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. 9,461 posts (9,535 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If any future feats are published, I want to to EXPAND options, not limit them. That is a particular failing of 3.x and Pathfinder, in my opinion...many feats do more to limit a character that doesn't have them than they do to expand the options of a character that does take it. And when a system has hundreds upon hundreds of feats, that mean it's a LOT of options shut down since any single character can only take a tiny fraction of a percentage of those feats.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Give unto me GREYHAWK !

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The gauntlet is the greatest weapon if you set the Infinity Gems into it.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe the official response to why slings are so crappy is:

"Because water balloons!"

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
We're comparing one class against another class. It's only logical.

Only logical to ban broken options that the fighter has access too.

But we need to let the wizard keep all of his toys.

I assume that post was your application to work at Paizo?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
My wizurd will destroy your paltry martial character. NOTHING YOU CAN DO CAN STOP ME! MWAA HAAA HAAA!!!!

repeat ad nausea across 20 g!%*&$n pages....

somebody else wrote:
Let's do a pbp combat to see what ACTUALLY happens....
Anzyr wrote:

i'm scared mommy

...

...

...

um...here's my wizurd he's a sorcerer

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Uwotm8 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I'm offering challenges. I'm not going to put up my sheet prior to that obviously. Though I will be asking the GM to not disclose it, because I'll be using some of my meaner tactics. But feel free to step up.
That's meaningless chest thumping. Post a build.
Nope! I agreed to do a challenge and I will wait.

I challenge you to post a build.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer statless. Its not like assigning stats is difficult to do. Just give a trap you want to be very challenging a DC that is about 50-50 for the highest Perception to find, with an equivalent disarm DC. Maybe give it 2d8 damage per skull rating. There you go...no need to confine the book just to Pathfinder when something is that easy.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
People are fighting super hard for the Fighter to have build dependent features to take on a wizard that can literally change their build by the day, as well as can stockpile resources for days/weeks/years.

The problem is that the people fighting super hard to say the wizurd ALWAYS wins don't change their build by the day, they change their build from moment to moment. And that build that they change includes things like stats, feats, active contingencies, etc. IE, stuff that they DON'T actually get to change.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Also building a level 20 wizards takes forever? Building a fighter is whatever, but a wizard is like, a million statblocks of all your minions, describing your plane, all your permanent buffs, etc

That doesn't take ANY time. Because wizurd players don't actually define any of those stats until circumstances require a definition. And when they do bother to define something, it only last for 1 round before that definition expires, and can be completely redefined.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

If you actually require the wizard to have his spells memorized list spelled out, the conditions of his contingency, etc, it becomes closer to even. If you allow them to make up all that stuff on the fly, they auto-win by using their most powerful ability: Handwavium.

Seriously, commoners would be overpowered if they got as much handwaving as some people here give spellcasters.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Grimtooth's Ultimate Traps Collection

How have I only found out about this today???

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
I'm just saying my big yardstick for "low magic" is wizards don't take over the plot.

I think that should be considered "standard magic" and should be the target for the system. Targeting game "balance" at a goal of anything magical is automatically better than everything non-magical is absolutely horrendous game design.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I myself see no reason why it shouldn't have it's own thread. People might want to discuss it, and it makes a LOT more sense to look for a thread named "Agent Carter" than to wade through a thread about a completely different show just to find posts about it. NOT having a separate thread would make no sense.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ydoccian wrote:
See, that's what I've never really understood. If God knows everything that was, is, and will ever be, there just seems to be no pattern, no reason to His "Plan." He talks to us for a few hundred years, wipes away sin with Christ, then just decides he's going to take a few millennia off and relax why we kill each other for no reason.

And those people who go to hell were already damned to go to hell by God an infinity before their birth.

Deterministic God is an a$##%$+.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I second what Steve just said. Take the time, and do it right! That's one of the things I like about FGG...you guys may not release stuff as often as some publishers, but you always deliver quality. (And it sometimes seems that you also deliver in large batches....you sometimes seem to go through several months of a dry spell, and then release a good half-dozen products all at once.)

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Greg A. Vaughan wrote:
End 2014/early 2015 was always a best-case scenario if all the stars aligned perfectly. (Hint: they didn't)

No wonder I feel so sleepy.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
...If focuses were material components, then they would M (material component), with the added note they they are not consumed.. They are F (focus)...a completely different type of component than material components.

Are there Material Components that aren't consumed when used?

And if there are, how are they then not a Foci at that point?

That's my point. If a focus was a material component, then it would be classified as such, and would simply have a note saying that it was not consumed. But no such material components exist.

As such, the ability to ignore material components does NOT let you ignore foci.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A few ways to get a lower-magic feel to a campaign without restricting spellcaster levels or monsters encountered:

1. In general, magic items are pried from the hands of your dead enemies, found as parts of a long-forgotten treasure, or found in other similar ways. You don't get them from the express lane. And enemies should USE these items...don't have them keep their sword +3 in a chest while they swing a rusty piece of tin at the PCs. The magic mart is all but eliminated...and when they exist, their inventory tends to be almost exclusively one-use items such as scrolls and potions.

2. The only item creation feats allowed adventurers are Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion. There are NPCs that can create other magical items, but they are very rare, and they devote their lives to crafting these items. It's not something they do in between adventuring sessions.
- As something of a balance, healing potions can be created for any of the healing spells (Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds, and Heal), despite the fact that they might exceed the usual spell level 3 limitation for potions. The cost to create healing potions is also greatly reduced, using the formula [spell level x caster level x 10].

3. All the workarounds for spellcasters to exceed their normal number of spells memorized per day are eliminated, with the exception of bonus spells granted by Intelligence.

