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

DeathQuaker's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter, 2014 Star Voter. 5,904 posts (8,291 including aliases). 6 reviews. 5 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 aliases.


1 to 50 of 5,904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

richard develyn wrote:
Just going from the specific to the general, and at the risk of derailing this thread completely, but it is important, do you think therefore that we live in a plutocracy, and that the principal means by which we are controlled by the wealthy is through fear of litigation?

As regards to writing game materials and, well, writing anything, fear of litigation aside, I do not want to plagiarize what someone else came up with or wrote because I respect that person's right to get credit and profit from that idea. And because if I come up with a cool bit of flavor I write about, I know I would feel upset if someone took that from me. For me, the main reason I do my best to respect copyright laws is not because of fear of getting sued (although of course I don't want to be), but because even if copyright laws are are flawed (and I do believe they are), the intent of those laws is to protect artists and writers and their creations, and I respect and agree with that intent and thus agree to abide by those laws.

Writing, say, an OGL game, yes, you are using mechanics and such somebody else made, but hopefully putting your own spin on things (and of course using the OGL, which requires giving the credit and legally forgoes the profit (save indirectly)).

Yes, because, as they say, "there is nothing new under the sun," you might accidentally repeat something very similar to what's been done. You can't necessarily avoid that, but if your intent is not to steal, then hopefully you can prove that in the unlikely circumstance that you are "caught."

On another note, following along with what Dale said, the intent of OSR isn't "rules can't be copyrighted," it's "mechanics can't be copyrighted." There's a difference.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would suggest YOU, if you can, find a copy of d20 Apocalypse, a supplement for d20 Modern. This is not a book the players need to have at the table, so I think this fits your goals of not requiring the players to have more than their corebooks and house rules at the table.

It is, however, a valuable resource for GMs for setting up a post-Apocalyptic campaign. Systems for scavenging and bartering might be especially useful for you. Since it's d20 System, any system you do adapt to Pathfinder should be relatively easy to convert. But it's more just a source of ideas for you. It is a short book so if you find it it won't take you long to flip through.

Of your allowed classes, I would consider adding the slayer and brawler from the ACG to your list. They suit the world, and in a world where ammo and even melee weapons can be rare, you need a class that can excel at fistfighting (brawler), and I understand why you would not include the monk.

You need to consider rules for crafting, jury rigging, etc. Perhaps homebrew a rogue archetype specializing in working with technology.

Fortunately, the bestiary as you say is rife with creatures easily refluffed for a post apocalyptic world. I think most of your typical, generic "Fallout-esque" creatures (giant insects, mutated animals) can be found in there easily.

Good luck!

Kalshane wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

Man Under the Hood

** spoiler omitted **

who were those two warehouse nerds that shot Slade with a ray gun? and what was that ray gun??
Characters from the upcoming Flash series that were sort of clumsily inserted into the episode. ** spoiler omitted **

I would add that the dialogue pretty well explains who they are: they are people from STAR Labs, in Starling City to help close up a warehouse, and their dialogue with Felicity shows she met them when she went to visit Barry Allen, and they are thus friends of Barry Allen.

I do agree their presence was a little clunky. I liked seeing them fight with Deathstroke, actually, but their presence took up time that could have expanded some needed character development elsewhere (I felt the same about Barry Allen earlier--it was neat to see him, but I wish they had just done a separate pilot without using Arrow as a screen test for him... the plot gets complicated enough as it is).

Regarding Peter's spoilers:


Peter Stewart wrote:
I liked a lot of this episode. Roy coming back to haunt them was pretty obvious. Looks like next week it'll be worse judging by the preview.

How many times will Ollie say, "We can't think of [person] right now, we need to focus on Slade," before he realizes that Slade expects him to prioritize things that way and thus target [person] while Ollie is obsessing over the wrong person.


Isabel is sort of a weak character in my opinion, and gets weaker by the moment. I've really lost all interest in her arc.

I'm kind of looking forward to even-more-psycho Isabel once she wakes up from the Mirakuru. But I agree, she nor the story sold the "I am a woman scorned!" story very well.... even if it is very true to the comics, from what I understand.

The fight where Slade jumped them was pretty cool.

Props to Felicity for being smart enough to lay low.

Liked the evolution of Laurel in this episode.

Me too, and Quentin -- clearly, he is being willfully ignorant so he has plausible deniability.


Not sure about the reveal at the end regarding having had a chance to cure him.

The big wall-banger there is of course that if Ollie really knew about a possible cure and didn't seek it out for Roy's sake, it makes him to look waaaaay more selfish and idiotic than I think the writers intend. Or maybe the writers did intend that.

Laurel may have had her pills, but Ollie's a secret addict. Secret identity is one thing but there's so much he holds to his chest that is unnecessary. For example, I don't understand why Ollie didn't just warn Thea and Moira that he knew Slade when they all first met. He didn't have to say, "I'm the Arrow," he can just say, "I saw him on the island, and he was a bad man, look at this scar he gave me." ((I also have never understood why Sara and Sin pretended not to know each other. EVERYONE knew Sara came into town before revealing herself to her family, saying she met Sin and Sin helped her out is no big deal.))

Re the cure itself, I don't know if Deathstroke will be cured but my guess is Roy will be.

I liked Digg getting a bit of a moment in the sun.

He was awesome backup in this, really on point.


Really hoping Merlin comes back to help them against Slade.

John Barrowman and Willah Holland (Thea) have been recording randomness together on Twitter so I'm going to guess he'll be back.

Also Stephen Amell said something on Facebook or Twitter regarding the finale that said "EVERYBODY'S HERE." Which I take to mean... if they had a major role at some point in the series, they're gonna show up in the finale. The Suicide Squad, Nyssa, Merlyn, maybe even Huntress.

I anticipate the final kill shot will be delivered by Laurel's friend Joanna de la Vega. ;)

For a finessey fighty combat specialist, I think the Slayer and the Swashbuckler are going to fill that niche fine. And people who want the rogue to be a finessey fighty combat specialist, should really just aim to use those classes instead.

I agree with SiuoL -- to me the rogue is a specialist, not an all out warrior, and I dislike "fixes" that turn the rogue into a full martial character, which is NOT what I want to see the rogue be, even if others clearly do. And I agree that what would help them be what I see them as supposed to be being is things like enhancements to stealth and finding clever ways to hinder opponents. Better magic defenses (trap sense is s+~$, frankly; how often has anyone ever benefited from it?) makes sense too. I always thought Slippery Mind should be accessible lower than 10th level too, and be gained by everyone, not optionally.

It occurs to me, rogues should be really great at combat maneuvers--especially steal, dirty trick, disarm--IIRC their role is described in the core rulebook as something like finding ways to outmaneuver and hinder foes. The rogue should be the one kicking the bucket onto the opponent's head, cutting the chandelier to trap the foe within, swiping the wand from the sorcerer when he isn't looking, so the foe becomes an easier target for everyone. And yet combat maneuvers are a real weakness for the rogue: less than full BAB always hurts the ability to do combat maneuvers well, and you can't count on a rogue to have good Strength, and agile maneuvers becomes a feat tax for them. The best archetype for dirty trick, etc. is a fighter archetype (the cad). But that's really the kind of thing where a rogue should shine. Hmmm.... perhaps I feel an archetype coming on.

Also, talking of rogues with familiars (upthread), I keep picturing some monkey grinder type showman, using the monkey to distract people while the grinder picks everyone's pockets.

Thanks for all of your comments.

Cyrad wrote:
It's a really weak feat. Your average unarmed strike damage increases by 0.5 and you add +1 situational damage. If the feat was a little underpowered, that's fine, but this has a feat tax. Also, cestus already deal 1d4 damage. Even then, there's no reason for a cestus wielder to take this as the entire point of the cestus is to enable a character to do unarmed strikes without having to waste a feat on Improved Unarmed Strike.

