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

Kelsey MacAilbert's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,360 posts (6,223 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 63 aliases.

1 to 50 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, guys. That helps me better understand what I am looking at.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because I actually like anime and wuxia in my Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We Californians have our moments, though.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For some inexplicable reason, I decided to attend the school LGBT club. Turns out we just voted on new officers, and we didn't have an election so much as we had a purge. With the Mean Girls crowd out of office, maybe there is some hope for the club after all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
I find it amusing that 'metrosexuality' is considered something new and unmasculine.




As a historian, I should have made the connection between upper class aristocratic behaviors and metrosexuality long before you said that. I shall flog myself most severely.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not bisexual, so I admittedly lack the full perspective on what's going on, but it seems to me that bisexuals are generally getting more bigoted crap from lesbians and gays than us trans people are. Why do people pull out that crap like how bis are either gay or straight, or dating the opposite sex means you are straight, or that bis are untrustworthy, or that dating the opposite sex is treasonous? I've seen all of this from the mouths of gays and lesbians, and I can't help but wonder what the hell their problem is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hypothetical scenario. PCs are in Cheliax, and one decides he just has to have a Halfling to make camp, mend tools and clothes, and such. So he buys one. Now what? While adventuring, how do you keep a slave obedient and prevent escape? What do you do with the slave in combat? Where in the Inner Sea do you need to stay away from?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
My confusion is this: to my understanding, there are no laws against standing up in front of a group of loved ones and publically announcing your love and commitment to another person. Legal benefits of marriage all seem easily addressed in other ways (power of attorney, medical power of attorney, etc.), legal adoption of children by LGBT couples and individuals have been increasing dramatically every year...

Except that isn't the case. You cannot file taxes jointly. You do not gain the same tax incentives married couples get. It is much harder to own property jointly. It is much harder to have your legal arrangements recognized across state lines. There is more, but it was already linked to above.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The last network showing them will no longer do so.

It's not the death of cartoons, of course. And, with streaming, we can watch whenever we want. We just don't have that good old bastion of childhood anymore. Granted, it was my brother who was allowed to watch them, not me, but still. It feels like another piece of the 90s kid identity has slipped away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It might go a little ways towards changing the culture, which would be a good thing.

I'm not sure. It seems to ignore the fact that consent is very often something communicated via body language rather than verbally. Two people are making out, somebody reaches for a belt buckle, the gesture is reciprocated, coitus ensues. To me, the fact that the gesture was reciprocates indicates consent. No need to legally require that the two stop and verbally agree as to the next course of action, and periodically reobtain verbal consent through the act. In fact, my initial response, as a female California college student, is to ask what the hell right the state has to tell me my method of communicating consent isn't valid. But no. I'm just a weak little girl, and I need a big strong man like Jerry Brown to govern my sexual choices, because I'm not capable of deciding how to communicate consent by myself. It comes off as kind of stupid. In fact, have fun enforcing it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got to thinking about the role of Dwarves in my campaign setting. They are the hardest race to do creative things with. They seem to always be axe-bearded drunken Scottish miners, and that's just what they do. In my setting, I plan for them to be curly bearded drunken Bavarian mountain men, because that concept just plain works, but it's still a bit too similar to what Dwarves usually are in fantasy. Interestingly enough, however, Dwarves are something that, it seems, most cultures have some version of in their folklore. Which gives me an idea. Given that myths about them are so universal, what if they were a race that exists worldwide, just like Humans (in my setting, demihuman races are usually from just one specific geographic region, and do not form their own nations), and that, as a result, has a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities? That right there gives more room for Dwarves to be interesting. We have those jolly drunken Bavarian mountain Dwarves, surly axe-beared Scandinavian miners who live underground, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish hill dwelling Halflings, salty Scottish fishermen and sailors who live along the northern coast and islands, and cosmopolitan French craftsmen, architects, and engineers with a penchant for designing things that are far more complicated than they need to be. That makes Dwarves start to get more interesting, and makes them into a much more versatile race.

What I need is some examples of Dwarves from non-European folklore, especially East Asian and Native American Dwarves. I can handle the European ones with the ideas given above, but I don't know my American and Asian folklore well enough to find information that could inspire me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Is there something more he can do for you?

Maybe write a new game people will like and want to use?

not screwing it in the first place would have been nice, or going bak and fixing the mistake before he left/more books came out (so that "m-muh pagecount/legacy buyers" couldn't be used as an apparently ironclad excuse of why paizo cant fix their books). even an FAQ/errata would have sufficed.

really anything but "whoops, no fixing it now!".

