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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,671 posts (8,350 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Useless? No... Of course, not. They are just really freaking bad!

But they can have their uses... In the same way that even commoners can be useful.

thegreenteagamer wrote:

An assassin can death attack at sixth, a ninja requires tenth.

I don't know about you Rynjin, but for me, that's about four to five months' gametime difference in access. I don't want to wait a third of a year extra to use an ability I based my entire character on.

Honestly... I prefer to wait another 3~4 months for a cool/useful ability than get something that I'll never use (at least, not successfully) because of how awful it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just stop them from using SLAs and that mimic spells with costly spell components (like Wish) and count the Simulacrum against WBL... Planar Binding is a bit more difficult to rule in a clear, balanced and consistent way, IMO.

Then again, my players don't usually try to abuse the rules because they know I'm willing and capable of doing the same... And no rule is more abusable than rule 0... >:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Got enough straw, there, Lemmy?

...Says the one who claims all men sitting with spread legs are doing so specifically because they think women deserve less space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
(so even when men are oppressed by sexism, it's because of a sexist valuing of masculinity and devaluing of femininity).

See? This is the kind of statement that shows that tumblr feminism a joke.

"It's always misogyny. Even when it's not. Because Patriarchy."

Said statement is often followed or anticipated by stuff like "every man is sexist! Some of them just don't know it.", which, ironically enough, is an extremely sexist thing to say.

mechaPoet wrote:
So the question is, what do you all think sexism is doing when it's not oppressing people in """"""""legitimate"""""""" ways? Like, even the rudest of you probably think that women should be able to vote and own property, etc., right? But what do you think people who blame rape victims, or think it's okay to abuse women, or hold strict views of gender roles ("women belong in the kitchen," etc.)--what do you think they're doing when they're not actively saying or doing obviously sexist things? Like they stop being sexist when they're on the train or just walking around? You don't think their views affect what they do on a daily basis, or what?

So, what is the point here? A rehash of the nonsensical (and sexist) argument that is "men sit with spread legs specifically because they feel they are superior to women and deserve more space because of their superiority"?

If you really want to go into 'their bigotry affect all their decisions", then let's add this:

"Probably affects their lives the same way misandry affects the lives of those who say every man is a potential rapist, that men accused of rape should be convicted without fair trial, that men are the only ones who act like jerks, that men are sexist because their shirt has pictures of sexy women, or because they like a game with a male protagonist, or because,*gasp* they enjoy seeing hot women in the media they consume, that men (and only men) always objectify members of a different gender, that men have an agenda to oppress women (aka: The Patriarchy (tm)) etc."


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ashiel acts like a nice guy... But he's admitted to shoveling dozens of corpses in his family's property.

Summer 2012 - Never Forget.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's difficult to take a movement seriously that complains about things like "manspreading" and "manslamming" and then goes on to harass an innocent man because they don't like his shirt... Or when they say the authorities should ignore due process and always assume a man accused of rape is guilty.

Tumblr feminism is a joke. A irrational, hateful and bigoted joke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.
Honestly curious about this one...
National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.
Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.

Wait... You mean someone took that article seriously?!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

2% sounds suspiciously close to "the lowest number that is somewhat believable", as if to hand-wave it as a non-issue.

As a very smart lady put it, it's like society is overcompensating and replacing the old myth of the Lying Woman (every victim is lying) by a new myth, the Woman Who Never Lies (every accused is guilty).

But there is no way to be sure... Since there are no good researches on the subject. At least none that aren't biased one way or another...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We accept people's words because we don't have the time and/or resources to check everything. Or because we believe those people are trustworthy.

But when judging someone, a simple accusation is not evidence. It doesn't indicates anything to be true.

It might be considered evidence by the court, but at that point we are discussing semantics. It doesn't change the fact that a simple statement doesn't really indicate anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.

Statements are not evidence of a crime or an event. They are evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
An accusation is very definitely evidence. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

It really isn't...

At most, it's evidence that someone wants you to face trial. It's no evidence of an actual crime. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aaaaand... I just realized I necro'ed a thread from 2011... -.-'

I bet I'll do ir again when the kid is in college...

Tsc... Gotta remember to check post dates. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You say they want to game in their house because it has all the baby stuff there... Is it possible to keep some of the baby stuff in your house?

