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

1,864 posts (1,871 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,864 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

gnoams wrote:
If you have any interest in exploring real emotions and moral dilemmas, you have to throw out the alignment system. Sometimes hulk smash puny bad guys is fun, and alignment lends itself well to that style of play. As is, if I'm looking for serious roleplaying, I use a different game.

I'm going to disagree with this. If you remember that alignment is a guideline and not a straightjacket most problems resolve themselves. Throw in a few evil people that the party just can't kill (that sleazy merchant who always tries his best to cheat, the loyal-but-immoral advisor to the throne who loves The Prince but wishes the author was a little bit more ruthless, ect.) and the divinations lose a lot of their game-breaking ability.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Elan took more healing spells after dealing with that 1/2 Orc ninja who had the hots for him.

thejeff wrote:
The hipster "I don't like that because it's too popular" thing is just as bad as jumping on the bandwagon and liking it because it's popular.

I'll take it a step further and say that it is exactly the same thing. It may be a bandwagon popular with different people, but it is still a bandwagon.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Stop the argument. Please.

But, but someone disagrees with me on the internet!!!


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Hama wrote:

I still can't understand how Iraq,with one of the best armies around,folded so quickly.

1) Iraq's army was large but not nearly as powerful as it was reputed to be.

2) America's military is absurdly advanced compared to most countries due to massive military spending, even if a large portion of the cost is just corruption stealing from the tax payers.
3) The Iraqi army due to differences in army size and equipment needed to use guerilla tactics far earlier than it did.

Also, in the U.S. we seem to have a habit of vastly overestimating or underestimating the opponent. That plays into it as well.

Operation: Desert Storm showed a giant gap in capabilities of the T-72 and the M-1, not to mention some design flaws in the T-72. The ammo is stored in a ring around the turret, meaning nearly any hit that penetrates the armor has chance to cook off a whole lot of explosives. There's enough explosive power in the loadout of powder and shells inside a T-72 tank to rip the turret off and send it 20+ meters into the air.

Cthulhudrew wrote:
Caineach wrote:

So, overall I really liked the movie, but did anyone else have an issue with the fact that all of the intelligence they had came from a bad guy deciding he would tell Captain A his evil plot just before he was killed?

I hate when plot critical elements rely on intelligent characters being insanely dumb, like villains gloating.

When you think about it, though, how else was he supposed to keep them occupied long enough for them to get captured or beaten? Share stock quotes?

I don't really have a problem with it. Cerebral villains like Zola often have a need to not only prove they are smarter than everyone else, but to be acknowledged as such, especially by those who have humbled them in the past.

I don't mind wizards doing a bit of circumvention of the fixed spell list via consumables. The real offenders are things like Amulets of Magecraft and metamagic feat rods. Those things need to go.

Right has a might all it's own.

A light too bright blinds as surely as darkness.

That was what TV Tropes calls a WHAM! Episode.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The correct answer is whatever allows the group to have the most fun. If the group prefers rolling, prefers point buy, prefers picking and choosing, the array (my least favorite btw), or some mix of the others, it doesn't really matter so long as the people at the table enjoy it.

Kryzbyn wrote:

I suppose the evil colonists should not have defended themselves, cuz guns R bad?

EDIT: Never mind. I don't care to know what your "correct" version of the French-Indian war or the Independance war or the War of 1812 were.
I just don't.

I don't know if he is referring to it as Mythology because he doesn't like it or because in the U.S. we have a tendency to deify the figures of the revolutionary era. Myself, I just find it annoying that the Battles of Baltimore and Plattsburgh (which actually affected the outcome of the war) always take a backseat in the history books to the Battle of New Orleans, which should only be notable because a future president was there.

Kryzbyn wrote:

The American colonies were invaded by the French, and the British. Then as the US, invaded by the British again in 1812.

This may depend on your definition of invasion, but we are keenly aware of it. Having to repel the invasion from two of the world's top superpowers at the time is no small matter, nor easily forgotten.

