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

Kthulhu's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,996 posts (10,070 including aliases). 7 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,934 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Honestly, I felt like the original trailer from the kickstarter was better than the final version.
The blonde was different. Kinda miffed me.

Meh. The brunette was hotter, anyway.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, it's an opinion.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Myth Lord wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Myth Lord wrote:
D&D Next seriously is doing good buziness? That is strange news indeed...
Why do you consider that strange?
Because many people disliked and even hated D&D 4th edition, and now everything is good again?

A lot of people also loved 4E. A lot of people also hate Pathfinder. None of which really matter in regards to 5e, since it is neither 4E nor Pathfinder.

As for the first Monster Manual, I doubt anyone is surprised that it mostly consists of the required / expected monsters. Pathfinder's first Bestiary did the same, as did Monster Manual 4e, Monster Manual 3.5, Monster Manual 3.0, and Monster Manual 1e. So two did the first couple of volumes of the 2e Monstrous Compendium.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes dumb ideas can work. Sometimes they are so crazy-stupid that the BBEG has no plan to counter it. Sometimes the Kree warrior is about to destroy the world, and you have to challenge him to a dance-off.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Damnit, I really wish this thread title were a video title. I wish it sooooo badly.

Give the SyFy Channel time. They'll eventually get to it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Goddess of Pretty Evil - Ain't that essentially Noctila?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
no more followers than their Leadership allows

Question for you. If the king of a nation doesn't have the Leadership feat, does that mean he can't even command his own royal guard, much less his armies?

Speaking of armies, if a king's Leadership feat does limit that nation's army, then how do you deal with the fact that a decently optimized mid-level party with decent tactics can essentially completely overthrow the entire military might of any conceivable nation?

If a party invades Hell with the express purpose of killing an archdevil, does only that archdevil's personal summons get to engage the party?

For certain individuals, a strict adherence to WBL or number of followers makes no sense. If you are the king of a nation, a being of vast power in the multiverse, or even the head of government for a decent-sized city, you have "followers" that don't depend on your (possibly non-existent) Leadership feat, and you should basically ignore WBL.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people have said that the actual intention for falling damage (from way back in 1974) was that it was to be cumulative; ie 1d6 for 10 feet, 1d6 + 2d6 = 3d6 for 20 feet, etc. Which, if you keep 200 feet as the "terminal velocity" means that falling 200 feet or more results in 210d6 damage.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Myth Lord wrote:
People always give females compliments... What are they after?

Sometimes people aren't "after" anything.

Myth Lord wrote:
Anyway, I really hope this bestiary isn't 50% sciencefiction and 50% fantasy.

I agree. 50% science-fiction, 40% horror, and 10% fantasy would be a much better ratio.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't look for a god of petty evil among the big 20. Even if a god of petty evil was a full god, in the hierarchy of evil, they would probably fall well below thousands of evil demigods. Who do you think the leaders of Hell, the Abyss, and Abaddon will respect more: the demigod of murder, or the god of malicious inconvenience?

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sunderstone wrote:
Still wanting to purchase the core. No pdf, No sale.

You could always try out that newfangled way of presenting books they call a "hardcover". I dunno if the format will stand the test of time, but hey, I'm always open to trying crazy new technologies.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dying of testosterone poisoning, without supplements.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How naive is Team Flash?

They should have filled Thawne's cell with cyanide right after Barry successfully traveled back in time.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
They could show even more of Boba Fett failing to ever do anything impressive.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.

In the actual canon, he's pretty inept. In ESB, Vader scolds him like a child, and he takes a frozen Han after the Empire does the work of freezing him. In RotJ, he get outfought by a half-blind Han, and falls into a giant sand vagina.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Can we get a TV show about Star Wars bounty hunters? I feel like that's a thing that needs to exist.

They could show even more of Boba Fett failing to ever do anything impressive.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
KotBl always represented for me the classic megadungeon.

Fairly small for a megadungeon. When I think megadungeon, I think this.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


The LotR -

In PF - The party cannot come close to matching Sauron. They must have a few characters attempt to carry the one ring able to destroy Sauron (by destroying the ring) to Mount Doom...hopefully they survive. Even the Nazgul can take them out in a straight fight to the death...best to avoid them.

In 5e - Send in the Eagles with archers, fly over Sauron's army and shot him dead. End of story.

