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. 8,437 posts (12,120 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,879 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously... Walk away from this group. And don't put too much effort into trying to befriend someone who doesnt want to be your friend. It's not worth it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Walk away from the group... At least 'til the other players reach their 16th birthday. :P

Alternatively, if you really, really don't want to leave... Do the suggested advice of calling them silly/embarassing nicknames and kill anyone who has a problem with it. Not a very mature solution, but when in Rome...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two things that while completely meaningless from a mechanical PoV, would do wonders to encourage players and designers to see Fighters as the mighty warriors they are supposed to be instead of "random dude with a pointy stick".

1- Give them "Fighter Talents" instead of feats. Include an option that allows them to gain a bonus combat feat and can be selected multiple times.
2- Change the class name. "Fighter" is as bad as "Magic User". It's so awfully generic, its no wonder so many people (including designers) see Fighters as little more than "slightly buffed NPC class" and describe them with a description that would better fit the Warrior class. Call them "Champion", "Warlord", "Paragon"... Anything that inspires players and designers to give the class cool, effective abilities!


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The character concept for Fighters is really awesome! "The Badass Normal"! The guy who just through training, discipline and will can stand equal to supernatural powers. He's the guy who embodies the "Charles Atlas Superpower". Awesome!

The real problem is the class' design concept... i.e.: "This guy hits hards and has high AC, therefore he'll suck at everything else". The Fighter is meant to be extremely limited and narrow-minded... And so it is... Which makes it a really bad class in a game as open-ended as table top RPGs, where literally anything can happen and there's no real limits to what can be attempted or achieved.

I once compared Fighters to grapplers in fighting games... Grapplers usually have high damage output and high health, but they are very often at the bottom of the tier list. Why? Because even in a fighting game, where there's nothing but combat, options are your most valuable resource... Not numbers. It doesn't matter how high your damage is when enemies can easily outmaneuver you, keep you away or downright neutralize your best tricks.

This becomes even more explicitly true the greater the variety of different situations the game has... And what game has greater variety of challenges than tabletop RPGs?

For as long as Fighters are designed to hit hard and do nothing else, they will never be good at adventuring... And they'll only be decent in combat as well. Amazing at standing still and full attacking, but mediocre at actually fighting, since combat will often be about much more than stantionary crestures trading blows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fighters and Swashbucklers are probably the classes that most miserably fail to live up to their class descriptions. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JakeCWolf wrote:

I know RP means race points, and it's an at a glace way to judge a race's power in comparison to others in a setting, but I'm confused as to why Drow have two numbers instead of one.

Does it mean depending on choices they can be above average or absurdly over powered? Or is there some subtle nuance I am missing?

Mostly, it means the Race Builder is busted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Knott C. Rious wrote:
Eu vou digitar em Português em vez de Latim porque ninguém vai notar a diferença. Hah!
Digitar, that prolly has something to do with fingers, right?

It means "to type"... As in... "I'm about to use my keyboard to type this text". So... Yes (although the word would still apply even if I decided to type with my nose).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
If there's a debate in English don't break out into Latin if you want to continue to contribute. This is beyond basic.

Cur non?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
You have a point?

He's posting under the "Sarcasm Dragon" alias... His point is to make funny sarcastic posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Lemmy, not trying to being a dingus here, but was "haud" a typo or something?

I have no idea. I don't speak Latin... But I do have access to the internet, google translator and a few sentences in Latin. I don't have any intention to proofread them, though. XD

I speak fluent Portuguese, though... That's originated from Latin, so it has to count something. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If I can make an effective character and roleplay just as well as I'd an ineffective one... Why wouldn't I choose to be effective?
"Optimized" and "effective" are not, despite people trying to constantly use them that way, synonyms. Something does not have to be optimal to be effective. It isn't an on/off switch.

Optimize

verb (used with object), optimized, optimizing.
1.
to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
2.
to make the best of.

- - -

Again: Optimization (or lack there of) has no impact on my ability to role play... So why would I choose to make a less effective character?

If I'm too powerful for the campaign, I can just hold back... But if I'm too weak, I can't suddenly get stronger.