None of these are within living memory. And for the U.S., the War of 1812 has been largely forgotten, as what the British probably consider to be the most pivotal battle of the conflict is virtually unknown as little as 25 miles from where it happened.

My group doesn't allow them merely due to the action economy. When you have seven players around the table one guy who gets double or triple (or even more!) the actions of everyone else reduces their already limited time to do stuff. We also tend to frown upon summoning specialists of other classes as well for the same reason.

One should be able to learn the equipment they have, be it a sword, a bow, or a magical carpet. A character learns weapons based on base attack and feats, they learn flight via the skill.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
But this thread is about the movie. Why are people upset that we are discussing the movie in a thread for discussing the movie?
Because a large segment of the boards (e.g., all the Americans) haven't had a chance to see it, and might come here expecting discussion in anticipation of the movie.

Call me crazy, but I feel that if the title character of a movie is defined largely by a national identity, that nation shouldn't be the last place to get the film, but the first. Bond films should open in the U.K. before anywhere else, and any movie titled 'Captain America' should open in the U.S. before anywhere else.

Epic fail, Disney.

What I would want to see.....

Better options for high-level non-magic using characters.

Less rocket tag at higher levels.

Sorcerer bloodlines built more like Oracle mysteries - choose from a list, not you get exactly this at the level stated.

Removal of meta-magic feat rods and all methods that allow wizards to spontaneously cast, put in hard enough that the SRD itself bans the creation of them even by third parties.

A monk that works even if the player isn't a high end optimizer.

There is a difference between the GM wanting to make sure the player's character fits his campaign (which is perfectly justified), the PC's have a reason to work together already figured into backstory (also perfectly justified), and forcing a set of random dice rolls that not only torpedo the backstory concept, but also completely bugger the mechanical build of the character as well.

It boils down to playstyle and the GM's running style.

A sorcerer has greater tactical flexibility.

A wizard has greater strategic flexibility.

Either one can be more important depending on the player and the game.

We tried this during the War of 1812, although by force. The end result was creating a much stronger Canadian identity than existed before.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
I despise dubs. I would outlaw them if I could.

On behalf of a dyslexic friend I'm going to say it's good you don't have that power, He can't stand subtitles, as they force him to watch the movie twice. Once for the dialogue and once for the show.

Krensky wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Krensky wrote:

It's part of why the USN doesn't fly F14s or F18s any more.

And in what wars F-117 was used to extent of airframe failure?

You see,f-14 is a dedicated interceptor,they are on patrols all the time.
What F-117 patrolled,Mexican border?
Also,speaking of used planes,last B-52 was produced literally before my father was born,and somehow it's still in air.
Also,f18 looks like it's in service.

The F-117 was retired because it was only a ground attack plane and it was much more maintence intensive than the F-22 or F-35.

I could have sworn the F/A-18 was retired in favor of the F/A-18E/F which is really a different aircraft despite the name, but I seem to be mistaken.

Also, to increase the savings associated with logistics it is more cost effective to eliminate an entire weapons system then to reduce 2 by half. Other little tidbits worked against the F-117, especially when compared to the F-22. Unable to handle air-to-sir missions, lack of it's own radar (it used GPS and inertial navigation, radar could give it away), flying like a brick, ect, ect.

Additionally, the old style F/A-18D (the E/F variant is a similar looking but completely different aircraft that is 25% larger) is still in use until the F-35B's actually work.

I'd suggest doing a higher point buy for these players. They aren't used to lower stats, and the higher point buy will help with the 'buy-in'. To ensure a challenge for the players, you can either add the advanced template to the adversaries, increase HP to max, or simply add a couple of minions to the encounter using the same stat block in the module.

IMO, a point buy, even a higher point buy, is easier to balance for a newer GM than a game with wildly disparate rolled stats due a closer power level from player.

I'd certainly jettison the pvp players, they will most likely drag the fun levels down for everyone else.

I will not be attending his funeral but I do approve of it.

