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

Digitalelf's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,692 posts (2,769 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,692 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
It is kind of a pain and slows things down.

I haven't seen it slow things down all that much, especially since combat in 2nd edition is pretty fast-paced to begin with.

But then, that's just my experience, YMMV... :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

]Have you actually figured out RAW 2E initiative?

I remember looking at it awhile back and it neither made sense nor was what I remembered.
1E was far worse. I really couldn't figure out how that worked.

Initiative in 2nd edition is really just a set of different options you can pick and choose from...

For example, there is the option to roll once per combat (much like 3e/PF), or you can choose to roll each and every round during combat, you can have group initiative where you have a player make a single initiative roll that is the initiative roll for the entire group, or you can have everyone roll their own initiative, you can use or not use weapon speed factors and casting times for spells, etc.

I chose to let each player roll their own initiative, and add in their weapon speed factors and casting times for their spells. While as DM (for the most part, as there are exceptions), I roll once for an entire group of monsters, thus including all monsters of a given type under a single initiative roll (e.g. regardless if there are 2 orcs or 12, I only roll a single initiative die for the orcs as a group).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

Does anyone else remember when you had to state your actions for the round

AND then roll for initiative?

Yup!

Currently using it in my 2nd edition AD&D campaigns... Along with rolling for initiative each round!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
clearly indicated in the Note below the table meant "this class exists only as non-player characters in the race in question".

I stand corrected. :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
1st edition AD&D was full of rules like "dwarves can only be clerics if they're NPCs" that served no real purpose and were wisely removed from later editions.

The AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook clearly listed cleric as a playable class for dwarven Player Character's (Character Race Table II: Class Level Limitations, page 14); they were limited to a maximum of 8th level, and could not be druids however.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cole Deschain wrote:

That's because Baron Lyran Evensong is nowhere in Barovia.

I'm referring to the entire product line.

Yeah, I was thinking that NPC may have been in the horrible 3e version of the original module, and then I recalled that he was in the 2e sourcebook, "Book of Crypts".

Which is why I deleted my post mere seconds before you responded to it.

Guess I wasn't fast enough... Oops! :-(

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
If you want to get nitpicky, I never actually said that people can jump as far as kangaroos.

What you did say however, was:

Irontruth wrote:
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.

Which is what people are disagreeing with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
You mean memorable characters like Bob the Fighter XXXII or Harry the Thief XCV?

The only time we ever did that, was back in grade-school... It stopped once we hit Jr. High (where we were still playing 1st edition AD&D).

Not that there were any fewer character deaths when we got to Jr. High, we just accepted that it was just a part of the game, and rolled with it.

Made quite memorable characters too!

YMMV...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
memorax wrote:
That's BS imo. If it says the spell may fail in the description sure.

Spells can and cannot do anything that the game requires them to do or not do, regardless of what the spell's description says. And sure, if it is going to be a permanent houseruled change, then the DM/GM should by all means inform the players that spells do not function as per the RAW.

However, my comment was specific only to that happening every once in a while, and that the DM should indeed have a reason for that, but the DM does not have to inform the players of that reason, since the spell not working would be a mystery in this case, and not something that the player's character would know (and perhaps something the character may not even be able to find out at all).

memorax wrote:
If Commune always keeps failing because the DM does not want it to myself and other players are going to notice. The DM is allowed to do many things at the table. DM or no being a dick is not one of them.

While definitely not advisable, technically, the DM IS allowed to be a phallic symbol all he wants... ;-)

But like I said, if, to use your example, Commune always fails, then yes, the DM should be up front about such a change to the rules.

memorax wrote:
Dropping it out of the blue is poor DMing imo.

If the DM is doing so just to stop a player from using an ability he did not account for or simply does not like or is inconvenient to him, then I'd agree.

But there are times when a DM does things behind the scenes, which from the player's POV may seem like "out of the blue", but are very much planned and calculated decisions, and as much as the player might want to know what's going on, the DM is under no obligation to reveal the how's and the why's of his campaign until the time is right or the characters are able to figure it out in game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
memorax wrote:
I don't see why those spells would fail to work.

As a player, and not the DM/GM, I would not expect a player to see why any given spell would not work as expected. But it IS 100% within the purview of the DM/GM to have spells simply not work. There should be a reason as to why (other than the DM/GM being vindictive or what have you), but that reason does NOT need to be known by the players...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:
I like the lower numbers because it seems less "gamey" to me.

