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

Laurefindel's page

3,227 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also Goldorak (Grendizer)

Cheesy as hell and probably pretty bad by modern standards, but I remember it being one of my favourites at a young age...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

- Ulysses 31
- Les Mysterieuses Cites d'Or (Mysterious Cities of Gold)
- Albator (Captain Harlock)
- Captain Flam (no idea how good this really was, but it left a strong impression on me as a kid)

If long features are allowed:

- The Flight of Dragons
- The Last Unicorn
- Les Maitres du Temps (Masters of Time or Time Masters?)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I may be old school, but I though it was the DM's job to be the arbitrator. A game is always gonna be tailored for its players, and that implies arbitrary decisions.

Whether the DM is a dick or not is another question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Much of my friends' suggestions and critiques have been made into the final edition.

I'm not saying that my friends are the sole responsible of the final product, just that some people do have the impression that their input was taken into account.


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

David, stating your opinion is one thing, trolling is another... please cut it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Didn't follow 4th ed much, but there was a line called D&D Essentials IIRC that attempted to appeal to lovers of 1st ed D&D, mostly through presentation and aesthetics from what I've gathered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of what I think of the lightsaber (or light-longsword), I've got to admire the fact that they got everyone talking about it. Same with that bowling droid; whoever made this teaser gave us enough material to talk in every forum of discussion that exist on the internetz.

So despite the histrionics, this teaser (and the lightsaber) is a true masterpiece!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one enjoy the strip-down-ness of 5e. 3ed/Pathfinder was/is getting so darn heavy that it ceased to become stronger system and started to collapse under it's own weight.

Mind you, 5e is bound to suffer from the same fate; after years of new feats, new backgrounds and new path/subclasses, character creation and class optimisation will get heavier. But the fact that you get one choice of background, one choice of subclasses and four feats (five if human) over your 20 levels (assuming the feat optional rule is used), paired with the bound accuracy concept ensuring that you don't need to hoard +1s to get to your DC40 checks, should keep things under some degrees of control a bit longer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The caster can move away from melee and cast. Only, he'll have to accept the opportunity attack (or whatever it is called).

The fact that casters can't go in and out of combat with impunity is not a bad thing IMO even if it changes the paradigm a bit.

I don't know all the spells yet, but I'm sure there are spells that boost movement and/or allow you to levitate/fly/teleport out of range and/or slow your opponent and/or protects you enough for you to last in melee and/or spells that are cast as a bonus action after you disengage.

These are not available at low level, but even casters are able to fend off enemies in melee at low levels.

As for the rest, I'm sure a 5ed group without a martial character is still less screwed than a 3ed/Pathfinder group without a caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Wizards kept it for themselves;
Except that it is also available to: the Inquisitor; the Alchemist; the Bloodrager; the Magus; and anyone with the Luck or Destruction domain...

that's because Wizards and Magi are under the same syndicated union. Inquisitors blackmailed them so they had to let it go. Wizards had had an eye on the witches for a while, but they never saw the alchemist coming. Lack of clear vision really, they should have had.

Bloodragers, well, who's gonna tell them they can't have true strike? Clerics with Luck domain acquired it as a misplace item in a wizard's garage sale, a stroke of chance you might say.

That leaves Clerics with the Destruction domain. CLearly these guys are OP and should be removed from the book!

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
A Low Magic campaign is when the Players and GM look at the levels of magic presence in the default Pathfinder rules, think "too much", and try to turn it down a notch.

Indeed, it does not have to be more than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
tony gent wrote:
Laurefindel has hit the nail on the head there is plenty of magic in lord of the rings it's just much more subtle than the normal gamers version which is a fireball in the face
Except for the part where Gandalf casts fire seeds. That's pretty overt.