Black Dougal wrote:

The biggest problem I have with the whole "Phoenix" concept is it seemed to be dreamed up to make nice, safe, boring Jean Grey into some sexy badass. And then they realized they made her too badass and had to write her off..

But nooo..we can't Scott Summers suffer

Intro: Madelyne Prior

enter, new writer..lets screw with scott summers

Madelyne is a clone..hahahah

now lets fast forward scotts kid into the future..

argh!..sorry for the digression, but the whole, phoenix storyline started the whole chain of events that destroyed the x-men I used to read. I know there are lots and lots of people that love Gambit, bishop cable etc..but not me.

There's much more to it than that, IIRC. Claremont's original plan for the Dark Phoenix was for Jean to survive, but be permanently depowered. However, being drawn blowing up an inhabited planet brought down editorial (Jim Shooter I believe), who ordered that she die. Enter Madelyn Pryor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

'Phoenix' and 'canon' are two words that have no business being used in the same sentence. I think the Phoenix has an entirely different backstory every single appearance. Only a few key details stay the same. It has a connection to Jean Grey. It's power level is of the scale. It has flaming bird manifestations. By the time the event with it is over, someone will be dead, or someone who was dead will come back. Nothing else seems to have even the slightest level of consistency.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest loser here (IMO) is nuclear disarmament. Every country that is currently under pressure to disarm or halt nuclear programs is just going to point at the Ukraine. 'If they had nukes they wouldn't have been invaded.'

Freehold DM wrote:
The idea of secondary mutations being taken seriously make me want to slap the taste out of Morrison's mouth.

I've seen at least one decent explanation for it. In the X-Men anime secondary mutations are referred to as 'David Haller Syndrome' (nice call-out to comic history) and are potentially lethal. It's treated as a mutant-only disease (and yes, all the X-Men are stated to be vaccinated against it. Frost wasn't but gets stabilized shortly after it shows up) and is something they are all afraid of.

Mike Franke wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Set wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
This is the Iron Age of comics. Soon the gods will kill us all.

The Iron Age was the '90s, with all the pouches and guns.

Then came the Plutonium Age. Toxic and radioactive.

Now we're up to our hips in the Quantum Age, where anything written will probably no longer be in continuity by the time the issue hits the stands. Unless it is. Until it isn't again.

Any age in which Emma Frost talks shi+ to Thor and then kicks his ass can't be over too fast. So effin' stupid.
I couldn't agree more. I stopped paying attention to Frost when from nowhere she can suddenly turn into diamond. What happened to the just telepath? Was that ever even explained. I only duck my head into comics a couple times a year these days.

I call it the Mercury Age, at least on the DC side. It looks like Silver at first glance, but is really a toxic substance. While it doesn't READ like the Silver Age, it seems that the vast majority of characters are the Silver Age person under the costume. I'm not sure if there are any legacy characters left except those that have no Silver Age version (like Stargirl).

On the other note, Emma Frost got the diamond form power under Morrison. I think it did get a bit of an explanation under Whedon in Astonishing.

When did the word bourgeois transform from meaning middle-class to wealthy elite?

Banning a class outright isn't always bad.

Psionics isn't always allowed at our tables because the GM (depending on who is running at the time) doesn't always want to learn a new subsystem, especially if it is from a book he doesn't own a copy of.

Summoners are often banned due to the large group size. Summoning specialists are also disallowed for this reason.

Gunslingers are banned from one game due to it taking place in the Forgotten Realms (where no gunpowder is stated, replaced by incredibly expensive and obviously magical smoke powder).

Only the Summoner ban seems to be maintained from game to game (and even that isn't 100% of the time, other nights with smaller groups allow it in), Psionics and Gunslingers have made it in in several games. Our group's first question when Skulls and Shackles was proposed was whether or not guns and gunslingers would be in play for the party. Pirates, at least to us, inspires images of the Golden Age of Sail, and that means firearms.

Also good is Rime-Blooded. While it doesn't give +1 damage per die or free elemental substitution, it does force a single target in the spell area to pass a save or be slowed for a round, for free.

