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

2,926 posts (2,935 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,926 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CrystalSeas wrote:

Well, the Detroit News thinks he's the best choice

Detroit News Endorses Johnson

Well, he IS a better choice than Trump, even if that is an admittedly low bar.

Like, Marianas Trench low.

Threeshades wrote:
I may be remembering eldritch blast wrong, but the point holds true with other casters. Even more so with other casters who dont get the ability bonus at all.

It does hold true except for a few corner cases - knowledge domain cleric, evoker wizard, and the dragon sorcerer. The big exception is the warlock, but they don't have anywhere close to the burst damage/crowd control the other casters have (4 spells max in an encounter and a lower max level as well).

Foxit apparently needs an update that I am only discovering now, so I can't say whether or not there is something in Unearthed Arcana that adds to the corner cases.

Threeshades wrote:

A level 5 cantrip with two damage dice vs a level 5 martial's two attacks would on average be in favor of the martial.

First off, yes, the martial is less likely to get both attacks to hit, than the caster is to get its one cantrip to hit, but on the other hand the martial is also less likely to completely whiff all of its attacks. So where the caster deals its "full" damage every second turn, the martial deals "half" damage every turn.

Secondly a cantrip deals only its damage dice, so at level 5 you're at around 2d8 or 2d10 damage, unless you are a draconic sorcerer or a warlock with agonizing blast, or something similar, in which case you get your Ability modifier on that damage.
The martial gets their ability modifier twice: once on each attack. So a two-hand fighter comes at 4d6+6 (average 20) where the warlock rolls 2d10+3 (average 14)

The Warlock with Agonizing Blast (according to my reading) will get the stat modifier with each die - as according to the spell writeup, each die is a separate ray.

The whole gimmick with the warlock vs other casters seems to be higher floor, lower ceiling.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.

That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.

On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.

Pretty much no one read the Patriot Act which was ramrodded through on the shockwave from 9/11.
Yep. Which is my point: no one read it, only one voted against it. It really should have been read by the entirety instead of taking the assurances from interns et al that it was a good thing. Now ... blecch.
It wouldn't have mattered. the political reality that no one was going to vote against somemthing called "The Patriot Act" given the political landscape of the moment.

We need a gadfly senator who filibusters often - not the anonymous way, but plays the trollolol card by actually reading the bill as his filibuster.

Fouquier-Tinville wrote:
Pfft. At least Max opposed slavery.

Overwritten by the Terror. Many, many broken eggs in that one. No omelette in sight.

But I suppose I could have used Franklin or Adams instead of Washington.

Samy wrote:
If there was one thing that really was clear to me in the debate it's the fact that Trump is in power because of a protest movement. He repeatedly harped on the fact that how things have been done over the past 20 or 30 years isn't working. "You were in power -- why didn't you fix this?" "You've been doing it for 30 years -- it isn't working!" And so on. Hillary offers just more of the same, and even as a Hillary supporter, I agree with that. I don't see her as being a radical departure from what people like Obama have been doing. And there's a growing segment of the populace who really want radical change. Business as usual is ruining them and they're willing to grasp at any straw for some big, actual change.

That I understand - I just want some constructive change, not a demagogue who only tells me who to blame/hate or how great he is.

Washington was a good revolution, Robespierre was not.

Fergie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.

I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?

I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.
To each, their own.

At least Clinton is an American crook. Manchurian Donnie has too much Kremlin Kash for me to ever vote for him.

Thomas Seitz wrote:


They did it in Marvel too.


THANK YOU!. I'm glad someone remember that, especially after the hell that Bobbi when through with Lincoln Slade.

Excalibur did it in Camelot 3000 as well (DC 12 issue series).

The resulting nuclear explosion took out an alien fleet.

I thought Argonaut was proportionally powerful to the opponent - basically, Bell gets a fighting chance no matter what. But it isn't assured.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
One thing Aesthetica had that I truly enjoyed is how the main character managed to always humiliate anyone who tried the abuse-kun approach, and made it more humiliating when they kept it up. I watched too many shows in a row with tsycho-tsuns to the point where seeing them suffer actually makes me happy.
He did that because he wanted to be the only one occupying that particular niche. He even stated it flat-out; I remember some line of his that went something like "No one, except me, is allowed to make such a pretty girl cry."