My sister visits me all the time, so I have a few things for her kids (a 8 years old boy and 1 yo girl) lying around... She brought some of those, while I bought others.

It doesn't require a lot of space because it only has to be enough stuff to entertain the kids for a few hours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I think the idea is for him, like Alfred, to mellow a bit over time. Year One is still, what, 20 years or so after the events of this series.

Closer to 10 years, actually... Bruce became Batman in his early/mid 20s, and the kid in the show is at least 12... Although that really varies every time the story is told and specific ages are very rarely mentioned.

(And I agree with Hama. But we know it's gonna happen sooner or later)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SAMAS wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I really want to enjoy Lord Marksman and Vanadis, but the harem elements really detract from it. And DAMN those outfits look cold.

I watched a few episodes of that show (about half, actually... 5 or 6... Maybe 7? Not sure), because it was supposed to be about the protagonists winning battles with wits and good tactics... It isn't. They win battles with giant anime energy attacks... Pretty disappointing. :/

Fanservice is not as big a part of it as it is in many other animes, but it's there. I wouldn't mind if the show were truly about using good tactics and cunning... Sadly, it is not.

I wish we had more anime about cunning protagonists winning through wits and cunning...

Having seen the whole series, I'll dispute that. Even in that particular battle, said attacks were used for very specific situations(a really tough target and a really long shot(at another tough target) that were both only part of the overall battle.

Eh... They explain the tactics... Then show a few chess pieces, but never really show how they did it. Their tactics work because the narrator says they work... And because the protagonists are overpowered.

Nothing really clever about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
1) I didn't say people were stupid or couldn't distinguish between fiction and reality. I said that fiction and the media influence people. Can you see the difference between those two things?

I can. And as I said, media does influence people... But not nearly as much as PC warriors want us to think.

thejeff wrote:
2) There's also a difference between "presents attractive people" and "random panty flashes"

There really isn't. All that is changing is how much you want to see/show in a certain media.

thejeff wrote:
I'm also amused that I just described one of the differences between anime fanservice and more traditional Western sexism seen in older comics and elsewhere is that the girls in anime are competent developed protagonists, not just subordinant to the male leads. But they still have to flash their panties. That they still have to do the fanservice is the point.

They don't have to do anything. The author has them do it because, guess what... The audience enjoys it, so if it's included, the author is likely to have a bigger audience.

It's not that because the author or viewer thinks they are better than women, it's there because the author knows that men like seeing hot women showing skin and adding more of the stuff your audience wants to see is good business practice. That's all.

thejeff wrote:
Instead the good shows with interesting strong female characters keep interrupted with random irrelevant fanservice. Often it seems forced and completely out of character.

Sure, but that's a problem with a adding something where it doesn't fit, not a problem with fanservice itself (or with any other aspect of media). Anything can be bad for a show, if it's put somewhere it doesn't fit (and the opinion of where it fits varies quite a bit).

Fanservice can ruin a show for the same reason that the biography of Lincoln can ruin porn... Because it's not the right place for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I've heard it mentioned along with all the other reasons it's lousy.

There is nothing wrong with disliking it. You can dislike anything for whatever reason you see fit. I don't like shirtless wolf-dudes either, but I don't use that as an argument to say that Twilight is guilty of misandry.

thejeff wrote:
1) These claims seem to get perilously close to saying that media or literary portrayals have no impact at all. That mass media has no effect on shaping culture or individuals. There's a lot of space between that and "violent video games don't turn people into murderers".

People are not stupid. Most people might be uncultured, but surprise, surprise... They. are. not. stupid. People can tell fiction from reality, at very least when it's presented in a highly over-the-top fashion like anime often does.

Does media influence people? Of course it does... But 99% of humanity is smart enough to differentiate fiction from reality. My 8-years-old nephew knows that violence is wrong, but he still loves seeing heroes kick the bad guys asses.

And yet, every time someone says something is bad influence on whoever, they never include themselves in the group being influenced, it's always "Well, I'm not affected by it, but all those stupid people are!". Funny how that works...

thejeff wrote:
4)Fanservice (of the kind we're talking about) is sexist. It's an aspect of sexism. It's putting women's bodies on display draw male eyeballs. And money.

