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

1,940 posts (1,948 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,940 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I expect that if I take a dump stat that every now and then it's going to bite me. I don't expect it to be the primary target in almost every encounter, or an albatross across the neck of the entire party for an entire campaign.

Pay attention to minor names (including place names) from historical, fantasy, and sci-fi novels you read. While most people remember the names of major characters, most won't be able to remember characters and places that only get mentioned once in the book.

It really only needs 3 simple fixes.

One, bloodline spells become available once the spell level is reached instead of the one after.

Two, bloodline powers come from a pool of abilities that the player can pick and choose from similar to oracle revelations.

Third, an addendum that states these powers can't ever be taken by a wizard and any future feats or magic items that would do so are to be ignored as obvious editing errors.

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
What are MAD and SAD classes?

Multiple Attribute Dependent or Single Attribute Dependent.

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I personally can't stand having stats below 10 on my characters. So while it might be optimal to drop my warrior's Cha and Int to 7, I will never do it. Other people will. So our cookie cutters will be different.
While there's a certain romance to having PCs have average or less than average numbers in some abilities and having them overcome these drawbacks to become heroes, I prefer my heroes to be on the "superhero" side of things. Like TOZ, I don't like stats below ten.

I've known too many GM's who if they saw a tendency for a person to play super characters with an Achilles heel would ruthlessly exploit it whenever they could. Often for weeks of real time on end without any breaks to play to the character's strong points.

Hama wrote:

I've been looking over the PCs from several of my previous campaigns that I ran, and all of them had one thing in common. Very very similar ability scores.

While, yes, point buy is there to mitigate injustice and make PCs relatively similar in ability, it gives them a sort of uniformity which is beginning to annoy me.

I am seriously considering of going back to the old system of roll 4d6, drop the lowest, 6 times than distribute as desired. Re-rolling all of them if the combined bonus of all the stats is +3 or less.

I am not cruel enough to go for roll 3d6, or even words, roll 3d6 in order.

Any thoughts?

What I started doing is a random d6 roll and then boosting the corresponding stat by 1d3 (or 1, if the stat is either the highest or a dump stat) for any characters in games I run.

I missed seeing things like the stronger wizard, smarter priest, and characters with bonuses in stats that would otherwise be low. We haven't gone back to the full rolling since we don't want to have the equivalent of a 15 point buy character in the same group as a 35+ point buy character due to wildly different dice rolls.

Last I knew Harmony Gold was little more than a guy in an office that existed to ensure no one could make anything off of Macross but them.

I was referring to such things as final training including sneaking out and killing someone while returning uncaught, as well as the notion that being exceptional in any way as something reserved for the elite more than the warrior part. Sparta was a hellish place when you start looking at it.

MagusJanus wrote:
What about using one or more of the new iconics from Advanced Class Guide for the cover?

We could have the Swashbuckling iconic channeling Julie d'Aubigny.

If Athens would be evil, how much worse would Sparta be?

Would ANY of the Greek city states be anything other than evil?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalshane wrote:
(Of course, the fact that the Earth Bender guy whose name I can't recall was able to take out Zuko is a little surprising.)

Not really, sadly. I don't think Zuko has ever won a single fight that was actually important against a quality opponent.

GentleGiant wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Haven't seen someone blood-eagle'd since reading Slaine. There is never enough ritual torture involving separating the ribs from the spine in this blog.
In that case, and without giving away too many spoilers, I can recommend the show Vikings on History Channel. ;-)

Disney needs to cast Kathryn Winnick as Ms. Marvel Capt. Marvel NOW.

And on a game related note - the Skald looks badass. I was originally kinda 'meh' on both the Skald and the Bloodrager, but now I want to play one of each and soon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Feats look like they've been mostly fixed in 5th edition. While the Feats system from 3.x looked like a good idea at first glance it rapidly (and naturally by the rules) devolved into a Min-Max feast, because to "roll up" a less than optimal build meant your PC was superfluous to the rest of the party by 6th level or so.

The deliberate inclusion of 'trap options' probably exacerbated this.

