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

Hitdice's page

3,107 posts (3,353 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 3,107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, I found Theon much more sympathetic in the book.

Book stuff spoiled, even though we're past it at this point:
Reek is introduced as a POV character, and when you realize who he is and what he's been through since the fall of Winterfell, you're all, "Day-um, Theon, all is forgiven!" Watching it episode by episode in the TV version got a bit desensitizing.

The calculation he does about not revealing Jeyne Poole's identity to Mance feels more redemptive too. When he rescued Sansa, it felt contrived, maybe because she's such a central character, maybe because his actions were so directly related to his past sins. Doing everything he could to get Jeyne away from Ramsey, when Ramsey's abuse is the only thing they have in common, felt less self-serving on his part.

HWalsh wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
When you sacrifice your values YOU are no longer good.
What if Evil sacrifices its values. Is that good?

Not always.

A Lawful Evil character who loses an honorable duel and then tries to backstabbing the hero under the guise of congratulating him is still evil.

However a father who had walked a path of evil, following a code designed to only gain himmore and more power who sacrifices his life and power to save his son is quite good.

This from the guy who didn't want talk about Star Wars?

To be fair, they didn't actually show the dogs ripping her apart. Not that that the sound effects weren't more than enough.

It's not that I'm going to favorite every single post from now on, it's just that the last few have made good points.

"Promise me, Ned . . ."

I haven't played the AP, but I assume "customized to match any clerics in the party" means "worships the same god as any clerics in the party." Ergo, the level loss seems like a bit of a dick move.

Lemmy wrote:
Was anyone honestly surprised by the final scene of the episode?

I watched season 1 before reading the books, which I then read before season 2 began. Nothing past Ned's beheading has honestly surprised me. Let me say, I was very, very surprised by that one; up until the moment Joffrey asked for his head, I fully expected Ned to take the black, team up with Jon to rescue uncle Benjen, north of the Wall, and finally lead the Watch south to rescue Arya and Sansa from the Lannisters.

But in the space of 5 seconds I reevaluated my expectations for the series, and nothing has honestly surprised me since. Thrones is much more a "I wonder if they'll," rather than a "I couldn't believe they," proposition at this point.

Wait, I tell a lie. in book 5, when Roose shows up and tells Ramsey to just chill the f**k out, I was all, "Roose Bolton is the voice of reason? That's surprising!"

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooh, that's some nice rules lawyering, BNW! :)

Well, so there's that then!

Werthead wrote:
Christopher Priest's novels don't really have unreliable narrators, more like unreliable universes (although THE PRESTIGE is probably the most straightforward book he's ever written) :)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but given Alfred Borden's journal, you know? (No, I don't dare even spoiler it.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitsuneSoup wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I guess that would depend on how common spell casters with Detect Evil are in the games you run; in your example, only 2 of them can actually tell. Wouldn't the majority of the population say "Evil? A wizard used Infernal Healing to save me when I was savaged by an owlbear. An owlbear, I might add, which Holy Joe the Paladin and Granola Steve the Druid both agree totally isn't evil; nuts to Paladins and Druids!"

Owlbears are animals (INT 2). You wouldn't use the same argument on a wolf that attacked you; it was just acting like a beast.

If you remove the ability to detect alignment, then moral ambiguity can exist in a game, yes. To truly do that correctly, you have to remove all spells that directly affect good or evil (so no dispel alignment, holy word, etc.). Once you do all that, you can then begin to debate the nature of good and evil. :)

Just acting like a beast? That sounds like Druid-talk to me!

I don't think you'd have to remove all those spells given that a minority of the population that has access to them to begin with, but then, I don't think NPCs know their own alignment.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess that would depend on how common spell casters with Detect Evil are in the games you run; in your example, only 2 of them can actually tell. Wouldn't the majority of the population say "Evil? A wizard used Infernal Healing to save me when I was savaged by an owlbear. An owlbear, I might add, which Holy Joe the Paladin and Granola Steve the Druid both agree totally isn't evil; nuts to Paladins and Druids!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never watched Clone Wars. I don't think I read any of the novels after Splinter of the Mind's Eye.

Regardless, how's this for a compromise: if you were running a Pathfinder/d20 Star wars mash-up, would you have alignment requirements beyond the light side/dark side mechanics for Jedi classes?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:

Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?
Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor?

Okay - but how is that any different from using force lightning to defend yourself?

Using force lightning to defend yourself is more akin to deliberately choosing the most savage and brutal response to a situation when other means surfice. You can not calmly defend yourself with Force Lightning, it needs to be triggered by rage. No matter why you're using it, you're traveling the path to the Dark side because of this.

