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. 8,611 posts (12,436 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So... I just rewatched the episode...

Did... Nobody die? Like... Not even a minor NPC? Not even an extra? Just the wights? Really?

That's... not a good omen.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
2 years is a long time to be dead and still walking for most people...

1 second is a long time to be dead and walking... But I don't think that's what Leaf was referring to.

That said, I do think Benjen is there to play the role of Coldhands... The mysterious ally returned-from-death that shows up just in time to protect Bran Stark. :P


archmagi1 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
To me, the most interesting part of the episode was Bran's flashback. It was pretty cool to see the Mad King... And the moment when Jaime killed him.
He watched seasons 1 through 5 with the additional material and dvd commentaries. And there is nothing anywhere to imply that Coldhands isn't Uncle Benjen in the books either, as Sam had never seen Benjen and Coldhands didn't reveal himself to Bran in the book.

Huh? Why was this reply directed at my comment? I think you quoted the wrong post there, sir. :P

Anyway, I'll use the opportunity to share my 2 cents...

In the books, Leaf says Coldhands died "long ago", and Benjen died, at most, a couple years earlier (remember 1 book isn't necessarily 1 year. IIRC only about 2 years have past since the Ned Stark was visited by Robert Baratheon). 2 years doesn't sound like "long ago" for a creature who's lived at least 200 years.

Aside from that, there's a comment or note of GRRM himself where he says Coldhands is not Benjen Stark, although it does look like that was a possibility at some point in time, but GRRM changed his mind/decided against it.

EDIT: Ah! Got it why you quoted my comment. I was confused by your mention of Coldhands, so I thought you had mistakenly quoted me while trying to reply to one of the posts that mention the wight. XD


I haven't used Paizo's ABP system, as I think it's needlessly convoluted, but I have a similar system for replacing most of the Big 6, and I like it. IMO, it's much cooler for this stuff to be part of the character's skills rather than their loot. And it's interesting to see what gear players will buy when they don't have to worry about the "mandatory" stuff.


To me, the most interesting part of the episode was Bran's flashback. It was pretty cool to see the Mad King... And the moment when Jaime killed him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I think you've made an incorrect assumption about why Stan is upset.

Hopefully archmagi'll make his next Sense Motive check. ^^


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Stan Lee is (justifiably) mad about his cameo in Deadpool.


I'm guessing it's to differentiate the character's skill set from their occupation. This greatly increases the number of concepts that can be played in the game.


That's... unexpected.


I wonder how the season finale of Flash will influence the next season of Arrow...


Sundakan wrote:
Superman's powers have been telekinetically based for a quite a while, as I recall. His speed/strength/flight are all a telekinetic shell erected around him to give him those powers and conveniently handwave away any super feats that defy physics too hard (like why an aircraft carrier doesn't collapse under its own weight when he flies off with it).

He has touch-based telekinesis... In addition to physical strength, speed, etc.

Yup. He's just that overpowered.


Obviously, this won't stick... But it's still infuriating to see beloved characters go through these gimmicky "story arcs" made for the sake of shock value.

This is as bad as "Death of Superman" and "Knightfall" when it comes to desperate publicity stunts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Racism is racism. Sexism is sexism. It doesn't matter at whom you direct it, it's all prejudice and hatred. Trying to label these behaviors as anything else just because they are directed at someone you deem an acceptable target is hypocritical, hateful and despicable.

Nothing is more hateful than creating excuses to justify your hate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate 99% of Paizo erratas... Specially their unwarranted nerf-nukes, such as the one directed at Ultimate Equipment. I hate that Paizo doesn't display any interest in changing this lazy design policy of making problematic options so awful no one will ever use them instead of actually taking the time to do proper game design and fix the problem instead of adding yet another brick to the wall of garbage options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dman weak Will save...

Jiggy wrote:
Trent formaldehime wrote:
Offense is always taken, not given
That's... not how it works.

It kinda is... I mean, you can guess what'll offend someone, of course, and say it with that intention... but it ultimately comes down to the listener.

Not long ago someone was offended by me citing an statistical fact, after all. No judgement, praise or criticism of anyone or anything was made... I simply mentioned statistical data and was told that it was morally wrong to do so.


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


Even just switching from "the black one" to "the one with dark-brown skin" would be a step in the right direction. "Black" doesn't actually describe Bob physically and instead puts him in a category with all kinds of cultural and historical assumptions tacked on.
I see no improvement. In this context "black" emcompases more color spectrum than dark-brown skin, which may not fit bob description, and certainly dark-brown skin is less direct than black.