Corvino wrote:

I just reread the Skald part of the ACG playtest, and as Arachnofiend says - they can hand out greater beast totem to the whole party. Stick them in a party with a 2 or more martials, a combat pet and summons and it'll be brutal.

Step 1: Skald gives the entire party pounce in round 1 as a swift action.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.

Step 2 is to wince painfully at the poor monsters that just got turned Into a paste finer than that pink slime from the news a few years ago....

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
I used to think I was a really great DM, like 38 years ago, then the internet came along and proved me wrong

According to teh interwebz you are either the Greatest of All Time or a complete loser.

Chuck Wright wrote:

So there you go. Subraces of Tiefling in 3E Faerun.

(Thanks, Jeraa!)

Hmm. Even without that, earlier editions had...



Putting two things you have already done together doesn't sound like swiping from someone else, especially if they follow the cambion/alu-fiend route of making the subrace more dependent on the specific type of fiend rather than the plane of origin.

Some things certainly look interesting, I'll give it that.

They look like they are willing to kill a few sacred cows but not the point of wanting to slaughter the entire herd merely for being there.

Slaunyeh wrote:
From a business perspective, it makes sense. If you spend a million dollars to earn two million dollars, that's basically free money right? Why mess with that? But what if you could instead spend that one million dollars to earn ten million dollars? Wouldn't it be financially irresponsible to not pick the second option?

Personally, I would take half of the 2 million dollar profit and invest it towards the potential 10 million dollar profit, and hopefully come out an additional million ahead. The lower paying investment seemed stable, and such things can help during lean times if they happen. But then, I'm not a business exec.

Sissyl wrote:
Honestly, expecting several millions of users in a monthly payment MMO is not a reasonable threshold any more. And if you don't do that, you won't have luscious graphics, and recruitment suffers as a result. It is a sad situation, but it is difficult to say what would change it. There SHOULD be a market for smaller MMOs. City of X was a unique one, and it was pulled too lightly.

It's that last part that bugged me. Apparently it is no longer enough to be making money, the product must be making a whole lot of money. (IIRC CoH was still turning a profit, but only a modest one)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

Never really got that into it. Never understood why are people gushing about it either.

To be honest, though, I generally grow bored of an MMO in about two to three months.

Comic book geekdom was a huge part of it. That's what pulled me in. The lack of the standard MMO's 'great equipment chase', especially the lack of the standard 'play full time or always be second rate' so prevalent in other games kept me there.

<crosses arms in X>

I still miss it.

Tels wrote:
This is not me making this up, in the episode 'Dirty Works' I believe it was, it's even mentioned that Air Nomad Avatars have always had issue with Earth Bending because the mind set needed to earth bend has always been contrary to air nomad teachings.

The typical thing is the Avatar having trouble with the opposite element to what they were born into. Aang had trouble with earthbending, Roku had trouble with Waterbending, and I believe Kuruk had trouble firebending. Korra having trouble with air instead of fire is a bit of an anomaly, but makes sense considering what she is like.

Petty Alchemy wrote:

I think I'd actually prefer good Will to good Fort to further differentiate the class. I guess they were leery of giving it the Paladin problem though (2 good saves and Divine Grace make for a pretty much unassailable character) since they have Charmed Life.

The Swashbuckler will probably play fine in 15 minute day with high PB however, which I've played a fair share of.

I am currently playing a SGG Fusilier, which has good reflex and will saves (with feats and traits spent to shore up fort) and am doing quite well with it. But covering one weak area is much easier than covering up two of them, especially when the weak area (fort saves) is already slightly boosted to be in effect a moderate save rather than a poor one.

I believe several of the founding fathers were deists, so that can't have been responsible for his ostracism from them. But he had been involved in the French Revolution as well, taking him out of the American public eye, and when he reappeared, not only was Agrarian Justice out, but so was his blistering attack on Washington (it's a big no-no to go against a guy they were willing to make a king, at least if you want to stay in good graces with the public).

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Yes, I know Paine was anti-slavery, to his eternal credit. I'm just not sure he qualifies as "rabid[ly] Abolitionist." Unless you radically alter the meaning of "rabid."

