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

Kullen's page

135 posts. Alias of Kirth Gersen.


1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
As my personal rule, I do not vote for anyone running unopposed.

Like Hillary, for example?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ClingClong wrote:
I would point out as evidence of this countless men who killed and died on war fields in the name of imaginary beings.

Which, when you describe it that way, makes it seems very pointless and silly, doesn't it?

ClingClong wrote:
Now that we got that laid out let's scale down and bring it back to game level. The "fluff" is not fluff at all. It is the material with which the fabric of Golarion's reality is made.

Wait... you just lost me. People adhering maniacally to imaginary stuff leads them to pointlessly die IRL, so we should encourage and, indeed, enforce it in a game, too?

Hopefully that's not where you were headed. I'll try and develop the courage to read paragraphs 75-116 of your post and see if I'm misunderstanding.

Gark the Goblin wrote:
Here's a good essay that sums up the fallacies in the Tragedy of the Commons.

Well, sure, it's not like fisheries are collapsing or anything...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame video games!

Aberzombie wrote:

Parker said: "It has changed everything about who I thought I was."

Parker is a twit.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Why does every race/class combination need to be equally viable?or even viable at all?

Do you play a lot of Commoners?

bugleyman wrote:


College-educated America

We don't need no book learnin'! We came up by the school of hard knocks (and pretend like that ain't such a tired cliche that it should have gone into the dustbin years ago)!

I reckon the only book we need is this here Good Book, and we need common sense a lot more than book sense!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.

In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!

Rednal wrote:
they want to know about financial conflicts of interest, see proof somebody can manage their money well, and so on.

We already KNOW that Trump can't manage money to save his life, to the point where additional proof of that is sort of not needed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's my rule. Does the writer sound like a pretentious d-bag using words like "boni" or "whilst"? Then it's OK to make fun of them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait... is the OP really saying "The game is totally unbalanced, but any problems that causes are the players' fault for not being sufficiently unaware of the problems"?

The Dutch should never repair dikes and levees. They should just tell people that walking and swimming are the same thing, so the problem will go away. It's all just dryness envy, after all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
Sounds like a jerk.

Boo hoo.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Plus there are times when people post things that they think are funny, but in turn simply distract from the topic at hand.
Yeah, I've been trying to be better about that.

If by "better about it" you mean "do it more often," then so have I!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiiador wrote:
The d20pfsrd doesn't really factor into this, as it has nothing to do with being official.

We're talking about a game. Or, more accurately, a second- or third-generation knockoff of a game. It's hard to take words like "official" seriously, in that context.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hulk Hogan having sex IS newsworthy, because it means he somehow found a way to circumvent at least one well-known side effect of all those steroids he spent all those years abusing...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SunstonePhoenix wrote:
I've always been creative.

And modest, too, huh?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator -> ridiculous, destroys immersion.
Guy survives a nuclear blast by reaching into a bagful of bat guano and speaking in fake Latin -> totally realistic, builds immersion.

Except the second example is even sillier than the first one.

hiiamtom wrote:
There are literally every single cryptozoological creature in existence in the base setting

Meaning none?

Because Bigfoot is not really in existence. That's what it's cryptozooligical instead of just zoological.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
I know your miles may vary but I am seeing a lot of wrong reasons to like a certain type of character.

You failed the "fact or opinion" quiz in 2nd grade, didn't you?

I can decide I like Commoners the best. I don't even NEED a reason for that at all -- much less the "right" reason.

Guru-Meditation wrote:
Is it so hard to understand?

Disagree =/= fail to understand. Again, my quibble is with elevating "look at other stuff as sort of a list of loose guidelines that may or may not apply, then pick a number" to the status of a "rule."

That's not what I'd consider a set of rules. It's barely a rule of thumb.

In traffic, the rule is to stop at a red light. Not "compare what the other people are doing and then decide if it's OK to ignore the light, or maybe follow it, or maybe modify it." There are then additional rules to determine if it's OK to turn right on red, after having stopped; these may vary by state or even by light, but not by the driver's opinion.

I can only suggest that if "pick a number out of the air" constitutes a "rule" to you, then our definition of "rule" differs rather dramatically.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I... even my sarcasm limit has been exceeded.
I am now a convert to Last Thursdayism.

"Icing Death?" Does it inflict diabetes on a crit, due to sugar overlaod?
"Twinkle?" Does it force people you're fighting to save or die laughing?

How can anyone take this crap seriously?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Elf wrote:
I realize my wizard has spent most of her life learning magic, but couldn't she have picked up a few other things along the way?

You realize that the wizard has 2 + Int bonus skill points/level, right? And that wizards can't cast spells unless their Int is high enough? So, at the end of the day, they end up with more skill points than rogues? And that you don't need to spend skill points on Concentration anymore, because in PF you get it for free?