The biggest problem with Rime-blooded is that undead are immune to cold damage, so this isn't a good choice in a campaign like Carrion Crown.

yellowdingo wrote:
USA has ukrainian billionaire arrested in Austria because he is a supporter of Ukraine siding with Russia. link

Wow, we must be good. Investigating some guy since 2006 for the things he didn't pull off until 2014?

I would suggest that if you are going to draw wild conclusions based on an article you link, read it first to ensure it doesn't blow your conclusion out of the water.

thejeff wrote:
Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And the US never attempted to annex Iraq.

Iraq never formally requested to join US.

A "formal request" to join a country while that country's troops are patrolling your streets is suspect at best.

Especially when you are financing the separatist movement from early on...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:

And a GM really does not need a reason beyond "I do not want it in my campaign."

He is not required to explain his reasons... they may be story related and the reason may reveal more than the player needs know at this time.

'Story reason to be revealed later' is something I'll accept, but I do expect that the reveal is going to happen during the campaign.

But my experience is that if the GM is willing to work a bit with the player, the player will normally work a bit with the GM. Declaring 'I'm the GM and I say so!' is just a flag for me that this group probably won't be very much fun.

It's also my experience that players who want to make problems will do so even with a Core Rules only game (or even less). The problem is typically the player rather than the race they play.

My group has done the shared creation thing a couple of times. The GM paints some broad strokes and the players fill in the details (normally by playing one of those things that exists only in broad strokes). Run a few campaigns in the world and more and more of those details get filled in.

Now, as far as core rules races, most people in my group play them, despite having access to the entire ARG at the table. Out of 7 players, we currently have 2 playing something from the ARG, and each of them played a core rules race the campaign before.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We are talking about comic book logic here. In the real world, most costumed heroes (since many are not associated with a government) would be the subject of some very impressive manhunts just by doing what they do.

sword n' board wrote:
In my group, one of the pcs is a paladin who uses detect evil constantly. my problem with this is that i cant have anybody to be evil without him knowing and killing him. so is there a way that i can prevent the paladin from ruining every quest with an evil person.

This really sounds more like a player problem than anything else. Although, I want to ask one thing. Have friendly NPC's that turn out to be evil and stab the party in the back been a problem for them lately? If so, then this might be more player reaction to try and protect themselves. I have seen that one happen too much, sadly enough. My group had a GM (not anymore, thankfully) who had pretty much every single NPC we worked with was put there to turn on us later. Those that weren't were there to grab the spotlight away from the players. I don't miss those days, not even the tiniest little bit.

From my perspective Obama looks weaker for making the threat, and then not being able to do anything than if he did nothing at all from the start.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There has been more than one Deathlok in the comics, why not the show?

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You're talking to the wrong guy. The break-up of the Soviet Union, despite its Stalinist misleadership, was the greatest defeat for the international working class of the 20th century.

I consider the long, slow death of the labor unions to be a bigger defeat myself. The workers didn't have any power in the Soviet Union to lose by it breaking up, other than some lip service that was paid to them by a ruling elite.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So, I've got images of American servicemen torturing Iraqis, bombing babies and killing civilians. What images you wanna bring to the Image Battleground, Citizen Spawn?

I'm sure you could drag all sorts of ugly stuff out of Chechnya and some other recent Russian conflicts. Maybe out of Georgia?

Not much yet in Crimea, but it's early days.
I'm sure you could. I'll match Russian atrocity photo with American atrocity photo and let's see who wins the Image Battleground.

By his act of calling the breakup of the Soviet Union 'the greatest geopolitical disaster' Putin has already lost that. The Soviet Union at it's height was run by possibly the greatest mass murderer in human history. It's breakup is something to be celebrated, not mourned, and certainly not to be reversed by military force.

Matthew Morris wrote:

my complaints about Cyborg in the reboot were the erasing of the titans history.

Given that he was part of Robinson's Justice League preboot...