So again... Why wouldn't I try yo make my character as competent and effective as possible at whatever it is that I want him to be competent and effective?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still annoyed at Zoom's stupid victory, though... I makes no sense. -.-'

At this point they might as well change the intro to "My name is Barry Allen... And I am among the top 10 fastest men alive... Probably."

-.-'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Might have been just my impression... Although the pacing didn't feel "natural", either.

FINALLY!

EVERYONE said I was crazy that the pacing for the movie was off, but I KNEW it wasn't right. It was as if he made the movie on a tight timeline and was rushing he way through.

True... But to be fair... There's a lot of material to cover in a Watchmen adaptation. And I mean a lot. It'd be really difficult not to rush it without making it at least 2 movies.

This doesn't make the movie's pacing any better, of course, but in this particular case... It's understandable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Might have been just my impression... Although the pacing didn't feel "natural", either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
I enjoyed 300 and Watchmen, more than BvS.

I loved 300.

I... appreciated Watchmen. It has stunning visuals, as expected... But the story was rushed. I felt I'd be somewhat lost and confused if I hadn't read the novel beforehand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it cheating if I say my obe house-rule would be allowing the use of 3pp and homebrew material?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I dare say The Jungle Boom will beat the crap out of BvS when it comes to being a critical and financial success...

Huh... Who could imagine that in a battle between Batman and Superman, the one giving the beating would be Mogli... XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Hama wrote:
Oh come on, jungle book cannot hope to rake in a lot of cash. It probably won't even dent the box office.
Seriously?

Yeah? I see it as nothing else but a cash grab to bank in on 40+ years of nostalgia in most adults living today.

Ok, ShinHakkaider, you were right, I was wrong.

Are you saying that a movie named "Batman vs Superman" is not a cash grab?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Experience taught me that the people most interested in role playing their characters are very, very often the ones that like the game enough to research more about it and how to improve...

Yes, IME, optimizers are usually the best role players as well.

OTOH, the ones who call others "rollplayers" and/or "powergamers" are usually the most unimaginitive role players... Often unable or unwilling to portray their characters as anything other than their class description. "Want to be an sneaky scoundrel! You have to be Rogue, otherwise you're doing it wrong."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know it looks like shameless self promotion when I recommend my Custom Weapon Generation System, but I really do think it's a damn good solution for this issue.

Not only it allows players and GMs to make weapons that are unique, balanced and effective... It's also fully compatible with the published weapons... Can't build an old favorite? Just bring it over from RAW! It also includes feats for specialized weaponsmasters and blacksmiths.

Again... I know this sounds like I'm bragging, but I honestly think this particular homebrew is worth checking out and at least considering adding it to your game, assuming you want more weapon variety.

Believe it or not, most players will prefer something cool and stylish over something crazy powerful, if the stylish choice is good enough for them not to feel like they are gimping themselves by taking it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Every class except Int-bases full casters get at least 4 skill points per level.

Either that or

Combat Expertise and Power Attack are combat options, not feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They don't.

;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cool Fighter Fix!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'd be nice... But not enough. Although, there are some archetypes that are really cool, like the one that gives you mutagen.

I have a few ideas, but maybe it's in bad form to promote my own homebrew...


7 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, making a tactically unsound decision in a life-or-death situation because it fits the character's personality, motivations and objectives is good roleplaying.

The "trying to clothesline the invisible guy" sounds like a bad decision both tactically and for character reasons - at least without more insight into the character's motivation for doing so than was given.
Still, tactically unsound decisions happen in the real world, despite people trying to stay alive. They happen in genre fiction all the time.
Even in dangerous situations, even with trained people, they can react differently, based on personality, not just on perfect tactics. The idea that good roleplay is also the same as good tactics because you're roleplaying trying to stay alive doesn't work for me.
If your game is heavily focused on the tactical challenge, then it's easy and probably best to keep the two close - play characters who are tactically skilled, paranoid and overprepared. That way the roleplay of those characters and the needed tactics match up.

Personally, I like a game where the tactical challenge is dialed back enough that I can intentionally make mistakes that my characters would make: Maybe one is reckless and overconfident. Another has his culture's notions of honor that keep him from taking advantage of his opponent's errors. Maybe another is too cautious and a little cowardly. Flaws. The stuff characters are made of.