Sure, you're presenting attractive people to attract more viewers... So what? How the hell is that sexist?

It's seems pretty obvious that a show with a mostly male audience will include stuff that interests most male viewers (and, who knew, that includes attractive females), just like a show with a mostly female audience will include stuff that attract most female viewers (and that includes attractive males).

There is nothing wrong with having attractive characters. Absolutely nothing. You're not discriminating against anyone. You're simply providing what your viewers want. If they don't like it, they don't watch it.

It'd be sexist if every character of a certain gender was portrayed as incompetent, inferior or insignificant. That's often not the case. As Aranna herself said, the girls in Highschool of the Dead can hold their own and are pretty badass.

Personally, I'd say Naruto is far more sexist, simply because most female characters are all but completely insignificant, even the ones that are supposedly really powerful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There was talk that fanservice make men see women as nothing but sex toys, that it has a subtle but real negative effect on young women and and that it should only be done "in moderation". There were comparisons between fanservice and racism and homophonia, FFS.

1- There is no evidence that fanservice (or even porn) makes anyone sexist. It's a claim as empty as saying that video-games and rock n' roll music make people violent.
2- If people have such low self-esteem that they feel bad because they see attractive persons in tv shows, they have far deeper problems that should be looked into. Should every media only portray average people that are not particularly attractive or competent at anything, just to make sure no one feels bad about themselves?
3- What is "in moderation"? Who decides what's a moderate amount? The people producing and watching the shows apparently think the current amount is good enough. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Why is your opinion worth more than theirs? Don't like fanservice (or any other aspect of any media), don't consume media that includes it. It's as simple as that.
4- If you think a cartoon showing overly-sexualized fictional characters is as bad as thinking less of people just because of their ethnicity or sexual preference, then you really need to lower your consumption of PC-Holier-Than-Thou Koolaid...

And I doubt any of the people complaining about fanservice were protesting the amount of pointless shirtless scenes in Twilight (you know... that series of books/movies that made an incredible amount of money despite its terrible story and bland protagonist).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... In the end, all products cost just as much as people are willing to pay for it. That's why recognized brand names can charge twice as much for a product of same quality as from a lesser known brand.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously this is not RAI, and it certainly not something any sane GM would allow, but... Holy s!&%, is it amusing...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

LOL. The funny part is that this s*&+ might actually work...

Did they really create a "class" that allows the user to cast any arcane spell but didn't bother to add the prerequisite of actually being able to cast spells?

Glorious!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do we need to change old characters? If the new generation brings completely different characters, they are no longer the characters I love. If they have the same personality of their predecessors, what's the point of having a new generation?

It's not just a rehash of old stories. Every now and then we get truly great re-imaginings of the character and truly creative stories.

Besides, it's not a rehash if you're seeing/writing it for the first time, and not every reader/writer has been around since the golden age of comics.

I grew up loving the stories that star Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and Kal-el (all of which I'd have never known if comics progressed in real time). If I stopped reading comics for a while and came back to find out all my favorite are dead/retired, I'd probably not even bother returning to comics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Randarak wrote:
I always wanted to hit Damian. With a chair. Arrogant little bastard.

Oh, yeah... He started as a real a+*&~&&. One of the things that made him cool was seeing him grow into a more likable person. His character development was very well written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Consider this: a restaurant's expenses for the customer are the costs for meat, veggies etc, salaries for the staff, energy and insurances, the location, ad campaigns, etc. Of all these, only the food costs more for a big eater. Should men then be forced to pay a significant markup for insurance, ad campaigns and so on?

Well... The amount of food is part of the service. So someone who eats more should pay more... Which is why restaurants should (and most of them do) have differently sized portions... With the bigger ones costing more.

Of course, the difference should only proportional to the difference in cost to to produce the extra amount of food.

Sissyl wrote:
Another way to view it is that the customer pays to get fed. Is it reasonable that someone bigger should pay more for the exact same service?