Dire Elf wrote:
What has my elf been doing for all those years if all she can cast are 1st-level spells, and she doesn't know how to ride a horse or treat a wound?

If you want to ride a horse, take the Ride skill. If you want to treat a wound, take the Heal skill. Cross-class ranks don't even cost double anymore, so there's very little advantage to having something as a class skill. Pathfinder is pretty much set up so that wizards are more skilled at more things than anyone else. Also, starting at middle-aged in order to cheese extra Int is considered poor form, and most DMs with half a brain will nix it.

Dire Elf wrote:
Even the kids in Harry Potter learned a bit about the world they live in

At 1st level, assuming Int 17, you have 5 skills. Take Ride and Heal. Take Spellcraft if you want. Take Fly in case you find a magic broom. And you still have one left over. Harry Potter would be envious.

And all that ignores the fact that PF wizards would be fine with no skills at all, because that their low-level spells are, for the most part, 1,000x better than any skill (hint: compare Climb and spider climb).

And, despite all that, you still want MORE skill points for them?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In other words, "There are no problems in the rules because the DM should fix all the problems with the rules." Oberoni writ large.

Oh, dear Loki, no, don't fix problematic spells in the rules to make them less problematic; then beginning DMs would still be able to run a working game, and we just can't have that! There goes the neighborhood! Only a seasoned DM's so-called "common sense" can know exactly how to ameliorate problems in a consistent and predictable manner, and it's very important not to share any of that insight in the rulebook, or -- heaven help us -- incorporate it directly into the spell descriptions.

Also, we mustn't let the PCs ever learn how things work in the game world. That would ruin the funhouse-on-acid atmosphere we're trying so hard to maintain, in which there really is no cause-and-effect to anything.

...Please excuse me while I recover from a coughing fit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Well, it wasn't for a political jab although this certainly has a feeling of the same tired "must be doing things in X way" that I've come to class together with political correctness.

That's exactly how it read to me as well, so it's not just KnD. I get tired and sad when the "enlightened" people constantly go out of their way to prove they're equally as authoritarian as the "reactionary" people.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Kullen wrote:

So, wait, I'm trying to understand something.

How does one square the "racist characters bad!" sentiment in this thread -- that goes far beyond the article the OP cited -- with "Ooh! A goblin tribe! Let's slaughter them and steal their stuff!"?

Those of us who don't do the latter have no need to square it with the former.

Or has the International Tribune of the One Right and True Way to Game...
Says the guy who presents the slaughter of goblins as something so universal to the gaming experience that surely he's now caught all these anti-racists red-handed in their hypocrisy?

I'm well aware that adventures like "Against the Giants" and so on are no longer universal; I just hadn't realized that they're no longer even permissible.

I'm trying to point out that, if slaughtering goblins has been abandoned in favor of some kind of Carebear kumbayah in which we're all best friends, we should be cognizant that we've left the game's foundations totally behind.

Let me be clear that there's nothing wrong with abandoning old stuff -- I sure as hell don't miss the "weapon vs. armor type" tables, either, and I'm fine with "elf" not being a class.

But as someone who grew up with The Keep on the Borderlands, it's hard to accept that not only is there no place for modules of that type anymore, but that I'm now considered to be an objectively bad person to have ever enjoyed playing it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
I never ate peanut butter nor maple syrup.

Peanut butter is a vile substance. Imagine Nutella, except a lot worse. Only a nation of people who think that Bud Lite is beer would willingly ingest something like that.

So, wait, I'm trying to understand something.

How does one square the "racist characters bad!" sentiment in this thread -- that goes far beyond the article the OP cited -- with "Ooh! A goblin tribe! Let's slaughter them and steal their stuff!"?

Or has the International Tribune of the One Right and True Way to Game condemned things like Keep on the Borderlands and Against the Giants? Also Tolkien, for making elves and dwarves not get along (with two notable examples)?

We should burning Gygax in effigy, the racist bastard! And Tolkien! DOWN WITH TOLKIEN! DOWN WITH GYGAX! DOWN WITH D&D!

Neal Litherland wrote:
The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.

I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

29 people marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:
The 5 RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing?

Stop having fun wrong!

Yes, anything but admit the fact that you're wrong. Stall! Stonewall! Demand sources! Then stall some more!

Person 1: "No, elephants and mice are not the same size. Just look at them!"
Answer: "Well, a month-old fetal elephant still in utero might be smaller than a full-grown mouse!"
Person 2: "Look at mean adult size."
Answer: "There is no definitive mean for elephant sizes! And looking at them doesn't count!"

