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

"Devil's Advocate"'s page

1,232 posts. Pathfinder Society character for Beckett.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Yah, the playtests where specifically very limited, so those are not really any sort of gauge on what to expect. There is a lot of talk about how much it went back to the 3E style for many things, but it's got some noticeable 4E/2E/1E in there, too. The playtest is a very simplistic game, but I think you will find a lot of opinions on it relate very heavily on 2 things. Which version of the playtest is being referred to, as each focused on different things, and the persons feelings about the previous editions, particularly 3E and 4E, with 2E a distant third, but I'm sure there will be different views on even that.

Grand Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
Samuel Stone wrote:


The main problem is that if the OP's character is, in fact, evil, he would detect as such to the paladin, ...
Not necessarily, read the spell description.
Gellos Thran wrote:
I am playing a 9th level wizard

The only way they wouldn't is if they where using magic to hide it, which implies that they would in fact be.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just another jerk trying to force their views on others.

Grand Lodge

John Kretzer wrote:
QXL99 wrote:
This new info on Skye must have her haters going crazy...

Yup....before the complained how Skye is 'too good at hacking' and is a Mary Sue...now she has powers to explain it...well she is just a Mary Sue now.

Can't win with some folk.

Honestly, from what I've seen, her being "too good at hacking" has nothing at all to do with people just not liking her character, which is the big complaint. Someone else tried to insinuate that "us haters" just can't handle her being a hacker with breasts and such nonsense, but it's really just we don't like her character (not the actress, or the hacker, or whatever). My wife can't stand her (again the character), and is nearly to the point of just dropping the show completely, which might mean I drop it or need to watch it without her. Half of it's that character, the other half she is just getting bored.

Grand Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
And I agree, it's not because Sky is female, it's because she isn't an established character.
For me it's not even that, (I could care less if she has a vagina or a penis, <and really no idea why that little accusation even came up>), I just don't really like her character so much. Has nothing to do with gender, or the actress, (or the other cast), I just don't dig her character so much. Person preference I guess. It kind of seems like every other episode I start to like her a bit more, and then the next all the thing I hate about her are played up again.
I was talking about the criticism of her unrealistic hacking skills.

Sorry, I was less replying to you specifically and more building off of what you posted. I was also referring to the accusation that people have an issue with a hacker having t$#+ (and saying I was not sure where that came from), rather than meaning that you said it.

Grand Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
And I agree, it's not because Sky is female, it's because she isn't an established character.

For me it's not even that, (I could care less if she has a vagina or a penis, <and really no idea why that little accusation even came up>), I just don't really like her character so much. Has nothing to do with gender, or the actress, (or the other cast), I just don't dig her character so much. Person preference I guess. It kind of seems like every other episode I start to like her a bit more, and then the next all the thing I hate about her are played up again.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I find it hilarious that people expect Skye's hacking abilities to cling close to real life, but if Tony Stark were to do the exact same things, then it would be no big deal.

Marvel has always had people who's mastery of certain skills go way way beyond the plausible. Some of them have superpwers (Tony Stark, Reed Richards, etc). Some of them don't. Why is it so impossible to accept Skye as simply being a genius hacker?

For me it's not that I can't accept she is a genius hacker. It's that fact that that I just can't see that as enough to just throw everything to the wind and grant her a place on the team like it's nothing. Even "Gunn" went through intense training for the job and everyone was hesitant because he didn't complete it. But he was devoted to it. Skye on the other hand is (was) both a criminal by choice and a sort of lone wolf, and also has an personal agenda. To me, it just really stinks of "ok, you all met at the bar and now fully trust each other so we can just jump into the adventure" sort of mentality. Doesn't mean she isn't an interesting character, I just don't think she fits well, and it's too late to fix that. It's one of the things that just kind of ruins my suspension of disbelief for the show.

Grand Lodge

yah, but some garbage like that would explain why Coulson just let her into the SHIELD club, no questions asked (or logic/sanity needed).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, one thing that keeps popping out at me as off is the Sacred Weapon additional weapon properties for Good and Lawful.

"If he is good, he can add holy and merciful.
If he is lawful, he can add axiomatic and ghost touch."