True, but I had watched 5 series (or parts of, to be honest) that featured the protagonist being beaten unmercifully for the yuks in rapid succession. I still am hoping to find an anime with an abusive girlfriend who gets jilted at the end solely because of how abusive she is - preferably with a damning 'reason you suck' speech to drive the point home.

I thought no one could be worse than Louise the Zero, then I saw Haruna from Is This A Zombie?

Alzrius wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Started watching testament of new devil.

So much cheesecake.

I truly love it.

I used to like it, but lost respect once I watched the writer's earlier series Aesthetica of a Rogue Hero.

He recycled so much from the first series into the second that if a different author had done so I'm pretty sure an infringement lawsuit could have been filed.

I think that it was a learning experience for the writer. I hated Aesthetica, but found Sister New Devil much more palatable.

One thing Aesthetica had that I truly enjoyed is how the main character managed to always humiliate anyone who tried the abuse-kun approach, and made it more humiliating when they kept it up. I watched too many shows in a row with tsycho-tsuns to the point where seeing them suffer actually makes me happy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

Started watching testament of new devil.

So much cheesecake.

I truly love it.

I used to like it, but lost respect once I watched the writer's earlier series Aesthetica of a Rogue Hero.

He recycled so much from the first series into the second that if a different author had done so I'm pretty sure an infringement lawsuit could have been filed.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If what the House says about Clinton is true and after all those investigations, hearings, and taxpayer money spent they still don't have anything concrete despite everyone 'knowing' how criminal she is, then they themselves are grossly incompetent by any objective measure.

I can't bring myself to vote for pathetic incompetents.

It's beginning to look as if Pathfinder has some sacred cows in need of being ground into hamburger of it's own.

The Big 6 being sacrosanct - anything that might threaten these is nerfed.

The almighty SUEmitar (AKA the Pathfinder Katana) - anything that might make a different finesse weapon equal to it must die, but doing anything to Dervish Dance is so far down the priority list it will probably never happen in our lifetimes.

If Fencing/Slashing Grace being on par with Dervish Dance is considered broken, then logic dictates that Dervish Dance must ALSO be broken.

Add in the fact that it often seems that a scalpel will never be used when they can break out the chainsaw instead and you have a recipe for customer dissatisfaction.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

Trump says Clinton could shoot someone and not get prosecuted.

Given that he's said basically the same thing about himself, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Although he did say "This is what's happening to our country", so it seems to have been meant in a negative way... so it's okay and good when it benefits him, but bad if it benefits someone who opposes him...?

Seeing as how the Republicans in COngress have been after her for anything and everything, Trump's statement might actually be true, but not for the reasons he claims.

I've reached the point where I hear any Clinton allegations as "Wolf! Wolf! A wolf is eating the sheep!" more often than not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy.
This is so ignorant it makes my head spin.

Exactly - call me when candidates who might be a threat to the sitting Prez suddenly become criminals by decree. That's a big shift our 'sham democracy' would need to start doing to compare with Russia's sham.

Although if you live in a liberal city in an otherwise conservative state, you are forgiven for thinking our democracy is a sham - depending on how many laws in your city have been overturned by the state.

thejeff wrote:
Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Reminds me of the original Crisis in that sense.

Ditto, and since I ended up hating the results of Crisis, I don't really get warm fuzzies about this event either.

Heroes from other (now dead) universes having jumped ship and survived to join 'our' universe, while the millions, trillions, whatever people that they were supposed to be protecting all died screaming kind of bugs me. It bugged me in the '80s, when the only 'heroes' who went down with their ship was the Earth 3 Crime Syndicate, while Captain Marvel, Captain Atom, etc. skipped free of the destruction of their universes, and I'm not particularly fond of it happening again.

It took DC decades to undo pretty much all of the results of Crisis (some sooner than others, Supergirl was back almost immediately, the Multiverse later, first as 'Hypertime' and then, unapologetically, just back as the Multiverse, finally Barry Allen). I wonder how long it will take Marvel to undo the Incursions?