You're right about the cestus, I managed to mis-read the damage line. So I will just remove the line about cesti. I would disagree the point of cesti is to unarmed strike without spending a feat on IUS -- I think the point of cesti is to be able to fight with cesti, a concealable piercing weapon. Someone who wants to be unarmed may be in circumstances where they do not want to draw weapons or do not have them, or wants the choice of dealing nonlethal damage, things that cesti do not do. The thought about boosting the damage dice of some fist weapons was just more about alleviating, in however a small way, many players' annoyance at the errata for brass knuckles. But maybe there's just no call for that.

The only reason for the feat requirement is I'd expect you'd need to be good at unarmed striking anyway before you got better at hurting people with unarmed strikes--and anyone who'd want this feat would probably also want Improved Unarmed Strike anyway (this is an attempt to insert something into the existing system as written, so I can't and won't assume IUS is houseruled away or made more powerful). I only consider a feat a feat tax if it isn't a feat you'd want anyway (e.g., I've seen maybe Combat Expertise used twice in 14 years, and it's only ever taken to qualify for combat maneuvers). I can drop the BAB requirement though.

I don't care that it doesn't do lots more damage, frankly -- as I noted in the point is to make things easier to play than be deadly. I think if I played with its power level--yes, all that said, it is weak--I'd rather work on other aspects -- improving the damage done during grappling (1d4 damage instead of +1?) and/or perhaps doing something like a bonus to confirm critical hits.

Mortuum wrote:
Why not have it give unarmed strikes a +1 enhancement bonus to hit, making them equivalent to a masterwork weapon? Some way around DR wouldn't hurt either.

My initial reaction to +1 to hit was no.... because you technically have unlimited unarmed strikes in the way you do not have unlimited weapons (although of course you are restricted to how many attacks you can make per round, regardless).

But then I think maybe you have a point. Unarmed strike fighters don't really have access to that easy-to-access bonus to hit low level characters have, do they? So at low levels they are always going to be inherently at a -1 to hit compared to those with masterwork weapons (something low-level adventurers get their hands on pretty quickly, in my experience). They could also be augmented by spells like magic weapon which I think is okay--which would help with DR.

So, revision:
You pack a notable punch.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike
When attacking with unarmed strikes, you gain a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks and deal 1d4 instead of 1d3 damage (if you are Large you deal 1d6 damage; if Small, 1d3). You also add +1 to damage rolls when attacking with unarmed strikes during a grapple; this damage is multiplied on a critical hit.
None of these bonuses are considered magic, but characters with the bruiser feat have honed their brawling talents in such a way that they can have their unarmed strikes enhanced as if they were weapons using spells and similar effects like magic weapon.
Special: Monks and other characters with improved damage dice for unarmed strikes use their usual damage die if they have this feat, but they gain its other benefits.

Lord Snow wrote:
Can't believe nobody mentioned Doctor Who yet. While it's not, strictly speaking, a "fantasy", the science in it is silly enough to be magic.

Because the OP said, "I want to see a fantasy series that is based strongly in the tropes of D&D and similar games and literature."

Doctor Who is many things, but it is not that.

Just thinking about something for people who, for whatever reason, find themselves wanting to use unarmed strike (or fist weapons) as part of their combat schtick, if only as backup -- but do not want to level as/dip into monk or the upcoming brawler. I find a lot of people avoid unarmed strikes entirely because it's annoying to roll 1d3, but of course people often throw punches, kicks, etc. in a variety of situations and I wanted to make it be a more attractive option for those who wanted it, while still leaving monks and brawlers their niche.

This would be nice for the unarmed fighter archetype.

You pack a notable punch.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, BAB +1
When attacking with unarmed strikes, you deal 1d4 instead of 1d3 damage (if you are Large you deal 1d6 damage, if Small, 1d3). When attacking with an unarmed strike during a grapple, you add +1 to your damage (this damage multiplies on a critical hit).
Furthermore, when you attack with brass knuckles or cesti, these weapons also deal 1d4 damage instead of 1d3 (scaling appropriately for size).
Special: Monks and brawlers or other characters with an improved damage die with use their normal damage for unarmed strike, but gain the other benefits of this feat if they take it, including dealing 1d4 damage with brass knuckles and cesti.

I don't think it's too powerful, still lets the unarmed specialist classes do their thing (and can benefit them as well). It's not meant to be optimal or for optimizers (the boost of the die I realize statistically improves damage very minimally). It's just for people who want to feel more confident about getting into a good brawl without needing certain class levels.


Thanks in advance for reading.

Mike Franke wrote:

To reply without actually replying...yes I think budget is a big concern but with a really smart team you could prioritize an FX budget effectively.

Look at a show like smallville. It lasted 9 or 10 seasons with special effects every episode. They figured out how to do a few things really well and then used a lot of creativity.

Note what I said above about Urban Fantasy though.

You can do an urban fantasy show (or a superhero show, which is urban fantasy with comic book flavor) because the only effects budget you need is largely for magic/super powers. The vast majority of sets, costumes, etc. can be bought or assembled easily from things you can buy at a store. Special costumes and makeup are reserved for a handful of characters, usually villains. You can also film a lot in-studio, and/or in nearby outdoor locations that need little modification to work (a cafe scene).

To do a classic Western Fantasy you also need special costumes and lots of special sets, stuff that is all custom made (historic costume dramas are quite costly even with no special effects involved). Everybody is in special costume. Regulars probably need several changes of costume. If you're doing a D&D or Middle Earth style world, you also want a number of PCs as elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. meaning lots of makeup, prosthetics, etc. You need lots of special props--swords, bows, polearms, etc. as well as lots of early, pre-tech versions of ordinary things, like cups, plates, books, etc. You need custom made furniture, not something the propsmaster can pick up at IKEA for $50. Outdoor scenes mean traveling farther from studio, and studio sets need to be more elaborate. Even before adding in special effects, you have a much, much larger budget to start with for all of these things.

And THEN you need to add special effects.


You could do the same thing with a "Harry Potter" style show. Really most of Harry Potter is pointing wands and saying Latin and a lot of mystery solving and interpersonal relations.

Stings to pull wands out of hands, some good old fashioned physical effects for knocking people off of their feet. Some good locations so you don't have to CGI every backdrop and then spend your budget on a few things that can be re-used or used sparingly. A location that can be re-used over and over or a magic effect like freezing someone.

A "Harry Potter" style show first, still isn't the classic fantasy the OP asked for, and can get away with things like minimizing costumes because a) modern day clothing that can be bought off the rack and b) school uniform means few costume changes. Secondly -- even if you did it on smaller scale, building something like a "Hogwarts" set would be monumentally expensive, at least if you wanted it to vaguely resemble an awesome ancient English school. And one way or another "some good locations" tend to be costly. (On Arrow, poor Laurel Lance can't move out of her apartment no matter how many villains have attacked her there because they haven't yet set aside a budget to build a new set.)

I mentioned it on a level of effect expectations because effects done on the actual movie were quite elaborate and have raised the bar for what people want to see when they want to see fantasy.

It could be done, yes, but there'd have to be set up very carefully and a lot of expectations would need to be managed carefully.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not especially powerful, but for people who want to try to play a ranged rogue....

Feat: Long Range Sniper
Prerequisites: Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Weapon Focus in any bow or crossbow, Sneak Attack class feature
Benefit: When attacking with the weapon with which you qualified for this feat, you apply sneak attack damage anywhere within your weapon's first normal range increment, as long as sneak attack damage would otherwise normally apply (e.g., creature is not immune to precision damage and is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC).
Normal: You can only sneak attack creatures with ranged weapons within 30 feet.

I think that renders one of the sniper's class abilities obsolete, along with the sniper's goggles, but still.

Disclosure: I don't buy a lot of 3PP products -- but the ones I do purchase, I am drawn to because they are either setting neutral or easily adaptable to other settings. Because I run in my own homebrew campaign and stuff designed for specific settings I have to write out the setting specific stuff.

I am indeed desperate for more setting neutral stuff that uses the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game system.

And the beauty of course of "setting neutral" is that someone who runs in an established campaign setting can adapt it to their games as easily as someone who wants to use it for their own homebrew game.