He was credited for a while with writing the very first abolitionist article, African Slavery in America. While scholars no longer think he was the writer of that anonymous piece, they still believe that his anti-slavery stance is largely responsible for his marginalization after the American Revolution. While not radical by the standards of later years, it certainly was at the time.

Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm looking forward to making Claymore-like characters with this class.

That was my first thought. I'm the only one in my gaming group to have seen the anime so chances are good I could even call the character Clare and nobody would get it.

Forever Slayer wrote:

Here is the problem I'm seeing. D&D has always been a team game where every character helped each other to cover any weaknesses. Couldn't fly, well the Wizard made you fly. Needed a boost in an ability, one of the spellcasters gives you a buff. Some people are trying their best t9 make classes self sufficient, almost like it's a shame to ask help from others or god forbid you have to divert options to cover the weakness.

Some people are just looking to have a class set up where they can totally optimize it.

Strong Fort and Will don't fit the Swashbuckler concept.

I think the problem people see is that without a strong save in one of the two, the swashbuckler is going to have trouble covering the weaknesses of the non-full BAB characters. Back in 3.5 my group had a player try the old Knight class out, and despite being able to dictate that enemies pay attention to him rather than the softer people, he never could do it for very long (despite the d12 hit die) before he was stopped by a failed fortitude save.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
When I think of "rabid" abolitionists, I think of dudes like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison. Who was a "rabid" abolitionist among the Founding Fathers? I don't think even poor Tom Paine qualifies as "rabidly" abolitionist.

Well, Paine did call out Washington on the hypocrisy of being considered a champion of freedom while owning slaves. It didn't go over very well. On a totally unrelated note, Paine is the only founding father to not have a major monument. He has a couple busts and life sized statues that are somewhat obscure, but no huge building.

I thought only that Lame-O Mollari fellow on the History Channel assumed everything was aliens?

Started catching up on my anime now that I am streaming, and getting my wife to watch. We just finished Claymore and both series of Hellsing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Don't forget to REALLY plumb the depths with Catwoman!

Such punishment is banned under the Geneva Convention.

If the new edition can manage to combine the better parts of 2nd with 3.5, my gaming group might be sold.

Auxmaulous wrote:
Kalshane wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Weapon speed. Man I hated weapon speed.

Weapon speed>AoO + Two hander fighter being stock in 3rd ed games.

Weapon speed allowed for change up choices in combat
Weapon speed allowed for weapons that were not the best, but faster as an option.
No need for AoO/stifling combat and movement around the battlefield.

The Two-Hander fighter in 3rd + is a byproduct of having someone with a two handed sword go as fast as someone with a dagger or casting magic missile, i.e = it's crap. This option would not be so great if the attacker lost initiative almost every round.

Weapon speed was a ridiculous rule with no bearing on actual melee weapons and added a needless complication to combat.

Versus 3rd ed based combat right now which takes forever and sucks out the life-blood of the fighter? I will take weapon speeds over AoO and crappola fighters any day of the week.

Kalshane wrote:
Yes, you can physically swing a dagger faster than you can a great sword. Good luck actually getting in close enough to use your dagger if the great sword wielder is actually ready for you (assuming two combatants of equal skill in neutral circumstances. In close-quarters the dagger guy is going to win the majority of the time.)

We are still talking about AD&D depth and complexity, right? Where armor doesn't soak damage instead you get a binary hit/miss system? And you're complaining about weapon reach and inside fighting not being realistic? Lol.

I love how you like to pick and choose the depth of realism for the sake of making a (bad) argument.

Weapon speed systems worked. Weapons had multiple features as balance points to prevent min/maxing - blunt min damage per hit vs. being weaker against larger creatures, weapon speed vs. damage output and effectiveness, weapons vs. armor types - all of this worked.
What are we left with now: Generic Two Hander fighters? Standing still to get your attacks? Getting hit 15...

