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

Knight who says Meh's page

793 posts (956 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 793 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Is the game less fun because of it?


While the Merciful ability is turned on, all damage it deals is non lethal damage, regardless of how you use it.


Caster level doesn't determine DC.


Spoilers!


I would allow it in a home game but I don't think that was the intent.


Either way is a house rule so really it's up to your GM.


You might want to be aware of the fact that two-weapon fighting with two two-handed weapons is a bit controversial. You may want to clear it with your GM first.


Quote:

KINETIC FIST

Element universal; Type form infusion; Level 1; Burn 1
Associated Blasts any
Saving Throw none
You surround your body with energy or elemental matter from your kinetic abilities. You can use this form infusion as part of an attack action, a charge action, or a full-attack action to add damage to each of your natural attacks and unarmed strikes until the beginning of your next turn. Since kinetic fist is part of another action, using this wild talent doesn't provoke any additional attack of opportunity. You deal an additional 1d6 points of damage per 3 dice of your kinetic blast's damage (minimum 1d6), and this damage is of the same type as your kinetic blast's damage. This extra damage ignores spell resistance and doesn't apply any modifiers to your kinetic blast's damage, such as your Constitution modifier.
Quote:

BURNING INFUSION

Element fire; Type substance infusion; Level 1; Burn 1
Associated Blasts blue flame, fire, magma, plasma
Saving Throw Reflex negates
Your kinetic blast ignites your foes. Whenever an infused blast hits a foe and penetrates its spell resistance, that foe catches on fire, regardless of whether it takes damage. A foe that catches fire takes 1d6 points of fire damage each round until the fire is extinguished. Against a creature on fire from this infusion, any fire kinetic blasts gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls, to DCs, and on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance.

When using Kinetic Fist with Burning Infusion, can you set opponents on fire? Do you automatically set them on fire? Do you still have to check Spell Resistance to set them on fire?

If an opponent has been set on fire from Burning Infusion, do you get a +2 to attack when using Kinetic Fist?


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Baby It's cold Outside updated for 2016 lol

A different take on it


"I will possess your heart" by Deathcab for cutie


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sir RicHunt Attenwampi wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:

All of these are good hypotheses, but the real reason there aren't half-dwarves?

Female dwarf beards.

Point of fact: female dwarves do NOT have beards in Pathfinder, or Starfinder.

{sips jynnan tonnyx} Perhaps whom we perceive as female dwarves are a protrusion into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beards, who themselves remain hidden?

What? Like mice?


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Holy moly. How can people seriously try to argue that a barbarian can't reload a weapon?

Let's examine the rules shall we?

Rage wrote:
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Hmmmm.....let's see. Is reloading a skill? Nope. Is it an ability? Nope. Oh look, it's just an action. Case closed.

Can they cast a spell?

Quote:


Edit: As an aside, I can think of soooo many examples of people who were raging mad yet somehow still possessed the capability to reload a gun both IRL and in popular media.

A muzzle loading black powder gun?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him.
A Paladin acts as the Code directs him.


I can understand the argument that a barbarian couldn't reload a gun while raging (although I'm not sure I'm willing to go as far as saying I agree with it) but I definitely think that restriction would be out of line for a gunslinger under a rage spell.


Revan wrote:
Can someone name for me a single ability of the Paladin class which would be thematically inappropriate for a Chaotic Good character (which cannot be fixed by simply switching alignment tags)?

It's not an ability but following the Code would be thematically inappropriate for a Chaotic Good character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had fun both playing and GMing paladins. I've even deliberately played lawful stupid without any problems. It has nothing to do with the class and everything to do with the people playing.


Are we getting any more Marvel shows with Netflix and Disney breaking up?


Delightful wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I love Sucker Punch;)
A masterpiece of feminist filmmaking and female empowerment.

The movie where a bunch of girls get raped to death?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I bash Snyder because of Sucker Punch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
What makes you think it might be?
It's come up a couple of times. The argument is usually based on the name

PC#1: "Hey, Hal, why ya got a sack full of pistols?"

PC#2: "I use 'em as ammunition. Way cheaper to enchant 'em that way."

PC#1: *scratches head in puzzlement* "You don't use bullets?"