Yeah, to me, those higher numbers created a never ending "arms race"; sure you can get some of that with lower numbers as well, but at least with the older editions of D&D and it appears with 5th edition as well, those numbers quickly max out at a much more reasonable level (well, "reasonable" IMO anyway - YMMV).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
My immediate thought is that those who "grew up" with games that had lower numbers will be more apt to prefer 5e

There's probably at least some smidgeon of truth to that. At least from my anecdotal experience, most of those that I have known and gamed with since the early days seem to prefer lower over-all numbers over the higher over-all numbers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:
That's one of the big paradigm shifts between 3.PF and 5E. 3.PF uses ever-increasing numbers

Yeah, that is one of the bigger reasons I stopped playing 3.x and PF, and one of the reasons I like 5e over-all. I really disliked those artificially inflated numbers...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

TTRPGs are therapeutic to me as well, and at over 45, time is a very precious commodity too. But missing a session or not being able to play (e.g. because of others not being able to attend), while like I said before, really sucks, I just cannot see it as being punished.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:

When a friend misses a basketball game, do you make them play the next game with one hand tied behind their back? I'm guessing not....

:-)

If the CEO of your work comes in from out of town on a surprise visit, and takes everyone in your department out for lunch on the day you called in sick, does he come back the next day and give you a gift certificate?? I'm guessing not... ;-)

But part of the issue I suppose is that I come from, and still play an edition that uses different XP table for each of the base character classes, so level disparity is a non-issue (but then, even when I played 3.x/PF it never was). I also game, and have gamed with people that feel as I do, in that, as much as we all love the game, missing a session has never been seen as some sort of punishment in-and-of itself.

YMMV... :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SmiloDan wrote:
If a player misses a session, that player is already being punished enough by missing a session.

I do not think I will ever be able to wrap my head around this concept! I just don't believe one should receive benefit from something unearned, even if that something is imaginary.

Also, I have never viewed missing a game session as "punishment"; sure it sucks, especially if it's because of something like having to work or what-not, but punishment?? That's quite a stretch...

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Degoon Squad wrote:
We are talking about Racism in a game where Orcs are killed on site, Goblins are all thought to be crazy psychopath, and a Demon will be robbed and killed just because?

Kill them because they're evil if you must, but don't you dare hurt their precious feelings by calling them names based upon stereotypes while doing so (because that'd be just mean)! :-P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
a sorcerer who had cast nondetection on himself.

I know the conversation is about psionics in 3.x/PF/Kirthfinder, but in 2nd edition AD&D, the default assumption was that magic and psionics were different and did not mix. However, if it is of any use to you, specific to psionics vs. nondetection, "The Complete Psionics Handbook" stated: "Nondetection: This spell is fully effective against psionic sensing."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scythia wrote:
Better than "Bennie and the Jets".

Oh yeah, there are a lot of songs that would be "inappropriate" at best.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have an admittedly odd "ritual".

Whenever someone close to me passes away, upon hearing the news, I will listen to Elton John's "Funeral for a Friend".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
I can try. Won't be for a few days. I'm currently away from home.

No problem, no hurry. :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
I was most proud of the tower map I had created, using CC3.

Can you post that map? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I tend towards vertical screens, as they tend to take up less over-all space, but I do like the lower profile that horizontal/landscape screens provide.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I have no idea how to really roleplay most mental illness, other than a Hollywood caricature of said illness. A couple I'm familiar with and get fairly well, but others are completely foreign and alien to me. Mental illness can change our perception of reality and I think saying that we fully understand how other people perceive reality (even without mental illness) is something fraught with peril.

But to a degree, we a gamers, especially when playing either a sci-fi or fantasy RPG, do just that; we take on foreign, and alien personas. We can say we know how an elf, dragon, or Great Cthulhu himself thinks and try to portray that, but the reality is, we don't have a clue how an immortal or nearly immortal, or extremely powerful being thinks or perceive the world around them. All we can do is pretend that we know based on how we've seen others portray them, or just taking a wild stab at portraying them on our own concerning how we think such a being might act/react to the world around them based on our own general thoughts and experiences.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
the base campaign setting is not.

Yeah, WotC has been slowly releasing PDFs at a rate of about 2 books total per week. They will eventually get to the Campaign Setting, I'm sure... :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Towers of High Sorcery, which is a 3.5 ere book that is totally devoted to Wizards in Dragonlance, is available in PDF format at:

dndclassic.com

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
In another thread, mourge40k wrote:
One day, people will fully realize that the associates clause actually doesn't make you fall.

The notion of a paladin falling because of association with evil, probably goes back to at least 2nd edition:

The 2nd edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably.

The Complete Paladin's Handbook, while optional, sheds light on what is and is not considered to be an "evil act"...

The Complete Paladin's Handbook wrote:
...Because he is duty-bound to suppress evil, a paladin won't tolerate an evil PC. He may take the evil PC into custody, physically restrain him, or demand his expulsion from the party. If all else fails, the paladin severs his ties with the party and go his own way. In any event, inaction is unacceptable...

That book goes on to say:

The Complete Paladin's Handbook wrote:
Any association with an evil-aligned character can be construed as an evil act...