Sure... I'm not saying that "good tactics = good roleplaying", what I'm saying that making an stupid decision just because it's different isn't good roleplaying either. And if it puts your party's life at risk, it's selfish.

But if a character is consistently incompetent, then it'd be good roleplay from the party to kick him out. For the safety of both the party and the character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

There's creativity and then there's needlessly overcomplicated solutions.

If you're in a fight for your life you'll use whatever tools.you have to win. Trying to "clothesline the villain in an spectacularly lucky fashion" when you have glitterdust available is not only a poor tactical decision, but also poor roleplay. It's also selfish, since your character is most likely not the only one whose life is on the line.

Yeah, no, that is not how it works.

Spike mindset is the one that makes people go for full casters and handpick the best spells because they know what is needed to defeat all scenarios.

But it does not become selfish and poor roleplaying NOT to take them. Because that implies everyone who knows what is the best and refuses to do it, are hurting others. Or that having other forms of power fantasy is false is also as silly.

- Making a decision that goes against the character's personality, motivations and objectives (such as making an awful tactical decision in a life-or-death situations just because it's different) is poor role playing.

- Risking your friends' lives just because you want to try something new is selfish.

You don't have to be an impossibly prepared full caster to make tactically sound decision and try to actually be creative, instead of overcomplicating simple problems.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

There's creativity and then there's needlessly overcomplicated solutions.

If you're in a fight for your life you'll use whatever tools.you have to win. Trying to "clothesline the villain in an spectacularly lucky fashion" when you have glitterdust available is not only a poor tactical decision, but also poor roleplay. It's also selfish, since your character is most likely not the only one whose life is on the line.

As a caster if you beat my initiative and charge in your going to get "unluckily" caught in the glitterdust along with said bbeg, whether you contact him or not.

If the BBEG is invisible, being blinded for a round or two isn't a bad trade, anyway. The caster could also center the effect somewhere where it affects the enemy but not the charging martial.

Either answer is better than hoping to clothsline an invisible opponent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's creativity and then there's needlessly overcomplicated solutions.

If you're in a fight for your life you'll use whatever tools.you have to win. Trying to "clothesline the villain in an spectacularly lucky fashion" when you have glitterdust available is not only a poor tactical decision, but also poor roleplay. It's also selfish, since your character is most likely not the only one whose life is on the line.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If I can make an effective character and roleplay just as well as I'd an inertective one... Why wouldn't choose to be effective?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The "no extra X feats" policy wouldn't be so bad (and disingenuous) if the quality of feats were higher...

However, this is a game where 80% of feats are garbage that serve little or no purpose other than page filler... And for some reason, the designers always use the weakest ones as their baseline for "what a feat is worth".

A feat can also give you Craft Wondrous Items, Quicken Spell, Leadership or Dazing Assault... All of which are considerably stronger than most "collectable" class features... But designers still insist on comparing those class features to stuff like Dodge or Cleave.

Give us feats that are worth taking and don't lock them behind a wall of awful prerequisites... Then players will value their feats. For as long as feats are there just so Paizo can add "A 100 new feats!" to the backcover of their books, players will rightfully ignore most feats.

This is not just about power either... Feats tend to be underpowered and boring. Don't blame players for taking Extra Rage Power when the alternative is... Weapon Focus. Playing the "Game of Inches" is just not fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magispitt wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

"Closing your eyes is overpowered"...

*sigh*

This is why this game is so unbalanced...

I like the game as it is, but then again beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

I like this game as well... But it is terribly unbalanced....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

It's kinda like this

I close my eyes during my turn to have a 50% miss chance against mirror image instead of dealing with the 8 images they have.
Then at the end I open my eyes and now I have no penalties off my turn to my AC for being "blinded" when the enemies are trying to hit me.
I just get the best option for my turn and not my turn.
So the thing that's not fair or equitable is that the wizard cast a 2nd-level spell and now doesn't get to add any benefits on top of having a 50% miss chance on all incoming attacks?
Note that the wizards 2rd level spell gets 'downgraded' to a 3rd level spell effect [Displacement] by doing that. I'm REALLY searching for the unfairness and not finding it.