PC#2: *takes out a strip of leather, loops it around a pistol, and twirls it over his head* "Nope. I'm a Gun-slinger."

Throwing your gun always works.


I think we can all agree this thread is a little silly. Right?


Nietzschean Cop


Numerical bonuses would not stack because both the item and the spell grant enhancement bonuses.


James Risner wrote:
I'd use the FAQ on taking items off ends the spell effect, so take off the shield should end the fly to overland upgrade.

Yeah, that was obviously my concern. You don't think the shield's description that specifically mentions that the armor casts the spell affects it?


Quote:

CELESTIAL ARMOR

Aura faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th
Slot armor; Price 22,400 gp; Weight 20 lbs.
DESCRIPTION

This bright silver or gold +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.

Quote:

CELESTIAL SHIELD

Aura moderate evocation [good]; CL 7th
Slot shield; Price 13,170 gp; Weight 7 lbs.
DESCRIPTION

This bright silver or gold +2 blinding heavy steel shield is impossibly light and handy despite its size. It has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance, and it allows the wielder to use feather fall on himself once per day. A creature wearing celestial armor while wielding a celestial shield may command the armor to provide overland flight rather than fly once per day.

Quote:

Magic Items, Wearers, and Durations: If a magic item grants an effect with a duration to the wearer, can I put it on, activate the effect, take it off, and keep the effect active?

No, as soon as you remove an item that grants an effect to the wearer, you are no longer the wearer, so any remaining duration immediately expires. The same is true if the item affects the owner, wielder, and so on. If the item's effect does not specify the recipient as the wearer (or owner, wielder, etc), then unless it says otherwise, it remains when the item is removed.

If I take off my shield, do I lose Overland Flight, or does the spell continue as long as I wear the armor (assuming duration of the spell hasn't expired, of course)?


Fergie wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
I'm feeling terribly sad about the loss of the political threads. The latest incident feels like all of us losing some very educational threads because of trolling. I wish the troll had been removed, not the discussion.

I'm sad to lose them myself. I especially enjoyed some of the postings about peoples own participation in politics by running for local office, attending meetings, protests, etc. With that said, the issues go far beyond one troll, one thread, and sometimes even to other parts of the messageboards. Even longtime frequent posters occasionally had posts removed, etc. While these issues were always present, the level of gnar has ramped up in the last year or so. If the mods are anything like me, they aren't looking for more of that kind of stress, especially at work!

I'll miss some of the really great discussions we once had, but I look forward to talking to the same folks about science, history, culture, and maybe even Pathfinder!

Unfortunately some of that is going to fall under "politics."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never understood why people crap on Keanu Reeves. He's made several good movies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Congratulations, I suppose?

Certainly not the outcome I wanted. I will continue to call out racists and racism. Even if it eventually gets me banned. There is no remaining neutral with bigots. If you don't loudly oppose them then you silently support them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
To be perfectly clear: this is not a decision made by one person on our staff, but a decision made upon the feedback from multiple staff members, by multiple staff members. It is also based on the feedback of a number of community participants (many of them who have chimed in over the course of years), both in Website Feedback threads and in places that crop up site-wide. It was certainly *not* an easy decision, thus our trial period for political threads. We understand not everyone will agree, but feel it is necessary to put in place to move the community forward.

I meant you in the plural sense. I understand it's not one person decision. I still think it's the wrong decision. It awards those who wanted to shut down discussion while leaving the worst offenders here to spread their hatred in other threads. Racists are pretty good about making any topic race. They are certainly not limited to political discussions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

When a Paizo staff member locks a thread over the weekend, with a note that we will revisit when we return to this office, it generally means we're in the middle of some non-work thing and cannot devote the time to address it. I'm assuming that this is in reference to a thread locked on Saturday afternoon (while, to be perfectly honest, I saw by chance while running errands). We typically only respond in-depth on off-hours if we have determined a thread or post to be an "emergency" or if we can tell it's probably going to be even more off the rails by the time we walk in on Monday.

It may be relevant to indicate that we've now made the decision to restrict political threads. You can find information about that in this sticky thread.

