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. 9,816 posts (9,890 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,861 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie D. wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I am unlikely to be playing PF in thousands of years.
But isn't it cool to think if you are here in thousands of years that you COULD still play Pathfinder if you wanted to? That printed Core Rulebook might come in handy.

The Core Rulebook's spine does good to survive a couple of years of intermittant use.

Frog God Games books will be around for centures. The Post-Apocalyptic game of choice will be Sword & Wizardry.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

A trail of chocolate eggs. Each functions as a goodberry if consumed.

At the end of the trail is a large basket full of 4th- and 5th-level spell potions. It is guarded by a killer rabbit.

With vorpal teeth.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
Power of Imagination

Ironically, soon the people who watch the show will be in position to spoil it for the book readers.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In answer to the thread title...almost all of them. :D

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I saw the Starter Set in a Wal-Mart a few months back, and you can order it, the core books, and the adventures over the Wal-Mart website.

The first D&D products I ever actually saw in person were the Moldvay B/X box sets, in a Magic Mart. (Ain't that ironic?)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:
Well I certainly hope that the next edition of pathfinder isn't called Pathfinder 2.0. That's a horrible name!

I vote for "Pathfinder 1.875-pf-v2"

Morgen wrote:
How many Bestiaries can you make before sales choke? I literally have no idea.

There can NEVER be enough monster books.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The basic question there is "Can they fix whatever needs to be fixed while remaining backwards compatible?"

I think the answer is no.

And therein lies the problem. A large portion of the fanbase wants the system to be fixed, but an equally large portion of the fanbase wants it to simply be the fourth iteration of the inherently flawed 3.x system, with minor enough changes that they can run any existing adventure as-is.

Paizo cannot please both groups.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As much as I enjoyed the Weeping Angels, I'd probably go slightly more obscure, while keeping the same concept: SCP-173

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Card gaming is doing very well which is why TSR/WOTC made their own disastrous attempt at entering the market...

If Magic the Gathering was disastrous, then the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is so far beyond a failure that companies that are just in the proximity of Paizo geographically should have gone out of business.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I find 3.5 to be very "non-D&Dish" - one of the reasons I prefer 5E (and preferred 4E-post essentials) is that it felt more like what I grew up with - a kind of hodge-podge of 0E and 1st edition AD&D.

I think it's all dependant on what core things you consider to constitute "being D&D". Character customisation over random determination feels much more to me like GURPS than D&D to me. Similarly with the rewarding of hyper-specialisation.

3.5's emphasis on objective rules subsystems and de-emphasis of DM fiat is another stumbling block for me when I play it.

Agreed. To me, 5E is the first edition since 2000 that has felt like D&D.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bonus points if you wear gloves while you find, harvest, and prepare it (all without realizing what the hell it does). If you serve it to the entire party, then you win D&D...forever!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The same way I can have elves, dragons, wizurds, and a bunch of other fantasy stuff.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Thomas 66 wrote:
Worst. Plant. EVER.

Rolling a 1 makes you decide that this is good to eat. :P

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Since nobody was able to confirm how big a "story" is your comment does not mean much right now.

Maybe they just don't have a set size. That way, the authors don't have to pad or compress their vision.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Tyrranny of Dragons was about 160 pages of adventure material (not counting the appendices which had the statblocks and Magic items, nor the online material).

Princes of the Apocalypse had 180 pages (also excluding appendices and the PDFS material).

Due to my disinterest in the Forgettable Realms, I haven't picked either of them up. It should be noted that about half of each AP book isn't adventure, it's gazetteers, fiction, monsters, etc. So saying that an AP is 600 pages of adventure is disingenuous at best. It's much closer to 300.

Due to 5e's relative simplicity, I find it very easy to run it with adventures from ANY edition. Hell, I find it easy to run with non-D&D adventures as well. Really, the only rule supplements I feel a great need for is more monsters. Because you can never have enough monsters. I'd love it if they put out enough monster books where EVERY SINGLE MONSTER that has ever been created for any edition of D&D was given a 5e version.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My only disappointment with the interview is that apparently they are going to only focus on one setting at a time, and they have started with the Forgotten Bloat...er...Realms. Which essentially means they probably won't ever move on to one of the settings I give a damn about (Greyhawk, Spelljammer, or Ravenloft are my official D&D settings of choice).