If I want a given campaign setting, I will buy from its creators--if for no other reason, only have so much money, and if I've got to prioritize between what I do buy and what I don't, what I do buy is going to be the stuff from the originals where possible. For Golarion in particular... it's a fine setting but I'm just not all that interested in it. And I'd seriously break the bank just buying Paizo campaign setting products before I could even think about picking up 3PP supplements.

Not to mention, some publishers trying to cling to a given established campaign setting read as, for lack of a better phrase, non-canonic fanfiction. Not saying JBE does that--I've frankly never bought a JBE product. Just saying that's an additional turn off as to why I'm not interested in most 3PP takes on established settings.

For me, the ability to come up with something technically neutral but still showing novel ideas or good encounter design is a much better sign for me of a good designer, and a good buy. (Also, as a would be freelancer, I'd rather not have to spend hundreds of dollars to get campaign setting books to learn a setting for which I'd have to sell a gajillion pieces to earn back the money spent to learn the setting thoroughly.)

So for me personally, the idea of a 3PP giving up on writing stuff in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting.... yay!

The idea of a 3PP designer deciding that means the Pathfinder RPG system itself isn't worth developing for? Boo.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tried posting earlier and my phone ate my post. Anyway...

A key issue is budget. Especially if you want to do something truly "D&D-esque" with lots of different races (lots of makeup, prosthetics, and CGI), monsters, and magic (lots of CGI, which gets very expensive--more than you think--and I disagree with the poster above, you need more than mere pyrotechnics to get off many proper spells and magical effects convincingly). Game of Thrones is a miniseries which can get a slightly larger budget--and they are still lower fantasy so not a lot of huge effects (that I know of, I haven't seen much of it). Note a lot of shows featuring magic are contemporary urban fantasy--e.g., Supernatural or, for an older series, Charmed, because they don't have to do costumes and special sets on top of special effects. Doing it all is costly. Herc and Xena got away with their cheesy effects because it was the 90s and the camp factor helped (even if Xena in particular did get quite dark at times).

Unfortunately, a lot of times an audience for "genre fiction" expects movie level SFX and cinematics even in TV shows. For example, there is a subset of the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D audience who is disappointed they aren't seeing Avengers-level superpowers and action every week, but you can't do that on a TV show budget (there are other audience subsets of that show that like or dislike it for other reasons, I am just touching on the one that is relevant to the discussion here).

For a fantasy show this day and age--especially an ongoing, major network show--you'd have to really manage expectations quite a lot, so people don't come in expecting Harry Potter or LOTR.

I think it'd be doable but it would be hard to convince a network to carry it.

You may also wish to look at the FAQ (link to help/FAQ in teeny letter at top right of page) and see if your question is answered.

Also, the others are right. You're the GM, if you think your players' interpretation/ use of the rules is not in the spirit/intent of the how the game is meant to be played, just say no. If he throws a hissyfit, tell him he is welcome to seek out another GM.

Attack the party with animated objects in the form of abandoned carnival prizes (teddy bear, cupie doll, fake swords, etc.). Creepy dolls are creepy.

I agree with a suggestion that there is a living (or at least non undead) dweller there... either one of the freakshow members as suggested, or someone who just came upon the scene and decided to camp out. An evil or chaotic outsider, or just someone who's gone mad (perhaps with magical powers, and their madness is fueling some of the weird events).

If the carnival is cursed/haunted, have them find some notes, diaries, etc. that gives them clues as to why. This doesn't necessarily add to the creep factor (although you can do it in creepy ways, like messages scrawled in blood on tent walls, or the image of someone mouthing a warning to you in a funhouse mirror) but puts more of a story to the scenario. It might also give them some motivation to stick around rather than just flee the place.

Stealing from an old episode of Doctor Who, "the Greatest Show in the Galaxy".... there are outsiders/shells of ancient deities/old ones, who demand whoever enters the carnival "entertain them," and prevent them from leaving until they "perform." The entertainments they enjoy most are acts that are sadistic or otherwise highlight someone's pain and anguish (one example from the episode I'm cribbing from is a performer forces his tormented lycanthropic assistant to change and then as a werewolf she tries to tear apart anyone else in the ring)---and acts that fail to be entertaining enough result in the performer's gruesome death. The party may be forced to try to perform and if they do well enough, they are given a break but asked to perform again in a few hours.

On the corporeal plane, they take the form of a lone family sitting in the big tent watching ghostly acts--replays of past performances for them--when real performers aren't there to please them. They cannot be attacked until the party finds a way into their home plane and attacks them in their true form (or finds some of other way to convince them to leave).

Hmmm.... interesting topic....

Language certainly can be an issue. Though far simpler, I've got some in-world terms like "gnomesilver" and "dwarfsteel" for mithral and adamantine respectfully (to indicate their origins in my world) but then don't really use them because the players are just more familiar with the standard words. I technically have a lot of local languages but it's just easier to assume everyone speaks "Common."

It's hard to think of stuff I absolutely wouldn't use, but things I establish in my world that I'm not sure would come up very often... even if it's practical things like... a lot of clergy are non-divinely powered preachers and ministers... but if the party really needs healing, am I only going to have them find lay ministers or get them to an NPC cleric who can do it properly--the answer may be yes or no depending on a variety of issues contributing to the situation at hand.

I'm sure there's some stuff I'm not thinking of at the moment... will consider.

OT: Kelsey's word for geology reminds me of "grunspreking" a life-psionic magic from Zilpha Keatley Snyder's "Below the Root" trilogy.

Aranna wrote:
Fair enough, no need to be glum DQ. How would you go about changing people's preconceptions?

I can't say I would be capable of such a thing, but to make a best effort, I would start by being kind to them.

Dumb as this sounds--silly, I guess, but I am just a silly stupid person--don't even pretend-touch me.

Aranna, exactly what I said was that the speaker probably did not attend offense, and the hearer was processing it in a certain way.

What you care to make of that is up to you. Far be it from me to keep you from enjoying the lulz.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

As I think about it... I think the people who feel upset by it... based on what's been said here... is they feel that they and their hobby is being disrespected.

It's not probably what the speaker intends, but they hear a phrase that in the context they are familiar with ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit" for example), the semantic connection they make is they and their hobby is accused of being something two-dimensional and childish.

It's not a logical reaction--it's the kind of immediate reaction one gets from context, before logic can be applied. It is what it is.

Just arm-chair psychoanalyzing why in this case the knee-jerk reaction is often a negative one. (And the negative reaction is reinforced when they are told they are being laughed at for having a negative reaction--shaming and humiliating someone is only going to reinforce the sense of being disrespected and encourage a non-civil, conflagrationary discussion. If one didn't care, of course, one would say nothing.)

So the more people behave respectfully when they use whatever words of choice they want to use (yeah, I know, respectful gamers, ha ha), the more likely it will probably become accepted over time.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, I first heard "tank" in 1994, when I'm pretty sure MMOs didn't exist yet. So I'm always puzzled why people say it's an MMO term.

Maybe one day "toon" will be as ubiquitous and we won't remember where it properly came from. But until then, it still greatly catches me off guard, because PCs in a tabletop game have absolutely nothing to do with cartoons, and there's a logic disconnect for me. I also agree it sounds derisive and derogatory (much like murderhobo, a term I dislike far more than toon for reasons mentioned upthread), and suggests to me a disinterest in roleplaying.

All that said I'm not gonna berate a player of mine for using the term, provided of course they are a polite, committed, valuable contributor to the game (same foranyone else). And as long as, of course, everyone understands what the player means.

Don't expect the phrase to catch on in the group, though, because it still, to my way of thinking, rather nonsensical. The way the synapses hook it up in my brain, it's not calling an automobile a car, it's more like calling an automobile a roller skate. They're vaguely related, but could not, at least generally, be mistaken for each other.

But it's not some great sin either.

I am a woman. I am bisexual.