More like:

Any version of D&D (and PF as well): Moments after Gandalf confirmed that it was The One Ring, he teleported Frodo and himself to Mt. Doom. Frodo tosses in the Ring, Sauron is vanquished, and what was a trilogy becomes a (very) short story.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.
Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum.

Cool. So they nerf a single spell every 5 years.

By the year 3000, Pathfinder 1E might be decently balanced!

That is, assuming that the FAQ/errata for Simulacrum actually nerfs it, instead of buffing it.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

Yeah. And who could possibly imagine Paizo "borrowing" any concepts from WotC for their system. Ridiculous!

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
yronimos wrote:
I hated Lifeforce when I first saw it on 1980's cable TV, then gave it a second chance a couple years ago - I found I didn't mind it too much at all on second viewing, and I really enjoyed a lot of the imagery, especially that wonderfully Gothic alien ship.

That's not the wonderful imagery that most watch that movie for. :D

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

0e, 1e, the flavors of Basic D&D, and 2 were unbalanced. But, in my opinion, comparing their level of unbalance to that in 3.x/PFRPG is akin to comparing a running faucet to a fire hydrant with the value fully opened. And part of that is because they didn't make many adjustments to spells when they changed from 2e to 3.0.

The change from 2e to 3.0 was a VERY substantial change. For the most part, I think practically everyone can agree with this. When you change the underlying system, but you don't change certain elements, then those elements are going to react differently in the new system.

Imagine if they had taken the same approach with monsters. Imagine, for example, that an Ancient Red Dragon had the following stats:

AC: -1
Hit Dice: 9-11 (72 - 88 hit points)
# Attacks: 3
Damage: 1d8 / 1d8 / 3-30
75% that it can speak
40% that it can use magic
20% that it's asleep

This is an Ancient Red Dragon...the most terrifying non-unique evil dragon in the world. In 3.x/PFRPG terms, it underwhelms, doesn't it?

Why? Because if you change the underlying system, the how the elements you don't change will react differently.

Contributing to this, as Steve also pointed out, 3.0 also reduced or removed most of the checks on a spellcaster's power. They can completely nova out, and one hour of studying can refill every spell slot with just an hour of skimming through your spellbooks. You get the skill Concentration, which lets you continue to cast your spells even through things that used to automatically disrupt them. Pathfinder even did away with having to sacrifice skill points to power this. If you specialize, instead of finding spells of your opposition school impossible to cast, they're just a bit harder to cast.

Spellcasting in Oe to 2e was overpowered, that's true. But, in my opinion, using that imbalance to justify the outright brokenness of spellcasting in 3.x/PFRGP is simply telling the developers that you don't care. And they'll use that to continue to morph even more into the CASTER EDITION. Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ironically, a lot of these ideas sound like the seeds of great adventures to me.

No, not your, Corvino.

Like I seaid before, the only real answer is "someplace boring".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)

Yes. And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.

So thanks for reiterating my point, even if it seems lost on you.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that needs to be done is the entire spell list needs to be gone through. Virtually every spell in the game needs to be rewritten, have it's spell level adjusted, or be eliminated from the game. The problem started in 3.0, where despite large changes to the system, the spell descriptions for most spells remained untouched. A similar lazy approach was taken with both the 3.5 and Pathfinder revisions. This is something that is a decade and a half overdue.

Of course, I'm not sure if Paizo's priorities are to make a good, well-balanced game; or if they are to make spellcasters completely overpowered. It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Holy s#!@, Simmons!
:(

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.

I can only imagine the utter contempt you must hold Pathfinder in.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a wee bit of irony lurking in there.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kobold #1 gets on all fours DIRECTLY behind the paladin's legs.
Kobold #2 shoves the paladin backwards as hard as he can.
Kobold #3 says "Nyuk nyuk nyuk!"

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My opinion: sound like the paladin is pussywhipped.

EDIT: Somewhat surprised that that's doesn't get the usual Paizo forum censorship thing.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, even if the guy did detect as evil, and there wasn't the whole misdirection of the queen being the bad guy, etc., I STILL would consider murdering someone awaiting a trial to be a fall-worthy offense.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moto Muck wrote:
Rules were often vague, poorly written, confusing or just plain stupid

Not much has changed, then.

Quote:
-magic items were far more imbalanced AND necessary in those editions than now

No.

Quote:
but 3.X and PF are strictly better games and are MUCH improved over the old versions

No.

