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. 8,200 posts (8,274 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's always the happy medium of pre-written adventures NOT run under PFS (or any similar) restrictions....like the overwhelming majority of pre-written adventures.

Hell, you can even run PFS scenarios as non-PFS adventures, so long as you don't try to claim PFS credit for them.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Can we not FAQ every little issue that comes up? No wonder we never get any answers to our questions.

Stuff like this thread's existence has been pushing me away from TechnicalityFinder for a while now.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dustin Ashe wrote:
If only Skye had a protective older brother and they leased part of their plane to a geisha....

We dunno what Simmons's hobbies are...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want to see average-looking to ugly people, TV isn't the best place to look. Regardless of the show or the country.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, its never been directly stated that May was Asian either. Some things don't have to be directly stated.

WAAAA! The show isn't portraying the RIGHT KIND of minority!!!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree, Pathfinder isn't completely fair. Which is all the more reason not to exacerbate the problem by giving the.wizard free levels that make him a better wizard, and giving everyone else free levels that make them a crappy wizard AND substantially delay their progress in the actual classes they want to play.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My point is, why bother to have both prepared and spontaneous casters if you essentially give prepared casters the ability to cast spontaneously? If you are going to limit prepared casters to what they have prepared, actually do it. Stop giving them the spontaneous spellcaster's toolbox as well.

For things like scrolls, wands, bound object...maybe impose a penalty on prepared casters for going outside their wheelhouse. Maybe casting a spell from those sources burns one spell slot higher than the actual spell.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
It was amazing. It all falls into place so well.

It explains why AoS had long breaks in between new episodes (outside of the Olympics). They had to sync the last two episodes up to fall around CA:TWS.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Point buy would be fair....

if all classes were either SAD, or MAD to the same degree. But they aren't. It's bad game design.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It especially screws over the fighter. The game pretends to give him a bunch of bonus feats, but locks most of the cool feats he might actually want behind feat chains and undsrwhelming fear taxes. He ends up with LESS feats he actually gave a damn about than classes with no bonus feats.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Yes, well I just had to bow out of a conversation because the player was excitedly talking about how op they would be, what feats and templates and class combinations they would use to make something really game breaking. That is DULL, but very common now.
It is no more or less common than it was 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

I really liked the potent feat mixes and wicked templates that you could stack in AD&D to make a totally baller character.

Except they didn't exist...

Yeah, back in the day you could only boast about your stats and the awesome magic items you had.

The mechanics are different and I think 3.x does encourage the focus, but the mentality's been around from the start.

Back in the day, you boasted about your actual accomplishments. Given how cowardly modern PCs tend to be, the boasting has had to shift over to how badass their build is. But apparently not so badass as to risk a battle against anything that might stand a remote chance. :P

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
That's how my girlfriend got into gaming. A group wanted another girl gamer so they put up a 'Gamer Girl Wanted' notice at the FLGS.

That's a little bit creepy. I hope "Chloroform provided free!" wasn't in the small print.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Beardinator wrote:
Bottom line: 1st edition D&D was incredibly new and rough designed.

And yet, because it didn't feel the need to overcodify things, it didn't allow BS like Pun-Pun, or have the need for Advanced Multiclassing Redux (subtitled "because it's sucked since 2000, but we couldn't be bothered to fix in in the Core Rulebook").

It also wasn't as new as I think you probably assume it was. Or as roughly designed. It had been around in the form of Original Dungeons & Dragons for about 4 years, and the AD&D books were MUCH better organized and well-designed than the original booklets.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Two hours of slowly working on a post while distracted and sick means that I'm badly ninja'd.

I'm dropping out for now. Everyone's taking up arms.

"Weird" when applied to people or the things they like, is an insult from most people most of the time. Ignoring common use and saying, "You shouldn't get insulted." is poor form.

Anyway, I'm stopping this because my family is calling.

I'm spoilering what I already wrote because, you know, it's a lot of work (so I don't want to delete it all), but it's going to be ignored or taken out of context, or just rejected. So... nevermind.