It seems to me that these two should probably be swapped. I would think that many more Good Warpriests would be into killing Undead, (in which Merciful is a bad option), while many more Lawful Warpriests would be thinking along the lines of "bring them back alive and let the law deal with them", so Ghost Touch would be less desirable.

Ghost Touch is pretty much only designed for attacking undead (and other incorporeal rarities), while Merciful could be something anyone might have a desire to get, it seems much more appropriate for those interested in law and order.

The other thing I was thinking about is that all 4 Alignments offer the appropriate Alignment magical property, (holy, anarchic, etc. . .) AND all of the Alignment Blessings do something similar, but they do not stack. Because Blessing only last 1 Min, and Sacred Weapon only 20 Rounds per day at most, it really seems like they should be allowed to stack. Maybe drop the Blessings damage bonuses to 1d4, but it's another example of how this classes own abilities really compete with each other for use.

Bonus Feats: Do Warpriests count as Fighters for selecting Fighter only Fats or not? In the official sense only please, (I understand that as written they do not, but are they supposed to)?

Fervor Does this ability utilize Positive ad Negative Energy, or is it just untyped healing/harming? It doesn't state the former, meaning that some of the various Feats and Traits will not work with it.

Ex-Warpriests: A warpriest who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for his armor, shield, and weapon proficiencies and his bonus feats. Compared to the Ex-Cleric that specifically does loose Deity's Favored Weapon Proficiency, should a Warpriest whose Favored/Focus Weapon is Unarmed Strike or a Proficiency outside of all Simple & Martial Weapons loose that Proficiency?

Ex-Clerics:
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons.

Grand Lodge

Personally, I'm hoping against another Cha based caster, (Cleric/Fighter, not Fighter/Oracle), and would much rather they switch all abilities to Wis based.

Grand Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unklbuck wrote:
Just have the VC walk out without sharing any information...then have the PC's wonder how they are going to fulfill their mission without knowing anything about it.

So, how's that any different than what normally happens?

:)

Grand Lodge

awp832 wrote:


Healing every once in a while or after combat isn't so bad, it's part of your role when you took on the mantle of cleric. If you didn't want to heal at least part of the time, really you could have played an Oracle or Druid or Magus or Bard or any number of casty/battle classes, but you chose cleric -as I understand it- specifically because the party needed some healing and you are now upset because that is what the party expects you to do?

Why is the Cleric somehow more responsible for party healing that the Oracle (better at it) or the Druid or Bard?

Grand Lodge

Backfromthedeadguy wrote:
Beckett wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

I was a bit amazed (at the stupidity) of just how much amunition they wasted when the Gov's people went in. One that they had actually stockpiled that much (and new how to use it, for that matter), and two that they just kept blowing through it like it was nothing. That seemed a bit rediculous.

It's well established where they got the guns and ammo. And how is shooting at people trying to overrun and kill you "stupid". On a historical note one, the main difference between a M-16 A-1 and an A-2 is that the A-! is fully automatic. During the Vietnam war soldiers tended to unload whole magazines of ammo into the jungle without hitting anything. They didn't care about ammo, they just knew there were guys trying to kill them. This is why the A-2 can only be shot in 3 round bursts, so people can't unload magazines and waste ammo.

Note that that comment was in reference to the first time they did it last season, not the last episode.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

I mean... let's say they do "fix him" and bring him back to this dimension... the man has confessed to causing an accident that caused multiple deaths - even before he got his powers. After that, he went on a killing spree.

Even for Agent Coulson, who is rather forgiving, anyone who does that is past the point of redemption. You don't help a guy like that ,you stop him.

Sure he screwed up, and is a little screwed up. I missed the part with the cop car, so that might change it a little, but I heard them talk about it a few ties in the show, but I don't think he went on a killing spree. He loosened a bolt on a machine and reported it multiple times so he could have a reason to talk to a girl, who didn't fix the problem, that turns out was kind of a funky machine to begin with, that lead to some people being killed, (including him as far as everyone knew), which then led to the whole town blaming her, (and partially correctly). He then, trapped in a phasing in and out of "hell", tried to protect her, which as far as we can tell was all completely nonlethal as much as he could manage, even when provoked by Melinda, he went for protecting her than killing. Seeing the SHIELD Agents shoot and kidnap her, then lock her away, he didn't try to kill any of them, he tried to either knock them out or to lock them away in rooms, and tried to release her, but couldn't. He had a knife and could have easily just stab them rather than push them into a room and lock the door, or grabbed a gun, but he didn't. And from there we get, "yah, you're damned, suck it up and just go to "hell" like you deserve".