I'm not a fan of how it turned into a pissing match between the Black Panther and Namor, either, and how blowing up people's countries because you were pissed at them became a cool thing that super-heroes do, and then brag about.

Neither of them bragged about it - well, Namor might have, but he's always walked the line between hero and villain and he was well over on the villain side for this one. And those hostilities date back to AvX and both of them made efforts to avoid escalating.

But the whole series was about how far you would go to save what mattered to you. The war between their countries tied into that very nicely.

If I understood things correctly, pretty much everyone across the multiverse went down with their universe - or their earth. Some universes theoretically survived when their Earth was destroyed in an Incursion, though that concept seemed to get dropped by the end. The only survivors, as I understand it, were Doom, Strange and the Molecule man, and the two rafts - one from 616 and...

Well, putting the universe back together is a big job, even if you have the powers of the gods. For mortals trying to use those powers it's got to be even more difficult, and we aren't just trying to put one universe back together, but many.

There's bound to be a few mistakes. As many as the writers at Marvel think they can get a story out of.

Liz Courts wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

I find it odd that Paizo would highlight products on their front page that come from their biggest competition.

Probably just me. /shrug

The hobby gaming industry is not as big as people think, and many of us at Paizo have long-time friends in many different game companies—including Wizards of the Coast. Paizo's origin hails from the WotC periodicals department. A significant portion of the staff here grew up on Dungeons & Dragons, which shaped us to be where we are right now. Why would we not want to acknowledge the hard work of our peers in the industry for a successful game system?

From another standpoint, I think it's a dangerous assumption that gaming is a zero-sum situation. Different games work for different folks, but that doesn't mean that Pathfinder (or Dungeons & Dragons) is the *only* one you can play. For anyone that wants to be a game designer, it's dangerous myopia—you need to play many things to get a sense of how things are made.

A healthy game industry is good for all of us, from publisher to consumer—that's why we choose to highlight many different games on our website.

MY gaming group and it's rotating stable of GM's has one who won't go back to 3.anything after experiencing 5E, and another who tolerates it when he's a player but won't run anything other than Pathfinder.

Plus two others who run other games, one of whom returns to Pathfinder often (but is currently on a Sci-Fi kick) and another who is in love with Science-Fantasy games (that aren't Palladium - he isn't a fan of the system).

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.
In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. :) There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.

Yeah...I wasn't aware that "Left of mainstream republican" = socialist...

By modern Republican standards, both Nixon and God (I'm referring to Ronald, not *THAT* one,) would be socialists.

I detailed a lot of the stuff Nixon is responsible for several pages back. You might think Obama and Bill are right wingers compared to what 'Tricky Dick' created. It's an impressive list.

Captain Yesterday, FaWtL 6 News wrote:
Five minutes has passed, do you know where Trump stands on immigration!

Let's check the charts!

rolls die...: 1d20 ⇒ 13

What's my result?

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.

Other than his signature, of course.

I don't know beyond that what you mean by "his name on it". For the original purposes of bringing it up, should he be appointed to the Supreme Court, he should recuse himself from any cases involving it.

Why? Because he signed it? That, besides being it's advocate is his only actual involvement in it. The name "Obamacare" is still in the main, one used only by news commentators, and Republicans who want to destroy it. For awhile it also went by Rommneycare as it's essentially identical to the system Mitch Romney put in when he was Governer.

By that logic, given that he was the Executor of all of U.S. policy, he'd have to recuse himself from anything involving the United States during his eight years as President. More if you're going to throw in his years as a Senator as well.

It's moot, because I don't think that Obama is either, a good Supreme Court candidate, nor is he interested in the job.

That's Mitt Romney - I know, spellcheckers often seem like spellbotchers nowadays, especially now that they are just 'correcting' things without asking.

I thought Ghostbusters was an unneeded remake, so I didn't watch.

But it wasn't as unneeded as Ben-Hur. The Heston version won something like ALL THE OSCARS that year. (I know that's hyperbole, but just go with it) If you want to remake something like that you had better be perfect or else. And 100 million fewer dollars later, here we are, discussing what might be the biggest bomb of the year.

