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

MMCJawa's page

2,833 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

what does disciplining a child have to do with having sex with a vampire in RPGs?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It probably also doesn't help that baby goblins are kept in cages where they are poked and prodded at by adults. Who may or may not regularly feed them, which sometimes results in cannibalism.

Interestingly, the Advanced Race Guide leans really hard on the idea that Hobgoblins, in contrast, are evil almost entirely due to cultural reasons. Something it does do with Orcs and regular goblins by contrast.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Medieval monster and animal illustrations are also pretty fertile to mine for monster ideas:

Old Monster Drawings

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, can we dial back the edition warring, and accept that some people actually like 3E and Pathfinder, just like some people actually like 5E, 4E, 2E, 1E, etc.

Right now we are flying towards a thread lock...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thinking is that, unlike with 4E, the game plan for this edition is not to gain huge numbers of people who have never played a RPG before, but rather to retain 4E users and earn back fans of earlier editions.

If they can get new people into the hobby, great. But that is not the main goal of the marketing as far as I can tell.

I think they want to keep the brand "viable", in that they are supporting a system, but everything I have heard makes it sound like they might be mostly keeping DnD alive for the purpose of novels, computer games, and other multimedia

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
I have to admit, if it's just more vancian casting, I'm going to have a hard time getting excited for it.

Well, what do you mean by "Vancian"? Spontaneous spellcasters arent Vancian. Nor are the Hex of Witches, nor cantrips, nor Wordcasters, nor Ki powers. Plenty of non-Vancian now.

The Warlock was non-Vancian also, as was BoNS, and to a large extent 4th edition (well, except for Daily abilities).

I doubt if all six new classes will use the true Vancian system (mostly) by Wizards .

If what you want is a points system, that's different than saying "non-Vancian".

I really hate spell points or any power point system. Every one I have seen is subject to abuse, especially Nova-ing. Nova-ing spellcasters and "one encounter day" are a major part of what some find as a "caster/martial disparity".

I dont get why everyone thinks that Psionics Must be Power points, rather than some other system.

if it's power points you want, then why do say you want Psionics? Psionics are a particular form of supernatural ability coming from mental force. You can have Psionics without PP, and PP without Psionics. 4th Ed had Psionics without PP (altho there was a sorta pt system involved).

If you talk about Psionics in relation to DnD, at least if you talk about it post 3rd edition, people will automatically assume you mean a power point system. Even Paizo recognizes that, hence psychic magic and not Psionics

As for powerpoints, I don't actually think it is overpowered in comparison to more traditional spellcasting, at least as implemented by DSP. Numerous threads on that subject on this site There are restrictions on how you use your power points, and Nova-ing si something easy to address in play.

Personally looking forward to seeing Occult Adventures, and glad it's going in a different design direction than 3.5 Psionics. We already have the latter in Dreamscarred Press, and I want to see something new.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I see a lot of things in the Bestiary 5 thread that I'd like to see in the next volume myself. But just because it'd be a useful or nice fit, doesn't yet make it a contest-winning spectacular one. I still have a lot of thread to read.

And is it me, or is there a handful of people that really dominates the postcount in that thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:

And before someone tries to claim I hate WotC or am in love with PF, at this point I would approach something new like 5E the same regardless of who was making it or why; I already have that niche filled, and don't need yet another game in that style of play. If I want fighters and wizards, I already have both 3.x and PF, and even a couple of late AD&D books. The main reason I am still interested in PF is that they aren't sticking to just fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, the way that WotC is beating it into the ground yet again. I get the strong nostalgia factor for D&D, but I'm actually getting to the point where I respect 4E a lot more than I did initially precisely because they didn't rely on just nostalgia.

Are they? I flipped through the players book at a bookstore the other day, and it seems like they had all of the classes that are in the Pathfinder core rulebook (+ warlock). It doesn't seem fair to say they are focusing just on a handful of classes when the game just came out. And really...I tend to think that "slow and steady" is the best way to introduce new classes, lest you overwhelm people.

And nostalgia...well it works as a business strategy. I know lots of people online are only trying the game because it reminds them of earlier editions, in some way or another.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Arcanist is powerful, but the Sorcerer and Wizard are already really powerful. I am guessing in average play, there really won't be much a difference in performance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I would prefer if full deities lacked alignment. Mostly because I kind of like flawed deities, and alignment kind of forces "good" gods to be good in every which way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alf-of-the-Squirrels wrote:

I'm not very excited, at this point, from the sound of it its going to be 6 Vancian casters with psychic abilities that seem very low key. But hey maybe it will be good. Still sad that I wont be making light sabers with my mind.