Some might want to focus on the word construed, but The Complete Paladin's Handbook addresses that too:

The Complete Paladin's Handbook wrote:
The paladin avoids even the appearance of impropriety, remaining pure in word, deed, and thought

Now I realize that those are rules from an outdated system and that Pathfinder is a new game with new rules, but old habits tend to die hard. :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Eight year thread necro. You might be waiting a bit on that reply.

Especially since Rhavin's last post on these message boards was April 22, 2012...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In full disclosure, the issue only came up a couple of times back in the 80's while playing 1st edition, and that is how I ruled it each time in game.

I suppose another way to look at the issue would be that the only gems that can be placed within the purse would be gems that are valued at a minimum of 10 gp through a maximum of 100 gp value for each gemstone, but no matter what the value (i.e. 10 gp - 100 gp), you get 26 of that gem type/value the next morning.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I rule that the gems are of the same type, and same value, and that the total number of gems found the next morning equal no more than 100 gp value (e.g. a total of ten 10-gp value gems, five 20-gp value gems, etc.).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Hoover wrote:
I never seemed to elicit the emotional reactions I was trying to get.

Eliciting horror, fear, or any number of other, similar emotions in an rpg is tough. Players can sometimes be rather unconsciously blasé about things; forgetting their role in those particular circumstances.

I think this is why a lot of horror-based rpgs have mechanics set in place such as fear, horror, and even madness checks. It reminds players that their characters, in certain situations are not supposed to be the big bad undefeatable heroes® of the game!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Hoover wrote:
You can't have superstitions against fey

You can, but you definitely need to have players that are on the same page as you are with it, that are willing to react appropriately, or at the very least, have mechanics such as the Ravenloft setting's Fear & Horror checks (but even then, you need players to be willing to play with such mechanics in place).

Though running a game in such a manner does tend to kind of make your games a bit darker thematically and much more "horror-based" (which can be a good thing if you like that style of play).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Reebo Kesh wrote:
I will try and sell them as a lot at a local gaming club because I just don't have the time to try and sell 150 issues individually on ebay, would be nice though.

While I wish you the best of luck, I have to say, that in my experience, game clubs are very cash poor, and so would not be willing or able to pay very much money.

If the game club thing does not pan out, instead of trying to sell the magazines individually, you could divide them up by year published, placing them into lots of 6 for the earlier issues and lots of 12 for the latter issues and sell them that way; granted, that would be more "leg-work" than trying to sell them as a whole, but a whole lot less than selling them individually...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My favorite/preferred system would be 2nd Edition AD&D.

My second favorite would be Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ngc7293 wrote:
I have found that Crown Royal bags will suit me just fine.

No doubt... I love when the guy in the video said, "Gone are the days of using old Crown Royal bags..." (or something to the effect).

I thought, "Oh really??"

LOL... :-D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ratpick wrote:
since your friends seemingly want to play 5e they might not be receptive to your ideas of house-ruling it into something more like 3.5.

I agree. If I enjoyed 5e, and actually switched systems (from PF/3e to 5e), I wouldn't want 5e to emulate PF/3e at all.

I would highly recommend that you ask your players how they feel about something like that before you put any time and energy to this project...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Whatever. Sorry I used generic language and you felt that it somehow encroached on you.

I've been nothing but civil and polite to you, and I merely pointed out that you shouldn't be so all-inclusive when talking about aspects of the game from your personal anecdotal experiences, while you have shown nothing but sarcasm and snark.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Digitalelf, do you suppose that there might be one DM out there who has put hours of work into his campaign setting, only to have the players ignore it, not notice it AND not care?

Yes, of course your advice might be helpful to "some", or even "many", but don't imply that "we as gamers often think blah blah blah..." if/when you really mean to say that "some" or even "many gamers often think blah blah blah..." There IS a difference.

I'm not making this about me...

Saying things such as "we as gamers often", implies that "we gamers as a whole often..." Which is simply not true, as both me and now Orthos have both disagreed with your assertion that "we gamers often...".

Orthos wrote:
yeah I can't disagree more

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
There's nothing to argue over.

There's no argument, just commenting on what appeared to be a very general statement about how "We" as gamers "often think they're relevant, but they really aren't." to which I simply stated that no, this is not true of "we" as gamers...

If you meant "we" solely as in you and your group, then I apologize for any confusion on my part, as I read your use of "we" as implying to gamers in general, and not to just you and your group. :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
We often think they're relevant, but they really aren't.

That looks like an awfully broad brush your using there!

For me, and not only those that I currently game with, but for those that I have gamed with in the past as well - those details ARE very important...

Obviously, your mileage has varied from mine. ;-)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ravenharm wrote:
old school nostalgia for second edition gaming which ended up in a hilarious sense of reality vs memory.