** spoiler omitted **...

We aee all f#$&ing wierd. We like PnP RPGs.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have the highest respect for FGG (all of you...even you, Skeerer!) and the way they run their Kickstarter. While I was for the most part late to the party for Necromancer Games, I've been a pretty big supporter of Frog God Games since the beginning, which I why I went into their first Kickstarter knowing that they would deliver...and that confidence has only been boosted by their numerous successful Kickstarters (each of which I'm proud to have backed).

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jack Assery wrote:
What's DP?

I could answer, but it has very little to do with roleplaying. At least the kind of roleplaying generally seen on THIS site.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
emirikol wrote:
4e created an absolute nightmare void for those of us whose kids just wanted to play a basic rpg..as opposed..to whatever 4e became.

You realize that that you can substitute 3.x for 4e, and that statement is just as valid for some people, right?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Since what is encountered is entirely up to the gm, even - at least so far - according to the strongest player empowerment group on the boards?

I'm not all that sure about Anzyr. It's possible his group has reduced the GM down to rolling dice for whatever encounters the players define for him.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Plan, but with a couple of caveats:

1. I don't consider the plan to be set in stone. It will change to adjust to the campaign, I do not demand the GM adjust the campaign to my planned build.

2. My plan doesn't include items beyond mundane weapons or armor. If I get magical stiff, that's great, but I refuse to be the whiny b%$#! complaining that I need X, not Y.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The overwhelming majority of the population is commoner or expert. Of the rest, the overwhelming majority are other NPC classes. Of the rest, the overwhelming majority is of a pretty low level.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Gunpowder was around in 9th Century China, seems like it fits quite nicely really all things considered.

Ok you "proved" it could "fit."

Now prove to me (the GM) it should fit. (and it better be more than cause the books say so. Because that just brings us back to: I do not see it fitting the thematic feel I am after; so NO.)

Actually, though ...

note that it would take extreme charity to call those ninth century gunpowder weapons of china 'guns" in the gunslinger sense.

He can be a Tengu. Firework salesman.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
We then had a long therapy session for people who are still traumatized by having a GM have too much power in their game and feeling like they always got shafted when the games devolved to "Mother May I."

Not cool, AAG. Dial the condescension back from 11 to maybe 5 or 6 and we can still talk.

Also, the whole world is not as obsessed with DungeonWorld as you are; the thread was originally talking about AD&D, if you'll recall.

How dare he show even a tenth of the amount of condescention you routinely show when you regularly relegate the entire history of D&D prior to the d20 system as being nothing more than "Mother May I?" Everyone knows that only you are allowed to express condescension of that level!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
It's not dismissive to say that DMs put in 10x the work a player of the same caliber and commitment level does, easy. It's factual.

It's not always factual. What happens in cases where the DM runs an AP right out of the box? No work goes into that. Or when the group builds their setting collaboratively? The DM puts together extremely vague parameters about the world, and each PC defines the part of the setting they're from, and sometimes even major details about the part of the setting they're about to visit. In this case, a player might go above and beyond the call of duty and create more detail about his character's country and its pantheon of gods than the DM has created for the rest of the setting altogether.

So, no. It's not necessarily "factual" to say that DMs put in ten times the work a player of the same level of caliber and commitment level does. It might be exactly the same, but in different areas. Maybe the DM is really good at making dungeons, but less good at writing setting details. If he leaves the particulars of that to one or more of the players, are any of them really doing "less" work than each other?

Even running a AP right out of the box is a much more substantial time investment for the GM than for the players. They have to read though it, preferably multiple times. They have to look for possible areas where the PCs might go off the rails. They have to try to keep track of a bunch of NPCs the PCs might never bother to interact with, etc, etc, etc.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A skilled player can come up with a character concept that will work within the GM's setting and preferences.

An unskilled player fixates on "the one true character concept" and lacks the imagination to deviate from it.

Two can play at that game.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can do it, but in my opinion it's generally more effort than it's worth. Instead of trying to pound the square peg into a round hole, you might want to try a round peg. It's not like there are a shortage...I can name dozens of retro-clones. I don't think there's a pre-d20 edition that doesn't have a retro-clone available. And that's ignoring the fact that you can also get copies of genuine pre-d20 Dungeons & Dragons products for fairly cheap, if you so prefer.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

Its not an insult it's simply the truth. Here lets break it down and see if you agree on the following points:

A skilled storyteller can make a Tengu Magus fit in a story based on ancient Israel. True or False?

