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

DrDeth's page

5,482 posts. 17 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 869 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

The last straw was when I was grappled by a huge creature, and realized that there was literally nothing I could do to escape. Even rolling a 20 on my substantial escape artist skill wouldn't get me out, and I couldn't do enough damage to kill it before I died, because you can't TWF in a grapple.

I was rescued by the bard, who by this point could dimension door.

Huge creature? Other than a few odd spellcaster variants, there's nothing anyone could do to escape.

That bard with DD would be trapped as surely as you were.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a rather easy fix. Heck, you can just say that Simulacrums dont get SLA.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elder Basilisk wrote:

1. Out of game, preferably before the campaign, make it clear that not all encounters are adjusted based on the PCs' level. Level 20 PCs will occasionally run into level 1 bandits who don't recognize them (especially if the PCs are in disguise). Level 1 PCs could come across giants, dragons, and tribes of ogres which are beyond their ability. It's up to the players to figure out what their characters want to do.

2. Make it happen more than once. If every encounter is winnable from level 1 to 10 but you drop a "you must flee" encounter at level 11, it's likely the players won't get it. After all, the world just changed the way it worked. However, if they run into a Chimera at level 2, a couple ogre warbands at level 3, a legendary vampire at level 4, and a single kobold scout at level 5, then they should be accustomed to the idea that they need to evaluate each situation to see whether they should fight, hide, flee, or negotiate.

It's up to the players to figure out what their characters want to do..... and then die.

However, if they run into a Chimera at level 2, a couple ogre warbands at level 3, a legendary vampire at level 4... they will then die.

How do you flee from a Chimera at Level 2? So, the DM engineers that encounter, right? Well, they cant outrun a chimera. Fly 50, remember? So what would be the purpose of that encounter? To show the Players that the DM is boss? Why not "rocks fall, everyone dies"? Negotiate? CE remember?

If the DM lets them get away or talk their way out, it's DM fiat as much as not having the Chimera encounter in the first place.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

A few ways to get a lower-magic feel to a campaign without restricting spellcaster levels or monsters encountered:

1. In general, magic items are pried from the hands of your dead enemies, found as parts of a long-forgotten treasure, or found in other similar ways.
2. The only item creation feats allowed adventurers are Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion.
5. There is no concentration check for damage taken while attempting to cast a spell. Even a single point of damage disrupts the spell.

6. Spells take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare. Cantrips take 1 minute to prepare each. The arcane discovery...

1 & 2. This is more or less how I play. No "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe" but plenty of Phat Lewt drops, including personalized ones ("wish list). Indeed, WBL often exceeds guidelines, but since it isnt optimized it isnt over powering.

5. Too open to abuse. Just have something where the spellcaster takes continuous damage and he is now a poor Crossbow archer. Boring.

6. Just slows the game down.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shekaka wrote:

Dr. Deth, quick question, what do you mean each paladin should have a Phylactery? Not sure how that would be useful/reasonable/logical…probably being dense here ,but please enlighten me…sorry to derail ya'll

If a Paladin has a Phylactery, and the DM thinks that their action will result in their falling or similar, then the Phylactery will warn the PC and Player. Whereupon if the PC continues, the DM is well within his rights to have the Paladin face consequences. There's never a surprise or argument.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

In many cases the community, who collectively have more playtime and can notice these things in actual play more readily and in greater numbers have more knowledge of how all the pieces interact (which is 80% of what determines the actual power level of an option).

Actually, I think it's more like 20%.

How your table works is HUGE part of it. Some players have a lot of fun finding rules to exploit. At other tables such a thing is really frowned upon.

What level your games get is also important. If your games rarely get into double digits- or at best you finish a AP then retire the character- you won't see issues with high level play.

Theorycrafting is also a issue- while theorycrafting is important and helps stress test, if only a tiny % play that way, it's hardly worth spending a couple weeks fo a devs time to 'fix" something only 1% of players will ever notice.

I think someone posted a wizard with a STR so high he could cast Wish for free using Blood Money. How many games would this actually occur? How many games even actually use Blood Money? How much time should be spent fixing this, then?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I think in literally every game I've ever played, veteran players tend to know the game better than the designers... The difference is not as obvious in tabletop RPGs as it is in video-games, but it's still there.

What RPG designers have you played with?

