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

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,876 posts (5,877 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,876 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Trekkie90909 wrote:
I enjoy both systems. As far as attributes go, if I play a character with 8 int, I play them as incredibly stupid so I don't find point buy so much constraining as easily exploited.t.

The stat array and IQ spread on Golarion is very oddly spread. About one person in seven has a 8 in IQ (the Std array has one 8, but a few people are elite array and a very, very few have stats outside that).

That would make a 8 Int= IQ 83, quite a bit higher than Forrest Gump's 76.

But altho that's fairly close to the standard deviation of Int8= IQ80, only about one person in a 100,000 or even less has a IQ lower than that. Again due to the standard array (which over 90% of the population of Golarion has) having no number under 8.

So, 8, in Golarion is just below average. 15's are very high.

7's or even 6's are exceptionally rare. You could play those as "incredibly stupid" if you wanted too.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.

If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.

The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.

Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.

You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.

Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.

If the GM says, "I don't want this in my game, so I'm banning it. Here's a free character rebuild", and the player says, "Screw yourself, I'm using it or I'm not playing," and the GM needs the player then congratulations: the PC's character is targeted for death.

It isn't passive aggressive if the other option is kicking the player squarely in the ass out your front door.

Nope, that's what you need to do. Say "Bye- thanks for playing! "


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.

If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.

The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.

Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.

You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.

Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.


Randarak wrote:
I don't care for the point buy system. I find it limiting for development of character attributes. I'm not saying this to invite debate. I don't like it, and never will. :-P

i agree, but it aids in a couple things: Being able to pre-design a PC well in advance, and also not having two PC's widely disparate.


Physically Unfeasible wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By taking a one level dip into something that can grant a familiar?
They already get a familiar. They need so many levels of a arcane spellcasting class, which makes no sense for this archetype.
So....they don't take it? It'd be a subpar option for them anyway unless a wand-monkey was that important to them.

Maybe for roleplaying? Maybe they thing a Pseudodragon would be the coolest thing ever?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
claudekennilol wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
fighter's dont have wizard levels?????

:facepalm: are you not familiar* with what the entire thread is talking about? (i.e. the Eldritch Guardian?) :runs away from thread again ignoring every other comment I want to make:

*pun not originally intended, then italicized for funsies

Well, yes, they have effective wizard levels. But my question is, are those OK for Arcane Spellcaster levels?


claudekennilol wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Also, how would a Fighter, ect gain Improved Familiar?

How would someone that has a familiar not get Improved Familiar? I don't see anything that bars them from taking it.

Improved Familiar, PRD wrote:


This feat allows you to acquire a powerful familiar, but only when you could normally acquire a new familiar.

Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below).
Benefit: When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed below are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).

The levels they ask for are "Arcane Spellcaster Level".
From my posts I obviously know that already. The point of contention is that I say that the fighter's wizard levels should qualify for that because that's exactly what they're there for.

fighter's dont have wizard levels?????


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rory wrote:

Make the gaming table an "electronics free zone" except for potentially looking up rules, etc. Make them bring printed out copies of their character, take notes using pencil and paper, and make sure to roll actual dice.

Yep, but also speed up combat. let everyone know not only who is up, but who is next up, and that person has to be ready, with that page open for their spell or the monster they summon, etc.

Cut down on cohorts, summons, etc. No more than two combat ready things per player.


claudekennilol wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Also, how would a Fighter, ect gain Improved Familiar?

How would someone that has a familiar not get Improved Familiar? I don't see anything that bars them from taking it.

Improved Familiar, PRD wrote:


This feat allows you to acquire a powerful familiar, but only when you could normally acquire a new familiar.

Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below).
Benefit: When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed below are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).

The levels they ask for are "Arcane Spellcaster Level".


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
By taking a one level dip into something that can grant a familiar?

They already get a familiar. They need so many levels of a arcane spellcasting class, which makes no sense for this archetype.


How would a Eldritch Guardian get Improved familiar?


Also, how would a Fighter, ect gain Improved Familiar?


Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
I saw a thread on this and it reminded me that I do not care for Animal companions, Improved familiars, Leadership feat, anything that adds another action for a PC.

A little extreme, but once our table gets to six, we dont allow them either. Mounts or regular familiars, anything not used in combat- sure.

And even when we only have five, the limit is two per person, counting summoned creatures.


James Jacobs wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Do you know of a good King in Yellow miniature?
Cthulhu Wars.
How about the "Denizen of Leng" figure?

Meh. When you throw in the King of Yellow, it's best to not use a stand-in for an identifiable lower CR foe. If your group doesn't know about denizens of Leng and you don't intend to use them in your game, I suppose it's a good stand in.

Personally, if the Cthulhu Wars one isn't to your liking, I'd suggest you find a cool, scary grim reaper or wraith or other hooded cloaked figure and paint it yellow.

Well, since you cant buy the Cthulhu Wars figures.....


James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Do you know of a good King in Yellow miniature?
Cthulhu Wars.

How about the "Denizen of Leng" figure?


Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:


I ban fighters to prevent level dipping for free feats. No one actually wants to play a fighter, after all.

Perhaps in your group, my experience is the opposite- it's a rather popular class.


alexd1976 wrote:

Huh.

Good point about level dipping I guess. I've been tempted to ban multiclassing because of one friend of mine who's saves are always stupid high due to this...

But since he doesn't play casters, I'd guess, does it really matter? And even so, I have seen multiclassers with stupid LOW Will saves.


Scythia wrote:

My banned list:

Even 3pp? Even 3.5? Even a class I wrote myself?


Drogon wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Drogon wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

I am confused. My local GMs ran us thru We be Goblins, which used exclusively Pre-gens. 1st level. According to what folks are saying, since i had some perfectly good unplayed 1st level PCs, I can't assign the credit for WbG to anyone at all? Huh?

This would mean no one gets any credit for a first level Pregen???

I have grave doubts.

Heh. Yer a hoot. /-:
No, it's a serious question. I am quite new to this PFS thing.

You are not allowed to play any character in We Be Goblins other than the supplied pre-gens.

You may apply the chronicle you earn by playing one of those pre-gens and successfully completing the adventure to a 1st level PC of your choice.

Nothing in this discussion supersedes the rule that is in place for that adventure (which is written into the instructions on how to run this specific adventure for PFS).

OK, great. But then how about a first level Pre-gen for other games- who can apply the credit for those? or they cant be played?


Drogon wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

I am confused. My local GMs ran us thru We be Goblins, which used exclusively Pre-gens. 1st level. According to what folks are saying, since i had some perfectly good unplayed 1st level PCs, I can't assign the credit for WbG to anyone at all? Huh?

This would mean no one gets any credit for a first level Pregen???

I have grave doubts.

Heh. Yer a hoot. /-:

No, it's a serious question. I am quite new to this PFS thing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:

For the people who ban rez spells, I have a question. How does banning rez spells make the game more fun and immersive in the scope of a campaign's story? How about punishing?

I mean, you've got two options. 1) Dock the player 7000 gp (raise dead + 2 restorations) and let them back to playing the character they want to play, or 2) have them lose that character forever, and make a new one.

So with option 2, there's suddenly a stranger that's exactly as strong as the character that died, with thousands upon thousands of gold he just happens to be carrying around (WBL). And the party has to justify bringing this stranger into their group, trusting their lives to him, and he to them. I.E. the party has to use metagame knowledge to realize that this stranger is controlled by a PC, and not simply treat him like any other NPC. The stranger has to quickly find reasons to care about all the problems and plot points that the rest of the party has experienced from the beginning of the campaign, and the player has to find reasons to become emotionally invested in their new character after the loss of their old one, the one they wanted to play to begin with. In terms of punishment, the character didn't get punished at all, because they didn't lose 7000 gp like the old character would have if they'd been allowed to get rezzed. In addition, the new character could be built more optimally for the level they're starting at, compared to a character that had been in the game since level 1. The only punishment happening here is that the player doesn't get to have fun with their original character.

