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. 8,558 posts (8,632 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
HenshinFanatic wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Kender should be killed on sight, along with their players. ;-)

Tinker Gnomes aren't much better.

Agreed on Kender, but extremely disagree on Tinker Gnomes. Gnomes were already cool, Tinker Gnomes took them to the level of awesome.

The authors made bad jokes of ALL the demi-human races - except of course the glorious, brave and beautiful elves. (rolleyes) It was racial stereotyping of the worst sort.

The elves? You mean the arrogant, elitist pricks that were the race that ACTUALLY should have been killed on sight?

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Buri, are you a WotC employee? Your posts read like a publicity campaign. :P

Dude, have you read some of the Paizo cheerleader posts here?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It will depend on a few factors:

1. Popularity - Will I be able to find other people to play it with?
2. Support - Will it get continued support in the form of adventures and setting material, as well as mechanics supplements. This is where 4e went wrong.
3. The system itself - Looking great as of the Basic PDF...hopefully it stays that way.

Based purely on the Basic PDF, I prefer 5e to Pathfinder by a lot. Pathfinder isn't helped by the fact that every release in their RPG line since the APG seems to be diminishing in quality (in my less than humble opinion). Pathfinder Unchained also seems like it could be heralding a 2nd edition.

But I also prefer Swords & Wizardry to either 5e (as it currently stands) or Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If 4e looks like a video game, then Pathfinder looks like a manga.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 2e spell Cantrip was very fun. It basically amounted to Extremely Limited Wish.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the rules forum for a relatively rules-heavy game. Insane parsing through the rules is the status quo. You don't think any of the developers for 3.5 purposefully made crap like Pun-Pun possible, do you? No, that was found by some dork who had way Way WAY too much time on his hands. And most of the people who frequent this board are no better off than he was.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Full casters need some needing. But even more than that, the spell list needs a SERIOUS culling. A lot of spells need to be seriously nerfed, have their spell level raised, or both, or even be cut altogether.

Especially spells that do more to reduce adventuring than contribute to it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brom the Obnoxiously Awesome wrote:
I think a Pathfinder movie would be much cooler, because with D&D, you just had to create your own stories, but with Pathfinder, there's a whole campaign setting in Golarion, which I think would be an awesome series.

Yes, because Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Birthright, Eberron, Mystara, and probably a dozen others didn't actually exist, AMIRITE?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

I'm all for those changes.

If Wizards are buffed as well. :)

Cool.

At 20th level, wizards get a bonus hit point.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite classes are rogue and fighter. I don't think I've ever played one of those that the other members of my group would deem "useless".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The guy who doesn't know any magic, and isn't particularly skilled in the martial arts, and hasnt seen even a quarter of the things you have by level 3...but he's just such a tough SOB he can kick your ass throughout the vast majority of your adventuring career.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mswbear wrote:
I used to hate point buy but after using it for so long I prefer it...it helps with balance issues in a game that already has significant balance issues.

It actually exacerbates the balance issues, when you look at it. The most powerful classes all also happen to be SAD. Whereas the weaker classes are all somewhat MAD.

Point buy let's the SAD classes pump their needed score up to the max, and keep everything else at a decent level. However, the MAD classes end up having to sacrifice some ability scores to keep theier most important ones at a decent level.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I love it when people show up in these threads to say that the only reason anyone could POSSIBLY prefer system X to system Y is nostalgia or something like that.

Telling someone that their opinion isn't their REAL opinion makes you a f+@%ing g!#!~#n a#$+*!#.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
My point is not that Sorcerer weren't played. My point is that there is no real reason to play one now that the Arcanist is available.

Sorcerers make vastly superior Wordcasters than either Wizards or Arcanists (admittedly I haven't read the final version of the class, just the playtest, but I doubt this will have changed.)

And "I want to be able to cast fire spells that do sonic damage whenever it might be convenient to do so" or "I want to be able to cast a wall of terror","I want to cast summoning spells as standard actions", "I want to be able to increase save DCs on my necromancy spells with Spell Focus(Conjuration)", or "I want my AoE damage spells to oppose a will save instead of a reflex save", are reasons that go beyond "I don't have a spellbook."

