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

Laurefindel's page

3,107 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
There is a special circle of hell for theater talkers.

... along with child molesters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarletrose wrote:
It's really weird to me this whole "RPGs are for girls too" argument.

Yes, I find it weird too, but it doesn't make the fact that RGPs are mostly associated with boys less true.

Especially at this age, girls are more likely to miss on an opportunity to learn about RPGs because this is a boy's club activity (and at this age, boys often play apart for girls and vice versa). The fact that most RPGs are "publicized" around killing monsters and stealing their treasure in order to become better at killing monsters may not attract your typical per-adolescent girl, despite the fact that RPGs have the potential to be much more than that that and equally please girls' interest (which I recognise as different from that of boys, if only as a construct of our society)

I don't want to go into gender stereotypes and whatnot, but it is unfortunate how girls and boys will miss on opportunities to discover new things that could define them as adult individual, simply based on how we presented to them.

Companies are making effort to make RPGs less repulsive to girls, but there is still lots to be done to capture their interest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shaun wrote:
Sounds like unbelievable fun! I've come to the realization that there are a lot of these small-publisher games that I can't understand the appeal of in the least.

People around here like to make fum of Rolemaster for some reason, with stories that have more to do with stupid GM than stupid rules. Iron Crown Enterprise wasn't exactly a small publisher either, not until the 90s anyways.

As for the rules of Rolemaster, people have no idea how d20 is the love-child of AD&D and Rolemaster combined. Monte Cook's influence perhaps, who used to work at ICE before going all Planescape at TSR and eventually (co)developing 3rd ed for WotC...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks to me that Pathfinder's strength is to give players a whole lot of options, and it seems to me that this is what many Pathfinder players find attractive. There's a certain beauty in systems that are kept clean, streamlined and simple, but Pathfinder's main attractiveness is in the complete toolbox that it provides, like a large collection of LEGO. Not all the parts need to be used in one creation, but they are there and available for further constructions.

As long as Pathfinder's new edition keep this philosophy, and I don't see why it wouldn't, I'm not afraid for their market niche and survival as a thriving RPG publishing company.

That being said, I do believe that some consolidation of rules, streamlining of the "core engine" and elimination of some redundant rules/concept are required at this point, maybe not as much as 5th ed D&D did, and perhaps not in the same direction but some nonetheless. I wouldn't expect a huge leap between what is essentially D&D 3.75 and Pathfinder 2nd ed, but A fresh start would be welcome from my part.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) The gods actually can't/aren't allowed to due to rules that are above them.

2) The gods ARE meddling and interfering; that's why there are clerics. For whatever reason, that's the best and most efficient way they found to influence the world.

3) The gods are less powerful that they'd like us to believe, and can't split their focus that much. Manifesting would mean thousands of clerics without power and that's would be really bad rep for business...

4) There are no such things as gods; only powerful individual (clerics), the believes and constructs of societies (religions) and a few benevolent/malevolent spirits than answer to divination spells. TIt's just a big mascarade and everyone powerful enough to know that agrees that it's better that way.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

from a purely campaign setting perspective, I think that in a world where arcane/divine magics are perfectly opaque with each other and with all spell-like abilities and most (all?) supernatural abilities across all known planes of existence, psionics ought to be opaque as well.

Under the default ruleset, arcane and divine could not be more transparent to each other if they tried. Protection, detection, and dispel mechanics work equally well from both sides. What do you see that's opaque? Differing spell lists alone do not define opacity.


The biggest divide between arcane and divine I can think of is prestige classes which advance arcane casting but not divine and vice versa. That also applies to psionics even under the default transparency (prestige classes which advance manifesting don't advance casting, and vice versa).
In fact, even under the default magic-psionic transparency, psionics is still more opaque with magic than arcane and divine magic are with each other, since psionic powers count as spell-like abilities. An arcane caster can counterspell a divine caster, but not a manifester.

yes, I meant transparent, my mistake, which is why I said psionics ought to be transparent as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
The "serious blow into a less serious one" relates to the massive damage rule. If you have 101 or less total HP, massive damage applies if you take 50+ damage in a single attack; if you take 50+ damage from any single attack, you must pass a fort save-or-die.