If the GM can make a players concept work in the story they should allow it. True or False.

Spoiler: the answers are obviously True and True.

Another question for you:

Should the GM's preferences EVERY be taken into consideration? Or should he just STFU and roll the dice for the monsters?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
The old school DM believes that he has authority over the other players.

It's not a belief. He absolutely does, within the context of the game. It's critical that he not abuse said authority.

The players, on the other hand, have the ultimate power.

"Your game sucks, and you kinda suck, too. I'm outta here."

Functional veto defeats tyrannical GM every time.

Why are all the players in these discussions always reduced to a hivemind? Its entirely possible that after Bob rants at the GM for a half-hour about what a s#&#ty GM he is and how they are firing him, that Steve, Luke, and Jim tell him they don't really care if he gets to play the crown prince of the non-existent Tengu race, and that he can leave if he wants, bit they want to play the game.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:

The ideal solution, as seen by most posters IMO, is a compromise. Which means that both the player AND the GM will need to change their stance.

Of course, if you believe that any compromise on the GM's part is in itself a defeat for the GM, then all hope is lost.

Like I said, in the topic I'm talking about, the poster essentially defined compromise as "The GM gives the player absolutely everything they want, with no conditions".

If that's the definition of compromise we're using, then yeah, I don't think that "compromise" is always the best solution.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...

But none on Players being flexible.

Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.

Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.

Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....

But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?

What I don't understand is why a single player's fun is given so much more of an imperative than the GM's fun by so many posters on these forums. Is the GM simply a non-entity who gives up the right to have any fun of their own when they take up the role of the gamemaster? Is there ever, in your mind, a situation where the GM actually gets to tell a player "no"?

Why bother having a GM if the players control every aspect of the world and adventure creation? Is it that inconvenient for the player to roll the dice for the monsters/NPCs?

:P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Gygax wasn't a Killer DM, either.

I think most of that reputation comes from Tomb of Horrors. Which, from what I've heard, he mainly wrote as a response to criticism that some of his stuff was too easy.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

I though we wanted our players to be more creative. Doesn't increasing he number of mechanisms available to heir character allow them to be more creative?

Or is that the wrong kind of creativity?

Is it really creativity to pull a clearly defined ability (well, sometimes...if you FAQ it repeatedly over a couple of years and dozens of threads pop us asking why the ability is so poorly defined) out of the books and say "I do this".

Also, rigidly defined rules can do more to limit a character than allow him to think creatively. In pathfinder, lots of the cool stuff you can do is locked behind feats, often with other feats as prerequisites. Something you could do just by trying it in older, more rules-light version is likely to get you a "No, you can't do that, you don't have the feat. But you can try it again in 8 levels, after you take the prerequisites and then the feat".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.

I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault...it's obvious that you are looking for a reason to dislike the system, and have decided the ridiculously nebulous "I can't roleplay under this system" is your excuse for disliking it.

Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of Boll's movies were video game based.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it strike anyone else as a bit wrong that THIS movie is opening in so many other countries before it opens in the USA ?

That A on his head isn't for France, you know!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Pathfinder is already a remake anyway.

It's the remake of a remake. And 3.0 was made by some guys who once saw a few of their friends playing AD&D 2E, which was also the remake of a remake.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
So basically, you don't want to see how easily an antimagic field strategy will get a level 20 Fighter killed by a Wizard 5 levels lower. Fair enough. I can respect people who know when to bow out of a discussion.

Why is it that all "WIZURDZ IZ SUPERIOR!!!!" discussions seem to begin with the wizard just happening to have ALREADY cast JUST the right spells, have EXACTLY the right equipment, the encounter takes place in an environment that's EXACTLY suited to favor the wizard, etc?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

It seems to me that the real distinguishing feature between the way "new" games are intended to be played and the way "older" ones are is the concept of RAW - an oldschool flavored game is going to pretty much deny the relevance of RAW. Even the earliest games acknowledged there were gaps in the rules, happily breezing past that with the assumption that this would be solved by the DM. The more modern style is going to favor the certainty and "fair playing field" approach that clear and complete rules give - everyone goes in knowing what's what and how things will progress.