What?! A designer made a mistake, you say? Quick! Bring me my pitchfork!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Those that play RPGs tend to fall into two categories: setting lovers and system lovers. There are those that really get into the setting and are satisfied with a minimum of rules books. However, there are those that want to build the most intricate character for the campaign. They will scower book after book for the perfect class, race, feat, spell, etc. Paizo is aware of this and builds books accordingly. Hense why there is not much in the way of mechanics in the settings books and no setting material in the RPG books.

That sounds like me. I love character generation. Most of the time, I never even play the characters. I just build them because that in and of itself is fun. As a result, I naturally want to see content that adds to that repertoire of options when building. With just a few rulebooks I'd get bored fast.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saigo Takamori wrote:

Is discussion went far from the original purpose...

Vagabonds. wrote:

So, recently, while attempting to sign up for a campaign online, I proposed a 11 year old half-Elf Wizard who taught herself magic from the ground up from the age of six (Int 20), but was denied due to her being too young, and said that if I wanted to play a child, I would have to use the Young Characters ruleset.

This, predictably, is annoying, primarily due to forcing me to take NPC class levels, rather than actual wizard levels. My question is, should DM's enforce the child ruleset on their players?

A note: I would be the only child there.

Should he? No. Each setting/group/dm is different, and it's not mandatory to do it that way. Can he? It's PFS so yeah, unfortunately.

Wait. Where did he say this was a PFS character? I never saw that.

If it is PFS, it changes this discussion quite a bit. PFS either requires children to use the young character rules or requires PCs to be of the minimum starting age. I forget which, but know it is one of the two. If it is the first, the GM is completely in the right, given that PFS rules are non-negotiable. If it is the second, the GM is in the wrong and should not have allowed a child character at all, again because the rules of PFS are non-negotiable.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Chernobyl wrote:
was not a fan of the ACG. might as well have called it players handbook 5. were more classes really needed? i'd much rather see more setting books, I'm holding out hope for a hardback Guide to Tian Xia, like the ISWG.


I agree. I felt the same way about Mythic and I'm feeling the same way about Unchained though I've yet to see it. I understand that I'm probably in the minority in that, but MOAR! isn't always better.

Unchained, as I understand it, is about seeing what could be done with the game if it didn't need to be reverse compatible with 3.5. That's very different than just adding another options book.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Chernobyl wrote:
were more classes really needed?

If Paizo ever stopped delivering new things in the RPG line, many people would move on to something else that can keep delivering new content. I like having new options periodically. That's why I spend so much money on third party materiel and encourage the likes of the Advanced Bestiary, Occult Adventures, and Pathfinder Unchained.

Chernobyl wrote:
i'd much rather see more setting books

The RPG line and the Golarion line are separate, because the Pathfinder RPG in and of itself is setting neutral. So, switching from generic Pathfinder rules to Golarion specific materiel would cut into the section of the market that doesn't use Golarion.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

These rule changes are aimed at buffing melee in general, and high mobility melee in particular, while also fitting the general of my campaign setting (mostly focused on monster hunting and bounty hunting, magitech, partially inspired by anime, borrows a lot from European, Asian, and Native American sources).

Magic items that don’t have to be frequently recharged are rare and special. I use Evil Lincoln’s rules for replacing magic items, which you can find here , but with Purchase DC replaced by Enhancement Points, which mimic Wealth by Level on a 1 to 1 basis and are used to purchase the effects of magic items (no consumable items) . These effects become supernatural abilities of the character who purchased them. This is explained by the fact that, within the lore of my campaign setting, some people are a bit more magical than others, but not because of a Sorcerer bloodline or Oracle curse. These people generate stats with 25 point buy (10 or 15 is much more common) and get the benefits of this magical enhancement system, allowing them to be stronger, faster, smarter, and so on than the average person and use a touch of magic. This actually meshes pretty well with my setting’s explanation of where magic comes from.


Combat Expertise is no longer a feat, it is the way fighting defensively works. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

It’s not like anybody even uses the damn thing.

Improved Shield bash is not a feat. If you are proficient with a shield, you do not lose your shield bonus when bashing. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

Sword and board needs a bit of a buff, and effective shield bashing isn’t something the average sword and board warrior would skip during training, given that it was a very common technique.

Power Attack and Deadly Aim are no longer feats, it is something people of Str 13 (PA) or Dex 13 (DA) and BAB 1 can do. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does so long as the character has the requisite ability score and BAB.

Almost every Str based melee character takes Power Attack anyway, so might as well just let them have it. Deadly Aim is the same basic mechanism and cost/benefit as Power Attack, so might as well give the ranged guys that.

The bonus from Point Blank Shot increases to +2 at 6 BAB, +3 at 11 BAB, and +4 at 16 BAB. If something had Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

As written, Point Blank Shot just plain sucked, and I can’t find a rationale to keep it as a requirement for almost all other archery feats.