Like thejeff, I too believe that it relates to the fact that a hit dealing 20 hit points is a killing blow for a low level character, but only a good scratch for a high level adventurer. The fact that it has more hit points doesn't mean its skull got thicker or that its body contains a higher volume of blood, but that he has learn to turn a lethal blow in a less serious one (i.e. more hit points)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

from a purely campaign setting perspective, I think that in a world where arcane/divine magics are perfectly opaque with each other and with all spell-like abilities and most (all?) supernatural abilities across all known planes of existence, psionics ought to be opaque as well.

I think that if the game was less reliant on constant use of magic; it would work. Otherwise, a setting's believability relies so much on its inhabitant's ability to shield themselves from magic, protect their home with magic and dispel magic with magic that the prospect of having powerful psions wrecking havoc in the antimagic zones and whatnot frightens me. I guess i could make an interesting settings where psions double-up the mages and priests for protection against rogue psions, or where psions "traps" are set here and there create a climate of paranoia from the population etc. It would have to be a central theme to the game, but the ramifications of such a setting are daunting...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arthun wrote:
I am curious - what are the reasons a player has for wanting to play a low magic campaign?

there can be a few

1) Player is tired of the impression of magic-wins-all.
2) Player is tired of blinging-up like a magical Christmas-tree just to keep-up.
3) Player wants to play in a setting akin to (insert low-magic fantasy movie or book).
4) Player wants to have a feel that magic is rare and mystical.
5) Player likes d20/3e/Pathfinder but doesn't like that 50% of the game is about casting spells/receiving spells/saving against spells.

d20/3e/Pathfinder is magic-heavy. In order to function as intended, magic occupies a huge amount of the game. Magic isn't just a useful tool; not having magic is a huge handicap.

Please see this comment as an observation rather than a negative criticism. For most players, magic-heavy is fun. For others, the default level of reliance on magic is just too much. Yet d20 is very strong and flexible RPG engine, and one that most players know, so people want to "fix" it to fit their preferred style of play.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
The Shining Fool wrote:
I have way too often seen straight dudes playing female lesbian characters who spend the entire game trying to have sex with every female they come across.

Would it be better if we just played straight male characters who spend the entire game trying to have sex with every female we come across?

If "no", then cross-gendering isn't the problem, it's the player's sexuality level.

There are two issues at hand here:

1) player plays with themes not accepted around the table (sexuality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation)
2) player makes a ungrateful parody of cultural group (in this case gay/lesbian community)

The player's sexuality level is not the only problem; there's also a matter of respect for groups/genders/cultures that are different (although I agree that both are form of lack of respect).

A jerk will be a jerk, but it's worse when its animosity is targeted toward what's different than toward what the jerk really is. Blatant disrespect aside, I can tolerate better those who make a parody of themselves.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:


While, yes, point buy is there to mitigate injustice and make PCs relatively similar in ability, it gives them a sort of uniformity which is beginning to annoy me.

I am seriously considering of going back to the old system of roll 4d6, drop the lowest, 6 times than distribute as desired. Re-rolling all of them if the combined bonus of all the stats is +3 or less.

Any thoughts?

my prefered method is every player (even the DM) rolls 4d6, drop lowest. reroll stats under 7, write all arrays on a sheet of paper.

every player is then free to use any of the stats array rolled around the table and asign the stats in order they like. given a typical table of 4 players (+1 DM), there's usually one excellent array, one more spreaded out array for MAD classes, one array with one good stat and one terrible one etc. NPCs created by the DM uses these arays for that campaign too.

this way, players get the thrill or rolling, that player than can't roll a character to save his life still get a decent array, fairness among players is preserved and limited degrees of choice and control is allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Maybe I am old and cynical, but it seemed like we used to play a greater variety of games....

...until 3rd edition and the OGL, which was very successful as a universal system, to the point of almost obliterating everything else.