4. Likewise, all methods for prepared spellcasters to cast spontaneously are eliminated. As are all methods for spontaneous spellcasters to gain new spells known.
- Spontaneous spellcasters gain access to new spell levels at the same rate as their prepared counterparts.

5. There is no concentration check for damage taken while attempting to cast a spell. Even a single point of damage disrupts the spell.

6. Spells take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare. Cantrips take 1 minute to prepare each. The arcane discovery Fast Study is eliminated.

This wouldn't really take it down to LOW magic, but it would bring it down to a more REASONABLE level of magic, in my less-than-humble opinion. It also brings it a bit closer to the pre-3.0 editions.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, they still have two other Kickstarters still to be delivered. I'd love it if they'd NOT have one for a while. Kickstarters is expensive. Plus I have this 30% off coupon and nothing to spend it on.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a fan of the lower-level underling monster that

JUST

DOES

NOT

DIE.

No explanation for why he's still alive should ever be given. It's what he does...he survives.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Ah, we've come to the point in time where someone accuses 4E of dumping everything about 3.x and starting from scratch. WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THAT 3.X DID THE EXACT SAME G&%!*$N THING!

4e might have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, but 3.0 threw out the baby, the bathwater, the bathtub, and had the entire bathroom demolished.

What do you mean?

Are you really gonna try and tell me that you consider the system changes from 2E to 3.0 to be any less radical than those from 3.5 to 4E ?

3.x bears just as little relation to the previous editions of D&D as 4E bears to 3.x.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If 4E is World of Warcraft, then 3.x (in all its incarnations) is Diablo.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's really more of an attempt by the 3.x crowd to marginalize 4e than anything else.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A campaign setting without unanswered questions is a pretty g*%++&n boring campaign setting.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DragonBelow wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I'm personally very disappointed with Occult Adventures. I SO wish they just went in cahoots with Dreamscarred Press and made that system "official".
I know it would be "cool", but it's unnecessary, you don't need paizo saying it's official. You can make it official in your games.

There is PFS. There are also groups that don't allow any 3PP stuff, because it's all dirty and unbalanced and evil. You know, despite the fact that everything that DSP has put out being far better balanced than anything that Paizo has put out.

I also find it amusing that Paizo has supported systems that even they admit aren't all that great in the name of backwards compatibility. Psionics must have some real haters among the Paizoo staff.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

* tosses and turns a bit *

* checks the stars *

* goes back to sleep *

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I dunno... what would you Americans think of some podunk country you never liked making a comedy about how two of their soldiers get the job of assassinating your current president? I could see "some" steam rising about it, to be perfectly honest.
I dont know seeing that the GOP hates the current President they probably wouldn't mind seeing him dead.

And how exactly does this differ from the DNP during the Bush administration?

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer games where you spend more time adventuring with the character than creating him / leveling him up.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
emirikol wrote:
Eventually, these systems favor the player who is the loudest, whiniest, or gripes the most at the table about what he wants his character to be able to do.

Ironically, something that rules-heavy advocates have proven to excel at.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).

I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I suspect 5th has some form of WBL as well, or everything is just that nerfed. I did look at the DMG, and even for a level 30 monster, the recommended AC was 19. So maybe things are just that nerfed.

It is not nerfed, it is a different f*&~ing system.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I hate about Pathfinder is WBL.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Just sayin'
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders, that's introducing AMFs through fiat.

As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're playing a high level caster and you're focusing on DAMAGE, the YOU are the one who isn't gaming it out well.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Yeah, he wasn't as good in the films as he was in the book.

That's saying something, given that he wasn't in the book.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess we'll see when they put out the fourth edition of 3.0 (AKA Pathfinder 2e).

I'm wondering if it's major change is to admit Paizo's bias and relegate all non-caster classes to NPC class status.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
If you like AD&D, I'd recommend 5e whole heartedly. No, the mechanics are not the same, not really, but the FEEL is there. It's like they pretty much do all the cool AD&D things, but in a more modern, better edited way.

It's like I said before in another thread. To me, it FEELS like Dungeons & Dragons is back, after an absence of about 15 years.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Remember, it's an actual campaign. Are there PC options you don't allow in your campaign? I know there's plenty I don't allow in mine. How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?

Everyone who plays in or runs a "home" campaign has some degree of input into those restrictions. Whereas with PFS, the overwhelming number of people who play AND run them, do not.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


What do these words mean?

Seriously, outside of the mechanical context of 3.5, what do you mean by "scales with the BAB of the Ork?" BAB is a mechanical construct that 5E doesn't use.

It's what he's done the entire thread. Isolate a mechanic of 5e that doesn't work well if you throw it into 3.x, and then criticize it for that, without taking into account that the mechanic is designed for a completely different system.

Really, David, I just have to ask....what are you looking for in this thread?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's something that David Bowles doesn't seem to be getting. The default is that you don't have to use the PC creation rules for monsters. That doesn't mean you can't use a portion of those rules if you want to. If you think a monster should have Power Attack.....give it Power Attack!

Monster creation isn't shackled to the PC rules, but it also isn't shackled away from them either.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.

Which does NOT require a feat. It's just a bonus to damage, combined with a penalty to hit. Nothing about that inherently requires it to come from a feat, except for your obsessive need to chain 5e to 3.x restrictions.

David Bowles wrote:
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!

Know what else gives the DM the opportunity to build some really cool monsters? Unshackling him from the overly restrictive "rules" that govern monster creation under 3.x/PFRPG.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gee, they deal with the worst scum of humanity on a day-to-day basis. I can't understand why some of them become cynical.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.

It's only underwhelming to you because you, for some unknown reason, expected WotC to publish the PRD, but with art added. From your posts, that seems to be literally the only think that would have made you happy.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

SNEAKLANCEPOUNCE!

1 to 50 of 1,721 << 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.