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

Durngrun Stonebreaker's page

2,687 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I just came to this thread to make fun of some guy drinking some other guy's milk and honestly I'm feeling so attacked right now.

Aww, don't feel that way. We just...

Get 'em! Get 'em now!


You swear every single sentence?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
My point was that it's not one side's job to adapt to what the other side wants in this conflict of interest. It is completely irrelevant that you think it's easy for the other side to change, the only part of it you CAN change is YOUR part of it. You don't get a free pass because you consider swearing an ugly, uncouth, barbaric, stupid, moronic, uncomfortable, uncivilized, blasphemous or otherwise disagreeable behaviour. Just like swearing, it is your choice not to see it as the above or not, and if you do, you put the entire onus of change on the swearer. As TL says, if you want to be around that person, it's not a good method.

Onus.

Bonus onus.


I'm not asking anybody to change (unless you're around my kids which none of you are), I just don't get the "woe is me, walking on eggshells" aspect of it. Do you really swear so constantly that it is unimaginable to turn it off for an afternoon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

The more I follow the dialogues on this topic, the more perplexed I feel.

I mean, if the reply given to a proposed alternative is "But people abused the aasimar situation", then one would assume that the speaker is meaning to imply that the proposed alternative would allow similar abuse. That is, declining an idea because of past abuse suggests that the goal is to prevent a repeat of that abuse.

Except I don't see people actually saying that. Granted I've at times only skimmed some of the posts, but I haven't seen people explaining how a given solution would enable abuse. Meanwhile, the proponents of these alternatives have been asserting that their ideas would not be so abusable.

Yet still, the mantra against these alternatives remains, "But aasimar abuse".

So what does that reply actually mean?

If the proposed solutions actually do enable abuse in some manner that posters have overlooked, why not just say so? That would immediately clear things up, and I imagine the affected posters would be far more satisfied.

If the proposed solutions don't enable abuse, then why is past abuse being brought up at all? Are people just not really reading the ideas and assuming they'll be abusable? Does "last time there was abuse" mean something other than "we don't want to enable similar abuse this time"?

What is the actual message that's intended to be communicated by bringing up past abuse in response to proposed solutions?

I just don't understand what I'm reading here.

Maybe..."There was abuse in the past so we are not doing it at all anymore."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I don't condem those that don't like foul language, I just don't see it as some unbearable burden to ignore it if someone is swearing. Especially if that someone is someone you consider a friend.

Replace "foul language" with "racist language" and look how ridiculous the argument becomes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't condem those that use foul language, I just don't see it as some unbearable burden to turn it off if it's upsetting someone. Especially if that someone is someone you consider a friend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Use to curse a lot, had kids, now I don't.
Love to debate politics, DM doesn't, I don't discuss politics when I game.
Neither required what I would call "effort."


Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But we should at least make some acknowledgment of the fact that it's a pretty crappy deal for some players (and definitely not follow the example of a certain demographic and act like it's some kind of well-deserved punishment).

I acknowledged that elsewhere.

I played my first game as Fighter-1/Wizard-1/EK-1 two days before the ruling was reversed, with a character that I gave 9 boons to (including a certain retirement arc).

I can empathize that this sucks, but I just can't see a way to please everybody.

And I think the amount of ppl in the forums that are just putting all the blame on Mike or John is unfair.

And you think condescending posts, like this one...

Nefreet wrote:
trik wrote:
If this were a home game and I came up with a character concept, received an 'ok' from the GM (but he explicitly warned me he reserved the right to reverse that decision) that my character progression was within the rules and acceptable...
Fixed that for you.

will help?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.


Liz Courts wrote:
A reminder that not everybody plays the game the same way. What's boring for one is fun, new, and exciting for somebody else. Be civil to each other, thank you!

What an incredibly rude thing to say. (Emoticon that denotes I'm joking!)


Thing is, neither are you...


Except you can ignore all that because you are teleporting. Then you make "the attack normally allowed on a charge." You get +2 to your attack and -2 to your AC.


Ha! I just got the Mythic book recently and this was like the first thing I noticed skimming through it.