Another problem, at least thematically is, that the style i.e occult can already be done by the current selection of spell casters with either re-fluffing or just straight up can do.

Nope...for instance the Kineticist is stated to be a completely non-spellcaster, so it doesn't seem like it just a bunch of straight Vancian casters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

Absolutely Hell Yes.

I have no interest in spending 100$+ on a rehashed edition with new art and little or no significant changes. Why buy the same thing a second time. Those who don't want any change forgot well how will Paizo market a product with little changes. Even Chaosium Call of Cthulhu 7E is different enough this time around from what I hear. That being said I'm in the minority so realize it will not happen.

If they do a playtest

If your going to ask for feedsback use some of it. Don't ask for any if in the end your not going to use it.

Your not going to please everyone so don't approach a new playtest with that in mind as imo Paizo is dooming itself to failure.

Keep a very tight rein on those who are very vocal who attempt to sabotage the playtest. Permabanning them if need. We don't need another core playtest debacle imo.

this all over the map.

It sounds like what you are really saying is "Take feedback seriously, but not only ignore playtest comments that disagree with me, but ban those people entirely from the process".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Before people get too excited, keep in mind that again, this isn't actually Psionics. The book will cover similar themes, but will be roughly vancian, and not use a power point system.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For what its worth, I voted no. My vote will vary based on what is meant by "edition"

I don't want to see a huge overhaul of the system that renders all of my existing books useless. If a new edition was mostly:

cleaning up formatting and presentation of the rules (which is something that is really needed),
tweaking a few of the weaker classes/feats
nerfing a few of the more ridiculous classes/spells,
just incorporating errata

I would be okay with it. Basically....I want a revision of the rules where most of the classes/monsters/adventures still work without any real changes

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."


POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?


Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes. thing is that I just don't want to see a radical new edition that necessitates Paizo having to republish a lot of the current books. I don't want to have to rebuy the equivalent of the APG, UC, UM, etc. I don't want to have to sit through republishing 4 new bestiaries before we get a mostly new one. Etc ad nauseum. And that is as much a "this sounds really boring" as it is money reason

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it depends on what side of the fence you are on. Personally, I don't find criticism of Pathfinder to be stymied, or the forum to be full of "fanboys". If anything, certain sections of the forum tend towards the overly negative, to the point I usually don't post in them or pay attention to them.

Also, human psychology, at least as far as playtest suggestions. I have heard people in some of the recent threads say things along the lines of "No one ever wanted this class and it is a waste of space", while earlier on the same thread people raved about the class. People are more likely to remember the people that agreed with them and disregard playtests comments that didn't

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Minor suggestion, but these big lists are somewhat easier to go through if they are in alphabetical order. Especially if you are trying to look them up and compile your own notes :)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

But I don't think they necessarily are trying to compete for the 3.X crowd. I think it's been obvious from the get-go they are going after fans of rule-lite systems + DnD brand loyalists. I for one am glad they are not trying to compete for the same consumer niche as Pathfinder. That would be a bad idea for both brands.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel the "one and done" stream-lined system already's the Beginner Box. I suppose they could expand the rules for that into its own hardcover. Although you still run into the issue that WoTC already is released a more simplified set of rules, so presumably a good chunk of the potential audience is investing in that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Xris Robin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
2. They are planning something that's essentially Barrier Peaks on Steroids. and Numeria is the setting for Barrier Peaks writ large. The tech introduced has self-limiting factors that ensure the planet is not going to be overrun by legions of Cybermen.
People always SAY we're not going to be overrun by Cybermen this time, but we still end up having to have the Doctor save us, don't we?

We're not going to be overrun by Cybermen. The monsters who are going to overrun the world look more like Dalek expies.

Man, now I wish Bestiary 4 had Dalek expies...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The high tech numeria tech is kept in check because:

It's been thousands of years since the crash: a lot of the tech is broken or malfunctioning

A lot of it is buried (the local Kellids greatly feared it for a good part of their history), or in crashed ship-parts crawling with robots and aliens, and sometimes fatal amounts of radioactivity.

What functioning stuff that does get out gets snatched up by Technic League, who are willing to kill to keep the technology from escaping their control.

Even if you get ahold of some tech that works and you understand enough to use, power charges are limited (after which it becomes useless), and it's so advanced that you can't replicate it. A lot of Numeria tech would probably be hard to replicate with our level of technology; Most of Golarion is at best Renaissance level as far as science and engineering goes.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue then comes back to...supporting and developing two separate pathfinder systems is not something that really is feasible for Paizo based on profit/development reasons. So then the conservation drifts to supporting a rules light system versus the current Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Emperor Point wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
Misroi wrote:
Because heroes. It's hard to be heroic when you're siding with an empire that has literally sold its soul to the Devil.