And that leads to MM forgiving herself?

Grand Lodge

Not fix him on the spot, but it's my understanding that it's what the room contains and is built of that stops some powers from working. I don't know, but it seems like they didn't even try. I could be wrong, but I just thought it was odd.

Grand Lodge

I'm not sure how I felt about the episode. I liked it up until then end. Interesting "villains", and I like the character development. Had some humor, but in the end, it kind of seems like they helped the person who turned out to not really have the problem and just let the person that actually did just the "go to hell". Isn't their mission to help and/or contain people with powers? It's indicated his phasing wouldn't work in that room, so why not after convincing him to let her go, get him in there and at least try to fix him?

Grand Lodge

SmiloDan wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Maybe if it did more than JUST healing? Maybe a variant on, um, Variant Channeling, where it gives boosts or removes conditions when channeling energy? Definitely a way to use shield other and self-heal extra efficiently, such as swift action lay on hands like a paladin. Maybe a way to get extra uses of channel energy by critting or dropping opponents? Maybe an (almost?) always active version of vampiric touch, and a way to spread those bonus hit points to your allies?
I don't know, I'd be extremely irritated if Paizo did this as anything besides a Cleric (and maybe Paladin) archtype/option, personally. Would be kind of like making a firearm based fighting style and then making it only for use by the Monk or Rogue.
Wouldn't this be adding an option to healing, not restricting it to one or two classes?

? The request was for a specifically non-Divine caster to do these things.

Grand Lodge

SmiloDan wrote:
Maybe if it did more than JUST healing? Maybe a variant on, um, Variant Channeling, where it gives boosts or removes conditions when channeling energy? Definitely a way to use shield other and self-heal extra efficiently, such as swift action lay on hands like a paladin. Maybe a way to get extra uses of channel energy by critting or dropping opponents? Maybe an (almost?) always active version of vampiric touch, and a way to spread those bonus hit points to your allies?

I don't know, I'd be extremely irritated if Paizo did this as anything besides a Cleric (and maybe Paladin) archtype/option, personally. Would be kind of like making a firearm based fighting style and then making it only for use by the Monk or Rogue.

Grand Lodge

MMCJawa wrote:

Something I thought of last night while going to bed.

At the end of Iron Man 3, Tony Stark destroys his suits and decides to be just Tony Stark

At the end of Thor 2:
** spoiler omitted **

Based on trailers, it seems pretty likely that Captain America is going to part ways with Shield.

So will a big part of Avengers 2 be simply focused on getting the characters to take back their responsibilities? Even if it means sacrificing an ideal or dream?

Spoiler:
I'm pretty sure that Avengers 2 will be very much focused around the Infinity Gauntlet story arch. Though I've also heard that it's very Ultron focused, so might be leading into that arch for Avengers 3, much later, without all the cosmic beings. In Cpt America, the guy that fell off the train is the Winter Soldier, sort of a brainwashed anit-Cpt Amrica, so I am guessing that Cpt America 2 will be more of a sins returning sort of deal, and explain a bit more why he was so angry when he started going through some of the stuff on the Helocarrier in the Avengers, (found something that wasn't shown in the movie). Anyway, I'm speculating that SHIELD has the Soul Infinity stone, which he might have discovered and believed SHIELD was either trying to recreate the Tesseract or was somehow related to the Hulk (it's green), and could have the power to return the dead to life <like Winter Soldier and possibly Coulson>, but SHIELD probably wouldn't know how to really use/control it. That would tie in with the end credits scene of Thor and the ending of Avengers when Thor takes the Tesseract, (an "Infinity Stone", probably of Mind -> Blue) from earth, because Earth already has one on the planet and they do not want to keep them "too close together".
Grand Lodge

Probably is not going to happen with Razmiran and Rahadoum around.

Grand Lodge

The 0 HD Humanoids is a 3.5 thing where it specified that only Humanoids lost everything in favor of class levels.