And this is my 10K post, apparently.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aptinuviel wrote:
Pathfinder has a bias towards Good in all things. Races, Prestige Classes, etc. It's a wonder that Evil gods can get anyone to worship them at all in Golarion given that their counterparts give much better benefits.

That's actually pretty prevalent throughout D&D as a whole. Take, for example, dragons. Compare the five chromatic dragons to the five metallic dragons. The metallic ones, when compared to their equivalent chromatic, are more powerful. Same with angels vs demons and devils, and in many other examples through the game.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

because trees

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how people are pretending that a magazine having ads is some new evil concept that WOTC has pioneered with Dragon+.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm also not sure that an IMAX theater really qualifies as a "typical" movie. It should also be noted that an IMAX screen doesn't have a specific screen size, nor even a minimum screen size.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

da red wunz go fasta!

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the Marvel universe. Scientists DO do that.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
People who think vidja games killed p'n'p RPGs.

Obviously they haven't completely killed them, but I think that it's rather obvious that video games have at least taken a good-sized chunk out of the fanbase.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One realization I had after watching the movie:

Spoiler:
Stark didn't actually create Ultron. The initial robot bodies, yeah. But the Ultron AI was within the casing that also contained the Mind stone. A booby-trap set by Thanos? Seems likely, since the mid-credits scene implied he was receiving information about what was going on.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the keys would be to advertise it as a Forgotten Realms / Eberron / Dragonlance / Greyhawk / [insert setting here] film, not as a D&D film. Not only does D&D carry the stigma from the 80s Satanism scare and being a very "nerdy/geeky" hobby, it also now carries the stigma of the 2000 film and it's sequels.

I'm not saying to entirely avoid the D&D branding, but I think that Eberron: a D&D adventure would go over better than D&D: an Eberron adventure.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amazing Red wrote:
Hawkeye's speech to Scarlet Witch also was inspiring and hilarious at the same time. It rivals the "Nobody would ever know" line as best line in the movie.

The "....I have a bow and arrow" bit was utter gold.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
atheral wrote:
One thing I'll note about the Whedon discussion, he recently said that (paraphrased of course) he was separating himself from the MCU to focus on his TV series again as that's the place he likes to be.

What series?

As for him not being able to use some characters like him might have wanted to because they are key in future storylines....that's something you have to accept when you work in a pre-existing franchise...especially one that has a rough future planned out. If you don't want to deal with it, you don't accept the job.

I'm a big fan of his, but I don't consider him to be without flaws. For example, I think he has a specific range of the length of a medium that he works best in. His strengths really don't fully come out if he doesn't get enough time (IE, he needs more than just a movie or two), but I also think that he tends to fizzle out when he's given too much time (see Buffy and Angel).

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

MCU Stark is obviously a hell of a lot smarter than 616 Stark. 616 Stark has never built a Hulkbuster armor that's even vaguely effective, while MCU Stark actually managed a win with his.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Proposition: Whedon put the infamous "Untron shooting Captain America" as a kind of temper tantrum because he was not allowed to kill any of the major characters.

What was Quicksilver, chopped liver?

Well, OK, maybe he was afterwards. With a some other mangled organs as well.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm not sure it's a poor business decision so much as a misalignment of expectations - paizo wanted to include some pictures for which they didn't have perfect images - there's an editorial trade off between only including flawless images and covering a wider spectrum of WAR's work.

I could accept that, if some of the problem images weren't ones that Paizo holds the rights to. They manage to print out the Core Rulebook cover at a much larger size on the cover of every Core Rulebook, and it doesn't have the problems it had in Visions of WAR.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the best thing they've put out yet is the Daredevil show. I can't wait to see the other Defenders series and then the Defenders mini-series.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

with lasers!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

I would have felt the same about Marvel's success, actually, prior to the X-Men movies...

EDIT: No, seriously. They made an Iron Man movie. AN. IRON MAN. MOVIE.

EDIT 2: AND I WATCHED AND LOVED IT. What the actual heck, Marvel? You can't just... start a massive multi-movie project with an Iron Man movie! It'll never sell! That's just redicul- iwanttoseethismovieagain,ineedthismoviesobad,shutuptakemymoney,ineedtowatch allthemovies

Forget Iron Man. They made a freaking Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
So, you get free content and advertisement for other D&D related material that does cost.

So like any other magazine. Except free. And electronic.

You know, I'm pretty sure Dragon has always had ads. Even with that company with the golem logo was publishing it.

1 to 50 of 1,934 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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