I played with Arneson, but he was notorious for making stuff up on the fly. Hargrave knew his system better than anyone. Jay Hartlove knew Supergame! better than anyone. Steve Perrin knew Runequest better than anyone I ever played with. Ken was a master of T&T. M.A.R. Barker knew his world really well, but not the nitty gritty of the rules.

Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The corner exception to reach weapons was always one of the things where I thought PF was wrong.

Nice fix- thanks!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
rungok wrote:
I was wondering why people are complaining about rogues. I thought as 3/4 BAB classes are concerned, they seem to have a few things going for them. So does anyone have any other reasons behind 'they suck' for them to, well, suck?

Because, those that obsess over damage insist they don't do enough damage (I've out-damaged everyone else in the party with a rogue, but I love them). Two-handed weapon rogues are a joy to play.

...In games without skyrocket ACs, or against average to low AC opponents (yes they still exist) rogues are good value. In beginner dm games where not everything is ultra-powered, the rogue won't seem so weak in combat and they have all of that out of combat versatility. So choose your games wisely rogue player.

Many DM's have come to these boards complaining that their Rogue is breaking the game with it's Sneak Attack. Around level 5, the Rogue can really be a killer.

Mind you- it doesnt last. But many campaigns and a lot of APs are played in the low levels. The weakness of the rogue isnt really apparent until higher levels.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oly wrote:

I won't go too far into this, but:

1) It's rogue "love" much more than "hate." People (correctly) want to see the class improved.

2) Anything a rogue can do other classes with more abilities can do as well or better, and get some additional goodies as well. The clearest example is with the alternate ninja class, which can do all that rogues can do but also a few added things. Not that ninjas are all that powerful, but they come closer to the power curve than rogues.

Well, Ninjas are a rogue archetype so...

But anyway, Sorc & witch can do as well as wizards, oracles as well as Clerics etc, so this is not a big deal. PF has about 30 classes, so sure the four basic niche roles will be filled by more than one class.

Now yes, the basic rogue has a couple of issues: it was a early redesign. The Devs likely didnt realize how weak some of the talents were and how useless the "once a day' talent were.

Next the basic rogue is optimized for skills and trap-finding, not combat. But Paizo APs have few of the diabolical Gygaxian traps that occurred in the OD&D and AD&D days. That's what the Thief was designed for, and believe me friend- you needed a Thief in a old-school dungeon crawl. That why we invented it.

But more AP's are set up for combat,and the basic rogue is not best at that. Mind you, some of the rogue archetypes- ninja, scout, sapmaster- are decent.

So there's the following issues:

The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
The devs dont care for diabolical Gygaxian traps and have mostly excluded them from the APs. APs are mostly very combat heavy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think most people are happier on a "sandpath" adventure than in either a sandbox or on a railroad.

Right, Give them quests. Give them several quests, and let them pick and choose. They can even ignore one.

This way they are on a path, but not a railroad.

Dont punish them. Talk to them like adults.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I have never once in all my 29 years of gaming seen anyone get into a screaming match table pounding, wall hitting, or table flipping. I've seen disagreements and people get a bit heated over something, but stories about the former just boggle my mind.

I saw one board flip, maybe 40 years ago.

Mostly, it helps to play with adults- no matter how old they are.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
3catcircus wrote:
Low-magic is desirable because it brings a different kind of resource management. What it does is force players to think more strategically in the long-term and more tactically in the short-term. Perhaps it'd be better to sneak past the guards rather than carry on a frontal assault? Gee, I'm still in the process of recovering from that fight with that orc and I'm not back up to 100% - I think we'll need to plan on attacking from a distance and then running to a new spot, picking off these goblins when their patrol ranges away from their lair.

You could get this effect simply by denying resurrection or making it cost prohibitive. That would be easier and not have unplanned side effects across the 3.PF system.

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
3catcircus wrote:

I don't know if it has been expressed how I'm going to say it:

Pathfinder is a game about killing things and taking their stuff,

See, that's the problem. D&D has never been about "killing things and taking their stuff". If people run/play it like that, sure, you'll have issues.

Have more encounters, fewer combats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WPharolin wrote:

I'm not saying that you can't play without being murder hobos. In fact, I hope that isn't really the case. But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. That isn't even up for debate. You measure you're characters power in his ability to fight. You get exp for killing things. You get more powerful by looting things. Pre-written adventures since the dawn of pre-written adventures have included encounters that expect players to kill creatures indiscriminately. Pathfinder is no different.