I would say the majority of my characters are female and ranging from "average" to "very attractive" (although YMMV of course on what that really means). I do play some men, but definitely less often. I love my ugly half-orc I am playing right now (not all half orcs are ugly but she is). I miss my ugly tiefling with misshapen teeth who liked creeping people out with her looks. The character I play that I'd personally find most attractive personally is a muscular, fleshy, tall blonde skald woman, although by Hollywood standards she'd be considered awkward and too tall, with an okay face. My characters' sexualities run the gamut from a to pan, though most are probably bi; it's seldom relevant however. With few exceptions, I usually do not play a character in pursuit of a liaison or romance (and definitely not in pbp, where I am often playing with relative strangers and do not feel safe to do so).

Most of my characters are young simply as most campaigns start at low level and I usually put my adventurers at the start of hopefully a long life (and frankly, to avoid age penalties). I'd like more opportunities to play older characters too, though.

My aliases are by no means a complete list of the types of characters I play but they're a fairly representative cross section, should anyone want to take a look.

To an extent, what kind of supers you like can be an YMMV thing. Although I've been fond of Superman (hard not to be), and of course I adore Wonder Woman (nu52 version notwithstanding), normal-to-low powered heroes--people who aren't just handed something cool but earn it--most of the comics I've always read consist of this... in order of what I've collected since teenagerhood... that would be Catwoman, Huntress, occasional and assorted Batman-family books (though I've always hated Batman himself; he's a dick), Birds of Prey (which started when Dinah Laurel Lance had lost her Canary Cry), Green Arrow/Black Canary, Secret Six, Gotham City Sirens.... I especially love grey morality characters who are often deeply struggling with the decision between "what is right and what is easy," to paraphrase Dumbledore, so Arrow is exactly right up my alley. The only DC books I used to read with regularity where powers are notably featured were Wonder Woman, sometimes JLA, and I read the Movement (which is phenomenal, but has been cancelled; last issue comes out in May). I do read more "powered" books in Marvel now (Captain and Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, but I also read Hawkeye which falls into a more typical realm.)

Obviously I think there's room for both and get enjoyment out of both but don't really ever expect one to be the other.

For Arrow in particular, I really LIKE how they've gone from a vengeance driven killer to the protag trying to climb up the salmon ladder of justice to become "something else," as it were.

I DO agree that they spend FAR too much time on the flashbacks, and they take up valuable screentime desperately needed to the develop the characters in the here and now. The brief, occasional flashback would be fine, but I think they overly dominate the show and too often waste screentime on stuff we can infer without having to get the acted-out details of it.

Unfortunately, based on the executive producers' enthusiasm for the flashbacks in interviews, I assume they are what the EPs wank off to before they go to bed at night, and they aren't going away. I just tend to treat most of the flashback scenes as time to go pee or get a sandwich, and I'll rewind if I think I missed a key plot point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More thoughts:


On the surface, the overall action and progress of events was fun to watch.

A lot of little details frustrated me. The writers are good at big picture, but the devil's in the For example:

-- When Ollie, Sara, and Roy encountered Slade, he said "I'm not going to tell you where Thea is," and then Ollie knocked out Slade and called the police, my immediate assumption was -- okay, so they've recorded Slade talking about Thea to prove he is a suspect. Otherwise, they'd have no reason to call the police.

And yet... my presuming they were smart enough to do that was faulty (I have to keep reminding myself: everyone on this show is an idiot).

- So apparently Lance just agreed to arrest a guy based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Also, I don't know why Lance couldn't just say to the Detective (who I thought was dead? Am I thinking of someone else?), "I received an anonymous tip Thea Queen was seen with Slade Wilson and we went to investigate, and brought him in for questioning." Even if he was suspected of talking to the Arrow, they'd have no more proof than... well, the Arrow had.

- And (*sigh*) Roy was right--given the vigilantes had no evidence whatsoever to provide to the police, it made no sense that they called the police and they would have been much better served to capture Wilson and keep him hostage somewhere. Now, Bjorn above is right, Deathstroke needs to be winning in the short term--he needs to be an awesomely credible threat. I just wish they threaded the pieces together less shabbily.

- Sara was around her dad constantly this episode. The cops know that Lance is associated with the Arrow and, from the Birds of Prey episode, the Arrow now has a masked female associate of roughly Sara's size and shape. If they did have any common sense (which fortunately you cannot presume in this show), they would quickly put 2 and 2 together.

- On a broader issue -- speaking of Sara, we STILL have not been told what the Lance family officially knows about Sara's return. Quentin knows everything. Dinah knows that Sara had a psycho assassin ex girlfriend because said assassin kidnapped her. Laurel, more briefly, also saw the ex-girlfriend and the end of that confrontation. But Sara is also keeping her identity secret from Laurel (and Dinah, even if she's now off screen). So... what did she tell them? I was an ex-assassin's kept companion for five years? I met the crazy lady with the bow at a truck stop in China and she gave me a ride home?

- No matter how much Oliver was distracted, and no matter how stupid Oliver generally is, I still have trouble crediting him with the level of stupidity required for him to think that there would be no problem with him making Isobel CEO pro tem. Even though she had convincingly made herself a bit kinder and gentler in their last few encounters, not only did their whole interaction start with her attempting a hostile takeover of Queen Consolidated, but also HER NAME IS ON THE F+*#ING LIST. It was shown prominently several times in Season 1. Did the creators actually forget that? Oliver is supposed to have memorized that list--he didn't suspect maybe, just maybe, one of the people involved in the Undertaking might, just might, have ulterior motives?

(OTOH, if the creators actually didn't forget that Isobel is on the List, and they're just intentionally writing Oliver with the deduction skills and memory capacity of a mentally-crippled snail, is Merlyn somehow also connected with Slade/was Slade aware of/also involved in somehow with the Undertaking?)

- Kind of curious why Slade didn't just tell Thea also that Ollie was the Arrow. Although he may be milking that in a way that Ollie is forced to tell Thea himself later.

Okay, rant done. Things I did like:

- Slade is a magnificent bastard, even if his primary motivation is still utter and complete fabricated nonsense.

- Sara's slide down the dark side in the flashbacks. I still wish there were fewer flashbacks than there are (they are my least favorite aspect of the show--I really prefer a much stronger focus on the present day, and I thought the last mostly-flashback episode "The Promise" was like watching paint dry), but at least there's some interesting character development there from time to time.

- Laurel learning the truth about Ollie -- which I think will also cement any doubt she had that Sara is the Canary (again, at least assuming any of the characters have basic levels of reasoning skills and common sense, which is clearly NOT safe to assume). Although really I kind of expected her to be less shocked than she acted. (Also, seriously, Laurel, you need to f!~@ing move already. Also, why didn't you look through the eyehole on your door like you usually do? They have blocked you to do that several times, outlining your careful nature, so you not doing that this time seemed really OOC. Also, why am I addressing a fictional character directly?) There's also a great bit of brilliance in Slade telling Laurel this, because it means Laurel has the information that might free her father (although I have a feeling Quentin has suspected who the Arrow is for a long time).

- Moira, always Moira, evil and sympathetic and lovely. Susanna Thompson is an amazing actress. Unfortunately, I'm starting to get a feeling she's going to get killed by the end of the season.

- The fight between Ollie and Isobel in the board room was really unexpected and awesome. The show really excels when it focuses on action. Isobel is also very smart and I kind of hope she survives to remain a villain on the series for awhile (especially as she now has succeeded in getting the company).

Even with the ranting above--mostly venting--I am looking forward to seeing what happens next. Overall very much liking how things go and I think the last several episodes in particular have been handling the ensemble aspect of the show much better so I look forward to that hopefully continuing.

Rumors have gone that actress Cassidy Alexa will play Harley if and when she shows up, but I'm not sure if that has been substantiated.

Tonight's episode was good. It's sad though when I'm on Roy's side as he's probably the character I am least interested in. Oliver left Thea alone, and basically ensured she would remain alone. He enabled the whole situation. Slade's plan is brilliant... he's just playing Ollie's weaknesses.

Somebody tweeted this morning "Laurel's apartment is a hellmouth." So true.