The ability to move and make multiple attacks handles some of that, the lack of a nerf for two weapon combat combined with the lack of a mega-boost for two handed weapons takes care of the rest, IMO. Weapon speeds aren't needed. My group never used them, although most of us played with GM's who insisted on it, and almost all of us decided it added nothing.

Oddly enough, while I liked the fact that the bow wasn't the only intelligent choice for missile combat like in Pathfinder, I think they were too far the other way in 2E. The bow started stronger than most other missile weapons, but really couldn't be improved without magic. Attacks per round never increased, and specializing really didn't increase damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The good parts of 2E are...

Warrior classes were more on par with magic using ones. Only warrior classes ever got multiple attacks until the supplements granted it to a few others. And they could move and still make all their attacks. And at high levels they could make saving throws too.

By being less fleshed out you could describe things and have a reasonable chance of doing them, now you need to have the feat to have a good chance of success.

More effective multiclassing if one of them was a spellcaster.

The things I disliked....

Wizards outright sucked at low levels. There were no bonuses to spells per day for a high casting stat, meaning a specialist wizard at level one had one single spell per day, and cantrips took the first level spell slot if you wanted those. Spell resistance was a flat roll, meaning a 20th level archmage had the exact same chance to blast that drow as the 1rst level apprentice.

No multiclassing between similar classes - the paladin/ranger was not an option.

Race/class restrictions. Paladins were human only, and there were no dwarven wizards.

Level limits.

Arbitrary methods of restricting leveling, such as forcing druids and monks into duels to get the next level, level draining monsters, and so on.

ThacO was a minor quibble really. I didn't notice it until the edition changed to be honest.

Weapon speeds. God, I hated this rule due to the idiotic enforcement one GM had for it. By his logic, a guy could cross a field and eviscerate a halberdier before a reaction could take place.

Niche protection. No thief meant stay out of the dungeon in many games, period.

Sissyl wrote:
Corporations are most effectively controlled by denying them the right to keep secrets. The bottom line is merely priority 2.

It's a matter of perspective I suppose. I always felt the reason for the secrets was to prevent the bad publicity that would hurt the bottom line.

The secrecy is still something that easily goes bad. Keeping the recipe the company is built upon a secret is one thing, keeping pay rates a secret in order to stiff people without them realizing it is another, to say nothing of keeping studies that might hurt the new product rollout a secret because they could reveal the new product is actually dangerous. The first I understand, the second is wrong, the third deserves a lengthy jailing.

Personally I'd consider changing the tax codes. First, income is income, whether earned through wages or gained through the stock market. Second, reinstate the estate tax. Third, tax corporations via the earning rate of their employees and independent contractors. If the majority of them are working yet still on the welfare rolls, the company gets a high tax rate with all loopholes closed. If the same company has an overwhelming majority of the people working for it at middle class wages, they get taxed at a low rate. Corporations are always most effectively controlled via their profit margins rather than any other means.

Chris Mortika wrote:
Fox may indeed have the movie rights to several Marvel characters. Do they also have the television rights?


From what I heard the television rights are effectively dual-owned in a way that gives both Fox and Marvel (now Disney) veto rights over the other one. So effectively no-one has the rights to make a television show.

I could easily be wrong though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hard times are fertile soil for fascists.

I expect to see a couple players dip right in and play ACG classes. Two will likely not, as one is old fashioned and dislikes trying things that were not in 2nd Edition D&D, and the other prefers a 'point and smite' style of play.

I expect to see the rogue become more rare, as the combat rogue is now better covered with the slayer and ninja, and the skill rogue will be less needed if 2 skill point classes become less common among the rest of the party. The knife master archetype is still likely to be safe, my group loves it after seeing it be one of two martials that made a GM surrender the campaign rather than finish it out (the other was a small cavalier).

I also expect the fighter to become a little more rare, except for certain archetypes that people have been wanting to play.

I think there will be the illusion of power creep, as most of the GM's can be pretty willing to allow new things while not having the time to fully prepare for them. Some are likely to be taken off guard when the group optimizers are finished pulling off something odd.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
"This hacker girl we've known for a month in trouble, kill people to save her! She's special!" is pushing it but acceptable for the main cast. For people that haven't even met her to find that thinking not even worth mentioning is taking her mary sue powers to Franklin Richards levels.