Vital Strike can be used in conjunction with Spring Attack or Shot on the Run. This does not make Vital Strike an attack action, and does not allow any other non-attack action to be used with Spring Attack or Shot on the Run.

I can’t figure out if it is or is not an attack action to use Vital Strike, but my understanding is that it normally cannot be used with Shot on the Run or Spring Attack.

Weapon Finesse is not a feat, it is a weapon property that applies to all weapons that the feat could normally be applied to, plus spears and quarterstaffs. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does

Because I think 5e had that one right, and because rapidly whirling spears and quarterstaffs is awesome and should totally be a thing for Dex builds.

Slashing Grace does not have Weapon Focus as a prerequisite.
Slashing Grace shouldn’t need Weapon Focus. That’s too expensive for what it does.

A spear can do slashing or piercing damage.

I’ve seen reports of Chinese spearmen using the weapons to both slash and stab. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it is cool, so it is incorporated into the rules.

Spears count as monk weapons.

They are already proficient, and it seems thematically appropriate.

If something had Mounted Combat as a prerequisite, it no longer does.

Mounted Combat isn’t necessarily weak as a feat, it’s just not an ability that needs to be a basic prerequisite for mounted characters.

Dodge has a prerequisite of proficiency with at least three martial weapons or 1 level of Monk or Brawler. Dodge gives you +2 to AC and +1 to reflex saves if you don’t wear armor, and allows you to gain armor enhancement bonus as if you were wearing armor. At BAB 6 it goes up to 3/2, at BAB 11 it goes up to 4/3, at BAB 16 it goes up to 5/4. If something had it as a prerequisite, it no longer does

Dodge sucks as written. Now, I’m aiming it towards making unarmored warriors more feasible.

The following feat chains scale with level, meaning that if you have the first feat in the chain, you get the subsequent ones at no cost when you meet the prerequisites.
*Two Weapon Fighting/Improved Two Weapon Fighting/Greater Two Weapon Fighting
*Vital Strike/Improved Vital Strike/Greater Vital Strike
*Improved Dirty Trick/Greater Dirty Trick
*Improved Disarm/ Greater Disarm
*Improved Feint/Greater Feint
*Improved Reposition/Greater Reposition
*Improved Steal/Greater Steal
*Improved Trip/Greater Trip
*Improved Bull Rush/Greater Bull Rush
*Improved Drag/Greater Drag
*Improved Overrun/Greater Overrun
*Improved Sunder/Greater Sunder
*Iron Will/Improved Iron Will
*Great Fortitude/Improved Great Fortitude
*Lighting Reflexes/Improved Lightning Reflexes
*Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus
*Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Specialization

All of these chains are too expensive for what you get.

Greater Weapon Focus is not restricted to Fighters, but does have a BAB 6 requirement.

With Weapon Focus scaling with level and being a common enough prerequisite for feats non-Fighters take, this one had to go.

All those +2/+2 to skill feats improve to +4/+4 at 10th level. These feats and Skill Focus both allow rerolling one failed skill check related to the feat once per day at 10th level.

Those feats weren't worth the cost.

Jump heights listed for Acrobatics checks are quadrupled and distances doubled.

Why yes, I am a fan of anime. Why do you ask?

Characters that have a shield apply it’s full AC bonus to reflex saves against area of effect attacks or rays that deal elemental damage. Mage Armor can also apply it's full AC bonus in these situations.

How often do you see a knight blocking a dragon’s breath attack with his shield in fantasy art? All the time, and it is cool. I feel the same about when spellcasters throw up a force field to block fireballs and stuff.

No Summoners, Dimension Door, Teleport, or resurrection magic.

Just booting things I particularly dislike from the game.

Generally, I prefer something similar to E6, but terminating at either 8th or 12th level.

Higher level play be crazy.

I use Golarion, but much of the game takes place on a heavily explored and settled version of Arcadia, mostly the western portion. Avistan, Tien, and Arcadian people are all present in large numbers and are considered thematically appropriate for the game, and mixed ethnicity characters aren’t at all uncommon. The common language is Taldane, but Tien is almost as heavily used. The Dragon Empires character options can most certainly be used (though any Samurai are probably ronin immigrants), and I have quite the affection for catfolk.I do allow planetouched. CRB, APG, UM, UC, ACG are allowed, ARG options for already allowed races are allowed, other ARG options or races not specifically mentioned as allowed can be discussed with me.

The standard Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Cavalier are not banned, but I prefer to use the talented versions from Super Genius Games instead.

I consider them to be somewhat better.