The last few years saw kind of a game system revival however, and good quality stuff too. I have hopes that people will start diversifying a bit more again.

[edit] however, people had more time to dedicate to games before. I don't care what people say, web 2.0 and wide, reliable mobile connections changed a lot in how/what people do with their free time.

[post-edit] Correction, people have just as much time for games, but entertainment being immediately available, less time is given to social games. AS everything must be optimised these days, specialisation is often preferable to generalisation.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Really, isn't a male witch called a Warlock? Does that not apply in pathfinder?

Sorcerer, hedge wizard, enchanter, warlock... all these are acceptable terms for a male witch. But in Pathfinder, all of these terms actually refer to a class except for warlock, which is why many have adopted "warlock" as the male appellation for witch. But since the name of a class is simply a packaging label for a set of abilities, the only name we need for the witch is "witch" IMO.

Daenar wrote:
Does anyone else find it odd to refer to a character as a gender specific class title?

Your character is not bound to call himself after his/her class. I played barbarians that weren't barbarians and monks that weren't monks but used the classes as building frames for characters concept.

I don't see any issue with your character calling himself a warlock, even if it says "witch" (or druid, or wizard, or sorcerer) under the class entry on the character sheet.

Otherwise I don't find it odd as "witch" perfectly describes the archetype represented by the class.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

Is this thread back?

Okay, one of the rules I find Absurd is actually a lack of a rule--people who cast Raise Thread don't get warnings/infractions/bannings like they do on other forums.

as far as I'm concerned, it's a feature, not a bug.

I like the fact that discussions can be picked up, and history of threads is preserved.

I do think some kind of warning sign could enhance the forum experience and prevent accidentally replying to a comment written 15 months ago however.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Invented the Thief class.

That would indeed put you in the "old timer" category!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That or rings would not necessarily belong to their wearer, as employer's would find it profitable to purchase rings of sustenance for their employees.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I kind of like the 240 copper to 20 silver to 1 gold rate. I find it "exotically immersing". Kind of like the "league" and the "yard", or the "mile" and the "foot" (no offense to my American friends, but money is pretty much the only metric system you've adopted. Imperial weight, volume and distance measures are just as arcane as the old imperial pound money system).

I do find it a bit sad that copper and silver exist in the game universe with so few actual use in game play. Adopting the 12 copper to 1 silver, 20 silver to 1 gold could - assuming that market prices are adjusted appropriately - increase the value of silver.

On the other, other hand, the relatively low value of gold allows for treasures with astonishingly large quantities of gold pieces, which is more satisfying than "this little pouch of gold coins is worth more than all your magic items combined!"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't the point of a reboot *not* to account the previous material as canon?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

[page jump]


acknowledging that different culture exists, that different ethnicities exist, and that each cultural group has a place of origin isn't racism. That's cultural diversity and that's a good thing.

Making a biased judgment based on that is racism.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
my tears are only held back by the knowledge that there are Whedon fans/abrams haters who are just as vexed by these pics as I am.

Let go of your hatred man. Hatred leads to suffering...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
He's (yoda) supposed to be a badass with the lightsaber...

Said who? All we knew about him was of a wheezed old master using a cane to walk.

I know it's all about the old kung-fu sensei showing he's still capable of punching you silly, but it was taken way to far for my suspension of disbelief (which is quite big when it comes to star wars). I wish I had seen advanced techniques of economy of movement, precision striking, absolute calm and control in the most stressful situation, force mastery... You know, old master stuff.

Instead he was all over the place like a bouncing ball; showy youngster stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I *liked* the Star Trek reboot.

I understand how movies taken too far away from their source material can be a let down (gods know how I dislike P.J. Lord of the Rings trilogy), but J.J. Abraham's are good movies in their own right.

Star Wars episode I-III are bad all around, even for (the rare) people who are not familiar with the source material. So much ruined potential; it makes me weeps.

This featurette showed us a Star Wars alien who looks like he coming right out of Jim Benson's studio, as opposed to a CGIed clown. For me this is a win.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Very good, but I think I preferred Tangled.