Not really... You're paying for service and goods. It doesn't really matter what you do with your food. If you decide to eat it all, give it to someone else, throw it in the dumpster, burn it or simply leave without eating it, you pay the same price, which is completely fair. If I sell you a computer, I don't care if you'll use it for work, gaming or as paper weight. The PC still costs the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ultimate universe was pretty cool... Then , in a single storyline, they f+#$ed everything up. -.-'

The Blob eating the Wasp... Seriously?! Who thought this was a good idea?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Please. Unless it's just more of "this isn't really a feminist issue." Talking about a phenomenon that exemplifies the (most likely non-malicious in intent and unconscious) habit of many men to take up more space than women, to seemingly feel entitled to more space than women is an issue of gender equality. It's possible to address something like this while also caring about and addressing more severe gender inequalities. I'm not in the mood for straw-feminists.

What makes you think they are doing it because they feel entitled to more space than women?

Most likely, the majority of those people simply don't realize the space they are occupying or don't have much choice due to height and whatnot... And some of them are douches who don't care if they are inconveniencing others (male or female), but I doubt any of them is doing it specifically because they think women deserve less space.

Not every reprehensible behavior is caused by sexism, you know...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Not compared to Batman is now a kid in a high tech batsuit, mentored by an aged Bruce Wayne. (That one's real - Batman Beyond. Not bad at times, but not actually Batman)

Batman Beyond was awesome! :O

Terry McGinnis is just as much Batman as Dick Greyson! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

I've been riding subways, trains, and busses all my life, for every woman that hogs three seats, I've seen more than a hundred men do the same.

And I've also seen quite a few courteous enough to yield their seats to someone who needs them more, like the elderly, or someone on a cane.

I've seen more men sitting with spread legs than women, due to very obvious reasons. But being inconsiderate to other passengers? That's pretty much the same all across the board... Turns out that s%*$ty people are born with all sorts of genitalia.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty clear that BNW is just covering up for his manspreading friends.

Look at that insensitive bastard... Taking 2 seats... I bet he's related to wolf too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Still waiting on those 300 pages of women taking up too much space in transit that you promised me, BNW.

I don't think BNW has the same amount of free time as countless tumblr feminists who are determined to point every single disagreeable act in the world as a something that only men do...

I've been using subways all my life. I do it everyday. For every obnoxious man there is an equally obnoxious woman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I'm just glad this manspreading madness hasn't invaded Finland yet.

Wait till you see whats trending in oregon

Only taking up one seat though. Must be a girl.

"All passengers must produce a validated ticket upon request." That coyote ain't going far on the Hudson-Bergen Lightrail.

How specicist of you to assume the coyote doesn't have a ticket! Check your privilege, human!

(BTW isn't this kind of thing how we got wolves to evolve into dogs in the first place? Are we doing that again?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Is all this talk of banning in reference to my posts, or someone else's?

It wasn't a reply to anyone in particular, just my view on the subject. And the idea that something should be removed form media because it doesn't fit someone's personal tastes. You (general you) don't like a certain type of media? Don't consume it.

Don't like violent games? Don't play them.
Don't like rock music? Don't listen to it.
Don't like anime with fanservice? Don't watch them.

But don't try to stop others from doing it if they want. And yes, censorship is exactly what some people are advocating here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember when people accused D&D of causing youth to worship Satan and video-games of making kids violent? Remember when the same was said about rock music. Remember how people wanted to ban those things? Remember how all of that was b~*~@@#+?

If you think the former statement is b%%&%+~+, then why do you think anime is any more capable of making someone sexist? Why is it any more harmful than showing anyone who is attractive or competent. And why do you think banning anime with fan-service is any more reasonable than banning games with violence? Should we ban every game where there is combat? Should we ban porn as well?

If you don't like anime with fan-service, don't watch them. If you don't want your kids to watch them, then don't let them do it. Why do you want to ban stuff other people enjoy?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Koshimo wrote:

So what would you change/add to swashbuckler that would get to where you want to be?

besides making it have a good fort save?

Let's see... Off the top of my head:

Better/Simpler Class Feature:
- Give them Weapon Finesse instead of "Swashbuckler Finesse". It would make things simpler and allow SBs to use a greater variety of weapons.
- Remove Precise Strike and give them Dex to damage for free at 3rd level or something.
- Splitting Evasive into an scaling class feature: get Uncanny Dodge at 3rd level, Evasion at 7th level and Improved Uncanny Dodge at 11th level. No Panache required. (It's more fun if the ability scales with the character, instead of getting it all out of nowhere. And there is really no reason for it to require Panache).
- Panache total is equal to 1 + Cha modifier (minimum 1). This way SBs with Cha 12 have an advantage over SBs with Cha 08.

