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

Grey Lensman's page

2,732 posts (2,741 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,732 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

MMCJawa wrote:

Grodd might be hard on the FX budget of the show, especially if the crew that does Flash have to also spend time on Supergirl and LoT. I don't know if we have reached the technological point where a onscreen big bad for all or most of the season can be a CGI character.

P.S. If anyone needs more Zoom, the same actor plays the main antagonist in the recent thriller/horror movie Curve, which is on netflix right now.

Grodd can pull off mind control - it's easy to get minions when you can puppet them.

Notice how the Gorilla's lips never move.......much!

"They both reached for the freeze gun..."

Davia D wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Frogsplosion wrote:
I love goblins, +4 to dex, small size, also fun to roleplay, what's not to love?
That they're basically Kender with pyromania instead of kleptomania.

I wouldn't say so. Kender are basically the Mary Sues of D&D races. That's what makes them a horrible race.

Portrayal is a big difference. Kender are not only obnoxious, but also the material desperately tries to paint them as cute and charming in a way that insults your intelligence. Describing how people who hate kender are close-minded and mean. That the wisest of races consider kender as "precious." Being "cute" and "loyal" are the only positive traits mentioned, but the text never shows us what makes them charming or loyal aside from playing off their kleptomania, lying, and obnoxious personalities for laughs. On top of it, they're fricken ugly. They're insufferably unlikeable and the text insults us for thinking so.

PF goblins are not portrayed this way. PF books never downplay their faults. In fact, we're supposed to laugh at them. They're quirky and pathetic.

Also, goblins are less known for being unable to learn to avoid habits. Sure, they may like burning stuff, but they're unlikely to burn party members, don't have trouble learning there's a time and a place.

It doesn't hurt that it's cultural. Kenders are, apparently, inherently kleptomaniacs incapable of learning that they shouldn't take stuff from others. Goblins come from a culture with a lot of negative behaviors encouraged, but not all goblins do them, a goblin can learn not to do them even if they start out wanting to do so, etc.. They're still on the comic relief end of the spectrum, but there's things like learned restraint in play.

Most goblins can pick up, "Don't do this stuff, and we'll back you up if anyone tries to mess with you."

That all depends on the player - we had a goblin in our group once, played by the 'I travel with the party but won't be part of it" GM's girlfriend and it was used as an excuse for the worst behaviors. Always answered with "I'm the GOBLIN!!!"

I don't buy it with Goblins, Kender, or Chaotic Neutral characters. Trying to find an excuse to be a jerk is a player issue, not a character one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
archmagi1 wrote:
That or his... Products... May count as a lethal dose of radiation.
Plus imagine of exit if he hulks out.

From a different universe....

Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue Paper.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
sunbeam wrote:

As soon as he has exerted enough force to lift the center of mass of his 1000 pounds more than 1 meter off the ground, he is no longer in contact with the ground and cannot apply more force.

That's how Nova defeats KLUH, The Hulk's Hulk. wrapping him up in bridge cables, accelerating him to escape velocity and snapping free before KLUH can snap him in half. (I know the one place where his strength is useless..)

So we have the very first thing in AXis that wasn't stupid. Proper use of physics to resolve a fight.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Hama wrote:
Freehold start screaming
I'm not sure of the internet hate over the Banner/Romanov scenes in Age of Ultron would allow that to happen.
Why is there hate?

Some people interpreted the Banner/Romanov scenes as Natasha claiming that she was a monster for the sole reason of not being able to have children.

I saw Banner claiming to be a monster first, and brought up not being able to have kids (presumably because they would inherit being green rage monsters - not a good thing in the terrible twos). Natasha brings up being sterilized to counter Bruce's worry, and then because of the look on his face explains why. And then mentioned that she was monster as well, after alluding to her body count.

But once the internet gets an idea in it's collective heads there is often no reasoning.

The future Mr. Terrific has already been confirmed for next season - before anyone else other than Ollie himself.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

LOL... yeah, I can totally see next season start up Rip Hunter showing up wondering what he just did.

Personally, i'm fine with saving the mom... I stand by that FIXES the time line that Thawne actively screwed up. It wipes out a lot of history... but it does set right what was wrong.