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
And yeah...I think a recent publicist dissed Marvel movies for not being "realistic", while branding the gritty, dark vibe as the tone we will see in all upcoming D.C. movies.

Yup, Winter Soldier is nowhere near as realistic as a guy who can fly, lift thousands of tons, shoot laser beams out of his eyes, and all but destroys a city fighting three other guys with the same essential powers.

Not to mention the ridiculousness that is Daredevil. Hell, Man of Steel is practically a documentary compared to Daredevil.

;)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Soullos wrote:
That dude in the interview said "story" so much it kind of lost all meaning. >_> Sorry, two adventures a year is not enough. What a depressing interview.

Yet some people here can't stop fanwanking over Paizo's APs. The Module line is an afterthought for both the fans and the company.

And how many of those APs does Paizo put out per year? Let me get out my counting fingers....

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
I didn't buy 4th edition D&D because I didn't want a new edition. I didn't buy 5e because I didn't want a new edition. Why would I buy PF 2.0?
Because you can't play PF if everyone else is playing PF 2.0.

That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.

Of COURSE I can and will play PF 1.0 if there is a PF 2.0 . . . the same way when I play a World of Darkness game I still play Old World of Darkness.

Then why did you bother with Pathfinder in the first place, rather than just keep playing 3.5?

Why did you bother with 3.5 in the first place, rather than just keep playing 3.0?

Why did you bother with 3.0 in the first place, rather than just keep playing 2nd Edition + Player's Options?

Why did you bother with 2nd Edition + Player's Options in the first place, rather than just keep playing 2nd Edition Core?

Why did you bother with 2nd Edition Core in the first place, rather than just keep playing 1st Edition + Unearthed Arcana?

Why did you bother with 1st Edition + Unearthed Arcana in the first place, rather than just keep playing 1st Edition Core?

Why did you bother with 1st Edition Core in the first place, rather than just keep playing Original D&D + the supplements?

Why did you bother with Original D&D + the supplements in the first place, rather than just keep playing Original D&D?

Why did you bother with Original D&D in the first place, rather than just keep playing Chainmail?

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

60(?). Absence of Wealth By Level. No more entitlements!

They're guidelines. And I suspect originally intended to limit wealth as much as promise it. You don't hear so much about Monty Haul games these days.

They might be guidelines, but about 95%+ of posts that mention WBL on these forums don't seem to realize that. I mean, I've seen posts that talk about GMs doing WBL "audits", for Odin's sake! And if you dare mention that you don't always adhere to WBL, a horde will descend upon you demanding to know why you are such a tight-fisted bastard of a GM.

:P

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

In the spirit of bringing magic back down to manageable levels:

39. 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.

40. 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].

41. 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 casting stat.

42. 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.

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

44. 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.

More importantly than any of those, the entire spell list needs to be gone through pretty thoroughly, with probably the vast majority of spells either having their spell levels adjusted or being cut altogether.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Bear in mind that the Ragnarok storyline is a product of Snorri Sturluson's Eddas, which I happen to know modern mythology scholars and practicing heathens are actually pretty leery of.

I haven't studied it very in depth, but it was my understanding that the main point of contention is that he inserted some Christian concepts into the mythology, which actually included a softening of Ragnarok. From what I understand, it was him and his contemporaries that added in Baldar returning after Ragnarok (an obvious Jesus concept), as well as Líf and Lífþrasir surviving and restarting the human race in the post-Ragnarok world (Adam and Eve). Originally, Ragnarok was supposed to be everything dying, period. No humans, gods, monsters, or ANYTHING surviving it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the problems with Pathfinder (and most 3.x variants) is that they tend to provide a fair number of options that don't actually deliver what they seem to promise. So you can follow the fluff, and get what the option seems to promise or you can follow the strict RAW mechanics, and it becomes a trap option in the great tradition of Monte "Timmy Card" Cook.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would imagine that Steve knows about the Lost Lands from FGG. They are, after all, currently having a book FORGED for him. :D

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bah! I use the DOS Character Generator. It takes the process down from 5 days to about 5 minutes.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let them have the cheese. Then swarm them with hordes of enemies who have also had the cheesy whatever applied.