Gandalf casts a bunch of spells, including overtly offensive ones (especially in The Hobbit) and makes a powerful display of magic in LotR against the Wargs before attempting the pass of the Caradhras and entering Moria (and also on Weathertop, although it happens "offscreen"). It could be argued that Gandalf is capable of more "overt" magic but restrained himself not to write "Gandalf is here" in big letters in the sky for Sauron to see. Gandlaf is undeniably a power and one of the most "flashy" magic-user in Middle Earth.

But characters like Gandalf don't make or unmake a low-magic setting. He is part of the setting and representative of the fact that in this setting, there are many magical elements sprinkled here and there, some powerful, some less, some overt, some covert, but he is not representative of what the inhabitants of this setting are or can aspire to be. Even if we say that Gandalf is what a player character (as an extraordinary inhabitant of the setting) can aspire to be as the pinnacle of spellcasting, it remains relatively tame compared to a typical D&D/Pathfinder game. That's enough to say "low-magic" for me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

There's more to the LotR low-magic-ness than failing to teleport the ring to the Cracks of Doom.

There's the ringraiths taking months, if not years to find Baggin's home (or the Shire for that matter).

There's Gandalf failing to fly-out/jump-out/dim door out of Saruman's tower.

There's Radaghast having to search into the wild for Gandalf (and given that he eventually did implies that there is some magic involved, just no scry or message spell).

There's Gandalf relying on a busy innkeeper to relay a message of utmost importance.

There's Gandalf wishing for warmer socks, which any prestidigitation spell would fix.

And there are many more. But there's undeniably magic in LotR. Lots of it too, but it has a lower tone, more subtle uses and less far reaching scope. It's not used as much as a tool or yet-another-app on your i-phone. LotR is one example of low-magic, but not the only one.

Low magic is not about removing magic from the game, it's about reducing its scope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I admit my experience is anecdotal at best, much of "calibrating" a low-magic game is done by choosing the player's opponents wisely.

The quickest element to "break" in a low-magic game is the CR of monsters, which does not always consider some of their abilities that would otherwise be easily circumvented with magic (like flying, high DR, etc). A certain balance can be kept by judiciously choosing adversaries.

In my case that was not a problem, because one of the reasons I went for Low-magic was to be able to use "basic monsters" longer. With AC remaining somewhat stable, your orcs are still going to be a threat even if the players are now much more efficient to kill them and withstand their attacks.

When a giant shows up, the players know better than to face it in melee without some kind of strategy. When the wivern attacks, they know they'll have to play it defensively and ready attacks until it comes within reach.

The magic that do exist is much more fearsome because saves are that much lower. In low magic, you need to assume that spells affect their target in general, but sometimes target make their save (rather than the other way around).

In most cases, the solution to the problems raised by low-magic exist within the system, except they are not often used because they are seen as sub-optimal. Only in a low-magic game will you see a ranger wear full plate for a battle because the boost to AC is worth the non-proficiency penalty and the loss of features...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
But since both PF and IH are D20, what do you need from PF to run a D20 low magic game?

That's a legitimate question. Iron Hero is a good product.

People like familiarity. Perhaps IH doesn't feel enough like Pathfinder; actually, IH has a very distinct vibe. Would Pathfinder still feel like Pathfinder once you remove X, modify Y and add Z is yet another legitimate question. Still people are attached to their favourite product and well, people are not always rational about that.

I like your posts and you bring some very valid point to the conversation DrDeth, but sometimes it sounds like "you'll fail, don't bother trying".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


Really GOOD coffee IS a life changing experience!
Obligatory link

Good one!

Heterodyne Coffee anyone? (be sure to read the following two pages!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Halt! You're in the general area of our alchemists!

...and for you citizen who are witnessing the arrest, we'd like to remind you that the yellow seats are situated in the splash zone!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Just seems like archery is the name of the game at that point. Kill them before you can take damage.

Or stealth/ambush. Or destroying the bridge on which they stand. Dynamics would change all around. That's kind of the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
the more I realize that what I really want to experience, through D&D or Pathfinder, is the adventure itself, and not the details of how each little thing can or cannot be accomplished.