Gone With the Wind doesn't need a remake either, Hollywood. Don't even try.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want someone who has worked as a public defender - enough of these solicitor/attorney general types. Let's get someone on the court who might have actually worked for people directly rather then just the government.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
You can't put in 20 hour days building a successful empire AND routinely patrol for muggers all night.

This reminds me of the first page of a Wolverine issue when they made light of this type of syndrome. They had a panel for each day i.e. 'Monday', 'Tuesday', etc. showing him in Japan fighting ninjas one day, and on the moon with the Avengers the next, etc.

It was hilarious... at the time. :P

There was also a panel when Chuck Austen was writing X-Men of them all complaining at Cyclops's desk - Wolverine is saying that he appreciates the faith in him, but he can't be on every X-Man team at the same time!

Even the writers we often consider the worst come up with something good (or at least funny) from time to time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

It is also part of "controlling the message", that has been the Right's media strategy for years now. Rush/Hanity/O'Reily/Coulture/ say some stupid ignorant hateful garbage, and the media talk about it for a day or two. Politicians on the right backtrack a little, and the Left is outraged. But the Right gets to have their message be the topic of discussion.

Trump has figured out how to be both the guy who says the crazy s!+&, and the politician who benefits.

Maybe someday the Left and media will figure it out and stop falling for it, but it has been going on for years now.

That's pretty much how Scott Walker has done his thing in Wisconsin.

Hitdice wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I thought the whole problem with Black Widow was that she couldn't preform sexually; have I missed a step?
She can "perform sexually" just fine. She cannot, however, "perform" reproductively. And the fact that the distinction exists and is seen as meaningful is part of what is being thrashed out here.
Reproductively as compared to sexually, that's the step I missed. Thanks for the clarification.

I can only speak about the women I know have seen the film - none of them have fertility problems though. Not one even considered that Black Widow considered herself a monster because she couldn't have children, but thought she considered herself one because of her body count (a lot of 'red in her ledger' mentioned in the first Avengers film).

Of course, the women I know who have seen Age of Ultron also saw the first one, and all watched Agent Carter and connected the forced sterilization to Dottie being forced to kill her best friend (or be killed by her) as another cog in the 'form no attachments in order to be a better killer' regime of their training.

So the sample group I am familiar with is pretty limited.

Rednal wrote:
Trump says the media won't report on facts. USA Today kindly fact-checked his recent immigration speech.

That's because in Trump's odd little world, anything unfavorable to Trump isn't a fact, but a lie.

Thomas Seitz wrote:


I must have missed that. Was that before or after Civil War I?

6 issue limited series with major delays - Spiderman/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do. First issue was in 2002, so the series started well before, although the massive delays put the final issues near or at the time it was going on.

GreenDragon1133 wrote:
memorax wrote:

True yet from what I have heard. She has been turned into a full villain. No shades of grey or anything remotely heroic or good left in the character. I never viewed Black Cat as a hero. Yet turning her into the female version of the Kingpin is way out of character Imo. Made worse that they used the excuse of her getting punched by Spiderman as the readon to turn her full evil. It was not even Peter Parker but Doctor Octopus possessing his body.

It seems at least in Marvel. A character who is a villain. Are almost always portrayed as sociopathic, psychos with a anti (insert superhero or super team name here) With few exceptions. Or the heroes are always the good guys with no shades of grey Imo.

Black Cat as a female Kingpin? So... Marvel still thinks of her as Catwoman. Has she also been outed as Bi?

Her internal monologue mentions it waaaaay back in a small arc with Spider-Man written by Kevin Smith, IIRC (she mentions how long it's been since she has been with a man, or a woman for that matter). But nothing on panel other than words that I remember (but my reading is spotty at best).

thejeff wrote:

Psylocke's been established as bisexual fairly recently.

Shatterstar was, not that I've seen anything with him in it for awhile.
There may be other.