Most importantly... This means we'll still have a Harrison Wells around.
He won't be E-2 Wells, and he won't be Thawne Wells (probably) but original E-1 Well's death was just nixed, so I'm pretty giddy about that. I love seeing that actor in the show and quite depressed when he announced he was going back home.

So come next season... 'real' Jay Garrick. Harrison Wells. No Iris romance. Ohhh and somehow Supergirl.

I gotta say, I'm good with how next season is shaping up. :D

How many different characters can the same guy play in the same show? Tune in to find out! Eat your heart out, Peter Sellers!

Hama wrote:
Freehold start screaming

I'm not sure of the internet hate over the Banner/Romanov scenes in Age of Ultron would allow that to happen.

Greylurker wrote:

A big part of DC and Rebirth in particular seems to be the idea of Legacies. Heck it's what got me reading JSA in the first place.

and while seeing Heroic mantles being passed down from one generation to the next is cool to see

I can't remember a lot of Villain legacies that are passed down.

There was Captain Boomerang - Father to Son. but even Villains who take up old names generally don't seem to be connected to each other most of the time (EX: Cheetah)

Could the Joker be a Legacy? Passing down insanity from one "cosen successor" to the next.

Remember the Batman Beyond movie "Return of the Joker" He Broke Tim. Setting aside the mind control chip that activated later. He tortured Tim until he broke and became that twisted child Joker.

What if it's something like that. A hand picked individual to be broken and remade as a Next generation Joker, using elctroshock, torture, brainwashing and everything nasty in the Joker's bag of tricks.

It's not like he can't break a person and turn them into a reflection of himself. Look at Harley.

and think of it this way
"Papa needs to go away for a little while, but we can't leave Batsy without a playmate, so you'll just have to fill in for me. This might hurt a little so SMILE!"

The JSA had a couple of villain legacies as well. Icicle was the son of the original, and....for you Young Justice cartoon fans...he was dating the daughter of Sportsmaster and Tigress...Artemis Crock (making her a legacy villain as well).

Plus Secret Six had Ragdoll...the gender-neutral offspring of the original.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MissingNo wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
He keeps his alias post counts proportional according to the golden ratio. This prevents a rift from opening in the space-time continuum which would unleash untold horrors on the interwebs.
*pokes at the timestream*

Dammit, Barry! Didn't Wells warn you about this!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alceste008 wrote:

The Jingasa was ridiculously under priced for what it did. The cost should have been close to 45,000 for +2 luck AC (with trait) & negate a crit once per day.

However, I would have nerfed the item to a simple +1 luck bonus that did not work with Fate's Favored. 5k is about right for that benefit. The name after all is Jingasa of the fortunate soldier.

Or they could have done away with the trait, or merely modified it so that it only applied to spell effects and not magic items.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:
Spiral_Ninja wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

It was interesting up to the....reveal.

No. Just NO!


If Alan Moore had a grave, I think he'd be rolling in it right about now.

Although to be honest, I think Moore does that anytime DC does anything nowadays, or at least the closest equivalent.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charles Scholz wrote:

I wish they would have fired Geoff Johns and erased everything that happened after he joined DC.

Not everything - his JSA run was incredible (and although I never read it, his run on Stars and S.T.R.I.P.E. is also supposed to be great). I think things only got weird/bad when he started believing his own hype.

Vidman wrote:

Ok, new to the boards, and I know this topic has been dealt with somewhere on the boards before, but how do you deal with a player that only wants to make his Char powerful. Literally, at every choice he goes for the most game breakingly powerful option.

I can't suggest anything for the current adventure, but perhaps in the future you can challenge the alleged munchkin with making a powerful character with a suboptimal base? He might respond to the challenge of making a lower tiered class the most powerful thing in the group.

Other possible options include:

Scrollmaster Wizard - the ability to use scrolls at character level can be huge. However, it doesn't kick in until level 10.

Elf Spellbinder - no bonded object, but you pick a spell of each known spell level (at even levels, so slightly delayed) and can spontaneously channel them like a cleric does with cure/inflict spells. A wizard with limited form of spontaneous casting.

Human Sage Bloodline Sorcerer - You learn 3 additional spells for the arcane bloodline that sage is derived from, change your casting stat to intelligence, and by being human can exchange the bonus HP/skill point for a bonus spell known (not of the highest level you can cast).