Savage and brutal? I don't know about that. I've seen people force choked to death, and I've seen people cut in half with a lightsaber, but I've never seen anyone actually die from force lightning. :P

Kirth Gersen wrote:
TarSpartan wrote:
Isn't Shadowland the one that completely ripped off D&D's magic system, assigning levels to spells and such?
Not the one I read. Maybe another novel with a similar/identical title?

No insult but you missed a bracket there. :)

Edit: Redundantated!!

I nominate The Prestige by Christopher Priest. (The book, not the movie.)

TarSpartan wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Bear in mind that Corwin narrates the whole first 5 books, and that he is quickly established as an unreliable narrator. It seems likely that his truthfulness is not directly proportional to the book number, but rather remains a bit questionable throughout.

The only modern fantasy with a better use of narrator unreliability I can think of is Peter Straub's Shadowland, ** spoiler omitted **

Isn't Shadowland the one that completely ripped off D&D's magic system, assigning levels to spells and such? It's been decades (cripes, I'm getting old) since I read it, but that's what stood out to me the most.

I think you might be talking about Jack of Shadows by Zelazny (again!), but that was a novel collected and edited together from short stories, the earliest which predates D&D.

Or maybe you're talking about a different book altogether; no harm, no foul. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also have no problem with the Jedi code being an arcane quasi-legal belief system that's been translated through several languages to exist in many concurrently extant iterations. :)

Edit: That's small "a" arcane, not PF magic-type arcane.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have no trouble whatsoever with the idea that the Jedi/Sith divide is across the Law/Chaos axis, rather than the Good/Evil axis, but then I felt the OD&D/Basic three alignment system was perfectly functional.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
What people aren't allowed to take the world-building and metaphysics more seriously than Lucas did, just because he made up the story? :P

You're allowed to do whatever you want.

My real point is that Star Wars works despite not being even vaguely rigorous about this kind of thing.
I'm not at all sure that the kind of philosophizing that makes Jedi just as much the villains as the Sith (or as the Emperor, since the Sith were basically just a word until the prequels) actually improves the story.
Mind you this would be a better argument had the prequels lived up to the original trilogy, but I'm still pretty sure that's not why.

In much the same way, Pathfinder works as the adventure game it's designed for despite (and possibly because) of its failings at world simulation.

I get what your saying about Star Wars not being rigorous about it, but I think that's a difference between movies and RPGs. Every Star Wars RPG I've ever played has much more robust light side/dark side mechanics than D&D/PF alignment.

Forgive the stupid question, but how would the philosophizing make the Jedi just as villainous as the Sith?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What people aren't allowed to take the world-building and metaphysics more seriously than Lucas did, just because he made up the story? :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

But I'm pretty sure that interpretation exists only in the EU stuff, not in the original conception or movies. Probably largely because of fan arguments like this one. :)

Yoda does caution against strong emotion in Empire; it kind of gets immediately rolled over by fear leading to hate and hate leading to the dark side, but it's there. I would have loved it if the prequel trilogy had explored the Jedi code as repression is the key to enlightenment, but we got space hippies instead.

Why is my first post on the thread about Star Wars? Because I've been following it for all 9 pages and I still can't tell if we're discussing players not understanding the repercussions of their characters' actions, or whether or not an evil alignment is a valid character choice.

If I was a dog and I saw what happened to the horses, I'd run. Like a whipped hound, actually. :P

I just want to know what happens next week. I think Melisandre might just look like that when she's alone and relaxed.

Never mind, I'll just embarrass myself more. Suffice to say, I misunderstood your earlier post.

Jessica Price wrote:

Welp, this thread sure is a lot of dudes talking about us, and congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to have women in their groups, rather than to us. Or better yet, asking questions and listening.

I'm unclear as to why anyone would think that men's opinions on women in gaming groups are relevant or needed. You don't get to decide whether we belong here. Anything you have to say about women as a monolith--whether we make good GMs, whether we make good players, etc.--is ignorant and inaccurate as we're not a monolith. Any discussion of how to make gaming tables welcoming to women should be led by women. You shouldn't be trying to speak for us. So I'm not sure what purpose discussions talking about us as if we're some sort of exotic animals serves.

I mean, if you take gender out of it--"blue-eyed people in gaming groups--what do you all think?"--the absurdity starts to become apparent.

I started playing RPGs right around the time the sexes at my school started self-segregating; up until I was 11 or 12, we all just did stuff, but right around the time I started playing D&D, boys started doing boy stuff, and girls started doing girl stuff. (Don't look at me like that, I listed the sexes in alphabetical order, not order of precedence.)

In this day and age, there's no question that children who are as old as I was when I first played D&D have access to the internet. I think it's useful if boys who come to the Paizo message boards read testimony from grown men, about how females (sorry, Jess) of any age should be welcome at the gaming table.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying my opinion as a male gamer is more relevant than your experience as female gamer.