That's a fair and valid statement.

Speaking from a DM's perspective, the details of how things are accomplished does have an impact on the adventure I present to my players, so it does matter to me.

Perhaps it has less to do with me being a DM and more with me having a genuine interest on the mechanics or RPGs. Such things always fascinated me somehow, and I love games that present a simple but thematic rule or mechanics that reinforce the theme and feel of the game.

5th ed has a few thematic rules like that which I admire for design's sake (because I haven't played a 5th ed game yet).

[edit] 3rd ed and Pathfinder are getting a bit old and heavy now, but it has quite a few key design elements I love. The triple saves of will/fort/ref was good mechanics and a good "innovation" IMHO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I not a fan of players insisting on playing evil (or acting like immoral ass**** or playing "neutral-badass" just to impress other players).

I find the enjoyment of doing depraved things disturbing at best, loathsome in most cases.

I can understand (and enjoy) characters struggling against their worst nature, or going into a momentary fit of madness, but there needs to be an intent of redemption somewhere.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not here to compare who did what better, but 5th ed general simplification is freshening. I'm starting to like 5th ed concept of concentration spells more and more.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Additionally, how would you feel if there was a full on E6 or low magic product?

I would love such a thing as a Player's guide to Low-Magic Setting or something, ideally something official from Paizo (for support) or a quality non-campaign-specific third party product. Almost made it myself, a few years ago.

Basically a product that proposes 2 or 3 different approaches to Low-Magic, with a few alternate rules a la Unearthed Arcana but otherwise assuming core rules.

I have a feeling much of it could be achieved by achieved by giving casters alternate sets of spell lists, pruning spells to match a vision of "how magic works in fictive setting A, B and C" and attributing the RAW core spells accordingly.

Much can also be changed through re-fluffing existent material, but this reskin must be guided with a certain vision of things.

I wished that had been created.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Game Master Scotty wrote:
My oldest is almost ready to swim on her own, allowing her mother and I to convert her room to RPG storage.

"So college next yeah eh? Not to put any pressure on you honey, but your mom and I have plans for your room..."

[edit] Oh, and I realise I never congratulated the parents properly, so congrats to Tacticlion and Lady Firedove!

Having a kid in neo-natal isn't easy, but your child is in as good care as you can wish to be. Make sure to give us news when you guys are all under the same roof.

Speaking from experience, keep a budget for (small) treats to buy on the way, if you can afford it. That's going to be a lot of commuting which can become a chore (which you don't want "seeing your baby" to become). A little something for yourself, your better half or the nurse at the hospital can go a long way keeping this joyful.

'findel


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Those are cardinal sins!?!

The only "sin" I can understand would be "purposefully ruin the fun of your players"

If any of those "sins" contribute to make the game more fun for all, I say go for it!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We shut down the factory about 7 years ago.

It means however that the whole family is about to be in age to play RPGs. Soon my older son will be able to take upon the GM's mantle and start gaming with its brother and sister.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As mush as wikipedia can be trusted as a reference, the wiki page on science fiction is an interesting read, nothing among other things the difficulty to state what science-fiction means.

So let's see what it has to say on the Steampunk subgenre...

wikipedia wrote:
Steampunk is based on the idea of futuristic technology existing in the past, usually the 19th century, and often set in Victorian era England—but with prominent elements of either science fiction or fantasy, such as fictional technological inventions like those found in the works of H. G. Wells and Jules Verne, or real technological developments like the computer occurring at an earlier date. Popular examples include The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, Leviathan series by Scott Westerfeld, Bas-Lag series by China Miéville, as well as Girl Genius web comic by Phil and Kaja Foglio, although seeds of the subgenre may be seen in certain works of Michael Moorcock, Philip José Farmer and Steve Stiles, and in such games as Space: 1889 and Marcus Rowland's Forgotten Futures. Machines are most often powered by steam in this genre (hence the name). Terry Gilliam's 1985 film Brazil is seen as inspiration for writers and artists of the steampunk sub-culture.