Pfff. You just need a villain that's even worse than the Devil you know.

Qlippoth, anyone? :D

Whilst on a philosophical level selling your soul to the devil is evil, on a practical level it has a great deal of benefits for the living. You can still be the good guys and make deals with bad guys, that is what is known as a "Peace Treaty" and is traditionally seen as a sign of good.

Also a bigger villain would be the perfect stage for the adventure, with the city under threat by INSERT BESTIARY CREATURES HERE lead by INSERT CHAOTIC EVIL CASTER HERE threatening to destroy the city, both the loyalists and the rebels are looking to rally the people to beat back the villain and gain the support of the people. So the side you help/get help from is seen as heroic by the people and gets more support, leading to their victory.

On the other hand, another AP set in Cheliax which DIDNT go up against House Thrune would probably have been a disappointment to many.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just noticed that the Know direction notes list a new Kineticist (ala psychokinetics, pyrokinetics, etc) class that is NOT a caster.

Incredibly intrigued on how something like that works.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
The only thing I'm worried about is the playtest time period. Hopefully, there is going to be a much longer playtest so the rules get a better pass over.

Well...on the plus side, 6 classes might be more manageable than 10 on that front (and part of the book will be monsters, so the whole thing won't be player options). I do think 10 classes at once might have been a bit much, given Paizo's current production schedule.

although man, I do wonder about archetypes. since that potential section got a lot bigger now that ACG is out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
It sounds pretty exciting. A question though, if I may? When it was said they'd be more like Penny Dreadful than Prof X, did you mean the pulp genre or the signature character from Mage the Ascension? Because the latter would (also) be extremely awesome, and quite appropriate.

I assume it's neither, and more a reference to the Showtime series. Especially since the series features quite a bit of 19th century spiritualism.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the most part most of the high level bad guys kind of make sense. I will say, I think Razmiran would be far more interesting if he was a level 10 wizard (or higher level bard). It would just make his con all the more impressive.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also...I assume Playtest for the 6 new classes? any rough idea if an when?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well...Hardcover Inner Sea Races is on the line up for 2015. That should hopefully provide more material for races not covered in the Advanced Race Guide.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While insanity can take many forms, I assume the type of crazy that is attracted to Rovagug are the folks who IRL climb up watch towers and shoot people, or burn stuff down for their jollies. So while mental problems do not equal violent criminals always, they certainly can lead to violence.

As for worship of Rovagug, it's probably not all madness. You can also get the following:

Societies/races who for whatever reason were brought up within the religion of Rovagug. members of such societies might not be insane, but having grown up around Rovagug preachings, might not really know better.
I suspect this is the case for many monstrous humanoids (at least in my head canon). Also, some species such as orcs may have a greater predisposition to violent acts, which might make worship more tolerable.

People/societies ostracized by greater society. If you have been spit upon and treated by dirt by another race/nobility/religion/etc all your life, you may relish the opportunity to rise up and destroy your persecutors. Obviously Rovagug is all about that.

Charismatic cult leaders. This sort of goes with the earlier point, but there are plenty of real life examples of people who prey on the gullible and weak-willed. In this case, you might get a cult of Rovagug that may worship him without really realizing what he is about. Also if a powerful sect of Rovagug worshipers takes control, they might be able to influence the greater population into serving Rovagug out of fear.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, WoTC isn't necessarily the only model to follow. How long did 1E/2E last? What about other gaming systems, such as Call of Cthulhu?

Really...the radically new edition thing only started with 3E...

And based on rumors for 5E, it might be now considered an obsolete model.

We also shouldn't forget that Paizo business model actually makes it a lot harder to update than WoTC is. A radical rules revision (ala 2E -> 3E, 3E -> 4E) would result in a lot of the existing product being rendered unsaleable. Which is a problem when a main source of revenue is subscriptions and sale's through the Paizo store.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Found a pretty cool blog earlier this week by a South American cryptozoology writer:

Patagonian Monsters

The site has tons of obscure monsters and legends from the southern portion of South America. These include many beasts I have never heard about before, like armadillo-folk, penguin-like dwarves, and monster seals. Worth checking out

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe...just maybe...judge the book after its been released on the PRD, instead of rumor and posted comments?