Kirth Gersen" wrote:
It never fails: every week, there's another thread in which a well-meaning DM housrules egregious penalties for various social stuff for characters with low Cha scores, even if they have high social skill bonuses. And I'm totally sympathetic to their desire to do so, because, let's face it, for anyone other than Cha-based casters and paladins, Charisma doesn't really do a whole lot. You never see a thread bemoaning all the people who use Dex as a dump stat, because no one really wants to tank their initiative and ranged attacks and AC and Reflex saves all at once. But Charisma? Why not dump Charisma, mechanically-speaking?

I guess if that's a problem in a game you play in, it could be interesting to try. I've not experienced the problem myself. The actual penalty you get to a low Cha score is penalty enough for me. A lot of games I play in Cha IS used a lot, and I think those games would be poorer for losing it -- I think of, say, the game I played where we had the high Cha, low Wis sorcerer-Eldritch Knight who was awesome in his reckless charm (no common sense, convinced everyone his foolhardiness was the right way to go). It wouldn't make sense for him to say, suddenly be as good at Perception and Sense Motive or even Will saves (though those were decent due to his classes)... so for me, personally, it could potentially wreck a lot of concepts. So yeah, I don't think I'd have a use for that. Honestly, for games where Charisma seems useless, I'd rather add to what it can do than take it away. Wisdom is already very powerful.

If you do try it, it would be interesting to see the results, certainly.

Since I see Munchkin being plugged on the store blog today... as a heads up for International Tabletop Day this Saturday, I'll have a table at Amazing Spiral in Baltimore, MD, where we will be playing Pathfinder Munchkin. Great chance to try the game if you haven't before!

On the highly unlikely probability someone reads this AND is in the area AND wants to play board games on Saturday, Amazing Spiral is in Govanstowne on York Road across the street from the Senator. Look for Spider-Man. I'll be there roughly from 11-4. Their tabletop day event is 11-8. (And since it's across the street from one of the coolest movie theaters in town, you can also catch Captain America while you're there.)

Paizo, hope you don't mind the plug.

This is great! Having spent long hours pasting braille-stickers to cards for the use of my two friends with Lieber Congenital Aumarosis, this being successful would save a lot of time and agony. We've found ways to play together even when we don't have time/materials to braillify cards, such as reading cards and such to them, but that means a lot of time we have to limit ourselves to cooperative games (not that cooperative games are bad) because they can't keep their decks secret. Having people pre-produce brailled sleeves is amazing. I've passed word of the Kickstarter onto my friends.

Very cool to see that list of publishers that support them--my one concern indeed would be making sure they don't technically violate IP with this--and I think I will be more inclined to buy games from those publishers from here on. I really hope more sign on (PAIZO I AM TALKING TO YOU -- accessible Rise of the Runelords card came would be AMAZING).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I don't think you need to level to have fun, I think it makes sense and makes for part of the story to get better at the things you do as you go along. In fact, I think it breaks verisimilitude worse if you never improve, than if you "suddenly" get better at something. The "suddenly," to me, is reflective of your practice/experience finally paying off as something "clicks" and you're finally noticeably better at it. For example, IRL, I practiced a certain bow technique on the violin for ages once, and for weeks it felt like I just wasn't improving, or only improving very slowly; then one day, I noticed my technique was much improved--if I were a character in a game, I finally gained enough XP to buy that rank in Perform (String Instrument). In game it just works the same way--albeit in an abstract matter, in that a whole bunch of things improve at once, but I'm willing to accept that for convenience's sake--it is a game, after all, and sometimes it's just easier to abstractify certain things. But I always assume that whatever it is you advance in as you level is reflective of things you are doing in character--and in fact in my games, if you, say, for example, want to learn Dwarven on your next level, I want to hear you tell me you're reading a dwarven-Common dictionary at camp or getting the party dwarf to teach you. It just needs to be a passing sentence, it doesn't have to be deeply played out. I just want the player to be able to say at all times where his or her improved abilities come from.

If you don't like the "all at once" aspect, I think somewhere around here there's a link to Sean Reynolds' house rules on a more gradual leveling system (so as you get toward the next level, first you might raise a skill, then later, your BAB goes up, etc.). At least I think that's how it worked.

Other systems use a XP point buy system to buy up abilities one at a time (like I recall in oWoD that you earned a few XP at a time, and you used those to buy individual powers and skills rather than gaining a "level" where all those things went up at once). And those systems are cool. But I think sometimes leveling is easier (it's also easier to back-check math if you think something's wrong on your character sheet).

As for running a game with no leveling or very slow leveling, if your players are on board with it, do as you please. Despite all I've said, I'd probably be interested in such a game as long as I knew the GM was good and that the character was at least a few levels in so I could have enough room to round out skills and develop a combat style, etc.

EldonG wrote:

Nice thread.

As an old hippie, I'm a nominally straight man...who is familiar with his capability to enjoy himself in most any consentual sexual encounter...and regrets how rare they are. :p

I know it may be strange...on a gaming site...but a real interest of mine a GM, how do you present...and use...sexuality in your games?

Most of my games have been PG, and rarely more than french vanilla...but with the right group I've done NC17...choose your own flavor banana split!

In terms of sexual identity, the homebrew world I live in is sort of post-post apocalyptic where a lot of heterosexism would have been done away with in their ancestral advanced society... so NPCs and PCs alike can be whatever sexuality they want without fearing being called out or made uncomfortable, ic or ooc. The god of community and family asks married same-sex couples to adopt since they cannot naturally procreate together, though that's background flavor text, I don't think it's ever come up in game. It's plausible that some tensions could come up over sexuality (a local lord wants his son to marry a woman and have a blood-heritage heir, and is disappointed his son shows no interest in women even out of familial duty, for example).

In terms of sexual content... I don't ban the idea of sexual encounters and PCs having relationships, but I prefer to "fade to black" when such situations arise. As a GM am frankly normally uncomfortable roleplaying flirtation with my players beyond a certain point--although I have in some cases and it's been fine. It's kind of case by case, and may depend upon how comfortable I am with the player and the situation. I did play a Cultist of Ecstasy (Mage: the Ascension) in college, after all (didn't we all ;) ). I am very uncomfortable with GMs I don't know well personally--and admittedly male GMs at that--to have NPCs flirt with my characters, when neither I nor my character have expressed an interest in in-game romance (it feels very predatory to me). That may well make me a prude, but that's just how I feel.

Richard at a glance, I like your stuff. If I get back to my own project, do you mind if I steal your idea of the drain feats?

Rynjin wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Second, I actually liked Laurel in this episode. Though the bit with there being not one, but multiple bottles of liquor IN A COURTHOUSE was very WTF worthy.
In a lawyer's or judge's office? I don't see why it's strange they'd have a few bottles there. Might not be smart to drink on the job, but doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and doesn't seem out of character for a judge or a lawyer (not saying all do, but doesn't strike me as odd that some would.)

In a private office, perhaps.

But in an actual courthouse, the office of a state lawyer?

You can get fired from pretty much any government position IMMEDIATELY by having alcohol in your office. Doesn't matter if you're a lawyer or work at DoT, you're out.

I know of places where they may keep some alcohol for after-office celebrations... or perhaps it had been ordered for an event held there, where it would be permissible as long as it was acquired through appropriate means (usually including rules that a security guard has to be present where the alcohol being served). But it did seem odd... especially as it seemed like there were multiple bottles sitting there (not, say, a bottle stashed in someone's drawer she happened to find, which would have made more sense).

Actually, there IS a discussion in that thread of someone using the Slayers d20 Magic system with Pathfinder classes, scan toward the end. I presume that is what you are trying to do. You might want to PM the poster about how his campaign is going.

You will have to decide if, doing what you are doing, if you will reintroduce the Concentration skill, which is crucial (a true skill tax) in the Slayers d20 Magic system, or convert it to Pathfinder's concentration mechanic. If so my conversion notes may be useful to you after all.