Members of the Machinesmith class are not particularly uncommon in my setting.
I run a high magitech version of Golarion, so Machinesmiths fit in well and fill a character role the increased tech level opens up. It is also available on the D20PFSRD, which makes it easily accessible to players.

I like spell points as written by Super Genius Games, but their use is negotiable. They will either be applied to everybody or nobody.

I double check 3PP before saying yes as a precaution (I consider both balance and the theme of the game when deciding), but I own and view favorably the following items:

*Alchemist’s Discoveries (Super Genius Games)
*Beyond Bloodlines (Super Genius Games)
*All of the talented PDFs for the Fighter, Rogue, Monk, and Cavalier (Super Genius Games)
*Fey Archetypes (Rite Publishing)
*Secrets of the Masquerade Reveler (Rite Publishing)
*Grit and Gunslingers (Super Genius Games)
*Heroes of the Jade Oath (Rite Publishing)
*Heroes of the West (Little Red Goblin Games)
*Kitsune Compendium (Everyman Gaming)
*Classes of NeoExodus: Machinesmith (Louis Porter Jr. Design)
*Gothic Campaign Compendium (Legendary Games)

I use all of the above to varying degrees, and don’t be surprised to see content from 3PP monster books. How much I use the Gothic Campaign Compendium or allow it to be used by players heavily depends on whether the party as a whole is going towards games with optimistic or pessimistic leanings. It’s a book I reserve for more pessimistic games.

I like and use 3PP, just got to make sure I always know what I’m allowing.

I don’t like non-heroic PCs.

Just the way I like to play.

Maxximilius archetypes and multiclass archetypes are considered on a case by case basis.

Changing rules: Given the amount of 3PP content and house ruling, there will be a balance issue eventually. Rules will not be changed during play, but balance issues will be resolved in between sessions. If it’s a PbP, the rule will be modified after the encounter is resolved. Players will always be informed of any rules changes.

I understand that changing the rules on the players in the middle of play is massively irritating, but I will still have to resolve balance issues.

So, what balance issues did I open up and not notice? I'm sure I did something, somewhere. Do my rules come off as reasonable?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Have you ever run at someone and run straight onto a spear? I have a few times. In most cases it stopped me dead, sometimes it missed, and a few of them hit hard enough to redirect my motion.

They were also blunt, and I was wearing armour, which is why I'm able to type this. On or two of them missed the armour and left me with minor fractures, or the sort of bruising that goes away after a few months.

So if we're talking simulationism (which may or may not deserve a nod depending on the person considering it, but you brought it up), I highly recommend leaving the AoOs in. Though I think the feat chains around them are ludicrous and could use some pruning.

The problem with taking a simulationist approach is that, unless you stick to low levels, spellcasters just don't care about the laws of reality anymore. If you make it so that martials do, they will always be straight up inferior, because they have to play by the rules and the casters don't. So, I'd go by what makes martials more relevant in combat, because if mister sparky fingers over there can throw all sorts of reality bending magic around like it's not even a big deal, I should be able to take an inhuman amount of pain and keep going.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dustin Ashe wrote:
'Cause, c'mon, paladins don't do one night stands.

I haven't seen any rules saying they can't, or that one night stands are inherently unlawful or evil.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:
This right here sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me. It's ridiculous statements like this that make it easy for people like Threeshades to dismiss your entire argument out of hand.

Except it's not ridiculous at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:

Kirth Gersen, I think your little bit on intelligence, constitution, dexterity, and so forth is, if not intentional obfuscation, certainly an effective bit of it.

There is no sexism or opinion inherent in the statement that human males are physiologically stronger than human females as a whole due to biological factors. This isn't a matter of cultural norms, or gender roles, or anything o the sort. Males physiologically for the same amount of effort add more muscle mass, and have greater peak muscle potential (especially in the upper body) than females. If I remember correctly, the gap opens in the teenage years. I remember reading something a couple years ago that basically observed that at age 10 male and female upper body strength was almost identical (especially relative to total mass), but by 16 the gap had opened to a tremendous extent, something on the order of almost 50% by adulthood.

With that in mind, I think you could make a physiological argument for +2 Strength in males, +2 Dex in females, in an overall sort of sense. Generally speaking having your center of gravity in your hips tends to result in greater balance, while higher testosterone, body mass, and the different ways in which males and females build muscle tend to result in males having greater physical strength.

Or, alternatively you could let it go and say that most random NPC human males put their free +2 in Strength, and most human females put their +2 in Dex.

Personally, I'd just go with the later. It might be slightly unrealistic, but it's pretty clear that the human in D&D / Pathfinder is not a perfectly symmetrical version of the real world human.

You basically just repeated exactly what Kirth was saying, so I really don't think you can call it intentional or unintentional obfuscation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you read above, there is already plenty of pre existing situations where child fantasy/hero characters have gotten in harms way and even killed even mingled with adult heroes/veterans.