In PF, Bestiary 1, page 207 Step 2 (off top of my head as posting from phone), states that all HP, Skills, etc, but specifically all proficiencies are added in addition to those from class, not replaced.

The ARG is talking about designing new monsters, and only includes Native Outsiders, as if it where a type. Its also a genedalized way of how to make up unique "monsters", not really how to use existing ones, so is kind of irrelevant.

Grand Lodge

jeffh wrote:
While I'm poking at obscure corners of the spell description rules, as far as I can tell, the (object) tag is entirely superfluous, in either of its possible contexts.

It's not. Undead are immune to anything that requires a Fort Save unless it also affects objects. Spells that affect object can also be used sometimes as a sort of sunder attempt, if they are not a direct damage targeting spell like Scorching Ray, while spells like Magic Missile specify that they can not.

Grand Lodge

KtA wrote:

Some of the empyreal lords that represent concepts or archetypes that really don't strike me as Good enough to have an empyreal lord representing them. IMO, the standards for an empyreal lord should actually be higher than for a Good deity; even if they were mortal once, they've gone through a really long process of transformation so that their mortal failings were gone ages before.

I kind of felt the same way, honestly. A lot of them come off, at best clearly in the neutral territory, or at least really lacking what makes them Good. Especially a lot of the newly presented ones. They almost kind of come off as a sort of Fey court more than the hosts of heaven, and sort of all over the alignment spectrum.

I should note tat I don't believe any of them where ever mortal, unlike the gods. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they are all angelic or part deity from the get go.

Grand Lodge

except for metamagic. . .

or when spells are different level depending on the caster <but not based on the caster at the same time if they multiclass>

:)

Grand Lodge

Boon Companion:
Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar that has received this benefit, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.

Technically, your Cleric Level is already maxed out, when you take this feat unless you multiclass. 4 + ? <max 4> = 4 no matter what, then -3 is your final effective level. That's all I mean, make sure that your DM is on the same page you are when interpreting that Feat.

For AC to get Light Armor, I would suggest the General Purpose Combat Training, which I would assume you are already going to go for.

Grand Lodge

I haven't done it with any of the pathfinder books, but I had tred a few others a few years back.

It worked okay, but some times the various symbols ' in particular would not translate and you would get things like "Joe$%*(#)s" rather than "Joe's".

What may be a better option is to look for a free app that will read both file types, if that's a possibility.

Grand Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

Subjective. I thin it's a lot cooler to have a ring that makes it harder to hit you by creating a sort of invisible force shield around your body like an aura than a sword that decapitates on a Nat 20, personally.

Kthulhu wrote:
2B?. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

Such as? Magic that's not spells?

Kthulhu wrote:
3<before A>. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

I do thin that some of the spell lists really need a good looking at again, but it's been that way since 3.0. However, this idea of getting rid of all the spells that trample all over non-casters is pretty ridiculous. They included those spells specifically so that if you do not have a Rogue in the party, there are other ways around different things. And that is a brilliant idea. Especially because not everyone plays with 4 or 5 players and are able to fill the big 4. I honestly wish they would have more options along those lines, not less.

Kthulhu wrote:
3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

Can't argue with you there, at lest not until later on. I kind of wish that 0, 1st, and 2nd level spell eventually became sort of free casting, but later on, like 13-15th level where it just doesn't really matter any longer.

Kthulhu wrote:
4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

I agree, and one thing I thin would really help this out would be to have every class get an assortment of Bonus Feat Options sort of like the Ranger's Fighting Style. Some Feats I think just need to go away, Selective Channel, for example. I think that a few of the Metamagic Feats should just be universal options (you basically pay twice to use them).

Kthulhu wrote:
5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

Would be nice, but all that really needs to be done is to have skills max out, without regard to level.

Grand Lodge

[sarcasm]I'm so glad that Pathfinder fixed all those messed up 3.5 things and made it so easy and simple. . .[/sarcasm]

:)

Paizo didn't develop the d20 system. I'm curious why people keep referring to RAI like they had?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Shelton wrote:
Riggler wrote:

A new edition, no. A revised edition, maybe.

