mean have people already forgotten some of the stuff in Daredevil? Sex slavery? Decapitation by car door? Death by bowling ball? Jessica Jones may have been more personal, but I don't think rating wise it was any worse than Daredevil.

Depends if your talking to a US audience or international one. The US is ridiculously lax with violence and cracks down on any sex themes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My reasons why mutants don't fit into the MCU:

Major characters are historically linked to specific times (Magneto). This causes a timetable for when events have to take place. Those events haven't taken place. They need to either break their existing continuity or make major changes to characters people wont be happy with.

Many of the mutant plots mirror the civil rights movement. Central themes revolve around discrimination and the public being aware of them and not knowing what to do about them. You could introduce them now and start those themes, but then you would have the origins of the X-Men just starting now, instead of them being an established entity. The whole reason Xavier's School for the Gifted exists and has students doesn't work if no one knows that mutants exist enough to discriminate against them.

Inhumans serve the same function as mutants, especially if you are making mutants just a different break out group with superpowers.

They make the universe more fantastic. Right now, aside from some crazy scientists, everything in the MCU is close to normal. Sure, they plan on introducing some mystical stuff soon, but literally everything else is caused by science or aliens. The existence of mutants change the lives of everyday people in ways that what has been shown fails to.

Mutants up the average power scale. Right now, you have a handful of tier 1 heroes (Thor, Hulk), a few tier 2 characters (Iron Man, Daisy), and a bunch of tier 3 and lower characters. The X-Men have dozens of tier 1 and 2 characters, changing the power dynamic of the world drastically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to the broken social rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lex is the only thing in the previews I like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This movie looks terrible. Its like with each preview they want to make we want to watch it less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really hope Ward doesn't last more than 1 or 2 more episodes. I am really done with both him and Hydra.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

It's worth noting that some people do grow up in, and fiercely maintain loyalty to, a subculture in which the purpose of communication is to reinforce social status, and never, ever to transmit information. More often, and in-group will obscure communication to outsiders (like the 1337 example above, apparently). Still other people are just too sloppy or too lazy to communicate clearly. And sometimes those groups and reasons overlap. You can't just assume the reason is always one or the other.

  • We've all probably experienced the guessing game where someone asks you what you want to eat, and you make a suggestion that they veto, and another, and another, and another, and this goes on until you correctly guess the one they're thinking, or you both starve. In this case, I think it's considered "impolite" to come right out and make a request; it's much more "gracious" to beat around the bush with silly games first. Or maybe they're too lazy to mentally run down a list of options, and just want you to do it for them. Or maybe you promised to take them to the new Indian place last week, and they're trying to remind you without outright calling you out on it.

  • I know someone who will say "Go get the bag!" In her universe, a "bag" can be a backpack, a purse, a satchel, a paper lunch sack, the baby's diaper bag, a laptop carrying case, etc. -- and she will never use a specific term when a more vague general one exists. There are obviously much more efficient ways to get the correct bag, such as specifying which one, or getting it yourself. So is the purpose not to get the bag, but to reinforce that the person getting it is socially inferior to the person demanding it? (I think the fetcher is supposed to apologize to the speaker if they fail to read that person's mind, and thereby inadvertently grab the backpack instead of the satchel.) Then again, maybe that's all wrong. Maybe they're just too lazy to get the bag, and too lazy to specify. Or maybe some other reason.

  • Some people point at something...
  • And yet despite this, meaning was conveyed accurately to most of the readers, and the only people complaining seem to be doing it out of pedantry


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Trigger Loaded wrote:

    So 1337-speak is modern day thieves' cant?

    Fascinating...

    accurate


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Caineach wrote:
    It's designed around being intentionally obtuse so that only people in the subculture can easily parse it.
    Kind of like "check your privilege!", then?

    Close to the opposite actually. "Check your privilege" originated in academic circles as a way of facilitating discussions by getting people to look at what bias they bring to the conversation. As those sociology majors left academia they brought their language with them and it confuses others, but it was designed with strict definitions to facilitate conversations in controlled environments.

    1337 is designed as a barrier to entry to intentionally alienate people not already part of the group so that they could exclude. Asside from a handful of simple changes, it is mostly intentionally undefined.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I prefer the idea I had a that there was a superman clone.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Well, doggie dog world is them mishearing a phrase but understanding the meaning through context. Unlike other words where you will see it in writing to correct your understanding, it never gets corrected.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Sissyl wrote:

    What that article says is, as far as I can read it from the abstract (it's behind a 10$ pay wall):

    There are structures and measurements that are more common in mens' brains. There are structures and measurements that are more common in womens' brains. Some structures and measurements are not more common in either sex. When measuring these, they have found that very few brains have ONLY traits common in males, or ONLY traits common in females. Thus (and this is where they lose me), there are no differences between men and women regarding the structure of their brains...?

    Sure, if what they wanted to disprove was that every male brain has only male traits, and every female brain only female traits, sure. It... is far from a surprising find, though, and equally far from useful.

    If there are traits and measurements that are more common in male brains, and similarly for female brains, that is already saying that there are sexual differences between male and female brains. And yes, if you take a random male MRI, you will find, on average, more male traits than female traits, but most will have some female traits. Which is what has been claimed all along by those who accept sexual differences in people's brains. I have never heard anyone try to claim that "male brains have only male traits, female brains only female". The entire study, unless the full text holds some formidable surprises, is a straw man. It is on the level of "here is a whole research team that has spent thousands of hours and uncounted dollars on finding something useless".

    After reading the full article, this is pretty accurate.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rynjin wrote:

    There are chances to comment on how different things are. Like how the red light district is now a whole town.

    The dialogue wheel is just so asininely vague they're easy to miss.

    God I wish this game wasn't designed to be console compatible. So many bad design decisions can be attributed to it.

    1 to 50 of 580 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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