I used "dark-brown" as just an example of a possible skin tone for the description. I originally typed "[insert skin tone here]" but then deleted it and replaced it with an example because I thought it would read more smoothly and make the example easier to follow. I never dreamed in a million years that someone could read that sentence and honestly believe I was suggesting that the entire spectrum of brownish skin tones ought to be collectively described as "dark-brown".

Which is why I'll be ignoring your posts from here on out.

I won't weigh in on the subject... But I think you're reading way too much into Nicos' post, Jiggy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
So if you're describing someone's appearance, you need to use direct descriptive language anyway, so neither label is needed. And if you're not describing their appearance, then I still see no need for the labels.

The problem is precisely the fact that some people are offended by descriptive language. Sometimes we have/want to describe a persons's appearance, but many listeners will be offended by your choice of words, despite the fact that you're simply giving them an objective description (which may or may not accurate, depending on the speaker's ability to describe a person's features).

Sorry, sorry... Failed my Will save. Leaving now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to describe anyone without being offensive. :P
No, it's actually very easy not to if you actually put forth effort.

That depends on who/what you're describing... But whatever. I'm not having this discussion again. It never gets anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty much impossible to describe anyone without being offensive. :P

In Brazil there are two words that mean "black". Literally "black", the color. One of them ("negro") is acceptable to use to describe a black person, while the other one ("preto") is often viewed as offensive (although many people don't have a problem with it, since, as I said, it literally means "black", as in: the color black).

It doesn't help that the acceptable word ("negro") sounds very similar to a rather offensive slur in English. My stepmother accidentally caused quite a commotion once by using the wrong word once. Luckily, the woman she accidentally offended was clever enough to realize the mistake and calmed everyone down.


What's wrong with calling someone "oriental"? Is "oriental" a slur? Why is it any more harmful than saying "American", "western", "asian", "european" or whatever? Isn't that just a word denoting on what region said person was born?

I mean, in Brazilian Portuguese, at least, no one uses the word for "East" to mean the eastern half of the world. They use the word "Oriente", which, as you can probably guess, is the literal translation for "Orient". "Leste" (the literal translation of "East") is mostly reserved to mean the direction ("This city is east of that city"). Same goes for West and Occident.

Never thought it was offensive, just a different language convention.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That has always been a major problem in Flash comics (specially considering they insist on making his enemies relatively powerless people, like captain cold or captain boomerang).

And the show-writers are freaking terrible at action scenes. Barry's real enemy is the idiot ball he's always carrying!


Kirth Gersen wrote:

What I want to know is why the Mountain ages in reverse. In seasons 1-2, he was apparently in his 40s. By the time he fights the Viper, he's in his 20s. I need to be able to do that, too!

Or maybe the guy in the duel is Gregor Cleghane Junior, trying to make his daddy proud?

Is it worth aging backwards if you end up a (nearly) mindless zombie?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I still defend the idea that Bruce Wayne has its own Batman class (a very overpowered class, BTW). And the Vigilante is just a failed attempt to recreate it.
Still gets curb-stomped by Supes, though. Classless unique godling with limitless stats wins every time. Superman is the pun pun of the DC universe.

Indeed... That's because Superman only has one real power: BE OVERPOWERED. It doesn't matter how strong you are in the DC universe... At some point, for whatever reason, Superman will overpower you (or at least be able to do so).

(Apparently he's even stronger than other kryptonians for some reason. I heard this is supposedly because he spent his growing years under the yellow sun or whatever. I don't know how cannon that is, though. I just remember this from a discussion with friends).

It doesn't matter if you rolled 18 in all your attributes and have all of 5~6 levels in an overpowered class... The Expert 2/Brawler 1 with a +30 HD race/template will win every time. :P

Batman, however, does occasionally display the one greater power, though: GM favoritism. XD


I still defend the idea that Bruce Wayne has its own Batman class (a very overpowered class, BTW). And the Vigilante is just a failed attempt to recreate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I also enjoy reading your stuff, Lemmy, ever since you solved the Great Goblin Baby Debate with your holy sword solution. That was the most zen thing I'd ever read. You figured out one-hand clapping. The elegance, the simplicity - the simple fact that any GM who said they die is by default declaring they're evil and you made the right decision and if the GM doesn't have them die, again, you made the right decision, no matter what - the God of Gods for your game has to make the call for you. Simply brilliant!

Haha... Thanks!

Let's hope there's no evil badass baby born with 2 HD. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never seen IHIYC make any positive contribution to any discussion around here. If he ever did, I certainly didn't see it. All I've ever seen him doing was show disdain and arrogance towards other players and then claim he never did it.

I don't think IHIYC's just trolling. I think he's "stinging" (or whatever it's called): Trying to provoke a reaction so that someone else gets punished by the admins. Which I believe is againsr the forum's rules.