If words of power wasn't rather half-assed and subsequently ignored, then that might be worth something.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the next few months will be very interesting. Paizo has been #1 in the industry for several years now...but lets be honest, D&D was basically a sleeping dragon for almost all of that time. Actual published products were coming few and far between, and came to a full stop almost 2 years ago. My prediction is that if WotC offers good support, to include both adventures and setting material (instead of almost exclusively rules supplements), they will retake the #1 spot in relatively short order.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
I don't even know what DnDN is going to be like. I mean there is this very short preview that i could read, but ultimately it doesn't seem terribly interesting. I'll look into it, maybe play it if the desire to play a DnD setting comes up, see what it does, but i expect I'll stick mostly with the system i already have tons of material for. (that's Pathfinder)

The "very short preview" is over 100 pages. It also seems to be the full guts of the system. Yeah, there will be a lot more stuff in the three core books (although the Basic Rules will supposedly be updated with a decent portion of those rules as the books are released), but there is enough there to create characters and run them to level 20. It already literally has more pages than my favorite fantasy RPG (and S&W actually has pictures). More pages doesn't necessarily mean a better system. If you disagree, I'm sure you'd be happy printing up the 900+ page beast that is FATAL. :P

As for interesting, I found D&D Basic Rules more interesting than any rulebook Paizo has put out since the APG.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've read through it now, and I have to say...I really like it. Interested to see where it goes. To me personally, it feels more like D&D than 3.0, 3.5, or 4e ever managed to. I can see it becoming my first choice of alternate system (after Swords & Wizardry).

As I've said before, the level of support WotC shows will determine 5e's level of success. Give us adventures and setting material, not just rule supplements (ie, bloat).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition.

Yeah, because Pathfinder is such a novel take on copy-pasting the SRD.

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What will really decide Pathfinder vs D&D 5e will be support. That's really why Pathfinder became successful and 4e seems to have fizzled...Paizo pumped out a lot of support for their system, in terms of adventures, setting material, and rules supplements. WotC didn't. They did some rules supplements (although even those have almost completely dried up over the past two years or so), but very very little in terms of adventures or setting material. Especially if you exclude Dragon and Dungeon, which were both locked behind D&Di subscriptions.

WotC seems to be off to a pretty decent start, pre-launch, however. They've put out several adventures for 5e, and they even hired one of the best 3PP (Kobold Press) to write a FR adventure for them. The release of a free 5e version of "The Wizard's Amulet" seems to indicate that Frog God Games is at least considering supporting the system as well. That's TWO of the very best 3PP possibly on board for 5e. Very encouraging this early.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Henry wrote:
Hasbro who is treating D&D like a Wargame

Got news for ya, buddy. Pathfinder and it's "grid + minis all but outright required" style is a lot closer to a war game than 5th edition.

From the playtest, I like the system a bit more than Pathfinder. Not as well as a host of retro-clones, however.

And really dude? Favoriting your own post?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well get ta cracking', Mr. Creative Director!

Shadow Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Gods that have stats aren't god, they are powerful monsters.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Why must every class perform the same tasks at the same level as all others for there to be balance?

I dont think anyone here is saying all classes should be able to do exactly the same things at the same levels. But they should be able to perform roughly equivalent actions. A 15th level fight should not only be able to do anything a 5th level.wizardcould do, albeit not in exactly the.same.way...he.should be capable of things that the wizard cannot hope to replicate, at least at his current level of power. Pathfinder pretty much flips that...the 5th level wizard can pretty much do anything the 15th level fighter can do, as well as a million things he can't do. It gets even worse when you consider that the edition changes from 2e to 3.0, 3.0 to 3.5, and 3.5 to PF all gave pretty decent boosts to spellcasters, while each time removing more and more of their weaknesses and limitations. This, dispute the fact that some already considered spellcasters to be overpowered in the previous editions.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
But I disagree that "imbalanced power between classes " is significant. So does James Jacobs. Perhaps its then your play style, not the system?

I like James Jacobs. He seems like a great guy, and he shares several of my interests above and beyond RPGs.

But the man can be wrong. The game should try to strive for relatively balanced classes. It won't ever be 100% perfectly balanced, that's true. But that doesn't mean you should completely abandon all effort to try and even out the balance. That's just bad game design, whether it comes from WotC or Paizo....or any of the hundreds of other RPG publishers out there.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Stuff

Maybe spells that boost a skill could, instead of providing a static bonus, provide a bonus based upon the target's ranks in that skill. So a spell to boost Stealth cast on a rogue with 20 ranks would give him an ADDITIONAL +20, but if.cast on the wizard with only a.single rank, it would only.provide him a +1.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
The other edition someone had the poor taste in mentioning didn't do that, it became another game completely while pasting the name on the cover of the book.

Yeah. Third edition.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, perhaps we should make an INT check for every decision that our characters make. And the lower we roll, the more obviously stupid that decision has to be.

FUN!!!