Well, after actually going back to running 2nd edition AD&D in 2013 (after having stopped back in 2000 when 3rd edition came out), my memory of the game and how it ran and how much fun I had playing it from "back in the day", is pretty accurate; the reality I'm experiencing is that it runs just as I recall it running, and I am having just as much fun playing it now, as I did back then.

YMMV...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
my settings need to have verisimilitude.

As do mine. I mean, I like to have as genuine a sense of realism as I can, but the internal consistency of the setting (i.e. its verisimilitude) is far more important to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
the dispute is over whether one is obligated to comply.

And I really have a hard time understanding why It seems such a bad thing to feel even a little bit obligated to help a friend out in a time of need, even if the "friends" involved are nothing more than imaginary characters represented by a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper.

Do people dislike feeling obligated to others so much that they can't even consider it within an imaginary context?

I ask, because I honestly don't know.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
I could continue this argument with, "One entire fight out of four for the day," but I think that counting the percentage of rounds sacrificed for the team misses the point.

Such an argument misses the point Redjack_rose has been trying to make.

The point is, that it should not be an unreasonable request to honor when made solely when it is an option that would be of the utmost benefit to the entire party; then and only then... Most of the time, a given party's typical tactics should be sufficient and thus, such a request would at that time, be an unreasonable one to make because it's not needed, as the party's normal way of dealing with threats is more than enough.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
It seems to me that expecting the mage to use haste rather than fireball is the same as expecting a fighter to use a longsword over a dagger. I'm still struggling to see the point

I could be wrong, but I think Redjack_rose views spells much like I do, and that is they are a limited or perhaps even a disposable resource, much in the same way that thrown daggers, darts, sling stones, scrolls, and even food and water are - and such things should go to those that could best make use of them (again IF, IF the situation warrants such). where-as a fighter's long sword or bow are not limited or disposable resources, and are best in the hands of their owner because if the owner gives his sword of bow to someone else, then the owner is now at a severe disadvantage, conversely, the wizard casting a single spell to help his fellow comrade fight even better, is not put at any such disadvantage.

I think the disconnect is that most here do not seem to view spells as being any different than a fighter's sword or bow, while I, and perhaps Redjack_rose do...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
I really struggle to reconcile this with the previous example I gave of my fighter who liked using daggers and shortswords and wearing not great armor. You said you were fine with that

I obviously cannot speak for Redjack_rose, but I take his/her position to mean that if a character has the available resources that would be helpful to another character that can better make use of those resource in very specific circumstances, such as the various buff spells, then in the spirit of team co-operation, the character with those available resources should give those to that character that can best make use of them.

Using your fighter example, if said fighter had multiple daggers, and the ranger's only melee weapon was just broken, not sharing the daggers with the now weaponless ranger because your fighter likes to throw them, would be a similar scenario to the wizard not casting haste...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
It boggles us that you say you're okay with sub-optimal builds and character designs. but then if the sub-optimally built blaster wizard decides he wants to blast instead of cast haste

Comparing an entire character class/build against the use of one or two spells in distinct situations is quite boggling IMO...

Spell are an in-game resource, one that of course belongs to the caster, but an in-game resource none-the-less, and there are those that consider it selfish to not share that resource (or any resource for that matter) in-game with those characters that can make better use or are in dire need of that resource in very specific cases.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Yes, and bread is made from wheat...

But apparently, neither you, Jaunt, nor Othos have been asked the question of "What value does a game like D&D have (especially to a young person)?". Or if you have bee asked that, you've answered with "to have fun" which in the case of the people that have asked that question of me, does not really answer their question, as well, duh, we play games in general to have fun.

But the answer to the question of what value there is to a game like D&D is more than just to have fun; it teaches someone:

1. Reading
2. Reading Comprehension
3. Basic mathematics
4. The ability to interact with other people
5. Etc.

And since the game rules actively encourage team work, that is why I decided to post in this thread in the first place as that is where the conversation has gone...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jaunt wrote:

Hey guys.

Can we acknowledge that one of these scenarios is a game, and the other is literally life and death?

One of the things we as gamers tend to just love to express to non-gamers, is that our games encourage real-life team work, and co-operation with other people... Is that just idle lip service? Or does it actually mean something that can be seen by example (even through our collective imaginations) in how we interact with each other while immersed within our game?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Am I an expert marksman

Okay, lets roll with that - but this time, YOU'RE the one out of ammo, and your buddy has the 100 rounds.

Your buddy is no marksman, but he is a decent shot... Would you not want him to share some of his ammo with you, citing that you have the better aim?? And if both you and he KNOW you are the better shot, would you not at least grumble (if not outright complain) if he did not share some of his remaining ammo with you?

1 to 50 of 2,692 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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