The Mighy Composite Longbow of True Strike +5 with abundant ammunition might not seem like such a good idea when 20 orcs all have one, each trained on the party.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...he wants to give the other guys a fighting chance.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

for Aranna:

(spoilered to protect the sanity of the innocent)

Spoiler:
Manhood

Manhood of a male character is his penis. Most males consider their Manhood to be their most treasured possession. Some races value their Manhoods more than others. Anakim, bugbears, dark elves, humans, and kobolds consider their Manhoods more important than other races. Manhood is important for sexual intercourse, because usually, size matters. 2 measures may be useful: length and circumference.

Different females prefer different sizes and shapes of Manhoods. A Manhood with a larger circumference than its length is known as a chode. Most females prefer a Manhood that is thick so she feels it, but not thick enough to hurt, and long, but not long enough to hit the end of her vagina. Some females prefer veins, others do not want to see them. Some females prefer that the head, or glans, is large and puffy, while others do not care. A phallophiliac, for example, prefers the largest Manhood available. Below a player may determine the length and circumference of a Manhood. Other details are left to the Aedile.

Length: The height (or length) of the character (or creature) in feet is converted directly to inches (6’ = 6”; 5’ 10” = 5.83”). This is the Base Length of his Manhood.

Then roll 10d100, divide the sum by 5, and subtract 1 from the total [(10d100 / 5) - 1]. Consult the table below:

Manhood table

The resultant percentage is applied to the Base Length of the character’s Manhood, determining the actual length. For instance, a Manhood roll of 115 indicates a Size Modifier of + 28%. If the character were 6’ tall, then the length of his Manhood would now be 7.68 inches (28% of 6 = 1.68; so, 6 + 1.68).

Note that this is the shortest measurable length, taken from the top or belly-button side, not the bottom or testicular side, and constitutes all that a female may take from a missionary position. However, if the female were to mount the Manhood from above while facing her partner and leaning back, she would actually take 1.15 times the Base Length, accounting for the remainder. For instance, with a Base Length of 6 inches, with experimentation, it is possible for the female to enjoy 6.9 inches, depending on the angle.

Circumference: The Base Length of the Manhood is now multiplied by 0.85. This is the Base Circumference of the Manhood in question.

Finally, roll [(10d100 / 5) - 1], observe the Size Modifier on the table above, and apply this modifier to the Base Circumference to determine the actual circumference.

1. The Manhood Size Modifier was solved with a polynomial using quadratic regression based on what Fatal Games believes is the smallest to largest possible Manhood relative to height. In the following equation, ‘x’ represents the category of roll (1- 6 = 1, 7-12 = 2, etc.), and ‘y’ = Size Modifier. Here is the equation: y = 0.205078125x2 + 0.68359375x - 70.888671875.

So, no integrals, but there is a quadratic regression. :P

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lilith wrote:
Great Green God wrote:
Here, here! or is it Huzzah? I can never remember. 'Must be old.

...GGG, is that you? *hugs*

Also a shout out for Ninjas & Superspies. And TMNT.

Ninja's and Superspies mixed with Beyond the Supernatural was a total blast back in the day.

I usually went with a TMNT/Heroes Unlimited mix. I had a mutant wolverine with cybernetics AND superpowers.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

GURPS has complicated math? I didn't notice any but then I only used the basic rules. I can't imagine any RPG with complicated math rules really. What possible reason would there be to introduce things like integrals to a role playing game?

You need to create a FATAL character.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkbridger wrote:
If Wizards is indeed going down this route, this seems like a direct response to or a direct result of the primary product line of Paizo.

Yeah, because never before in the history of D&D prior to Paizo's adventure paths did anyone ever put additional rules into adventures.

It's a revolutionary new concept that no other company has ever EVER done before. Certainly not as early as the 1970s.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

It's the mechanical aspect that bothers me. Saves actually got easier to make in AD&D. More so for some saves and less for others, but better overall.