It is up for debate, since that's not the way D&D has been played at any table I have been at for forty years.

You get exp for defeating encounters. Not "killing things". And if you turn evil (in a non-evil campaign) you "lose' as your PC becomes a NPC.

And in many pre-written adventures it's not expected that you go around and massacre peasants and shopkeepers. You dont "kill creatures indiscriminately"- perhaps you kill "monsters' on sight in some (but in others that turns against you) but after all- what is a "Monster"? Perhaps "killing monsters' is simplistic, but it *IS* a *GAME* not a realistic recreation.

So yeah, the Alignment system in D&D has always been a bit simplistic, but that's to make it a fun GAME. You can, of course, make it "more serious" or "more realistic" by adding nuances to morality if you so choose.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Part of the problem is that "sketch" is kind of a flexible term. For example-- Animate Dead. If a character uses it to revive a T-Rex (a wild animal-- is desecrating its corpse really significant to anybody?) to use as a mount, in what way is it evil?
Been reading Jim Butcher? :P
While I have read the book, and it was one of the more awesome moments of the series, actually not where that idea came from. Was something I'd considered doing for a Magus of mine, who could get Animate Dead, but only at a high level and without most of the support stuff. So the strategy turned into "find the best thing to animate for its hit dice", and that pretty much went "Holy carp a Bloody T-Rex Skeleton is awesome".

Two things:

1. One or two uses of a Evil spell doesnt make you evil.

2. It's hard to tell if Dresden "animated dead" or just make the skeleton move like a puppet. In D&D terms- Was it "animate dead' or "animate object"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, the flour back then wasn't ground fine enuf.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Phasics wrote:

If you could change one thing about the Rogue what would it be.

Its existence.

Remove it from reality, replace it with the Slayer retroactively.

Is this really helping? OK, you want to play a Slayer rather than a Rogue. So, go ahead- play a Slayer. Why does the existence of the Rogue stop you?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?

Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, maybe we could cool it down some?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pupsocket wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:
...but if you run a REAL dungeon with a REAL day (at least 8-12 hours)...where you'd actually NEED a Rogue (so none of this one or two trap stuff, the dungeon is LOADED with traps and locks and other things), they run out of these types of spells within the first hour or two...and then...they are back at the square where a Rogue with a high Dex is better at many of the skills.

Your neckbeard doesn't impress me, i used to DM with the red box edition. Even back then, the giant dungeons had places to rest and recover spells.

Some did some didn't. RedBox, eh? Get off my law, kid. ;-)

Still, back in those days of fiendish Gygaxian traps, you NEEDED a Thief in a dungeon crawl.

This is one issue with the rogue today, lack of fiendish Gygaxian traps in most PF AP's. You can often just take the hit from the occasional trap. Sad, really.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:

I'm curious why the Paladin never considered detecting evil when the monstrous beast made no attempt to attack him.

At the one right above me who ninja'd me :P

I don't think so. It's an illusion, correct? Unless the spell had an Evil indicator, I don't believe the spell itself would detect as any alignment at all, at best, and shouldn't impact the alignment of that beneath the illusion. At least, not unless it's a pretty powerful illusion.

It made noises and gestures- spellcaster? It reached out to touch= touch attack!

And like we said detect evil doesn't always work. It also could provoke an Attack of Opportunity.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cylyria wrote:
Why do people make these threads?
People seek advice and validation. They want to know that what they are doing is the proper way to do things. So they seek the experience of people who have dealt with the same situations.

And then very often in these sorts of threads- ignore it unless it is validation of what they wanted to hear. ;-)

(Not saying the OP is ignoring us, but that does happen- a LOT).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The Paladin threw himself into the (evil) wizard's trap. He didn't Detect Evil on the mysterious thing in his room,

Bugbears dont detect as evil, unless they have several levels. And you're allowed to defend yourself from attack, even if your foe is not evil. Touch attacks are common.

This was a complete dick move set up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

Haste is powerful as is, it's pretty borked on the Summoner's list since he gets it as a 2nd level spell and has access to it before any other class in the game.

It probably never should have been given to the Summoner at reduced level, but its usefulness is situational enough that I don't know that I could see it as a 5th level or higher spell. Those spells include straight up single action encounter enders, and haste is more of a team-oriented expediter.

Yeah. I dont complain often about PF, but this was a bad idea, and the whole class was poorly thought out.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Playing a race which could shift into a dog. Went and scouted the enemy camp in dog form. But I could only change once a day.