Fixing some minor things that should have been fixed the first time around. Druids for example are ridiculous from a GM perspective. I've got players not playing druids feeling like they are pointless, because the druid player is essentially playing a character with an animal companion that is equal to two of the other PCs. That's a problem that Pathfinder should have fixed from 3.5, but didn't. Just one example.

Would you approve of some rules tinkering that let *every* class have an animal companion as anoption? (IE as part of an archetype perhaps, rather than a feat, spell, or other effect).

How pimp-daddy would it be for Clerics to have a little Lantern Archon buddy following them around. Even if it shot like 1 damage nonlethal light beams. pew pew. pew pew

Grand Lodge *

My bad, I was thinking this was about the other individual. It was also very clear that the Decem. was doing a lot of talk and not changing a thing, and as far as I recall the first individual was not going to die, just be punished. Have a lot of in-character hatred for said individual, but outside of that, I thought the entire thing was terribly forced and completely illogical :)

Grand Lodge *

Mark Seifter wrote:
Netopalis wrote:

To be clear, I don't have a problem with hidden objectives; I do have a problem if no reasonable Pathfinder would complete the objective or think that it was a good thing to do. For example, with Fortress of the Nail, given the mission briefing it's rather questionable whether doing what the secondary success objective is would be supported by a VC. There would likely be some disagreement.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

A few issues with this. . .:
First off, you don't know just how much I wanted to just <s>lit her throat and call it a day. But that aside, she is NOT A PATHFINDER. She never was. So the whole "we don't leave one of our own" line is pretty much straight up B.S. Does not apply. Secondly, the assumption is that the Pathfinder Society has some sort of preexisting reputation of not, not leaving people behind. Again, straight up BS, it is known for it, and a huge part of the entire Shadow Lodge Faction/Grandmaster Torch. Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason that pretty much anyone would honestly give a ____ about her actually getting what she deserves. None. It's completely unethical from the start. You couldn't pay me enough to want to go do that mission, and I think that almost any Paladin that did it should fall, and pretty much and Good character should really be hit with an alignment infraction warning.
Grand Lodge *

Diego Rossi wrote:
Beowulfe wrote:

I have seen plenty of PFS modules where the author writes it so that the bad guys are readyied to attack when the PCs enter a room/clearing/etc. Including some where the bad guy has a weapon to a victims throat and is able to perform a cu-de-grace before the PCs can even act.

As stated, it is not a free swing just a surprise round. Depending on initiative and perception, the PCs may or may not act first.

That scenario has some problems

- a coup de grace is a full round action,
- the guy with the hostage need to make a grappling check every round to keep it pinned,
- the two thing don't work together,
- the NPC generally want to do his big speech before cutting the hostage throat.

If I remember correctly, it is a her, the victim is knocked out and chained to a wall, completely helpless, and there is also a mini-combat going on. It sort of a deal where the party breaks in to see the BBEGess whip up her weapon and say "come closer and I slit his throat", while the DM says "Roll for Initiative!!!" :)

SPOILED:
I don't think it's actually a CdG as much as a Spell enhanced Strike against a Neg HP target, who has 0% chance of surviving it.
Grand Lodge

Patrick Renie wrote:
Regardless of the exact methods by which a "Conspiracy Theorists of Golarion" book might be employed, I'm still curious about folks' ideas on how this idea could be implemented into the Player Companion line.

Well, one thing that I would really love to see done with it is to talk about how these sorts of groups, on a personal level, interact with and exist within existing faiths, as well as how they intermingle. Especially with Clerics (and other divinely inspired classes, but not the Oracle). How does a Inquisitor of Sarenrae balance being a truly faithful follower of their patron deity and also being a member of the Esoteric Order of the Palataine Eye? How does a Cleric of ______ that is also a true follower of the Whispering Way? Or a Paladin of Abadar serve both their religion and the Prophecies of Kalistocracy? Or to delve even further and take a good, solid look at why most religious characters, but specifically those that gain class features from divine power sources rationalize being a part of the Pathfinder Society?

Now the same thing from the political perspective. This would be an excellent place to reexamine the Order of the Godclaw, from within, or things like that. Or the various Knighthoods, and issues they face with reconciling their national pride, political leanings, and/or religious views with their other memberships.

That's something I would really like to see, but in addition to that some ideas not unlike the Faction in PFS, looking at how one walks the line between affiliation to multiple organizations, philosophies, or even national institutions, from an adventurer's point of view.