So with that in mind, I'd love it if someone could explain to me why option 2 makes the game more fun, immersive, and punishing of death.

Exactly.

As I posted before:

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?


I am confused. My local GMs ran us thru We be Goblins, which used exclusively Pre-gens. 1st level. According to what folks are saying, since i had some perfectly good unplayed 1st level PCs, I can't assign the credit for WbG to anyone at all? Huh?

This would mean no one gets any credit for a first level Pregen???

I have grave doubts.


lokidr wrote:

Most game groups have at least an unofficial "do not use" list. In Pathfinder Society, you cannot be a vivisectionist for example. Some of these are thematic: assassins don't fit in a "heroic, open and for the people" style game, at least without a strong justification.

I'm considering the more general options; those archetypes/builds/feats that just stick out as too unwieldy or just too good to allow casually into a game. To me, these options should be heavily justified before being taken and the DM should reserve the right to say "that's enough".

Craft Wondrous Item: just about everything fits into this category and extensive use (in a campaign with any significant downtime) hurt the wealth by level curve. Unlike weapons or armor, there are always more wondrous trinkets you want. The caster/normal divide doesn't need any help.
Invulnerable Rager: I'm less sure of this but the DR combined with high hitpoints seem overpowering.
Leadership: it is functionally a second character. Just a caster performing buffs is major change in power level of the party. Then there is the spotlight problem.
Master Summoner: too many actions in a longer combat for one player, too much tracking, too much headache
...
Non-Unchained Summoner: eidolons were given too much latitude and are too easy to break
....
Slumber Hex: one save, most dangerous monster is done. It makes the game boring
...

Pretty much we got rid of anything but Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll.

Invulnerable Rager: nope, not OP.
Leadership: needs to be approved on a case by case basis, with the player and DM agreeing on the cohort.
Master Summoner: Yep, super spotlight hog.
Non-Unchained Summoner: having to triple check the builds gets annoying after a while. It was a bad idea.
Slumber Hex: lots of immunities, have to get close in, usually has to win init. Worked for us in RotRL, but I can see ho win campaigns with lost of Human BBEG and or solo monsters with poor will saves, it could be a game breaker. Why not try it, but tell the player that it can be yanked?


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

If "betray" is enabled then pvp is enabled. Party should just kill the character and say "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Or in this case, us."

Then kill his next character just so he gets the message and knows what the path of vengeance will lead from this time forward. Then welcome him back and adventure together with conviviality.

)

You can't solve OOC issues IC. He'd just do it again or resent the fact you preemptively killed his PC and then sulk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:


A) GM complains the players won't role play, but he always skips right to the next fight if there is even the slightest delay.

C) Player is upset that his PC's constantly fails will saves, his builds always dump wisdom, 2-3 classes with poor will saves, and never spends the money for anything to protect his mind.

Have you been gaming with me? We had a really good DM for RotRL, but he was always hurrying us, to the point he'd time us between combats and take that off spell duration. Obviously then, you dont do RPing. But then he complained all we wanted ot do was Kill, kill, kill.

Yep, that's one of our Players all right. Never took a defensive feat, dumped stats. Complained bitterly.


Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
I do not care for trip, grapple, sunder basically any thing to do with CMD

I agree. I hate tripping builds- they slow the game down.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is also the Hospitaler Paladin, Arcane Healer Bard, Chirurgeon Alchemist, and Hedge Witch.

Also Witch Doctor.

But yeah, Hospitaler Paladin is the closest thing to a "non-healer healer" I have played. Sure, burn a feat on Selective Channel and either extra channel or extra LoH. But get a set of heavy armor, a heavy shield, and a nasty martial one handed weapon, and you're a solid tank, too.

I disagree somewhat with the "play what you want" there is something to be said for "taking one for the team". Mind you, it does come down to how much fun you are gonna have: Myself, knowing am taking on this niche for the "good of the team" makes pretty much anything fun. But if you're gonna be miserable, then no, talk to your DM or get another player to switch.