Good mobility:
- He could spend Panache to be able to move as a swift action Or... I don't know, if he hits someone, he can make an additional attack as a swift action. That way, if the character moves he's still a threat.

Real bonuses to iconic skills (instead of the awful "spend 1 Panache for 1d6 and hope you don't roll a 1 or 2" thing):
- A Swashbuckler adds half his level to Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Escape Artist and Ride. By spending 1 point of panache he can double this bonus on his next skill check.
EDIT: Actually, the house-rule I use is that SBs can add their Cha modifier to all Dex-based skill checks (except Stealth) and they can spent 1 Panache to add a bonus equal to their SB level to their next Dex or Cha-based skill check (except Stealth and UMD)
- Maybe add Cha to Initiative instead of the boring static number.

Decent saves
- Good Fort (as you already mentioned)
- Remove Charmed Life (which conflicts with his other abilities, since they require swift actions) and replacing it with a feat that allows the character to use Cha instead of Wis on will saves (and remove the 2~3 options that do that in pointlessly situational and restrictive ways).

Other ideas were mentioned during the playtest. But most of the feedback was ignored. So we ended up with the Fighter-with-Weapon-Finesse class and the exercise in bad design that is Slashing Grace.

Koshimo wrote:
also (not sure who has access to it) but does the new everyman gaming stuff change anyones opinion on standard swash

Can't comment. I don't know what that is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. I don't see how requiring a minimal explanation about why I should stop doing something stops me from being a decent human being.

Sometimes it's fairly obvious why something bothers someone... Like smoking (you don't even have to be asthmatic) or the inclusion descriptive scenes of sex, gore or violence. These are easy to understand why someone wouldn't like.

But what if I have no idea what is bothering someone? If the GM says we open a door to a room where a vampire sits by the fire, with a viper on his shoulders and a dark wolf with red eyes and a glass of blood in his hand, and then someone shows me an X-card, how the hell am I supposed to know what is troubling that person? Is it the blood? The fire? The viper? The wolf? A combination of these? Should the GM throw the whole scene out?

I'm not saying the person has to give a detailed testimonial of what is bothering them and why it bothers them. A mere "This particular theme/image makes me uncomfortable, could we drop it?" would suffice.

I don't even care if the person is asthmatic or a rape survivor. If they say a theme makes them uncomfortable, I'll drop it. But they can at least do the courtesy of telling me what is making them feel uncomfortable instead of showing me a paper card and hoping I guess right. I can't read minds, and a big X drawn on a paper card doesn't help me know what the problem is.

(And why would anyone allergic to peanuts care if someone else eats peanut butter? Does the smell of peanuts cause some sort of allergic reaction? Honest question here. I never met anyone who is allergic to peanuts... Or at least, the subject never came up)

Lemmy wrote:
Doesn't have to give me a detailed explanation. But the other extreme, giving zero explanation is not good either. One can always simply say "this makes me feel uncomfortable".

You know what decent human beings do? Actually listen to what others have to say before implying they are horrible people who don't care about others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:

Again, I'll reinforce this point about the X-Card:

"Your" game and the experience of that game is not more important than the collective experience of that game.

No. But it's the only one I can affect. Having an X-card in my games would only affect my experience (and my group's). You can use if you want. I won't.

mechaPoet wrote:
Do you know what will cause traumatic experiences in all of your friends? In any given stranger at a Pathfinder Society event or con? No? Here's a tool that helps those people out! And I'm having trouble finding any opposition to it that doesn't boil down to: "I don't really want to imagine a situation outside of my own, that sounds really inconvenient."

I don't know that. No one does. Which is why they should speak up if something bothers them. Like everyone does. They can use a silly card if they want, but I find it unnecessary.

I don't like the of having a "censor anything and everything you want with no explanation given" tool at the table. Nor do I think that raising a paper card is any easier or more effective than simply saying "this makes me feel uncomfortable". For one, speaking "Z makes me feel uncomfortable" tells me what is bothering them, instead of having me guess.

