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

Nicos's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 10,432 posts (16,470 including aliases). 13 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 31 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,432 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Lemmy wrote:

I think he's agreeing with you...

In any case, I think we now derailed the thread's derail! XD

Well, Jiggy basically gave the definite answer to the Op in the first page.


Talonhawke wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

Might be apparently not wanting to go see the new Ghostbusters makes me misogynistic even though the reason I'm not seeing it is I have yet to watch a movie from those actors and director I found funny. Same reasoning different results simply based on the target and not the actual reasons.

I'm sorry, I don't know if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or just adding something else. Not native speaker here.


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

Individual people and not cultures create the art. It's true that people are influenced by the cultures and themes in his surrounding.

But Anime have been in the TVs around the world from a long time now. People that grew up seeing plenty of Anime can take anime as their main inspiration for their own art.

Individual people are the atomic units of their culture. Simply watching "plenty" of works from a culture foreign to your own, even if you find inspiration in that, isn't the same thing as being a member of that culture.

So?, you don't need to be of Japanese culture to create an Anime-style cartoon. Or to be a black guy from brooklyn/harlem to create hip hop.

Alzrius wrote:


Quote:
Though, defining Anime as "works of animation made by and for Japan" is a workable definition I don't find it to be a particularly useful one.
Why not? It strikes me as being better than any alternative offered so far. "Visual style" isn't helpful because there are anime with highly distinctive pictorial elements that look nothing like other anime (e.g. Crayon Shin-chan). "Thematic elements" isn't helpful because there are large numbers of anime for which any particular theme(s) aren't found. If we hold that the term "anime" is describing something specific, then what other definitions could be considered?

Would you insist that only black people from brooklyn or harlem can create hip hop?. Because an statement like that is of the same style as saying that only japanese people can create anime.


thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.
It's also not what I'm talking about.

Just because I quote your posts, it doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you... I might simply be trying to expand on your point.

Your post (in the context of replying to Nicos' post) gives me the impression that you're saying that making false inferences based on <X> is "X-ism". I'm just expanding on that point and saying that's not necessarily the case... The person making the false inferences might be mistaken, uninformed and/or uninterested.

Might be mistaken, uninformed or uninterested, but if they're making false inferences based on <X>, that's still X-ism. Maybe not the most extreme kind, but still...

True, but do we know what the <X> is? If I dislike Hip hop the only possible explanation is that I'm prejudiced against black people?. Sure there will be people that hate hip hop just because they associate it with black people, but that stance don't cover all the bases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is age, then it's ageism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is sex, then it's sexism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is race, then it's racism.

...

Well, okay, I guess technically those are all "prejudice": judging prior to knowing. Theoretically it's not until you oppress someone that it becomes one of those "isms". But of course, they all start with prejudice, so I'm not sure I see a purpose in pointing out that being prejudiced in your thinking isn't actually [whatever]ism yet.

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:


Quote:

Sailor Moon wouldn't bee any less anime if it had been written and produced by a French author/company... Naruto would still be anime if it had been produced by a Brazilian author/company... And the same goes for One Piece, Death Note, Dragon Ball, etc.

Just because certain themes aren't as popular in a certain region/culture as they are in others doesn't mean those themes couldn't be used somewhere else.

I don't believe it's a question of "themes," per se. Rather, it's a recognition of the fact that cultures, like individuals, are a unique gestalt of their history, values, characteristics, and myriad other factors, and that this is reflected in the art that they produce. When the country in question is Japan - and the medium in question is animated work - we use the shorthand term "anime" for that.

The idea that the uniqueness that comes from this is something bad is a view I personally reject. Yes, those differences can be used as a point of hatred and divisiveness, but that's a perversion of their strengths, rather than being an inherent quality of them. By that same token, suggesting that that uniqueness is false (e.g. because any recognition of differences between groups is inherently bigoted and needs to stop) and should be torn down does a disservice as well, since it throws away something special just because it could possibly be corrupted to a bad end.