I find that every game I play is "like AD&D" whether that be one of the OSRIC games, Pathfinder, 4E, GURPS, Rolemaster or the others we've tried. In my view the feel of a game is really more about the approach of the players than the way the rules are written. We treat everything in the book as guidelines or suggestions for how to handle things. Sometimes we'll go with a rule we think is silly, other times we'll change it (and sometimes we'll have an inconsistent approach).

When something comes up in game, the DM may well invent a subsystem on the spot to resolve climbing a wall or may flick to the relevant section (which we havent read very well) and misapply what's written there.

Given our style, the older systems fit a little better (since they implicitly assume you're going to make stuff up to fill the gaps) but I dont find it difficult to run a 4E/PF game using the same approach - there's just times where our resolution is very different from what the rules suggest, but we treat rule zero as capitalised, underlined, bolded and in much larger font.

I hope someday to play SOMETHING (I don't really care what) with this man.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Relevance? Wizards don't know anything. They're just following directions.
You can know the recipe all you like, you still need to put the materials together before you eat it.

Wizards still need to refer to the recipe book EVERY TIME.

Kinda makes their vaunted intelligence look a bit suspect.

Especially when the INT 7 Sorcerer can managed to remember how to do that stuff, yet the wizurd can't.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

One of the things that really hampered and made players made in the Edition that Shall Not Be Named is the cost of making/buying magical items and the fact that it was highly suggested that the GM request Wish lists for the characters.

Wish lists for wanted items is a bad idea.

Really bad idea.

No, really. It is a bad, horrible idea.

Why is that a bad idea, but walking into the magic mart in a town of 12 (including one old dog) and finding everything short of artifacts is expected?

No, really, why is a wish list a bad idea?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


If I come to your house for pizza night and expect there to be pizza, I'm not feeling "entitled" to pizza. I'm just expecting it to be there because pizza night implies pizza.

Much like Pathfinder implies "The things that are in Pathfinder", among which are classes, races, spells, and Feats.

What if I invite you over for dinner? Is pizza implied? No.

Personally, if RPGs were as rote and by-the-numbers as you seem to be suggesting they should be, I wouldn't be a fan of the hobby.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

I agree, which is why i find so many of the "optimized" builds posted on these forums so laughable...take away 2 or 3 of thief toys, and they turn to absolute useless rubbish.

The two or three times I have posted builds, they have been "naked" builds...no magical equipment whatsoever, and only the builds most necessary equipment in mundane versions.

Another thing I find amusing is the "must-have" items that I've never seen in actual play.

Me, I'm kinda old school. A magic store in one of my games will have a bags of holding, haversacks, bunch of cure x wounds potions (possibly even a potion of Heal), maybe one or two low enhancement bonus weapons, and occasionally an old dude that might offer to attempt to create something specialized for you if you pay him enough gold AND you quest for the dozen or so exotic materials that he needs to make it (or just wants for his own reasons). Dude might be a con man or he might be legit. Its a lot safer to just tell me what you want, and it might appear as loot within a few sessions. Maybe. Probably at least something close to it, at least.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ignore Paizo.

Grimtooth.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I said it earlier in the thread, but I think it bears repeating:

Magic is wonderfully useful. Its great, no adventuring party should be without it.

Always depending on magic only, to the exclusion of everything else, is grotesquely stupid and staggeringly suicidal.

Using a limited resource to do exactly the same thing that could be done without it is also exceedingly stupid and wasteful.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have trouble accepting a wizard who uses his spell slots to do rogue stuff in a party that has a rogue as being intelligent enough to cast cantrips

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanDM wrote:
I like them as popcorn fare as well. I do wish they would tone down the actions scenes and the fast cuts enough to see what is happening. The trailer is already guilty of it. The scenes cut so fast it is hard to see what is happening.

That unfortunately seems to be the standard in action film making these days. Cuts every half-second and zoomed in too close to actually be able to tell WTF is going on.

To the point where I've stopped being disappointed in it, really. Instead, I'm just impressed when a film actually manages to do an action scene well, and I'm able to tell TWF is going on.

Ain't that sad? I'm impressed the mere competence these days.

1 to 50 of 1,222 << 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.