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I came expecting undead boobies.

I leave disappointed.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

Puzzles are a hard one as you can have an idiot barbarian being played by the smartest person in the group, while the dumbest person is playing the beyond genius wizard and yet the barbarian is the one answering the puzzles.

It kind of breaks my immersion when that happens.

Moreso than when the entire description of the puzzle, and how it is solved, is summed up with "Puzzle: DC XX" ?

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo seems to have very little, if any, love for traps. Go Grimtooth or GTFO.

What's the point of a puzzle book when 2/3 of the fanbase starts screaming bloody murder / metagaming if its anything beyond a INT check with a set DC? Because Odin forbid something be entertaining for the players if i can be reduced to a dice roll.

Mazes....never been a huge fan of anything beyond a pretty simple maze. It inevitable involves either metagaming by letting the party look at the entire maze, or multiple tedious sessions of wandering around aimlessly until the exit is accidentally stumbled upon.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

none of us remembered that there was a line that said "If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver". I don't think I've ever seen that rule enforced once in several years of playing Pathfinder, including at PFS.

That's just terrible.

Wow, that's really bad. I had no idea that was even a rule. I can't imagine WHY it would be a rule.

Because F+#+ YOU, interesting combat. If you ain't playin' with magic, stand right here under this dump truck of fecal matter.

:P

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dog? I do that myself!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
In any case, it can't possibly make all of the characters in my character gallery quite like I can, which means it is automatically inferior to my just doing it manually.

That might be due to your tendency to stretch RAW in ways that Reed Richards didn't know something could be stretched.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
What game are we playing? Can you show me the rules for a SAN score in Pathfinder?

OK

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ending will be the evil queen Sansa seizing control.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm having a hard time seeing either of these guys at 12th level. At 12th, your friends and co-workers can teleport and plane shift. At 12th level, Oberyn could wade through lava and emerge alive, without having any particular resistance to fire.

GoT is a lower fantasy world. A simple raise dead spell is absolutely the most dramatic display of PF level-dependent stuff we see, so an upper level of 9th is not unreasonable, with guys like Gregor being closer to 6th (having an iterative attack is a VERY big deal, in that kind of setting).

One of the perils of trying to stat fictional characters in Pathfinder is the inability of Pathfinder characters to do anything interesting without loading them up with feats. The world may be lower fantasy compared to D&D/ PF (and what isn't), but you damn near need to be in the late teens level wise to make Oberyn's fighting style POSSIBLE, much less effective.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
It's worth converting because Pathfinder is a living, supported system, whereas 3.5 is not.

Then again, there is enough support material (crunch and adventures) to keep 3.5 viable for many more sessions than most people will ever play.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic Weapon Affinity (Ex)

In the hands of a fighter, magical weapons behave differently than they do in the hands of those who are not as well-trained in armed combat. Beginning at second level, a fighter can, as a free action, override the default enchantment of a magical weapon and replace it with the benefits granted by this ability. The benefits include a total bonus, and a maximum enhancement bonus. Weapons empowered with this ability must adhere to the magical weapons rules of needing a minimum of a +1 enhancement bonus before special qualities can be applied. The fighter can give the weapon any enhancement bonus up to the maximum provided on the Magic Weapon Affinity table, and any remaining bonuses from the total bonus can be used to apply special qualities to the weapon.

The special qualities for a given weapon can only be changed once per day, in a short (5 minute) ritual where the fighter concentrates on aligning his desires for how the weapon should function in his hands. If this power is activated for a weapon that the fighter has not performed this ritual for, it is empowered with his maximum enhancement bonus, but no special qualities are activated until the fighter can perform the ritual.

This ability cannot be used on ammunition, but it can be used on thrown weapons. The weapon is funcionally the same in all ways as the weapon it is empowered as while in the hands of the fighter (or until the attack is resolved, in the case of thrown weapons).

Magic Weapon Affinity Table

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, here's a stab at giving the fighter a bit of something back:

Magic Weapon Affinity (Ex)

In the hands of a fighter, magical weapons behave differently than they do in the hands of those who are not as well-trained in armed combat. Beginning at second level, a fighter can, as a free action, override the default enchantment of a magical weapon and replace it with the benefits granted by this ability. The benefits include a total bonus, and a maximum enhancement bonus. Weapons empowered with this ability must adhere to the magical weapons rules of needing a minimum of a +1 enhancement bonus before special qualities can be applied. The fighter can give the weapon any enhancement bonus up to the maximum provided on the Magic Weapon Affinity table, and any remaining bonuses from the total bonus can be used to apply special qualities to the weapon.