Half-Elf Bonded Witch - no familiar, replaced with a modified version of the wizard's arcane bond. The witch gets one spell per spell level in the bonded object they can use in addition to their normal spells and hexes.

With season 2 featuring the Justice Society I might be reeled back in - provided they can tone the stupids down. I left feeling that the amount of plot induced stupidity required for one episode if Legends was the same needed for 2 episodes of Flash AND Arrow. I can understand a little, but when I start to question the base competence of every cast member it's too much.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
For me, a strict power-gaming comparison comes down to the fact that the Wizard is one level faster than the Sorcerer in terms of his spellcasting progression. There are a whole ranged of nuanced points between spontaneous and prepared casting, but it's not enough to offset being a whole level behind. So, I say Wizard.
Put against that the far more flexible casting style and use of metamagic, and greater number of slots, and the advantage is a bit questionable.

The number of additional slots is not quite as advertised.

At 5th level, a specialist wizard likely has 13 spell slots (3/2/1, plus 1 per level of his school, plus 1 per level for a high stat, plus another of any level for bonded object)

The sorcerer at the same level has 12, except none of those are third level spells - of which the specialist wizard has 4.

At 6th level, the sorcerer gets 3rd level spells and has 17 spell slots per day against the specialist wizard's 15.

At 9th level it's 26 for the sorcerer and 25 for the specialist wizard (one spell, except that the wizard has up to 4 5th level spells the sorcerer can't use yet), while at 10th level it's 31 for the sorcerer vs 27 for the specialist wizard - we are beginning to see a little disparity in numbers, but the sorcerer at this point knows one single 5th level spell while the wizard will know at least 4.

In the end, it all depends on what's more important for you and how your campaign is run.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
137ben wrote:

Or that every other character and their mother in the entire multiverse is constantly being resurrected rebooted "rebirthec", but somehow Batman's parents have to stay dead?
You don't see Jor-El or Lara Jor-El kicking around anywhere, do you?

You don't see the Graysons much either. Or the family of J'onn J'onzz.

SmiloDan wrote:

I always suggest the ranger for first time players. Full BAB (less likely to miss), great skill list (newbie players are always trying to do neat and interesting things ("Can I climb and hide in that tree, then jump down on his head?" "Can I sneak behind that door and eavesdrop on what they're saying?" "Can I bully the prisoner and make him talk?" "Can I search for clues? Can I follow her footprints?")), relatively good saves (and a ranger's poor Will save is often bolstered by a relatively good Wisdom score because of Wisdom-based spells and skills), easy combat choices (Ranger Combat Styles), introductory spells, introductory pet or introductory party buffing, an easy to apply combat buff (Favored Enemy), and the option for easy, relatively static, feat choices (Iron Will, that feat that boosts Animal Companion level, Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Toughness, etc.) that don't make a boring character because the "fun" feats can be selected with the Ranger Combat Style--without worrying about pre-requisites). Traits are pretty easy to choose, too: Reactionary and Magical Knack (ranger).

Slayers (no spells, but lots of talents to choose from, and sneak attack can help with teaching combat and positioning rules), and Hunters (more spells, better companion, but worse BAB) are good too since they both have good skills and are pretty straightforward in a fight.

I agree with all of this - I always suggested the ranger for anyone wanting to learn the rules, but the addition of the slayer and hunter add two more options.

Veilgn wrote:

I never play sorcerer before. But I play spell sage in term firepower. In socerer however. I dont know how to use it.

What makes wizard more versatile than sorc?

The wizard's great strengths are earlier spell access and strategic flexibility. The spells per day difference can be cut down by playing a specialist wizard, which exacerbates the earlier spell access issue (with a stat modifier a specialist wizard will have 3 of their highest level spells per day while the sorcerer has ZERO of the same level).

Aelryinth wrote:

If you know what you are going to fight, Wizard is better. You can tailor spells to meet challenges.

In real play, that seldom happens. In such event, a sorceror with a diverse spell selection that they can spam as appropriate for an encounter is often more suitable.

Magic items for sorcerers, such as Pages of Spell Knowledge, Mnemonic Vestments, Rings of Spell Knowledge, and the Feat Versatile Spontanaeity allow Sorcerors to expand, spontaneously access, and memorize extra spells to give them the versatility of Wizards. In addition, the human Favored Class bonus of an extra Spell Known starts rapidly expanding their spells on hand, reducing the need for customizing even further.