Grand Lodge

I wouldn't mind some players guides for playing in different times, eras, and are specific events. Before prophecy broke, or during thay Cheliax Thrune fad.

Alternate/What If settings wpuld be cool, or how to tweek the game are a concept
similar to Unearthed Arcanaon bits.

Grand Lodge

ehb1022 wrote:
Spelljammer and planescape (pathfinder version)

Or Pathfinder, the Spelljammer or Planescape version. . .

Grand Lodge

A non-Golarion AP would be amazing. Having to wait through both Numeria (yawn) and also Orision (meh, might be cool, but I just can't find anything deep down to care yet), a long break from Golarion for just a generic AP, or even revisiting Age of WormsIshNotCanon would be amazing.

Grand Lodge *

Yes, it's been clarified over on the Online Play forums that Digital Chronicle Sheets, (as long as they are signed and saved in away so that they can not be edited) are perfectly legal and fine, it is also legal to carry around digital Chronicle Sheets for your records rather than print out.

Brian Lefebvre wrote:
Unlike the rules covering the use of digital copies to utilize additional resources the guide does not mention digital chronicle sheets being allowed except for the distribution resulting from online games.

Oddly I'm not seeing the part where it mentions physical copies either. . . :)

GtPFSOPv5.0 pg6 under Finding a Game wrote:
Another place to play Pathfinder Society events is online. Allowed formats include play-by-post, chatbased games, digital tabletops, and webcam-enhanced “face-toface” gaming. So long as the Game Master has a way of distributing all of the appropriate paperwork (by fax, scan, or otherwise), any form of legitimate online play is allowed and encouraged.
Brian Lefebvre wrote:
Even the language used in distributing chronicle sheets for online games digitally implies that those sheets will be reproduced in physical form by the recipients.

How so?

Grand Lodge

I think in the comics that they discovered Asgardian DNA can't really be used for anything, but they can clone Asgardians (which doesn't work too well). It's mostly same of the ambient magic of the realm, the *food* they intake, and their magic/science that sets them apart.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm mostly the opposite, I want more of the rules type stuff, and find most of the DM and Setting centric material fairly underwhelming. Not being a fan of Golarion doesn't help either.

The one thing that I do not need, (ever really) is inspiration to make my characters. That's the easiest part of gaming, and really nothing that Paizo or any company can do is really going to inspire me to build a character. Mechanics like Prestige Classes, Feats, Traits, and whatnot will help my to make a character actually be able to do what I want or am trying to build, but that's not inspiration. Typically I find a great deal of Paizo's flavor and setting material to be incredibly boring or just unappealing (which is just my opinion, not an insult to anone). In fact, a lot of their material sort of saps the inspiration in building characters rather than plants it, because they focus so much on the "No, but this instead" attitude of settings and flavor. "If I had wanted to play ________, I would have built _______ instead/at level 1. That doesn't help me."

Paizo also seems to do a lot of "Ok, here are some ideas and options for including the most obvious builds in a <lets say Pirate Game>". <facepalm>. I don't need anything at all about how to include say a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Ranger, Bard, or a Fighter. That's common sense. What I would like some ideas and options for are how to fit in a Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Monk, you know all those classes and concepts that are not automatically obviously in just by being their class. :)

3.5 tended to be much more careful and inclusive with those sorts of products. Adding in material or variants, Prestige Classes or something that would help all classes to find a place in all sorts of different campaigns.

Grand Lodge *

Pirate Rob wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Pirate Rob wrote:
lantzkev wrote:
I'm kind of curious where some of these tables are going to be set up, some games like the one I'm signed up for have the gm listed as a certain user name, but no threads have been set up yet in the recruitment area with the GM name Pirate Rob

My thread is up under my GM alias, Pirate GM, I would link you but I am currently at a con just checking in real quick.

HERE, I got you. :)
Thanks! I am even home now, the Waking Rune table I was running at the con went rather umm quickly.

Do tell. . .