The special qualities for a given weapon can only be changed once per day, in a short (5 minute) ritual where the fighter concentrates on aligning his desires for how the weapon should function in his hands. If this power is activated for a weapon that the fighter has not performed this ritual for, it is empowered with his maximum enhancement bonus, but no special qualities are activated until the fighter can perform the ritual.

This ability cannot be used on ammunition, but it can be used on thrown weapons. The weapon is funcionally the same in all ways as the weapon it is empowered as while in the hands of the fighter (or until the attack is resolved, in the case of thrown weapons).

Magic Weapon Affinity Table

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course, those adventurers who over-prepare often find that they are just as dead when things don't go exactly how they planned.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Stiehl9s, that is one seriously complicated life history.

Nah. That's fairly simple by X-Man standards. No parallel universes or alternate timelines are involved. He's not, for example the child of one of his teammates from an alternate future.

Still, that kind of thing is why I'm not really bothered by "Oh we jump forward in time and there's stuff that doesn't match the current reality" problems.
Hell, if I was in the Marvel universe and timejumped up a decade, I'd definitely be checking to see who I knew to be dead was really alive (or alive again) after all.

I find it interesting that many of the X-Men characters have such complicated/convoluted backstories (more so even than the rest of Marvel at this point), when the reason that mutants were first used by Marvel in the first place was so that a character's origin/backstory could consist of "born with powers".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it more fun to wrest the Blade of McGuffin from the dead grip of a enemy than to bravely pay lots of coins for something at McGuffins-R-Us.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
All the pre-d20 editions were better balanced than 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
While I agree with that, I'd have to add that the complexity and sheer range of options introduced in 3.0 is the main cause of that imbalance. When you're dealing with a fairly static set of rules for a handful of classes, it's bound to be easier to balance than something that creates near-limitless combinations of possibilities.

Yeah, I'm not at all convinced that 3e and its descendants are any more imbalanced than what came before. Balance, in the modern sense, began with 3e. Not that 3e and its descendants always achieved balance, but it set balance as a goal in a way that D&D had never done before.

For example, 'The paladin's superior class features are balanced out by its tight role playing restrictions and the extreme unlikelihood of rolling high enough stats to qualify for paladinhood' is a joke statement by current standards, but before WotC, it was a legitimate concept of 'balance.'

Did 3e and its descendants achieve the balance that its devs originally hoped? Almost certainly not. But is it less balanced than 2e and earlier editions? At most I'd say that they're all balanced and imbalanced in different ways.

Which makes it all the more sad that the edition where balance was a goal misses the mark so much more than a system where balance wasn't a goal.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one thing that pisses me off more than anything else in these threads is the posters who are so utterly dismissive of other people's opinions that they say that no Body could possibly actually prefer pre-d20 editions to d20 editions without it being the product of nostalgia / rose-colored glasses.

No need to name any names....their posts speak for themselves. Might as well have an "Arrogant Twit" label next to their subscription lists.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the pre-d20 editions were better balanced than 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

The one thing I don't really understand is this... people who are proposing some sort of ONE TRUE WAY to solving problems.

Therapy is not the one true way.
Fishing is not the one true way.

Both work better and worse for different people. Instead of professing how one is better than the other, why not instead talk about WHY something worked for you? That way someone else can read it, and if their situation sounds similar, or something resonates, they might learn of a way of coping with their problems.

This thread needs less one true wayism, IMO.

All the "one true way" in this thread is coming from the.therapy people.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In 0E, 1E, 2E, and Basic D&D, you would have 10 round combats that played out within 15 minutes.

In 3.0, 3.5, and PF, you have 3 round combats that can take 45 minutes or more to play out.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I'm sure that all the drugs and the therapy DO help some people. But I'm also just as sure that some other people do better by taking whatever it is that would be bothering.g them, putting it behind them, and moving on with their life...no "professional" help or drugs needed or wanted.

It always saddens me to see people with this attitude. You wouldn't dare tell someone in a wheel chair to just put their severed spinal cord behind them and move on, yet you'll say that about people with psychiatric disorders. Why? Is it because you can't see what is wrong with them?

People have with different strengths and weaknesses. Some people can do tasks easily that others struggle with daily. It is no different mentally than it is physically.

Except even the best "professional" help can offer is "might work, might not". And charges hundreds and thousands of dollars for that privilege. Seems to me at least TRYING the free solution is worthwhile. Not everyone needs to have their sore spots poked repeatedly with a flaming stick over and over and over and over and over.

1 to 50 of 1,351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.