It's not about "not wanting to imagine a situation outside of my own". I don't have anything against people using whatever social devices they want in their games. I just don't think the X-card is a particularly good idea and wouldn't use it myself. That's all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:

Here's a concrete and potentially productive suggestion: introduce the X-Card to more public gaming spaces.

It's a free set of rules to be used as a safety tool in RPG's, among other places/spaces/situations. Would it be feasible to encourage the use of this tool in more public gaming spaces? Would it help? What would it take to make its implementation more widespread?

I don't like the idea of everyone being able to censor whatever they want with no explanation given.

I find the idea rather ridiculous. We're all grown ups (and most likely friends or family). If something is bothering you, just say it. Why do we need a card with a drawing in it? Why make communication less clear?

I'd actually laugh if someone used the X-card on themselves. If you think it's that bad, why did you say it in the first place?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, Anzyr. I'll defeat you..

Here is a build for a character that with a single level of Fighter, can defeat any 15th level Wizard!

The Strongest Fighter Ever:

Multiclass Fighter 1/Wizard 19

Hah! My non-Mythic Fighter beats your 15th level Wizard!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Here's the problem I have with your response:

Someone came on here and said "something is bothering me".

Instead of trying to understand why it's bothering them, your response is essentially "be quiet, it's not a problem".

No, my response is "Why the hell is this even a problem?". So far the answers I got are not very convincing. I have no obligation to agree with anyone.

I never told anyone to "be quiet", I merely said it's simply not something that I consider worth of being bothered by.

Irontruth wrote:
So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.

Anyone can choose to be bothered by anything... What I'm pointing out is that some things are just not worth being bothered by. "Players planning their character build" definitely falls into that category for me. And I have every right to voice my opinion that the presented issue is not a real issue. If someone created a thread named "I'm sick of players wearing blue shirts!" I'd also point out that I don't think the color of someone else's shirt is a problem... Even if someone insisted that it is for whatever reason.

Irontruth wrote:
By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".

Hah! Yeah, right...

For someone who claims to know my "standard response", you obviously haven't been paying attention. (Also, how the hell would you know what I do IRL? Are you stalking me? :P)

Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I'm trying to keep them from talking. I don't remember any instance where I told anyone to shut up. At most, I replied multiple times explaining my arguments... You know... Like people to do in a discussion.

In fact, the simple fact that I'm bothering to reply means I'm not trying to silence anyone. Everyone is free to discuss whatever they want. Including myself, so when someone says something I disagree with, I have no problem voicing my disagreement, even when the disagreement is "X is a problem".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Or he may just be confident in his own abilities. He is wondering "Should I drop my training, which proved successful so far, to chase whatever mysterious teaching they are offering?".
Sure, again, its in-character. That's the important part.

And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.

There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I keep failing my will save... -.-'

Digitalelf wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
but they don't go to "Fighter College" or "Rogue School" a la OotS.
Ahh, but in 2nd edition, there ARE schools that teach the various classes... There ARE "Fighter Colleges" for example.

1- This is Pathfinder, not 2e.

2- Even if you have a college that teaches you the abilities and gives you a certificate, that only means that college teaches you a set of skills and that's it. Character still have no idea what class levels are (the same way none of us have any idea what our "character levels" are. We only know our skills and professions). At most, they are officially recognized by a title that happens to match the class' names.

Digitalelf wrote:
I can agree to disagree, no problem, but you say this with such authority... Like it's a fact for every edition, for every situation. I don't even think it's a fact in Pathfinder, or they wouldn't keep pumping out new character class in darn-near every rule book they release...

The reason they keep pumping out classes is because classes sell. That's it. They sell because players want to see new mechanics, either because they want to fulfill a concept in a different way or because their concept can't be fulfilled well enough by the existing classes.

IMHO, restricting specific fluff to an specific class (or vice-versa) is, not only limiting unimaginative, but rather pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:

I've seen several people say that on these boards, but I think it's perfectly okay for character class names to be a real thing in-game that the character can identify himself as, in the same way that people in real life identify with their jobs.

I mean, when someone asks another person what they do, and the response is something to the effect of "I am a cashier", everyone knows that they do not actually mean that they literally are a cashier and there is nothing more to them. Everyone pretty much knows what that person means when they say that they "are" their job, and that there is more to that person than them being a simple cashier.