Came back to camp, was about to tell them what I found, then the DM reminds me "You cant speak in that form'. ooops

So I said "Bark, bark, bark!".

One of the other players said "What is it girl, did Timmy fall in the well?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Campaign where the DM was really into niggling details like rations. Co-DM was his GF, who was also a PC (dont get me started) and a horse expert.

So we had GREAT horses, but we had to provide grain, mash, etc for them. Sure we had iron rations, but we didnt bring that stuff. Thus, horses not happy.

We see a castle on the hill. I ask "Do you think they will have grain and stuff for our horses?"

"Of course!"

"Ok- Yonder lies the castle of me fodder!"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I think few games of whatever level of magic are played a lot beyond 14th level.

Our main game got to 15th, then ended.

I did have a 3.5 game get to 18th, and a 3.0 game get Epic.

And of course some of our early AD&D and OD&D games got crazy high.

This is why I am not terribly concerned there are some issues with very high level games.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:
There's a bit of talk about how other editions did it better - I'd love to know what the wording was in those editions. Can someone quote them?

(AD&D spell) Haste: ... When this spell is cast, affected creatures function at double their normal movement and attack rates. Thus, a creature moving at 6" and attacking 1 time per round would move at 12" and attack 2 times per round. Spell casting is not more rapid. The number of creatures which can be affected is equal to the level of experience of the magic-user, those creatures closest to the spell caster being affected in preference to those farther away, and all affected by haste must be in the designated area of effect. Note that this spell negates the effects of a slow spell (see hereafter). Additionally, this spell ages the recipients due to speeded metabolic processes. Its material component is a shaving of licorice root. [1E AD&D PHB, p. 74]

Haste: ... The transmuted creature moves and acts more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects. On its turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after its regular action. The subject gains a +4 haste bonus to AC. The subject loses this bonus whenever it would lose a dodge bonus. The subject can jump one and a half times as far as normal. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus. Haste dispels and counters slow. [3.0 SRD]
5th ed
3rd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (a shaving of licorice root)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
Choose a willing creature that you can see within range.
Until the spell ends, the target’s speed is doubled, it
gains a +2 bonus to AC, it has advantage (this means roll twice take the best, which is HUGE) on Dexterity
saving throws, and it gains an additional action on each
of its turns. That action can be used only to take the
Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide,
or Use an Object action.
When the spell ends, the target can’t move or take
actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy
sweeps over it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Perhaps it is too good, but in all honesty I would rather it be a spell that makes teaming up with a bunch of martials into an effective tactic.

Haste enforces teamwork, and lets the martials become over-the-top-action stars. The caster gets to know they're getting a better return on their spell investment, everyone wins.

This is one of the few intersections between magic and combat that actually doesn't completely trample on martial character types. It creates a situation where casters and martials need each other to function at peak performance, and that's good for the game.

If anything, I would say that the whole of spellcasting should be more like haste vs. fireball.

Imagine if all of the most effective spells were best used on other characters, and allowed them such time in the spotlight.

Right- Haste is a perfect spell. It is critical, yes. But it boosts martials far more than casters.

Haste is one of the reasons why the "Caster/Martial" disparity" is (at many tables) not a significant thing as the group plays as a TEAM.

Haste is one of the reasons why our Fighter in a 14th level is still by far the most dangerous member of the team

Take away Haste, and you get rid of a critical part of Caster/Martial teamwork.

Casters are back to Fireball.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have said it a thousand times "You cant solve OOC problems IC".


"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Riuken wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Arikiel wrote:
It's almost like they'll have to treat combat as a life and death situation rather then just a stream of video game style encounters.
It's almost like they're not heroes at all, but just joe schmoe trying to survive.

Sometimes that's the point, though. Other times it's a mistake. Do you want high heroics but low magic? You'll have a lot of houseruling to do. If all you want is low magic grim, gritty, and deadly then lacking quick healing probably helps with the type of game you're trying to play.

It's been said before, but to sum it up:
People play low magic Pathfinder because they want a different feeling game, but still want to use the Pathfinder rules, whether for familiarity or cost. They also want to be able to convince people to play it by saying, "It's still a Pathfinder game, but X, Y, and Z are different."

Thats like saying, "Pathfinder is still D&D 3.5 but X Y and Z are different." That's how much you would have to change in order to get low magic to work effectively. I guess I don't see the point.