In PF, your save numbers go up, but so does the DC. For casters, it's usually easier to stack the DC higher than for the target to boost their saves, especially the bad ones. The difference between good and bad saves grows as you level making you generally more vulnerable to something than you were at low level. That just didn't happen in AD&D.

Which is one of the main reasons that the balance shifted so dramatically towards casters in 3.0 and it's derivative systems. A high level wizard in 0e/1e/Basic/2e might have godlike powers, but the high level fighter is gonna shrug them off unless he rolls a natural 1.

In 3.0/3.5/PFRPG, the wizard just pumps his DC high enough that he can keep Orcus on a leash.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Scythia wrote:
I blame music and TV shows.

You forgot 'video games'. These damn kids with their Fourth Edition and their World of Warhammercraft and their Pac-Man....

I'd submit that if you think the Tomb of Horrors it the apex of adventure design... you might be a Grognard.

What if, like me, you consider RETURN to the Tomb of Horrors the apex of adventure design?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm having trouble buying Caitlin as a potential villain. She's just too damn adorable.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

A few prerequisites for being a grognard:

1. A beard
2. Fingers stained orange from Cheetos
3. You are never without a Mtn Dew
4. At least 50 years of age.

What, so no female grognards? Pffft.

Also, Cheetos and Mountain Dew? That's just icky, man. Maybe when I was in my 20s...

The cool thing about grognards is that we come in all shapes and sizes. We are not so easily culturally defined. It's more of a 'spirit of an older gamer' kinda thing (plus grumpiness).

Female grognards? They might exist. But they're like dwarves, even the females have beards.

Possibly orange beards formed from Cheetos crust.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
When it comes to Grognards, my thoughts are usually, "if second edition was so good, why aren't you playing second edition?"
Because grognards are too busy playing OD&D or 1e?

yeah, 2e is kinda the bastard red-headed stepchild of D&D editions.

1e or 0e or B/X or BECMI/RC, that's the good stuff.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


I'm not sure why you're so mad, exactly.

Because I'm really sick of a!$!~*%s on this board presuming that the only reason someone could possibly disagree with their game preference is nostalgia. Telling someone that their opinion isn't REALLY their opinion is 100% proof of being an a%@@*#!. And, as I said, it happens in every single thread where a game from before 3rx edition is mentioned.

So if you don't feel.that you did this, then maybe you.aren't an a!!*@%!.

Maybe.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I've decided that every time I see the nostalgia/rose-colored glasses thing, I'll just call that post out as being angry that the poster lacks the imagination, creativity, and intelligence to play in a more fluid system.

Oh, and that they are an a%#$~$*.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

"So, without knowing more about Rynjin, I'd have to say he is a Grognard! :D"

Nope, I think he's just an a+~#$@@. He's angry that he lacks the creativity, intelligence, and imagination to deal with a system that doesn't set everything in stone for him.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You gain the "dead" condition. It has no modifiers, so you continue play as normal.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think every feat for spellcasters should be split into 24 different feats. One for each school, an only covering 3 spell levels.

No more Spell Penetration, it would instead be

Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 0-3
Improved Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 4-6
Greater Evocation Spell Penetration - levels 7-9

This should be applied across the board to all spellcaster feats. And of course, each of the weaker feats should be a prerequisite for the stronger feats.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're dead, Marcie!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Can we please stop labeling people based on their gaming preferences?

I started playing D&D in '84, yet I rather like 5E's mechanics. That doesn't mean I'm a "newb" or a child, any more than preferring the relative complexity of Pathfinder means you have no life.

Agreed. It's unnecessary antagonistic of the people who prefer the edition that feel the need to deem childish / a time sink / whatever negative paintbrush you chose to paint it with.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the main reasons that I prefer the earlier eras of D&D is because of their reflective focuses:

AD&D 1e, was, in my opinion, characterized by the adventures. There were far more adventures offered than any other type of product.

AD&D 2e was unquestionably characterized by the campaign settings. While the three setting that had originated in 1E (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance) stayed as the most popular, 2e was the edition that had an absolute EXPLOSION of settings created for it.