Fabius Maximus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
I've recently made the discovery that the Glenlivet 15 does not really taste more interesting than the 12-year-old.

In some ways, age really is just a number. Even if a whisky changes over the years, it might not be for the better. That said, older whiskys will always be more expensive, because you're paying for the storage space for all those years.

Most American whiskey is only aged 2-6 years, with few being aged for 10+ (15+ is exceptionally rare in America).

Just seeing this now.

I expect older whiskeys to at least have a more complex aroma (if that makes sense) than their younger selves, but the 15-year-old Glenlivet is basically the same as the 12-year-old, although it may be a little smoother.

Still, it is not a bad whiskey. And it beats the Green Spot, which I was looking forward to due to high praise. Maybe pot still whiskey is not for me.

Does it taste sort of hoppy or something? I'm not saying I'd turn down a sample, but it sounds like weird, weird flavor combination.

Knott C. Rious wrote:
Eu vou digitar em Português em vez de Latim porque ninguém vai notar a diferença. Hah!

Digitar, that prolly has something to do with fingers, right?

Lemmy, not trying to being a dingus here, but was "haud" a typo or something?

. . .

Bibamus, moriendum est, that's my latin motto. :P

I've only read the comics he's written, but Lansdale is always (like, always) like that; I'm not saying he's a bad writer, just that his stories are more mythopoeic than logical, if you see you see what I mean.

But not in a political commentary sort of way? :P

Lord Fyre wrote:

Perhaps I was too subtle. (I thought the "[mocking]" tags would be enough. It appears I was wrong.)

The point I was trying make (unsuccessfully) is that CBS will prostitute the series as much as needed to sell the subscription service.

I guess I didn't get it because I thought she just looked like a woman in a star trek themed one-piece bathing suit, not a prostitute.

Baji-naji is the actual thing itself, but baja-naja might be what you say when you're commenting on the condition of life in general? Or something? Just don't drink the alkaloid tea.

Norman Osborne wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
[mocking]As part of the effort to gain more subscribers to their All Access service, CBS has mandated that THIS will be the duty uniform of all female crew members.[/mocking]

Not much more ridiculous than Troi wearing her variant when everyone else on the show, male or female, was wearing the standard Starfleet uniform.

There were actually two instances where that caused my reaction to be exactly the opposite of what seemed to be intended.

1) Some admiral took command of the Enterprise while Picard was on some other mission, and as one of the ways they showed that he was an unreasonable jerk is that he had the nerve to order Troi to actually put on a uniform that conformed to the uniform standards.

2) In the first Ensign Ro episode, Riker jumps down her throat about the Bajoran earrings. Meanwhile, his ex-girlfriend is still wearing what I can only assume to be the official Starfleet slut uniform.

Oh really?

Apparently Roddenberry envisioned a future where clothing wasn't gender specific, but men in Nurse Chapel/Yeomen Rand/Uhura style space miniskirts were never seen again after the TNG pilot.

SmiloDan wrote:

Going to pause Zero World by Jason M. Hough so I can read Visitor by C.J. Cherryh. Part bajillion of the Foreigner series!


Baja-naja indeed, Dan-ji! Remind me, is bajillion felicitous, or unluckily divisible, like 8?

Swear to god, I found myself pouring over google image search for pictures of Katniss in a leather jacket with a scarf.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great news, congratulations! :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
So just gonna ask then since its not an issue for certain characters to be race swapped, can anyone name a non-white character they think could be swapped without it affecting the characters identity?

John Boyega in The Force Awakens; Finn's race had no effect on the narrative whatsoever.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like this is going to be another Aeon Flux live action movie. Aeon Flux never made a whole lot of sense to begin with, but it had its own style. Like, style style. They eventually made a live action movie with Charlize Theron in the title role, and she could not rescue the movie, because it just didn't match the style of the source material.

I think Johansson is going to act her ass off as much as she can, but that won't help whatever scriptwriter they hire even beginning to comprehend Masamune Shirow's cyberpunk transcendental awareness zen koan graphic novel, if you see what I mean.

I guess I'm just saying I have mixed feelings about a live action version.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, Star Trek Continues is the better fan series imo, but I watched every single episode of Star Trek The New Voyages/Phase II first. Also, sometimes the cast members appear to flit from series to series.

Freehold, you know about Star Trek: Phase II and Star Continues, right? I am very curious about your opinion, and will provide links if necessary. :)

Of course, the fact that Elba actually is from the UK would have given the Bond casting yet another wrinkle.

Holy bejesus, I just realized I typed "Major Kira" earlier when I meant "Major Kusanagi"; that's a nerd f**k-up of the highest order!

. . .

Seriously, this is worse than the time the president talked about a Jedi mind meld.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, there's 25th anniversary edition of Ghost in the Shell?