:)

My mind's eye J/K:
I am seeing masked super ninja's swinging through the breaking stained glass windows, all matrix style. Just as they land, much to the surprise of all, reaching down for the relic, a thunderous roar is heard, reverberating from the a far off land.
<fade to black>
A Man stands up, with picking up and shouldering his rifle, while somewhere in the distance a narrative and ominous voice says "[b]Head Shot", and on the PC's hud, One Hot, One Kill slide by the screen.
<fade back to the PC's>
They do their thing and go home.

Grand Lodge

A don't want D&D Next to flop at all, (unless they persist with that ridiculous name) but I'm not really sure it would honestly matter too terribly much to the industry. They said similar things about 4E too. Didn't flopp too terribly, and we are still here.

:)

From what I generally hear, thoughts on D&D Next are pretty much shrugging there shoulders, might give it a chance, but mostly happy with their existing game(s) of choice."

Edit by Sean: I've removed the quoted part so that the gist of your post remains.

Grand Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
Also, D&D Next "flopping horribly" would be bad for the industry as a whole.

I dont want D&D Next to flop at all (unless they persist with that rediculous name), bur Im not really sure it would honestly matter too terribly much to the industry. They said similar things about 4E too. Didn't flopp too tertibly, and we are still here.

:)

From what I generally hear, thoughts on D&D Next are pretty much people shrugging their shoulders, might give it a chance, but mostly happy with their existing game(s) of choice.

Grand Lodge

That would be pretty amazing.

Grand Lodge

I think it's a lot less that Pathfinder has only a few as much as that they don't have Char Op forums to make everyone believe that the sky is falling whenever you see Divine Metamagic or Leap Attack.

I think a lot of people forget that Paizo didn't create Archtypes. They where in 3E, too, (not to mention Kits from earlier editions).

Grand Lodge

Well Paizo and 3.5 tend to have a much different design intent. I really question how Pathfinder can be seen to be any more balanced than 3.5 but thats a different topic.

3.5's goal was to allow possibilities. Very "yes you can, but. . ." Pathfinder on the other hand takes a more "no, but if you would have built this instead you could have" philosophy of design.

While I do like a lot of 3PP material, its very hit or miss if a DM will allow it, and might not have any future material to help keep it relavent as the game progresses. Also being autobanned in PFS kills it for a lot of people.

Grand Lodge

Sissyl wrote:
Yes. Every transcendent ideology that forbids religion is atheist, we've heard it all before. Communism is atheist yadda yadda. Thing is, if you have FAITH in SOMETHING HIGHER, whether that is a personal power or not, you're doing religion. And EVERY religion ever has tried to ban OTHER religions. Goes with the territory. They are all for ecumenics, preaching it far and wide, until the day they have enough power to ban any alternative. Then the tune changes pretty drastically.

What exactly are you trying to argue? Atheism is just a religion, or that communism is not atheism, or that forbidding religion is not atheism?

Grand Lodge

Sissyl wrote:
Things like Hermean society, the Green Faith and the teachings of Kalistrade are certainly not atheist in nature.

Except they actually are. Green Faith to a bit of a lesser degree. Hermean Society forbids religion and faith. The followers of the PoK believe that the gods, if they exist are an unimportant passing fad along the lines of powerful outsiders. The Green Faith is like that to a lesser degree. Like the Whispering Way, there seem to be a few different views of them presented. Some more antitheist than others.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:

OTOH, Ezren would be more of a role model atheist.

Because he found out that his own father had lied to him the whole time and the church had been completely right from the start? :)

Grand Lodge

There is also Touvette of the River Kingdoms, Bachuan, Razmiran, and some aspects of the Whispering Way and the Green Faith. Some incarnations of them are represented as atheistic in nature. Also the Prophets of Kalistrade.

Edit: Almost forgot about Hermea, too.

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
You're operating under the idea that the game is balanced. . .

Well, we can agree that it is not 3.5 :)

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Changing the power of Prot. from Evil just changes a variable, it doesn't effect the overall balance of the system.

But in a game where Protection from Evil works against everything that is not "in your party" is a lot more powerful than one that works against "only the most vile worshipers of ______", yes. That's the point I was making. In the first game, most of my spell list will probably be filled with Protection from Everyone Not in my Party. In the later, I will probably eventually pick up a scroll, around 10th level, and if I get around to it. It's just not useful enough to consider an actual option most of the time.

1 to 50 of 1,232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.