Hence why I believe that "anime" is a term that applies only to works of animation made by and for Japan, and that's okay.

Individual people and not cultures create the art. It's true that people are influenced by the cultures and themes in his surrounding.

But Anime have been in the TVs around the world from a long time now. People that grew up seeing plenty of Anime can take anime as their main inspiration for their own art.

Though, defining Anime as "works of animation made by and for Japan" is a workable definition I don't find it to be a particularly useful one.


Sundakan wrote:


3.) Blocked dragon fire with a shield. Then died.

Can't happen. Except the dying part.

It's a sad thing that shields get shafted in the game :/


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nicos wrote:


THis is misleading at best.

It is not in any way shape or form misleading. You do NOT need a forum to reach those conclusions because the vast majority of people did reach those conclusions without a forum. The rule is there. You don't need a forum to reach it you need a change in perspective.

The rules are meant to be interpreted with an honest, neutral effort to derive meaning. If you want to try to force a reading on them in pursuit of mechanical advantage, you're going to get that reading.

Say it's unclear.
Say it's ambiguous
Say you didn't have a good response to an argument as to why someone thought it worked another way.

But when you complain that your "clever" interpretation was getting you more attacks or more damage than you should have was stopped by people making up rules? That's horsefeathers.

Then You say it was unclear, or it was ambiguous but the whole "the vast majority of people read something agreed with me since the beginning" is quite dubious.

On the other hand, Implying a rule was interpreted in one way because the reader just wanted to deal more damage is a statement that only deserve a *rolling eyes*.

THe whole metaphorical hands was not in the book, otherwise the DEV would have not call it an unwritten rule.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


No. That is the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Those are the rules, they are written in the book ,. you don't need a forum to reach those conclusions.

THis is misleading at best.


Buri Reborn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
not really getting your point here.

It is the difference between the game someone might understand by purely reading only the books as printed, no 3.5 experience, and so on versus someone active on the forums, reads the FAQs, stays up on errata, with previous system experience, and so on. One of the biggest hurdles for me "getting" the game was that I never was into 3.5. Some of my earliest questions here were answered with "duh, noob" type responses or "it's always been like this" and was rather unfriendly even though this community likes to pride itself on its approachability.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its not really a new rule, it ... derives would be the wrong word, as it implies a mathematical certainty about the info you start with and the results you can, but it can certainly be interpreted from

the 2 weapon fighting rules, which specify a one handed weapon and an off hand, not any weapon and your off hand.

game balance, as am extra attack for 15? gold pieces of armor spikes is kinda nuts.

an absence of rules support , as there's technically no "attack with a two handed weapon and an offhanded option"

This is what I'm talking about. It's apparently a rule that's supposedly "always been known." I hate these kinds of rules. They require a certain kind of meta knowledge that's seemingly an open secret.

It was not "always been known", that's the reason the whole unwritten rule was son annoying.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The FAQ just created way more problems that it solved, the way is easier and with less questions without it.
How do you mean? As far as I can see, the FAQ solves all the problems and it's pretty simple too.

I mean, the first FAQ, the one they reversed later on.


The FAQ just created way more problems that it solved, the way is easier and with less questions without it.


I like to think that feats do what they say they do.


Nohwear wrote:
Cavall wrote:

You can start a summoning spell as a standard action and finish as a standard next round. So if you have a high initiative it's not a bad way to spend a surprise round. You can standard action start and then act quickly to finish before others have acted.

That would allow what you summoned to get some hits in on some flat footed people.

You can? This is the first time that I have heard about this.

"Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The "start full-round action" standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw."


TheOrcnextdoor wrote:
Focused and vital require one standard action. So nothing conflicts

Each standard action is a different standard action and therefore can't be used together.


Yes, overhand chop fits in the "normal damage" then you add the bonus from gatebreaker.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alex Martin wrote:


-The clichéd, but always fun, giant chessboard with life-size figures. Are they animated? Or part of a puzzle trap? My personal favorite was when it was really a medusa's lair and she had a flair for decorating the board with her victims. Players kept waiting for the statues to come to life and didn't see her until it was...too late.