I feel old, and wish a cyborg body was available.

Here's the thing: I've read the entire Dark Tower series, and assuming that a guy named Roland who's a gunslinger felt so natural that I'm honestly not sure that Stephen King ever states Roland's race, but given the way the world has moved on, with witches living in mountain cabins next to ancient-but-functioning oil pumps known as "the Citgo," Roland being played by Elba doesn't bug me.

But given every single picture we've seen of Major Kira up until now in both manga and anime, casting Johanson in the role contradicts Masamune Shirow's character; Elba playing Roland doesn't bother me, but if he'd been cast as Li Mu Bai in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon it just wouldn't work for me.

Johansson would make a pretty good Duenan, though.

The pretty pictures (that is, the art published in the hardcopy) is never available for free. Don't be embarrassed when you have to go to your FLGS to pour through every single book on the shelves to find the pretty pictures. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I want to rum the game as a GM, I bring Bacardi; one time I brought Cuervo instead, and everyone was all, "That's not rum, that's tequila." I felt SOOO embarrassed!

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

I care a little, but not enough to miss a Star Wars movie on the big screen! :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

These statements are usually made just to poke fun at the rules and their flaws. There are plenty of cases where the rules either make no sense or just contradict themselves... The sun might be exaggeration, since that thing is many times bigger than Earth. But what about clouds? Chances are they are impossible to see as well, according to RAW. XD

tl/dr: It's just a hyperbolic joke being used to make a valid criticism. Humor has always been used to criticize real issues, after all. ;)

There's no valid point here, at all. The rules here do make sense and do not contradict themselves. (and in fact the rules rarely do so)

"Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment."

The sun is not a "fine detail" nor are clouds. There is no need to make a perception check in the first place.

The issue is that people just are not reading the rules.

We've discussed that at great length. The sun is the reductio absurdem case and it's easy to dismiss as you suggest.

There are actual problematic cases that have been brought up. How far off can you see a colossal dragon in flight?
Is it "obvious" and therefore impossible to miss no matter how far away, as long as it's line of sight?
Or do you follow the standard perception rules and past a few hundred feet they're effectively invisible?

(Luckily, despite his high perception, the dragon will have a hard time spotting you, since you don't have the size penalty. :)

Conversely, it might be that the DC isn't to notice the dragon, but rather to make out any details on the dragon (such as color).

Doesn't really help the situation. As Tacticslion points out then you automatically notice the dragon at any distance - and it spots you as well.

And honestly, needing a good roll or high perception to perceive even the color of a colossal dragon more than a few hundred feet away is a bit of a stretch.
However you define what you have...

Not to quibble with (alright, fine, you caught me, this entire thread is nothing but quibbling over rules minutiae) but not at any distance. The wilderness exploration rules list a maximum distance of stealth and detection for each terrain. I'm not saying they're anymore realistic than the perception modifiers, but they do give you an upper limit.

SmiloDan wrote:

The main reason I don't like 0th-level or lower level companions is survivability. Lower level characters can actually be a drain if they're constantly needing healing after every battle. If the henchmen have hit points on par with the PCs, this stops being an issue.

Especially with the spending Hit Dice mechanic when short resting. If the henchmen have significantly less Hit Dice than the main PCs, they can't self-heal as much.

What's a DCC style funnel game?

Dungeon Crawl Classics is an OSR system where each player starts with multiple 0-level characters and which ever character survives the first adventure (the funnel) continues to advance from level one as with regular OSR advancement. It's fantasy RPG Viet Nam as a feature, not a bug; I've only played it a couple of times, but ended up more emotionally attached to a completely randomly generated PC than I am to most of the ones I design for a specific character concept.

Honestly, if you're a fan of adventure path style, plot driven campaigns, you'll probably hate it. :)

SmiloDan wrote:

I'm talking more about Henchmen classes that can be run simultaneously with a PC classed character by a player. I'm not talking about NPCs that don't level with the party or DMPCs.

For example, a gaming group has only a DM and 3 players. Say, a bard, a cleric, and a wizard. Henchmen could be a fun way to fill out the party.

In PF, we had a party of 3, and the GM gave each of us a warrior classed henchmen to control in addition to our PCs. I think our party was a half-orc inquisitor of Desna, a human fighter, and a Dark Tapestries oracle. The GM had converted an old 1st Edition module, so we needed some extra bodies to keep the PCs from being dead bodies. And it worked really well and was fun.

Not to belabor the point, but why not just give each player a lower level PC-classes henchmen to play along with their main?

I might just be yammering on about this because I'm participating in the Dungeonesque Kickstarter playtest, which includes rules for 0-level characters for a DCC style funnel game, so I'm at the moment I'm a fan of playing multiple characters.

1 to 50 of 3,107 << 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.