So a character saying in-game "I AM a fighter", should be no different... Even if someone (like myself) views character classes as a way of life to the character.

No neon sign required... :-P

IMO, characters know what they can do. They know their capabilities and whatnot, but they don't go to "Fighter College" or "Rogue School" a la OotS. When someone stabs you in the back, all that you (and the attacker) know, is that he has the ability to stab you in the back. He doesn't know if his a Rogue, a Slayer, Investigator or Vivisectionist.

That cashier could be a Rogue with ranks in Profession(cashier). Or a Fighter. Or a Wizard. Or whatever. No matter the class, as long as he's working as a cashier, he's a cashier. Your class tells what your abilities are, not your profession or personality.

Anyway... I'm pretty sure we already had this discussion... Let's just agree to disagree.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.

Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

I'm not saying either is good or bad, but it's certainly not a "dumb thing to complain about".

What...?

Railroading is bad because it removes the players' freedom of choice. Planning your character doesn't remove anyone's choice (even the guy doing the planning can always change his mind). It has zero effect on anyone else.

This is one of the dumbest complaints I've seen. There is no reason to be upset about players planning their character builds.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Fan-service Discussion:

My view on fan-service is the same as on any other aspect of media.

If you don't like it, don't consume it. Don't try to forbid others of doing so, because that's a very slippery slope that leads into a dark place. Go ahead and buy/watch shows with no fan-service. Support those shows and encourage others to do the same, but don't try to get something banned just because you don't like it.

Fighting games don't make me violent. Metal music don't make me satanic. Why would fan-service (or even straight up porn) make me sexist?

I don't particularly care about fan-service in general... Doesn't bother me, doesn't attract me. Won't make me watch a bad show, nor will it stop me from watching a good show... But I don't care if people watch shows only for fan-service.

There is no "unnecessary" fan service any more than there is "unnecessary" action scenes, romances, dialogue, character, etc. How necessary it is is solely a matter of personal opinion. What one person sees as completely unnecessary might be the main attraction for someone else. So everyone should just consume the media that matches their preferences and let other do the same.

Besides, no one needs watch anime or consume any sort of media, so technically, all of it is unnecessary.

Anyway...

I haven't seen many animes lately... I kinda stopped because I couldn't find anything I enjoy...

I like action/comedy series, but I grew tired of the "16yo with some sort of dark power that he can't control" plot (Seriously! I feel like that particular trope is in 90% of all action animes now!) and I never cared for giant robots, so that makes my choices pretty limited. -.-'

Parasyte The Maxim is okay... But didn't really grab my attention, for some reason. 2 episodes in and I lost interest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If damage is all a character can do, then that character is really weak, unless the campaign is a hack-and-slash fest with zero out-of-combat challenges that happens in a world where enemies have zero creativity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hah! you're all forgetting the simplest solution!

Give each baby a Holy weapon! They probably only have 1 HD, so the Evil ones will die!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
What would the penalty for using the babies as sling ammunition be?

Don't be silly, Sissyl! There would be no penalty! That's just nature working as intended!

Babies naturally evolved to be catapulted over long distances!


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

I welcome opinion sharing.

I'm referring to what often happens. 900 posts of "you are wrong it is this" and "no you are wrong it is that".

Where opinions are shared but no one agrees to disagree.

Well, that isn't the tone that comes from your last post... It sounds like you were condemning graystone for voicing a negative opinion.

Besides, discussions don't necessarily have to end with "let's agree to disagree, hold hands and sing kumbaya".

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and criticizing rules and FAQs (or even opinions). If graystone (or anyone else) feels like criticizing Paizo or Pathfinder, they are allowed to do so. And this forum is a great place to do so. Here his opinions will be heard and criticized by fellow players, maybe even a dev...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup. But not the "Do devs know more about the game than players do?" subject. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Wise decision! ;-)

I am also not a big time rules expert, either. More than the casual player sure.

Oh, I know that. My post wasn't meant to imply that I think you know a lot about the game (I don't).

I'm just not in the mood for yet another endless discussion... "Do devs know more about the game than players do" is too subjective to have any meaningful discussion... So why bother?

It's not wisdom... Just mere lack of patience and motivation...

1 to 50 of 1,295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.