Actually, a lot more than that, depending on how Low you go.

Ultra-Low magic is more different from PF than PF is different from OD&D.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?

That's a legitimate question. Iron Hero is a good product.

People like familiarity. Perhaps IH doesn't feel enough like Pathfinder; actually, IH has a very distinct vibe. Would Pathfinder still feel like Pathfinder once you remove X, modify Y and add Z is yet another legitimate question. Still people are attached to their favourite product and well, people are not always rational about that.

I like your posts and you bring some very valid point to the conversation DrDeth, but sometimes it sounds like "you'll fail, don't bother trying".

Well, to some extent. I mean, some modifications to the PF magic system can be done without making it "Iron Heroes in Golarion". I dont like "ye Olde Magik Shoppe", but I tend to hand out cool specialized loot. I have put some nerfs on spells and spell casters. I agree that D&D breaks down when casters can do 9th level spells.

I wouldn't mind seeing a PF version of IH.

Bot too often "Low magic' means a DM who is over-reacting to some super-optimized build with some kludgy "fixes" that are worse than the problem.

Or DM's that want to run Iron Heroes type game but when they advert for the game they get no players, so they say "Low magic E2 Pathfinder' instead. To them I say- be honest. Or just try a few small fixes.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Undone wrote:
The issue is that some spells are required for the game to function on a basic level. You can literally not play the game without healing magic, at least not in any significant capacity. Restoration is a pretty much mandatory spell to exist. You can play without raise dead/breath of life but high level monsters sort of expect to kill at least one player sometimes (Take a look at banshee's or demiliches). Without remove disease/curse a simple CR 5 mummy will kill at LEAST one member of the group. Heck you can't even HAVE a mission in hell/the abyss/another plane without sufficiently high magic but those are not something for everyone. The problem with low magic is the game simply doesn't function without access to specific removal/healing spells. You could however build a nearly functional system banning ARCANE magic.

First of all, low magic does not mean no magic.

Second, not having easy access to healing doesn't make the game unplayable, it makes the game play differently. Powerful monsters like the mummy, demilich and banshee you cited become challenges that require preparation and clever tactics.

Without ready access to healing, a mummy or a banshee isn't just an encounter, it's the entire adventure....

No, without ready access to healing even random orcs or bandits are "the entire adventure"

I have done this. Boring as hell.

It goes like this:
1. Encounter. Any encounter which is challenging enough to lose HP.
2. Rest.
3. Get random encounter during rest.
4. Rest some more
5. Death spiral or boredom ensues.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That sort of stuff sometimes works, but not if he thinks he is gonna steal the stuff if he "wins". He is a newb. Newbs need to learn a very important thing about D&D- it is a TEAM game, not a PvP game, like most other games are.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qakisst Vishtani wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Is this just a game to see if he can get in, or will he steal stuff from you and the party? If so, there are two answers:

Sit down and talk to him OOC, like adults, and explain this is NOT fun for you.


If he continues, invite his character out of the party. Refuse to adventure with him.

The GM has talked to him; but if you've never dealt with an ADHD person you won't quite understand why lessons like this are very slow to skink in.

And unfortunately his girlfriend is playing the paladin, and she's awesome. We're stuck with the package deal.

Simple, just dont let him run a a rogue. Some newbs are just incapable of understanding that it's a team game, and a rogue isnt supposed to use his skills vs the party.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is this just a game to see if he can get in, or will he steal stuff from you and the party? If so, there are two answers:

Sit down and talk to him OOC, like adults, and explain this is NOT fun for you.


If he continues, invite his character out of the party. Refuse to adventure with him.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

If Pathfinder Unchained isn't edited by Erik Mona and Lisa Stevens (fantastic editing work on APG), we will have another Advanced Class Guide disaster to look forward to.

We can't have "another Advanced Class Guide disaster " as there was no disaster in the first place.

Unless you are holding Paizo to such a high level that anything short of perfection is "a disaster".

I dunno about you, but I've never seen another Pathfinder book get put down because of its cover. My friend has purchased every first printing Paizo core book, but when he saw the ACGs cover he just laughed and skipped it.

"If the front cover has that big an error I don't want to see what's inside!"