Indian Jones/short round
Heck the entire cast of goonies!

NOT teenagers… children.

How does that effect his argument?

2 people marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You can enjoy anime while not enjoying specific prevailing tropes of it.

That's exactly it. I love anime, but the whole sexy early teen girl thing is disturbing in anything that isn't geared towards children. If it's a Shonen it isn't so bad, since that's a kids show and therefore including child characters has a totally different context, but in an anime aimed towards adults I do find it off putting. My games are geared more towards adults, so it would be disturbing to have child PCs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This rule is just a poor attempt at "realism" that effectively invalidates whole character concepts because of what is just a cosmetic choice.
I don't ban it because realism. I borrowed enough from my favorite anime that realism isn't a thing. I ban it because I'm highly uncomfortable with it.
I assume you meant you ban young characters.

Yes. I'm putting a clearly worded ban on non-adult characters into my house rules. I take a lot of my world building inspiration from anime, and I made some rules tweaks to make combat feel a bit more anime-ish, so I do expect the issue of child characters to come up eventually. That's why I'm specifically addressing the issue with my house rules, rather than waiting for someone to try it.

And that's okay. But if a GM doesn't want his players to play child characters, then he should just say it. There is no need to go "Oh, you can play one... But you have to suffer these heavy penalties that make your character completely useless..."

I agree with the general idea that it's better to say no than to totally cripple a hated concept, but from what I understand it is RAW in this case. Granted, I would still outright ban it, because under RAW the character would be a useless drag on the party and not fun for the player, and I outright ban other things that are RAW anyway (teleportation, resurrection, summoning).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I want to see a sequel of this. I do most of my world building in North America inspired continents, so it adds some wonderful options that I'll get plenty of use out of. Looking through the PDF, I can't see much that I won't use.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought.

Tell that to the animal kingdom.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vagabonds. wrote:

So, recently, while attempting to sign up for a campaign online, I proposed a 11 year old half-Elf Wizard who taught herself magic from the ground up from the age of six (Int 20), but was denied due to her being too young, and said that if I wanted to play a child, I would have to use the Young Characters ruleset.

This, predictably, is annoying, primarily due to forcing me to take NPC class levels, rather than actual wizard levels. My question is, should DM's enforce the child ruleset on their players?

A note: I would be the only child there.

To be brutally honest, I would never allow a child PC in the first place. Given that I am an anime fan who mixes some of that medium into my house rules and setting, I forsee somebody making a child character eventually, which is why I'm pre-empting that request by putting a minimum character age of 20 into my house rule list. I just don't feel comfortable GMing for the sorts of characters who would actually allow a child to accompany them into combat. When children get into fights, they get hurt or killed, and I want that taken seriously, not played off as something that isn't a gigantic problem.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Drogon wrote:
I can't get behind the idea that the reason is because you hired too many people.

This won't be a popular response, but perhaps if the very clear priority of keeping the LGBT flag waving wasn't quite so front and center, if the social engineering and universal representation were left to the players and GM's themselves, the focus on these many other issues presented might be greater.

We can't get answers to any of dozens of questions in the FAQ, have classes coming out after months of playtests which immediately need tons of errata and the much-heralded Mythic ruleset is broken pretty much as soon as you get into the meat of it... but hey, we all know EXACTLY how much a sex-change potion will cost!

I find your choice of topic interesting. You see, creating an LGBT character doesn't really take any more effort that creating a heterosexual character. I have never seen anyone claim it does. Writing up a potion? About ten minutes. It's not a significant time expenditure at all. So, I am left with the impression that you have an issue that goes beyond the overall editing and rules quality of Paizo products. The use of the phrase "social engineering" is even more telling. I have never seen that phrase used by somebody who isn't bigoted against some other group.

I'm not saying the two are related, but in earlier pathfinder materials, the focus wasn't so great, the constant LGBT banner wasn't so zealously waved and many of these issues weren't near so pronounced either.
If I remember correctly, homosexual characters in Paizo APs predate Pathfinder.
Can we skip the social agenda,
Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.
cut the rules bloat and just get back to what Paizo has always been best at - telling great stories through gaming?

You can ban anything you consider bloat at your table.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

He doesn't always play a woman, but when he does, he's a total perv about it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sniggevert wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Zolanoteph wrote:
Hama wrote:

A guy who keeps insisting that I let him play a kitsune summoner (I don't do anthropomorphic animals or summoners in my setting)

And brings a kitsune summoner to the game and then whines and complains because he has to roll up a new character.
I have zero tolerance for the furry aspect of this community. I've never had to play with someone like this but I think the second I heard a guy even remotely entertained the idea of playing an anthropomorphic animal I would tell him not to re-roll but to look for a different group.