I think you will have more fun playing a sorcerer. The ARcane and Destined Bloodlines are both great for general play. You can BUY the versatility of a wizard.

The one difference you will find is in skill points. Because Wizards have Int as primary, they end up with lots of skill points and can play a brain character. Sorcs can't do that. But, since you have magic, that shouldn't be much of an issue.


That last is where the Sage bloodline comes in - it changes the sorcerer's casting stat to Int and takes that difference away. My gaming group calls the human sage sorcerer a pocket wizard for a reason.

Veilgn wrote:
I want a strong spellcaster class. Yet I must choose. Which one the better?

Does your GM plan things out and allow effective scrying?

Or do they make encounters and other challenges on the fly in the middle of the session?

If they lean towards the former go wizard, the latter go sorcerer. If you want to hedge your bets go with either a human sage bloodline sorcerer for the most spells known(and Int as a casting stat) or arcanist of your GM is allowing those classes into the game.

I don't think I've played any of the uncommon races out of the APG - just the featured races. Normally when I play one I try to have a theme.

Dhampyr sorceress with the 3PP vampiric bloodline - subbing the Paizo made Sanguine bloodline's 1rst level power (healing via bloodsucking fits the overall look better, plus the character needed a way to heal at low levels)

Fetchling ninja focusing on shadow powers - also did her best to look like an actual Shae.

Ifrit Dervish Dancer.

Aasimars/Tieflings tend to be my favorite out of the books, but I also have the 'Blood of' books to add to those two.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the main desire is -

When something needs balancing, please tone it down, don't blow it up.

Tangent101 wrote:
Skype and Roll20 can work for games. I do it for my Runelords game and it's a lot of fun. Except when Skype isn't working well...

It works for playing, although the house everyone games at has basic DSL instead of cable internet (I have slightly faster DSL), and a pile of people who can't put down their internet devices. I'd hate to try and run from where I live based on that alone.

taks wrote:
You guys are just not quite right. ;)

My wife tells me that quite often. Normally followed with a comment about that being how we work so well together. Even more so when we watch Bodacious Space Pirates and comment on the subtext (which borders on text).

Granted, my business in this thread was to try and ecide if I wanted to pick up Giantslayer to run for my gaming group, but moving away put a damper on that. It's a little tougher when playing via Skype, especially when you can't see half the players. I'd hate to try and run a game that way.

phantom1592 wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
I'm sure he was looking for an opening... Zoom is too fast just to rush in
How about when Zoom let go and raised his hand to dramatically drive it through Henry's torso? That would have been a good time.

Not really... He had to hope he could cross a room before Zoom moved his hand about a foot? Those aren't good odds. Against Grodd or Capt. Cold, I would agree... but when speedsters make everything equal?? That's not a good gamble.

He had already released Caitlyn, proving that he wasn't a COMPLETE monster. Trying to hostage negotiate was the safer move.

Not to mention much of fighting, and, really, any hand movements in television and film often exists solely for dramatic effect. The difference between a quick jab and a long, pulled back blow are that one looks more dramatic than the other, so is therefore better in the eyes of a director.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
There's a rumor floating around there is MORE than one Joker apparently.

Zach Snyder, Dan Didio, and.....

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most errata/nerf issues I hear about boil down to using a chainsaw when things only called for a scalpel.

The other one seems to be 'anything on par with Dervish Dance is broken, but Dervish Dance is fine.' No, if things on par to it need nerfing, then so does what the nerfed things were on par with.

captain yesterday wrote:
Maybe douse yourself in Axe Body Spray and hang out at the local game store and see what bites. Otherwise I hear internet dating sites have come a long way. :-)

I think I went on dates with 3 different women I met at a used bookstore. Although nothing really panned out in the end.

Selkies are part of the Cerulean Seas setting, and it isn't available unless you have purchased the book or pdf from Alluria. If you don't plan on doing much underwater stuff it might not be worth the $20 for the pdf (my group runs a campaign on an island chain too and we haven't used the book much at all, either).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With a nautical setting I can see Sylphs more easily than Oreads - a huge part of sailing depends on the wind, after all. Ifrits seem far less likely, unless that island is volcanic.