And no, you cant just make do with a Wand of CLW. Condition removal and Restoration spells are critical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vrischika111 wrote:
while I totally agree, they ask for an official reply, as they don't allow it.

Mark doesn't give "official replies' here.


Shadow_Charlatan wrote:

Will a Ring of Inner Fortitude protect the wearer from the Con damage when filling a Blood Reservoir of Physical Prowess ?

"A reservoir has no effect if not charged with the wearer's blood, and cannot be charged .... those that cannot take Constitution damage."


Beach Boys, Beatles, Elvis....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

It's funny, but most times I mention for people making these claims to actually prove it through game play, they tell me they don't need to.....

<sigh> It's the same arguments repeated by the same people. And the same defence by the same people ironically. All I need is DrDeth to chime in with me and it will be like all the discussions over last two years again :)

You Rang? Chime!


Nope. I'd rather hear the DM or the players.


Crikeys Mark, did you guys just name a class "Medium"? ;-) Did you learn nothing from "level"?

Can I play a Large Medium? How about a Small Medium? Most will be Medium Mediums. If I play it pretty good, does it become a "Medium Well"? Or if I am cheerful, am I a "Happy Medium"? Snort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I want to play just one game where NOBODY (except the GM) knows what class or race any one is, and has to figure it out based upon physical description and actions taken.

Hasn't happened yet.

No one even knows what race they are themselves????? You're hardcore dude!
Are you absolutely certain everyone you meet is human, for instance?

I am a Carpathian, one rather popular writer thinks we're not human....<g>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I want to play just one game where NOBODY (except the GM) knows what class or race any one is, and has to figure it out based upon physical description and actions taken.

Hasn't happened yet.

No one even knows what race they are themselves????? You're hardcore dude!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.

Death is supposed to be special dammit!

Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.

Yesbut- As I posted before:

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?


Bill Dunn wrote:
bookrat wrote:


To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.

You've just described the reason I hated reading Planescape materials. I found that patois extremely annoying.

Annoyed the hell out me too, and that weird typeface- uggg.

I didnt care for the artwork either, too baroque. That said Paizos art is too baroque, too.


Altho I am a fan of Vancian, I tried a BoNS Swordsage taking the fire etc powers, and it was wonderful. He also wasn't a wuss in melee combat.

Non-Vancian non-spellpoints, and it works.


captain yesterday wrote:

When people use the OA abbreviation for Occult Adventures my brain instantly defaults to calling it Oriental Adventures.

Yep. "cause I talked my DM into letting me play the OA Samurai in a3.5 campaign- one of the best "Fighter" classes ever, outside of the BoNS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
My mom was born in 1973 and I was born in 1993. That makes my mom 42 and me 22.

So what you're saying is that I'm not just older than you, but I'm also older than your mom.

That's not making me feel any better.

It's worse. I am just possibly maybe old enuf to be Aniuś the Talewise*'s grandfather. Thanks, kid for making me feel...not old...but ancient.

;-)

and I didn't even get more dice with my breath weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
My mom was born in 1973 and I was born in 1993. That makes my mom 42 and me 22.
I started playing D&D a year after your Mom was born. sigh.

Didn't you design the original Thief class (among other things)?

Totally rusty on my gaming history >_>

Yep.


Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
My mom was born in 1973 and I was born in 1993. That makes my mom 42 and me 22.

I started playing D&D a year after your Mom was born. sigh.


Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

So a few days ago I was researching the history of the formative days of fantasy rpg gaming, and came across the medieval miniatures rules that would eventually become the rules of Chainmail, which itself was the direct predecessor of DnD.

So extremely important piece of gaming history.

My immediate first reaction to this important historical document was, "Vikings didn't f%%*ing wear plate"

I can't see where it sez "Vikings wear plate"? It does class them as "heavy Foot" with dismounted knights as 'armored foot" with presumable heavier armor.