No anthropomorphic animals?

So no lizardmen? Grippli? Wolfweres? Boggards? Kua-Toa? Ibixians, minotaurs or Assweres?

Anthropomorphism is pretty huge in scope, and the sentient animal-monster-humanoids in D&D would make a very long list.

This also means that the Agathian celestial race gets completely discontinued, and Nirvana becomes empty.

And where do you draw the line? Do serpentfolk/yuan-ti get ditched because they're snake-people? If so, do you also ditch mariliths and nagas? If not, why not?

If catfolk go for being cat-people, do you ditch sphinxes and lamiae? If not, why not?

If tengu go for being bird-people, do you ditch sirens and harpies? If not, why not?

Or is it an issue of "antho-critters are okay as monsters for the party to kill, but damn you if you ever think to play one!"?

For me, this. I'm much more straight-laced and conservative in my fantasy sword/sorcery than most, and I know it.

If you want that at your table, more power to you. Unless that's the only option given, I probably won't create a character like that, but would still join in and play none the less without fuss.

But if I ask, or end up stating, that such are not allowed as PC's at mine I expect the same respect.

Everyone has a preference to how/what they play. It's not right or wrong, it's just a preference....

Yea, but you are actually being reasonable. You don't want it at your table? Fine. I ban stuff I don't like all the time. Never see a teleport spell in my games. That's not the problem. The problem is the original post quoted was taking the attitude of "If I find out you ever entertained the thought of playing this, you need to leave my table". That is very unreasonable. Banning something from the table is one thing. Banning someone who kind of likes something from the table is quite another.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As the title says, which feats are underpowered? Which feats do you pretty much have to take to pull off specific concepts? I want to hear everyone's opinions on what feats are trap options or underwhelming, and where the feat taxes are.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
Icebergs work.

I nominate the RMS Titanic for the Ice Water Challenge.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been thinking about my setting, and I think I need a better technology level. I've noticed a common anime/JRPG tech level trope, where medieval weapons are mostly the go-to (armor to a somewhat lesser extent), and many things about the world feel medieval, but at the same time there is a lot of modernity to the world (trains, homes and shops that look like something out of a modern US city, very modern looking clothing). A good example of what I'm on about is the anime Fairy Tale. I've seen it in some JRPGs, too. I also like the feel of Eberron. I enjoy many aspects of this tech level, and I want to crib heavily for my setting. Some decisions I've made:

Mass production is a thing. Most of the clothing people wear came out of a factory and was bought in a shop. The same applies to household and recreational goods. T-shirts and jeans (and my favorite, plaid flannel shirts) are pretty common, but the fashion industry is in major swing, and almost everybody can afford to spend on it. A modernish service economy is in unprecedented boom, and agriculture employs very few people. Canning and freezing have been mastered, and food can easily and cheaply be transported worldwide. In most countries, between 70% and 90% of the population is urban, though there are outliers. Poverty is low and the standard of living high. With a crystalline mirror and some magical tinkering, you can create something kinda like a cross between a smartphone and a tablet, and these are gigantically popular. Like, "everybody wants one, and almost everybody can afford one, so it's revolutionizing society" popular.

Magic is prevalent, though only since the Gods were killed (about a century ago). There were spirit casters like Witches, Druids, or Shamans before the Gods died, but they were low in number. These casters still exist, but now Alchemists, Wizards, Arcanists, Magi, and the like also exist. There is no Arcane-Divine magic divide, since God magic and Spirit magic aren't all that different in practice, just in source. Once that divine power entered human hands, the current Golden Age began. This divine power people wields is very dangerous when abused, however. Every government has monster hunters (the Player Characters, basically), who are also tasked with dealing with abuses of this power.

All the weapons of Pathfinder are common. Gunpower is alchemical in origin, will go off when wet, and doesn't cause much fouling or corrosion. Firearms are still a pretty new invention and are slow to reload and gives away a shooters position with a bang and colored smoke, however, and elite warriors like the PCs are way stronger than normal people and can draw bows most couldn't, so archers haven't disappeared yet, but they tend to be seen in elite units (especially since archery takes years to learn, meaning most archers were sporting archers in school [governments tend to encourage that]). The average soldier has a melee weapon or a musket, though many second line and reserve units still issue crossbows. Light and medium armor are used, and a lot of skilled warriors aren't armored at all, but plate armor isn't much of a thing.