Alternately, however flawed it might be, the Words of Magic system in Ultimate Magic has a flavor/feel a little closer to Slayers magic. It is still very different from the Slayers d20 system, but would pose fewer challenges.

Good luck!

Good news from Maryland.

One of the delegates who really pushed for this is Heather Mizeur, who is running in the primary for governor, and she's got my vote.

Pandamonium1987 wrote:
I would suggest using a P6 system. You could eliminate spellcasters and easily reach what you want to achieve without additional efforts.

And to be clear, P6 is free, so while it would be new material, it would not cost anything.

RedRobe, obviously you can do as you like. You asked if anyone had tried it... I suspect the answer is "no," they haven't tried it because most people think it's not a very good idea. I've tried to articulate why... poorly, I suspect... and others have suggested ways to get what you want more easily.

If you just want people to back you up on your idea, go for it. I don't have to agree with you to support your desire to use whatever systems you like.

Fair points, Rynjin. My issue was that Ollie, if not the others, are usually better at thinking tactically. Last episode they established that Roy was protecting Thea. This episode, Ollie tells him to leave her, but nobody thinks to assign her a new bodyguard. Given as paranoid as they've been, it seems an unreasonable oversight.

The reason why that works the way it does though is because of a very clunky class system. Often because of it characters are largely ineffective--not "low power"--until they are higher level.

What you want would be more efficiently achieved in Pathfinder by banning classes, slowing level advancement, and adjusting crs as needed.

Alright, I could have loved or hated this one, but I'm falling on the side of love. Certainly could nitpick a good deal, but generally I like it when it's strong on action, but there was just enough character development that there was some interesting stuff.

Jessica de Gouw is still not the greatest actress in the world but she's gotten better and I really bought her performance especially at the end of the episode.


- The general set up of the episode was interesting. The police trying to trap Helena through her father. I like how smug he is--he's how I'd picture a confident mob boss. There were holes in the details of the trap--a huge one being why would they have included real civilians if they knew it was going to be a trap for a dangerous, unstable vigilante?

- Helena's focus and obsession was strong. I liked seeing how at a loss she was at the end, and the conversation between her and Oliver at the end was the first time I enjoyed seeing the two of them interact and the first time I respected how Oliver treated her.

- I liked that we really got into the grey areas of Sara's character. I wish it wasn't quite so out of nowhere... it seemed like she did a very rapid heel-face-turn when she joined Team Arrow and just bought that she was supposed to be nonlethal, and much of what we had heard from her since was that she was tired of killing (see also that whole episode with Nyssa). Then we see: okay, just as she killed the Dollmaker, she is still willing to kill to protect her. I get it and why she's like that, I just didn't quite realize she wasn't entirely putting away the Assassin Card yet.

- That said, I am disappointed that Sara and Helena really didn't talk. (I DID like that Laurel and Helena talked, and it made sense for Laurel to do that.) But Sara and Helena have a lot in common, especially as Helena's whole thing is, once you start killing, you can't stop, you just have to keep diving into the "darkness" as she puts it. Sara is trying to test that in her life in her own way. It would be interesting to see Sara either agree with Helena or disagree with her from the standpoint from someone whose kill count might be just as high.

- OTOH, we did see that Canary tried to kill Helena and Laurel talked her out of it. So how does Helena interpret Canary's actions... and what does Helena think of Laurel saving her life? She won't act grateful, of that I am certain, but I wonder whether she is thankful or resentful.

- Prediction: Now that Helena is in jail, she will be hired to take Shrapnel's place in the Suicide Squad. (Check, and mate.)

- "Baby arrows." Heh.

- "I think you should go kick her ass." *nod*

- WTF Ollie and Roy with: hey, last episode we said everybody had to be watched 24/7 and protected, and now it's push away Thea so she'll be alone? Did neither of them realize that would mean no one was looking after her and thus she was out in the open for Slade to take? Which he did? I know they did this to get Thea in Slade's area of influence, but geez guys, can we not sacrifice common sense and characterization on the altar of plot so sloppily? There is a way you could have written that where it actually made sense.

- Mind, I am really EXCITED about that plot turn and kind of hope Slade turns Thea evil. It just was gotten to in a very, very sloppy way.

- "She's at the corner of Gail St. and Simone."

- I really hope Kate Spencer was just covering her ass and lying when she said she had no idea what was happening with Donner and the Helena Trap. (If I have a band, I think I will call it the Helena Trap.) Because otherwise she is the most incompetent DA in the history of DAs. I presume she just well might have been which is why Laurel felt free to blackmail her--Laurel realized she was still going to be dismissed as expendable and Kate could keep her as a liability away from her, and Laurel took that away from her. And yes, I realize Laurel deciding to turn to blackmail seems somehow weird and inconsistent and out of nowhere, but I so loved Katie Cassidy's b*~*$ face when she delivered the lines that I'm supporting it.

- A lot of the fight choreography was pretty awesome.

Another thing I should have mentioned...

to be the equivalent of what you would find in d20 Modern.

d20 Modern isn't "low-magic" per se (although you basically can't be a spellcaster until 4th level based on its class system). d20 Modern is a catch all system for a wide variety of campaigns--a d20 Modern campaign can have absolutely zero magic, or it can be extremely high magic, with wizards, clerics, psions, and other things running around. Or no magic, but with robots and cyborgs and spaceships. And while Urban Arcana might offer some advice for high and low magic levels (I have it but I haven't read it recently), it doesn't really presume low magic any more than it presumes any other system--nor does it provide a lot of advice how to manage power levels that I can recall.

d20 Modern and Urban Arcana really focus on contemporary era games.... a lot of the material in the latter in particular is more about magic leather jackets than historical games, and generally speaking a lot of the rules are devoted to things like car chases and firearms and making adventures flavored more similarly to Buffy and such.

d20 Past I don't have, but may have some useful ideas to mine from--I remember looking at it and it's got some subsystems that might serve useful for you.

The other problem with d20 Modern is the class system was not very well designed, and it often took too many levels to reflect even a basic concept well, or have a character be moderately good at whatever their area of expertise was. (I'm saying this as a d20 Modern fan.... but as a fan, I'm aware of its flaws.)

I think you're better working with a modified Pathfinder, with appropriate suggestions from d20 Past, than d20 Modern. Simply disallow any full caster classes, and any other mystical classes that don't suit your game's flavor. Pathfinder's classes are just better designed.

You will either need to consider CRs higher than they really are in your world, and/or you may need to look at EvilLincoln's or similar leveling systems where characters get innate bonuses to Stats, AC, and saves as they level up, as CRs are calculated presuming all PCs are decked out in Big Six gear (which boosts attacks, damage, AC, and saves, as well as spellcasting and major stats).

Reconsider armor as DR and DR in general.... DR really is designed as an obstacle to be overcome eventually by magic, with a few exceptions. The problem is if you incorporate in DR as something you CONSTANTLY have to account for, it vastly slows down combat because it means you've got to deduct that amount from every... single... damage... roll.... ever. If you're fine with that, go with it, but I think you'd be better off with things that modify the Vitality and WOund Points system you're working with.... or incorporate in d20 Modern's (since you ARE looking at it anyway) Massive Damage Threshhold mechanic, and give appropriate bonuses to items and creatures to MAS instead of DR (d20 Modern did use DR as well)----but mind, the Massive Damage Threshhold mechanic makes things a lot more lethal (but it sounds like you kind of want that anyway).

Do consult d20 Modern for the Class Defense bonuses but also look at 3.x's Unearthed Arcana.... their systems for class AC bonuses are different and you may want to determine which is best for you.

Good luck!

Following along limsk's suggestions... it's almost always more useful and fruitful to look for the right race, gender, and armor, and then modify the mini to have the right weapon.

Speaking of which, you did not say what gender your half-orc was, nor anything else about what it looks like--"very detailed" presumes you've got a specific look in mind, but you don't tell us what that is. What kind of armor is he or she wearing? Is there any other equipment that is important? Does he or she have hair or is he or she bald (a lot of male orc minis tend to be made bald, which may be annoying if you want them to have a head of hair).