Really. I thought that by focusing on sororal love rather then the traditional "romantic" love, they take the story in new and interesting directions.

I really love how the film was "feminist" without diminishing men. :)

Agreed on both accounts, but still preferred the rhythm and flow of Tangled. Personally, I found Olaf a bit too much Jar-Jar-ey, but I know he made the movie for boy.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Lego minifigures, and Lego in general.

OMG, THIS, off course. How could I ever forget about that...

4 people marked this as a favorite.

poker chips, glass beads, and/or regular gaming (or tarot) cards usually find their ways in my games.

gummy bears make good goblin miniatures replacement, and players get to eat what they kill...

A gutted out computer and other electronic devices make good combat-grid/map accessories for futuristic games.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pace has also changed a lot. For homebrewed games anyhow; never played published adventure back then (expect for a bit of the WFRP imperial campaign), so I'm not sure about that.

In my parent's basement, with the same small circle of friends and few contacts with other gamers, games tended to drag a lot more (now combats drags with higher complexity, but that's a different type of drag).

Entire sessions were dedicated to shopping, making plans, exploring wilderness, combing trough ruins (not too fast because of traps), grinding through random encounters etc, without achieving much. Yet we found it fun. I wonder if could go back.

Characters in AD&D took years to level-up. REAL years, not in-game years. Not something I would go back to but it did bring a sense of achievement that newer games don't quite equal.

Ditto with wealth and magic items. Any regular and legit WBL character would have been called "Monty Hall!" foul.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Funny anecdote

I was introduced to LARP before TTRPGs. So when my friend's brother introduced us to RPGs (Rolemaster in our case), it was described to us as "like a LARP, but we're sitting around a table imagining things".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

What I was wondering was how far you could see different terrain features, such as forests, mountains, lakes, etc.

Not as far as I'd hoped. Terrain 500+ miles away isnt visiable.

The 21.2 miles calculation assumes you're looking at something on the horizon. Hills and mountains rising far above the horizon will be visible from further away.

A mountain in the 6000 - 7000 feet range could be seen 100 miles+ away from sea level, and more from 300 feet above.

500 miles seems a bit much 'tough

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Refreshing a houserule I posted before, so here it is in point form because long posts are too long.

“These blast points... too accurate for Sand People. Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise" -Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars Episode IV

So why do they keep missing the heroes then? Because heroes have plot immunity off course; they won’t get hurt unless the story calls for it, regardless how good their enemies are. This houserule attempts to re-fluff hit points as a finite resource of plot immunity rather than a measure of how physically tough character and monsters are.

This houserule has two main goals:

First: “humanize” high level characters who can otherwise withstand superhuman levels of damage, sometimes to the point of breaking suspension of disbelief.

Second: remove the reliance on magical healing in a typical D&D/Pathfinder game.

enough presentation: Plot-Immunity Points

  • Rename “hit points” with “plot-immunity points” (pips for short). Pips function exactly as hp except that you spend pips to avoid getting seriously injured rather than losing health to enemies’ blows. Same difference really. Pips represent tiring parries, narrow escapes, minor injuries, favourable environment, dumb luck and other “close calls”.

  • When you’re out of pips, you get disabled (if at 0 pips), dying (if below 0 pips) or just plain dead (if current pips < than negative CON), as in RaW. Dying rules apply as RaW.

  • Calculate your 50% pips mark (rounded down). That’s your weary threshold. Mark it somewhere convenient. When your pips drop below this mark, you’re weary. This has no mechanical effect other than you being able to complain to your cleric that you feel weak.

  • Lost pips are not injuries; they regenerate quickly. You gain your weary threshold in pips with a 15 minute rest. Good night sleep restores you to full pips. Cure spells and magical healing restore pips as if they were hp. Poisons and other secondary effects (such as disease, bleed, ability damage etc.) affect a character normally even if pips suggest that no serious injury has occurred (scratches can prove more problematic than expected).