RE: banning individual users. We don't discuss goings-on with individual accounts publicly, out of respect for our users' privacy. If you need to report an individual account, pinging us via email at community@paizo.com is most helpful.

This thread was born out of frustration with that thread being locked but that is hardly the only example. I certainly understand wanting to take the easy way out and you are, of course, within your right to run your website the way you wish, but it's hard to see this as anything other than a victory for the bigots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I rather Paizo be a welcoming place rather than accommodating bigots.

And yet, part of not accommodating bigots is being welcoming. The premise of this thread is advocating banning, which is as not-welcoming as can be.

Next, there's a massive difference between "accommodating bigots" and "locking threads that get racism-bombed". Paizo's current procedures do not accommodate racists. They just don't apply a digital death-sentence to the unenlightened.

Look, I get it. Hot-button topic. Horrible behavior. Unconscionable, sociopath, acts. Got it. Agreed, no less. I'm not arguing for tolerance here, or even saying that Paizo is tolerant. I'm merely putting forward my personal view that outright banning is... not the right action for that crime*. I don't expect you to agree or even - truth be told - want you to agree. The OP asked "why", and I posited some reasons that I think might answer the question.

*So what might Anguish consider ban-worth? How about threats to a person? Yeah, that'd do it for me. Or stalking, which is much the same thing. Or - get this - repeated infractions for lesser violations (which Paizo does ban for).

I, actually, don't advocate banning but given the choice between locking threads over one particular person or banning that person, I prefer the ban.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey! Are you two trying to spam my thread?


John Kretzer wrote:
i am probably going to see it in ike 2 hours...is there post credit scenes?

According to the internet, no. I didn't stick around myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tammy the Lich wrote:
Tammy isn't racist.

We're all on to you, Tammy.


Mindchemist (Alchemist archetype) gets double Int bonus to knowledge skills at level two. Take Inspiring Cognatogen to add 1d6 to any skill check.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

How do you propose to do any of that in a locked thread?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Neutral good is even more equally good..?

If you are going to argue for any of the goods being the most good, it's neutral good, because it's good without any other consideration, or a balance of all other considerations. The other goods are, by definition, going to have to compromise good at the expense of something else at some point.

I do believe you may have missed my point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Strong point aside... based on historically similar cases, this is probably best served by emailing Community, rather than going public.

In any case, don't expect significant response until Monday, when moderation staff are back in the office. The lock may only be temporary, meant to keep the situation under control until such time.

A politely worded email explaining your point of view in this matter probably wouldn't be a bad idea either. It would be unfortunate if a misinformation-peddling troll ruined things for everyone else.

You are probably right. It's just aggravating and it's happened more than once.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

No.

Lawful good is not the best good

Lawful good is not the right good

Lawful good is not double plus good.

The paladin is not always right. The other goods are just as good, and equally valid. (Neutral good even more so)

Neutral good is even more equally good..?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why lock threads with racist posters rather than banning the racists?


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Leftist teacher’s homework assignment slams bankers

It actually does seem inappropriate to me. There are probably plenty of bankers who are not actively working to destroy America and some of them might have children attending school. I certainly wouldn't like a right-leaning teacher telling her students that all government workers are parasites or something similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did I miss the quote off?

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
-Oscar Wilde


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardez wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
This should be covered by auto insurance?

Sadly no.

My friend was judged at fault, so the insurance covered the liability maximum. $25k, I got nothing but a $55,000 bill. Suuuucked.

Lost my job in the process. Was not fun.

The s@!~ty part is where to go any further you would have to sue your friend due to their liability.

Don't sue the friend. Sue the hospital that missed the knee injury.


He'll just blame the democrats


Flag it and move on. You're not required to participate in every thread. If the mods deem it necessary to close the thread, they will.


He said "lawyered up in that way." The "in that way" was, I believe, a reference to Mike J's comment about arguing in the alternative.


What chance would you give a character firing at a empty square in front of or behind an invisible creature?


Casting the spells wouldn't slow you down actually. If you look at standard movement rates, the game only expects you to take a single move action a round. (A little slower even, when calculating long distances.)


I would require the alchemist to work on it the full hour. Just like I would require them to work a full minute for each extract.


I probably wouldn't hire this lawyer.

1 to 50 of 793 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.