I like environmental friendliness, so electricity generated from wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal power is used. Coal was used, but it turns out alchemist's fire is actually a powerful and cheap way to drive a steam engine, so coal isn't seen much. Trains are ubiquitous, but not cars. We don't yet have alchemist's fire engines quite small enough for them (alchemist's fire is cheap and available in massive quantities, but engines burn though it at a massive rate, so miniaturization is a gigantic pain), and electric cars don't have much range do to poor batteries. Currently, almost nobody, even the rich, buys cars, because they just can't go far at all and streets aren't designed to accommodate them. Cable cars are as ubiquitous as trains, and dominate urban transit along with bicycles and, to a declining degree, the horse. Horse transportation is still a big thing in rural areas, the military, and law enforcement. You could use a thunderhorse (kinda like a horse golem), but those are pretty hard to create, so only a few people have them.

Children are required to attend school, and as a general rule if you want to go to university you can. Pretty much everyone is literate, and finding out somebody is illiterate would be a shock, prompting wonders of how somebody can function in society at all.

That's what I have so far. Can you guys ask me questions about the tech level to help me hash out more details? Give opinions?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I picked up a home made apple pie flavored "malt beverage" with 14% abv at a gas station upstate. What could go wrong?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have my own homebrew under construction, but it is a modern tech setting. Often, I'm in the mood for something a bit more archaic. For those days, I like having published settings around. Currently, I own:

Nyambe: African Adventures
Razor Coast

I'm looking to branch out a bit. I am only interested in settings that are D20 and could be converted to Pathfinder. It doesn't have to be easy or specifically billed as compatible, it just has to be doable. I consider the effort that went on here to be reasonable. I am looking for settings that would cover some of the following flavor desires (No, I don't want one setting that covers all of it.):

Ancient Greece
Ancient Rome
Ancient Egypt
Heavy Celtic elements
Heavy Slavic elements
Heavy Gothic elements
Any period of China
Feudal Japan
Renaissance Europe
Colonial America
The American Frontier
Pre-Columbian America
Anime/Manga style games
Medieval France

Also, if anyone knows of a setting with a "Europe" I could insert into a homebrew campaign setting (kind of like how Nyambe is an "Africa" that can be plugged into a homebrew campaign setting easily), I would be much pleased. My setting is focused on North America and Asia, so if I can use a plugin instead of having to design an off-map Europe, that would make my work a lot easier.

I wouldn't be interested in a kitchen sink style setting. I like having settings with a theme to them. I don't have a problem with well designed low magic settings, but I do have a love of high magic. I can enjoy dystopian settings unless it reaches the sheer hopelessness of Ravenloft or Midnight, but I prefer optimistic ones. The more opportunities for sailing, the better.

What can you guys recommend to me?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the purposes of keeping OP posts for homebrew campaign settings, major rules projects, and the like reflective of recent updates, could the 1 hour editing limit be removed within that specific subforum?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the main thing we need to take from this is that cops really do need to be wearing vest cameras, and the unedited footage needs to be public domain except in cases where it would violate standing laws protecting children, rape victims, and the like. If what happened in the initial shooting was obvious, the local police probably still handle it poorly, but it'll be much more clear that they did so. Also, as the state police showed, the soft approach really does work.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

You are releasing a Pathfinder version of Unearthed Arcana, you say? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's hit BBC, so it's probably legit.

It's a damn shame. He was one of the best there is.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As those of us who read the Homosexuality in Golarion thread have seen asserted quite frequently, that thread is supposed to be for Golarion talk only, not for the frequently occurring debate as to what place LGBT themes should or should not have in Pathfinder publications and gaming culture at large. I believe that it is now high time we had a thread specifically dedicated to this debate, so that we can stop dragging Homosexuality in Golarion off topic and then getting our posts removed.

So, let's have at it. I'll start out by expressing my deep affection for Paizo and it's open minded and egalitarian view towards LGBT issues, and I don't believe LGBT themes as presented in Paizo products are at all inappropriate for young children (It's probably better for kids to be exposed to than a lot of the themes in Pathfinder we don't argue about, in fact).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
I might point out that women don't typically wear men's clothing. They wear a women's version of the clothing. Women's slacks, women's jeans, etc. They are not rocking the men's outfits. So if men wanted to wear dresses, they wouldn't put on women's dresses, they would need men's dresses designed for men.

True, but when women started wearing men's clothing it was actual men's clothing, because no one was making women's pants, since women didn't wear pants.

If men have to wear men's dresses made for men, it's a Catch-22. You can't start by wearing them since no one makes them, because there's no market.

There are several manufacturers who produce dresses sized and shaped for a male body. Crossdressers and people on the Trans spectrum buy them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many of us have something we created for our setting that we love, but that our players probably wouldn't like. As a result, we don't use it in our games.