[edit] Brazil and Girl Genius; interesting. They seem to broaden the definition to "science in the past" over than "super steam-powered engine", up to Dieselpunk or alternate history when gas-powered engines replace steam.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Science-fiction doesn't need hard, working science. It just mean that the "fiction" part applies to element of science as well, not only to the plot.

"fictive-science" might have been a better word?

Star Wars is a strange beast, but it can be coined as science fiction because much of what is fictive about it concerns "science". It could be argued that this fictive science is not the main focus of the story and therefore should be another literature genre, but since science fiction and fantasy are often grouped together in libraries / merchandised together / publicized and aimed at the same general public, the marriage of the two genres in Star Wars is a natural one IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Langley wrote:

Not sure if this is the proper category for this.

Anyway, I would like to know of my fellow adult gamer-sorts: how do you find time to game?

Hey James,

I'm just gonna echo some of the things mentioned above, in point form because I'm doing homework with the kiddos...

- Taking care of your family is important. Having fun as a dad is important primordial. Participating in the household tasks/routines and giving some slack to your wife is important. Having a hobby outside the work/sleep/baby routine is also important.

- At this point you may have to choose your battle. You may not be able to play twice a week, have hockey nights with the boys, hang-out at Moe's pub with Lenny and Barney and sleep-in every morning because you're so darn tired from partying all night. In other words, your college years are gone, but all is not over.

- If gaming is important to you, then make it a priority to play. Tell your wife you want to make it a priority to play. She's allowed to tease you, but let her know you shouldn't have to feel guilty about it (that last point is actually pretty darn important).

- Consider playing outside your house, gaming IS disturbing to baby/kid bed routine (I don't mean outdoors, I mean in somebody else's home). If your house is big enough you may consider soundproofing a gaming room but if your home is more modest, try to find a new host.

- Be ready to make compromise. Sometimes it may mean just playing board games at home with a few friends and sending them home early, or starting at 10pm. Sometimes it means cancelling this week because your wife is at the spa with her sister. Sometimes it means watching hockey with the boys instead, because playoff!

- Point is, your social life might not "just happen" with a 18 month old baby. You'll need to put efforts to maintain it, but its possible and definitely worth it.

'findel


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

Pretty much what Laure said.

Here's a test that I think works well: Google the comic Girl Genius and read it, at least the first couple of chapters (it's quite long, so I don't expect you to read the whole thing for the purposes of this one test). If the basic idea of the setting - that people with the innate "Spark of Genius/Madness" can make technology do things that should otherwise be impossible - is too far-fetched for you to follow, I'd say about 90% of steampunk will rub you the wrong way as well. The last remaining 10% or so would be the "hard science" versions of the genre, if they exist.

I LOVE!!! Girl Genius. Hands down my favourite webcomic, and one of my top comics/mangas/bandes dessinées ever.

It's setting is a bit appart from SteamPunk however (more Napoleonic/Habsbourg Empire era than the typical steam-age Victorian) and closer to the "sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic" trope than the typical "20th-century-technology-but-running-on-steam" / Jules Verne inspired.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It has to do with suspension of disbelief, the rest is (mostly) irrelevant.

Typical fantasy accept that magic and dragons exist. If you refute that, much of the setting collapses.

In steampunk, you need to accept that steam engines can be LOT more efficient that what we know they can be. Be it purely mad science or a combination of magic and technology, it doesn't matter. If you can can't work with that premise (and I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't), than steampunk isn't for you.

Same applies to many other settings involving technology. Even if you leave the whole Force thing aside, there's no way we can take Star Wars seriously on a science basis. Steampunk is like that; but in pseudo Victorian Europe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
That was the case with Firefly. The Train Job was a good episode but a poor pilot IMO.
'The Train Job' wasn't Firefly's pilot. It's the second episode. I agree that it would be a bad pilot. The real, feature length pilot is called 'Serenity' (like the movie) and sets up the characters nicely.