  • There’s a new condition in the game: wounded. You acquire this condition upon receiving a critical hit, failing a saving throw causing damage or running out of pips. Nonlethal damage never cause a character to become wounded.

  • When you’re wounded, you CAN’T regenerate past your weary threshold. You don’t need to adjust your pips if your current total is still above the weary threshold, but you still cannot regenerate past this mark with rest or sleep.

  • If the character is conscious, a successful Heal (long-term care) check removes the wounded condition after 8 hours of treatment. The character can henceforth rest for 15 minutes to regenerate its weary threshold, or sleep another 8 hours to be restored to full pips.

  • If the character is dying, it MUST be brought back to consciousness (positive pips) with a successful Heal (treat deadly wounds) check before long term care can be attempted. A seriously injured character may take several days to treat as per Heal skill rules.

  • A cure, heal, regeneration or similar spell always removes the wounded condition (but spells or effects granting temporary hp do not), in addition to their usual effects.

  • Other than that, things function pretty much as RaW


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Never read much of the comics, but I've grown fond of the Marvel movies Captain America, and would probably model him if I had to play a paladin.

    Personally, I find that the essence of the paladin is more about honour and ethics than about religious devotion.

    So I stand diametrically from Umbriere: I'd keep the LG + code thing and toss the whole "pray to a god" thing. Make the paladin's association to a church as mechanically loose and fluff-related as the monk.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    But they were right. Languages do change. They always will.

    That's true, and English is an easy language to adapt and play with.

    But semantics are being tested every day in every domain. It's often resisted at first, and time tell us if it becomes accepted or not.

    I'm curious to see whether toon will become universally accepted in TTRPG in general, or in some circles, or about one type of game/system, or about a certain type of players, or rejected altogether.

    For me it comes with too much baggage, and it seems to be true with a majority of forum users here. Many will see 'toon' with a rather negative connotation or too strong a connection with MMORPGs, which is only reinforced by what you can read on sites like Urban Dictionary or TV tropes. So until users manage to clear 'toon' of that baggage and connotation, I don't believe it's going to make it beyond " a term that some people used in the early twenty-teens".

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Shake Spear wrote:
    Yes, but the spotlight should focus on the drama, but the drama shouldn't focus on the spotlight.

    Which tends to work best when the drama is scripted and directed. RPG is a strange beast when compared to theatre on the stage.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Manimal wrote:
    Hey, bbt, if I came up to a group and asked them if they could help me flesh out a concept for my latest "toon," then proceeded to make it clear that I was talking about a PC, and a member of that group said, "Gee, I was going to help you until you used the term 'toon,'" how should I interpret their reaction?

    I'd interpret it as a mixture of...

    1) they're being rude and/or snob; find some friendlier gamers.

    2) the term offends them and they think you're being rude to them - for legitimate or imagined reasons - enough to turn you down as a fellow gamer.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Dialogues intelligently written...
    Coherent plot not contradicting nor invalidating the previous movie(s) of the same franchise...
    Action scenes not overdone nor totaling for 80% of the movie...
    Impressive amount of destruction without leveling yet another city of the US...
    Humour without ridicule comic relief character...

    There may still be hope for Hollywood productions yet.

    (but as a proud Quebecois, I'm sad to affirm that George St-Pierre hasn't exactly the most convincing acting skills...)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I actually like the Summoner class a lot.
    But as a DM, a summoner in the group means I'm gonna have to be extra careful about certain things - more than with any other character class - and that can be tiresome.

    1- Eilodon rules require that you master the rules rather well. Most abusive eilodon builds I see on these boards happen because of extrapolated or misread rules. As a DM I must know my stuff, but it annoys me to play the administrative lawyer.

    2- Summoner is bit of a spotlight hogger. That is also true with most summoning-oriented or pet characters like the druid or conjurer, but that's especially problematic with the summoner because he has few tools to do anything else.

    3- Summoner has a lot of disposable/expandable resources, meaning that it can take a lot more risks than most without real repercussions.