Important because I could suggest, say, this figure where you could argue the staff with skulls glued to it could be used as a great club, and it is certainly "very detailed," but it may not be what you were looking for in terms of theme (this is a shaman figure).

I've dreamed I was a boy on rare occasion, but not transformed from a girl to boy in those dreams. There's also been characters in my dreams who are intersex (usually women with male genitalia). Most of the time though I and most characters in my dreams are female, even my purported animus).

I've also dreamed I was a werewolf, and I was a cartoon character.

I do occasionally get those dreams where your teeth start falling out.

havoc xiii wrote:
Don't know if anyone else is having this problem but my past campaigns won't stay hidden.
Joana wrote:
Hiding past campaigns has never worked. If you really want them out of sight, you can hide the Gameplay thread from the Play-by-Post forums ... although depending on how old old campaigns are, it can be a pain to page through and find them.

I am having the problem too, and while I did have the same problem a couple times in the old version, it was resolved -- for a good long while I was able to keep campaigns hidden--right up until the update.

Now they seem to stay hidden only for the course of time I keep my browser (Firefox) open.

I hope they fix this as there's one in particular I'd rather not be reminded of.

MrVergee wrote:

If your daughter is playing a girl, this might be a nice fig:


Nice find! Also looks like you can buy the net bit separately if you want it for a different model.

If the undine is especially fishy looking, you could also try the Reaper "goggler" (fish-man) that carries a net.

But I agree with Sean, probably easier to find the mini that looks right in terms of the rest of appearance and then glue some net-looking cloth to the hand. If you have a hobby store near you, you might find some netting that model ship builders use (though I didn't have any luck finding any online, but I'm sure I've seen stuff like that before). You can also soak the cloth in some diluted PVA glue so, once dried, it will stiffen a bit if you don't want it to flop around on the mini.

Ravingdork wrote:

So what happens when the PCs have their own shop (totally doable thanks to Ultimate Campaign), which is primarily run by the manager and teams that they've hired, and they come back after a particularly profitable adventure and tell the manager (who works for them) to sell their stuff at full value and give them 100% of the proceeds?

What in the rules is actually stopping that from happening? Insofar as I can tell, it wouldn't even have to interfere with their adventuring activities since their underlings are taking care of things.

If you can do so without running yourself out of business from the expense, nothing. If you want to take all the proceeds out of your own shop to get more money.... sure. Just hope that you manage to resell them so you earn back the value (which isn't guaranteed to happen).

And if your GM lets you, cool beans. (If you GM doesn't, suck it up or find another GM.)

Remember, after all, if it's a shop you own, you are buying and selling from yourself. You're not really earning extra money, you're just transferring assets you already possess from one place to another.

But just for what it's worth... the price of an item... this is how I'd look at it...

The listed price in the game book is standard retail price.

The "50%" value isn't actually "half price" per se, it's wholesale price. (Yes, technically retail markup can be higher or lower than 50% but that's a reasonable single price point for keeping things easy.)

And it's actually fairly common to sell used items (which are anything you've used or found lying gathering dust in a dungeon) for the wholesale value. You'd seldom get a used item for the retail value.

Probably what I'd propose personally, as the owner of the shop.... is I only sell my items at wholesale value as usual (so I am paying no more than I would pay another distributor for an item).

BUT if my shop can manage to sell those items later, after cleaning and refurbishing them to sell at retail value, I will ultimately benefit from that profit when the items are sold. Otherwise, I am only breaking even.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry I haven't seen this thread earlier either.

I'm sorry for that inappropriate penis joke I made one time. Actually, I'm not sorry for the joke itself, to be honest, but I regret any offense taken.

I'm sorry I only bought one cupcake today and didn't have enough to share with the boards. (Don't ask me how that would be possible, but I am still sorry. (However, if any of you ever come to my hometown, I will buy you an Iced Gem cupcake, or a dessert of equal or greater value.)

I'm sorry I blather on too much sometimes.

I'm sorry about the secret violent fantasies I have had regarding certain individuals.

I am sorry for ever participating in any rogue or monk thread.

I am sorry for sometimes knee-jerk flagging a post.

I am sorry for not speaking up sometimes, and I am sorry for speaking up too much sometimes.

I am sorry.

Personally, I find her about as menacing as a teddy bear. It's not her looks per se (that she doesn't look like what Waller should look like IMO is another matter, even if it also bothers me. Also size aside, I don't care if she's hot, I certainly enjoy hot characters as the next person--and could watch Stephen Amell and Caity Lotz take turns on the salmon ladder all day--but that's not essential to her role. And I think enough with my brain and not my groin to not need hotness to be a quality in anyone to enjoy a performance or personality).

Anyway, regardless of her looks, I don't find her manner or line delivery menacing or authoritative or intimidating. She's just some lady with dumb ideas who any one of those crooks should have easily tripped and snapped her neck. And no character named Amanda Waller should EVER have a look of terror on her face, not even when discussing Deathstroke. That woman's superpower should be immunity to fear.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
I think I started squeeing at the "I'm a licensed therapist" line and didn't pay attention to the rest of the episode
My DC-Fu is not great so I didn't understand that Easter Egg: who was that?

To those with at least some DC FU -- combined with the clip of the person speaking in the promo, about six seconds in here: and if you look up the actress who voiced the line spoken....


Petite woman with blond pigtails who identifies herself, in a squeaky voice delivered by actress Tara Strong, as a therapist... AND in a Suicide Squad holding cell....

... it can only be Harley Quinn.

Matthew, I'm with you on Waller. My headcanon is that that woman isn't really Waller, but a decoy to act as a front person, while the real Waller, massive and ill tempered and AWESOME, is of course running things behind the scenes out of sight.

I have a feeling some of the Laurel stuff ended up on the cutting room floor, given the way the actors, writers, and producers talk about it... I think they filmed a bunch more stuff and we've only seen the highlights. I was watching the Season One DVD deleted scenes and there's a bunch of stuff where, while I can see why they deleted something for time or pacing, the deleted scene does add character development or depth that otherwise sometimes feels missing.... the problem with this season is they've been trying to do waaaaay do much so it's like we're seeing the clip show version of a plot that actually should be two or three seasons worth of story crammed into one.

I think I started squeeing at the "I'm a licensed therapist" line and didn't pay attention to the rest of the episode.

Actually, I really did, and it was a good episode, but oooooooooh yessssssssss.

I'm starting to root for everyone on this show but Ollie. The broody thing wears on me quickly. At least the Lance Sisters are shaking him out of it.

Interesting, I never saw this when arminas posted this three years ago. Not sure the reason for the threadsurrection, but an interesting post.

For something less... powerful, or to make it a martial weapon rather than exotic....

The main-gauche is really largely used defensively. I'd say that, in a martial weapon version... you only get the shield bonus to AC if you forgo off hand attacks for a full attack, which still stacks with Two-Weapon Defense. Because the whole point is you're using the main-gauche to block attacks, not make them. If you're making the attacks, you're not blocking.

I wouldn't have it grant an extra AOO, but give it a +1 bonus when making attacks of opportunity with it.

A character with the duelist prestige class also gains a +2 bonus to parry attempts with the main gauche and an additional +1 bonus (for a total of +2) when making an attack of opportunity granted by the duelist's riposte ability. Duelists using a main gauche to parry and riposte treat the main gauche as a weapon with the disarm special quality when using these class abilities.

I know it's pointless to engage with either side of rogue conversations on this board, so just answering the OP here. OP, if you read this and respond, drop me a PM so I know you answered, as I know better than to read a thread I'm certain has been thoroughly pissed upon by the WrongBadFun Brigade on all sides.

taldanrebel2187, emphasis mine wrote:

I really dislike making threads like this, but I've been looking at making a ranged Rogue build and frankly it seems like they... well, basically suck completely. Paizo seems to have sort of dropped the ball on this.

Yep, rogues are really not a great class for a ranged combat focused character, and I agree, Paizo did not do a good job at trying to make sure rogues could fill a ranged role well.