My point exactly; the actual pilot, serenity was aired after The Train Job which effectively acted as the "revised" pilot. Something about the network people thinking serenity was too slow paced or something, and so The Train Job was commissioned instead.

Fabius Maximus wrote:
The problem with Rebels is that the second episode was as bad as the first one.

That's too bad. I haven't seen the second so I can't make an opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find pilots are not often very representative of their series. Usually when I really like a pilot, the series end-up disappointing me. When I thought the pilot was only OK, I often end-up liking the series. Sometimes it has less to do with the episode itself, but in the order or ways that things are introduced for the first time.

That was the case with Firefly. The Train Job was a good episode but a poor pilot IMO. The pilot for The Clone Wars was rather blah IIRC, and the series really picked-up by season two for me.

I don't know how it was for this one, but pilots are often manipulated by three or four different parties. "gotta have humour" "gotta have action" "gotta introduce the characters, but do it quickly". The pilot was also previewed by a test auditory, from which they got feedback and will adjust subsequent episodes (but we still got to see the same pilot)

That was the cover and back description of a book; it was meant to attract our attention but you can't judge its content solely on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I swear when I first saw the title to this thread I thought of the band Journey. I'm sorry for that.

don't stop, believin'! <-- gotta work that into a bard ability or something...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello everyone.

Making a new RPG seems to be a hip thing to do nowadays; so here’s my own roleplaying game: presenting Journey RPG!

Rather than going all Big Wall Of Text on you, I thought of presenting the game with a FAQ-style Q&A.

Enjoy!

'findel

Q. So you wrote a RPG?
A. Yep. It’s called Journey RPG, says so in the title… (gees, do try to follow…)

Q. From scratch?
A. Well, not quite. It relies heavily on the d20 OGL, but it draws from other games such as 7th Sea and The One Ring as well. At its core, it’s still a “roll d20 plus modifiers must beat DC” type of game.

Q. Isn’t there like 100 other games like that, not to mention Pathfinder RPG, 13th Age, 5th ed D&D and SKR’s new Five Moons game? Don’t you think your timing suck?
A. There are plenty of good games, but a little indie game with a particular niche never hurts. Besides, designing games is a good hobby of mine.

Q. So you just woke-up one morning saying “I’m gonna make myself a RPG”?
A. Gees no, that’s the culmination of many years of hourserules, tinkering and playtesting. I started to really get at it when it became clear that 4th ed D&D didn’t have what I was looking for as a post 3e RPG. So at the same time as Pathfinder RPG, roughly.

Q. Whatever. So what is that game’s “particular niche” about?
A. It has more of a down-to-earth game; less high fantasy, bit more late dark age/early middle age feel. Races and monsters a bit closer to norse and celtic mythology. More focus on day-to-day challenges, less on the magical trinkets than one collects to boost its stats…

Q. Oh, historical RPG then?
A. Not quite; it’s a fantasy setting, just with less gonzo. Think more like Middle Earth.

Q. So no full plates, no magic-user and crappy weapons all around?
A. Most typical weapons are there, but no fancy rapiers and the like. There are full plates too, just not high gothic ones. Dwarves make them, and some human cultures have good enough alloys to craft plate armours too. Each culture has its own “thing”, and heavy armour is not the only way to boost your defense.

Q. Armours? With a “u”?
A. Yeah, I’m Canadian…

Q. So, no wizards? (and you forgot to say “eh” at the end, Canadian boy…)
A. Yes, yes, wizards are there. Wizardry is the youngest spellcasting tradition, alongside druids, rune-casters, enchanters and priests. Magic has received a complete overhaul. It’s not a fire-and-forget type of magic anymore, but it still relies on the concept of “spells”. Also, magic is very limited and spellcasters can quickly run out of spells without their wand, staff, crystal ball, stone circle, blessed relic etc. The scope of spells is also brought down a bit lower. In a lower fantasy setting, a spell allowing you to see in the dark can be quite powerful.