I once saw chessboard trap that worked in the following way:

The Pcs have to walk through it, and when they step on it the DM ask in which square they step. There are 8 possible squares for that, each tied to a piece of chess, of course they don't know that.

If for example the player step in the third square from left to right he would be the black square bishop and will be free to move diagonally across the dark squares to reach the other end. If he moves incorrectly he receive some damage and is teleported back to the original square.

When I used it almost all player could reach the other end without problem except the poor guy who stepped in the knight square, he almost died until he could figure it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

also dotting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder, DO alluria guys are in Patreon?, I'm currently supporting raging swan and I see supporting alluria with some dollars every months.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Against a party the tactic described in the OP is suicidal. A grappler (usually) loses AC and their ability to make AoO. This means that the rest of the party surrounds them and turns them into a punching bag, with free flanking for all. The rest of round 1, quietly left out of the description. If the grappler survives that, they're still surrounded by the party when they make the threat. Which means it's less "throw down your weapons or I'll kill this guy" and more "please don't kill me or I'll kill this guy" which is a much weaker bargaining position.

That is why evil guys uses tons of minions, heck the grappler could even be just a minion.


Feedback is always cool


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Nicos wrote:
That's a shame, I've seen you make great posts, I surely would enjoy a book made by you. Why don't you try something small? I've seen great 3pp products of only 5-10 pages.
I dunno. I also feel like I've burned a few bridges in my intermittent bouts of misery-fueled paranoia and anger.

I guess I would not be able to understand your situation at a personal level, but as I said there are plenty of really great 3pp material of less than 20 pages.

I can think of the villain codices by outland entertainment, village backdrop by raging swan or tangible taverns by Dire rugrats.

My advice is to work in a short book, one that can be done in steps. Something that don't require continuous work, something that can be done an step at the time. Then you work in each step whenever you are in good mood.


That's a shame, I've seen you make great posts, I surely would enjoy a book made by you. Why don't you try something small? I've seen great 3pp products of only 5-10 pages.


Congratulation to the winners!


N. Jolly wrote:
This 'nerf' didn't really affect a lot of people, so not sure why people are up in arms about it.

A non-broken option less in the game. This one easy to ignore but still it is understandable to not be much excited with this change to the rules.


Gosh, the timing.

FostorNagar, Cyclopean deeps II, Courts of the Shadow Fey and Pixies on Parade are high on my "to buy" list,

but I just bought Cyclopean deeps I two weeks ago D:


Ulsa get bitten again whenstanding up but Your team does their job and finish the remaining undead Wolves. The mass of zombies is still behind you.

The sun is setting in the horizon, you are in dim light now.

Asskickers:

Wolf AoO: 1d20 + 13 ⇒ (10) + 13 = 231d8 + 8 ⇒ (3) + 8 = 11

Ulsa: 1d20 + 11 ⇒ (1) + 11 = 121d12 + 16 ⇒ (9) + 16 = 25
Ulsa: 1d20 + 11 ⇒ (13) + 11 = 241d12 + 16 ⇒ (9) + 16 = 25
Ulsa: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (1) + 6 = 71d12 + 16 ⇒ (8) + 16 = 24

Malthus: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (2) + 12 = 141d6 + 7 ⇒ (2) + 7 = 9
Malthus: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (6) + 12 = 181d6 + 7 ⇒ (1) + 7 = 8
Malthus: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (2) + 12 = 141d6 + 7 ⇒ (1) + 7 = 8
Malthus: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (11) + 7 = 181d6 + 7 ⇒ (5) + 7 = 12
Malthus: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (18) + 7 = 251d6 + 7 ⇒ (2) + 7 = 9

Goblin: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (9) + 12 = 212d6 + 8 ⇒ (5, 1) + 8 = 14
Goblin: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (4) + 12 = 161d6 + 4 ⇒ (3) + 4 = 7
Goblin: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (14) + 7 = 211d6 + 4 ⇒ (4) + 4 = 8

Maya: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (20) + 5 = 251d6 + 2 ⇒ (6) + 2 = 8
Maya: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (11) + 5 = 161d6 + 2 ⇒ (3) + 2 = 5


Make enemies use hit and run tactics with ranged weapon. he would need to move to chase them and could only hit one at time.