D&D 3.x and 4E were characterized by rule supplements. While there were some adventures and new settings published for these editions, it was blatantly clear that these were secondary to the rules supplements. Even many of the products published as campaign setting specific were less setting/adventure material and more giving rules supplements to play in those settings. For me, this was less interesting than the settings and adventures of the previous eras.

Plus I just like the rules better. :D

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Again, though, to call them "fluid" and 3.5 "overly codified" is rose-tinted and patently false.

No more so than every other post in this thread. Basically, feel free to insert "In my less-than-humble opinion" into the beginning of every post I make on these forums.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

It WAS functional, literally, but... it wasn't good. Everyone having d6 HD, all damage being 1d6, and 3 Stats doing literally NOTHING besides seeing if you could be one class or another isn't what I'd call "functional."

Those kinds of rules worked fine for Chainmail as an army-based Miniatures wargame, sure, but not for RPGs.

Greyhawk was basically the Service Pack 2 for D&D - it made it into a much better, more varied game

Like I said, before Greyhawk, D&D really wasn't it's own game, it was a fantasy supplement for Chainmail. Literally, given that you needed to own Chainmail in order to have rules to resolve combat.

Once a few supplements had been released, OD&D was't just fully functional, it was one of my favorites, rulewise.

It did have one major problem though, it was organized HORRIBLY. Really, reading through any of the OD&D books it seems that Gygax and Arneson just kind of randomly wrote whatever bits of rules happened to pop into their heads at the time. There doesn't seem to have even be the slightest hint of an attempt at organization.

That's why Swords & Wizardry is so nice. It's OD&D, except organized coherently. :D

chbgraphicarts wrote:
1st & 2nd Edition had rules upon rules upon rules for the damnedest things, but lacked rules where they needed it most

One of the reasons that, of the official D&D editions, my favorite is actually the Rules Cyclopedia. Of course, as I've said in the past, one of the great things about the pre-d20 editions is that they are so compatible with each other that you can lift anything out of any of the editions and put it into another editions without ANY conversion, and it WILL work as intended. It might not be exactly the same (ie, a BECMI ogre might have a different statblock than a 1E ogre), but the base systems are essentially the same, so it's perfectly useable.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
OD&D was rushed to print before competitors could print things, with Supplement 1: Greyhawk and Supplement 2: Blackmoor turning it into a fully-functioning game

OD&D was functional before the supplements, but it was VERY different from what we know now. It was essentially a supplement itself, as it required the use of Chainmail to resolve combat. Supplement 1 added the "alternate" combat rules, which became the base upon which all future editions were based. To the point where the fifth and final OD&D supplement, Swords & Spells, which was based on using Chainmail instead of the "alternate" rules, became all but forgotten.

5e really doesn't mechanically resemble any of the previous editions, but it has a general FEEL that come closer to that provided by the pre-d20 editions. Largely because, like those systems, it's intended to be a more fluid system, as opposed to overly codified approach taken in 3.x (and to a somewhat lesser extent, 4e).

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Consumers are uniformed:

Not all of them. Although I was in the US Air Force when I first became a customer of Paizo products.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that this thread would have gone better if it had been titled:

SHOULD Necromancy be inherently evil or not ?

the answer to that, by the way, is NO

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tuypo1 wrote:
im afraid i dont understand what retconing does a spellcaster do

Well of course I have [insert spell here] prepared! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)

Well of course I have a scroll of [insert spell here]! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)

Well of course I have a contingency active! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)

Well of course I keep my spellbook in a waterproof bag! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)

Etc, etc, etc.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If he was allowed the same leeway as a spellcaster (special ability - retcon, useable at will), he could just claim that of COURSE he was bathing fully dressed, armored, and equipped.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
There is an objective answer. You can play a game of Pathfinder without any fluff whatsoever and it will still be a game of Pathfinder.
I'm still curious what this game of Pathfinder with no fluff whatsoever looks like.

You obviously have to exclude races, classes, and monsters. I'm not really sure what's left.

To use a different metaphor than the one used upthread, the Pathfinder system is like then engine of a car, while the "fluff" is the rest of the car. You CAN run the engine alone, but it doesn't accomplish anything, and there's no point to it.

1 to 50 of 1,861 << 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.