Apparently bisexual invisibility is a meta-superpower. :)

Psylocke might be a bit iffy - her one (so far) female relationship was a female version of a previous (recently deceased) male lover. One of those things that can only happen in works of fiction. I'd have to see her with another woman past the weird special case to be sold on it. (If a male Jean Grey showed up and Cyclops and Wolverine were still after the relationship I'd be doubtful as well - Scott especially is an easy case for being Jean-sexual more than anything else)

With Shatterstar I'm not sure of it's bisexual or merely coming out, but I haven't been reading up on him either.

memorax wrote:

It's interesting how some who like that Iceman is gay react to those who say it's a retcon. One cannot even say it's a retcon or that it was handled poorly. Anyone can see it was a retcon. But if you dislike or disagree with the change your homophobic. Made worse when they say"but it's a proactive retcon and he was always meant to be gay". Show me where in the comics and I will agree. Otherwise it's like Cap being a Hydra agent. Another retcon and even if Marvel says he was always supposed to be almost no one fell for it imo. Heaven forbid any character be bisexual in the Marvel universe. Their either straight or gay. Nothing in between. With Mystique being the only exception.

That being said I still prefer Marvel to DC.

I think America Chavez is Bi - but other than her, anyone else who is is a villain or very dark antihero at best.

When it came to prosecution of whistleblowers, Obama far surpassed Bush, and not in a good way. The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than every previous administration combined - and that stat is a couple of years old!

I seriously wonder of he has managed to lap the field yet....

MannyGoblin wrote:
Favored Soul for 3.5 was basically Oracle minus the curse, a divine sorcerer.

And more MAD - they used one stat for spell DC and a different one for bonus spells.

swoosh wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
swoosh wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Counter-example: Games Workshop.
Also Wizards of the Coast. Fifth Edition's marketing campaign has actually tried to spin the fact that it's an unfinished mess as a good thing.
I've actually found 5e's rules hang together quite well. In a number of places I find the game considerably better-designed than 3rd, in fact.
I'm not sure better designed is the right word. It's clean, but the trouble with 5e is that it isn't designed at all. A good half of the book is "Well the GM should just make it up, I guess." 'Rules light' and 'more flexible' just end up feeling like codephrases for developer laziness, at least in that instance.

It depends on what you see in it. One of the problems with third was that once a rule was made for something, it always seemed to involve a feat to pull off with any reasonable chance of success. Where you see 'not designed at all', someone else might see 'not micromanaged into unplayability.'

MY gaming group has people with both viewpoints. One GM, after running 5th, isn't ever going to try and run anything 3rd ever again, while another isn't willing to run anything but since he likes the multitude of options.

My primary complaint with 5th is I'd like some more archetypes available for each class - but at least the Unearthed Arcana stuff they present every few months helps on that end.

All part of their never-ending battle to convince the readers that comics didn't start until the Silver Age.

Greylurker wrote:

Sounds kind of like Obsidian over at DC. Guy had an absolutely lousy track record with women, several bouts of "turned evil" lot of fan gossip about his being gay.

when DC finally uncloseted him there wasa large portion of the readers that just said "about time he came out"

and the character honestly seemed happy and well adjusted after that point. We even had some scenes of the future where he and his boyfriend were happy, married and had adopted.

and then DC erased his very existance when they rebooted to New52

That was one change I really didn't like. They changed Alan Scott simply because they felt they needed to replace someone they retgoned (as opposed eliminating someone entirely), and lost Alan's take on things - he had trouble accepting it (by his own admission) but wanted his son to have any happiness that he could. The take of someone who would otherwise have been anti-lgbt but was changing his mind due to someone close to him coming out was lost, and that's a shame IMO.

It also (to me, anyways) smacked of them changing the 'Earth 2' version so they could claim progress by doing it, but please don't notice him being shoved into perhaps the most irrelevant corner we can find.

thejeff wrote:
GreenDragon1133 wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Ah! Thank you Jeff and Grey for the clarification.

I think they went with Iceboi since this one is gay and the other one is SO deep in the closet, Not even the Eye of Agamotto can find it.

You mean, since the older version of the character is straight and has dated almost as many women as Worthington III?

Well, officially he's not. They confronted each other over it in the last issue of Uncanny before Secret Wars and he basically admitted he's been closeted the whole time.

It's obviously a retcon. Certainly not originally intended for the character and probably not until this series. I'm not sure why "Iceman is gay" jokes have been a thing, unless it's been his generally lousy luck with women. He's dated plenty, but unlike Warren, few of them have lasted long. Still, I'm not really fond of the theory that "not good with women == closeted gay".