Remember that the effective miss chance for Mirror Image is 50% at a minimum and is usually higher, so closing your eyes would improve your miss chance unless there's only one image.

In other words, the second level spell is outright better than the third level spell.

OTOH, every time you hit a Mirror Image, that miss chance gets lower. If you just close your eyes you don't get that benefit... And you're flat-footed. And freaking blinded!

Sure, this feat chain (which takes a minimum of 2 feats) reduces the penalties for being blinded... But that's the whole point of that feat! What are we going to complain about next? That Power Attack allows the character to deal more damage?

A single spell slot (or even a spell known) is a far cheaper investment than a feat. Much less 2 feats... Or a whole feat chain! The caster can always cast a different spell... The martial can't change his feat!

If a creature has no offensive option other than its gaze attack, that creature is a pushover and undeserving of its CR.

You know... It's this kind of argument that creates and perpetuates the stereotype of the "control-freak GM with no empathy for his players".


6 people marked this as a favorite.

"Closing your eyes is overpowered"...

*sigh*

This is why this game is so unbalanced...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
You think it's obviously a PC option, I think it's obviously an NPC option.

Aren't the NPC classes labeled as such though?

Quote:
Wher are you seeing that it's being presented as just as effective as all the other classes and archetypes?

The fact that it's right in the middle of the archetype section of the book with no special qualifiers or warnings anywhere seems to suggest that it's intended to be just as functional as every other archetype.

Quote:
You want an archetype that would skyrocket your CR and let you steamroll encounters.
Huh? Where did anyone say that?

Pretty much all of this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Or maybe designed just fine, and players and GMs are just supposed to exhibit common sense.

Yeah... No. GMs could already use a lycanthrope template for the same effect. Or just roleplay the character as having multiple personalities or whatever. Even if it's just for NPCs, that's still no reason to make the archetype this bad.

There's no reason to make excuses for the designer's mistakes. One of them did a bad job. It happens. This archetype is obviously meant to allow players to play "The Hulk"... So either they failed to make it effective (which means it's poorly designed) or they made it weak on purpose but decided to present it as just as effective as all other classes and archetypes (which means they are bad designers).

To me, it's pretty clear that someone simply made a mistake and accidentally made this archetype really crappy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Wolfsnap wrote:
Guys, frenzied rages that force you to attack everything standing (even your allies) are not a drawback, they are a feature. :)
Meh... Intentionally poorly designed rules are still poorly designed.

And I don't see it as poorly designed. It's an archetype that causes the character to transform and try to kill everything around that. And that's exactly what it does.

Just because it doesn't get buffed up to "offset" the whole kill everything around mode doesn't make it bad. It just makes it party unfriendly.

It's obviously intended to be a viable and (supposedly) balanced PC option... But it's really bad, so it's poorly designed.

Your argument is Like saying the Warrior would be a good PC class because it technically does what's meant to do (wield swords and wear heavy armor).

You think it's obviously a PC option, I think it's obviously an NPC option.

Then why there's nothing indicating that to be the case and is, in fact, side by side with other options meant for PCs?

Just because it's a crappy option, doesn't mean it wasn't supposed to be good and used by PCs, but poorly designed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Wolfsnap wrote:
Guys, frenzied rages that force you to attack everything standing (even your allies) are not a drawback, they are a feature. :)
Meh... Intentionally poorly designed rules are still poorly designed.

And I don't see it as poorly designed. It's an archetype that causes the character to transform and try to kill everything around that. And that's exactly what it does.

Just because it doesn't get buffed up to "offset" the whole kill everything around mode doesn't make it bad. It just makes it party unfriendly.

It's obviously intended to be a viable and (supposedly) balanced PC option... But it's really bad, so it's poorly designed.

Your argument is Like saying the Warrior would be a good PC class because it technically does what's meant to do (wield swords and wear heavy armor).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wolfsnap wrote:
Guys, frenzied rages that force you to attack everything standing (even your allies) are not a drawback, they are a feature. :)

Meh... Intentionally poorly designed rules are still poorly designed.