    With the right player, the summoner can be a lot of fun but it suffers from the "but imagine if it falls in the wrong hands!" syndrome, and that turns many players/DMs off.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rynjin wrote:

    TTRPGs are not the only kind of RPG.

    Just because it hasn't fully penetrated the bubble yet doesn't mean it's not a usable term.

    It's not a "style of play" issue in the slightest, it is merely a different term for PC.

    True, but failing to take origins into account may end-up insulting people. Toon make sense as an animated, colorful MMO character, 'casue that's what a toon is.

    I don't think people would have such a problem with "toon" if it didn't refer to something goofy, often clown-ish and cartoonesque; Not all players take their hobby with the same level of "aloofness".

    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Manimal wrote:

    If I used the term "Toon" rather than PC, what would you say? What arguments would you use for or against it?



    As far as I'm concerned, "Toon" has a pejorative baggage when applied to Table Top RPG. It ain't that insulting nor discriminating, nor do I buy into the "tabletop RPG is superior to MMO or computer RPG"; it just isn't a term I deem appropriate, and one that doesn't sound very "serious" (as serious a hobby can be).

    Let's just say I would quickly loose interest in a conversation using Toon instead of character, or PC. Don't have much argument other than "please use the right lingo for the right context".

    For the records, while I dislike Toon, I find Murderhobo much more insulting and revolting. What people do with their characters ain't my business, but it doesn't need become the definition of what my character is (or any character must be).


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Matt Thomason wrote:

    For me, it's a case of wanting a world that's "like ours, plus extra stuff". (snip)

    My preferred reality is "cinematic realism" - people can get away with edge cases more often than they really ought to be able to due to uncanny luck "because that outcome makes a better story."

    Same here.

    I want a game supporting a world (including its inhabitants) with which I can relate to a minimum. I'm not all for realism but I refute the "but dragons!" and "PCs are gods amongs men" arguments as default and sole assuption, without being told "shut-up and play E6!" (although I'm willing to let go of level 16-20). I'm grateful that the game can do mundane easlily and that most magic/supernatural is more or less equivalent to good tech, so that pruning is realatively easy when necesary.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Matt Thomason wrote:
    I think if we take Stormwind at it's spirit, that the ability to RP/Optimize doesn't affect your ability to do the other, then there's no issues with it.

    That I can agree with

    It's mostly the assesment that one has absolutely no impact on the other that I refute (unless you get a very felxible definition of either RP or optimisation)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    RP also includes character development. This include, among other things, choice of skills, feats etc.

    The Stormwind Fallacy is true insofar as one (RP vs. Optimisation) does not necesarily prevent the other, but they can also conflict with each other. The only way around this is to allow optimisation to consider the chosen concept, and work with those basic premices.

    So the character is sickly and has 6 CON; take that as initial concept and optimise that 6 CON character.

    Still, optimisation usually involves planning ahead, sometimes several levels in advance. RP may take your character places you wouldn't have guess at character creation. Therfore for the Stormwind Fallacy to be true, optimisation must accept that charater can evolve in non-linear ways. Again, there's a way to optimise that, even if the charcter isn't overall optimal.

    TL;DR: The Stormind Fallacy is true or false depending on your definition of optimisation.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    chaoseffect wrote:
    Laurefindel wrote:
    Rynjin wrote:
    blue_the_wolf wrote:

    The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.

    New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.

    Why? Who does that help?
    Justify the existence of crossbowmen?
    I doubt it. It's not like you really need a ton of AC as an archer anyway.

    True, which means it wouldn't hurt archers much then. Regardless of who it wouldn't hurt, the question remains: "who would it help?"

    Versimilitude to real-life experience perhaps, or to closer simulation of historical combat... I agree that it wouldn't add much to the game.

    (but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    No matter how well balanced or crafted, 40 pounds of steel is going to slow you down quite a bit.
    Not if you've been training for it.

    Protective gear usually is a handicap at pretty much everything you do, except for not-bleeding. Can't speak about modern military, but I know that Hockey players are better/faster/stronger without all their equipment. Off course they wouldn't last one good check...