Of course it's a retcon - no character, ok, no heroic character created in the 1960's would be openly gay in mainstream comics. But the undercurrents for Bobby have been circulating for a little while at least - Marjorie Liu wrote the last big Iceman-centric story, (the one where he nearly freezes the world due to Death Seed influence, and nearly every former girlfriend he ever had shows up) and Liu has stated in interviews she specifically wrote him as someone deeply closeted.

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Ah! Thank you Jeff and Grey for the clarification.

I think they went with Iceboi since this one is gay and the other one is SO deep in the closet, Not even the Eye of Agamotto can find it.

Well, Iceboi was being used before Jeen threw him out of the closet, but people have been making 'Iceman is gay' jokes for years. Even the Family Guy did it.

thejeff wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Who the heck is Tyke, Grey?!?
The Teen Cyclops, I assume.

This - most of the time-lost original X-Men get some kind of nickname that combined teen with their name.

Tyke - Teen Cyclops
Jeen - Teen Jean Grey
Tank - Teen Hank McCoy (Beast)

and the odd two

Iceboi - Teen Iceman
And Warren/Angel didn't get a nickname since his brainwiped older self got one instead (nuAngel).

You spend too much time on other boards and the names just come to mind instantly without any thought as to whether or not anyone elsewhere even has the point of reference to get it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:

Another build I tire of seeing is the bard who uses Lingering Performance to triple his performance rounds. Kinda feels silly after a while.

"Far Over..."
"The Misty Mountains..."

That's another case of a 'stupid not to take it' feat.

Many of the 'rounds per day' mechanics need a boost that doesn't come from a 'must-have' feat.

Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well, it's not so much the Champions as "they had this spare superhero team name lying around".

Yeah, much like the current Ultimates, who have literally nothing to do with the other universe team of 'ultimate' Avengers, the new Champions don't seem to have any ties to Angel, Iceman, Black Widow or the Ghost Rider, and only the thinnest (and most likely coincidental) tie to Hercules, through Amadeus Cho.

I do miss competent grown-up Angel, who could make the jump to attempting to lead his own team, and later-addition, Darkstar.

Ghost Rider seemed a bit out of place in a mainstream team book, adventuring in bright day on the Left Coast, though...

The addition of teen Cyclops to this new Champions team is interesting, in that it kind of automatically means that the concept won't be showing up in the MCU any time soon, at least, not with Tyke as a member. (They've already introduced a Hulk, a Spider-Man, a Vision, the Nova Corps, Cho's mom in Age of Ultron, and the concept of Inhumans in Agents of SHIELD, but mutants are right out, and Cyclops is a pretty darn recognizable X-Men character, who, unlike Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, isn't 'mostly an Avenger' or subject to any sort of waffling.) Logically, new books and teams would be designed with at least an eye out for possible cross-promotion or future MCU adaptation, but the inclusion of teen Cyclops kind of tosses that logic on it's ear. Then again, it's super-early for that sort of thinking anyway. Spider-Man *just* showed up, as the Vision was introduced, in movie time, about three hours ago. Neither is quite ready for a new Hulk or a 'Vision family.' Similarly, the Nova Corps, while sitting on an Infinity Stone, one of which was shown to be able to pump out superhumans like the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, hasn't yet been shown to be doing anything about that and powering up select members of it's Nova Corps. That sort of stuff would need to be set up or at least preluded to, before an 'MCU Champions' would...

One of the meta-themes of the entire Champions roster is that they all are, in a way, a legacy character of some sort. Tyke is effectively a legacy character to himself, granted, but that's the most the theme needs to stretch.

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
I don't think Trump is campaigning for PotUS anymore. I think he has mostly written that off, and has full-time switched to campaigning for future viewers/consumers for whatever his post-election media career will be.

I hope he's not, pillbug, I sincerely hope not. You see Last Week Tonight this week?

Edit: Look, apparently I linked a truncated clip, but just keep searching Youtube till you get get the entire thing, it's hilarious. :)

Yeah, I saw it, and thought it was great. But Trump would (thankfully) never do it. It boggles me; I can't understand how Trump's ego could be so very massive and also be so very fragile.

The two often go hand in hand.