Q. Rune-Casters and Enchanters? Aren’t enchanters a type of wizard?
A. Wizards can cast enchantment spells (and can specialise in them), but enchanters cast from a different spellcasting tradition (i.e. different spell list and casting rules). Think Merlin the Enchanter; their spells are closer to D&D’s beguiler or bard, or 1st AD&D illusionist.

Q. You mentioned dwarves earlier, so you must have elves and gnomes and halflings and half-orcs as well?
A. Elves; yes. Halflings and gnomes; no. I’m trying to keep a tighter focus, but there are three human “races” to choose from. One of those branches out as half-elves, another human race branches out as half-orcs. Kind of.

Q. Ok, so we got realistic fighters and all but the most mundane abilities only available through magic… Wait, is this another “martials-can’t-have-nice-things” game?
A. Not at all! First, realism was never a design goal, and it is not a simulationist game either. As a matter of fact, the system has been simplified somewhere halfway between 3.5 and basic 5th D&D. However, the game does focus on more mundane challenges, such as environmental hazards, travel fatigue and hunger so that it becomes more about the characters’ heroism, less about their super-heroism.

Q. But I like fantasy superheroes!
A. So do I, but we have plenty of other games for that. This one is about fighting with more mundane assets and against less supernatural enemies, but without going overly gritty. The game is designed to be played in three tiers. Levels 1-5 is low-fantasy, levels 6-10 see a net progression for martial characters while spellcasters really come into their own at levels 11-15 (and where martial characters start to resemble D&D-style superheroes). The classes are segmented so that you can easily start at level 6 if you want, or stop at level 10 if you want to avoid the most powerful spells and abilities. Each tier has its own capstone ability and symmetry within the classes ensure that each character is about as powerful at these turning points.

Q. So you have five spellcasting classes. What are the others?
A. Bard, Huntsman, Knight, Rogue and Warrior. Warrior is kind of a fighter/barbarian hybrid while the knight is a bit like the Pathfinder’s cavalier and paladin. Huntsman is basically a bow-using ranger, Bard is as much a warrior as a poet and Rogue is more an agile fighter than a thief. Only the bard dabbles in magic, but nowhere as efficiently as the full spellcasting classes.

Q. No monk?
A. No, not for the moment. Journey RPG focuses on the people of the north and west. The Bruce Lee oriental-monk, the Aladdin acrobat-thief and the Jafar elemental-sorcerer will have to wait until the “east and south” extension.

Q. So five martials and five casters then?
A. Yep. The number five is kind of a design leitmotiv; five martial classes, five spellcasting traditions, five stats, five saves, five skill categories of five skills each, five schools of magic, five druidic circles etc.

Q. Alright; so the game is all finished and ready then?
A. I wish it was! It’s mostly all written, meaning there’s still a LOT to do. I’d like to have a few more monsters done too, and I’d like to expand on the travelling part, which is a great deal in this RPG. I also need illustrations. Lots. And editing. Whoah! But I hope that by posting this here it will keep me motivated and that I won’t have to compete with D&D 6th edition by the time I’m finished.

Q. And you really think this will interest anyone?
A. I was kinda hoping so… System design, open testing and designer’s notes always draw some interest, even if I’ll likely be the only one playing the game.

Q. Can’t you keep a blog like everyone else?
A. Hum, that’s an idea… For the moment, no blog; just posts.

Q. Well then designer boy, do you have anything to show yet?
A. Sure, there’s this character sheet here. I’ll post teasers weekly and see what people outside my gaming group thinks of all of this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
It was a fun massacre!

Well; that's something you don't hear everyday...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys keep attacking Kirth's post that was defending equality of sex. Go read it back and try to read past the first degree.

If we are to defend and promote that all have the same potential, I beleive giving free range all stats for both all genders is a good start...


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.


2 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.

+1

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.

´findel


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.

1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.