The only reason I even click this thread anymore is because Jiggy's awesome and makes amazing points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

F$!#ing Barry...

Just another reason Wally West will always be my favorite Flash!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... I just heard Fish is back. It seems dropping the series was indeed the right choice.


Maleficent kinda sucks, though... And ruins a great character, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
Man this thread sure took a head dive into lunatics and general silliness of the internet. You have your default socially backwards argumentative loony, you have the OCD corrector, you have the peanut gallery, the "I agree, buuuut" and our all time favorite the offrailers who tries to derail the "discussion" to something more lighthearted.

And as always... It all starts with someone with a viciously toxic attitude.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Specially considering that clown has never made any positive contribution to these forums. I guess disagreeing with an admin is more serious than having a toxic and disdainful attitude towards those with a different play style.

>:(


Aranna wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Over the years, some of the less-skilled players felt the need to paint it as a strength rather than a weakness. That's where we get expressions like "ROLEplay not ROLLplay"
Wow you love to paint in only one color don't you? While this might be true in some cases It certainly isn't true as a general rule. Many if not most people talk about rollplay vs roleplay as a numbers vs fluff argument, NOT as a slight against rollplayers.

Jiggy did use the word "some" in his sentence... Precisely to point out that he isn't generalizing to mean "all".

Also:

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Every instance of serious use of the phrase I have seen has been a pejorative.

Same here. Every. Single. Time.


Dragon78 wrote:
So Lemmy, you didn't care much for the Jungle Book?

Haven't had the chance to see that one yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
A fool is just a person with low wisdom. You can be a genius and a fool or an idiot and wise...or neither idiot nor fool or both.

True... But being a fool doesn't necessarilly means someone is smart either.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Maybe you'd have a better view if you came down from your high horse...
"Gifted" =/= "conceited." PLEASE grasp that. Being autistic, I've lived my whole life viewing Humanity from an outsider's perspective. It's definitely a double-edged privilege. Being Cassandra SUCKS, and I've found myself in that role more often than I care to count. I'm emphatically NOT the type who enjoys looking down on people. Since I'm strongly resistant (possibly even immune) to many of the ugly pitfalls to which normal people are vulnerable, I try to warn them when I see the danger of falling into a trap. Because I know how vastly superior people can be as long as they can stay free of those traps.

Are you kidding me?

Your posts are often littered with condescending remarks and filled to the brim with holier-than-thou attitude. This whole thread carries an obvious condescending attitude towards those who play differently from you (players who you call "rollplayers")!

Hell! This very post of yours sounds incredibly arrogant! You just implied you're "vastly superior" to everyone else! "Looking down on people" is something I see you doing quite often around here.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Maybe it's because when *you* say it, you refer to other people's ideas with terms like "parasitic meme" or "evil mind-plague"? Do you think maybe that could be why you keep encountering conflict?
What am I supposed to say? That's exactly what it's always looked like from where I've been standing...and I know that such things ARE a real and serious scourge upon Humanity.

Maybe you'd have a better view if you came down from your high horse...


We're running out of dire wolves...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

In the original Watchmen?

Creating life, certainly. Though I thought of it more as "Going to barren planet and creating new life there", rather than "Creating new universe".

Specifically creating the DC universe? Never crossed my mind. I'd be shocked if that's what Alan Moore had meant.

That's how I saw it as well... Never even imagined it creating an actual universe, much less the DC comics universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM + 1 is not something I'd play... But I know people who enjoy games like that with a sibling or spouse.

GM + 2 is the bare minimum. Needs some patching, but works.

GM + 3 is great.

or + 4 is the ideal number.

GM + 5 is also great.

GM + 6 players is doable, but pushing it...

GM + 7 (or more) is basically unplayable, IME. Rounds takes too long, players are too easily distracted, GMs are too easily overwhelmed and CR has to be completely reworked.


I don't know how to feel about this... Beauty & The Beast is by far my favorite Disney film... And the recent live-action remakes of Disney classics failed to impress me. They seem to range from "okay" to "kinda bad".


Zilfrel Findadur wrote:

There are some things i do like--and yes, Pathfinder Fighter Needs a rework, it's way too weak. I'll play a Slayer all the way instead of a fighter. Still there are abilities such as "Man at Arms" that i don't like, Also becoming inmmune to certain status is not the way. Solo Tactics is a lovely ability, other thing it would be cool to have is the items feats.

The Battle Dynamo could be more fitting to have a power such as Man-at-Arms and Fearless.

I think Man-at-Arms makes perfect sense for a character who reaches super-human levels of martial skill.