    I know for sure I'm better at everything I do without my suppostedly top-of-line harness when working in heights, but I guess I'll be thankful for all those lost minutes worth of lost efficiency when I do fall and live to tell the tale.

    But beyond the penalties it already gives, I doubt that making armours even more restrictive would add anything to the game.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    yellowdingo wrote:
    Ash ketchum is a bum. Having finaly gone home to pallet town (which amounts to a cluster of five small farms and professor oaks lab) he hands his mother a bag of dirty laundry, Stays overnight, and is now off to a new region...

    No worse than most college students I knew...

    [edit] Did he also ask for money and ready-made food for the weekend? Because if not, then he's actually better than most college students I knew...

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dazylar wrote:
    Right, back to the Lego Movie: if they decide to put the sequel in specific parts of the Lego franchise (which I think they should)...

    The Lego Movie 2 was announced a few days before the Lego Movie 1 opening weekend.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Second viewing, in English Original Version this time...

    A few fun observations, spoilered for ending scene...


    The Think Tank where Lord Business keep the master builders prisoners, can be seen in the Real Life basement as father's minifig collection on the wall (each on its little shelf, neatly organized in rows and columns). This somewhat explains why all the master-builders featured in the movie (with the exception of Wyldstyle and Vitruvius) is a recognizable character (such as the green ninja, wonder woman or Shakespeare) instead of generic Lego minifigs.

    The wreckage of Cuckoo cloud island is briefly seen in the boy's own Lego collection (the small bucket next to the family's Christmas decoration).

    I'm sure there are many more I didn't catch.

    Any other fun "catch" you've seen?

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
    I loved the Rocketman master builder. Guy was a kick.

    spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!!!!

    After a few weeks of reviews, it looks like Spaceship Benny and Unikitty are the two most acclaimed characters of the movie.

    about Unikitty, not much of a movie spoiler:
    I mean a cute unicorn-kitten with anger management issues living in a wacky land of mismatched constructions like what we build when we're 5 years old? I call it a weapon of mass seduction.

    For my girl, this was love at first sight. I got her the Cookooland Palace Lego kit for her birthday and she's been playing with, dismantling, re-building her Unikitty figurine ever since.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    "movies made for little kids" are, IMO, some of the best movies all-around in many aspects.

    On my top 20 of all movies ever, I'm sure 50% would be "movies made for little kids".

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    The Crusader wrote:
    "Freedom" always enters the discussion at some point. Chaotic characters value freedom, for themselves, for others, for everyone.

    Agreed, free-form might be a better word than freedom

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Jeven wrote:

    What alignment is a revolutionary who leads an insurrection to overthrow an existing Lawful government to replace it with an even more ordered, but different type of authoritarian government?

    As I understand Ross's OP, the revolutionary can be of any alignment, and all alignment makes him/her just as likely a revolutionary.

    Only, the Lawful revolutionary will make use of planning, strategies involving cohesive units, use rigorous tactics, might impose discipline withing his revolutionary troops etc. His goal will more likely be to build/install another regime rather than simply overthrow the previous one, and his motivations to do so will be more a result of his Good/Evil axis than Law/Chaos.

    I'm interpreting the OP here, but "Law is not Legal" means that being lawful is not about your relationship with who is in charge, not about obedience or refusal. Obedience might be a lawful trait, but it doesn't make lawful = obedience.

    [edit] ninja'd by Ross

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    Hmmm. They're not selling me on it. (...) Why should I care about any of these people: an egotistical petty con-man and thief, a psycho, an assassin, a car thief and his muscle? Right now, I'm on the side of the cops. Keep these guys locked up.

    Interesting, the trailer works for me because I can't see why I should care for these guys, and I certainly hope (even though I know I shouldn't) that further previews will not spoil more of the currently delectably obscure purpose of this movie.

    But I know it's marvel. I know it's produced by Disney. I know it's an American film. I can thrust the good guys to be the good guys, and I'm certainly happy not to know why for once.

    [edit] ...and because raccoon with an assault riffle...


    1 to 50 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 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.