Wolfsnap wrote:

One of the most entertaining half-hours of roleplay I have ever heard in my life was a game of Rolemaster where the raging, hulk-style half-giant barbarian botched a series of rolls to calm down, but kept getting open-ended/exploding crit rolls(rolling multiple stacking crits) whenever he went to hit anything. He took down all of the bandits attacking the party, and then proceeded to take down all of his teammates one by one.

They survived (barely) by falling down and playing dead/unconscious when he hit them (some of them didn't have to pretend). One PC thought he was safe because he was flying, but then the barbarian critted a jump role to leap 40 feet in the air and knock the guy out of the sky. It was awesome.

Yes it was bad news for the party, but a very fun time for the players.

And that may be interesting once in a while... But it's not fun to have to deal with it every other fight. It's likely to not even be fun even once.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Knott C. Rious wrote:

Oh, look... Everyone gives themselves high Int and good Wis...

How unexpected...

Yeah, it's almost like if you polled the weight lifting team and found they all considered themselves stronger than average.

.... or the juggling club and found they all considered themselves to be good at throwing and catching things.

It's a self-selected (and unrepresentative) sample. People with poor reading skills, for example, are likely to be less interested in participating on a text-primary forum about playing a nonphysical game with a thousand-page ruleset.

I honestly don't think RPG demand that much intelligence. All it requires is basic math... And even people who are not good with math learn how to add up modifiers and whatnot rather quickly with some game experience.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Just as an example, I note that a lot of people are citing standardized tests or IQ tests as proof of high intelligence. Most people who have applied to an American college will have taken a test like the SAT and ACT and therefore know where they fit in the percentile rankings, so intelligence scores in particular are not likely to be plucked out of thin air. Just having graduated from college at all puts you in fairly elite company -- the mean IQ of college graduates is about 115, one standard deviation above the norm, which for 3d6 is right about 13.5.

So, if you graduated from (an American) college and had a higher than average GPA,... yes, you probably have a 14+ intelligence.

Eh... Not really. It really depends on what course you're making and its difficulty.

And I really, really doubt people are that rational, fair and unbiased when it comes to judging their own intelligence... Pretty much everyone thinks they are smarter than average.

Who knows? Maybe everyone is being fair and accurate in their judgment... But I really doubt it.

I'm not saying I think everyone is stupid or dishonest... Only that humans have a tendency to overrate their own mental capacities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if this is Paizo's worst archetype... But it's a serious contender for the position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, look... Everyone gives themselves high Int and good Wis...

How unexpected...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rosc wrote:

Because the OP wants to know, what is Undercommon.

Under. Common.

Hyuk.

...

I don't know how to feel about this pun...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Walk away from this GM... Seriously. He's a terrible GM and a bully. And I don't say that lightly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Water is denser than air, so if you can lift something on dry land, you can do it underwater... Maybe just not well enough to do it before you drown. Sometimes the occupancy doesn't help you enough to keep you from sinking, but it does help.

Dry land supports all of your weight. So does seabed or riverbed, but walking along the bottom is not swimming.

Armor might weigh very slightly less under water, but not enough less for you to fly in it by flapping your arms. Humans can swim because even a very lean human is near neutral buoyancy and most have positive buoyancy.

I never disputed any of that.

What I'm saying is that armor penalties should not exist... Most of it should be covered by encumbrance penalties. If you're strong enough that the armor's weight isn't an issue, why would the mere fact that it's armor suddenly make it a problem? I have literally seen people swim while donning armor.

Not to mention how unfair ACP is from a gameplay point-of-view. Most classes are given no real alternative to donning armor, but are still penalized for doing it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Almost 6 years of necromancy! That's pretty good, Nochtal!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Martin wrote:
Your original link seems to be generating errors, but I am guessing you are referring the upcoming The Killing Joke - which I will agree I am really looking forward.

Ugh... Sorry... Here's the link.

It's The Killing Joke... Approved to be R-Rated by Warner... Directed by Bruce Timm... And starring the cast of Batman TAS.

I never dreamed this could actually happen... Why won't DC release this on theaters instead of BvS. :P

- - -

BTW I really like the Assault on Arkham film as well... And I expect the live action movie to be good, but not as good. I'm hoping to be proven wrong. :P

1 to 50 of 1,879 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.