Wasn't that person Garrett? The guy who would later be revealed as having gone through a lot of nasty stuff in order to get his hands on what was in there?

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
You forgot Crity, god of damage and multiplication.

I think he is an associated demigod under Beaty....

My party ended up choosing Undeath, Slavery, and Madness. It ended up being a near perfect fit for Zura, so I went with it.

I especially love the concept of putting magic and warfare under a single deity. I like seeing some stuff that isn't the fantasy standard. Especially when it isn't connected to a need to make sure nothing is a fantasy standard.

You need as many as fits the narrative you are trying for.

If you feel something has been left out, or a player feels something has been left out (and is able to make a convincing case to you), then you don't have enough.

If you think everything is covered, and no one in the group can come up with a convincing reason why there should be more (note: Not having a deity with the falcata as a chosen weapon and all the strongest domains is NOT a convincing argument) then you have enough.

Freehold DM wrote:

Green Lantern has become a particularly unfunny joke. Hal Jordan is noe thr unquestioned lord and master of the Green Lanterns and is leading his army to fight against every other color lantern he doesnt like, as well as anyone he thinks is breaking the law.

I call him Heil Jordan now.

So you are telling me he is the glorious leader HEAT has always desired?

thejeff wrote:
Well everyone pretty much agrees that DC's taken a nosedive. I wonder what their sales look like?

IIRC the well established 'brands' do well (Batman, Green Lantern, Superman, and the titles directly related to each), and the other stuff not as well.

On a completely unrelated note (or so DC management would have us believe), the Batman and Green Lantern groups were the LEAST affected by the new 52.

thejeff wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
If you buy what you need you have to sell other stuff first and by that reduce your total wealth compared to when you use what you find.

Not if you've got a crafter. :) Then it's a one-for-one trade.

Even so, it's the base assumption for the game.

And you'll still be doing it, even if you mostly just use weapons the GM gives you. You'll sell off the old weapon of awesomeness when you get the new one. How much more would it cost to sell the new one and upgrade the old one? That way you get not just the type of weapon you want, but also the specific powers for it.

Despite all the talk of power creep, I have only seen one thing (from 3.0 to Pathfinder) more broken than players custom-fitting all their magic items, especially if they transform the WBL guidelines to 1/2 cost due to crafting the stuff themselves. (That one exception was an Eberron PrC that granted shapechange with the SLA's attached to the form, made even worse because almost all other Eberron PrC's were very well done)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Registration of some kind would be the Government's best compromise.

The problem with that in the Marvel Universe is that mutant registration is a stand-in for things like the Nurenburg Laws. Not every mutant is a walking engine of destruction. Some just have a couple of faces, or maybe never need to charge the batteries on their cellphone.

Any foreign language name dictionary, especially if you are trying to capture a specific feel with the setting (or character, these things work well for players too).

If you want a Tolkien-esque game, I'd suggest the elven language dictionary at the back of Lord of the Rings. I've mined it for a few character and weapon names in the past.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Another is that multiclassing has always been a poor option from the start of 3.0 onwards.

Categorically false. 3.0 (and still in 3.5) had several classes that had no/practically no class abilities. There was no downside to multiclassing.

Why play a 3.X Fighter instead of a Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Duskblade, etc unless you need the extra feats, then just dip?

Why stay single class Sorcerer when a large number of PrC advanced spellcasting, but also provided class features?

That is probably the biggest positive change I see in PF from the 3.X, is that all classes have class features making a single class character much more interesting to play.

For the OP, I think a lot of it is the "ooooh, bright, new, shiny" syndrome.

Prestige classing is not multiclassing in the classic sense. Prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 were just refocused versions of the base classes most of the time, with the occasional 'multiclass-fix' class thrown in. If multiclassing worked, the fix PrC's wouldn't have existed in the first place.

I agree that the 'new and shiny' syndrome is likely the main driver though.

1 to 50 of 1,940 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.