In Pathfinder, Magic is a part of the world, a force of nature. Fighters may not be able to produce or manipulate it, but they should be able to interact with it. Just like I can't produce/manipulate fire (without appropriate tools) but I can interact with it.

The same should be said about incorporeal creatures... the fact that they can affect the Fighter means there's some way for corporeal and incorporeal to interact... high level Fighters are skilled enough to find that way. It also solves the idiotic situation that a 20th level Fighter without a magic weapon is completely helpless against a CR 1 shadow. -.-'

The ability of counting as adamantine reflects the Fighters will and skill to use his weapons to their fullest potential. A Fighter's weapons don't break nearly as easily while he's wielding them because the Fighter is really freaking good at using it to apply, absorb and deflect force. A mighty warhammer that would shatter a sword at the hands of a lesser warrior will fail to do put even a dent in an identical sword wielded by a Fighter because that Fighter knows exactly how soften the blow, greatly reducing the damage cause by the impact.

Last but not least, all warriors should be good at dealing with fear, fatigue and blood loss. I've never been to the military, but I'm going out on a limb here and guessing they receive a fair amount of training on how to deal with those things... It's only natural that a warrior who goes beyond the point of what is humanly possible would become inhumanly good at dealing with those problems.

Besides, if you check any Fighter-related thread, you'll see people saying Fighter are (or should be) capable of going all day, while casters have to rest after a few encounters... Ignoring the (in)accuracy of that statement, it's pretty obvious that players at least want Fighters to be fearless, tireless warriors. Immunity to fear, fatigue and bleed damage reflects that quite well without breaking anything.


Sciamancer wrote:

I gotta say, I really dig this fighter! I'm probably going to use it (+ most if not all your other homebrew stuff and class fixes) in an upcoming campaign I'm doing. It's much much more powerful than the typical fighter, but like... an experienced player trying to CharOp would still pick a full spellcaster, so it's not all that concerning.

Naturally the other martial classes likely need a boost as well (but your Monk and Rogue do well enough), and your big list of homebrew gives enough small fixes to other non-full-caster classes (e.g. Ranger) that I suspect it'll about balance out. Love it!

I'm glad you like it! Hopefully more people will give it a chance. ;)

Plase, do share your experience and tells how it went. I'm always happy to have feedback. :)

Sciamancer wrote:
And the Paragon archetype is absolutely ridiculous but I still love it. It'd probably be better off as a separate class entirely or a prestige class, but... laser eyes!
Arakhor wrote:
Ignore the fighter feats and just go full on Paragon powers around a specific theme. Lots of mileage there! :)

I actually considered making the Paragon a separate class... It's done as an archetype because it was originally far less "super", but I changed it more and more because the original version felt bland. I might actually give it its own homebrew as well... So players can use it as an archetype and as base class.

I'm still constantly updating the document. Right now, I'm thinking of giving Paragons an scaling enhancement bonus to physical attributes (so it won't stack with belts, but saves a lot of money).

I'm also considering ways to make some of the Warlord archetype's abilities come into play earlier... It's not very fun to wait 'til 11th level to use your coolest abilities! Many games don't even go that high. :/

Feel free to share your ideas, suggestions and criticism. :)


Not in PF, but did it a few times in 3.5... It's not a very interesting opponent, really... It gets old after seeing it once or twice.


It always warms my cold, decrepit heart to see players taking an interest in my homebrew projects. ^^

Right now I'm having to post from my phone so I can't give you folks proper replies as they might end up too lenghty too type in this awful virtual keyboard... But rest assured that I am reading your comments and that I always take them in consideration, even if I disaagree with them.

You all have my thanks for your feedback. I really do appreciate it. I'll be back to address your individual points and criticism as soon as I get back to my PC. :)


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Scavion wrote:
Aw man. Warforged are in this game? Time for Cyrus to die and reroll as one.

That's assuming they are a playable race... ;)


The Tyrion Targaryen theory is also supported by the fact that The Mad King took unspecified "liberties" with Joanna Lannister on her bedding ritual.

But, yeah... It's a pretty weak theory and IMO ruins the whole Tywin/Tyrion dynamic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Too strong? If you aren't a Gunslinger or Trench Fighter, they're the worst weapons in thr game!!!


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Scavion wrote:

*narrows eyes*

He wantz to use it on an NPC!

Not really... Truth be told, I barely remember the weapon tricks...

Besides, if I wanted to use it on an NPC, I'd do it anyway.


The wording makes me think it requires no action at all... It's simply activated at will and stops functioning once it reaches its time limit.


Oh, gods... No more of the "natural attacks and unarmed strikes aren't weapons" BS, please.

1 to 50 of 8,611 << 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.