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

Hitdice's page

2,996 posts (3,240 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,996 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I suppose it would be nice to have a fleshed out world for once in my life, let alone multiple times. Unfortunately, none of the groups I have been a part of have had the time to explore them beyond the immediate area.

By the time I had actually fleshed out my world, it had become obvious that "Titus Andronicus starring the Muppet Babies Players" was too sophisticated a production for both my table and my campaign milieu.

Coping with disappointment as I usually do, I just kept playing D&D. :)


Anyone who quotes my text get a free like, but TOZ is special for not quoting it. :P

I have Generica sessions vs plot driven campaigns too, I just don't feel the need to invent a new world for each.


Knight, this is an honest question, not snark*: is Generica, the Land of I Don't Care synonymous with Golarion, or does it also include 3pp?

I'm just curious because RDM42 mentioned published settings being treated as sacrosanct as compared to homebrew settings, but I think that sort of gets it wrong, no insult to RDM. Published settings are required to include all of said publisher's material, so I see them as a lot less sacrosanct, actually. Just using Paizo material, you can play a Clint Eastwood Man with No Name type from Alkenstar who ends up adventuring alongside an Inuyasha type party in Tian Xia, but no GM should be required to do that in a homebrew setting.

*I suppose the snark would have been directed at Paizo, not you, in any case. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't mean to accuse anyone of badwrongfun, but are people convinced that the mechanics are so mated to setting that a class like swashbuckler (with the panache pool) significantly contradicts the setting in a way that fighters and rogues don't? I feel like focusing on spell casters muddies the issue, whereas new new mechanics for martials are usually answered with, "He just fights that way."

Full disclosure, I think "I was caught in an experiment gone wrong at the arcane college, so my spell book transformed into a familiar and now my magic's all screwy," is a terrific rationale for introducing the witch class to a setting.


WormysQueue wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Not to be a dingus, but about half of that real problem is that better has no objective standard.

Agreed, you will have qualify what's better in which respect. For example, I think it's save to say that classes in 4E are objectively better balanced than their PF counterparts. That doesn't make 4E the objectively better system though.

edit: and just not to cause the next edition war: On the other hand, it's also safe to say that PF is better than 4E when it comes down to backwards compatibility. Again, that doesn't make PF the objectively better system though.

Nice try, but one half hour after your post, the first shot in the next edition war was fired. At this point, there had been so many edition wars on so many fronts that Imperial historians started using the term "Nth Edition War." :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to be a dingus, but about half of that real problem is that better has no objective standard.


I'm sorry, Drahliana, did you just say our age? ;)


Jim, speaking as a 5e fan, I think a significant portion of the pathfinder 2.0 player base feel that their needs aren't met by 5e. Not that there is a PF 2.0 player base. Yet.


Ashiel wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
BLloyd607502 wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.

Siabrae would like to have a word with you, being literally undead druids who still have full druid powers.

And are lead by the single most powerful druid in Golarion at the moment.
Siabrae are neither clerics nor non-evil so I'm not sure what your point is.
The implications can get a bit weird, though. According to the druidic faith, being undead is more natural than metal armor? ("Zombies? Well, sure, they're still walking around with all the rotting flesh and everything, but it's not like they're blacksmiths.")

There's also the obvious implication that it has nothing to do with good/evil but entirely to do with clerics. Good oracles can know and cast any spell without issues at all. In fact, the Bones oracle has a supernatural ability to call undead servants without it being an evil ability.

Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Oracles, Sorcerers, Wizards, Magi, and pretty much everyone else can cast animate dead even if they're Good. Clerics are not the standard they are the exception.
*snip*

Maybe it's one of those situations where divine power is pretty accessible, but the approval of any one individual god is, like, unknowable and mysterious?


I guess I'd sabotage the environmental control asphyxiate my owner, then use the cleaning bots to position the body as an accidental autoerotic asphyxiation death.

Yes, I did watch the first episode of London Spy, why do you ask?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ian Bell wrote:
BLloyd607502 wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Stuff like "but neutral nature clerics can memorize animate dead" is not really a productive line of argument. I think they've said that in a perfect world they'd give a separate spell list to every kind of cleric, it's just outside the scope of what they can fit in the books.

Siabrae would like to have a word with you, being literally undead druids who still have full druid powers.

And are lead by the single most powerful druid in Golarion at the moment.
Siabrae are neither clerics nor non-evil so I'm not sure what your point is.

The implications can get a bit weird, though. According to the druidic faith, being undead is more natural than metal armor? ("Zombies? Well, sure, they're still walking around with all the rotting flesh and everything, but it's not like they're blacksmiths.")


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ZOMG, I think I listened to that on WGBH in the previous millennium, back when I was prepubescent. :)


Grand Magus, I don't mean to sound argumentative, but it seems to me that you're talking about level advancement when you describe the reason the d20 system is bad at modeling Star Wars.

Isn't the d20 system, with its ability score modifier + skill ranks + d20 roll, a linked attribute + skill system, or have I missed a step here? I'd also ask the same question about class skills, cross-class skills and untrained skills vs. meta-types and class archetypes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Back in 2000, when I was first running 3e, I decided that that masterwork weapons were iron and/or steel, whereas normal weapons were bronze, just cause I thought it was cool. When I finally read the low tech weapons section of the DMG, I was all, "D'oh, that's worse than I thought!"