Understandable. "Hey, we are gonna push this character you love, by erasing his entire history!" probably won't sit well with fans of said history.

ShinHakkaider wrote:
I mean people were even complaining about the addition of Cyborg in the JL in the New 52...

I might be guilty of that one, but it is more anger over who tey chose to remove to make room for him. The Martian Manhunter is my favorite DC character, and they wrote a founding member of the JL out to make room for someone else.

Since many of the dead protesters were killed by sniper fire, they probably weren't willing to abide by any agreement that allowed the guy who they believed ordered the killings to retain power.

A secret Jedi isn't a bad idea. Neither is the post RotJ idea of one of Luke's apprentices falling to the dark side. The problem is when every author refuses to do anything other than that same story, and we end up with half the Jedi being missed in the purge, or nearly every single person Luke trains becoming a Sith later, and other such expanded universe nonsense. There were great things in the expanded universe, but a lot of stupid stuff made it in too.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:

Listen people, not all black people are the same.

I'm not Martin Luther King jr. or Jackie Robinson. When I'm struck for no reason? My first instinct is to break the arm that stuck me.

There seems to be thee idea that in the face of racism that I should be consistently turning the other cheek while some of you feel more comfortable labeling me a racist for not doing so while ignoring the actual racist stuff that I'm responding to.

To everyone here talking about this in good faith I'm honestly sorry if anything that I've said has offended you.

To be honest, any dialogue about race that has any hope of meaning anything in the U.S. is probably going to offend people on both sides. There is both more racism than there should be, and a tendency to make accusations of racism too readily. Neither one helps.

Freehold DM wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Spawn generic? I'm sorry you feel that way, I think he's a great black anti-hero. It makes me wonder if you would accept a black character who wasn't part of a race-based dialogue.

To be fair I only read up to the first 10-12 issues of the original run. McFarlane's writing wasnt doing the book any favors at all. And after the guest runs by Moore and Gaiman highlighted the rift in ability between them and McFarlane I dropped the book.

Also, does me liking pre New52 Mr. Terrific count? Because he was pretty vanilla as vanilla goes.

Mr terrific.... I dunno. His book was canceled. Not much has been seen from him since. I loved the fact that he was an atheist black superhero to an extent of but I had to wonder whether or not this was going in a rewarding reverse-stereotypes direction, especially when he started dating power girl (although that last may be jealousy talking).

I was picking up Mr. Terrific when the Nu52 came out but dropped it shortly after the first arc. Despite looking the same, he went from a pretty cool guy to yet-another-angry-over-the-loss-of-a-loved-one superhero, except they decided to amp up the anger even more than normal. To 'Batman is telling you to calm down' levels. That wasn't Mr. Terrific despite what they had pasted on the cover.

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Jessie James did.

Kinda called it the "Northfield, Minnesota Raid."

Ah, yes. That was when the 'James-Younger Gang' became the 'James Gang'. Darn shame about those Youngers.

Part of the problem is that in those countries the elected president starts to punish everyone who didn't vote for him. Democracy has to be more than saying 51% of us say the other 49% of you don't matter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never liked 'go see a trainer' because logic derails it. How did your trainer get to be so high level? What about his trainer? Eventually you go back far enough that some, somewhere, had to figure it out on their own. The PC's, who by their very nature are exceptional, not being able to do the same suspends disbelief. The same thing holds true for spells. While you might not like someone being able to wake up and cast fireball without being taught, someone, somewhere, had to have cast the very first fireball, and at that point there was no one to learn it from.

Most GM's I know presume that the majority of nights, the mages study, the priests pray, and the martial/skill characters practice. It isn't so much of suddenly waking up and things are different, as it is finally reaching the next step after lots of (glossed over to not slow down gameplay) practice.

I can see breaking up the leveling benefits to make things appear more gradual. Maybe instead of gaining BAB, hit points, and feats all at once, the level could be broken down into 3, and at each point some of the benefits are granted rather than all at once.

1 to 50 of 1,864 << 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.