As for the Ecclesitheurge...My guess is part of the problem is that its something that would be better off as a full class, not an archetype. baseline clerics are already really powerful, since they get 9 level casting but can also fight well and have some other bells and whistles attached to them. Kind of hard to do a 1/2 BAB divine caster that doesn't seem like a nerfed cleric when you lack the freedom of creating new mechanics for them as well.

Personally, I think bringing some elements of the bard and pairing them with a 1/2 BAB cleric could be a good way of creating such a class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

a friend just sent me this: DnD 5E Umberhulk

This is apparently a page from the monster manual. Art seems great. I really love the layout and formatting. Also this make me hopeful each monster will get a whole page, like the Paizo bestiaries do. Also seems like there is a lot more flavor included in the entry, than what I recall 4E had (from memory).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Well the dinosaur names are back (i.e. Allosaurus, not Sharp-tooth meativore or whatever). So that is a good sign.

I do think WotC went a little overboard at times, but I never really understood the disdain that gets heaped on the use of "in-world" names, at least not for dinosaurs. After all, it seems unlikely anyone would refer to them by genus in a world largely devoid of the scientific method.

for a lot of people, those names are more awkward to use and kind of harder to convey what it is the monster they are facing is. At any rate, I assume that everything in the game books is in the english translation of whatever language the PC's and NPC's actually use. So just because I use the term Tyrannosaur, doesn't mean myself as a player is literally saying the same thing in common.

I mean...PC's face minotaurs, and minotaur is a greek derived name that basically Refers to the Bull of Minos. I don't see how a group of characters facing a Tyrannosaur is any more odd than characters facing a Minotaur, or any other monster pulled from real life mythology.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

meh...If I didn't like a movie, and only saw it once years ago, I probably would be inclined to forget most of the movie.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was obvious that they were not catering this edition to the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder fan base, but were trying a more simpler game approach to bring in the 1E and 2E players, as well as 4E players and people sick of 3rd edition.

Which I think is a good choice...I think it's healthier that DnD systems by different companies have completely different design philosophies. Gaming needs more diversification, not less, and hopefully this edition shakes out a few new approaches or design mechanics that can improve future game systems.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there are issues with magic, but it less about the spellcasting system than it is the overall power of spells. I would actually prefer if more specialization was present in the spell access of wizards, which I think would help deal with some of the power level. And if there were more meaningful limits on the powers of high level spells

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

In particular, the Magic system needs to be standardized and Vancian Casting needs to be either eliminated or changed to work with Known spells (like Spontaneous Casting) instead of "fire and forgetful."

I know you include this comment in all the Pathfinder 2E related threads, but I have trouble seeing how getting rid of vancian casting is a "necessity" rather than a personal preference on your part. Seems unlikely given that many Paizo folks like Vancian, and dislike spell point related systems.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Deadmanwalking.

There are certain posters who pretty much post in a very aggressive manner, incorporate subtle (or not so subtle insults in their postings), or will beat a dead horse into the ground, even after devs explain why X happened, or after realizing their opinion was not in the majority.

For you, this is a hobby that you can kick back and relax too, and you can post anything you want. If you don't like a topic or don't want to deal with something, you can just ignore those posts. IIRC, Paizo actually expects most of their staff to interact with the forums in some capacity. Note that most companies don't require this of there staff. So yeah...I think if you are expecting any sort of feedback or acknowledgement of a concern after heaping piles of abuse on them, it's just hilarious. And yes, calling developers stupid or claiming they don't do there jobs (after pulling off 7 days of overtime getting product done) is pretty much insult.

Incidentally, as I have posted once before, there is criticism and constructive criticism. I am in academia, and have had to review a variety of scientific papers. If I wrote in a review "This person is stupid and clearly doesn't understand the method they are reviewing" There is absolutely nothing constructive in that sentence. If you want your opinion taken seriously, tone and content are important.I would probably never be invited back to review for that journal. Furthermore, again from personal experience, nothing shuts down a dialogue faster than snarky responses or vague assertions. This kind of stuff produces a disconnect, which will just result in the person dismissing further criticism from the party, and may enforce earlier stances.

By all means, post historical notes, examples from the game, or math/theory work. But couch it in a neutral tone

I don't think it's mollycoddling to flag posts or ask people to be a bit more civil. I think if you consider "civility" as mollycoddling, than you have some very odd viewpoints on how the world works.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could play in such a game (I like human clerics), but I don't see why someone is a "special snowflake" if they want to play a class or race in the core rulebook.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

Two assumptions people missed:

- Cthulhu's trapped on Earth, not on Golarion. It says so canonically. How did he just suddenly get out of R'lyeh and into Golarion?