Not to come off as a dingus, but D&D is a rules system, not a setting; could be either, could be neither.


Maybe not, but just don't ask me about the Chicken Lady or Rooster Boy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd certainly buy a Distant Worlds AP, whether or not it included spaceship combat rules.

. . .

(Just so there's no confusion, I'm a proponent of spaceship combat rules.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm probably just experiencing the difference between playing D&D at 10 and playing D&D 44, but I never get quite so in my feelings as I used to. 'Cause the olden times were objectively better, as I remember them through the lens of my own experience! :P


The Raven Black wrote:
A Paladin always has the option of falling. It is a matter of personal choice. Choosing death over falling tells much about the Paladin's character

What if their code forbids death before dishonor? As in, it's the paladin's duty to stay alive and improve the world, even through dishonorable/out of code actions if necessary?


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I liked the first one, too. The second one...well, let's just say that Galactus took the form of a big blackish cloud-like thing rather than a character. Disappointing.

You ain't kidding, man; I was all, "Wait, Lawerence Fishburn is doing the Silver Surfer's voice, and the dude who played both the faun and the pale man in Pan's Labyrinth is doing the motion capture? This movie's going to be so awesome that I'm going have to change my pants after I see it!"

But Norrin Radd wasn't a tragic character who became the Herald of the World Devourer to save his home planet, he was just some weirdo who was scared of a space tornado, and my pants remained pristine and unsoiled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't say I ever actually played ToM back when, but I'm pretty sure we just called our clones "henchmen." :P


Me too. I mean, I was overstating the case, but I can remember mapping to be sure of the layout, and making notes on the map so you'd know how to avoid the acid pit trap or whatever, and now these darn kids all expect to "hearth out" once they've reached the end of the "instance."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[grognard] What with all the minis and flip-mats these days, no one even maps the dungeon anymore. And if you ask them what route they're taking out of the dungeon, they just get all defensive and say, "Well, of course my character would know the way out, he remembers how he got in!" [/grognard]


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, I was about 11 years old when I got ahold of the Thieves World box set. It was the first time I dealt with any system aside from D&D, and it felt like unearthing the Rosetta Stone.

It's funny. I started RPGs with B/X D&D, so I always conceived of dungeon traps being dealt with by a rogue's, ahem, thief's find/disarm abilities. The day I realized that 0e D&D had no class with trap finding abilities, the intricate trap design of ToH, and particularly Grimtooth, suddenly made sense to me. "Lightning bolt trap? I stand on the rubber ottoman, not the leather one, and push myself to the middle of the pool of water, where I jump to the wooden table, not the metal one!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aww, Grimtooth! :)


Well, to me that suggests suggests a certain amount of permissiveness in the code that doesn't exist in the requirement to maintain LG alignment, but if I go into any great detail, it'll just sound like I'm rules lawyering.


That's what I can imagine, so of course it seems reasonable to me; I'm curious if it flies for other people. :)


Milo v3 wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that the CRB says that a paladin falls for willing committing an evil act, not a dishonorable one.
Your code says you have to act with honour. Which means, no dishonorable stuff.

I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly curious about your opinion. Can you imagine a circumstance where a paladin leaves one order because she believes the order is dishonorable in whatever way and joins another without falling? That is, the paladin changes her behavior and the code she follows, but maintains a LG alignment throughout the process, and never falls.


It's not useless, it just assumes the reader understands the idea of honorable behavior. It's also worth pointing out that the CRB says that a paladin falls for willing committing an evil act, not a dishonorable one.

That's why I let paladins at my table strangle puppies, but only if they eat the meat; sport puppy strangling is an auto-fall! :P


Do you guys think paladins ever seek atonement before they've fallen, just to redeem themselves within the church?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How did this turn into an Iron Man 3 thread? BY THE EYE OF AGAMOTTO!!


I must admit that I really enjoy figures kind of plonked down around the table to indicate relative positions, who's clumped with who and so forth as a play style. So far as I'm concerned, it's not a diametrical opposition. :)


I don't know what to tell you; this is the same guy who starred in Bonnie and Clyde and Reds, but yeah.


If you omitted only one of those backslashes, Warren Beatty would agree with your statement. I leave it to you to decide which backslash.


I once saw an interview in which Warren Beatty explained, in much detail, that Ishtar was in fact a financial success, and everyone who called it a "bad" movie had just lost all perspective, OKAY?!


Sure, but they have to worry about sliding into neutral, not evil. By the time a character has gotten to the point where "kill anyone with blue eyes" is a reasonable choice, they're about 10 miles past good, you see?

Edit: The way I conceive of the alignment system, all the characters think they're lawful good. They're convinced they're choosing all the best option for all the right reasons. It's the player who reads the alignment entry on the stat block and plays the character appropriately.


The Sword wrote:
A good character who protects villages from evil monsters, helps the sick but kills anyone with blue eyes could not be considered a good aligned a character.