Snowlilly wrote:
Scythia wrote:
On the boards, "Scimitar Dervish Dance Magus" and "Greatsword Power Attack Human Superstitious Barbarian" both pop up an awful lot.
To be fair to the Dervish Dance magus: the players tried using other weapons when the ACG was released, only to have both Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace errated away from them.

Nothing is allowed to be as good as the Pathfinder Katana, er, Suemitar.

silverrey wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Well I mean, yeah, if you houserule punishments onto someone because of their stat distribution, the conversation changes, but that's neither here nor there. I play in a game where characters can sub their Charisma for their will save instead of their Wisdom and there are a lot more people with decent charisma scores in that game too, but this thread seems to be talking more about the game as is.

It's a "houserule" for a GM to factor charisma into someone's general social ability or impression?

Anyhow, as I said before, people who want to min/max ability scores aren't likely to change things up because they can't use something like Bruising Intellect; what will change is that they don't ever use intimidate. I'm just trying to point out that Paizo didn't create a game where you have to dump charisma in order to extract the most possible mechanical combat benefits. You're free to create a fighter/face that starts with 16 STR; the sky is unlikely to fall, even if doing it requires a save vs. nausea.

Whether or not a given player or group cares about what ability scores represent or do beyond their derived mechanical benefits in combat - or for pick-n-choose outside applications - and whether or not those players have to optimize in such a way as to end up with 'tired builds', is ultimately on them and their GM collectively. There's no judgement in that statement by they way; whatever is fun is the point. Just don't blame Paizo for making you do it.

I think what we are trying to point out is that unless "Old Screw-Face Thog" is your face character they shouldn't be being forced to do the make or break diplomacy. Unless your GM is also demanding that the wizard break down the doors it comes across as targeting and houseruling against something they don't like but won't ban.

My usual problem with low CHA characters is that they always try to force their way into diplomacy despite the presence of someone with near max CHA and maxed skills.

Jamie Charlan wrote:

To be fair under a lot of systems, targeting anything but directly-the-hull-if-possible leads to even MORE time in spacedock to fix things.

The worst is when repairs are directly a factor of damaged component prices, and labor directly a factor of the expenditure.

Repairing the hull isn't cheap either, but damaged weapons or reactors can cost millions.

It's more along the lines that in any real or fantasy/science fiction world, if your ship needed as many repairs after any combat as the ones I have been in during games, the entire stff would have been drummed out of the service for gross incompetence.

It doesn't feel very heroic, that's for sure.

Ajaxis wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

fortunately she is campaigning, she's just sidestepping the news reports and doing local style campaigning and tv ad blitz (is that the plural of blitz too?).

Here speech schedule

Wow that's a thin schedule for H Clinton. Including considering where it says public events are only listed a few days in advance. Presumambly she is doing a lot of private fundraisers, or running is taking a toll on her.

I think her strategy is to keep Trump in the news as much as possible. Seems to be working so far, after all, when you enemy is busy destroying himself it's best not to interrupt.

Please put in big, bold letters...

Ship to ship combat is not like character combat! You do not need to reduce ship HP to single digits every single fight!

Seriously, I have a GM who mainly runs fantasy but loves science fiction, and insists in running ship combat like fantasy combat. Every time your ship gets into a fight, it's 6 months in spacedock (for Trek) or the next adventure is getting the stuff needed to fix the damn ship (for anything else).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

err, no it's not true of the printed product (it gets delivered without having to download it). I get my subs and never need to visit the website at all.

However, I don't think many people list "not having to go and get it" as the advantage of the subscription anyway. They list things like "getting it early" and "free PDF".

I can see that there might be an advantage offered with a digital subscription, but "not having to go and get it" doesn't seem to be much of one to me.

I think that's the 'digital subscription' option people want. Being able to 'get it early' without purchasing the paper copy.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In other election news - In their whale-hunt to get Clinton for leaking classified information, House Republicans leaked classified information.

Hypocrisy at it', I guess.

Theconiel wrote:
If they ever make a movie about this election, it has been suggested that Christopher Lloyd should play Bernie Sanders.

I think they should get the guy who played him on Saturday Night Live.

1 to 50 of 2,926 << 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.