- Does the DM want you to have a chance at winning, or does he think the party is up for a Call of Cthulhu style ending for the player characters?

Judging from some of the responses here, actually defeating Cthulhu is badwrongfun and anyone (DM or player) suggesting that such is allowed should be kicked out of the group and then be run out of town.

I think you are reading too much of an agenda into some people's complaints.

Which do you think is more fun for a group of players/GM. A single character who one shots the main bad guy of the campaign in 15 minutes game time, while everyone else plays angry birds on their phone? or a drawn-out complicated battle where everyone gets to contribute and which actually has high stakes?

I mean check out the Wrath of the Righteous threads. Biggest complaints in those threads are that characters become so overpowered that they steam roll most bad guys with no effort at all, making combat boring.

Personally I don't mind if PCs beat Cthulhu...that is what Pathfinder is about. But I would make it a challenging fight, and I would structure the whole campaign as leading up to that.

Incidentally, Cthulhu is on Earth, so if the PC's are going to fight him, they need to get to there. Which according to Rasputin Must Die, is pretty much a world where magic is nearly dead. There is an implication that magic works as well as it does for the volume because the bad guys are able to pull a chunk of the first world down to earth, which acts as a beacon for various supernatural beings to converge at the site. I would make the near absence of magic a plot element of visiting Earth.

Presumably Magic comes back in full when Rl'yeh (or however you spell it) returns, but Rl'yeh is also a place of non-euclidean geometry and other weird spatial phenomena. So while a party of players would have full magic abilities, any sort of magic dealing with spatial manipulation would probably (If I were GMing) have some sort of fail rate.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah...the quarterly Pathfinder 2E thread!

all the rules are free on the PFSRD...More than ever will be available int the DnD Basic free PDF. So I don't think they really need to do anything right now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically...if this sort of exploit worked, it would forever change the fantasy setting. nations would just stockpile Exploding ruins and deploy them as weapons of mass destruction. Castles would be rendered irrelevant, and open warfare would probably give way to terrorist tactics.

I mean if people have problems with guns/gunpowder in a campaign, this would be way way way worse. You are effectively introducing briefcase nukes into the setting

That would be a cool idea for a magitech campaign, or as backstory for the fall of civilization and a campaign held in it's ruins. But probably a really really bad idea for a lot of other campaigns.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is. Female Lashunta show up in Distant Worlds, Inner Sea Bestiary, and I think the Numeria campaign setting book. This will be the first product to illustrate the male though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

The decision to include Cthulhu is already a "willing to throw game balance out the window" scenario for a lot of people.

How do I know this? This thread is the only proof you need. If it wasn't an issue, this thread would have died out quite a while ago.

as others have mentioned, it's not killing Cthulhu, it's killing Cthulhu in a RAW cheesy manner. If a wizard answered every threat with a 1000 exploding ruins, I really can't imagine what the point of playing would be, for the other players or for the GM. It also seems to depend on playing Cthulhu the same as the GM would play a 1st level Orc warrior.

I mean replace Cthulhu with "Pazuzu" or an Archdevil, and I would probably feel the same way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what exactly do Male Lashunta look like? that's what I have been most curious about.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Yeah Days of Future Past really is a completely different movie. Also while I liked Days of Future Past, I can't really say it was a "fun" movie.

For Spoiler reasons, I can't really go into too much detail with Rocket, but he is definitely not a silly talking animal sidekick. He's got some pretty heavy emotional damage going on...

I guess my litmus test would be, did you like the TV show Farscape? Because honestly that is the closest show/movie I can compare it to, especially with how the characters interact, the humor, Quill's personality, etc.

If your mostly drawn toward gritty dark movies ala Nolan Batman, Winter Soldier, etc, you might be disappointed.

I never even heard of Farscape until now. Would you recommend it?

And Avengers is my favorite super hero movie to date, and I wouldn't say it's dark and gritty :)

I heartily recommend the series, with the caution that it suffers from first seasonitis, a common malady for science fiction shows. Great blend of humor, adventure, and darkness, has probably one of the greatest TV science fiction villains of all time, and the use of Jim Henson effects gives it a really unique vibe that allows it to deviate a bit more than usual from the bumpy forehead aliens of other shows.

I am pretty sure that Guardians has as much Farscape DNA as it does from the old comics.

and on the humor scale, not sure where I would rank it compared to the other Marvel movies. Maybe a bit more than Avengers, but then that might be cancelled by also having a bit more in the way of sad scenes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

It hit my favorite FLGS today. I missed getting a copy by 30 minutes.

Damn it.

How? I thought retailers were not suppose to sell it yet?

1 to 50 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.