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shroud wrote:
I have never seen this martial / caster disparity in any game I have ever participated in. Vanilla fighters remain a popular choice in our games and we generally have one in every campaign because a straight-up fighter is a fantastic option and in 90% of our encounters ends up the MVP. You do not need magic or gimmicks to have a fun game. What you need are players that cooperate and are interested in playing a ROLE-PLAYING GAME instead of just rolling dice for damage.

I have never had AIDS. You do not need retroviral drugs to have a healthy life. What you need are people that cooperate and are interested in DENYING THE PROBLEM, because if it doesn't affect them directly, why should they care about it, amiright?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Apropos to the discussion.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Really, if you're going to bank on the trustworthiness of paladins, you need a way to know the paladin is who he says he is. Much like the summoner and his eidolon are marked with a rune that can't be hidden. And it should be something that can't be faked.

You need an Arisian Lens! Good job, messageboards -- we finally caught up with 1950!

captain yesterday wrote:
Nope, properly rated. a 1 out of 10, by me!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You're out of your element! -- When do we bowl?"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If your wizard character doesn't wear a pointy hat and have a robe with stars on it, you're playing wrong!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
It's not "limiting their effectiveness" so much as it's saying "this doesn't happen in a vacuum; what are the consequences?" At least that's how it looks to me.

Kind of like casting create water!

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Casting create water might offend the elemental fire gods, causing them to send fire elementals to punish the offender. Every time you cast create water, roll 1d6. If the result is 1-3, the DM causes the fire gods to be angered, and an elemental swarm spell (fire elementals) is manifested in the area, with all of the elementals targeting the caster.

That's totally within the rules and is obviously a logical consequence of your actions. Much as casting simulacrum or summon monster automatically makes you a slaver, probably changes your alignment to evil, and summons hordes of pitchfork-wielders to do you in (I can only assume they have levels in the Angry Mobster PrC, to make them a credible threat). It has nothing to do with stealth-nerfing casters by DM fiat.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Don't keep harping about liches and hags, it's getting too sodding old.

Ah, "that argument is inconvenient for me, so please stop using it."

KingOfAnything wrote:
An interesting development in the study of male/female brain structures

I question the objectivity of a "science writer" who produces pieces with titles like (I am not making this up) "Scientists examine why men even exist."

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:
I also find it VERY OFFENSIVE of you, MichaelCullen, to even vaguely suggest...

oh noes! And now I say I am VERY OFFENDED by you being offended, and so on...

Charlie Hebdo pretty much convinced the world that "I'm offended!" is no longer a viable argument among civilized people.
If you want to convince people, back your argument with logic, not drama.

Vanthus is definitely one serious prick.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One day TOZ will read a book that doesn't have any pictures in it ;P

thejeff wrote:
Honestly, most of the Vance I've read is the same way.

Yeah, I don't know you, either!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Choosing height and weight is a symptom of rampant player entitlement. You can't let those special snowflake players choose stuff like that, or they always end up with something totally inappropriate to your campaign world, and will destroy the game that you worked so hard to create for them. Why do they need to run a tall person when tall people obviously do not exist in your setting? Not only is it totally unrealistic, it ruins the storyline you want to run about them being rejected by all the girls because of their lack of height -- this is important because the angstyness of your setting demands it.

And besides, if you let them just CHOOSE stuff like height, you have to allow them to choose everything, like race -- so allowing them to pick height and weight inevitably results in a kitchen sink campaign full of cybernetic half-dragon catgirl space marines. That might be fine for some people, but I refuse to run something like that and I value my setting far too highly to allow it.

So when I have a player who rudely shows up with something like 6'7" written on their character sheet, I calmly but firmly explain that they're free to pick any height between 5'9" and 6'1" (the campaign restriction range), and if they don't like that, they know where the door is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm fond of Second American Revolution, myself.

I'm fond of Second Breakfast, myself.

Jacob Saltband wrote:
What I dont understand is why do 'you' care if some likes to play a rogue? If the group is having fun, how does that effect 'you' who are not even in the group/state/counrty?

What do 'you' care if my little cousin gets traded from his Pee Wee Little League team to your favorite major league baseball team, to pitch in the World Series? If your favorite player is the catcher, he's still catching, so it shouldn't matter at all who's pitching, right?

The fact that it's a team game is exactly why people care that the rogue is presented as being equal to a bard or investigator, but is actually worse at everything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yronimos wrote:
"...she just kicks ass!"

For real! I mean, look at that stupid "d'Artagnan" character. Got nothing going for him except being a swordsman. What does he do when Dumas the DM gives him a social encounter? He challenges the NPC to a duel. So Dumas tries again, and he does it again. And Dumas tries again and he does it again! Stupid player never got the hint! And to think the campaign went on for like five volumes!

1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.