I do think, and agree with what I think is the implied sense here, that rogues SHOULD be good for a ranged support build. They are usually a high Dexterity based character (although, depending upon the build, apart from needing high Dex for AC, they don't strictly need high Dex for anything else -- a build that relies on Dexterity based skills, perhaps, but a party-face or Int-based rogue, less so) and usually not a high Strength base character (though a rogue you can manage to give high Str almost always benefits).... plus rogues are generally seen as opportunists who are good at stealth, so it SHOULD stand to reason that they should be a good start for a sniper build.

But they're not.

The main issue is of course that rogues rely upon Sneak Attack to deal notable damage, and that means you've either got to be within 30 feet or be wearing sniper goggles (which removes that restriction completely), or be a reasonably high level rogue with the sniper archetype.

Otherwise it's hard to do high damage with ranged attacks -- you can multi-attack with Rapid Shot and such and build up damage with successive hits, but so can anyone else (and rangers are better at it because they are full BAB). You CAN build a rogue who is ranged who will perform solidly in support, but that's probably not necessarily going to be the area where they will shine save in the occasional perfectly set up sniper shot scenario (where sniper-based and stealth-based rogue talents + sneak attack give the rogue a unique, if circumstantial, advantage).

So yes, if you want to play a character primarily focused above all things on being an archer, and moreover as shining in the party as an archer, rogue is not the ideal class to choose. Going to skip your class analysis because of that and because for the purpose of the discussion I have little to add.

However, I do have some particular thoughts on your rogue analysis:


Well the good side is Rogues are even more gimped in melee. With a full attack a Rogue can dump truck loads of damage with Sneak Attack.

This I strongly disagree with, although you've got to be a player who's good at making focused builds, and you also have to be good at tactics -- mastering maneuverability, getting into range to flank, which is of course the easiest way to get off sneak attack damage. While this is certainly anecdotal and must be taken with the requisite grain of salt, I have seen rogue players who are VERY clever about getting into and staying into flanking range (assisted by Acrobatics, and feats like Stand Still or Step Up) and who just deal massive sneak attack damage every round in most fights. Especially as there are only a handful of creature types that are immune to precision damage (and those creature types usually everyone's trying to find alternate tactics to handle effectively; i.e., incorporeal creatures are a challenge for everyone save a spellcaster with a bucket of force magic at his or her disposal).

The thing here is you have to be good at tactics (or at least better than your GM), and you have to be willing to be a team player (because you need to work with your buddies to set up flanking). If you want to be a solo melee shining god whose idea of tactics is saying "I hit it with my sword" and it dies, you should not play a rogue. People who ARE good at teamwork and tactics can surprisingly, in my opinion, dominate in many combats with a rogue. This is based on what I've actually seen, not based on what I hear people talk about on message boards. Again, anecdotal evidence, take it with the appropriate grains of salt.

For solo-tactics, a feint-build-based rogue can also be decent, although can't get off full attacks (unless you're going for Two Weapon Feint, which requires a bucket of feats to achieve and forces you to give up the attack that's most likely to hit every time, and isn't something you're going to be able to achieve till quite high level). It also (unnecessarily, IMO) requires two feats to do which means only humans can start off with a proper feint build at level 1 (level 2 for everyone else via Combat Trick).

And that is the big and unfortunate challenge for melee-based rogues is they do require lots of feats to build up... (but so does any ranged build for any class because of the Point Blank Shot feat tax to access just about any other ranged feat, including the pretty much requisite Precise Shot). And rogues don't get a lot of feats. Sometimes I wonder if a handful of extra bonus feats (beyond what rogue tricks grant) would help.

Some rogue talents allow for a really lethal combination with ranged.

This is true, and especially in combo with Stealth feats. A 10th level sniper archetype with Stealthy Sniper, Fast Stealth, and Hide In Plain Sight can set up some nice shots from a fair distance away and never be seen. It takes awhile to get there though, unfortunately. (That's the real problem with any combat-focused rogue... it usually takes several levels before they really can perform how they want to.)

Downsides: Light armor proficiency,

Technically, that shouldn't be a downside for a ranged build, as you'd hopefully be staying out of range of most weapon attacks, and you actually want to NOT be in medium or heavy armor because you don't want to be slowed down (you want to get and stay in ranged distance, not have someone be able to close in on you because you don't have a full 30 ft move). At higher levels/wealth availability mithral mitigates this but that depends upon the generosity of your GM.

Alternately I guess you could dip into 3 levels of fighter to get armor proficiencies and get rid of medium armor movement penalty. Plus that also boosts max Dex AC by 1 which helps since it's a high Dex build. Fighter/rogue archer could be pretty damned good actually.

low HD, feat tax, gimped BAB,

HD -- I've never really considered d8 "low." If so, bards, clerics, inquisitors, monks, and magi also suffer from "low HD." They seem to do okay. If concerned about HP you could always add a favored class bonus.

Feat Tax -- well, the Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot feat tax affects any ranged build. I agree Rogues have a high disadvantage here, however, because of fewer bonus feats. Fighters and Rangers make the best archers in part because they can overcome the feat tax right away.

3/4 BAB is indeed an issue -- rogues are a support class, and you are looking to play an archer who I presume is a primary archer, not support. So poor choice for that yes.

1 good save only,

Fighters technically have the same problem, and I would say Rogues are better off having a good Reflex save -- especially for a ranged build, as people are going to try to hit you with AOEs, which rogues laugh off via evasion and a good Reflex save.

A lot of charm type spells are close range, so if you're hanging back you might stay out of range, but it all depends on both spell level and how close you want to get to snipe (getting sneak attack bonus) and how high level you are (sniper archetype increases range at higher levels but it takes awhile to build up).

Rogues do have some rogue talents to help with other saving throws but again are either not well made or take too long to get (can't get Slippery Mind till 10th at earliest). (Which is a fundamental issue with the rogue--talents are inconsistently designed and often not strong enough or inaccessible when they should be.)

low survival. Will have trouble both surviving and hitting.

"Low survival" is quite subjective. A rogue with a good Con AND a high Dex is going to be hard to hit and hard to take out. It would depend a lot on the build, player skill, and the nature of the campaign (and the rest of the party).

The big issue I think is the hitting -- again, if your primary focus is only hitting with a bow, you should be going for a full BAB class.

Rogues are also not proficient with composite longbows.

A rather minimal issue as your typical high Dex rogue will probably a) not have a high Str to get the most out of a composite weapon, and b) not be able to take advantage of the improved range of the composite longbow (unless you have sniper goggles).

The difference between a shortbow and longbows base damage is an average of 1 damage otherwise, and if you ARE playing a ranged rogue, presumable the point WOULD be to get the sneak attack damage off where possible, so the base damage is beside the point.

If it WAS an issue, playing an elf (a good choice for a ranged rogue anyway) would immediately fix it. As would, horrors, dipping into any martial class, or, more horrors, burning a feat on a proficiency.

No viable ranged archetypes.

Sniper is the most viable. Deadly range is pretty much crucial if you DO want to play a ranged rogue. I assume you looked at it so I'd be curious as to why you think it isn't viable.

You could also stack sniper with bandit for the ambush ability, which means if you get off an ambush successfully, you can snipe and then use your move action to get back into Stealth mode.

Don't take my areas of disagreement to say you are wrong on the basic principle... yes, if you wanna play an archer, a pure rogue's not a good choice.

That said, if something is drawing you to rogue even though otherwise you want to be a primary archer... fighter/rogue and ranger/rogue could do a decent ranged build. In both cases, rogue adds the occasional sneak attack on top of good damage and excellent to hit that both classes have (or rogue/paladin--to stack smite evil with sneak attack), as well as some useful rogue talents like fast stealth and stealthy sniper. For the fighter, rogue improves the reflex save and adds some much needed class skills, including Acrobatics and Perception. Ranger needs it less but could also at least use some extra class skills as well (again, Acrobatics).

Whatever you end up playing, good luck and have fun.

1 to 50 of 5,904 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.