I'm fond of the way bastard swords scale up. 1d10 becomes 2d8 with a large bastard sword, 3d8 when you add on Impact, 4d8 with all that and Enlarge Person, you get the idea...


Horselord wrote:

Greater Magic Weapon (CL 20) will make any weapon a +5 all day, so if you have that capacity, running with a +1 enhancement with +9 equivalent abilities is a better choice.

Can a Paladin with bonded sword or armour stack his Paladin bonuses on an item that is already +10 equivalent?

Nope, and GMW doesn't overcome DR (except magic).


The cost of a +2 minus the cost of a +1.
So 2,000 for +1, 8,000 for a +2, costs 6,000 to improve.


Damage Reduction
Better chance to hit
More damage
Probably other things

Edit: thought of another (I knew there was more)
Special abilities that key off the weapons +X


I think the "not subject to movement limitations" is covered by "allows you to teleport."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My particular pet peeve, using "this rule is confusing" as a stand in for "I don't like this rule and want it changed."


I gotta say, all this college talk seems a little off topic.


I am not Herbert.


So 11th level fighter:
BAB +11/+6/+1,
one off hand TWF +9/+9/+4/-1,
I/GTWF +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1

11th level fighter with four arms
BAB +11/+6/+1
Three off hands MWF +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/-1
I/GTWF +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1

Since you cannot take "extra attacks," the argument is that you just take the first six attacks, at the higher bonus, and ignore the remaining attacks.

(Just to note: I disagree with this argument. Also, as it is not my argument, I might not have it correct.)

Edit: Well, never mind. Stabbity answered while I was typing.


The argument, if I'm following along correctly, is that the arms do give you the extra attacks but you cannot make more than normal so you take the higher BAB attacks and don't make the lower BAB attacks.


I think there is a fighter archetype that can brace as an immediate action. One of the polearm archetypes.

There is also a feat, Teleport Tactician I think, that grants an AoO against teleporters.


tchrman35 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Are we now discussing theoretical mathematics?

Don't make me summon the spirit of Lewis Carroll to smite you!

Not theoretical, BBT - the real deal. ACTUAL mathematics!

Prove it.


LoneKnave wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

OK. Consider this:

You feel abject hatred toward 103 words in a book whose point is to support an imaginary fantasy land utilized by a group of friends with the goal of having fun and drink beer.

Seems silly to have such strong emotions about it now, huh?

OK. Consider this:

You came into a topic that's complaining about something to complain about complaining about it.

Seems silly to have such ironic posts, huh?

Ok consider this.

The thread is "help me get over my hate"


I would say having a Master Summoner in a party of five is more of the problem than Master Summoner on its own.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.

Multi-armed is a specific trait. Vestigial Arms does not grant the multi-armed trait.

And if you truly believe (although I don't think you do) that "I get extra off-hands" is the equivalent of "I can enter ice cream shops," then you really don't understand the rules of this game.

The example is obviously deliberately ridiculous, yes.

There is nothing to indicate whether multi-armed is meant to be an incarnation of the unwritten general rule, or a specific rule for naturally multi-armed races. There is also nothing substantive upon which to base a debate in either direction on this point, hence why I left it at "agree to disagree".

EDIT: The closest argument I can make for my stance is that it would be unnecessary to say that extra arms grants no extra attacks if being multi-armed didn't default to adding off-hands. However, there would also be no need to state that multi-armed *does* grant off-hands if this were the case. This leaves both sides at an effective stalemate.

You're arguing you get extra off-hands based off of the lack of ice cream shops and you don't feel it would be necessary to say "no extra attacks" if they did not want people to make extra attacks?


StabbittyDoom wrote:
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.

Multi-armed is a specific trait. Vestigial Arms does not grant the multi-armed trait.

And if you truly believe (although I don't think you do) that "I get extra off-hands" is the equivalent of "I can enter ice cream shops," then you really don't understand the rules of this game.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
We have different definitions of weird.

You don't find anything about the way the Eidolon works, to be weird, in relation to the rules, or are you just disagreeing with me, to disagree with me?

I know you enjoy that.;)

I was replying to stabbity. I don't find anything weird about the TWF feats making you better at TWF.


We have different definitions of weird.


Natural arms work differently than vestigial arms.