I don't see how you could possibly describe such a character as "a good character" in the first place.


Well, speaking only for myself, I've found 5e works very well with TotM, and includes some simple optional rules for playing on a grid. I'm talking about the differences between positioning a rogue for sneak attack damage in PF and 5e; it's not even worth tracking on a grid in 5e, whereas in PF, I wouldn't trust myself to track the AoOs without a grid.


Terquem wrote:

God I miss playing Traveler, none of this nonsensical "5 foot" grid stuff

Give me 1.5 meter scale squares every time

The Traveller I played had range bands, what are these "squares" of which you speak? :P

I'm not saying you can't see the war-game roots even 5+ editions later, but 5e relies a lot less positioning than PF, and a lot lot less than 4e did. I think this has less to do with 5' increments of measurement than how granular/micro-tactical the combat options are.

Once again, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't see a lot of rules that rely on knowing the relative positions of characters.


6 I think, but I'm not near my bookshelf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That totally makes sense; during the D&D Next playtest, I was a huge proponent of going back to 1 minute combat rounds to get away from the tacit endorsement of the micro-tactic playstyle, but the louder I yelled, the less everyone listened, until finally someone called the cops. :P


I don't find 5e requires a grid anymore than pre-3.x editions did, but then the 1e Monster Manual did list movement in inches, so . . .

Speaking seriously, I don't think 5e provides a lot of rules that work best with a grid unless you think looking at a grid with minis in inherently better than asking the DM if the orcs are within Magic Missile range.


Wouldn't that make a 5e style "Come up with a good plan that convinces the DM to grant advantage to your attack rolls so long as you maintain X,Y and Z" more true to Bookrat's definition (which I personally have to take care not to call the real world definition) than a game heavily reliant on positioning of miniatures? I don't mean to sound argumentative, I'm just curious of your opinion.


Bookrat, my understanding of strategy, operations and tactics are exactly the same as yours. I've just had to come to terms with the fact that tactical means some thing else when you use it to describe a table top miniature combat game or an RPG. I think you're correct, but the gamer usage is so common that correcting people isn't worth the effort at this point.


You mean this one?

Edit: Ninja'd by Knightnday? More like Antipaladin'd!


HWalsh wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

Behaving dishonorably is grounds for a fall. While lying is listed as an example of dishonorable behavior in the CRB, I find it rather hard to believe that anyone who is familiar enough with RPGs to find the Paizo message boards can't image a circumstance where a paladin should lie.

"A quick, painless death? Actually, I'm afraid your son was eaten alive by goblins, and by the end he was hysterically shrieking 'Mommy, mommy, make it stop!' Oh, zounds, I apologize, what can I say, Paladin code."

This kind of absurd answer is why your argument isn't working. I presented a realistic situation.

Intelligent villain trying to refute the claims of a Hero. Something that totally happens in the genre. You mock one aspect with an unrealistic argument in hopes that it refutes the whole.

If someone asked the Pallie, if their loved one died quickly, a Paladin, if it were not the case, would not respond in such a flippant manner.

He likely wouldn't answer.

"He is at peace now."

"The monsters that did this can hurt him no longer."

You've also proposed that a paladin can fall from telling a single lie. I can't speak to the specific codes of the deities in Faith of Purity, but the code is the CRB just isn't that restrictive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, I should have been more clear, but I mentioned copyrighted material because despite the open content status of the SRDs out there, it's actually a copyright violation to simply print them, bind them and sell them.


Behaving dishonorably is grounds for a fall. While lying is listed as an example of dishonorable behavior in the CRB, I find it rather hard to believe that anyone who is familiar enough with RPGs to find the Paizo message boards can't image a circumstance where a paladin should lie.

"A quick, painless death? Actually, I'm afraid your son was eaten alive by goblins, and by the end he was hysterically shrieking 'Mommy, mommy, make it stop!' Oh, zounds, I apologize, what can I say, Paladin code."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but the OSR clones stay away from from WotC copyrighted material and Product Identity, specifically to avoid the sort of problems Vic is talking about. For instance, once you have the term saving throw in the OGL, having the five AD&D saves rather than the three D20 saves falls under the game mechanics exception, but you still can't have Beholders, Displacer Beasts or Mind Flayers.

Speaking as a layman, that is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For all of the fan talk about Finn and Rey, it looked to me like she gave his comatose body a rather chaste kiss goodbye before flying off to join a pseudo-religious order that doesn't allow its members to have relationships.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Hama wrote:
Oh for god's sake can't two men be friends and develop a bromance without everyone screaming GAAAAY? You know straight men exist. And they have friends. And they love each other.

Can't two gay characters exist in the Star Wars film canon without people screaming "BROMANCE", as iftwo gay people is too many?

Right now we're in a schroedinger moment, and until something happens in the films to confirm or deny the theory, I say why deny people representation?

To you they can be man pals.
To other people they can be romantic partners.
To still others, there's the distant and unlikely hope of seeing a healthy poly relationship.

It's all pretend. But straight men are hardly running out of representation in film.

I don't know, man. Once they do that they'll introduce a romantic subplot about a brother and sister; it's a slippery slope! :P

1 to 50 of 2,996 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.