"And to be clear, the misprint concerns about three square inches on the front cover. The logo on the spine is correct. The logo on the cover page is correct. The logo on the back is correct. The logo on every spread in the book is correct. One image link broke, to one logo. Yes, it's the most important one, and yes, that's very embarrassing, but ultimately it makes no difference to the book's content. Many folks I've shown the book to did not even notice the difference, as the logos are very similar."

Wow, gee, gosh, that sure is a terrible, horrible error that stops that supplement from being enjoyed!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pupsocket wrote:

Reasonably clear intent > semantics.

The PF devs don't write to rules lawyer standard. I think they ought to hire somebody who did, but it's an indisputable fact that they don't.

I really dont want a CRB that is 12" thick and costs $400, thankyouverymuch.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

People have been requesting, begging, and/or demanding 3.5 psionics/making Dreamscarred Press's psionics official Pathfinder material for years now as well. If Paizo hasn't bent to all that already, what makes you suddenly think they will now?

A few people. Most either dont care or are happy just to buy and use Dreamscarred Press's products as is.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

If Pathfinder Unchained isn't edited by Erik Mona and Lisa Stevens (fantastic editing work on APG), we will have another Advanced Class Guide disaster to look forward to.

We can't have "another Advanced Class Guide disaster " as there was no disaster in the first place.

Unless you are holding Paizo to such a high level that anything short of perfection is "a disaster".

3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

Finally got time to do a more detailed answer.


  • Employing prominent NPCs/GMPCs
  • Yes. NPCS or GMPCS are part of the GMs arsenal of toys to play with. The idea is to fill in the world or the party, to give the players people to deal with in any manner possible. Otherwise it might get boring if there was no one of interest around.

    Note there's a large difference between a NPC and a GMPC (which is a special case of NPC, true).

    Generally, when GMPC is used, what is meant is a Character similar to or more powerful than the PC's and who adventures with the party on a more or less constant basis. This can be REALLY annoying and is often abused.

    prominent & interesting NPCs= Good
    prominent & interesting GMPCs= Usually bad.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Splode wrote:

    So, my takeaway from this thread is that I should show up to a new game wearing a trillby and hypersexualized anime girl t-shirt, then play as a Psionic Lolicon Kender Antipaladin who rants about Linux and men's rights in a creepy little girl voice.

    Got it.


    (drags body away to join the others)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Liz Courts wrote:
    DrDeth wrote:
    Skeld wrote:

    I dislike anyone under the age of 60 that comes to gaming wearing a fedora.

    Most of them aren't really a fedora, and a real fedora looks very cool.
    If I'm remembering my millinery correctly, the thinner brim style is a trilby; fedoras have a wider brim—example here.

    Spot on!

    Good point, Liz.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Skeld wrote:
    JurgenV wrote:
    DungeonmasterCal wrote:
    Jacob Saltband wrote:
    Skeld wrote:

    I dislike anyone under the age of 60 that comes to gaming wearing a fedora.


    *hides fedora behind his back*
    I'll be 51 in 6 days and by golly I want a classic broad brimmed fedora!
    A real fedora not a hipster hat

    Don't get me wrong, outside of a well-dressed elderly gentleman or an actor in a period piece, I always know what to expect from a conversation with a guy wearing a fedora (especially if he isn't wearing a suit and tie): a discussion on men's rights or Linux.

    I dont get the hat hate. There's no reason to hate a person based upon their choice of headgear. That's quite superficial.

    And I have been wearing fedoras for forty years, and I never bring up "a discussion on men's rights or Linux." I think your sample size is too small.

    Fedoras are cool. They keep the sun off you face, protecting you from skin cancer. They keep your head worm in the cold and dry in the rain.

    Hating hat wearers is like hating people who wear shoes based upon the fact that one of them was a jerk once.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Skeld wrote:

    I dislike anyone under the age of 60 that comes to gaming wearing a fedora.

    Most of them aren't really a fedora, and a real fedora looks very cool.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    boring7 wrote:
    DrDeth wrote:
    boring7 wrote:

    Or, you know, power is all relative, they still could have just ridden giant eagles if the narrative hadn't demanded an epic journey of epicness,
    No. This meme keeps coming up, but it's completely wrong. The Eye and Will of Sauron would stop the Eagles and the Nazgul would make short work of them.
    band of murderhobos

    This term should be shot dead, and it especially doesnt apply to the Nine Walkers.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Over time, there's no such thing as luck.

    So, your dice are simply poorly made (or your sample size not large enough). Get a few more, they are cheap.

    1 to 50 of 869 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 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.