Mine was from the "Confessions that will get you shunned" thread. (I may have missed the point of that thread.)

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm addicted to building characters! I have far more than I could ever possibly use and just keep making them. (Worst of all, when a new game starts, I make yet another character!)


I'm a fan of Folding Plate for casters who want to wear armor.


Can you use Vital Strike with a splash weapon? I know Alchemist's Bombs have a rule about it but I don't know if that would still apply if this is written differently.


A standard PC has a primary hand and an off hand. They are used for making attacks. "No extra attacks" means no extra primary or off hands because that is what you use to make attacks.


Did you notice how everything you said involved "attacks?"


What does "extra off-hand" mean to you?


StabbittyDoom wrote:

You know what, nevermind. Obviously you guys are convinced that the probable RAI is completely RAW despite thin evidence and can't understand that I *AGREE* with you and simply want real evidence.

So I guess I'm done too.

I'm curious. What did you think you were bringing up that hasn't been addressed in a dozen other threads?


Komoda wrote:

I think of combat as fluid. I think of combat resolution as start and stop. Your turn ends, my turn begins. You are stuck in mid air, I throw a net around you and you fall to your death.

Paralyze, Daze, Hold Person, Entangle, Web, etc. all make for some very hard to adjudicate issues only because you are floating in mid air, mid turn. Do you still have momentum to finish the jump? Can you now land safely? Does the extra weight make you fall short of your original jump?

Do you threaten even though you have no control over your ability to twist and have no leverage to perform any kind of attack?

Replace mid jump because of the end of a turn with mid jump because of a readied action. How would you handle it then?


I would allow to apply to a kick in the crotch but not throwing sand or pantsing.


That's only because you're thinking of combat as start and stop instead of being fluid.


Just because you can use any part of your body for an unarmed strike, doesn't mean everything you do with your body is an unarmed strike. You don't use an "unarmed strike" to turn a door knob.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how both of these threads have had so little to do with college while, at the same time, proving the need for more education.


Angelus the Angelic wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Angelus the Angelic wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Angelus the Angelic wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So the question is: a baby is being born in a village and it's dad might be a bad guy, should we kill it in its mother's womb?

That is basically the question. The baby might be a half troll and the son of the troll leader so will just bring more death and pain to the village.

And you need help in answering that question?

Well kinda, I want more to bring to the debate then just "Hey its a baby" for example is there any reason why the baby would be irredeemably evil just for being a half-troll?

I mean a Human Half-Troll could be a Pc as well so what is the difference?

I don't understand how this is a debate.
Because some people have a belief that if its in the monster manuel as a monster to be killed and if it has an E in its alignment that you can kill it and nothing bad happens.

And that has nothing to do with killing an innocent villager and her baby that might have one bad parent.


Angelus the Angelic wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Angelus the Angelic wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So the question is: a baby is being born in a village and it's dad might be a bad guy, should we kill it in its mother's womb?

That is basically the question. The baby might be a half troll and the son of the troll leader so will just bring more death and pain to the village.

And you need help in answering that question?

Well kinda, I want more to bring to the debate then just "Hey its a baby" for example is there any reason why the baby would be irredeemably evil just for being a half-troll?

I mean a Human Half-Troll could be a Pc as well so what is the difference?

I don't understand how this is a debate.


Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
Dan Bong wrote:

hese short, blunt sticks are held in the hands to enhance unarmed martial techniques.

Benefit: They provide the wielder with the ability to lock an opponent and target Pressure Points that grant her a +2 bonus on her combat maneuver to grapple.

If the Dan Bong cannot be used to grapple, than the ability it has is useless. Now, the other question is this: Does the weilder of the Dan Bong still suffer the -4 penalty for not having both hands open? This is another element of grappling with a weapon that has not been clarified, ever.

Now, does unarmed strike have similar language?


Angelus the Angelic wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So the question is: a baby is being born in a village and it's dad might be a bad guy, should we kill it in its mother's womb?

That is basically the question. The baby might be a half troll and the son of the troll leader so will just bring more death and pain to the village.

And you need help in answering that question?


Why do you think that a Dan bong can be used to grapple?

1 to 50 of 2,687 << 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.