Sundakan wrote:

So he deals 7 more damage than expected at this level? Really 3 damage since Enlarge Person is available to anyone in any game.

I bet he does less damage because the -2 to hit.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Swallow your mistakes, find a way to end the campaign gracefully in a way that makes people happy and start over and don't allow game breaking combos like this again.

He is a fighter that hit hard after taking some penalties to hit and spending money and a standard action to drink a potion, there is nothing broken here.


Johnnycat93 wrote:


A wooden holy symbol also covers some twigs tied together or something carved in ones free time. $100 is steep at best.

The usefulness of a holy symbol in real life is much lower that the usefulness of a holy symbol in a pathfinder world.

If in real life you needed one to use your channel energy I'm pretty sure you will pay 100 dollars for it.


Lemmy wrote:

It's not a trap option. It's just a different option with different priorities.

When players go for Dex-to-Damage, they aren't going for maximum damage output. They just want agile characters with decent damage... Otherwise they'd just go Str-based and two-hand a falchion or something.

Are you telling that dex to damage are not for badwrongfun munchkins that want to do maximize their damage input and win the pathfinder game?, preposterous I say!.


Curtisin wrote:
Jacob W. Michaels wrote:

Damn, guys. I'm still going through villains, but this is NOT going to be easy.

Well done (also, I may be a little scared of/concerned about some of you now). :)

Now you're just teasing us. :P

Yeah, Now I want to read them all :/


I went classic I guess, A monstrous humanoid and an outsider from bestiary I.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some questions are better left unanswered :/


...And sent.

Can you guys confirm it was received?


Kaisoku wrote:


1. Shields applied to Reflex saves. Adding the bonus as well as gaining Evasion and Improved.

It should be against burst effect like fireball, it doesn't make sense that a shield help you to avoid a pit from create pit.


Still undecided but I think it will be mist of Mwangi

Psyblade wrote:

Nicos, if you are looking for a player that you want in your first game (and if needed an help out) I can help

That would be great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are pretty good 1st level powers. Like the one from the teleportation subschool, I also like the one for the fey bloodline through It shoudl have been SU instead of sp.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:


But I'm not fine with purposefully useless mechanics.

I wonder what percentage of the game can be considered "purposefully useless mechanics".


13 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

But mistakes happen. Bad options get printed. That's life.

So the really damning thing here isn't that it happened. It's that it keeps happening over and over.

Combat-expertise-as-prerequisite-for-unrelated-feats agrees with you.


Ok, I think I'm ready to try it. I only need to choose one low level adventure from the first years of PFS, any recommendation?.


motteditor wrote:


Finished villains will be 600 words, including a stat block and a description of the villain, his/her motivations, plus potential plots, lairs and minions, making them perfect for a GM to simply drop into an adventure when she needs a statted-up opponent or to build an adventure or even campaign around

Are lairs and minions required? Can the villain be a loner?


Nicos wrote:

What do you mean by caribbean?, I ask because is cold and rainy most of the year.

Derp, I meant Bogota is cold and rainy (through this year have been unusually hot and dry).

For tropical places with beach there are cartagena, santa marta and San andres (an Island).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do you mean by caribbean?, I ask because is cold and rainy most of the year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oIIsLrpqHY ( You can hear the opinion of a US tourist)

If you go to peru and like archaeology and related stuff then machu pichi, puma punku and caral are breathtaking places.


When the PC initiative blocks are next to each other we should to just post our actions at whatever order, don't you think?


Good to hear.


I guess the monster inherent abilities (like Nymph's blinding beauty, Unearthly Grace and the others) will be fully described in the monsters stat, right?.


I have two aliases, you know, for the two identities of the vigilante.

1 to 50 of 10,432 << 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.