For other 3PP races I could see Cerulean Seas Selkie race. It's more of an underseas campaign, but the Selkie is capable both underwater and on the surface.

Thomas Seitz wrote:


That's Henry. Joe, as far as we know, has not been nor ever has been to jail.

As a detective he's there on a regular basis! However, that's 'to jail' and not 'in jail'. :P

Funny, my gaming group has a CRB per 2 players at a minimum (and at one point was 1 for 1), plus 3 copies of the APG and at least two of everything else other than the softcover player's accessories. And we aren't from PFS.

The only times when there is only one copy of a book is when a GM decides he wants to try this new game and just bought a book. Anything that goes long term will have multiple copies at the table.

Jester David wrote:

I think the reason I'm arguing so much on this is this discussion could be summarized as:

"Why isn't Giantslayer more popular??"
"Well, here's one of the reasons I didn't buy..."
"Your opinion doesn't count, you didn't buy the AP!"

The problem is you are presenting your opinion as objective fact about what is in the AP. Other people have said they didn't buy based on other factors, but have never presented it as facts about what must be in the books they never opened, and didn't get the same reaction.

When it comes to knowing the rules, I expect the GM to know enough to not slow down the game. I also expect them to not make the same mistake constantly (like, say, a 5E GM who keeps assigning static numbers rather than advantage, or a GM in the new Star Wars system who keeps upping the base difficulty rather than adding complications despite a player whose 'expertise' involves overcoming those never appearing complications).

I expect any restrictions as to what I can't play to be explained with something more than 'Because I'm the GM and if you don't like it the door is over there.' This doesn't mean a long discussion, it could mean 'I'm not allowing that because of plot reasons to be revealed later', so long as that reveal actually happens. It could be as simple as 'I really, really don't like the flavor of X', or, 'I have trouble balancing that out due to it being yet another subsystem/overly complex given the time I have.'

I expect the rails to not be overly visible.

I expect there to not be unavoidable deaths, even at the end of the campaign (no death screams that will take a full HP party member past death even on a successful save!). A chance of death is expected, but a targeted certainty of it is crap.

I expect to have a decent chance to participate in any given session, and a GM competent enough to forcibly remove the spotlight from anyone who tries to monopolize it.

Of course, all of those things play into one big overall expectation.

I expect to have fun at the game. It's why I show up, after all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
taks wrote:

Man, you have got to be kidding me. You haven't even read the book, YOU ARE WRONG!!!

For *)^*^& sake, read the book! Both book 1 and 2 have giants, period. Get over yourself. And, hill giants are not the only low-level giants, period.

Buying the books are $40 plus shipping. I'm on a budget. (Low hours are work, family, Canadian dollar reduced to Monopoly money, etc)

That's just not money I'm going to spend solely to have a debate on the Internet.

The you might just want to avoid talking points easily refuted by anyone who has purchased the actual book (or pdf). And stop doubling down.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:

They did well with him in Justice League and Young Justice - keeping the focus mostly on shapeshifting and mental powers (although I was scratching my head at the telekinesis in YJ).

Justice league is what i was thinking about.

He had all the powers mentioned. When he went to war world with superman he had to have the flu just so superman could be relevant to his own story. He had to be written out of the story/put on watch duty for a while just because otherwise he would have solved every problem the entire league ever had.

I'll have to rewatch the Warworld episode, but the monitor duty was mainly during the Unlimited seasons, where most of the big guns of the League were absent quite often (and played into J'onn's alienation subplot). I think that most of the time, we rarely saw more than one of the real powerhouses of the earlier seasons in action at the same time (not counting the end with the Apokolips invasion). They even had an episode of the General vs. a pile of non-powered Leaguers with Superman 'busy' elsewhere.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:

It hasn't been the Justice League to me since they retconned the Martian Manhunter out of it. He had been in nearly every version of it until just prior to the nu52.

I just HATE him as a character. He's superman + professor X + the vision + a shapeshifter.. combo platter powers doesn't even begin to describe it. Pick something and BE it. When your character needs to have the flu so SUPERMAN can be relevant... you've probably overpowered the character.

They did well with him in Justice League and Young Justice - keeping the focus mostly on shapeshifting and mental powers (although I was scratching my head at the telekinesis in YJ).

And he was done well in the (pour one out for Darwyn Cooke, who truly deserves any accolades) New Frontier.