BtW, pretty much everyone in wargaming thought Chainmail was pretty bad. Wargames Research was the gold standard.

if you look to the right of the line listing hv. inf. - turks,normans,vikings you can see the word plate and then the rest of the phrase word is covered by the watermark, which I speculate might say 'plate mail'

Top of page 6?

III. Melee
Heavy Foot-Vikings, Normans, Turks?

I cant see the word "Plate".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

So a few days ago I was researching the history of the formative days of fantasy rpg gaming, and came across the medieval miniatures rules that would eventually become the rules of Chainmail, which itself was the direct predecessor of DnD.

So extremely important piece of gaming history.

My immediate first reaction to this important historical document was, "Vikings didn't f%%*ing wear plate"

I can't see where it sez "Vikings wear plate"? It does class them as "heavy Foot" with dismounted knights as 'armored foot" with presumable heavier armor.

BtW, pretty much everyone in wargaming thought Chainmail was pretty bad. Wargames Research was the gold standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I am so jealous.

The fact that you continue to wear your gambeson in your sleep makes you a role model for aspiring early middle ages infantry everywhere.

I have to add "used to" since I am a little old for that now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

Confession: I imagine that armor comes with an unstated gambeson, because wearing armor without a gambeson is an extremely terrible idea, especially if you're wearing mail.

#AlwaysWearYourGambeson

EDIT: Also, if you depict a warrior in mail but with no gambeson underneath, I will slap you on the wrist.

Not only do I know what one is, I used to wear one under my hauberk.

To show what a "must" it is, I had a 1" gap between my gambeson and my elbow guards, and got hit there in SCA heavy combat. Hurt like %$#@! and drove links into my skin. Cool bruise tho.

I have argued this very thing with DMs, that when my PC sleep and take off their armor they still wear padded armor under it. I got to buying a set of padded just to sleep in. It is kinda nice to sleep in, until is gets really gross and sweaty.

You could wear leather under the chain.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
I confess that I have not nor ever intend play a bard.

But do you intend to play a beard?

I almost used this image for my dwarf murderhobo, but it was a bit too girly for her.

I hate the term murderhobo. :-p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Ooh, I have something confession-y. I started playing RPGs with D&D 4e and I still have a fondness for that system.

I played in a 4E campaign, and I kinda liked it. Mind you, the fact that the DM had a full subscription so we could do our PC's on the system and it would print out those cool multi-colored character sheets, with all the spells, etc details, made it nicer. Good DM too.

This sorta goes to show my axiom is that it's not the system- it's the DM and your co-players that make the game fun.

I even had a little fun trying Chivalry & Sorcery.

I guess I am too easy......


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

My confession:

I like the "bikini armour" style of fantasy female character art because I wish I was pretty and comfortable/confident enough with my body to be able to dress like that, sometimes.

Even still, Rob Liefeld needs to go away.

I agree- as long as there's plenty of beefcake served with that cheesecake. Fair is fair.

But I had no idea who the heck Rob L was until I looked him up.


Well, some people read too much into a reply. I have said (for example) that certain issues argued to death here on these boards just dont happen in the games I have played in.

That's NOT saying that I play the One True Way or that the issues Never happen. It's saying I haven't seen them, personally, which by extension does say those issues are not universal. Those issues may occur constantly at your table, my observation that they dont occur at mine doesn't cast doubt on your table.

But along the lines the OP issue is when the "usual suspects' <g> start the same debate making the same points in yet another thread, thus hijacking the OP. For example, the "Do you Like Pathfinder" thread has gone off a couple times into the martial/caster disparity issue. Nothing wrong with saying "Yeah, I like Pathfinder, but I think martial/caster disparity hurts the game balance", but there's enough threads on what the disparity is or if it actually exists in the wild. ;-) (It's a fun debate at times, I admit, but it doesnt have to be the focus of every thread)

And of course, there's a 50% chance this thread will now be hijacked for the martial caster debate. ;-)

1 to 50 of 5,876 << 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.