In my case, it's academic language. The elves laid the base of the modern government and educational systems (this is a modern campaign setting, so that's pretty relevant, since everyone has years upon years of schooling and sees what the government is up to on TV), and as a result their languages form the base of academia rather than Greek and Latin. Elves are only found in areas roughly analagous to Celtic and Nordic regions, and outnumber all other races in these lands. So, the language of science is a hybrid of Old Norse and Modern Icelandic, not Ancient Greek, meaning that biology is lifþekking and geology is grunnrþekking. The same applies to magic. The language of law, government, and literature is a hybrid of multiple forms of Gaelic (basically, whoever among the Gaels has the best sounding word for what I want), so casus belli is cóir coimhlint and ad hominem is míchuí masla. This is cool, and I'm proud of it, but it won't work in an actual game, for the simple reason that it's awkward, annoying, and infuriating to have to remember the correct word for chemistry (efnaþekking) when in character instead of just saying chemistry, and it makes no more sense than making everybody speak a language bummed off of Japanese just because their character is doing so. So, my lovely creation gets to stay out of the game, for the most part.

What about you guys? What did you create that you can't use?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Davick wrote:
Andrew R wrote:

I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.

You should probably refrain from making declarative statements about millions of people you don't know.

People who don't care about other people because they've turned them into "them" is much more likely to kill this country.

Then you have fun paying for others, i would rather they have incentive to do right than incentive to do wrong.
Then find an incentive to do right.
Food, a roof over your head, a doctor, possessions. Those are the incentive to work and not piss away money on vices.

Assuming you actually find work that pays you enough for those incentives. In the ghetto? Pretty good chance you can't, because that kind of job is in very short supply.

When the state gives you all those with money taken from others what is the reason to work hard and live right?

When we were on welfare, my mom worked extra hours (Yes, people on welfare do very often have jobs. At that point, both my parents did. My dad is on housing assistance now, and he has a full time job in a supervisory position.) to get us off as soon as possible. Not only was it not a lot of money for a four person family in urban California, the hit to our pride from having to take welfare was pretty devastating. Are there abusers? Certainly. Could changes be made? Certainly. That does not translate into no incentives to get off not existing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I sure as hell can blame them because they damn well know what it is and what it does. lack of blame is what is killing this country. Not YOUR fault, let someone else pay.
Yea, that's why prison systems with softer touches and more direct sympathetic contact with inmates actually work really well at cutting down on recidivism.
I am all for treatment program, etc but as some point it becomes obvious that some have no intent to stop.
And the second offence from a chemical addiction is that point?
You get clean and CHOOSE to use it again, why should I pay?

Yea, that's not how it works. At all. There is a reason alcoholics become recovering alcoholics, not former alcoholics. Same with drug addicts. The addiction never actually goes away.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.

The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.

Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.
For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?
Immediately on conviction manybe temporary first offence. after that im ok with permanent. "what about the kids"? give em to someone that care more for them than drugs.

That is a horrible and immoral idea, because people who have done drugs are not thereafter bad people who should never be helped. Throwing them is prison is stupid enough. Refusing help after they get out? They'll probably just turn to crime and do more drugs if they can't get some assistance to build a new life. They mostly do that already, so why would refusing help improve that? Furthermore, one chance is not exactly realistic, because relapses are abundantly common.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say some rich wanker wants that horse as a status symbol or something, and pays me to get it. Or something else that would make me want that specific horse and not any other horse. Assuming I can get the Paladin into a position where the mount has been summoned but s/he isn't on it, and I mount it, now what? Does the horse automatically refuse to obey orders from me? Any way I could force it into submission if this is the case? Can the Paladin desummon it and leave me in thin air? Can I command it like any other horse? Can the Paladin locate the horse through magic if I escape with it? Is there a way to prevent the Paladin just summoning the horse back?

What if I kill the Paladin to prevent those last two issues? Does the horse disappear? Does it take orders?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
If I continually accuse people of theft and robbery is it true or an overly hostile barb that eliminates the chance for civil debate?
What else do you call forcible taking from a man what he has earned?

Andrew, up thread you said you agreed with the government forcibly taking money to pay for things you agree with- roads and defense.

So, I think people want a bit more consistency.

necessary evil is still evil and needs to be kept to a minimum. That doesn't change the fact that some things are indeed necessary, but evil beyond that...

If defense is among this necessary evils, would not a healthcare system that costs less and provides better care to the population as a whole also be a necessary evil as opposed to a more expensive and less effective system that isn't funded through taxes?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Obamacare better than the old system, but I would like pneumonia better than the old system. I do hate the mandate. I really, really hate it. It seems mostly like a handout to the insurance industry and puts a lot of people with somewhat low incomes but too much money for aid in a really bad position.

1 to 50 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 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.