Although I like the character for the philosopher and perennial outsider aspects more than anything else.

Norman Osborne wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Feral wrote:
Nothing really needs the big three. If they can do Civil War without Robo-Thor or Goliath or Nitro they can do JSA stories without Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman.
Batman, Superman, and Wonderwoman are a bit more crucial to the Justice League than those named characters are to the Avengers.

Yeah, I"m not much of a DC fan, but even I realize that that's more akin to an Avengers team that lacks Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor.

(I know that they have been lineups that lacked any of them, but it's been fairly rare over the years, and without at least one of those characters, it doesn't really feel like the Avengers. Hell, it doesn't really feel like the Avengers even if just Cap is missing.)

It hasn't been the Justice League to me since they retconned the Martian Manhunter out of it. He had been in nearly every version of it until just prior to the nu52.

Seeing as how the comics shoved the JSA back into some alternate universe I bet the TV show considers them to be safe characters to use that aren't going to be suddenly smacked by the movie embargo.

2 TPK's in the first book would lead most of my gaming group to declare the path is too good for them, what's next week?

SmiloDan wrote:
I guess it's part of their action economy limits.

One of the things we have learned from earlier editions is that the power to break/circumvent action economy might just be the most powerful thing at the table. 5E's limits on that might not always make the most realistic sense, but it looks like they chose to err on the side of balance instead.

Sundakan wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Neither should particularly bother anyone at this point, especially if you can get through scenes like this without wincing, but it is a legitimate comment on how easily writing can sometimes dip into glorifying a character rather than actually characterizing them.


That was twenty YEARS ago.

If you have to reach back that far for an example, maybe it isn't much of a 'problem'.

It's more that it's easier to find clips from a 20 year old show than one that just aired.

Are there no available clips for things only a few years old?

The Sword wrote:

The best GM I have played with luckily still GMs for our group. His latest campaign reminds me why.

1. He has a strong vision for the game world, locations, NPCs, Organisations - and is able to communicate that in glorious technicolor 3D.
2. He is confident to say no, but prefers finding ways to say yes.
3. He adapts the story to our PCs and makes them the centre of attention.
4. He fits the rules to the players/NPCs intentions, rather than fitting the intentions around the rules.
5. He varies the pacing within sessions so they become neither too combat heavy or dominated by roleplay.
6. He makes the game challenging but not painfully so, where death is a real possibility but never inevitable.

all of this. and

The players always feel like they can affect the narrative - there is never a feeling of being on a railroad.

In the 5th Ed game I am playing in now I don't think Inspiration has come up once. But we also have a gm who is more comfortable with older (1st and 2nd) editions and is still learning the game himself.

The first foray into the system under a different gm used it a little, but he seemed to have issues with allowing the party to rest - ever.

Vengeful Number 12 - a mook that suddenly gets hot dice (often accompanied by the dice going south for the players).

"We're here to join" A GM wasn't expecting a party of evil and neutral characters to try this, and they bypassed most of the defenses for the 'interview'. It was....explosive.

GeneticDrift wrote:

I don't think any full caster needs to be unchained (for a buff). They have way more class options than every one else, spells.

Sorcerer has a better spell list than Oracle. Maybe more options as feats or prestige classes to focus on their bloodline.

With sorcerers I suppose it depends on how you look at them - are you comparing them to all classes, or to other 9 level arcane casters? You get different answers based on what the question is.

The reflexes are only good for catching falling coffee cups.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ARGH! On sky being the special center of the universe again. This time its not just the characters doing it, its a random mutation.

You're aware that a second after someone claimed that someone else immediately contradicted them with the much more reasonable explanation that Dr. Garner overrode Lash on that one?

Because that was a comment that was made, was the last word on the subject, and made vastly more sense.

Or, to put it another way: Someone in the show said that, but was immediately contradicted.

So Dr. Garner can control lash for Skye, who he's biologically programmed to kill, but not, you know, his wife?

I still have to watch the episode (I'm a couple behind) but was May ever in danger from Lash when she wasn't attacking him? No need to overcome any imperative there.

-----Phantom. It's always good to have some subordinates to have for the role of 'Fall Guy' when needed. You have those and political connections and failure stops being your fault.

1 to 50 of 2,732 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.